US - "A Coup Has Taken Place"

[dilute micro]

 

[darkfibre]

nah i just seem to remember that in the last thread i saw you on, you wanted to avoid addressing some point or other and so you said the person making the point should have known more about history.

Funny that - his first post on this subject was suggesting the same thing about Naomi Wolf.

Not sure what he's trying to say... is it some deep philosophical point regarding the lack of voter choice and the irrelevance of the electoral system? Scandalous!

 

[dilute micro]

nah i just seem to remember that in the last thread i saw you on, you wanted to avoid addressing some point or other and so you said the person making the point should have known more about history.

It's my briar patch.

 

[darkfibre]

It's my briar patch.

What was the problem you had with Wolfs' interpretation of history, then?

 

[dilute micro]

Funny that - his first post on this subject was suggesting the same thing about Naomi Wolf.

Not sure what he's trying to say... is it some deep philosophical point regarding the lack of voter choice and the irrelevance of the electoral system? Scandalous!

I agree with her in general but as someone said she leans towards the conspiraloon end and to me seems a little slanted judging from her other videos. Still she claims not to be partisan. Nevertheless she's correct, aside from the facts she has wrong - the US will become more fascist and there is a historical precedent. There is no hope in either party to stop it. And imo thinking so will be the surest way to bring it to reality. Aside from that judging from what I've heard from her she isn't too knowledgeable of US history. But that's no surprise really.

 

[two sheds]

Funny that - his first post on this subject was suggesting the same thing about Naomi Wolf.

Yep that's what made me think it was him i remember going away from the last conversation (I gave up fairly early on) thinking 'ah yes so what you're saying is that if someone in the UK has just had all their money scammed from them by Lehman Brothers, before they can really pass comment or complain what they should reeeeally do is go off and read a book on the American Civil War'

Not sure what he's trying to say... is it some deep philosophical point regarding the lack of voter choice and the irrelevance of the electoral system? Scandalous!

looked at the time like he was pretending to be a hintellectual trying to drum up trade for his freelance history lessons. Just first impression, though, i may be wrong.

 

[darkfibre]

I agree with her in general but as someone said she leans towards the conspiraloon end and to me seems a little slanted judging from her other videos. Still she claims not to be partisan. Nevertheless she's correct, aside from the facts she has wrong - the US will become more fascist and there is a historical precedent. There is no hope in either party to stop it. And imo thinking so will be the surest way to bring it to reality. Aside from that judging from what I've heard from her she isn't too knowledgeable of US history. But that's no surprise really.

Which facts does she have wrong? (I hope it's not the thing about burning tax collectors coaches... )

 

[darkfibre]

what they should reeeeally do is go off and read a book on the American Civil War'

Was there an Amazon link accompanying that insinuation?

 

[dilute micro]

Yep that's what made me think it was him i remember going away from the last conversation (I gave up fairly early on) thinking 'ah yes so what you're saying is that if someone in the UK has just had all their money scammed from them by Lehman Brothers, before they can really pass comment or complain what they should reeeeally do is go off and read a book on the American Civil War'

looked at the time like he was pretending to be a hintellectual trying to drum up trade for his freelance history lessons. Just first impression, though, i may be wrong.

Yep.

 

[two sheds]

Was there an Amazon link accompanying that insinuation?

[FONT=Courier,sans-serif]"In my youth," said the sage, as he shook his grey locks,
"I kept all my limbs very supple
By the use of this ointment -- one shilling a box --
Allow me to sell you a couple?"
[/FONT]

 

[dilute micro]

Which facts does she have wrong? (I hope it's not the thing about burning tax collectors coaches... )

For starters the Army's chain of command.

 

[dilute micro]

[FONT=Courier,sans-serif]"In my youth," said the sage, as he shook his grey locks,
"I kept all my limbs very supple
By the use of this ointment -- one shilling a box --
Allow me to sell you a couple?"
[/FONT]

huh?

 

[dilute micro]

 

[darkfibre]

For starters the Army's chain of command.

OK. She appeared to be suggesting that since the 'whole world' has been legally defined as a 'battlefield' in TGWoT, and since combat troops are deployed on US soil, the US would be considered part of the 'theatre', as it were.

She suggested that 'National Guard' were answerable to congress, yet combat troops were not... The other thing was about the 'legality' of orders issued to the troops on US soil.

Can you give a rough outline of the chain-of-command that would apply to combat troops on US soil?

 

[dilute micro]

 

[darkfibre]

She says:

'The President and his lawyers have successfully established a legal claim that - for the War on Terror - the whole World is a battlefield. And so, [anywhere] in the whole World, you can call somebody an "Enemy Combatant", detain them, disappear them. Even torture them.'

Is that correct?

 

[dilute micro]

OK. She appeared to be suggesting that since the 'whole world' has been legally defined as a 'battlefield' in TGWoT, and since combat troops are deployed on US soil, the US would be considered part of the 'theatre', as it were.

She suggested that 'National Guard' were answerable to congress, yet combat troops were not... The other thing was about the 'legality' of orders issued to the troops on US soil.

Can you give a rough outline of the chain-of-command that would apply to combat troops on US soil?

It doesn't matter where the army is. The congress is not a part of the chain of command. She was either ignorant or lying. She made a personal presidential army sound scary though. Truth is you can call the army that at any time liberally speaking. Congress can, if we abide by the law, undo an order sending them off to war and such made by the president but no one either cares or lets them do it. Most times they agree I think.

 

[dilute micro]

Oh yeah she mentions the "founders" of the US - the "whole founding generation" who had a vision of liberty and moved it forward. Well, not everyone did. This only more idealized patriotic 'history'.

 

[darkfibre]

The congress is not a part of the chain of command. She was either ignorant or lying.

Er... that's exactly what she said - that they're not part of the CoC. You're agreeing with her.

The difference is that now, they are serving on US soil... wasn't there something in the constitution expressly forbidding that?

Yep I know they were deployed after Katrina, btw...

this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom,

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

 

[darkfibre]

Oh yeah she mentions the "founders" of the US - the "whole founding generation" who had a vision of liberty and moved it forward.

Well, I don't think she intended that to be a history lecture...

 

[dilute micro]

Er... that's exactly what she said - that they're not part of the CoC. You're agreeing with her.

The difference is that now, they are serving on US soil... wasn't there something in the constitution expressly forbidding that?

Yep I know they were deployed after Katrina, btw...

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

No she's expecting or wanting congress to be a part of the chain of command and weaves that into "the president now has an army", referring to the 1st BCT.

 

[dilute micro]

Well, I don't think she intended that to be a history lecture...

 

[darkfibre]

No she's expecting or wanting congress to be a part of the chain of command and weaves that into "the president now has an army", referring to the 1st BCT.

Mmmm... I didn't read it like that - I took her to mean more that "The Presidents Army is now operating on US soil". Which is true.

In your opinion, was she accurate in her description of what took place in Italy and Germany?

 

[two sheds]

Yep.

I wasn't necessarily trying to make out you're not clever here by the way, it just struck me that you were using intellectual type tricks to avoid answering questions. Real hintellectuals to me are interested in knowledge and will happily change their minds if they're shown to be wrong on something.

I should go to bed

 

[dilute micro]

Mmmm... I didn't read it like that - I took her to mean more that "The Presidents Army is now operating on US soil". Which is true.

In your opinion, was she accurate in her description of what took place in Italy and Germany?

Nah, the president can be in charge of the National Guard while on US soil. The 1st BCT is regular army which is relatively new to this. She was worried about the chain of command in relation and thought congress should be a part of it implying that congress is in the chain usually. It's little things like that that detract from her making her case.

Italy and Germany - I don't know.

 

[dilute micro]

I wasn't necessarily trying to make out you're not clever here by the way, it just struck me that you were using intellectual type tricks to avoid answering questions. Real hintellectuals to me are interested in knowledge and will happily change their minds if they're shown to be wrong on something.

I should go to bed

Hmmm... well if I were you I'd use a little caution. It takes a certain type of person to think they can read into a few posts from someone and tell things like party affiliation - "you as republicans", and after I tell you I'm not - "No, I'm sorry - nobody but a republican could make that statement". I'm curious what else you have the powers to know. Am I white or black? gay or straight? Maybe you're caught up in the hysteria of an election year where everything is party polarized and spun to be so. It sort of has a Salem witch hunt feel to it.

 

[teqniq]

Maybe you're caught up in the hysteria of an election year where everything is party polarized and spun to be so. It sort of has a Salem witch hunt feel to it.

Not over here, (UK) it feels like a particurlarly bad episode of Casualty or Eastenders.

 

[goebfwai]

To describe the deployment of troops on US soil as a coup is rather Munchausenesque in terms of it's exaggeration. I think they are probably just there in case of emergencies with the economic crisis an' all, and in the run up to the election. Remember an Obama win would mean America having the first black President in US history, the first in any western democracy, which means sadly, but realistically, he will need more protection than a white President because of racism. That said, she is right to identify the run-up to the US election and the hand-over of power as being bit of a danger point. I mean look at the shenanigans that went on in the background (without resorting to strong-arm techniques) when Bush's cronies stole the election from Gore.

 

[two sheds]

Hmmm... well if I were you I'd use a little caution. It takes a certain type of person to think they can read into a few posts from someone and tell things like party affiliation - "you as republicans", and after I tell you I'm not - "No, I'm sorry - nobody but a republican could make that statement". I'm curious what else you have the powers to know. Am I white or black? gay or straight? Maybe you're caught up in the hysteria of an election year where everything is party polarized and spun to be so. It sort of has a Salem witch hunt feel to it.

Yes you’re quite right, I do withdraw that remark. It was made in the heat of the moment because you claimed you’re not a republican and that claim confused me.

What I meant to say was “nobody but a republican or someone who’d had his head firmly up his bottom for twenty years could make that statement” (the period over which you claim republicans have been unjustly pilloried).

Let’s look at your original statement, though. “Wherever if started - republicans now are made fun of and looked down on - with their intelligence questioned and their knowledge questioned - simply for being to the right and being against them” (emphasis added).

Well I gave you a few reasons other than ‘simply for being to the right and being against them’, which you didn’t respond to (support for Bush, Reagan, power exerted over the party by big business, invasion of Iraq etc). Another couple: the high proportion of fundamentalist christians in the party who want to impose their apocalyptic vision of the world on us, and the support for US terror campaigns against other countries much much worse than 9/11. Would you like to respond to those or are you just going to ignore them again? These are not ‘simply for being to the right and being against them’, so why are these reasons not valid for [FONT=&quot]republicans to be "made fun of and looked down on - with their intelligence questioned and their knowledge questioned [/FONT]?" Remember how republicans characterised the countries who didn't join in with America's invasion of a sovereign territory that had made no attack on America.

Nicely done though, tying in the underprivileged republicans with similar groups like blacks and gays. Well yes, in a way I think you can. “Nobody but a white could say that ethnic minorities aren’t discriminated against in Western society” “Nobody but a heterosexual could say that gays haven’t been persecuted by society”. It sort of works, doesn't it?

I would say you couldn’t be American and say what you said, but I really can’t see a Democrat saying something like that (apart from the proviso I added above). So what party do you support? In the UK at the last election the Tories got in, there was a large discrepancy between exit polls and the results of the vote casting. Loads of people when asked by pollsters which party they were going to vote for outside the booth said “mumble … social responsibility … mumble … voting Labour … fairer distribution … mumble” and when they got inside the booth all ticked ‘Tory’ as they always do. You’re not that sort of not-a-republican are you?

I felt that your comments that people you disagreed with should ‘go off and study history’ were intellectually dishonest because it was just trying to win the argument by attacking the person who made a statement rather than addressing the statement itself. I’m tempted to say you should go off and study logic and botany before you reply to any posts on urban.

What countries and periods of history have you made a study of, by the way?

 

[dilute micro]

Two sheds you're missing the point. I'm talking about the ones who know nothing at all about politics - don't even care to - never even read a paper or watch CNN - but still are adamantly one sided and in this case in the democrat camp. My sister is one. Her method of reasoning is just that - whatever sounds conservative is wrong and stupid. And the proof there is if a stupid republican supports it. But the 'stupid' theme has unquestionably caught on with the left in recent years and especially, I've found, amongst the least knowledgeable which is why kids are prone to it. It's one thing to say someone is stupid for making that decision and another to say because that person is stupid they made that decision.

Well I gave you a few reasons other than ‘simply for being to the right and being against them’, which you didn’t respond to (support for Bush, Reagan, power exerted over the party by big business, invasion of Iraq etc)

Here you're only taking for granted that they're stupid, and then use them as positive evidence that they're stupid. A person can be intelligent but still screw things up for a number of reasons.


Open your mind two sheds. A person doesn't have to be a member of a party. What party do I support? - none. I'll agree with them on things.