lostboy

Naive??? Really??? Lets give that a little thought. A large segment of the population (naive people) voted for Obama, who had been a community organiser and had warmed a seat in the U.S. Senate. Obama had never held a real job, and was totally void of any leadership skills. Obama devastated the American economy, weakened the military, and divided the country as no one who served before him. These same people voted for him twice, and now support Hillary who wants to continue Obama's idiotic policies. So you think I'm naive because I support a successful business man, who can't be influenced by lobbyist or other vermin? How naive......

Out comes the tired old broken record "It's all Obama's fault". And it didn't take long for the racist stuff to reappear. Why is that? The White Right, the Supremacists, the Originalists are all about integration. The great 'Melting Pot' that only melted white Europeans together had definitely gone off the boil by the 20th century. So what do these supremacists want with their integration? That American culture be a monoculture defined by those who control the institutions. That is, the Whites. The Males. No multiculturalism allowed. No diversity here. And when a black man was elected President, the howls of anguish when Obama didn't turn white on 20 January 2009. This was meant to be a post racial America. All Blacks were meant to have become White, or at least honorary Whites and compliant to White culture.

But what happened? Obama forced the Supremacists to look into the abyss of their racism and they didn't like what they saw staring back. They saw minorities who demanded access to the American culture and require that culture to be inclusive of them. So the Supremacists fought back, inventing nasty terms like 'race baiting' to throw at anyone who dares to suggest that there is not a monoculture in America and there should not be either.

Obama did not divide America. He shone a light on the divisions that already existed. He showed the racists, supremacists, nativists and bigots for what they are. Naturally you do not like that. This constant immoderate anti-Obama crap is stupid. I fully expect it to continue under Hillary Clinton because the sad old white men don't seem to like women either; at least not as an equal deserving of respect.

Long live the Obama legacy.

Oy, stop it with the "black man" BS. He is only half black and was raised as a WHITE boy. His upbringing had BA to do with the experience of blacks in America.

Well, my question still remains. What did the White Right expect from the election of a Half Black Man as President? I believe their expectation was that this demonstrated that black people, at least the half black people were now accepted by the White Right because they committed to the White Monoculture and accepted the status quo in American culture. This did not happen. Having a half black man as President focussed attention on the demands of blacks, half blacks and other minorities. These demands were not for acceptance into the White monoculture; they were for the White monoculture to embrace diversity and to respect their voices. This is what the White Right now calls Race Baiting. This is what the Right White call PC. They were prepared to accept half black people into their culture but this did not "fix racism". The half black people did not want to integrate and accept the status quo. They wanted changes. So did other oppressed minorities.

How do you 'fix' racism? The claim that America entered a post racial environment on 21 January 2009 I believe is an attempt by the Right White to avoid confronting the real issues of racism and the difficult choices that are needed to address a long history of racial oppression. We are now being led further away from the core of the issue by the anti-PC mob. The old white men who sucker punch black guys at Trump rallies, while Trump endorses such viciousness by claiming some 'bad' people disrupt his Places of Worship.

You fix racism by respecting diversity. You fix it by institutional and power structures that are inclusive and wholly respectful of individual voices and concerns. You fix it by owning up to the past, confronting it and, if necessary, apologising for it. Australia did. It hasn't fixed racism. Neither has 40 years of multiculturalism. But it is certainly going in the right direction. Talk with young Australians and you will see this.

If find the half black reference distasteful. I did not make it the subject of my response but I will say that you do not get to define the identify of any individual apart from yourself. If Obama identifies as black, that is his right and his heritage. Your expectation that all black people should experience and exhibit the 'gangsta' heritage is self-evidently a racially inspired comment. It demonstrates to me the distance yet to be travelled in 'fixing' racism.

Since many of you liberals seem to think Obama doesn't "spin" his messages, do you think the following is "fact" or "spin"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama says David Cameron allowed Libya to become a 's*** show'

Tim Walker, Nigel Morris

12 hours ago

Barack Obama has sharply criticised David Cameron for the UK’s role in allowing Libya to become a “shit show” after the fall of the dictator Muammar Gaddafi, in an unprecedented attack on a British leader by a serving US President.

Mr Obama said that following a successful military intervention to aid rebels during the 2011 Arab Spring revolt, Libya was left to spiral out of control – due largely to the inaction of America’s European allies.

In a candid US magazine interview, Mr Obama said: “When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong… there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-says-david-cameron-allowed-libya-to-become-a-s-show-a6923976.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

He can't lay the blame on Bush so he goes to the next easy target.

What say you Brits..and other Euros?

It might be nice if you could provide some evidence of we Liberals claiming that Obama never spins, since you make it central to your attempt to stir up nativist Brits by posting this off topic information that is already the subject of another thread. I do not recall recent examples of the Brotherhood making such claims and as you know, our secret rites and ceremonies oblige us to use special code words to make sure we Liberals always stay on message. Do you happen to have any particular posters in mind, those that are not on your ignore list that is.

There is a huge conservative/ moderate ... and Independent National Uprising going in America that will be of Tsunami proportions by November voting time and a leftist wallpapering egotist here has no clue..

Again JD, you may want give Fox News a rest for a few days.

YUUUUGE!

You are WAY behind the times - completely out of touch with what is happening now in America ... your comment is circa 2008 ... You got to keep up. Fox news ? hahahahah... I have not watched Fox in 6-7 years and then only when changing channels ... I have a plethora of news sources from all over the world. I also keep in touch with Conservatives groups all over America... those who support Trump and those who do not ... Those who support Cruz and those who do not... and a host of other related subject matters... Your political acumen is that of a scratched 45 rpm record that just keeps skipping back to the beginning ... You will see in November of this year... Millions of voters who have not voted in 10-12 years are coming out of the woodwork to support the Anti-Democrat - Anti-Leftist - Anti-Socialist - Anti-Establishment candidates who will sweep Hillary into her jail cell ... and put Sanders in a assisted living home... If your lack of awareness of current events involved in the American political scene of 2016 were a vacuum all the air in Thailand would be sucked out..

I do not believe your Country Club, self-satisfied, selfish billionaire-worshippers will turn out in such numbers. Far easier for them to self medicate behind their gated communities on alcohol and xanax. They only roll up to the rallies because they are good consumers and Trump rallies have now become a bizarre form of tele-marketing.

The 2nd American Revolution? The old white men are certainly revolting. I predict Trump will attempt to start a new religion, like L. Ron Hubbard and continue to squeeze his gullible fanboys for all he can get.

Thank God for Trump. The only people who are shuddering over Trump becoming the next president, are corrupt politicians and the people who want something for nothing. Once Trump gets into the White House, the gravy train will be over for the lobbyist and the greedy, corrupt, soul-less, politicians who accept their money.

How naive........

Naive??? Really??? Lets give that a little thought. A large segment of the population (naive people) voted for Obama, who had been a community organiser and had warmed a seat in the U.S. Senate. Obama had never held a real job, and was totally void of any leadership skills. Obama devastated the American economy, weakened the military, and divided the country as no one who served before him. These same people voted for him twice, and now support Hillary who wants to continue Obama's idiotic policies. So you think I'm naive because I support a successful business man, who can't be influenced by lobbyist or other vermin? How naive......

Out comes the tired old broken record "It's all Obama's fault". And it didn't take long for the racist stuff to reappear. Why is that? The White Right, the Supremacists, the Originalists are all about integration. The great 'Melting Pot' that only melted white Europeans together had definitely gone off the boil by the 20th century. So what do these supremacists want with their integration? That American culture be a monoculture defined by those who control the institutions. That is, the Whites. The Males. No multiculturalism allowed. No diversity here. And when a black man was elected President, the howls of anguish when Obama didn't turn white on 20 January 2009. This was meant to be a post racial America. All Blacks were meant to have become White, or at least honorary Whites and compliant to White culture.

But what happened? Obama forced the Supremacists to look into the abyss of their racism and they didn't like what they saw staring back. They saw minorities who demanded access to the American culture and require that culture to be inclusive of them. So the Supremacists fought back, inventing nasty terms like 'race baiting' to throw at anyone who dares to suggest that there is not a monoculture in America and there should not be either.

Obama did not divide America. He shone a light on the divisions that already existed. He showed the racists, supremacists, nativists and bigots for what they are. Naturally you do not like that. This constant immoderate anti-Obama crap is stupid. I fully expect it to continue under Hillary Clinton because the sad old white men don't seem to like women either; at least not as an equal deserving of respect.

Long live the Obama legacy.

Topic: "Foreign diplomats voicing alarm to U.S. officials about Trump".

Of course they are alarmed. Trump is the only one talking about spoiling their party. They have free access to US markets while many deny the US free access to their markets. China is the biggest offender.

Trump scares the hell out of them because he would put America first for the first time in decades. He would protect American jobs instead of shipping them to third world countries. He would require other countries to start paying for their own defense instead of putting bases in the countries and/or patrolling their waters for them. He would wall off illegal aliens who come to the US, make money, and ship it back to their home countries.

They have a lot to be "alarmed" about but Americans don't. Especially Americans who'd like to have a good job don't.

Cheers.

Trump is entirely empty of coherent, rational policy. He says nothing. He represents nothing, except for the manifestation of what some Americans think is the American Dream; that is, to be rich. Since he is empty of substance, the devotees that are elevating this circus into a cult are able to project their own unfulfilled dreams and ambitions onto him. He is the strong man who will take actions long desired by the old white dispossessed. Whether it be walls, or reversing free trade deals or slam dunking Putin or Xi or anyone from South of the border. People can believe this because Trumps obfuscation allows them to project anything into his non-position.

So here the nativist, angry old chauvinist dreams of a Trump putting America first again. A quite meaningless and politically bankrupt concept. But hey, gotta teach those Euro puzzle commies what's what.

Naturally, many people of like minds do not realise what they may have to give up to get the trains running on time, until it is too late. Viva il Duce.

I have seen arabs successfully use enhanced interrogation and however distasteful it was at times I have watched them chase down a lead, round up a net, separate, interrogate, and work a group of people until one or the other gave up the information of a pending attack over a period of days. I saw this take place in few different countries. I have watched people who swear they were innocents not just give others up, or admit to things, but lead others to weapons stashes, explosives, etc. Hardly an example of saying something that's untrue than finding the bombs. The notion that it does not work is as ridiculous as the assertion that it always works.

Of course. You realize this because of your special forces experience. If it did not work on a regular basis, NO ONE would be using it. I am not a proponent except in very desperate circumstances, but the war on terror is nothing like traditional combat. Islamic terrorists target innocents on purpose and as many victims as possible.

The War on Terror does not exist. It never did. It is a fictional construct designed to allow the US to implement foreign and domestic policies that maintain the military-industrial complex and its control over channels of power. It is not like other wars because it is not a war. It is a manufactured State of Fear. Consequently, it will never end unless it adopts genocide as a solution.

I have seen arabs successfully use enhanced interrogation and however distasteful it was at times I have watched them chase down a lead, round up a net, separate, interrogate, and work a group of people until one or the other gave up the information of a pending attack over a period of days. I saw this take place in few different countries. I have watched people who swear they were innocents not just give others up, or admit to things, but lead others to weapons stashes, explosives, etc. Hardly an example of saying something that's untrue than finding the bombs. The notion that it does not work is as ridiculous as the assertion that it always works. This is why when it will be used or not should be anyone's guess, a prerogative of state or agent, and relative to the situation. But when we begin the capture with the foreknowledge that things will never get hard, we abuse our own tools. (The sick byproduct of this reality is why they mostly just kill them now).

We all know every person will talk, it is all a matter of time. Every person who has information has this information variously valuable relative to time or specificity. It is usually time. Every one knows certain information is throw away information to lessen the torture, and buy time. Why buy time? Because in buying time time sensitive information loses its value; tactical information depreciates quickly. Specific info might be useful, but is compromised with no context, no time. Every soldier, airmen, etc. can be made to talk and so they throw away information infrequently (while interrogated/tortured) as necessary to honor their nation and stay alive. But when you take the entire playbook from the enemies of the US they know as soon as they arrive they can stall for time and specificity. They know they can just remain silent and lawyer up. They know that they will not be compelled to fit pieces of a puzzle. They only need to wait out tough talk, lights, cold, bread, etc. Just wait. This is not a tool of state, this is a restriction of reason.

I do not argue the efficacy of torture. However, just because a thing can be done or is being done, does not mean that it should be done. To me, this is an issue of morality. As a secular humanist, there cannot be morality for me without reason. You argue for the application of reason to immorality. I do not believe that argument can stand if you believe that the essence of humanism is free will.

Your argument follows Nietzsche's concept of Will to Power which argues that the exploitation of the sentimental weaknesses of equality among people is essential for society's development. In his first essay in 'On the Genealogy of Morality' http://home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/360/genealogy1.htm, he presents his concept of Master-Slave morality, where slave morality values kindness, humility and sympathy while master morality pride, strength and nobility, values that seem to be prized by the Right. I cannot argue that your defence of torture is immoral since Nietzsche further proposes a moral nihilism that states that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. However, if you take the basis of morality as being reason and reason argues that free will forms the basis of the sovereignty of a person, then I think your defence of torture is indefensible and intrinsically immoral.

Fortunately, there are laws that support my view and the views of many others and again, I look forward to the day that all those involved in the use of torture and other war crimes are held to account.

" Enhanced interrogation." You gotta love the prissy, effete, bureaucratic language here. Be a real woman and call it what it is: torture.

(Note: No single terrorist in US custody has ever suffered more harm in interrogation than every single pilot and special forces soldier there is or has been since the 1960s. The entire argument against enhanced interrogation is so intellectually crippled it does not even arrive at a moral dilemma, just emotional appeal).

But after all, what's so bad about torture? Just because the USA ratified a treaty that banned the use of torture, so what? It's true that the Constitution states that once the USA ratifies a treaty it's the law of the land, but what of it? Only Marxist/Democratic Socialists would care about that. After all, that treaty was signed by one of our most effeminate, limp-wristed, liberal-loving presidents of all time: Ronald Reagan.

As for your claim that "no single terrorist has ever suffered more harm etc....." that must mean that every single pilot and special forces soldier is dead. Because the USA has tortured alleged terrorists to death. I guess this means that our armed forces are made up of zombies.

Here's one source: http://www.vice.com/read/hypothermia-broken-limbs-and-rectal-feeding-details-from-the-cia-torture-report-129

1. Do not bastardize posts by re editing the content and/or deleting the posts in part to change the meaning. You have done this. Don't! Pretty sure its not permitted and your post above shows why!

Enhanced interrogation is the subject. Appeals to emotion aside, torture has never been approved nor argued. Its only what falls loosely or arguably under "enhanced interrogation" that is the subject of discourse. Torture is already covered and illegal under numerous laws. All special forces etc undergo enhanced interrogation, water boarding, etc. This is, after all, the eye candy defining issue of enhanced interrogation.

I am unsure the purpose in the Dulles article VI argument above. The non sequitar of what constitutes the supreme law of the land is hardly fitted well in what point your aiming for. This reasoning is so fallacious as to be absurd.

My point remains valid; it is. US soldiers undergo the same abuses and yes, no, sometimes, lines have been crossed, hypothermia, mistakes, deaths, etc. All in all, many thousands have trained at SERE schools since the 60s and its utility is priceless. No combatant who's an existential threat to America should be afforded protections that we do not expect our own soldiers to be afforded in the battlespace. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/01/cancel_waterboarding_101.html

This defence of torture hangs on three key elements; calling torture 'enhanced interrogation' avoids any legal or moral association with torture; the fact that some US soldiers are subjected to some of these torture techniques gives license for the US military to use such techniques on anyone they choose; and, the end justifies the means and the end is countering an existential threat.

On all three counts, the arguments are both amoral and immoral.

Enhanced Interrogation is torture. It uses techniques that have been classified as torture and have been banned by both international and domestic US law. Offering the pretence that enhanced interrogation and torture are not synonymous is offensive to any logical thinker. Just as Guantanamo Bay is a legal fiction to allow the US to evade international and domestic laws, so the use of the term 'Enhanced Interrogation' is a dishonest attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The little dance over this issue fools nobody.

The article that is referenced above mentions that some of these torture techniques were introduced in the 1960's into special training regimes for some US military forces. Once might ask what objectives were expected at that time in the geopolitical context, remembering that this was the height of the Cold War and whether such objectives are consistent with the current US adventurism in the Middle East. I would suggest that any military organisation that continues to use techniques designed 2 generations ago in an entirely different global and national security context is operating more on inertia that reasoned or strategic thinking and planning. The continued support for the use of torture could well be their version of the Maginot Line. They may be preparing for the wrong war.

Sophocles wrote in Electra circa 409 BC that "The end excuses any evil" http://www.thewallstreetpsychologist.com/recent_posts/the-mystery-of-machiavellis-intentions/ Others, most notably Machiavelli have developed that theme further. The nativist Americans who make a fetish of the Founding Fathers often do not recognise the shoulders on whom the 'Founders' stood. One of these was Immanuel Kant, an 18th Century Prussian who built on Rousseau's work to establish the ideological basis of republican governance, i.e. a people not governed by a sovereign. Kant said that there is only one innate right - Freedom. He wrote in 'Metaphysics of Morals' that "Freedom (independence from being constrained by another's choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law." 6:238 Page 30. The idea that the end justifies the means would appear to directly contradict the ethics and morality and defined by one of the Father's of the Founding Fathers. A Founding Grandfather if you will. In any case, this morally and ethically indefensible notion is posed as a response to an existential threat. This is paranoia and hyperbole of the highest order. Data abounds about the number of deaths in the US caused by ISIS. These antagonists do not pose an existential threat to the World's largest economy with an annual military budget of around USD$700bn and around 300,000 people on active duty.

The poster demonstrates how the American War on Islam has created an incomprehensible situation for the received wisdom on armed conflict. No doubt enormous resources have gone into the analysis of asymmetric warfare and perhaps America will be ready to fight this war after a political solution is reached and the world moves on to the next war.

A defence of torture is not justifiable in any way. Not on the basis of semantic dishonesty, contrived moral equivalency or the moral sovereignty of humankind. Such attempts demean humanity. Kudos to those Americans who served in the military who speak out against torture and other abuses and war crimes committed by the US in defiance of international law and convention. Kudos to David J Morris who did such in the link that the poster provided http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/01/cancel_waterboarding_101.html Such people can start to undo the shame that their colleagues have done in past generations by trying to defend and justify such action. I look forward to a time when all persons who commit war crimes are prosecuted and punished under international law.

What a pity that all these torture promoters aren't themselves subject to such a procedure.

I would like to see Trump being waterboarded to hear about his tax "avoidance".

The same for all the unscrupulous rightwings here in the forum. After all ask him/them again about waterboarding and torture.

The longer Trump is in the headlines because of his screwed news, the more I think about a new specimen of mankind in parts of the US

• they must have one new gene on their DNA which is connected to violence, inhumane and cruel behaviour plus offence

• with a brain - if existing at all - slipping out of the head down below the belt or belly

• with a heart and common sense - the same as above

• who like rich men no matter what they are yapping

• who like egomaniacs, completely uncontrolled, biased in discussions, specially in TV

How to improve this?

Listen to Trump or read the comments of the VISA rightwings (if you are able to endure it).

There are always more liberal forums you can join. You might avoid all this nastiness.

Strange Charles that you see TVF as a natural home for the right-wingers. Don't be fooled by the grumpy, old, white pensioner demographic. You have probably placed so many people on your ignore list that you only ever read posts from like-minded people.

The Trump fanboys think he is immune no matter how egregious his statements or actions. The real heat is just starting. You lot are going to have your work cut out for you finding ways to spin such a crass, low taste candidate.

I have always believed that these "identified" terrorists have but one solid connection to reality......family. Their ties and allegiance to their family are stronger than their Islam ideology. Therefore I always believed that to capture and arrest the terrorist's family members would be an effective strategy at stopping these suicide bombers dead i their tracks.

The CIA or whomever should task themselves with having their family dissappear. I think even Trump eluded to this suggestion earlier.

Islam is in fact often defined as transcending loyalty to family. In islam, it is islam, the family, the tribe, the region, the state... in this order. Family is not before islam! Islam=Submission.

It remains a great curiosity for me that most people I know have been waterboarded, lay naked in their own feces, freezing in a concrete box, lights on, heavy metal music blasting and marching steps day after day after day after day but for jihadists who are avowed to destroy us, we think this is a step too far. There most certainly is a point where I am prepared to discard my humanity for information. Those who cannot see this either lack the knowledge to understand the threats or lack the tools to mentally exercise this to conclusion.

You have a strange circle of friends or acquaintances if most of them have such experiences as you describe. Is there some club started by G. Gordon Liddy or Oliver North that imposes such endurances on initiates? Is is this just the way such types pass the time?

I find your defence of torture inhuman and inhumane. It was illegal even before US domestic legislation made it so recently. It is and was a war crime. Your moral compass has dehumanised a certain group defined by their religion as sub human and deserving of such treatment. Do not be surprised then that situations may arise where others' lives are put at risk by those with similar moral bankruptcy as yourself. These issues have direct bearing on me and my place of work.

President Obama continues to try and put the genie that was released by Nixon, Reagan and most notoriously by GW, back into the bottle. A Trump Presidency would see free reign given to your acquaintances to practice their inhumanity on others in the hollow name of security or their religion or other ideology. Such things have happened before in history.

US/UK/Coalition overthrow gov'ts in Iraq and Afghanistan = no migrant or refugee crisis

US/UK/Coalition do not get involved in Syria and we end up with ISIS and the largest, most dangerous migration in human history into Europe.

One of the lines Bush 43, etc used to say 10-15 years ago was something like "we are going over there to fight them so we don't have to fight them over here". Well, turns out that was 100% correct after all. Critics can claim that the USA created ISIS...maybe, but under Bush ISIS would be too busy fighting for survival in the desert instead of being allowed to conduct their reign of terror across MENA and flooding Europe with sleeper cells.

It would be nice if those right wing hayseeds from the flyover states could actually know what they are talking about when they sprinkle their minuscule pearls of unwisdom around. Case in point, the remarkable thesis that neocon military adventurism prevented refugees from those countries who were fortunate enough to receive the attention of the Great Liberator. Well, for those interested in actual facts, Afghans comprise the 2nd largest group in the current wave of refugees to Europe. Afghanistan is experiencing massive capital flight, around US$120 billion so far most of which has gone to people smugglers. Last years operational budget for the Government of Afghanistan was USD$8 billion. I learned this from the CEO of one of Afghanistan's functioning commercial banks during my work there. It is supported by other reports and references http://www.cfr.org/migration/europes-migration-crisis/p32874.

Tell me, O Great One, what is the reason for this great Afghan diaspora if not for the blessings and attention of G.W. and his Mighty Marvels?

You then double down on stupid by pontificating about ISIS, a malignancy created by G.W. and his team of incompetent non-nation builders, chief among them Pro Consul Paul Bremer, recipient of the American Medal of Freedom.

This is just so representative of the sort that are voting for Trump and explains why he can lead them around by the nose so easily.

Few OPs so blatantly betray their agenda and politics as this one. This author is either terribly ignorant or the editor and author are both liars. The "news" is presented here is a fictional quandary, set up as these things are by the left to use fear mongering to crisis govern. So, according to this buffoon the Supreme Court is effectively a sabbatical until another justice is appointed. The OP pretty clearly suggests that much of the nation's business cannot be conducted should those pesky republicans block advise and consent. Wrong!

This OP is garbage politics. SCOTUS can adjudicate with 8 justices and there is precedent for an even number of justices, including its creation. Furthermore, there is a highly evolved mechanic for rendering cases that are tried back to their venue, origination. They too are competent justices. This OP is one of the now common examples of misinformation stalking as news; it is not. News like this revises facts and history. Either someone is so stupid that they do not know what they are writing is wrong/incomplete, or they are intentionally lying. The US education system is broken but not yet producing people that are this stupid, so this is lies.

Gridlock is not a byproduct of a broken system. Gridlock is like inflammation is to the body. It is the natural and planned response to try to save the body when it moves rapidly from its narrow zone conducive to life. Inflammation may eventually kill you itself, but for the most part inflammation acts to enable the organism to survive. Gridlock is the intentional friction built into the system to stop crisis to crisis emotional governing, impulsive or fundamental transformation, and ceases the wheels of State- grindhalt/gridlock.

Its is to this lie that Big Government proponents peddle their deceit- the population does not want gridlock. Wrong! Gridlock saves; midterm and this elections overwhelmingly suggest the population wants everything to stop moving "forward" for a time.

Your answer to Big Government is a repellent nihilism of nothingness. Such nothingness emerging from the inability for any decisions to be taken as a result of this gridlock panacea. The far right and their complete rejection of sense. They don't like the word democrat so they reject the idea that the US is a Democracy. They hate the word Progressive with such a passion that some call for a stop to all 'forward movement' preferring instead an endless cycle of gridlock, shut downs and filibuster. Do we have a voter for Raphael Cruz here?

What then does your stand still solution offer Americans? Wikipedia tells us that were around 83 million Millenials in the US in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials. This is the coming generation. These are the ones who are replacing the tired old Baby Boomers and will soon replace the Gen X'ers, both with their tired selfishness. What does your nihilism off them? The status quo is what you offer them. A financial system that actively rewards the rich and has been widening the income inequality gap for a generation. Weakened regulations of the financial system resulting in cyclical booms and busts creating havoc for the middle class. A legacy of failed military interventionism and the creation of radical terrorist groups. A military-security-industrial state that rides roughshod over personal liberties and privacy in the name of national security but in reality only for the purpose of protecting feudal-like fiefdoms and their budgets circling the power centres in the US. A social policy formed on the basis of the denial of universal human rights to satisfy a small minority of religious fanatics. This is what your Gridlock will give to the next generation.

They reject this utterly. The current election cycle is demonstration of this. You no longer have any choice in the matter. This next generation is taking the decision away from the Establishment, the Non Progressives, the Stick in the Muds, the Bigots, the Party of No.

And thank goodness for it.

I am sure the Millenials will make as many mistakes as the Baby Boomers and Gen X'ers. But I am already liking a lot of what they stand for. Real social equality. Real financial equality. Respect for diversity. Respect for the environment. The Age of Heroes (I have stolen the term from the novel Proxima by Stephen Baxter) that started after WWII where America could succeed in heroic projects irrespective of how many resources were consumed is coming to an end. Such an Age is not sustainable. The Millenials realise this. Shale Gas and Shale Oil may give the Energy Economic, the basis for the Age of Heroes a few hundred more years but then what. Your status quo is not environmentally, economically or socially sustainable. Your status quo relies on the maintenance of an under class, many of whom are undocumented immigrants who are both reviled and needed by the US.

Progress is inevitable. It cannot be stopped. The coming generation will see to it. The values and limited world view of the reactionaries will be swept aside and replaced with something new.

It has already started with America's small jump to the left (with homage to Rocky Horror) under President Obama and will be continued in the next generation with a majority left leaning SCOTUS.

This is the same supreme court that awarded Bush his election victory over Gore wasn't it? Hmm.

The citizens of Florida elected Bush. Try to keep up.

Constantly on the wrong side of history. You will find that a corrupt political hack by the name of Katherine Harris played a significant role in delivering Florida to Baby Bush firstly by illegally purging many African American voters from Florida's rolls, with the connivance of Baby Bush's baby brother, the failed 2016 Presidential Candidate and then by directly interfering with the will of a number of voters by rejecting ballots due to those hanging chads (over-votes) caused by obsolete technology. She was rewarded with a seat in the US congress for a while before demonstrating her financial and political corruption and incompetence and was booted out.

The devil is in the details Chuck.

1915....relevant today...how?

get over it

And why is it not relevant? I guess you are a person who has never fought for anyones' freedoms? Many gave their lives so that idiots like you have the freedom to make your obnoxious comments

So I would suggest you get over it and get a real life.

And, yes, I am an ex serviceman and proud of it.

I would be quite interested to know how killing Turkish people protected even one Australian person's freedom in the 2nd decade of the 20th Century.

Cultural icon or sacred cow. Looking at the hysterical comments of a few in response to this issue leads me to believe that a cultural icon has now become distorted. Those who are loudest on this issue have no claim to a larger share of the ANZAC tradition than any other Australian or New Zealander, irrespective of whether they served or not. It is part of our shared heritage. It has been given to us by those who came before us. No one person has the moral right to require anyone to feel a certain way about this tradition. Each person will respond to the tradition in their own way. This includes Vietnamese Australians. This includes war veterans. This includes Muslim Australians. Everyone.

I will not bore people with my own connections to the ANZAC tradition nor what it meant to me growing up as an Australian. I certainly would not attempt to dictate to anyone they way in which they should respond to the tradition. It seems to me that if our cultural icons are now being claimed by the lunatic fringe to promote some cultural stereotype and create division in society and hatred towards minorities, then it has become a sacred cow, ripe for slaughter.

Nobody need to prove their patriotism on this issue. Every town in Australia, large and small has a war memorial. Most of us have participated in dawn services and marches on ANZAC Day at some part of our lives. We all share in this tradition and nobody gets to tell anyone else how to interpret the tradition.

There has been no "perfectly right" war!

ANZAC day recognises those who paid the sacrifice for something that was believed in at the time - not a belief in retrospect.

I do not agree. Memorial and Remembrance Days, like Anzac Day do not honour ideology but the individual sacrifice. The last surviving veterans from WWI passed away just a few years ago. It has passed into history. Those living today are entitled to make of this historical event what they will.

Joshstiles asks how the events of 1915 are relevant today. I do not look to the traditions that honour the sacrifice of the soldiers in WWI to answer that questions. WWI set the scene in many ways for the 20th Century. It marked the dividing line between the rule of the aristocratic elite that inherited wealth and power and was a step in full democratisation and the extension of universal suffrage. The disproportionate number of dead in WWI came from the lower classes who were used as cannon fodder by ignorant generals fighting the last war which to them was the Franco Prussian War of 1870. They ignored the lessons from the American Civil War, which was the first conflict to introduce many of the technologies used in WWI such as barbed wire and prototype machine guns and the Russo Japanese War of 1904 where an upstart country using technology defeated a country ruled more like the l'ancien regime than a modern 20th century country.

Lots can be discussed about the significant and implications of WWI. There is room for dissention. In fact there needs to be revisionism and critique to draw more lessons from such a horrific and horrible experience. You wish to keep your traditional sacred cow. Fine. But others have the right to question and challenge.

He who lives behind tall walls with the Swiss Guard guarding him and keeping everyone out, shouldn't throw stones.

MR HYPOCRITE POPE: TEAR DOWN THESE WALLS.

An aerial view.

2nd_rome_film_festival__aeria_0_1455809553.jpg

http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/pope-says-trump-is-not-christian-14396554

I do believe those walls have been in place for a few hundred years, hardly something this pope built, not to mention many of them form parts of the building structures, not all of them of course.

I did not say the Pope built it ... but he lives in it. And purportedly the walls were built to protect the Vatican from invading Muslim hordes long ago.. One cannot live in a Enormous walled compound - actually a city-state and receive benefits from the security it provides then assail others for wanting to build a wall for security. And if people die trying to get across the desert from Mexico into the USA - IT IS A KNOWN FACT FOR DECADES THAT IT IS DANGEROUS. And that with full knowledge that such a crossing are dangerous people who do it anyway are fools not victims nor heroes. We as American citizens have FULL RIGHT to protect ourselves and our country... The Pope is a radical socialist who feels the need to become a politician -- he should return to his country and run for political office. His comments to any American or our my country is an affront - an insult. He came to the U,S. not long ago and insulted us - he may be the pope but he is not God ... he is nothing more than a radical leftist hiding behind his cloak .. If he keeps this up after the new president is elected I hope the new president Trump or Cruz invites the Vatican Diplomatic mission over for a chat and tell them advising the pope to stay out of American affairs would result in their Embassy being allowed to remain occupied by their Diplomatic Corps.

I am happy to say that the Pope's words increased Trump's popularity considerably ...

The far right marginal loonies in a tizzy because the Pope is a bit of a lefty. So all the nativists are outraged by a universally loved representative of the World'd longest existing institution. Let's see - comparing what Pope Francis has achieved as pontiff as well as throughout his life to some old whinger whose existence probably only really impacts on some ladies on the streets of Phuket.

In your hysteria, you offer wildly historically inaccurate garbage. Did you get the Muslim stuff from the GatesofVIenna website? Hint. Its the Gates of Vienna, not the Gates of Rome. You could have mentioned Carthaginians, Huns, Lombards and others, but you can't say Muslims because they never actually attacked Rome. But that doesn't fit your story does it.

Makes one pine for the days when denial of Papal Infallibility was punishable by death.

Who then is fit to pass judgement? The millions of people whose rights were not respected by this bigot? Every one of those people would wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by ALLSEEINGEYE. Deal with it.

His fellow Supreme Court judges, Senate and House representatives, and other judges are fit to pass judgement.

Who are these "millions of people whose rights were not respected"?

There are 9 judges on the Supreme Court.

Who are the other judges that do not give judgements that suit your way of thinking?

Are they bigots as well?

Not surprising that you do not see those who have been affected by the lack of respect for human rights by the right wing faction of SCOTUS. All those denied legal recognition of marriage, all those denied access to loved ones dying of AIDS because they had no 'family' status and their relationships not recognised, all those who are denied access to planned parenthood and abortions because of obstacles being put upon service providers, all those whose political voices were diminished when it was decided that money is political speech so the poor are oppressed even more.

The numbers will be in the millions. These millions will be invisible to you. They were invisible to Scalia and his side-kicks. They are invisible to the radical right; the ones who say screw anyone who can't keep up with those who began with privileges in the first place or those who don't fit the received wisdom pf what is 'normal' ad decided by old white men.

Scalia was a public figure. Any citizen has the right to pass judgement. So do non-citizens when the influence of that public figure extends beyond their nation's border. Your selective little group of who is entitled to judge Scalia? What means this? More Republican elitism BS I guess. Have to have been to the right school. Have to have the right friends. Have to belong to the right clubs. Only then can you presume to make comments about the sacred elite. At least Liberal Elitism is meritocratic.

Yes it certainly does Charles but discussing it would be off topic

What's the topic again, LOL? Oh yeah, a death and perhaps a nomination...

If Obama makes a nomination at this point, it will be for political reasons - an attempt to influence the upcoming election. No? Just watch. It will be someone with a very large constituency which could be miffed by a rejection. Yes it will be.

Then the Repubs will get accused of being "obstructionist" if they refuse to play along with that bullshit. That's the plan. It's always the plan. Do something outrageous and then blame someone else for obstructing objecting.

Will someone please give this hint to Obama? - If you nominate someone, he at least should have graduated from law school.

Thank you.

Constitution fetishisers. Except when it doesn't suit them. It is the President's duty to nominate a replacement of the Supreme Court. Except when Republicans are worried they will lose control. There is no requirement for a nominee to be a lawyer. Except when Republicans believe otherwise. You assume a male will be nominated? On all three counts, such deep hypocrisy is demonstrated. All that hand-on-the-heart constitutionalist nativist-exceptionalist crap that you've been pushing is shown as just ideological bigotry.

Why should Obama go? Scalia was a a bigot and did everything he could to back big business. Worked to eliminate the EPA was against gay rights etc etc.

You go to a funeral to pay your last respects.

I doubt Obama has any respect for this poor excuse for a man so why should he go?

America is better off with this guy dead!!!

You don't seem to know anything about him, and you are certainly not fit to pass judgement on him.

Perhaps you should change your username to "blindedbyignorance"?

Who then is fit to pass judgement? The millions of people whose rights were not respected by this bigot? Every one of those people would wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by ALLSEEINGEYE. Deal with it.

Let;s see if Obama can do the right thing and attend Scaliia's funeral.

I wonder at your presumption to thing that what President Obama does is any of your business.

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

You have admitted to being Australian.

"How have his decisions affected you personally?"

After all your rhetoric, please answer the question.

You keep asking me to answer questions I already answer. I found a case. I quoted the case, I explained how Scalia's points of view can influence people in other countries. What else do you want? I am sure as an old Texan you know the phrase that you can lead a horse to water...

Unless this is classic baiting. Is your point that SCOTUS' jurisdiction is only in the USA and not in other countries etc. Being a bit of a strict constructionist yourself I think. I think my words are sufficiently clear in terms of responding to your goad. I won't explain them again. You may choose to express dumb insolence on this matter.

Uh, those are dissenting opinions, which means he was in the minority and his opinion did not prevail.

Have any of his dissenting opinions kept you from marrying the person of your choice or had any other direct impact on your life?

Now try and find a majority opinion he wrote that affects any laws in Australia, Thailand or anywhere else outside the US.

And just for the record, if you believe any laws in Australia have ever had any impact on me personally or if I even care what you people do with your laws, you are far off the mark.

I simply don't care what you folks do but please don't try and tell me a dissenting opinion made by a US Supreme Court Justice affects the laws of Australia or any other country.

You don't play fair Chuck. You keep changing the rules. I know what you mean. You know what I mean.

No need for 1950's accoutrement straight out of Howdy Doody. Are we regressing in our old age? The post in question is neatly embedded as the initiating post in the nested posts above (deleted for space unfortunately). You call the first black President of the United States a racist. Didn't even have to go back to post 9,999.

Minority voices speaking against whites is not racism. it is legitimate protest against oppression. Are minorities racist? By your definition, yes. But you define racism as bigotry. I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race. Take a typical comment from Al Sharpton:

“So (if) some cracker come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. That means their forefathers was crooks.”http://www.infowars.com/the-hilarious-racism-of-al-sharpton/

You should appreciate this coming from one of your right wing sources. You will no doubt, like Infowars.com brand this as racist. I see it as a legitimate protest against the ability of one racial group to control the socio-economic and cultural levers of a society.

It does not matter how many thousands of posts you have made or how many times you fall down laughing. You purposefully choose not to hear the voices of minorities. You substitute scorn for engagement. You believe that mere bigotry overshadows real and actual discrimination against minorities. Your White Privilege blinds you to any sense of comprehension of minority voices. You dare to accuse the first black President of the United States of being a racist. There is no defence of that. You entirely miss the point. You have nothing to contribute on the issue of racism, discrimination or equality of opportunity. These concepts do not enter the metaphor that you call your existence.

You lost what little credibility you have when you quoted Al Sharpton as your racial guru.

Hook, line and sinker Chuck. I knew you would be easy to catch on this one. Your own racism blinds you to everything in the face of the name of Al Sharpton. You are congenitally unable to make your brain interpret any other words or statement.

Is it not boring being so predictable?

Am happy to elaborate on my reasoning in that post at any time if you are ever able to keep an even keel.

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

You have admitted to being Australian.

"How have his decisions affected you personally?"

After all your rhetoric, please answer the question.

You keep asking me to answer questions I already answer. I found a case. I quoted the case, I explained how Scalia's points of view can influence people in other countries. What else do you want? I am sure as an old Texan you know the phrase that you can lead a horse to water...

Unless this is classic baiting. Is your point that SCOTUS' jurisdiction is only in the USA and not in other countries etc. Being a bit of a strict constructionist yourself I think. I think my words are sufficiently clear in terms of responding to your goad. I won't explain them again. You may choose to express dumb insolence on this matter.

No need for 1950's accoutrement straight out of Howdy Doody. Are we regressing in our old age? The post in question is neatly embedded as the initiating post in the nested posts above (deleted for space unfortunately). You call the first black President of the United States a racist. Didn't even have to go back to post 9,999.

Minority voices speaking against whites is not racism. it is legitimate protest against oppression. Are minorities racist? By your definition, yes. But you define racism as bigotry. I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race. Take a typical comment from Al Sharpton:

“So (if) some cracker come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. That means their forefathers was crooks.”http://www.infowars.com/the-hilarious-racism-of-al-sharpton/

You should appreciate this coming from one of your right wing sources. You will no doubt, like Infowars.com brand this as racist. I see it as a legitimate protest against the ability of one racial group to control the socio-economic and cultural levers of a society.

It does not matter how many thousands of posts you have made or how many times you fall down laughing. You purposefully choose not to hear the voices of minorities. You substitute scorn for engagement. You believe that mere bigotry overshadows real and actual discrimination against minorities. Your White Privilege blinds you to any sense of comprehension of minority voices. You dare to accuse the first black President of the United States of being a racist. There is no defence of that. You entirely miss the point. You have nothing to contribute on the issue of racism, discrimination or equality of opportunity. These concepts do not enter the metaphor that you call your existence.

I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race.

The Oxford dictionary does not agree with you. They mention NOTHING to do with systemic or system.

Where your claim that only whitey is racist falls down, is that in countries with non white ethnicity, those people are just as racist as whitey in white majority countries.

The most racist people I have ever met were not white.

The Oxford English dictionary does agree with me. You may refer to its entry on institutional racism http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/institutional-racism. In any case, why do you look to other sources to validate your opinions. I merely offer a construct in which to understand the concept of racism. Such constructs are accepted methodologies in critical analysis. Not all constructs remain valid but they are a tool to help achieve understanding.

I am a member of a minority but not based on race. I have been subject to personal and institutional discrimination. My construct helps me transfer my personal experience to other minority experiences. You may download an interesting article on construct validity from Harvard at https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3708469/Rosenthal_QuantifyingConstruct.pdf?sequence=1 to understand the methodology.

I do not claim that only whites are racist under structural racism. Whatever ethnicity controls the socio-economic and cultural levels of power in a society can be guilty of racism. I addressed this with reference to Zimbabwe in response to another poster.

My contention is that in white dominated society, non-whites cannot be accused of being racist against whites because they have no access to the institutions that oppress them. What you call racism is what I call bigotry which conforms to your selected definition of racism from OED i.e. "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism. It just so happens that that I do not need that definition in my construct because I am trying to understand the causes of such beliefs as a result of structural or institutionalised racism. You may want to google metaracism, aversive racism and books by Joel Kovel.

Oh, I know what a racist is. We have one in the White House as we speak.

Reverse racism is not a thing. It does not exist in a world where racism is defined as a system of advantages based on race, also known as White Privilege. Non-whites do not benefit from systemic, institutionalised racism, so consequently such people cannot be defined as racist.

White-victimhood now from the extreme white right. The embodiment of crass.

You are correct that "Reverse racism is not a thing", as there is no such thing as "reverse" racism. There is only racism, which can be carried out by any coloured people against any other coloured people, or even people of one colour against people of the same colour but a different race. ie English vs Irish, or even Protestant Irish vs Catholic Irish ( different races, same colour ).

Your concept of racism is narrowly confined to mere bigotry. Racism is more than just one person saying "I don't like that person because they are ..." Cultural chauvinism is common to all people. Much of it is instinctive. Much of it is learned. This type of racism is not what concerns me. This type of racism can be removed by education, awareness and engagement. What concerns me is a system that protects the benefits and privileges of the 'master race' while denying benefits and privileges to minorities; minorities not just based on race but also other disadvantaged or similarly defined groups such as LGBT people, disabled people etc. One minority being racist against another minority does not fit my definition of racism. Both minorities have no control over the instruments of power in a society so they are both victims of racism by the dominant power. The fact that an African American says something nasty about a Latino American or a Vietnamese descended Australian national says something nasty about a Lebanese descended Australian is just cultural bigotry. It is a form of racism but remains at the level of bigotry. Similarly with your other examples.

What is of concern is the use of systems and institutions to deny the equality of opportunity to all persons because of the race or other minority status.

Scalia was a proponent of this, most notably in terms of LGBT issues. People like Scalia hide their bigotry behind the excuse of being strict constitutional constructionists. That is just a cowardly way of avoiding the admission of their own prejudice.