Caecus

But replying is a !@#$ because, like I explained before in the last post, I have to scroll up and down the page to reply. Dog whistle politics involves using euphemisms that is understood by one particular electorate to mean a generally unpopular policy, I know. You again, misunderstood my analysis of PC culture. PC culture is the gentrification of verbatim with the intent of painting a pretty picture of inclusion without feeling the need (and subsequent guilt of inaction) of solving the inherent underlying social issues. I have described exactly that in my post. I can bold it for you so you can see where that is:

It's hard to ignore you when you reply to my posts, even if that post isn't in reply to one of your posts. Besides, I don't know how to do that. Also, I can understand why you find your way better. All you have to do is quote, and then go to the specific section that you want to reply to and start typing. It means you don't have to scroll up and down to look at what you are replying to and then typing. It is objectively better and easier than having to quote someone and then typing in the box below. But the reason why we do it is because of a little something called common !@#$ing decency. By spending just a bit more effort, other people can save the effort of having to scroll up and down the !@#$ing forum for your damn post. For god's sake, even I give common decency to people like Lightning, and he doesn't know how to use a goddamn apostrophe! PC and Dog Whistle Politics are two different things. You are misunderstanding my analysis of what PC culture is.

See this blank space when I try to quote you? That's being dick enough. If you are too damn lazy to type out your reply normally, why should I go the extra mile and try to reply?

Yep! I agree. I just thought an annex of the three slaves Lee beat would really hit the message home. Or the war dead at Benning. I suppose a plaque could work, but I've learned to never underestimate people's ability to not get the point. Right. But I'm saying that PC is, regardless of the time frame of when it happened, inherently stupid. Just like how the verbatim equivalent of ignorance is used as an insult, regardless of what that word may be. In 1810, it was "cookynanny." In 1980, it was "stupid." In the modern era today, it is "Lightning." The point isn't that it changed over time, the point is that it still remains an insult, and it is the insult that is offensive. PC has always resulted in one thing: the objectification and commoditization of people. It's PC to not say "retarded," but still shit on people with mental illness and ignore the mental health crises in the same way it is PC to glorify confederate generals in the "spirit of reconciliation" while the entire country ignores mob lynchings and Jim Crow laws of the south. PC of these issues allow us to pretend to care about issues without having to address the root of the problem. Our changing views on what is currently PC has nothing to do with the fact that these statues and monuments were the embodiment of PC in the first place, and it's disgusting. Lol. Not DDT? Cause that would be more appropriate, I would imagine.

If the idea that you put up statues is because they are somehow tied to a certain nationality, why don't I have a statue? Sure, you could argue that I'm more or less a nobody working a 9 - 5 job that likes to troll people on the internet, but I have an idea and a point that I would like to convey. We build statues because we see some positive aspect in them that, in a collective social memory, we have decided to retain. Since you mentioned "denazification," I'll just let the millions of Goebbels statues (because Hitler is Austrian, duh.) show how much Germans love making statues of Germans. This argument makes sense, except that it discounts a couple of things: First, your argument assumes that these forts and streets were already named during the reconstruction period. That is incorrect. Again, most of these monuments, streets, and forts were christened after the Spanish-American war in an effort to unify the nation by placating southerners and allowing them to glorify their homegrown terrorists. Second, removing these monuments and rebranding these fort and street names do serve a purpose. Besides the fact that some descendants of slaves might find it rather distasteful to serve in a fort bearing the name of a person who decided to kill people in order to preserve the institution of racialized enslavement, these forts are implicit reminders that the US government still recognizes a sectionalism that should have died at the end of 1945 and is actively still placating a (in my opinion) dead vision of a divided country and a return to an economy built on the backs of forced laborers. Thirdly, and this is super important, these names also serve to sanitize the southern secessionist cause. Seeing as how people can barely remember what year the war of 1812 started, people who are uninformed may (in their continued ignorance) look at these names and think to themselves that they must have been great people who have done significant things for our country. Little do they know, these people represent a fragmented identity of a section of a country built on the backs of forced servitude that actively fought in the nation's bloodiest war in order to retain the profits of owning another human being and is now being represented because there was a need for political correctness and national unity at the beginning of the 20th century; A political correctness that entirely ignored the trampled civil rights and murdering terrorists that tried to sanitize, justify, and restore a stratified hierarchy centered on the difference of skin color. If you want to keep up the monuments and names, perhaps some context should be given in order to better inform the public that might view these pieces out of said context. Like, putting a whip in the hand of Robert E Lee as he beats a black man, his sister, and their cousin for having fled north, or having Fort Benning's entrance be adorned with the graves of those who fought under and against him. With American education as poor as it is now, is it really such a stretch to think that people might actually think these people did great things for our country when it is really the opposite? Finally, "questioning the overreach of the state" is fine and dandy, but most people generally don't mobilize an entire economy and kill half a million people (again, on the low end of the estimates) to do their "questioning." If violence was the proper medium of discourse in a democracy, you would imagine the Wiemar Republic might still exist today. I refer to my statement above. And lol, French-Indian. I agree, people in this country need better primary education.

To be entirely fair, Ned Kelly wasn't responsible for fighting a war that killed half a million Australians (and that's on the really low end of the estimations). What about rebranding street names? Or renaming forts? Statues and monuments, especially the ones which commemorate those who died during the conflict, you can have some sense of. I think it's harder to name street names and major army bases after them. I doubt Fort Benning (where pretty much every enlisted person goes for basic) or Fort Pickett were aptly named to remember "their mistakes." In any matter, I agree that a statue can't inspire people to act as the Confederacy did. We should remember what sectionalism, racism, and one-basket economies do to a country. But this is the 21st century. 150 years have gone by since the conflict. The south has rebuilt its economy (ironically having more industry than the north today). The amendments and major civil rights laws have done away with restricting individual liberties along racial lines. We should remember and learn from mistakes, but we have no need for glorifying those who started a conflict that killed more Americans than every other war combined. If the Confederacy is still part of some vague notion of southern identity, it should not be the mission of the federal government to placate to southern needs by naming streets and forts after them. The Confederacy at best represented a bloody separation from the United States that destroyed an entire generation, at worst an embodiment of a machine of profit fueled by a feudal system of racialized enslavement while hypocritically touting the ideals of the Age of Reason.

Oh look, when I quote you, it says nothing. Therefore, you must have said nothing. It gets annoying after a while.

I wouldn't be so sure. Political correctness is killing our nation. Libtards insisted that political correctness is good for our country, I don't believe so. Googling political correctness gets you this definition: "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." These monuments are the embodiment of political correctness. They are there because the US government is unwilling to exclude, marginalize, or insult the socially disadvantaged KKK and rebel confederate sympathizers. The KKK supposedly had to hide their identity or risk being discriminated against and excluded from businesses, employment, education, and social welfare benefits. But the government has been kowtowing to these people for too long. In the so-called "spirit of reconciliation," the US government allowed these people to put up monuments of their terrorist leaders (which have killed tens of thousands of Americans). The US government ignored the crimes of these terrorists when they lynch people. The US government turned a blind eye to their unjust laws which restrict citizen's rights. All in the name of political correctness and placating these so-called "marginalized" people, so they can feel like they are part of the US. I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton and Benghazi was involved in some ridiculous affirmative action bullshit for these "socially disadvantaged" people. Political correctness is killing our country. We need fight back against political correctness and the libtards before it destroys our country. A good first step is to take down these monuments to political correctness. What say you?

One of the reasons why I don't like responding is because I can't quote. Benedict Arnold ironically did more good than bad for the country he betrayed. Granted, he wasn't entirely successful in betraying the US, but that's besides the point. The monument is dedicated to his services he did before he was commander at West Point. Once the confederacy dissolved and the rebelling states reintegrated back into the US, it's hard not to have state senators and representatives show up in congress, seeing as how all states had representation there. "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" - Declaration of Independence. Not right, duty. Forgive me, I misspoke. The point is, honoring these leaders is a concession to the South, of which a portion of their people still hold a cultural attachment to the Confederacy and their leaders. The reason why the US Army is hesitant to remove those names is because of its original goal: that of unifying a nation divided by America's bloodiest war. Besides, the US army gets most of its recruits in the South and California, typically from America's poorest and most likely to be least educated. Changing the name might insult some of those people.

To be entirely fair, if you asked when ANY war that America was involved in took place (and yes, I am including the war of 1812), half of the participants wouldn't know when it started. That's more of an indication of the poor education system in the US, not any particular collective forgetfulness regarding the Civil War. On the contrary, you could argue that the only reason why these monuments and memorials were allowed to be erected in the first place was "politically correct nonsense." The post-war era still saw a cultural geographic division between the North and South that wasn't bridged until at least the Spanish-American war at the beginning of the 20th century. Most of these monuments and memorials, such as the one found in Arlington National Cemetery, were allowed to be built in the spirit of reconciliation following the Spanish-American war. It was a symbolic, "politically correct" gesture of unity, despite lasting tensions between the two sections being divided over the issue of Jim Crow and the economy. Firstly, there is a monument to honor Benedict Arnold, primarily because he was hands-down the best American general during the revolution before he tried to sell West Point down the Hudson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument Second, these monuments also symbolize the blood and sacrifice of those who died in America's most bloody conflict. By allowing Southerners to bury their dead next to Unionists, or naming streets after major figures of the time unifies a divided nation. Thirdly, these monuments and street names were dedicated to honoring individuals who fought and led men into battle, not any particular ideology they stood for. Besides, technically the Union was in a war of aggression against the Confederacy, primarily to bring back the union together. The irony is that the founding fathers envisioned that a free people under a free government had the right to revolt when said government no longer represented their rights. They just never imagined it would be along geographic lines and based on the economy. You could argue that the Confederacy (in accordance to our beliefs in the right for a free people to choose a free government) were not "traitors."

There is currently a lawsuit against the US Army regarding the rebranding or renaming of two major streets in New York. The streets are named after Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The contention is that some see the glorification of Confederate leaders and other Confederate memorials and statues discreetly promoting the ideology of racialized slavery. The US army sees it as a means to honor those who fought in the civil war and bring together a spirit of reconciliation in the post-war era. Should we rename these streets? Should we remove statues and memorials dedicated to the Confederate leaders and those who fought for the Confederacy? http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/us/army-keeps-confederate-street-names-trnd/index.html

No.

Spoken like the EAP himself. Black raven and shit. Whoot.

Such a terrible pun. Downvoted. -.-

The operative word is "may." There are several things wrong with your statement, the most obvious being that your statement suggests Trump is not corrupt and a massive puppet. Again, not denying that Clinton may have done something. I'm just saying that if Clinton did it, there isn't any solid, conclusive proof of it sitting around. If you are going to be corrupt and manipulative, at least be good at it. For god's sake, Trump can't even keep his own damn staff together, and leaks in the WH continue because he understands nothing about discipline and order. At least when people leak about Clinton, it's because of Russian hackers, not because her own staff disrespects her and doesn't give a shit. The problem about monarchies and hereditary rule is that every 50 years or so, you get a dumbass, a madman, or a dumbass madman who comes to the throne and !@#$ over the entire dynasty. The great Roman and Chinese empires alone have several centuries of history to submit as evidence. This trend, however, does not apply to the Ottoman empire at the height of its power. Why? Because after the death of every sultan, there would be a bloodbath Game-of-Thrones style fratricide !@#$ fest where one half-brother killed off all other contenders to the throne. For 10 generations, the Ottoman empire produced powerful sultans which expanded the empire and its wealth, culminating into Suleiman the Magnificent. For you to win the throne, you had to be corrupt, buy off bodyguards. You had to be smart, biding your time. You had to be ferocious and without mercy, killing off family without hesitation. That's why the Ottoman empire produced 10 solid generations of sultans which kicked ass. My point is, Trump is just as corrupt as Clinton (if not more so) and is a lot worse at getting away with it (if Clinton is indeed corrupt). But let's just assume Clinton is corrupt for the sake of argument. I still would choose Clinton over the orange dumbass that allowed North Korea to develop a missile that could hit Chicago. Clinton, in the worst light you could possibly put her, would be akin to an Ottoman sultan, but at least she would do good for this country. But that's my two cents on spilt milk that has gone bad and is no longer relevant except that it still leaves a nauseating odor that floats around. We're here to talk about someone who actually matters now. No Roz, that's not you.

Wow, that is a level of humility that I don't expect with people here. I'm not anti-Trump, I'm anti-stupid leadership.

This statement doesn't make sense. I didn't accuse you of making homophobic statements in my last post. Lol, u mad bro? Because anger can make you see things that aren't there. I did tangentially accuse you of being stupid though. I rest my case. The reason for something doesn't change the fact that it is something. You could say you are masturbating for a noble purpose, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are masturbating.

I didn't realize that masturbation is considered homosexuality. Though, I suppose you could look at it as one man giving the same man a hand job, but if that were the case, there are a lot of men who are gay, yourself (at least figuratively) included. Besides, criticizing you for "rubbing yourself" isn't an insult. I am merely stating that such a (figurative) lewd action should be kept in a private setting outside of the public view, and I pointed to your circlejerk fest you had going on down in the spam section called the "Roz's Fun Zone" (again, appropriately titled). I didn't bother to call Fukataka out on how stupid his "gay fetishes" statement was, primarily because I couldn't care to respond to something so dumb (and trust me, he's pretty damn stupid). I'm assuming you just read the first part of Fukataka's statement and didn't actually see what he was responding to. Otherwise, you would be a walking talking contradiction, proving once and for all you can read but be too damn stupid to understand what it means. I'll leave it to your posts to make the case.

Huh, that's exactly what my insurance agent at GEICO said to me.

The future of mankind is a dystopian dictatorship ruled by an alien overlord where half of the humans are used for futile hard labor mining planetary crusts for resources and the other half are used for comfort food to fill the gullets of our technological superiors. Humans will be conscripted into slave armies to fight other races and do the bidding of our superior alien overlords. History will be the first thing that the aliens will destroy and contort, and people will forget humanism and human identity. This super, galaxy-wide alien empire will then collapse several centuries later, leaving humanity as a race of slaves without any collective identity. In the end, our species will die out from a lack of identity, our progeny constantly seeking to find new star lords to submit to. Sad.

If you actually read the opinion article you posted (and know the difference between an opinion article and a news article), it criticizes the 9th for "putting the burden of proof on the United States government." I would check your source. It does take a dumbass without any basic inkling of economics to know that debt is not the most important figure, it's interest in relation to %GDP. Everyone has debts, even your parents for the basement you currently reside in. The only thing that matters is that your parent's income can cover the interest rate. If you also read your own article, the debt was increased through several stimulus packages to fix the housing crisis. Our GDP growth is sitting at 3% thanks to a recovering economy. The fact that you don't know this should be a sign that you should take an economics class. Though to be fair, you would be hard-pressed to find such a class in middle school. Ah, so then you must know that Trump's "ban" doesn't cover Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq (in the 2.0 version), and Lebanon. And you must know that the 911 attackers originated from these countries. The Underwear bomber was from Nigeria. What you have demonstrated is the ability to google basic information, but an inability to understand what that means in the border context of things. I'll give you a hint: Trump's ban is just like him: stupid, and doesn't protect our country. Trump was elected because of his "deal-making" skills. He was the one who was suppose to break the gridlock on capitol hill. Your statement here makes it sound like you don't know what an EO is. An EO is a statement of policy on which aspects of a law (if not the entire law) a president will enforce using his executive powers. It's just that, a statement. Trump isn't creating any new laws, he's not adding to the legislative agenda. Hell, McCain killed his bill because like most people, he finds Trump to be repulsive. A bag of oranges that did nothing might have been able to make a deal with McCain and save Trump's legislative agenda. You're right, it's a Republican-dominated congress, but they have no leadership from their president. The president is the de facto leader of the party. Trump is not anywhere near a leader. He can barely keep his cabinet together. I'm not even sure if he can put on his own pants in the morning. Ho-ly shit. There is so much wrong with everything you have said here. I don't even know where to begin. 1. Obama rallied a coalition of Middle-eastern nations to counter the threat of ISIS. He ordered drone strikes and air support and rallied the Iraqi government to put down ISIS. Again, Trump is mostly riding on the coattails of Obama. ISIS was practically dead by the time Trump got into office. 2. Russians are in Syria to prop up their puppet state regime. They use the excuse of "bombing ISIS targets" to eliminate opposition groups and strongholds. But Russian geostrategic goals might be a bit beyond you. 3. Obama did nothing for Flint because it's an issue that can only be solved by the state of Michigan itself or through congressional funding. Not that you would know that. By that standard, you could say Trump hasn't done anything for Flint either. 4. Actually, yeah, the NSA did spy on Americans. But that was largely during the Bush administration who went outside Senate oversight. Obama used the Senate Intelligence Committee guidelines, so if you have any issues, go talk to your senator in congress. There are multiple parties to blame here, but sure, let's go the short and easy answer to everything and blame Obama (as ignorant and uninformed as that may sound). 5. "Neglected Veterans." Perhaps you haven't heard of the Veteran's Choice Program. Sure, it has its flaws (primarily because its run by a 3rd party government contractor), but Obama had genuinely tried to help the issues of overcrowded VA hospitals and wait lists. Again, not surprised you are uninformed about this. 6. Yep, he did commute the sentence of Chelsea Manning. I don't see the point you are trying to make here. 7. This one actually surprised me. "Let China become the No. 1 economy." There are two things wrong with this statement. First, nobody "let" China economically thrive, and second, China is not the #1 economy. It's #2, behind the US. And the fact that you don't know that shows the true depth of your boundless ignorance of reality. I have been really overestimating you here, you seem to only parrot information you heard from Fox News or by googling stuff. 8. Because, you know, the president has direct control over the IRS. That's why Trump's tax returns don't exist anymore, presumably. You know what else happened during Obama's presidency? That nasty hurricane Irene. Let's blame Obama for letting the hurricane kill people. 9. BENGHAZI! Lol. Kind of like shouting "ABORTION!!" Again, "Let" is the wrong word to use here. And seeing as how you don't know how to use the word, I'm assuming you don't know what it means. Nobody "Let" Americans die in Libya. Just how Bush didn't "Let" 911 happen. Also, if you actually read your piece, the article talks more about Clinton, and tangentially blames Obama by association. Why is putting down counter claims and insulting you an either/or thing? Have you considered the possibility that I might do both? Or are you too stupid to consider that possibility? See what I did there?

Ah huh. See? You have no argument. Even if you wanted to call me stupid, you have to lump me in with another group in which I have no relation with. On the other hand, I can prove to you right now with your own words on this thread that you are ignorant of the world around you. Lol. You do realize that I was deliberately imitating Roz right? I agree, he is an egotistical jerk, and he should stop rubbing his shaft on the debate forum. -A bag of oranges could have appointed Gorsuch to the Supreme Court with a Republican majority in the Senate. And I'm not sure that you know what "judicial activism" is. -Ha, it's cute that you think you know the first thing about economics. -Signing EOs must be soooooooo hard for presidents. Picking up that pen and writing a few words must be sooooooo hard. -Partially. It's a half-assed ban that doesn't cover the terror prone countries that actually carried out attacks on the US. But I don't expect you to know any countries in the Middle East other than ISIS. Maybe Israel. If I told you a country named Syria existed, that might be pushing it. -Oh boy, more signing of stuff. You're right, a bag of oranges might find it hard to pick up a pen and put its name down. -Promising. How about this, I can promise you on your 12th birthday I will fly you to the moon. In the meantime, Trump's legislative agenda is dead. There will be no tax reform, there will be no healthcare reform, there will be no immigration reform. The only thing that Trump can do is sit on Obama's legacy. A legacy that includes a growing economy, a stable housing market, and more people insured for healthcare than in the history of this country. Like Trump before the presidency, he only needs to sit back and benefit from things other people have done for him. That pathetic little short list that you had to google is all that he's going to be able to do. You won't find a single president in US history who has done less things than Trump, and I am including the Coolidge administration (assuming you know how to google that) which prided itself on doing literally nothing. Your arguments are weaker than Roz. You are nowhere near as informed as Roz. And as much as he loves rubbing himself on the forum, at least he knows anatomically where his penis is.

Thank you! I've had a lot of practice calling Trump supporters stupid. On the contrary, I think there is too much Trump circlejerking around this part of the forums and you all need to be reminded that he's a dumbass. I also don't particularly care about winning or losing a debate, but when I see "bystanders" stating an uninformed, hypocritical, cheeto-fellating comments, I have an urge to try and remind people that reality exists, and the whole world isn't just some safe space or echo chamber on an internet forum where you can say dumb shit and have no consequences for your actions. Besides, the only person here who is remotely anti-Trump is Milton. I'm the only other person who is anti-Trump who posts frequently. Perhaps the reason why you think this is an anti-Trump circlejerk is because your side doesn't have any arguments, and so it just looks like me posting dumb shit that Trump does and Roz arguing the finer points of my evidence. But if you have an informed opinion you think you can defend, by all means, present it. This is the debate section of the forum. If you don't, that's fine too. Nothing you have posted in the past suggested you would have an informed opinion on anything anyway.

We have already. You only need to look at police brutality. And look! The sky isn't falling. GDP growth is at 3% (Sad!), the housing market is rebounding, and our economy and status in the world is so comfortably secure that we thought it was time to mix things up and elect a sentient bag of oranges to spice up life. This question has already been answered by reality.

I'm baiting really hard right now. So hard. They call me a master at baiting. A master baiter, if you will.