Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I have never met NotBob irl. Supposedly, there was a possibility of such a meeting in NYC a couple of months ago, but it's possible that Hank just lied about the whole thing to get me to buy him a drink.

I just assumed when you said BnB's were better. I would guess that's true, but I've never had the chance to really compare.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I just assumed when you said BnB's were better. I would guess that's true, but I've never had the chance to really compare.

I've never seen your either, and yet am 100% confident that hers are better than yours, too.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I just assumed when you said BnB's were better. I would guess that's true, but I've never had the chance to really compare.

So you think this board is for people who actually know what they're talking about?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I've never seen your either, and yet am 100% confident that hers are better than yours, too.

I've lost enough weight that they're largely nonexistent. I am no longer a fat.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm not insulting your intelligence (or Noam's, either), my good man. I just think that you are wrong and the idea that each country's values are beautiful and special in their own way like a snowflake is a facile dodge to avoid hard truths.

2. The ideas on which we have based our society, and our government, and those of similar nations, are superior to those of backward cesspools like Saudi Arabia, Syria, most of the kleptocracies of Africa, and Russia.

It is inarguable that, if your country has a national religion, or a set of laws based on the texts of some religion (earnestly or just to keep people down, as in SA), it is a notably unexceptional country in comparison to all secular ones.

All that said, of course, we're backsliding quite dramatically. Though our notions that freedom and individual dignity are paramount remain, in practice, we're turning into a ugly, paranoid, and openly classist society where a few keep almost all of the rest under the knuckles of ignorance, diversion and, where necessary, police tyranny.

We're great in theory, shit in terms of the quality of US born citizens inhabiting us, from top to bottom.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I find this to be non-responsive. But I think my post was misleading. I should have said:

I really wish someone would explain this mindset, because it applies to cops as well as soldiers. The willingness of people who are not cops or soldiers to completely overlook lots of awful, terrible shit done by certain cops or soldiers because cops and soldiers generally take these jobs knowing they are dangerous jobs just makes absolutely no sense to me.

It's like, because you took a dangerous job that is often underappreciated, civilians think you should excuse or overlook acts that amount to crimes for anyone else.

TM

These ornate parades held for police killed in action have always confused me. What's the fucking logic there? Guy takes risky job, gets killed doing it, and we're supposed to be uniquely appalled? It's kind of like acting surprised when you hear somebody died base jumping. I know it sounds cold, but, "buy the ticket, take the ride."

I'm uniquely appalled when some mutant offs a bunch of kids with a sub-machine gun, a cabal of illiterate religious jerk-offs start trading women as sex slaves and beheading people in the streets... or when some roided up cop chokes a guy to death for selling a cigarette. I'm appalled when we burn billions on wars predicated on knowing lies, search our citizens' emails, and funnel a pack of degenerates at Goldman one hundred cents on the dollar payouts from AIG where they should been given nickels.

I am a bit shocked and disturbed when I see millions of half-wits arguing a whistleblower like Snowden should go to jail, or excusing the expenditure of $80mil on torture that got us nothing. These things are uniquely upsetting. But a cop getting shot in the line of duty? It's sad. It's terrible. But it's also not unexpected. In fact, it's a downright common and predictable occurrence. And if you don't think it is, if you think it's some nearly inconceivable horror, you're more emotion than intelligence... which means you are part of the problem.

Similarly...

"[O]f course, if you’re fighting for your country and you get shot or hurt, it’s a terrible tragedy, of course, of course, but maybe, may be if you pick up a gun and go to another country and you get shot, it’s not that weird. Maybe if you get shot by the dude, you were just shooting at, it’s a tiny bit your fault." - Louis C.K., "Of Course. But maybe..."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

These ornate parades held for police killed in action have always confused me. What's the fucking logic there? Guy takes risky job, gets killed doing it, and we're supposed to be uniquely appalled? It's kind of like acting surprised when you hear somebody died base jumping. I know it sounds cold, but, "buy the ticket, take the ride."

I'm uniquely appalled when some mutant offs a bunch of kids with a sub-machine gun, a cabal of illiterate religious jerk-offs start trading women as sex slaves and beheading people in the streets... or when some roided up cop chokes a guy to death for selling a cigarette. I'm appalled when we burn billions on wars predicated on knowing lies, search our citizens' emails, and funnel a pack of degenerates at Goldman one hundred cents on the dollar payouts from AIG where they should been given nickels.

I am a bit shocked and disturbed when I see millions of half-wits arguing a whistleblower like Snowden should go to jail, or excusing the expenditure of $80mil on torture that got us nothing. These things are uniquely upsetting. But a cop getting shot in the line of duty? It's sad. It's terrible. But it's also not unexpected. In fact, it's a downright common and predictable occurrence. And if you don't think it is, if you think it's some nearly inconceivable horror, you're more emotion than intelligence... which means you are part of the problem.

Similarly...

"[O]f course, if you’re fighting for your country and you get shot or hurt, it’s a terrible tragedy, of course, of course, but maybe, may be if you pick up a gun and go to another country and you get shot, it’s not that weird. Maybe if you get shot by the dude, you were just shooting at, it’s a tiny bit your fault." - Louis C.K., "Of Course. But maybe..."

I think you're suppoee to be thankful

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I think you're suppoee to be thankful

Being thankful is a distinct thing from elevating the death of a cop to some special pedestal.

When you hold huge ceremonies following the deaths of these people, it sends the message their job is unique, and deserves a heightened reverence. It does not.

Holding law enforcement up as a sacred calling is disturbing. It's a form of "law and order worship" - the kind of thinking that has created bad policies like mandatory minimums, the war on drugs, and grand jury results like those we've recently witnessed. It's also further veneration of these strange totems we seem to value in this country - being aggressive, being armed, rigidly following rules, seeing complex realities in black and white (npi), moralistic judgment, "traditional mores"...

These are bedrock values of people who typically view questioning, dissent, or nuanced understanding of things, as dangerous. They love rules. They love enforcing rules. They crave order and become paranoid in its absence. In a nutshell, they're about as far from the principles of those who founded the nation, and all of those who've helped us make great leaps forward, as any group could be.

Cops have their place. They are necessary. They are to be appreciated, but that's about all. Venerating them is a step too far.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Being thankful is a distinct thing from elevating the death of a cop to some special pedestal.

When you hold huge ceremonies following the deaths of these people, it sends the message their job is unique, and deserves a heightened reverence. It does not.

Holding law enforcement up as a sacred calling is disturbing. It's a form of "law and order worship" - the kind of thinking that has created bad policies like mandatory minimums, the war on drugs, and grand jury results like those we've recently witnessed. It's also further veneration of these strange totems we seem to value in this country - being aggressive, being armed, rigidly following rules, seeing complex realities in black and white (npi), moralistic judgment, "traditional mores"...

These are bedrock values of people who typically view questioning, dissent, or nuanced understanding of things, as dangerous. They love rules. They love enforcing rules. They crave order and become paranoid in its absence. In a nutshell, they're about as far from the principles of those who founded the nation, and all of those who've helped us make great leaps forward, as any group could be.

Cops have their place. They are necessary. They are to be appreciated, but that's about all. Venerating them is a step too far.

To a great extent these are a show from the siblinghood and a product of this being a job that results in strong shared bonds among officers. In the military, the development of those bonds is part of crafting the troops as a "fighting force" - you need people to do often irrational and life threatening things for the greater good, and the strong loyalty makes it easier, for example, to get a squad to go on a suicide mission in order to draw fire from the main attack force. This is what a lot of military pageantry is all about, too. Building pride in the unit and bonds with your fellows.

I think the same bonds can be very important for fire fighters, too, who need to operate as a cohesive force, but are actually less important for cops, who operate in smaller groups and who don't need to do crazy things very often. It's all part of the militarization of the police, but a part that is older and better established than giving them tanks, automatic weapons, and grenade launchers.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I have never met NotBob irl.

He is real and he is spectacular.

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I am a bit shocked and disturbed when I see millions of half-wits arguing a whistleblower like Snowden should go to jail, or excusing the expenditure of $80mil on torture that got us nothing. These things are uniquely upsetting.

This raises an interesting question. If Obama could spend $80 that Congress had appropriated for another purpose, and he spent it on stuff that, presumably, Congress shouldn't have had to tell him he couldn't spend money torturing people, then why couldn't he have just decided to spend the money doing something more American, like shutting down Gitmo?

If you're going to tell Congress "Fuck you, I'll spend it as I see fit," Then there is no excuse left for him not to have fulfilled his promise to shut it down.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

This raises an interesting question. If Obama could spend $80 that Congress had appropriated for another purpose, and he spent it on stuff that, presumably, Congress shouldn't have had to tell him he couldn't spend money torturing people, then why couldn't he have just decided to spend the money doing something more American, like shutting down Gitmo?

If you're going to tell Congress "Fuck you, I'll spend it as I see fit," Then there is no excuse left for him not to have fulfilled his promise to shut it down.

Huh? This money was spent under W, and presumably came from money appropriated for CIA operations.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...ness-40-496236

The all-important witness 40.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

This raises an interesting question. If Obama could spend $80 that Congress had appropriated for another purpose, and he spent it on stuff that, presumably, Congress shouldn't have had to tell him he couldn't spend money torturing people, then why couldn't he have just decided to spend the money doing something more American, like shutting down Gitmo?

If you're going to tell Congress "Fuck you, I'll spend it as I see fit," Then there is no excuse left for him not to have fulfilled his promise to shut it down.

Can you explain why you keep acting like this was all Obama's idea when the contract was signed under Bush, the report states that it covers only acts committed under the Bush administration and Obama was the one who terminated the contract?

I know you hate him and his terrible spying, droning, non-Gitmo-shutting-down ways, so I guess that's why you lump him in on the torture?

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Huh? This money was spent under W, and presumably came from money appropriated for CIA operations.

1. I used the $80 million as a figurehead. You're right. We don't know how much was spent by Obama because he hasn't told us.

2. When did Congress start appropriating funds for illegal activity?

3. Whiff.