SneakyTits87

Polanski is deft at dodging attempts to deflect him, sticking firmly to articulating his main points and preventing them being misrepresented. He bats away false premises & logical fallacies, refusing to allow them any perceived legitimacy.
No wonder Farage so carefully avoids going up against him.

I'm not saying burning shit (or worse) is right or effective in this case, but I'm 100% certain that the lib tendency to preemptively reject it and jerk each other off over how peaceful everyone can be is bad.

burning down target or a police station should always be on the table.

and many there recognize that they've "peacefully protested" themselves into being a total non-factor to the government.

On the other hand, the Haredim protest against conscription and have zero qualms about breaking shit, breaking laws, or even violence, and they most get what they want. 🤷‍♂️

I don't think that's true. I've followed Israel's weekly protests for years now, and snuffing out all illegal forms of protest (anything that will get you labeled as "violent") doesn't seem like an effective strategy.

hehe was just looking this one up! I think this was when I first found out his interviews are a whole thing.

I'm not sure she's being gullible! She's fine with ICE terrorizing and murdering, but she might have conditioned support for the funding on leaving her voters alone.

the Susan Collins bit from today paints a picture about what happens when you vote R vs D.

What's the evidence there was rape on Oct 7?

I know what you are... you're an imperialist, war-addicted pervert. Is that you, Paul Mason?

If we nominate another genocidal Israel fetishist, then we're going to lose again. Your scolding has negative value.

hmm I think they'll be significantly to her left on Israel.

Your only role is to vote no on funding ICE. That's it.

Two years into genocide, and you think some people were too persnickety about the claims Israel made to justify genocide? Even though we know some of them were hoaxes that were spread for exactly that purpose?

This is bullshit. The people who want to massacre Palestinians felt it was important to repeat the beheaded babies and rape lines. If it's so important then we get to attempt to correct the historical record.

I just listened at 2x, and the only thing I heard was "...and killed and raped innocent people on oct..."

But I agree. The hoaxes weren't spread for no reason...they were spread to justify genocide. It's not a benign accusation. Saying rape without solid evidence of rape is genocidal propaganda.

I think this entire charade is because the GOP is willing to kill the filibuster to pass this, so the dems don't actually have leverage. The silver lining should be that we get to do progressive things with 50 votes, but Schumer and Co. don't WANT that ability, so they try to justify voting yes now.

And that was the same reason Schumer inexplicably caved on the shutdown. The GOP was about to kill their favorite tool to feign helplessness when they're in the majority.

I think the cosmetic changes are solely about preserving the filibuster because the Dems LIKE having an excuse to do nothing when they're in power.

This funding it passing either way because the GOP will kill the filibuster, but if they vote yes then they can pretend it binds both parties equally.

I think this is all about the dems preserving the filibuster because they LIKE being bound by it when they're in power. The GOP is willing to kill it, so this funding is passing either way. This dog and pony show is about pretending the filibuster binds both sides equally, even though it doesn't.

stfu you dem politician fetishists are perverts.

This thread went very poorly for you.

I think they get the exact same benefit of the doubt as anyone else feeling embattled because of criticism of an apartheid state where they're part of the privileged group. In any of these cases it's not much.

what does "really experience it that way" mean to you?

do they believe it's acceptable in 2026 for their to be a "Jewish state" that occupies and ethnically cleanses the non-Jewish natives?

*on their own racist (supremacist? bigoted?) belief

I think you're trying to give the person claiming the offense in the US the status of a minority, whose grievances are presumed to be in good faith by default, even though their grievance is based on their own belief that it's acceptable for Israel to have an ethnic (or religious) hierarchy.

I think "antizionism is antisemitism" is a direct attempt to legitimize, or stifle criticism of, an apartheid state where Jews are the group with all of the power.

I think that's more comparable to racist white grievances than you're acknowledging.

Oh! reverse racism. And I summarily reject that one too.

Same with "black history month is racist because there is no white history month"

I can't think of another perceived offense that I ever hear expressed that's inherently invalid. Can you?

1. It's currently being pushed at scale as propaganda by a genocidal apartheid state
2. It's being weaponized to stifle criticism of a genocidal apartheid state.
3. You have to have some level of understanding of the nuances to even be an offense perceiver

It's hard to come up with comparable examples.

I'll list reasons I think this one should be summarily disregarded.