Political stuff from the WWE thread

[HollywoodLeo]

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

[LJMets1989]

Politicians in general > corrupt politicians > "our main objective is to ensure nothing gets done" politicians. And that's independent of party affiliation or belief. If you're a politician who legit would prefer no legislation happens to letting the "other side" work to try to benefit the country, you are the worst kind of politician there is.

On to the actual point: While I don't ascribe to Leo's proposal that eliminating all corrupt politicians will spring nothing but new corrupt politicians, I think the idea that you'll ever eliminate corruption completely is silly. Furthermore, trying to draw distinctions where you'd be less bothered by Al Qaeda blowing up is insane. I assume part of Mach's thinking here is that he knows people in NY, less so in DC. To me, I don't care whether they blew up NYC, DC or Helena fucking Montana, it's bad, it's something to mourn and never to cheer.

When Bin Laden was killed, you murdered a wealthy and intelligent man who was hell-bent on causing damage to America. Even the most corrupt politician is not TRYING to ruin America. Period. Plenty of them are stupid, assholes, both, or worse, but they aren't maliciously trying to destroy the fabric of the country. That's the difference.

[Mach]

Mach, 9/11 was an inside job, yes or no?

I don't believe so, no.

I'm an asshole, a nihilist, and misanthropic, but by and large conspiracy theories, while great for TV shows that get cancelled too soon by AMC for shitty zombie shows, don't grab me in real life.

Could it have been? Sure. Just as we could have faked the moon landing, but, I doubt it.

[Mach]

For starters, you're no better a human being than corrupt politicians if you so callously wish death on people.

I never said I was. I often say I'm a terrible person, and not in that "ha ha" way. I genuinely think I do a lot of rotten things.

Secondly, if your goal is to keep killing and killing and killing until we no longer have politicians then we're back to square one of complete anarchy or government with corrupt politicians. I only brought up the point of fact that we'd just be electing more politicians when you pointed out that bombing DC wouldn't exactly take us straight to anarchy.

So we're back to square one? We'll have a lot less people at that point though, so it helps. My point was bombing DC wouldn't take us straight to anarchy, and I think that to be true. Spinning hypotheticals off of that point though becomes more convoluted.

They're still human beings. I have basic compassion for human beings, even the ones who enact laws I don't agree with. Sure, it wouldn't be the same as losing a family member or close friend, but it's also not a "who gives a shit, they deserve it" type response either.

I don't. I think humans are a scourge on the earth. Naturally there are people I care about if we'll inevitably head into semantics, but we're talking about humans in general here. I don't cry or get upset when I see school shootings, or natural disasters or such. I take it in as any other news.

Furthermore, you brought all of this up in regards to the 9/11 attacks, which didn't exactly discriminate with their targets. In the original premise you brought up it wouldn't just be politicians who died, it'd be a bunch of innocent civilians in the DC area.

Maybe you should have likened it to assassination plots and not mass death terrorism.

Well, it was illustrated to make a broad elucidating example, not a specific discussion point, so, there's that. The whole idea was not to delve too much into the hypothetical.

Then again, the whole idea was to not get into a protracted discussion, but, I digress.

It's irrelevant to the actual discussion, but not the side-discussion that you spawned with your 9/11 analogy. You want to kill off politicians, which in turn kills government, which in turn kills social order. That was the natural progression of the idea.

Sorry, I don't see the difference between this or how our discussion on dogs from the cop story are any different. And as feared, here we are again with wasted time and wasted words and nobody has any different ideas from when we started.

It wasn't an analogy. I wasn't comparing things and that's the point that seems to be missed. My point was rational is perspective and I used the first example that came to mind. Could it have been a better one? Sure. Do I care? Not really.

I don't want to kill off politicians, I even said that, what I did say is that there could be some benefit to it and I wouldn't be upset. What I want to do is vote them out, which is why I vote, usually 3rd party.

[Mach]

Politicians in general > corrupt politicians > "our main objective is to ensure nothing gets done" politicians. And that's independent of party affiliation or belief. If you're a politician who legit would prefer no legislation happens to letting the "other side" work to try to benefit the country, you are the worst kind of politician there is.

I'd make the second > and = but I agree. And the fact is there's also a ton of overlap there I'd reckon as they aren't mutually exclusive.

On to the actual point: While I don't ascribe to Leo's proposal that eliminating all corrupt politicians will spring nothing but new corrupt politicians, I think the idea that you'll ever eliminate corruption completely is silly. Furthermore, trying to draw distinctions where you'd be less bothered by Al Qaeda blowing up is insane. I assume part of Mach's thinking here is that he knows people in NY, less so in DC. To me, I don't care whether they blew up NYC, DC or Helena fucking Montana, it's bad, it's something to mourn and never to cheer.

I don't think we ever could, but I thought Leo's hypothetical was too abstract so I ran with it...abstractly. I don't think drawing distinctions is insane, which ties back to my bit on what's rational. I knew people in NY, I've got a dim opinion on DC, and indifferent to Montana. As I covered, I'm not terribly empathic towards my fellow humans.

When Bin Laden was killed, you murdered a wealthy and intelligent man who was hell-bent on causing damage to America. Even the most corrupt politician is not TRYING to ruin America. Period. Plenty of them are stupid, assholes, both, or worse, but they aren't maliciously trying to destroy the fabric of the country. That's the difference.

I wasn't tying the difference to killing Bin Laden to killing politicians, I was using the example of when he was killed, many people cheered, were happy, and it was asked to them why? Nothing changes. Those lives are still lost, the destruction still happened, the country didn't go back to the way it was. A death still occurred, a life was lost, and the war continued on. Just "our side" came out ahead this time. Happy is different than...relieved I guess I'll put it, with a threat to one's well being being removed.

Me, I'm happy the fucker got it on a personal level.

[HollywoodLeo]

So we're back to square one? We'll have a lot less people at that point though, so it helps. My point was bombing DC wouldn't take us straight to anarchy, and I think that to be true. Spinning hypotheticals off of that point though becomes more convoluted.

And if your point isn't that we'd go straight to anarchy by bombing DC I reiterate that nothing short of unnecessary death and despair is accomplished (in the way of ridding us of those politicians you hate) if we just replace politicians with more politicians.

I don't. I think humans are a scourge on the earth. Naturally there are people I care about if we'll inevitably head into semantics, but we're talking about humans in general here. I don't cry or get upset when I see school shootings, or natural disasters or such. I take it in as any other news.

Well, I suppose if you're universal about it then it's not quite as inconsistent at least. Maybe I'm naive but I think most people are more compassionate than our cynical society gives them credit for. Even much of the worst of the bunch still have good intentions and are just either lazy, a little selfish, or incompetent. That doesn't excuse poor choices or actions, of course, but the discussion here is their general compassion and well-being.

Well, it was illustrated to make a broad elucidating example, not a specific discussion point, so, there's that. The whole idea was not to delve too much into the hypothetical.

Then again, the whole idea was to not get into a protracted discussion, but, I digress.

Either way, you made a very broad analogy that I don't think quite works with the original discussion or what I believe your main argument is in the ensuing discussion.

Sorry, I don't see the difference between this or how our discussion on dogs from the cop story are any different. And as feared, here we are again with wasted time and wasted words and nobody has any different ideas from when we started.

It wasn't an analogy. I wasn't comparing things and that's the point that seems to be missed. My point was rational is perspective and I used the first example that came to mind. Could it have been a better one? Sure. Do I care? Not really.

I don't want to kill off politicians, I even said that, what I did say is that there could be some benefit to it and I wouldn't be upset. What I want to do is vote them out, which is why I vote, usually 3rd party.

I don't think there'd be any benefit to it.

And it was an analogy. You compared the previous discussion to a different example you felt had the same concept. That's an analogy whether you wanted to make one or not.

[Mach]

And if your point isn't that we'd go straight to anarchy by bombing DC I reiterate that nothing short of unnecessary death and despair is accomplished (in the way of ridding us of those politicians you hate) if we just replace politicians with more politicians.

Not all politicians are equal. There is a chance of better ones.

Well, I suppose if you're universal about it then it's not quite as inconsistent at least. Maybe I'm naive but I think most people are more compassionate than our cynical society gives them credit for. Even much of the worst of the bunch still have good intentions and are just either lazy, a little selfish, or incompetent. That doesn't excuse poor choices or actions, of course, but the discussion here is their general compassion and well-being.

Compassion is only a part of the puzzle. Probably the most important part, but a part nonetheless.

Either way, you made a very broad analogy that I don't think quite works with the original discussion or what I believe your main argument is in the ensuing discussion.

Well the main thing being, rational is relative, not absolute, example or not.

I don't think there'd be any benefit to it.

And it was an analogy. You compared the previous discussion to a different example you felt had the same concept. That's an analogy whether you wanted to make one or not.

Benefit to what?

Anyway, the definition:

: a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way
: the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way

I don't feel they had the same concept or were alike except maybe in the very broadest of terms in which I could have used why pineapples are the spawn of the devil.

I wasn't comparing the situations to each other in the least. I said simply that rational is a matter of perspective and then gave an example. It would be no different than saying skydiving is a way to spend the day and then saying having a picnic is also an example of a way to spend a day. There's no comparison between the two.

[Slyder]

Did Oswald work alone?

[Mach]

I'm still working on that one in terms of shooters. I do think there was something behind him, likely white supremacists, using him as a front or a patsy.

If that makes me a conspiracy nut, well, so are a lot of folks

[Tobywan]

For the last couple of months I have been contemplating the idea of of starting a thread for dialogue about some of the heavier issues going on in our country and our world, to see if anyone would be interested. There are quite a few of us here that appear to have very outspoken opinions whether the issue is frivolous/entertainment or serious/real life issues.

Now, I fully admit I haven't read any of the "political stuff" of the WWE as I usually stay out of the sports I don't watch or know much about, so I am a bit perplexed how Al Qaeda and 9/11 got into a discussion on wrestling, perhaps I should take some time and read so I get an idea what led to this thread. Though, I brought up 9/11 in a couple of my posts about the "Then and Now" Rays if they happened to be a member of NY team in 2001, a stretch maybe but if they were there at the time it must have had an impact on them as it did a great majority of us especially being closer to it.

Now, to address the original post by Mach and a couple statements he made subsequent to it, he would have been fine if the terrorists had taken out DC instead of NY. Thing is there was no "instead", they were attempting to take out both. The more extensive damage in DC got thwarted. Coming from a family that has had a member in pretty much every conflict since the Revolutionary War through Desert Storm, I could understand the analogy where the Pentagon is concerned because from the standpoint of an enemy that is a military institution. While we may never know for sure since the last plane went down in that field in Pennsylvania, it is very likely it was headed to DC for another target. There could have been more that got aborted due to the order to keep all planes grounded, we will probably never know just how many other targets were planned. In the mind of an enemy... the Capitol Building? Yes, strategic, it is the seat of our lawmakers, the governing body. The White House? Yes, logical, it is where our elected leader (whether you like him or not) resides during term. I think the WTC rattles the core of most Americans because it seems like it was just a building or symbol that it was purely an innocent target, but it also housed many of the US financial entities. The problem is that there were also restaurants and other businesses that weren't specifically an enemy "target" which is in a state of war is considered "collateral damage". It is what many are up in arms with over the current fighting between Israel and Hamas, the innocents/non-combatants that are killed as a result of taking out "targets". The Towers were not specifically a military or government structure, so with that in mind I could understand the wish it had been DC instead of NY. However, as an American and someone that personally embraces a sense of history, I feel there is no either/or/instead, they maybe just buildings but they are part of our history, symbols of our government even if there a lot of incompetents in the seats of Congress at the moment. Unless it can be proven that any politician directly is responsible for actions leading to innocent deaths, or deaths of opponents or something of that nature their corruption shouldn't warrant a death sentence. I do think there are many that have probably committed crimes that should have led to them being in jail or at the very least, to lose their jobs. I do agree with Mach's premise (though he probably doesn't care what I think) that if the Capitol had been destroyed and many of the politicians with it, the entire country would likely not fall into complete chaos, there would be a temporary system put in place. It might be a different story if there was a combined effort taking out not only the government, but our infrastructure, lines of communication, supply lines and the like all at once, then we would probably be screwed and our descendants would likely be speaking a different language.


To the point of taking out Bin Laden not changing anything, of course there is always another waiting in the wings to take over for the fallen sometimes worse than the one that's gone. I feel about him, Saddam Hussein and even Gaddafi the way I do about putting to death serial killers, mass murderers and those that premeditate, conspire or hire to kill someone.....THEY will never do it AGAIN! I know one argument against the death penalty is that it is not a deterrent, well in my view it will deter that person because they are dead. In my view if you willfully and intently take someone's life then you forfeit yours, to me it doesn't matter if it stops anyone else from doing it for fear of prison or execution.

The core though is I don't wish anyone to bomb or destroy any "target" for any reason in the US as a citizen. It is bad enough Americans ruin some places and kill each other or people and places get destroyed by natural disasters let alone a war coming onto our front. Obviously, the majority of the world feels the same no one wants destruction of their home.

[Lynch]

why would be there be anything political in the wrestling thread(s)?

[HollywoodLeo]

Mach made an analogy and it grew from there.

[schisno]

making a mountain of a mole hill