The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

50 years ago the psychiatrist association said being the l or g or b in lgbtq + whatever was a mental illness.... until it wasn't.

It wasn't too long ago that the "t" was seen as a mental illness.

Being trans should obviously be a ban to being in the service. Obviously they are mentally ill. And if post surgical are medically non deployable. 

For the left deployability isn’t a consideration, Its fairness. Same way it was considered unfair to not allow certain portions of the population to not donate blood. 

[DKTanker]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

Space Farce general refuses to promote or move to good jobs anyone from Florida in protest of Anti-Child molesting laws.  

Another Trump appointment and it shouldn't be surprising.  After all, during the 2016 campaign Trump publicly signaled his solidarity with transabsurdity.

Edited June 16, 2023 by DKTanker

[rmgill]

Trump has good instincts but awful execution. It was not so interesting so he let some woke or moronic underling pick. 

[17thfabn]

22 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

How many old stories about Trump have been dredged up? Or any other R? 

 

Perhaps.

But how much attention does a story today get stating that Trump has been married three times and cheated on past spouses? It's old news and even the most anti Trump media don't bother repeating it as a main story.

[17thfabn]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

For the left deployability isn’t a consideration, Its fairness. Same way it was considered unfair to not allow certain portions of the population to not donate blood. 

Silly me I thought the purpose of the U.S. Military was to break things and hurt or kill people. 

To the left the Military's  purposes are social justice, supporting green causes, and developing a rainbow powered unicorn.

I can't donate blood due to a history of having  cancer. Can't say that hurts my feelings. 

[DB]

I beg to disagree slightly on the purpose of a military. Primarily, the military's purpose is to present a credible threat to any potential aggressor, Clausewitz notwithstanding.

If your military is seen as pandering to weakness, then its credibility is undermined and the deterrent effect may fail, even if in practice it is still capable of effectively breaking things.

You may draw your own conclusions regarding the effect of public posturing by the military command on what we tend to call "woke" policies.

[lucklucky]

Precisely. Ukraine like WW2 was failure of deterrence. 

[Ivanhoe]

5 hours ago, DB said:

I beg to disagree slightly on the purpose of a military. Primarily, the military's purpose is to present a credible threat to any potential aggressor, Clausewitz notwithstanding.

For Enlightment-derived nations, absolutely. For cultures oriented around resource pillage, ethnic hatred, or authoritarianism, the purpose of a military is not defense but rather offense. And there lies the problem.

People talk about the concept of a military assuming conciously or unconciously one view or another. 

America's founding fathers had read plenty about the ECW and all the Continental wars, so naturally assumed militaries were at best a necessary evil. After the French Revolution, and Napoleon, IMHO there was no excuse for believing unilateral disarmament was inherently a Good Thing. 

 

[DB]

Agreed. Which is why if you're not intending to be the aggressor, you need the other type.

[Ivanhoe]

4 hours ago, DB said:

Agreed. Which is why if you're not intending to be the aggressor, you need the other type.

 

Absolutely. Igitur quī dēsīderat pācem, præparet bellum as the man wrote. If a nation wants to have a strong standing army and navy, while minimizing the risk of domestic oppression or foreign adventurism, there are measures that can be put in place. 

[rmgill]

Several of the founding fathers were old enough to have read about events during the ‘45 rebellion. Franklin was near to 40 when it happened. 

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Several of the founding fathers were old enough to have read about events during the ‘45 rebellion. Franklin was near to 40 when it happened. 

What 45 rebellion are you referring to?

[NickM]

20 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

What 45 rebellion are you referring to?

I'm guessing the 1745 Jacobite rebellion in the Scottish Highlands 

[17thfabn]

2 hours ago, NickM said:

I'm guessing the 1745 Jacobite rebellion in the Scottish Highlands 

Thanks.

Now I'm trying to understand what the relevance of that is to the current discussion. 

The French Jacobins of their major revolution would seem to be in a tangential way possibly kind of sorta relevant. 

[sunday]

2 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Thanks.

Now I'm trying to understand what the relevance of that is to the current discussion. 

The French Jacobins of their major revolution would seem to be in a tangential way possibly kind of sorta relevant. 

Probably the relevant part is the repression after the battle of Culloden, where the redcoats were used by the government to confiscate cattle and foodstuff of the suspected Jacobites.

[NickM]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

Probably the relevant part is the repression after the battle of Culloden, where the redcoats were used by the government to confiscate cattle and foodstuff of the suspected Jacobites.

not just confiscation, but extra-judicial execution of any males remotely suspected of being rebels (almost without regard to age).

[NickM]

4 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Thanks.

Now I'm trying to understand what the relevance of that is to the current discussion. 

The French Jacobins of their major revolution would seem to be in a tangential way possibly kind of sorta relevant. 

I'm pretty sure Scottish Jacobites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobitism  were VERY DIFFERENT from French Jacobins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(politics)

[17thfabn]

42 minutes ago, NickM said:

I'm pretty sure Scottish Jacobites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobitism  were VERY DIFFERENT from French Jacobins:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(politics)

Yes of course.  

Many make references to their opposition being like the Jacobins.

In the U.S. the Jacobites are known only to those with a deep interest in history.

[NickM]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

Yes of course.  

Many make references to their opposition being like the Jacobins.

In the U.S. the Jacobites are known only to those with a deep interest in history.

a bazillion years ago, I watched a series with David McCallum about the Robert Lewis Stevenson story "Kidnapped". I learned about the Scottish Highlanders and the existence of the Jacobites back then.

[rmgill]

9 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Yes of course.  

Many make references to their opposition being like the Jacobins.

In the U.S. the Jacobites are known only to those with a deep interest in history.

My point was that the Founding Fathers were probably QUITE aware of the lengths at which Crown Soldiers would go to in order to effect crown dictates.  With reprisals, criminal cases, murders, executions and transportation of and that amount of power probably quite key in their mind of what a government should not be doing to it's own citizens. One need not look back from 176 to 1650 to the English Civil war alone with you have the various Scottish/English wars over unification, rebellion, etc. 

Folks aware of their Scottish ancestry are probably more likely to have a sense of it. Might be one could listen to the songs. 
 

 

[Ivanhoe]

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/democrat-donor-arrested-for-starting-massive-fire-democrats-blamed-on-climate-change/

Quote

What happened: Authorities busted a Democratic donor for allegedly starting a "ginormous inferno" in Yosemite National Park. Democratic politicians had insisted climate change was to blame for the blaze, which destroyed more than 100 homes and injured several firefighters in July 2022.

.

Quote

By the numbers: The arson suspect has donated $1,775 to Democratic candidates and committees since 2020, government records show, including a $1,000 donation to Tim Ryan's failed U.S. Senate campaign in 2022 and $400 to the Lincoln Project, a disgraced liberal super PAC.

 

[Ivanhoe]

Calling Dr. Freud;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12211425/Democratic-lawmaker-quickly-corrects-saying-Trump-needs-SHOT.html

Quote

 

Democratic Delegate Stacey Plaskett quickly corrected herself after saying on MSNBC Sunday that former President Donald Trump 'needs to be shot.' 

Plaskett, a non-voting House member who represents the U.S. Virgin Islands, was talking about Trump's indictment in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case when she made the verbal flub. 

Plaskett blasted Trump for 'having the classified information for Americans' and being able to share it with 'anyone and everyone who comes through' his resort. 

'And he needs to be shot - stopped,' she said. 

Plaskett continued with the interview, adding that Trump will 'have his day in court.' 

 

 

[Murph]

She just said the quiet part out loud, what they REALLY want to do.  

[Murph]

Sweathogs like this are demanding extra free everything because they cannot control themselves and want to "feel" good that they are morbidly obese.  

 

[NickM]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

Sweathogs like this are demanding extra free everything because they cannot control themselves and want to "feel" good that they are morbidly obese.  

When your coronary arteries are blocked,  nature don't care that you feel good about yourself 

Edited June 20, 2023 by NickM