On the Armenian GenocideFollow

Yes, gbaji; poor old GW had never, not even once, been told ahead of 9/11 that a radical group of Muslims were gonna do something nutty with a plane an no Federal agency had the slightest clue about any such thing at all, like, ever.

How deep down the rabbit hole are you, anyway?

In related news, the Bundestag has voted to recognise the Armenian genocide. Good news for our crusading friend here.

It's not big government intervention if it's something my party wants.

I'm sorry that I'm too drunk and lazy to properly reply. You did make or coincidence upon some cogent points. But anyway just on disagreements:



OBL/Zawahiri/Al Qaeda didn't give one tin **** about the no-fly zone, or Iraq, or Palestinians (except as leverage or machinating point to potential followers--they are not stupid). Failing to regime-change Iraq had nothing to do with OBL's reasons for being an *******. (you imagine him cheering if that happened and forgetting everything else????) Your conflation here should grant you first prize at a Twister competition.



Um, no? You're obviously young enough to not remember separate restrooms for blacks and whites (I'm old enough to have only as a young-un just experienced desegregation in Virginia, and I was a lot better for that). Or really care about it, or compare it to today. And I assume if a young female teen showed up to a prom in a tuxedo you'd be all aghast and Oh No. With your fucking plantation monocle.

Neither of us are old enough to have seen say, the Arkansas National Guard forcing segregation. Or the Alabama National Guard forcing integration despite George Wallace. And ever heard of James Meredith? Ever ask yourself whether illogical hatred/scaredy-cat of trans is akin to hatred of black people, or where you might've fit in 60 years ago? About this? Trans allowance may seem silly to you now...would integration have seemed to it you then? I mean obviously you're more likely than most posters here to have seen it silly/no big deal then too. Maybe backed up by beatings and lynchings. Check your ******* self.

Anyway, um, yes, the government should require equal treatment of protected classes. Which trans people are slowly gaining as such by proper court decisions...must be weird to always be behind on progress. I can't even imagine it. I mean, you might be a decent Conservative, but also seem to be an aweul Regressive.

And/or not why only the latest/safest. Why aren't you even now crying against miscegenation? Too long ago and too settled? Might too expose you as a racist? Not enough other ******** like you make this a slightly disputed issue? Jesus. Have you ever been ahead of fellow conservatives on any social issues/rights? If so, please list?


P.S. A LOT of women have transitioned to very butch and scary (to you) men, for example. In your insistence by law, these hairy now-men would only be able to use the female-born restroom. You want Buck Angel to be forced to use a female restroom rather than a male restroom? So much ignorance and "why are you hitting yourself". Not that Buck is a threat to anyone at all, but you and your ilk are just flailing around, without any idea of what a trans person is, even in your oh-so concern.

This trans bathroom kerfuffle is sooooo silly. That you've grabbed onto it is astonishing. You are one kind of conservative, sure. Maybe "lowest hanging fruit"/most ridiculous problem. Not the good kind. Nor with your Iraq War Was Justified. Heh. Oh tell anyone here one single Conservative position of yours that we should all recognize as valuable, logically and ethically. There are a lot, I'm a Conservative on some. But I'm not sure we overlap on which.

P.P.S. the Supremacy Clause also means all Treaties the US enters are binding, no choice. Of which we often ignore, such as the requirement (by various treaties) to prosecute torturers. If you're such a fan of that Clause, then you must demand the prosecution of Bush, and/or anyone in his Admin. You should demand Obama to do so. BOTH. Not one or the other.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2016 5:49am by Palpitus1

Yes, that is good news, as a key member of NATO to do so... but not the most powerful country in the world, whose President as a nominee promised to do so yet never did.

Timeless Lord seems to think this is only done due to German racism against Turks or something (???) [not sure which denial of calling a Genocide a Genocide he's now all about realpolitk or whatever. Glad he's not a council of Merkel though! Or maybe that was just about German films, if so sorry]

Anyway, a positive step.

Hopefully other European nations can call the Armenian Genocide an actual Genocide, without being tainting by doing so by random sub-forum internet people as only doing so due to racism against Turkey. Or cowed by the US-Turkey relation. Maybe also this is a sign that, well, Turkey isn't really a great partner, so no more need to realpolitik? Maybe you can suss us in to that Time Master (you do seem to offer sobering insights). Not every nation is as much a cowardly ***** to their partners as the US is hi btw Saudi Arabia.

Two first ideally kicked out of the EU: Greece, Turkey?

Edited, Jun 3rd 2016 6:25am by Palpitus1

It's not just racism. But racism helps provide political cover for the less progressive politicians. The recognition of the genocide is absolutely the right moral call, I mean it is part of the reason that the word was created (and Germany has been trying regain moral standing ever since WW2). Part of my point though is that there is pragmatic calculus that must be done, If the US waits for conditions to change, what are the negative effects of that ie. the cost of waiting 5, 10, or 20 years on the declaration until there is a more friendly Turkish state, and less strain upon the relationship due to regional conflict and strategic needs.

I always thought those "Do you really want [trans-male person] in the bathroom with your daughter?" images were kind of poorly done. I get what they're trying to say but my first thought is "Are you saying I don't? What do you know about that person that I don't?"

5, 10, 20.. it's already been 100. And as I insinuated, Turkey is kind of a **** ally. Their current bombing on Syria for example is also half of bombing PKK or any random much more innocent Kurds. Who we've fucked over several times over the last 3 decades despite being more in line with us than Turkey. I may have mentioned that in a prior post, still drunk right now. Also those swamp Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Fucked them over good.

So, sure, all US actions can be seen through the prism of pragmatism, including our horrid support of Saudi Arabia, as (imo) our worst realpolitik partner (well I'd call them that if sowing strife/perpetual war wasn't one our main desires. They're a fantastic ally in that sense, including 9/11.)

But if Hope and Change Obama can't even fulfill an election promise to call it a Genocide, we may be waiting a lot longer still than 20 years. And this isn't just a silly "well if they weren't massacred by Turkey they're dead anyway of old age, so whatev". There are a lot of refugees from that Genocide, and also still some first and second generation descendants. Whose lives were horribly changed. Should we also stop acknowledging slavery, since it ended even 50+ years prior to the Armenian Genocide?

Finally: Sure, I know my hope is idealistic, since all US Presidents are craven. But there are also 500,000-1,500,000 Armenian-Americans, a lot of whom may have voted for Obama in at least a small part due to that promise. Because it's important to them...them whose grandparents may have been killed, them whose parents may have had to escape and rebuild here. Little Armenian children in 2007, eyes above, to a television or an Obama rally, eyes wet from Hope as their mommy and daddy also tear up. "My child, yes, finally".

But now maybe long-haired teens, using drugs and promiscuous, not believing in anything. Have you ever met an Armenian in a crack house? If so ask him or her why they are there. 90% likely it's due to Obama and his lies.

I've met a lot of Armenians in crack houses. I know what's up. Do you dare to take that trip, Time Master?

Yeah, sorry about that order for you to visit an Armenian crack house. But that was kind of a funny segue I went with. My only two purposes in life is to bring joy. And second to make POTUS's acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

The Guarda Revanche is a kickass weapon in Betrayal at Krondor, a computer game. That is the only Revanche I have known. Written by Raymond Feist. I don't know why you want to devalue that sense of the word? Why do you hate computer games? "Revanchism"? Maybe "Galon Griefmaker"-ism your *** too, you sumbich!!

[thanks for the good replies, and new word known]

And those hard to find secret chests, with riddles! Surely that was a good game. You hater.

But seriously, you are a sociopath.

You're pivoting from the point though. The question was about a state having a law making it legal to kill babies and whether the federal government should intervene and override that law, and more to the point whether the federal government has the authority to do so. The amendments I listed give the federal government that authority. The decisions of a police officer in the midst of an encounter with someone is an entirely different scenario that has zero bearing on that question.



Sure. Why not? Again, I think we're arguing different things. You're arguing based on outcomes you agree or disagree with. I'm arguing about the legal process by which those outcomes are derived. Currently, there is no constitutional definition of "person". The closest we have is the Fourteenth amendment, which speaks of "persons born or naturalized within the United States ... are citizens of the United States", and thus establishes that someone is a person if they have been born. The law does not technically state if personhood begins prior to that point and only citizenship occurs when a "person" is born. That's honestly a subject for the courts to manage though.

But yes, in the absence of clear federal law establishing this, then it falls to the states to do so legislatively. Of course, the court system can decide that said law isn't constitutional, but that's a matter of interpretation of the law, and not something clearly stated within. I'll point out again that you seem to be thinking that I have some personal stake in the outcome and am arguing a position for that reason. I'm not. I'm looking at what the law actually says and applying it. You might actually want to read the Roe v. Wade decision and gain some insights as to what the court thinks in terms of rights and fetuses though. You would find it educational I think.



I think you don't have a clue what my stance on abortion is. I think you're also still applying the outcome based logic rather than methodological based. You want babies to be fed, thus anything that prevents something which might feed babies is "anti-baby". You also view abortion as "anti-baby", thus you see hypocrisy on the part of a conservatives who opposes abortion but also opposes federal food stamp programs. You're mistake is in thinking that conservatives view this as being "for or against" a given group (babies in this case).

That's not how we look at things. I know for a fact I've explained this to you like a dozen times in the past, but it seems as though you still don't understand what I'm talking about. A conservative does not oppose federal funding for food stamp programs because he wants people to go hungry. He opposes it because he believes that's the wrong part of our system in which such things should be funded. Period. I get that you don't want to believe this and would rather paint everything in the context of a simplistic moral "for/against" narrative, but that's why you will eternally fail to understand the conservative mind.




Huh? You missed the forest there. Could you please show me where the fetus is consenting to being aborted? No? Then it's not as simple as two adults engaging in consensual activities in a private residence.



No. Funding means funding. As in paying for the thing you're doing. Which absolutely did happen. How the money used to pay for it is obtained is a whole different question. I do find it odd that you seem to think that the only way is to "raise taxes". We could have an entire discussion just on what that one phrase actually means though. So. If I don't raise the tax rates at all, but due to economic growth, the total amount of tax revenue increases, did I "raise taxes"? I got more money to pay for things (that's "funding" in case you're confused), but I didn't "raise taxes".

You do get that conservatives believe that low tax rates tend to increase economic growth and thus generate more tax revenue over time, right? It's that whole Laffer curve thing. So it's not hypocritical when conservatives do not raise tax rates even when increasing spending on something (as long as spending is moderate). It is, in fact, completely consistent with conservative economic theory. You're free to disagree with that theory, but you can't call someone a hypocrite for consistently following their own ideology.

The fact is that despite spending money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the total public debt of the US as a percentage of GDP stayed quite steady within a few percentage points for the first 7 years of Bush's administration (which, in case you weren't paying attention was when we were spending the most money on those wars). It was only because of the housing bubble crash that our debt started to skyrocket. And that got much much worse when Obama got into office and started spending money like a kid with his parents credit card.

The claim that the wars were "unfunded" is a complete and utter myth.



Um... That's how it is right now. Go take a gander at the difference between a public school in the rich neighborhood of your town and one in the poor neighborhood. Huge difference, right? So all the big state and federal education programs and shuffling around of dollars hasn't corrected this problem at all. You know what might? Maybe if the principles in those poor neighborhoods had more decision making power? Maybe if so many of the dollars they receive didn't come with strings attached that require them to spend those dollars in ways that are completely absurd and counter productive for the specific conditions of his school, he could make better choices and make the school better? And maybe, if dollars weren't attached to such "one size fits all" programs and were instead attached to vouchers spent by the parents of the children attending the school, he'd have his hands untied and a massive incentive to actually make his school work. And maybe those parents would actually have some say in the decisions made at the school their children attend. You know, like how the parents in the wealthy areas do? Heaven forbid we actually even the playing field a bit here.

So yeah. Liberty. When you give people the power to make their own choices and then hold them responsible for those choices, they tend to actually make better choices than when they are forced to do what some other authority thinks is best. I know, this flies in the face of the liberal mindset, but oddly enough, it's actually true most of the time. Some people will make poor choices no matter what, but here's the funny thing. That group will tend to find ways to make poor choices no matter how much you try to force them otherwise. But along the way to attempting to use increasingly authoritarian methods to force positive outcomes, you totally hose over a much larger group of people.

Classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



I'm not sure what sort of conspiracy theory you're spinning now, but do you honestly think those factors and forces are any less present under any other administration and in the context of any other decision? Obsessing over "manipulation by big business" only in one aspect of government is myopic to the extreme. You don't honestly think the same sort of corrupt influence doesn't occur in say health care, or housing, or education, or frankly anything that government might be involved in? I would hope you can see that this is a constant in anything that government does. So its presence should not be a consideration when looking at what level of government should be doing what.

Specifically, in the context of a discussion about federal spending on the military versus federal spending on foodstamps or public education or health care, that factor is a wash. We should only consider the earlier point I made about whether said spending *must* be done at the federal level. And, as I mentioned earlier, maintaining a military is actually one of the few things that our federal government is required to do. Providing people with food, education, health care, or housing is *not*. Countering that with vague comments about possible business influence is meaningless to that question.


Oh. And I'll also point out that the biggest mistake Bush made with regard to Iraq was failing to win reelection. Had he done so, it's almost certain he would have continued the process with Iraq. It was Clinton taking office and not really caring about the middle east that put the whole thing on the back burner for 8 years. And I would argue that was the single largest contributing factor to the rise of Al Queda as a major terrorist organization and the 9/11 attacks specifically. You kinda can't blame Bush for failing to enforce the terms of a cease fire agreement which were not yet violated when he lost reelection. It was up to whomever won the 1992 election to decide what to do about Iraq's lack of compliance. And Bush didn't win that election. Clinton did. Thus, the blame for the resulting lack of action falls squarely on his shoulders.

To be fair, we could also talk about his decision not to topple Iraq at the time. But that's a whole topic of itself. Again though, the rise of OBL as an opponent of the US didn't come about because of that decision, but the later decision to keep troops in SA for a decade or so with no end in sight. There was plenty of time to have made a correction in our policy with regard to Iraq which would have averted 9/11. But that "time" occurred during Clinton's administration, not Bush's.

The problem is that transsexual and transgender are not the same thing. The second term exists specifically to define people who are not externally any different from others with the same equipment (well, not much usually), but feel different "on the inside". Which is frankly ridiculous in the context of bathroom use, which concerns itself solely with the equipment and nothing else.

A coworker of mine has a 15 year old niece who just recently announced that she was transgender, complete with wanting to be called "him/he" and a new male name. I asked my coworker what this meant exactly. Does she (he?) dress like a guy? No. Is she dating girls? No, but apparently, she's bi, but then again, doesn't have a boyfriend or girlfriend, so no one's really sure how that's shaking out (I have no issues with that to be honest). Um... So what exactly is she declaring? No one really had an answer for this question. It's an identity thing, I guess, but it almost seems more like a trend that teens think will make them special snowflakes or something, but didn't seem to have any real purpose or meaning.

Is there any reason why she should be using the boys restroom in school? Assuming we think she should, what about all the boys in said restroom? What about the girls in the girls restroom forced to allow a boy, who appears to be male, acts male, does male things, but has declared himself to be female to use the same restroom with them? How about showers? Gym class?

I'm not sure how we solve this problem. Heck. I'm not even sure what the problem is. I also think it's a step backwards in our gender identity. I thought the point was that we should not apply arbitrary social pressures to force people into different molds based on their equipment. A woman should be free to do what she wants, pursue whatever career she wants, wear what she wants, be the breadwinner instead of the childcare provider, etc and the same for men in reverse. But this whole thing seems aimed at enforcing those gender roles, and instead saying that you must change your gender identity to match your role. So if you like to run around and play sports, well, I guess you're a boy and not a girl. If you like to play with dolls, you're a girl and not a boy.

Can't we just be ok with girls who like to play sports and boys who like to play with dolls? Just seems like this is the totally wrong way to go with this. The whole thing depends on firm social gender roles, which is something we should be moving away from. Heck. Way back in the 40s women put on work clothes and gloves and built tanks and planes for the war effort. No one thought they had to cease to be women in order to do that. Yet now? We've "progressed" backwards IMO.

It's just a really really really dumb issue.

Edited, Jun 6th 2016 5:40pm by gbaji