A question for HarveyManFredSin and any other liberals. - Politics Discussion

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

Opposition to funding the war in Ukraine. I'm leftist on most issues. But the most sane voice against this war is right wing firebrand Tucker Carlson. I rarely agree with that guy. But he's a voice of clarity on this boondoggle in Ukraine.

reply

[–] Tonyharrison (175) a year ago

Good point about Ukraine. I know it might be wishful thinking but the least problematic outcome is for an indefinite ceasefire so as to turn the clock back to pre-February 2014. Otherwise a countless number of people are dying every day and the West egging on Ukraine to fight Russia so as to weaken them isn't achieving a humanitarian outcome.

reply

[–] mplo (2305) a year ago

The Russians were the ones who invaded Ukraine, so, as much as I don't think that war is a good thing, it's not surprising that the Ukrainians are fighting back in order to defend themselves and their country. The Russians had no business invading Ukraine in the first place.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

As has been said, the U.S. sponsored a coup in 2014, the Biden family has been operating in Ukraine since 2013, Ukraine applied for membership in NATO which means nuclear weapons on Russia's border.

It's not as if Russia wasn't provoked.

However, bottom line, why is the U.S. involved to the tune of a 130 billion dollars? We are not the world's policeman. And we can't be involved in every war in every part of the globe.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4413) a year ago

NATO stations tactical nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. None of those countries border Russia.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

So? Ukraine in NATO means a constant flashpoint for World War III.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4413) a year ago

So, you lied.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

Lied about what? 🤪

reply

[–] Information-Police (4413) a year ago

You lied that if Ukraine joined NATO, nuclear weapons would be placed there. You don't know that.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

I do know that. It's common sense, especially after Russia was goaded into invading Ukraine.

After 30 years of relief from the Cold War, in one year Biden and Ukraine have resumed it.

This is pure unadulterated bullshit.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4413) a year ago

Get your face out of Putin's ass and take a deep breath.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

Huh? Both Putin and Zelensky can go to hell for all I care. This a post-Soviet conflict. I don't want my country giving billions to either side.

reply

[–] CraigC (7251) a year ago

That's the problem with you people. It's all black or white. Anyone that disagrees with the popular narrative gets labeled a Putin sympathizer. That's a childish and dangerous approach to anything.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2944) a year ago

I notice your careful addition of the word “stations.” Do you really think Russian nuclear weapons aren’t permanently located off the borders of the U.S.?

reply

[–] Information-Police (4413) a year ago

Huh? Where did I say anything about where Russian missiles are located?

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2944) a year ago

I thought you were making the point that major powers are not provoked by nuclear weapons in the absence of being placed at their national borders; that the U.S. had not provoked Russia because it had no intention of stationing nukes on countries bordering Russia (like Ukraine) and the same for Russia with the U.S. My response was saying that line of thinking is obsolete for both the U.S. and Russia since the advent of SSBNs. Forgive me if I misunderstood your point.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4413) a year ago

Somebody was saying that the admission of Ukraine to NATO would be considered an aggressive move, rather a defensive one, by Russia, because it would place hostile nuclear weapons in its border. I was pointing out NATO had not placed nuclear weapons in member nations that border Russia nor in the nations closest to Russia.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2944) a year ago

Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>As has been said, the U.S. sponsored a coup in 2014

Typical denying the agency of the Ukrainian people.

>, the Biden family has been operating in Ukraine since 2013, Ukraine applied for membership in NATO which means nuclear weapons on Russia's border.

Ukraine was never anywhere near to getting into NATO. They didn't meet the minimum requirements to enter due to contested territory, and being too corrupt. If Sweden can't get in now due to Turkey, what on earth makes you think they'd ever vote to admit Ukraine anyway?

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

Yes, the U.S. denied the agency of the Ukrainian people. We agree on that.

Ukraine's application to NATO is still active.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>Yes, the U.S. denied the agency of the Ukrainian people. We agree on that.

No, that's not what I said and you know it.

You denied the agency of the Ukrainian people by insinuating they didn't really want to protest Yankuvoych.

>Ukraine's application to NATO is still active.

So was Turkeys accession to the EU. For 18 years.

As I said: Ukraine was never anywhere near to getting into NATO. They didn't meet the minimum requirements to enter due to contested territory, and being too corrupt. If Sweden can't get in now due to Turkey, what on earth makes you think they'd ever vote to admit Ukraine anyway?

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

I just know we've poured 130 billion into that country, nicknamed "Little Russia", and we need to stay out of anything which could expand into nuclear war with Russia.

We have treaties with nations like Poland. And NATO has guaranteed it will defend Sweden whether it has full membership or not.

Yes, if we are driven to nuclear war over Poland or Sweden, I support that. We must defend the West against Russia.

But Ukraine? Why the hell would you want to risk nuclear war over corrupt Little Russia? We have no treaty with them and we aim to keep it that way.

This is such bullshit that you bleeding hearts want to risk my family's safety because Zelensky and his corrupt regime has its hand out for money.

Go over there and join the fascist Azov battalion if you want to help your beloved Ukraine. Leave me out of it.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>We have treaties with nations like Poland. And NATO has guaranteed it will defend Sweden whether it has full membership or not.

My point was that Ukraine, whether they wanted to or not, wasn't anywhere close to joining NATO.

I made no comment on whether or not the US should fund them or supply them with weapons. If you're an isolationist, and don't care about international affairs at all, I can't make you do so. I purely replied to note Ukraine was not about to join NATO.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

I'm not an isolationist. I just see 65 years of American imperialism, our defeat in Vietnam, chaos in Iraq, and getting kicked out of Afghanistan - and I'm not willing to do it again in Ukraine.

I hope you're right that Ukraine is never admitted as a member of NATO. But they are trying and too many in the West are weak in the knees when it comes to that gypsy beggar Zelensky.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

Unlike those countries, the Ukraine government wants us there (and US forces aren't on the ground). A bit different. Also geopolitically it's a big win for USA, making Russia exhaust its troops and weapons in a pointless war.

>I hope you're right that Ukraine is never admitted as a member of NATO. But they are trying and too many in the West are weak in the knees when it comes to that gypsy beggar Zelensky.

That won't stop Turkey and Hungary rejecting them.

And why did you call Zelensky a gypsy?

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

I don't care what Ukraine wants. The U.S. is fueling that war. If we stop the flow of money they'll be forced to negotiate.

And it's not a geopolitical win. It's not in our best interest to reignite a cold war with Russia. We gain nothing from it. China is our true rival.

I call him a gypsy because gypsy is a slur in Eastern Europe. He's a short dark stage performer who has appeared in drag. I don't see him as a reputable character.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>And it's not a geopolitical win. It's not in our best interest to reignite a cold war with Russia. We gain nothing from it. China is our true rival.

Russia chose to invade and fall on their sword. Also not sure why if China didn't invade Taiwan you wouldn't sit here and just say "I'm alright Jack. Not our problem".

Also, I disagree, Russia would try to rip away every most European nations from having good US relationships if it could. They aren't a military threat to the USA, but geopolitically they are an issue.

>I call him a gypsy because gypsy is a slur in Eastern Europe. He's a short dark stage performer who has appeared in drag. I don't see him as a reputable character.

So you were just making racially charged comments. Nice.

reply

[–] Corbell (9431) a year ago

China is killing US though economic warfare. Russia is dying out all by themselves.

Seeing china as a threat, while not seeing Russia as a threat, makes complete sense.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

China is obviously much more of a threat if we're comparing.

reply

[–] Corbell (9431) a year ago

Well before this war, I was pointing out that Russia was NOT a threat to US, or even to Western Europe.

DUring the cold war, the SOVIET UNION had THOUSANDS of tanks parked in the middle of germany.

Russia was not that. We should have stopped fucking with them, back during the Clinton years.

I wish the Ukrainian people well, but disentanglement should have been our policy.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>Well before this war, I was pointing out that Russia was NOT a threat to US, or even to Western Europe.

But is to Eastern Europe (and certainly tries to destabilise western europe)

reply

[–] Corbell (9431) a year ago

That is something well within Eruope's ability to handle. As demonstrated. Russia is a weak and declining power.

I could see it before this war. Now everyone should be able to see it.

We should NOT have expanded nato. We should have had a real debate about what our national security policy should be changed to, with the end of the cold war.

But, we seem incapable of real debate anymore. All attempts seem to be crushed by idiots making strong assertions, louder and louder.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>We should NOT have expanded nato. We should have had a real debate about what our national security policy should be changed to, with the end of the cold war.

If that didn't happen, Russia may well have swallowed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by now.

reply

[–] Corbell (9431) a year ago

That would have been unfortunate.

It also would have done nothing to alter the balance of power or threaten US.

Being prepared to fight WWIII over West Germany during the Cold War made sense.

Being treaty bound to fight WWIII over Estonia does NOT make sense.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

Right, so your perspective is purely based on "US first". I can't really change anything there, but the point is that Russia is still a threat.

And Russia won't also start WWIII over Estonia - so it goes both ways.

reply

[–] Corbell (9431) a year ago

So, to be clear, in your mind, the promise to fight a world war over estonia only makes sense, if it scares the Russians into not risking it, right?

You do NOT think that it is actually something we should fight a world war over?

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

No, I do if it were to come to that. Just noting that Russia doesn't want to fight a nuclear war either and wouldn't do so over Estonia or Latvia.

Also without NATO Ukraine, Moldova would've also possibly have been puppeted or gobbled up. Bulgaria and Romania likely would've also been puppeted.

Do you think Taiwan is worth a global war?

reply

[–] Corbell (9431) a year ago

You would really certainly see millions die, and risk nuclear holocaust and bankrupt this nation, over ESTONIA?

Well, you are quite the hawk.

IMO, most Americas really would not support that, if they were informed on how small Estonia is, and how it does not change the balance of power and thus, it becomes somewhat reasonable for a Russian leader to assume that that promise is a BLUFF.

And thus, we have a very dangerous committment. Which we should never had made.

IMO.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>You would really certainly see millions die, and risk nuclear holocaust and bankrupt this nation, over ESTONIA?

What about if it was Poland, or Romania?

--

Do you think Taiwan is worth a global war?

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

Oh JFC no one is suggesting we let other countries run allover our allies. We go to war for Taiwan.

But we don't go to war to liberate some backwater which has been part of Russia for a thousand years and snubbed their nose at us and NATO until 2014.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>But we don't go to war to liberate some backwater which has been part of Russia for a thousand years and snubbed their nose at us and NATO until 2014.

Taiwan has never been an independent state as it is now until the 1950s. Not sure of the massive difference here really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBSh0Ok6cU&t=318s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNESt9dwZH0&t=572s

And no, Putin is historically illiterate

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

Taiwan is a rival government to the Communist in Beijing. In 1949 the Communists defeated the pro-Western Chiang Kai-shek and his Koumintang Party. So Chiang set up a rival government in Taiwan. The U.S. and most the West recognized Chiang's as the legitimate government in China.

Taiwan is a much different situation as we have defense agreements with them.

Again, Ukraine is not our problem. We have no defense agreements with them. It's the spark which could ignite World War III so we need to be cautious.

And again, in all of history Ukraine had never been an independent nation until 1991. Sorry, that's not the hill I want my family to get nuked on.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

That's fine, but I don't see why you'd accept getting nuked over Taiwan though. Are you suggesting that if Ukraine and US had signed some agreement in 2010 or something you'd be okay right now with US helping them?

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

I'm not saying there aren't things worth fighting for. I'm just saying we have been in a constant state of war for decades. Every injustice on earth is not a call to arms for America. We have no ties with Ukraine and no treaty.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

Russia chose to invade and fall on their sword. Also not sure why if China didn't invade Taiwan you wouldn't sit here and just say "I'm alright Jack. Not our problem".

No, we need to know how to draw lines in the sand. We have no treaty with Ukraine. They were Russia's buttbuddy until 2014 and probably will be again in 10 years. It's a corrupt country with no strategic importance to the U.S.

We have defense agreements with Poland, Finland, Taiwan and if they're invaded, we go to war.

Why the hell are we wasting resources on Little Russia? They'll never get the Russians out of eastern Ukraine. It will take American boots on the ground to do that, this is where this is leading, and no, no nuclear war for fucking Ukraine.

So you were just making racially charged comments. Nice.

I didn't call him Roma. I called him a gypsy, because he is.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2944) a year ago

The government of South Vietnam did not want us there? Interesting take on history

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

Sorry, i can't see what post you're replying to here. What did I say precisely?

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2944) a year ago

Onan was making the point that we should not get embroiled in Ukraine as it portends another exhausting war like Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. I read your response to suggest those wars were distinguishable from Ukraine because those governments didn’t want us there. But the Republic of Vietnam, like Ukraine, absolutely did want and encourage U.S. intervention and it still led to an intractable and colossal military and political failure for the U.S.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

Oh right, fair enough. Although I gave no specific opinion on those wars.

So far geopolitically this war is a massive win for USA

reply

[–] Thaistickers (1170) a year ago

"But the most sane voice against this war is right wing firebrand Tucker Carlson."
That should give you a clue as to who to support. So you want to be with the right-wing Russophiles and against a fledgling democracy? F U

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

Pfffffffft. Opposition to this Neo-Con war in Ukraine is neutrality and pacifism. The right wing hates Russia. That's Cold War Politics 101.

I demand neutrality, not further entanglement in these wars which have nothing to do with America's national security.

reply

[–] Thaistickers (1170) a year ago

So your response would be a retreat into isolationism and nationalism? You must not have read much 20th century history. Barbarian, indeed!

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10863) a year ago

Because American intervention in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan blah blah blah has been so successful?

Keep our billions here and take care of our own people. 150 billion to Israel in 75 years versus 130 billion to Ukraine IN ONE YEAR. This is a scam. Enough of this nonsense.

reply

[–] Kowalski (63015) a year ago

TRUTH.

reply

[–] Thaistickers (1170) a year ago

Unlike those wars we are not sending in our own troops. Didn't you know that? That's why the war is not a negative issue for most Americans. From the AP:

Half of U.S. public approves of military aid to Ukraine in 2nd year of war, AP-NORC poll shows
World May 24, 2023 5:59 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Like the blue and yellow flags that popped up around the U.S. when Russia invaded Ukraine 15 months ago, U.S. popular support for Washington’s backing of Ukraine has faded a little but remains widespread, a survey by the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy and NORC shows.

It found that half of the people in the U.S. support the Pentagon’s ongoing supply of weapons to Ukraine for its defense against Russian forces. That level is nearly unchanged in the past year, while about a quarter are opposed to sustaining the military lifeline that has now topped $37 billion.

Big majorities among both Democrats and Republicans believe Russia’s attack on Ukraine was unjustified, according to the poll, taken last month.

reply

[–] tvfan (9618) a year ago

AP is owned by the very same establishment supporting the Ukraine war.

Based on your responses, you are a clueless idiot as to why that war was started and why it is still been funded. There are at least four of them.

When your lefty mates are opposed to that war, you should get a clue and look into those reasons.
Even the liberals gave hell to Pelosi and AOC a few months back because they are opposed to that war.

reply

[–] Thaistickers (1170) a year ago

OK Mr. Right-wing, you tell me why the war was started.
Oh and my "lefty mates" are not opposed to the war. Here's another poll from Pew, a long-respected organization (in sharp contrast to you, a nobody whose religion is apparently solipsism):
"About six-in-ten Democrats either say the U.S. is providing about the right amount of support to Ukraine (40%) or that the U.S. is not providing enough support (23%)."
You're entitled to oppose the war but you're not entitled to your own "facts." When your sort get challenged they always resort to name-calling and calling black white and white black.--like your made up fantasy of liberals attacking Pelosi over this. Stop lying or go post on Untruth Social, which is probably where you imbibed these ridiculous ideas.

reply

[–] tvfan (9618) a year ago

Go search the Pelosi and AOC speeches; watch/listen to their liberal supporters verbally attacking them over the war.

The fact that you are clueless about their reasons/motives/agendas for funding the war is a clear indication that you are another sheep believing their fake news,..........as usual.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (2708) a year ago

Still would rather engage in person al attack rather than spill the beans on the "real reasons" for the war. Typical Con deflection tactics. If you can't just say what the "real motives" for the war are, it probably means you haven't got a clue--so sad, your attempt to own a lib today failed miserably. Now go confess your failure to your orange god and cry.

reply

[–] tvfan (9618) a year ago

I have provided answers, explanations, and sources in the past and every time I receive the same usual lefty responses.

Stop been such a lazy and incompetent sheep and find it yourself. I'm not here to educate you.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (2708) a year ago

"I'm not here to educate you."
Ain't that the truth, lol!

reply

[–] CraigC (7251) a year ago

You believe whatever 'they' tell you and that's all there is to it.

"That should give you a clue as to who to support. So you want to be with the right-wing Russophiles and against a fledgling democracy? F U"

It's sad that people like you can't see what a fundamental flaw that line of reasoning is.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>The right wing hates Russia. That's Cold War Politics 101.

This just flatout isn't true anymore.

reply

[–] CraigC (7251) a year ago

We don't give a rat's ass about Russia either way. Anything else is political rhetoric, otherwise known as lies. They are simply not a threat and we do not believe in throwing money at this war which is none of our business. The whole thing is a scam to protect Biden business.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

[citation needed]

reply

[–] CraigC (7251) a year ago

You braindead morons always want a link.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

Yes, if you make claims people expect you to back them up with an actual citation. Why is this surprising?

Should we just take you at your word?

reply

[–] CraigC (7251) a year ago

That's called a conversation. If you could think for yourself, you would understand that and not be so dependent on Google. In effect, I'm not having a conversation with you but a proxy argument with Google. This is exactly what I mean when I say that the internet has provided all the information imaginable but people are dumber than ever.

I don't even know exactly what you're asking to see a citation for. Which also supports my point.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

If you make claims, people will ask you for evidence. It is that simple.

What should people do or say? Just take you at your word? Assume your claims are true?

>I don't even know exactly what you're asking to see a citation for. Which also supports my point.

That the US is giving Ukraine money, armaments and aid purely to "protect Bidens business"

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15467) a year ago

Most on the left follow one simple voting strategy: "Vote blue no matter who" So, unfortunately most of them do not actually hold an opinion on these matters...they just hate or agree with whatever their overlords tell them to.

Sadly, you are not going to get much interaction with this post.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Tonyharrison (175) a year ago

It's regrettable when individuals can't set aside their differences to work towards the common good.

And sadly it's a problem when people let their political biases interfere with their judgements of parties and individual politicians in terms of transparency and integrity. More often than not, I don't care if a politician identifies as liberal or conservative as opposed to standing for what they actually believe in.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>Most on the left follow one simple voting strategy: "Vote blue no matter who" So, unfortunately most of them do not actually hold an opinion on these matters...they just hate or agree with whatever their overlords tell them to.

Dude, the US is completely partisan. More or less everyone votes for Republican or Democrat. It seems that most people either "vote blue no matter who" (if they're Democrat-leaning) or "vote red no matter who" (if they're Republican leaning).

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15467) a year ago

There is no red equivalent to "vote blue no matter who"...no matter how much you want to believe it's real. If there was, it could be stated, not just inverting the already well-known phrase.

The "right" can't both be the "do your own research" and the "blind sheep vote red" crowd at the same time...it's either one of the other...so which do you believe to be the real truth here?

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

>There is no red equivalent to "vote blue no matter who"...no matter how much you want to believe it's real. If there was, it could be stated, not just inverting the already well-known phrase.

Yes, I know - but the point is that most people are locked into parties in the US, and will vote for whoever the Republican or Democrat candidate is. "Vote blue no matter who" ironically is a saying (and said by Democrats) *because* of how Democrats have turnout issues, or vote third party.

There's another saying: Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. In this instance the implication here is that Republicans will just vote without thinking.

reply

[–] CraigC (7251) a year ago

I'm not going to vote for a democrat because their ideology is 180° from my own.

A lot of people vote democrat because they've been lied to.

reply

[–] Skavau (11046) a year ago

I did not say you should vote for democrats. I pointed out that Democrats do have turnout issues, and always have.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (14033) a year ago

I'm a "any other liberals." and I agree with all of that !

6 & 8 possibly would need further debate but on the whole , yes , good policys.

reply

[–] Keelai (32578) a year ago

The complete Churchill quote:

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

Oligarchy, dictatorship, monarchy, military rule, totalitarianism and theocracy are all much worse. When only one or a few run the government, the needs and desires of the citizenry can be ignored while the ruler(s) attend to only their own needs. They never end well!

reply

[–] Bossdog677 (1458) a year ago

We live in an Oligarchy you idiot

reply

[–] moviechatterer (14033) a year ago

you have a vote dont you?

reply

[–] Keelai (32578) a year ago

Not yet you idiot, but it's heading there thanks to the Republicans and the morons who vote for them.

I repeatedly hear Democratic policies which help regular folks like college student loan forgiveness, tax credits, medicaid expansion, medicare drug negotiation to lower prices, consumer protections, human rights expansion, voter expansion, environment protection, etc..

Republicans only attack marginalized groups and promote easy gun access which drives gun deaths.

reply

[–] Bossdog677 (1458) a year ago

Medicare expansion? Medicare drug negotiations? Haven't they been promising you free medicare for decades? Now you are content with a 10% coupon? It's so incredibly sad and it's over for the Free Medicare Fanboys.

reply

[–] tvfan (9618) a year ago

I hope that you are aware that Keeliar is the number one liar on MC.

reply

[–] tvfan (9618) a year ago

thanks to the Republicans

You meant to say: thanks to the RINOs/DID/LID…………….Oligarchy is lefty, same side as the Democrats.

reply

[–] CraigC (7251) a year ago

All bullshit and projection, as usual.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13367) a year ago

"3) Budgetary deficits are not sustainable in the longterm."

LOL

USA National Debt Percent of GDP

1980 32%
1992 61%

2000 55%
2008 68%

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

reply

[–] Tonyharrison (175) a year ago

I guess there are political and economic constraints affecting government expenditure for any government.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

I do not like this practice of editing old books and movies to bring them in line with modern enlightened views on what's acceptable in art and entertainment. It feels a bit like rewriting history. Also, containing racist, ableist, sexist language does not necessarily mean that the work is any of these things.

So far only a few books and movies have been edited in this way, but it's an alarming trend.

reply

[–] Keelai (32578) a year ago

Companies which own the rights do it in order to continue to profit from sales. They fear that younger people won't buy something bigoted. Interesting conundrum. Don't alter and lose profit or alter and gain profit.

The compromise is to provide BOTH versions, but I'm not sure if that hurts their profit margin.

reply

[–] Tonyharrison (175) a year ago

"Rewriting history" is a good description. If anything, old books and films should be preserved as relics of their time.

reply

[–] parkerbot (6245) a year ago

Stop trying to get people to find out they have common ground with their enemies.

It's annoying and smacks of fascism or communism or leftistism or Bud Litism - it smacks of something un-American!

reply

[–] AnagramYYZ (499) a year ago

You are putting up strawman arguments, or parroting those who have, such as Fox News talking about War on Christmas as if it is a real thing. Obviously, in an effort to increase their coalition of votes, media talking heads are going portray their perceived opponents as radicals. Some of these 10 are not under attack in the policy platforms of any major party and probably not in minor ones either. One party might simply place greater emphasis on something more than their opponents.

The ACLU is usually perceived as a liberal organization (and one I've even donated to) and they are all about protecting the Bill of Rights, which includes religion as personal freedom! I'm sure you can even find instances of court representation brought by ACLU to protect 2nd Amendments in the rare cases where they've been under threat. They've even representated Rush Limbaugh on freedom of speech issues.

You didn't mention it, but I have to say... All this talk about the alphabet squad (LGBTQLMNOP) is not left vs. right. It's old versus young. For the over-35 crowd, the game ended with civil unions and gay marriage during the Obama years. Now anyone can marry their loved one and receive equal benefit and representation under the law as the majority does.

The end.

Democrats don't want to alienate potential voters, but nobody who isn't a tranny (or infatuated with one) gives a flying fuck about them. They are mentally ill people. If Reagan conservatives hadn't engaged in a war on social welfare, many would be taken to behavioral wards for analysis & treatment. As a middle-aged Democrat, the only "Lock Her Up" chant I respond to is one dedicated to "Elliot" Page.

Democracy has definitely been under attack by the MAGA-Right, which is why conservative suburban-type areas (including the district where I live - flipped from Red to Blue). These are Churchill-esque conservatives (the 'Merican version) who want nothing to do w/ Trump. This is why his loss in 2020 is real and inevitable.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11288) a year ago

Well spoken lemminGPT. Another 5000 word post of drivel from sub 100 posts bot.

reply

[–] AnagramYYZ (499) a year ago

I just want to highlight the fact to the readers and lurkers here that whenever idiots respond to me in this way, and particularly *this* idiot, it’s because they are afraid of me. That’s all there is to it.

They are afraid of what I’m writing, how I’m thinking, the narrative I’m weaving, and the fact that I’m saying things that nobody else here is saying.

That is the complete antithesis of the behavior of a “bot”, by the way.

So, read what I wrote again, and realize that it’s fairly moderate and centrist, and it really has elevated the discourse here at Moviechat except with the nonsense profiles of nearly 10000 posts.

How do you find the time to read coherently and post thousands of replies, Gd5150AI_GPT, huh?

:-)

reply

[–] CraigC (7251) a year ago

No, you cannot find any instances where the ACLU has stood up for 2nd Amendment rights, which are under constant attack. It is absolutely a liberal institution. Funny how you can't even see your own bias.

reply

[–] AnagramYYZ (499) a year ago

Perhaps you're right in that one instance. Below is the ACLU position on the 2nd Amendment, which explains a lack of advocacy. It's certainly common and moderate viewpoint to have.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/second-amendment#:~:text=Given%20the%20reference%20to%20%E2%80%9Ca,decision%20in%20United%20States%20v.

They have indeed defended Rush Limbaugh on freedom of speech, press and censorship issues, which is far more indicative passion for the cause. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on your bias accusations. I mean, that guy should have been kicked in the balls for spreading hate on the airwaves for decades, but, oh, we're concerned about his civil liberties? I mean, Trump, after all, gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In company like that, you *have* to be a scumbag. Look at all these mounting federal crimes! Having once held a secret clearance myself, I take the documents thing personally. Disrespectful to the troops as he has done time and time again.

Only former Commander-in-Chief—Trump, who I'd like to take a swing at. He diminished the Executive office and public service in general. Nothing but a literal traitor.

reply

[–] CraigC (7251) a year ago

Bullshit. It's not a moderate viewpoint. So all of the Bill of Rights outlines government restrictions on individual rights but that one? Nonsense. It's just how they justify their position. Then they have the audacity to say:

"In striking down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment."

reply