What is it with the lefty trend to just repeat stuff like that? What purpose does it serve?
United States The Left Can't Meme
- Thread starter Bear Ribs
- Start date
Ahh yes, a worse timeline to be in. -.-
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
A sort of self-hypnosis and secularized equivalent to prayer, I think. Where Christians, Muslims, etc. try to draw strength from prayer, the woke manically repeat their mantras to reinforce their delusions (which they almost certainly know, deep down, to be ridiculous and false, for example here's a fantastic example of the 'indigenous knowledge' SJWs like to talk about from back in the day) and try to convince onlookers of the same on the grounds that 'well if you spout an obvious lie enough times, that must mean it's actually true and you're absolutely confident in its truth'.
Honestly, not really. He'd be a bad president, but being worse than bush would be hard. There wouldn't have been an Iraq war for one thing, the world would be a ton stabler, etc.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
The first is a not unreasonable point, but where on earth do you get the idea the world would be a ton stabler if Bush hadn't been president?
The utter collapse of much of the Middle East, migrant crisis, etc, all took place under Obama's watch, and it wasn't a matter of 'ticking time bombs,' it was all very clearly Obama utterly screwing the pooch, which Biden immediately proceeded to do in Afghanistan as well once Trump was out of office.
For all his faults, Bush presented to the world a clear image of American strength, and the willingness to enforce the Pax Americana through military action. You can certainly argue that he wasn't wise about where in particular he did and did not do it, but nobody doubted if they decided to get adventurous with their neighbors, GI Joe was going to come around to have words.
No, it was inevitable if the US ever wanted to leave. Basically, Iraq not under Saddam is a power vacuum that the US wasn't going to fill forever, and quite frankly couldn't afford to.
... By invading a country that did nothing and wasn't trying to get nukes? Yeah, that wasn't the Pax Americana. That was dumb. In fact, Bush's invasion of Iraq is what damaged the Pax Americana. Instead of being a cop, we became a thug who would invent justifications to invade places, and couldn't even get the job done.
To be quite clear, I hold Bush as the worst presidents of my lifetime, with Obama coming in second.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
These old canards get bloody tiring. Repeating Democrat talking points from 10 years ago doesn't make them any more true now than it was then, and frankly, I'm not going to burn the time for a big long and involved debate on the fine details.
FWIW, there is the possibility that Iraq was going to be an even bigger bloodbath during the Arab Spring, with a much worse final outcome, had the US not invaded it back in 2003. Think of Syria on steroids. And to be fair, the US kind of owed it to Iraqis to overthrow Saddam after Bush Sr. encouraged Iraqis to rebel against Saddam back in 1991 only to refuse to assist them in doing this afterwards.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Well, given how nasty Saddam's sons were—Uday especially, in a TL where he challenged Qusay for their dead father's throne and kickstarted an Iraqi Civil War along the way—I can imagine at least one scenario that'd have been worse than what got IOTL, similar to what you've said. At the same time, though, just because you prevented a woman from being shot and killed by raping her before the serial killer got to her first doesn't make you the good guy. You were still in the wrong, and good only wins when the woman goes completely unmolested, while the rapist and the serial killer both sit in jail.
Well, in that case, I think that the question would be whether there was any realistic way on your part to save this woman that would have been less harmful to this woman. Kidnapping her, perhaps? Because if one kidnapped with the intent of saving someone from a serial killer, then for all I know, this could be a good defense in a subsequent trial. Assuming that there was no other way to save them, of course. Maybe one could say that one should allow the other person to get murdered due to their ignorance and gullibility, but that doesn't sound very humane.
Think of it this way: If I was Joseph Stalin, I would have deported as many Soviet Jews as I could to the Soviet interior in the 1940-1941 time period--not because I would have actually enjoyed doing this, but rather because this would have been the only realistic way that I could have seen to save them from the Nazis short of me outright allying with Hitler.
Man. Most of these are just painful to read and aren't in any way funny, So sad.
They're so bad that they're actually good. Sort of how ghetto speech can be downright Shakespearean!
The eloquence in this Tupac Shakur song, for instance, rivals the eloquence in William Shakespeare's finest plays:
They're so bad that they're actually good. Sort of how ghetto speech can be downright Shakespearean!
The eloquence in this Tupac Shakur song, for instance, rivals the eloquence in William Shakespeare's finest plays:
that is not a good example Tupac was legit one of the greatest rhymasters of his generation and one of the best people of his genre. So bad its good falls under sharknado not tupac.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Hmm, how about some advanced leftist logic then?
Somebody didn't notice how the Stock Market has been in free-fall for ages.
If we ban people who disagree with us we can save Democracy. (Also I can't help but cringe at the lack of self-awareness involved in choosing the game's traitor to represent their viewpoint.)
Wat.
Moar Wat.
gral
Well-known member
I don't think Saddam(or any of his sons, for that matter) would have lasted until 2011. One things Democrats conveniently forgot about 2003 was one of the reasons so many in Congress, on both parties, supported the invasion was they were sick and tired of Saddam playing 'I'm not violating the no-flight zones, I'm not violating the no-flight zones' game, as well as other passive-aggressive games. Congress, on both sides, wanted to settle things with Saddam for good. If Gore had won in 2000, even assuming 9/11 didn't happen(which I ordinarily don't), I still think the US would have gone into Iraq, to take the Baath Party out, and it would have been as much or more of a shitshow that it was under Bush and Obama.
I think that Gore would have waited until a second term if he would have wanted to take out Saddam, frankly. And also perhaps look for a clear provocation like in 1990-1991, when Saddam actually invaded another country.
gral
Well-known member
Agreed that he would have waited for a second term; as for clear provocation, I'd say that Saddam's actions would have been presented as such by a Gore Administration(they would be at least partly correct, IMO).
If we ban people who disagree with us we can save Democracy. (Also I can't help but cringe at the lack of self-awareness involved in choosing the game's traitor to represent their viewpoint.)
Yeah. they just use "Our Democracy" to mean "when we win and get to do everything we want" (and increasingly includes executive rule-by-decree in the place of lawmaking) - much in the same way as Hitler, Stalin and other totalitarian leaders. In their minds, they're the anointed Representatives of The People, and their opponents are therefore Enemies of the People and should be purged.
IMO it's because they want to push everything as far as they can possibly take it - no moderation or compromise. These ridiculous edge cases are also useful in constructing emotional appeals ofc. as well.
Last edited: