Viewing 17 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3411

      https://greenwald.substack.com/p/reflecting-the-authoritarian-climate?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxODkxOTUyOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzE4OTgwMzgsIl8iOiI4bFMxaiIsImlhdCI6MTYxMTY5ODE0OSwiZXhwIjoxNjExNzAxNzQ5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTI4NjYyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.o_P05WGB5YD3zSeqtWGwIwjDDfmJ4AFELG8v8Quqbr0

      Please wait…

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3411

      “What makes this all the more remarkable is that a mere seven months ago, a major controversy erupted when The New York Times published an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) which, at its core, advocated the deployment of military troops to quell the social unrest, protests and riots that erupted over the summer after the killing in Minneapolis of George Floyd. To justify the deployment of National Guard and active duty military forces, Cotton emphasized how many people, including police officers, had been seriously maimed or even killed as part of that unrest.

      (Cotton’s claim that police officers “bore the brunt of the violence” was questionable, given how many protesters were also killed or maimed, but it is true that numerous police officers were attacked, including fatally).

      Cotton acknowledged that the central cause of the protests was a just one, noting they were provoked by “the wrongful death of George Floyd.” He also strongly affirmed the right of people to peacefully protest in support of that cause, accusing those justifying the violence of “a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters,” adding: “A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.”

      But he insisted that, absent military reinforcements, innocent people, principally ones in poor communities, will suffer. “These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives,” Cotton wrote, adding: “Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further.”

      The backlash to the publication of this op-ed was immediate, intense, and, at least in my memory, unprecedented. Very few people were interested in engaging the merits of Cotton’s call for a deployment of troops in order to prove the argument was misguided.

      Their view was not that Cotton’s plea for soldiers in the streets was misguided, but that advocacy for it was so obscene, so extremist, so dangerous and repugnant, that the mere publication of the op-ed by The Paper of Record was an act of grave immorality.

      “I’ll probably get in trouble for this, but to not say something would be immoral. As a black woman, as a journalist, I am deeply ashamed that we ran this,” pronounced the paper’s Nikole Hannah-Jones in a now-deleted tweet. The New York Times Magazine writer Taffy Brodesser-Akner posted a multi-tweet denunciation that compared Cotton to an anti-Semite who “says, ‘The Jew is a pig,’” argued that “hatred dressed up as opinion is not something I have to withstand,” and concluded with this flourish: “I love working at the Times and most days of the week I’m very proud to be part of its mission. But tonight, I understand the people who treat me like I work at a tobacco company.”

      Former NYT editor and Huffington Post editor-in-chief Lydia Polgreen announced, also in a now-deleted tweet: “I spent some of the happiest and most productive years of my life working for the New York Times. So it is with love and sadness that I say: running this puts Black @nytimes staff – and many, many others – in danger.” That publication of the Cotton op-ed “puts Black New York Times staff in danger” became a mantra recited by more journalists than one can list.

      Two editors — including the paper’s Editorial Page editor James Benett and a young assistant editor Adam Rubenstein — were forced out of their jobs, in the middle of a pandemic, for the crime not of endorsing Cotton’s argument but merely airing it. Media reports attributed their departure to a “staff revolt.” The paper itself appended a major editor’s note: “We have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.” In addition to alleged flaws in the editorial process, the paper also said “the tone of the essay in places is needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful debate.””

      Please wait…

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3411

      Nuts.

      Wake the Eff up! The politicians and journalists are manipulating people. The hypocrisy is truly sad.

      I don’t blame the regular people who get swept up in the lies and propaganda. I blame the politicians and the propaganda makers… the media.

      How can this happen in a free society? We need to try something new. It’s about time we give Liberty a try, not trot out some geriatric socialist wearing mittens as the new cool meme. These people are playing with you. It’s a joke to them. The “harmless” “sweet” socialist. Bullshit.

      Please wait…

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3411

      There is a meaningful difference between deploying National Guard troops and active duty soldiers on American streets. But both measures are extraordinary, create a climate of militarization, have a history of resulting in excessive force against citizens engaged in peaceful protest and constitutionally protected dissent, and present threats and dangers to civil liberties far beyond ordinary use of law enforcement.

      Why was the idea of troops in American streets so grotesque and offensive in June, 2020 but so normalized now? Why were these troops likely to indiscriminately arrest and murder black reporters and other journalists over the summer but are now trusted to protect them? And what does it say about the current climate, and the serious dangers it poses, that the public is being trained so easily to acquiesce to extreme measures in the name of domestic security?

      We are witnessing the media and their public treat what ought to be regarded with great suspicion as not only normal but desirable, all through the manipulation of fears and inflation of threats. That does not bode well for those who seek to impede the imminent attempt to begin a new domestic War on Terror.

      Please wait…

    • Col. Klink

      Participant
      Post count: 176

      At least I see now why you catch grief for posting stuff from that guy. If you and him think keeping a quarter of the National Guard troops there through the impeachment trial is totally unwarranted, you’re both fucking fools.

      Please wait…

    • Roy

      Participant
      Post count: 3512

      JBear, you and your guy Greenfeld don’t do a very good job of explaining what the endgame is of Biden in keeping some National Guard around.

      You see, I try to be reasonable and objective. I see that they just overran the police less than three weeks ago, and they want to be on the safe side and keep some extra National Guard around while the Senate impeachment trial is going on, because “Fool me once….”

      Well, that seems obvious to me, but you disagree. You think there is more to it than that. But you didn’t explain what the “more” is, nor did Greenberg. Please. I’m listening. What is this all about?

      Please wait…

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 5519

      Order of buttplug

      Trump
      Paul is his buttplug
      Greenwald is his buttplug
      Jbear is his buttplug

      Kinda like human centipede

      Please wait…

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3411

      @ Roy

      Well, that seems obvious to me, but you disagree. You think there is more to it than that. But you didn’t explain what the “more” is, nor did Greenberg. Please. I’m listening. What is this all about?

      I thought Glen Greenwald did a pretty good job of laying all the facts out there. How people lost their jobs over the summer when a Republican dared to post an op ed calling for a more forceful use of the military to quell riots. I was against that too as was Greenwald. The point isn’t that that was a great idea, the point is that the reaction from the left is completely different. Greenwald points out that a few hundred extra officers could have prevented the entire thing so this knee jerk that we need the national guard to lock down the entire capital is insane…. theres that.

      Then there is the fact that despite all the talk from the left of radical right wing extremists planning terrorist attacks on the govenrment, you are woefully lacking any actual facts. So quick to believe the Summer riots were no big deal and yet so quick to lock down the capital indefenitely over a prejudiced opinion that those right wingers… who we all hate, are going to attack the capitol.

      I appreciate that you say you objectively look at the facts but if you can’t see that this has a bad smell to it then that’s just not objective. We don’t use the military to keep people from protesting… this is America. How long that actually means anything is in the hands of people like you. Stop the hate. This is fucked.

      And screw you fire you’re one of the stupidest people I know of. No surprise you work for a huge corporation in HR….duh where do self righteous liberal aholes work? the govenrment or in HR at a huge corporation. It’s the only place people like you can survive. That’s why I can’t stand socialism. It exists so that people like you don’t get weeded out of the gene pool as they would naturally.

      “don’t you guys care about meeeeee? I need a jooooob. Well I went to college and I can smile at people and push papers around my desk in circles… gimme a joooooob!”

      Stop being a dick Fire. I can be way more of a dick than you can.

      Please wait…

    • Roy

      Participant
      Post count: 3512

      Are we using the military? I wasn’t aware of that. I know the National Guard is there. They are on loan from the states, so they aren’t a permanent force. I don’t know anytime the National Guard has become a permanent force, particularly when they aren’t in the state they are from. Do you?

      They did use the military to remove the Bonus Army during the Depression. That didn’t go over too well. Again, JBear, you are dealing in vague nebulous scare tactics bringing out terms like “socialism” and “militarization”. Scary words. But I’m asking you to bring some specifics to the table. Why would the President or Congress need a military presence other than for the stated purpose of security during the Impeachment trial? I don’t get it, and I’m sincerely asking a legitimate question here.

      Please wait…

      • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Roy.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 5519

      Jbear, by all means be a dick.

      You had a chance to save your soul… but you voted for Trump, ignored the obvious signs, downplayed everything that matters, exaggerated boogeyman that don’t exist, and stroke Greenwald’s dick enough to give him road rash.

      Be mean… talk shit. It doesn’t mean anything coming from an anti-Democratic, anti-American, party before country, “patriot” such as you.

      You and Rand Paul deserve each other. Truly

      Please wait…

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 816

      Am I the only one who thinks that if thousands of “right wingers” were going to descend on Washington to take over the Govt, sufficient to warrant 10 thousand armed troops, we would see a few warning signs? Like convoys coming down I95 or lots of flights full of hairy assed white males carrying weapons of some kind?

      Please wait…

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 5519

      Deterant

      Google search the definition

      Please wait…

    • Col. Klink

      Participant
      Post count: 176

      Am I the only one who thinks that if thousands of “right wingers” were going to descend on Washington to take over the Govt, sufficient to warrant 10 thousand armed troops, we would see a few warning signs? Like convoys coming down I95 or lots of flights full of hairy assed white males carrying weapons of some kind?

      I think it’s only 5000 national guardsmen, and it’s better to over prepare than under prepare like we saw on Jan 6th ……….. unless you’re in the jbear wackadoodle camp of Biden wanting to instill martial law. Although we still don’t why Biden would want to that because jbear keeps avoiding Roy’s questioning.

      Please wait…

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 5948

      Deterant

      Google search the definition

      Maybe you should Google search for the spelling, Mr. Mayor. Strenuously juxtaposed, absolutely everything.

      What was it you soy boys argued when Trump sent the National Guard into places where riots and destruction was happening for days, weeks, months? Because I don’t remember anything about “deterant” being mentioned. It was more like “fascist dictator” and the like.

      I think it’s only 5000 national guardsmen, and it’s better to over prepare than under prepare like we saw on Jan 6th ……….. unless you’re in the jbear wackadoodle camp of Biden wanting to instill martial law. Although we still don’t why Biden would want to that because jbear keeps avoiding Roy’s questioning.

      January 6th was 22 days ago. I understand being cautious for the Inauguration, but it’s obviously stupid big government overkill at this point – and certainly through March.

      Please wait…

      • spartan

        Participant
        Post count: 816

        I think the number is 7000 and I don’t think that includes any of the 3000+ of the Washington NG that available. Then you have the Maryland and Virginia NG’s just round the corner who can be mobilized at short notice if there were truly a threat.

        I would like to come up with some conspiracy theory that would warrant this number of troops but I can’t for the life of me think of one. I can only think that the Dems are doing this simply because they can and are flexing their muscles. Intimidating. If so I am not sure what they are trying to achieve, but it’s the only thing has a modicum of sense about it.

        Please wait…

    • Col. Klink

      Participant
      Post count: 176

      January 6th was 22 days ago. I understand being cautious for the Inauguration, but it’s obviously stupid big government overkill at this point – and certainly through March.

      I’d be more inclined to agree with you if this whole impeachment stuff wasn’t hanging over everything …. which may or may not be behind what the DHS was picking up on enough to issue the Bulletin.

      Please wait…

    • Col. Klink

      Participant
      Post count: 176

      I can only think that the Dems are doing this simply because they can and are flexing their muscles. Intimidating. If so I am not sure what they are trying to achieve, but it’s the only thing has a modicum of sense about it.

      I think what they’re trying to achieve is being the aforementioned deterrent …

      Please wait…

      • spartan

        Participant
        Post count: 816

        Sticking to my point that any threat that requires that many troops isn’t going to materialize overnight, and they could rustle up enough troops from Washington, Maryland and Virginia to deal with any thing that might come up at short notice. There are also thousands of military personnel in the Pentagon should the poop really hit the fan.

        Please wait…

    • Col. Klink

      Participant
      Post count: 176

      Sticking to my point that any threat that requires that many troops isn’t going to materialize overnight, and they could rustle up enough troops from Washington, Maryland and Virginia to deal with any thing that might come up at short notice. There are also thousands of military personnel in the Pentagon should the poop really hit the fan.

      And sticking to my point, they may be being used as a deterrent …. the old ounce of prevention thingy.

      And meant to ask before, you specified the Dems keeping the Guard there. Has there been Republican politicians who have voiced objections to this? I really haven’t followed it that closely …

      Please wait…

      • spartan

        Participant
        Post count: 816

        They just recently wrote a letter to the DoD for a briefing on their justification on keeping so many troops in DC.

        No response yet as far as I know but it’s only been a few days.

        Please wait…

      • spartan

        Participant
        Post count: 816

        I am struggling with the what exactly are they trying to prevent?

        You can point to the January 6th events but I am still of the opinion that not a huge number of those folks went with the predetermined intent to “storm” congress. I am also of the opinion that most, if not all of that could have been prevented with a bit better planning and forethought. By all accounts they knew it was coming from some, yet still didn’t plan properly.

        Please wait…

    • Roy

      Participant
      Post count: 3512

      They are trying to make sure another assault on the capital doesn’t happen during the Impeachment trial. Of course this is crazy, unless Trump gave the order for that. Which he could do at the drop of the hat. An order he did give already, which is why he is the defendant in that very Impeachment trial. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No. You don’t want to give these people the idea that they can storm the Capital again. As Spartan has already ascertained, there is no explanation for some ulterior motive to keep a few thousand National Guardsmen around. It doesn’t show strength. It doesn’t serve to improve the public perception of the Democratic Party. It serves no purpose at all except for being a deterrent to the unlikely event that Trump would call his followers to arms. Unlikely, but he did it once already. So not impossible.

      Please wait…

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.