Political Pissing Match Catch-All | Response to NOLA Attack & Vegas Cybertruck explosion

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 147
  • Views: 3K
  • Politics 
PandemicBlue said:
This country is going to wake up one day astonished by what we have done to ourselves. People would never hire someone to manage their private company and personal assets in the same way they are willing to elect, and continue to support, politicians to manage their country....no matter how lousy they prove themselves to be.

I guess the country can go 36 trillion (and counting) in debt to make up for the incompetence. People on the other hand would have to declare bankruptcy as a result of such leadership.

And that doesn't even factor in what has been allowed, and actually encouraged, to happen at the borders considering the risks it poses to the country. I'm sure there are a lot more America and American haters among us. Considering the "come one, come all" policy of the current administration coupled with the past, it's pretty much a guarantee.

And they won't waste one second giving a damn about who is a Republican and who is a Democrat.
Click to expand...
1. I have never seen anyone in my entire life express as much hatred for America than Donald Trump did in this most recent election, and judging from the above tweet, he's still doing it. "Our country is a disaster" is not an acceptable thing for a president to say.

2. People would never hire someone to manage their private company this way. True. Also true: managing a government is nothing at all like managing a private company. Running a government and running a business aren't the same. Public finance is not the same as private finance.

3. If someone knowledgeable told me that I was making a basic category mistake (as I just did in point 2), I would immediately research the question and figure out if I was wrong. Will you do that? Doubtful. But if you do google, you will find a very long list of explanations as to why the premise is clearly and fundamentally mistaken.

4. Donald Trump went bankrupt six times. Do you want him to manage the government like he managed businesses?
 
WaynetheDrain said:
So what you’re saying is, despite the fact that Christians kill more people yearly in our country than Muslims, only Muslims have a strong enough belief in their god to sacrifice their lives for the cause?

Seems like the Christians need to up their game.
Click to expand...
Except for that whole 9/11 thing. You know, hard to forget about that one.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
So what you’re saying is, despite the fact that Christians kill more people yearly in our country than Muslims, only Muslims have a strong enough belief in their god to sacrifice their lives for the cause?

Seems like the Christians need to up their game.
Click to expand...
Being Christian and killing someone isn't the same as killing because of your Christian beliefs.
 
superrific said:
The same number of people died in 9/11 as in about 2 months of gun violence in America.
Click to expand...
Do you think all of the drug/gang related shootings in poor urban areas is related to Christian beliefs?

Do you think the shooters believe they are helping to get their family into heaven?
 
ZenMode said:
Being Christian and killing someone isn't the same as killing because of your Christian beliefs.
Click to expand...
Not to you it's not. But to Robert Bowers, the white Christian nationalist who gunned down 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue, he was just doing the Lord's good work. He believed that white Europeans were God's "Chosen people," and that Jews and Muslims were mortal enemies.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
And fewer people died on 9/11 than die of medical errors in a month. What’s your point?
Click to expand...
that poster started off with "It's not a coincidence that you don't see Christian suicide bombers, believers anxious to martyr themselves and killing cartoonists."

The response was that in America, Christian terrorism is much more common than Islamic terrorism. And instead of recognizing that weakness in his argument, he came back with 9/11. I assume he means that the total death toll from Islamic terrorism is higher (though that is almost certainly not correct any more). Pointing out that the death toll from ordinary gun violence (which he does not meaningfully oppose) is even greater demonstrates that the body count approach is not the right way to look at it.

Let's suppose for a minute that the 9/11 pilots weren't so good, and they hit the towers up at the very top. The towers would eventually fall but most everyone would have been able to evacuate and the death toll was only 75. Does that make the act any less terroristic? Would it be less of a big deal just because they missed? Or what if they hit on a national holiday that they didn't know about and the towers were mostly empty? Again, how exactly does that change the nature of the act.

I'd say this consideration pretty much blows the "but 9/11" nonsense out of the water.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
The opposite is true.
Click to expand...
you don't even know if he was a practicing Muslim. Just STFU. You had a wonderful post about the impact of COVID on hospitals and that post justifies your existence here, but for the most part, you're one of the posters who just talk and talk out of their ass.
 
superrific said:
that poster started off with "It's not a coincidence that you don't see Christian suicide bombers, believers anxious to martyr themselves and killing cartoonists."

The response was that in America, Christian terrorism is much more common than Islamic terrorism. And instead of recognizing that weakness in his argument, he came back with 9/11. I assume he means that the total death toll from Islamic terrorism is higher (though that is almost certainly not correct any more). Pointing out that the death toll from ordinary gun violence (which he does not meaningfully oppose) is even greater demonstrates that the body count approach is not the right way to look at it.

Let's suppose for a minute that the 9/11 pilots weren't so good, and they hit the towers up at the very top. The towers would eventually fall but most everyone would have been able to evacuate and the death toll was only 75. Does that make the act any less terroristic? Would it be less of a big deal just because they missed? Or what if they hit on a national holiday that they didn't know about and the towers were mostly empty? Again, how exactly does that change the nature of the act.

I'd say this consideration pretty much blows the "but 9/11" nonsense out of the water.
Click to expand...
"that poster started off with "It's not a coincidence that you don't see Christian suicide bombers, believers anxious to martyr themselves and killing cartoonists."

That was me.

The response was that in America, Christian terrorism is much more common than Islamic terrorism. And instead of recognizing that weakness in his argument, he came back with 9/11. "

I said nothing about 9/11.
 
superrific said:
that poster started off with "It's not a coincidence that you don't see Christian suicide bombers, believers anxious to martyr themselves and killing cartoonists."

The response was that in America, Christian terrorism is much more common than Islamic terrorism. And instead of recognizing that weakness in his argument, he came back with 9/11. I assume he means that the total death toll from Islamic terrorism is higher (though that is almost certainly not correct any more). Pointing out that the death toll from ordinary gun violence (which he does not meaningfully oppose) is even greater demonstrates that the body count approach is not the right way to look at it.

Let's suppose for a minute that the 9/11 pilots weren't so good, and they hit the towers up at the very top. The towers would eventually fall but most everyone would have been able to evacuate and the death toll was only 75. Does that make the act any less terroristic? Would it be less of a big deal just because they missed? Or what if they hit on a national holiday that they didn't know about and the towers were mostly empty? Again, how exactly does that change the nature of the act.

I'd say this consideration pretty much blows the "but 9/11" nonsense out of the water.
Click to expand...
Good comments, but I want to add that the attempted distancing and downplaying of American fundamentalist Christian violence in comparison to Islamic violence fails to recognize a very important point. We live in an egalitarian oriented democracy which has broadly followed a basic separation of Church and state. We still have things like a Christian shooting an abortion doctor in the face while he is in his church, but just less of those kinds of events, due to the general culture we are lucky to grow up in.

The reason Christian dogma does not do similar damage in the West (though I am not for a second ignoring the damage it does do, and I for one have no idea how to weigh the balance of causing immense suffering of countless women due to abortion limitations that are irrational functions of the worst of lunatic Christian ideology), as I have said many times, due to our Constitution, the ideals of the Founders, and the attendant cultural attitudes of tolerance and restraint on most Christians. In other words, Christian dogma is in a kind of culturally protective box in this country--protecting most of us from it; that's why we don't burn witches anymore, that is why we don't kill heretics in crusades anyone, and not because Christians and their own unsupported ideological notions are "better" in some way.

If you doubt Christians in America are fully capable of enacting their own evil to really hurt people, to take their lives if need be, based on religious faith, watch this video, please.

 
ZenMode said:
"that poster started off with "It's not a coincidence that you don't see Christian suicide bombers, believers anxious to martyr themselves and killing cartoonists."

That was me.

The response was that in America, Christian terrorism is much more common than Islamic terrorism. And instead of recognizing that weakness in his argument, he came back with 9/11. "

I said nothing about 9/11.
Click to expand...
true, you did not. I got you confused with the other poster.
 
superrific said:
The response was that in America, Christian terrorism is much more common than Islamic terrorism. And instead of recognizing that weakness in his argument, he came back with 9/11. I assume he means that the total death toll from Islamic terrorism is higher (though that is almost certainly not correct any more).
Click to expand...

The death toll from Islamic terrorism in the United States in our lifetimes is many times higher than the death toll from any other type of terrorism. It isn't even close. Most right-wing terrorism in the United States is committed by anti-government activists or white supremacists, not people intent on forcing Methodism on others. And even then, the deadliest attack committed by one of these people in recent history killed a couple of dozen people, not thousands in one day like Islamists did.

Let's not forget about the attacks committed or attempted by Islamist terrorists in the United States since 9/11. Omar Matteen killed 50 people in Orlando. The San Bernadino terrorists killed 14 people at a Christmas party. Another terrorist killed 14 people at Fort Hood. There was a bombing at the Boston Marathon. A terrorist killed 8 people in New York City. And less than 48 hours ago another terrorist killed 15 people in New Orleans. Not to mention the fact Islamist terrorists smuggled bombs on two large commercial airliners and attempted to detonate them, which would have killed hundreds of people.

superrific said:
Let's suppose for a minute that the 9/11 pilots weren't so good, and they hit the towers up at the very top. The towers would eventually fall but most everyone would have been able to evacuate and the death toll was only 75. Does that make the act any less terroristic? Would it be less of a big deal just because they missed? Or what if they hit on a national holiday that they didn't know about and the towers were mostly empty? Again, how exactly does that change the nature of the act.
Click to expand...
This is nonsensical. 9/11 was the largest terror attack in history and drug the United States into a protracted war in which many thousands of our soldiers and many hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. It is disrespectful to all who were lost to play thought exercises and say "well suppose 9/11 actually wasn't that bad, that means we should just not count it".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top