Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2014, 07:47:27 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 385
76  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Malaysian Airlines 777 shot down over Ukraine, 295 people on board. on: July 17, 2014, 08:19:46 pm
Most likely the rebels brought down the plane, as it would be very unlikely for trained operators to confuse it with a military plane. However, since the Ukrainian government must have known that the Buks were captured for nearly three weeks, why didn't they close the airspace over the region?

I mean, it's not unheard of, not even from us.
77  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Happy Birthday, Angela Merkel. on: July 17, 2014, 08:17:32 pm
Uh... happy birthday?
78  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Malaysian Airlines 777 shot down over Ukraine, 295 people on board. on: July 17, 2014, 07:56:53 pm
Quote
"This tragedy would not have happened, if there had been peace on that land, or in any case, if military operations in southeastern Ukraine had not been renewed," Putin said in televised remarks. "And without a doubt the government of the territory on which it happened bears responsibility for this frightening tragedy."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/europe/ukraine-malaysia-airlines-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

Putin even seems to be saying this Ukraine's fault in a vague and imprecise sense rather than stating that Ukraine shot it down.
79  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Malaysian Airlines 777 shot down over Ukraine, 295 people on board. on: July 17, 2014, 07:31:39 pm
This apparently exists. I mean there's an actual facebook account and everything that clearly isn't made up. I guess I the chances of a person on an MH flight making a quip about it were high enough but, I mean...

Does it really change things, though? Are we going to war because some disparate mercs. ed up?  Russia will try to spin this and create a cloud over who actually did it.  People inclined to mistrust the West will just believe the CIA did it anyway.

I forget which poster has been putting up the good articles in the other thread about the separatist factions internal infighting.  Besler and co. wanted a victory and innocent people paid the price.

Well people in this country are going to want "action", whatever that might entail. But the idea that this is somehow not "our business" will dissipate completely. The fact that these people were clearly bragging about shooting down some plane in the same village at the same time is... well if one is not persuaded by what comes next then there's no point in trying.
80  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Malaysian Airlines 777 shot down over Ukraine, 295 people on board. on: July 17, 2014, 07:16:05 pm
Simfan, the separatists thought they downed another Ukrainian military cargo plane and started spreading the word.  Once on scene they  realized they ed up and started backpedaling.

Horrible crash site scenes...real ugly. RIP to all.


That's what it looks like. I'm surprised the Russian articles haven't been deleted yet. Anyway, the Independent notes that the passengers are as follows:

Quote
The passengers on the flight included 154 Dutch, 27 Australians, 38 Malaysians - including 15 crew -, 11 people from Indonesia, four Germans, four Belgians, three from the Philippines and one Canadian, BBC News reported an airport official as having said. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Interior Ministry said 23 US citizens were travelling on the aircraft. The nationalities of the remaining passengers were still being confirmed. 80 children were also on board, according to various agencies reporting from the scene.

The separate mention of Americans is odd, but let us be honest- if there are 23 Americans this changes things quite a bit more than they would otherwise.
81  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: July 17, 2014, 07:04:08 pm
My contribution is: I ABSOLUTELY HATE both sides of this "debate".

Simfan, make yourself a favour and block this piece of s***

Uh, what?

I might take his advice if you don't calm down. I mean, really.
82  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Malaysian Airlines 777 shot down over Ukraine, 295 people on board. on: July 17, 2014, 06:47:57 pm
I'm not the only one whose first thought was "this is an incomprehensibly terrible joke by [whoever's telling me this] and I'm not going to interact with them ever again," am I? Now, I was "informed" of this by the BBC News webpage so obviously the idea that the BBC would be playing a "joke" like this is highly improbable... but the thought that a Malaysia Airlines 777 would be crashing, again, anytime in the distant future, much less now, was so utterly implausible as to render the other thought relatively believable. A rather specific reaction, but I've had three people tell me already they thought that the person who told them of this or the site they saw it on was playing some kind of sick joke.

I mean, what? Apparently, also RIA Novosti is reporting (as of 11 AM) that militiamen shot down a "Ukrainian An-26". I don't know what that is (as in whether or not it was really an An-26 or this plane). I mean I think it seems pretty certain. ITAR-TASS says- actually, let me post it in its entirety, because this is ITAR-TASS and Putin is currently claiming that this is Ukraine's fault.

Quote
DONETSK, July 17. /ITAR-TASS/. Militiamen of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) brought down a military transport Antonov-26 (An-26) plane of the Ukrainian Air Force on the outskirts of the town of Torez, eyewitnesses said.

A missile hit the An-26, it fell on the ground and caught blaze, they said.

On July 14, militiamen of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic downed another An-26 of the Ukrainian Air Force.

(feel free to infract)

The BBC and everyone else seem to be saying that the 777 was shot down near the town of Hrabove/Grabovo... which is about 10km from Torez. Now, unless we are to assume two planes were shot down within hours of each other, 10km apart... but we've already thrown probability out of the window, haven't we?
83  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Malaysian Airlines 777 shot down over Ukraine, 295 people on board. on: July 17, 2014, 06:20:53 pm
The news is converging. Perhaps a sign of End Times?

Perhaps. I was frozen with shock for a good minute and a half, all but maybe ten seconds of those had to do with the airline. Reminds me of American Airlines Flight 587 back in 2001. I mean, it's a complete tragedy, but you've got to feel sorry for the Malaysians. What terrible luck. This is worse than Lockerbie, indeed, I'm wondering what it isn't worse than.

But the conspiracies are going to be all over the place. Particularly considering the Israelis have invaded Gaza in the meanwhile. Today is certainly in the bottom 1% of days in human history, if nothing else.
84  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of "GauchoGate" (= German footballers dissing the Argentinian losers) on: July 17, 2014, 07:23:17 am
They should have goose-stepped in rhythm to Preussens Gloria like proper Germans.

Seeing as this is coming from Generalfeldmarschall Mung Beans I'm assuming this is unsarcastic.
85  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Federal Judge Rules California Death Penalty Unconstitutional on: July 17, 2014, 01:53:08 am
Why does California still have the death penalty?
86  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re: Reforming the Electoral College.... Calculator Page on: July 17, 2014, 01:49:16 am
How? There's nothing wrong with it. This is liberalism at its worst- demanding change, for its own sake, when it's completely unnecessary.
87  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: FIFA 2014 World Cup - Official Discussion Thread on: July 17, 2014, 12:31:10 am
"So gehn die Gauchos und die Deutschen gehen so !"

Excellent.

lol
88  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD OLDIES YOU THICKHEADED ASSCLOWN on: July 17, 2014, 12:24:37 am
    WORST POST EVER POSSIBLY BELOW   

The Palestinians never secured their borders. Look where they are now.
89  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: July 17, 2014, 12:19:23 am
Well it's not "some Mexicans", you see. It's the government of the Republic of Texas.
I don’t quite get what you are saying here. It seems your being contradictory, but maybe I just assumed you had certain political views and never heard your further commentary on the Israel-Palestine.


That should have been "some Americans", not Mexicans.

The Palestinians never secured their borders. Look where they are now.

HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh

The only thing I get from this post is anti-Semitism.
90  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Office of Appt MW Speaker LeBron FitzGerald (Running for MW Archduke) on: July 16, 2014, 10:54:55 pm
Quote
20:19   Mikado   Xahar, first of all, my biggest problem is the idea that Russia's transuralic holdings aren't colonial simply because they're contiguous

This quote is proof the IRC is not the den of vipers it's paint to be.
91  General Politics / Economics / Re: Federal Debt to Reach 106% of U.S. Economy in 2039, CBO Says on: July 16, 2014, 09:30:51 pm
The economy will sag as baby-boomers move through the FICA system.

Can I have something to back up this statement? Not sure myself, but common sense suggests boomer retirements should open up a lot of career opportunities and unleash a lot of retirement $$$ consumption.

Yes, but how much money is that going to be?
92  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: July 16, 2014, 08:57:39 pm
Well it's not "some Mexicans", you see. It's the government of the Republic of Texas.
93  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: r/civilwar on: July 16, 2014, 07:41:46 pm
Where's Oldiesfreak when you need him?
94  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Good Post Gallery II on: July 16, 2014, 07:41:19 pm
The logic of these Confederate apologists is so deliciously stupid.  Essentially, it's the war didn't start because of slavery, it started because the North wanted to keep the Southern states in the Union.

Fine, that sort of makes sense from the historical perspective of after the South had succeeded in 1860.  But, that's basically taking an arbitrary point in history and pretending that nothing preceded 1860.  That's like saying trying to carjack someone and saying you got in a fight because they wouldn't let you drive their car away.  What was going on before 1860?  The Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Slave Law, the Dred Scott case, the international abolitionist movement gaining steam, the list goes on.  The South was desperately trying to preserve slavery at every opportunity.  The North wasn't 100% abolitionist and it certainly wasn't willing to start a war over abolition yet, obviously.  But, the reason the South succeeded was slavery and succession was the key proximate cause of the war.
95  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Can women be firemen or mailmen? on: July 16, 2014, 07:40:51 pm
Chairman is gendered, yes. I have never in any setting seen a woman referred to as a chairman, always a "chair."

I have seen a few instances. Arundhati Bhattacharya Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of India, Catherine Marron was Chairman of the Board Trustees of the New York Public Library, and Roberts Rules' instructs that a woman chair of a body be referred to as "Madam Chairman".

The main question here is whether "man" can be a gender neutral term.
96  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Good Post Gallery II on: July 16, 2014, 07:21:44 pm
Whether or not Lincoln invaded the South to end slavery misses the point entirely.  The real motives behind secession were evident and secession was inevitable from Lincoln's election.  Tariffs couldn't have been an issue for the South considering the backers of the Tariff of 1857 were primarily from Southern and agricultural states.
Probably because the Tariff of 1857 was a major tariff reduction. Lincoln campaigned heavily on his support for the Morrill Tariff of 1861, at that time still in Congress, which dramatically raised the average tariff rate from about 15% to about 37%, and was also supported strongly by Northern manufacturing interests. In the words of the Republican steel magnate Henry Carey, "Without out it [the protective tariff], Mr. Lincoln's administration will be dead before the the day of inauguration."

Quote
Slavery was the dominating issue during the 1860 campaign and it was one the last three presidents had to deal with almost exclusively (obviously I'm being slightly hyperbolic here).
Hyperbolic is an understatement. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong and no historian will tell you any different. Tariffs, Federal land policy, corporate subsidies, internal improvement projects, and territorial expansions were all major issues. Just to be clear, I'm not denying that Southern politicians were racist slavery supporters. I'm simply arguing that Lincoln's intent in invading the South was not the abolition of slavery, but rather the enforcement of tariff laws.

Quote
 
Whether Lincoln's ultimate goal was to preserve the Union or abolish slavery has no bearing on why the Civil War actually happened.  That much is proven by copious records of speeches, writings, formal declarations, and CSA state constitutions that have already been posted a thousand times on this site.  And no, the majority of Southerners did not own slaves, but that doesn't take away the fact that white supremacy was the key element that inspired revolt and that a number of Southerners (and some Northerners) were petrified at the very idea of living in black-majority states unless slavery was law.  Anything else is just a red herring.

In short, if slavery weren't an issue, the country probably wouldn't have broken into civil war, tariffs and other irrelevant crap be damned.
Tariffs were most certainly not irrelevant. Like in almost all American wars of conquest, powerful monied interests were a driving force behind the invasion. Following the first wave of seceding States, many Northern newspapers and merchants called for peaceful coexistence, citing the threat that war would pose to trade between the North and Lower South. They quickly changed their tune when the Confederate Constitution was fully drafted in March 1861. It contained a clause forbidding the imposition of import tariffs, which would have forced the Union to lower tariff rates in order to compete with tariff-free Confederate ports. This prospect alarmed Northern manufacturing interests, and despite the multitude of Northern editorials advocating allowing the Lower South to secede, few if any of that nature can be found after March 1861. Powerful businessmen began writing letters to Lincoln extolling the necessity of preserving the Union, and most if not all Northern newspapers that had previously supported the Lower South's right of secession (such as the New York Times) quickly reversed their position.

That, combined with fact that Lincoln threatened invasion over the tariff issue specifically, should be proof enough that tariffs were hardly irrelevant. 

On top of all that, you've still yet to offer any evidence for your position: That Lincoln invaded the South with the intent of abolishing slavery. You need to at least do that much before you can attack my position as nonsense.

Quote
At this point I'd like to politely escort our distinguished history scholars to a site with people more captivated to persons of their caliber.
Nice one bro.

I'll amend what I said before in that the tariff was reason for further Southern irritation, but it was still peripheral to the dominating issue of slavery.  Incidentally, the Morrill Tariff passed the Senate after seven states seceded which turned control of the Senate over to Republicans.  Secession is what allowed that tariff to pass.  It's also worth mentioning that northern political interests were not uniform in supporting the tariff (the Chamber of Commerce of New York petitioned the Senate not to adopt the tariff) and the issue was far more complex than "north versus south."  Even so, secession was not the only solution available to the tariff's opponents, especially since the tariff hadn't even been in effect yet, even though it makes for hell of a cover-up to Confederate sympathizers.

And, once again, Lincoln's own intentions for war has nothing to do with my point and I never tried to argue that he sought war for the purpose of abolishing slavery.  Lincoln's top priority was preserving the Union.  That doesn't mean the primal motive behind Southern rebellion wasn't slavery and that tensions would have been just as severe absent the slavery issue.

If you still insist on placing literally everything else above the slavery issue, you're wagering on faith.

I will leave you with this.

Quote from: Alexander Stephens, "Cornerstone Speech"
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—sub-ordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
97  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: July 16, 2014, 06:44:00 pm
You know that I am far, far from being a Zionist, but this is absurd. These four children died because Hamas decided they would launch scores of rockets into Israel. The Israelis were right to retialiate. If Mexico decided to randomly launch rockets at America, I'd want to bomb the hell out of the border towns. These four children died because of Hamas.

That being said, why is Hamas launching rockets to begin with? That is a fair question, but the actions of Hamas are not justified by their cause.

What does that mean? People talk about "anti-Zionism" a fair amount but do they really think that the Israelis should just pack their bags and leave the country? I've asked this before, but do you really believe Israel should not exist because this is Palestinian land? How is that any different from what the Israelis (besides the 1300-year-odd difference between their "presence") did in claiming the land for themselves?

In hindsight, I think the Middle East would have been off if Israel was not established in the Holy Land, but now that they are established, they shouldn't be forced out. They have every right to fight for their land, and I commend them for doing it.

But isn't that... Zionism? Had Mandatory Palestine become just another Arab Republic (Would it have, though?- all the British colonies in the Middle East were monarchies at independence) we wouldn't have all these issues surrounding Israel per se, yes. But I imagine any sort of Arab Republic/Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine would move very quickly to prohibit further immigration and at least attempt expelling Jews (or "recent settlers" as I'd imagine it'd be put) not long after. And of course there is the matter of what happens to the European Jews, who are not particularly inclined to remain where they are after what happened to them...
98  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: r/civilwar on: July 16, 2014, 06:11:53 pm
I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

This is also silly. I feel no particular feeling towards New Jersey and would leave the state if it were to secede. I might act differently if New York City were to secede but I'm certainly not becoming a citizen of the "Republic of New York" or anything like that. I mean this is decidedly un-patriotic, it's not expected from a conservative.

I have no ill will towards the Union and I hope it never, ever comes apart again. But we are the United States of America-a collection of fifty states with a variety of customs, traditions, and histories that are unique. We root for our local sports teams. Why should we not root for our state first and foremost?

Why should I feel any attachment to my state? Being born in Mobile as compared to New York would not have made all that much difference when compared to if I had been born in, say, Accra. And who says we all root for local teams? The silliness of that comparison aside (at least in terms of acting as if they are similar), it's untrue.

Actually defend it.

From whom? Child refugees? Central American job-seekers? I agree illegal immigration is not a good thing, which is uncontroversial, but the idea that undocumented immigrants pose some active menace to society from which we must defend ourselves is well, offensive.
99  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread on: July 16, 2014, 05:55:56 pm
You know that I am far, far from being a Zionist, but this is absurd. These four children died because Hamas decided they would launch scores of rockets into Israel. The Israelis were right to retialiate. If Mexico decided to randomly launch rockets at America, I'd want to bomb the hell out of the border towns. These four children died because of Hamas.

That being said, why is Hamas launching rockets to begin with? That is a fair question, but the actions of Hamas are not justified by their cause.

What does that mean? People talk about "anti-Zionism" a fair amount but do they really think that the Israelis should just pack their bags and leave the country? I've asked this before, but do you really believe Israel should not exist because this is Palestinian land? How is that any different from what the Israelis (besides the 1300-year-odd difference between their "presence") did in claiming the land for themselves?
100  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: r/civilwar on: July 16, 2014, 05:45:23 pm
I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

This is also silly. I feel no particular feeling towards New Jersey and would leave the state if it were to secede. I might act differently if New York City were to secede but I'm certainly not becoming a citizen of the "Republic of New York" or anything like that. I mean this is decidedly un-patriotic, it's not expected from a conservative.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 385


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines