• Anarchist group threatens Henry Kissinger in Senate hearing. John McCain calls them "low-life scum"
    43 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Saigon;47045013]They're about as opposed to American values as you can get. They support extremely strict gun control, support an isolationist foreign policy, oppose Israel and wouldn't lift a finger to help our Kurdish allies. Only a fool sees the world so black and white. Saying that conflict is "never" a solution is just as foolish as saying conflict is "always" the solution. There are simply some groups that cannot be reasoned with and should not be reasoned with.[/QUOTE] Code Pink's non-interventionist stance on foreign policy is as true to real American values as you can be. The founding fathers of our country argued fervently in favor for non-interventionism, they would have despised our Neocon foreign policy if they were alive today. The US followed a non-interventionist stance on foreign policy for the length of most of its existence.
[QUOTE=Lamar;47045279]Code Pink's non-interventionist stance on foreign policy is as true to real American values as you can be. The founding fathers of our country argued fervently in favor for non-interventionism, they would have despised our Neocon foreign policy if they were alive today.[/QUOTE] The Founding Fathers were not a unified block. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, supported the idea of the United States being a defender and promoter of liberty in the world. You're also making the mistake of assuming that international relations haven't changed in the past 200+ years. Not to mention the fact that there is a lot of room between staunch non-interventionism and staunch neoconservatism. The world isn't as black and white as you think.
[QUOTE=Saigon;47045313]The Founding Fathers were not a unified block. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, supported the idea of the United States being a defender and promoter of liberty in the world. You're also making the mistake of assuming that international relations haven't changed in the past 200+ years. Not to mention the fact that there is a lot of room between staunch non-interventionism and staunch neoconservatism. The world isn't as black and white as you think.[/QUOTE] But the founding fathers were unified in their views on foreign policy and Jefferson was still a non-interventionist. Also, the US isn't a defender or promoter of liberty in the world when it supports authoritarian regimes or bankrolls another country's indefinite military occupation of another. Our foreign policy is strictly for obtaining or holding onto supposed geopolitical interests.
[QUOTE=Lamar;47045374]But the founding fathers were unified in their views on foreign policy and Jefferson was still a non-interventionist. Also, the US isn't a defender or promoter of liberty in the world when it supports authoritarian regimes or bankrolls another country's indefinite military occupation of another. Our foreign policy is strictly for obtaining or holding onto supposed geopolitical interests.[/QUOTE] They were so non-interventionist that they conquered the Native Americans, invaded Canada, fought Ottoman pirates, etc. Good thing I don't blindly support our foreign policy, nor do I blindly oppose it. There is a lot of good the United States has done and can do in the world. We have also done some questionable things in the past, I'm not denying that. I'm not going to jump into some political camp, be it neocon or liberal or non-interventionist. I'm an individual and I am not going to let a group decide my views or policies for me.
If this were a one-time thing, maybe you could respect Code Pink. But almost every time that the Senate Armed Services Committee meets, they are there to cause shit. They don't care about accomplishing anything, they're just attention whores.
Code Pink does not align with anarchism, as they are liberals. Anarchism is a radical left-wing view. Code Pink isn't composed of thugs either. The fuck are you on about OP?
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;47045674]Code Pink does not align with anarchism, as they are liberals. Anarchism is a radical left-wing view. Code Pink isn't composed of thugs either. The fuck are you on about OP?[/QUOTE] [I]Sensationalism at its finest.[/I]
[QUOTE=Saigon;47045169] Perhaps anarchist isn't the right word. What exactly would you call them then? An extremist group?[/QUOTE] Holy shit you know nothing about radical politics, do you?
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;47045690]Holy shit you know nothing about radical politics, do you?[/QUOTE] I'm still waiting for an answer. How are they not a radical/extremist group?
[QUOTE=Saigon;47045705]I'm still waiting for an answer. How are they not a radical/extremist group?[/QUOTE] They are liberals, dude. It doesn't get much more moderate than that.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;47045747]They are liberals, dude. It doesn't get much more moderate than that.[/QUOTE] I guarantee you that if I said UKIP members were conservatives or libertarians, then we would have plenty of people jumping out and yelling "they're extremists!" I'm fairly critical of a lot of liberal policies and the liberal mindset overall, but even I am willing to admit that these people don't represent liberals. These people are extremists. Yet with this Pink group we have pretty hard evidence that they are extremists. They fully admit to opposing anything even remotely related to international relations because of "muh feelings." They don't allow men in their group, since they believe men are destroying the planet. They are opposed to gun ownership and have protested the NRA. They are so "green" that most liberals wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Even in this thread we have proof that they regularly show up at the Senate Armed Forces committee and refuse to contribute in any meaningful way. If these people had legitimate arguments, they wouldn't need to shout-down their opposition and resort to attacking veterans. These people had a chance to discuss and debate their views in an open and respectable manner, but they blew it. This is what happens when you develop policies based on emotion, rather than reason and data.
[QUOTE=Saigon;47045755]I guarantee you that if I said UKIP members were conservatives or libertarians, then we would have plenty of people jumping out and yelling "they're extremists!" I'm fairly critical of a lot of liberal policies and the liberal mindset overall, but even I am willing to admit that these people don't represent liberals. These people are extremists. Yet with this Pink group we have pretty hard evidence that they are extremists. They fully admit to opposing anything even remotely related to international relations because of "muh feelings." They don't allow men in their group, since they believe men are destroying the planet. They are opposed to gun ownership and have protested the NRA. They are so "green" that most liberals wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Even in this thread we have proof that they regularly show up at the Senate Armed Forces committee and refuse to contribute in any meaningful way. If these people had legitimate arguments, they wouldn't need to shout-down their opposition and resort to attacking veterans. These people had a chance to discuss and debate their views in an open and respectable manner, but they blew it. This is what happens when you develop policies based on emotion, rather than reason and data.[/QUOTE] They are capitalist, democratic, and civil-rights focused. Not being a democrat doesn't make them not liberal. You keep going on and on about extremism and radicalism, using it as a bad word to describe political views even slightly non-mainstream, without even explaining WHY that's bad or what exactly you define as "extreme" or "radical". I identify as a radical because I'm an anarchist communist, who wants to change the structure of society from the ground up. Marxists are also radical in the same sense, as well as nationalists and imperialists. Furthermore, the fact you use "anarchist" as a general leftist slander shows that you have no idea of the historical significance of anarchism and its philosophers. The insult contains as much thought as "SJW!!!" being yelled about by various fuckwits. You're arguments are silly, full of holes, and honestly, you just need to stop.
[QUOTE=Saigon;47045705]I'm still waiting for an answer. How are they not a radical/extremist group?[/QUOTE] Radical: seeking to fundamentally and dramatically change society at the most basic level, generally but not necessarily using methods that are seen as outside of the purview of the common person. Extremist: taking an unshakingly hard stance on the potential logical goals of an ideology and acting on towards those ends using methods generally seen as outside the purview of the common person. Considering that code pink is a: -liberal (establishment) -anti-war (semi-establishment) -nonviolent (establishment) -protest group (establishment) then I don't believe that they meet either definition.
[QUOTE=Saigon;47045755]I guarantee you that if I said UKIP members were conservatives or libertarians, then we would have plenty of people jumping out and yelling "they're extremists!" I'm fairly critical of a lot of liberal policies and the liberal mindset overall, but even I am willing to admit that these people don't represent liberals. These people are extremists. Yet with this Pink group we have pretty hard evidence that they are extremists. They fully admit to opposing anything even remotely related to international relations because of "muh feelings." They don't allow men in their group, since they believe men are destroying the planet. They are opposed to gun ownership and have protested the NRA. They are so "green" that most liberals wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Even in this thread we have proof that they regularly show up at the Senate Armed Forces committee and refuse to contribute in any meaningful way. If these people had legitimate arguments, they wouldn't need to shout-down their opposition and resort to attacking veterans. These people had a chance to discuss and debate their views in an open and respectable manner, but they blew it. This is what happens when you develop policies based on emotion, rather than reason and data.[/QUOTE] Okay, right, I'm stopping this shit here and now. Conservative/liberal is your political leaning. How extreme you are is all dependent upon the zeal with which you try to enact your ideology.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.