I was going to make a funny or meaningful comment, but fuck: look at this shithole full of liberals. Place is getting worse than Beehaw, TBH. Might as well be back on Reddit.
StrayCatFrump
joined 2 years ago
Where the heck is the notion that the U.S. government’s hands are tied coming from?
At least part of the claim is that the president himself has little power. It's the stupid finger-pointing game. "Biden needs Congress' permission to do anything at all, ever." 🙄
A useful excuse when the president doesn't want to do anything. Falls flat on its face when he actually wants to bomb, shoot, or cage the shit out of any brown people, foreign or domestic.
He could use that fucking awful AUMF bullshit to send in the U.S. military to attack the IDF, for that matter. "No power" is fucking nonsense.
Yeah, I know that is never going to happen, nor would I particularly want it to. But when you have the power to go that far, you have a fuck ton of options in between that and doing absolutely nothing (or worse than nothing, which is what Biden is doing now: providing them cover by pretending the empire doesn't 100% have the fascists' backs).
A liberal who waves a red flag and pretends they aren't liberal. Often they call everyone else (including us) liberal. 😂 😉
Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence.
I disagree with this part. Violent revolution—violent opposition to our oppression—is absolutely necessary. However, turning it on ourselves—that is, in any direction other than that which opposes authority—is a recipe for disaster as you say.
It's not violence itself that is the problem. There are literally always forms of violence sanctioned by every single political philosophy (including absolute pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state even if its subscribers often don't realize this). The question is how and when that violence is performed and by whom, and the anarchist/non-authoritarian answer is that it must only be in the struggle for liberation, not the fight to gain and maintain power over others.
That last line in the video. That's exactly what happens when they finally realize you caught them in the racist/revisionist shit. They go on the attack with something absolutely inane.
It's good to document the resulting problems, but the analysis of the root cause is absolute shit and is clearly done by liberals (confirmed by them interviewing AOC and uncritically broadcasting what she says without calling her on her own support of colonialism, genocide, and capitalist exploitation). They blame this on a "lack of rules." Bullshit. If there were no rules (laws), the local population would simply kick the rich people out and expropriate their shit. I think you'll find there are plenty of rules and plenty of enforcement. The problem is just that all of that law and order is directed squarely against the working class and indigenous populations.
"More rules" isn't a recipe for fixing anything. People rising up is. Fortunately there was a little anarchist graffiti on that school's wall. So these liberal journalists are not the only people advocating for solutions.
What’s clear is that each decision — whether to fund a treatment facility or buy a squad car — is a trade-off.
No. Not at all, really. When "sparks debate" is the best you can do. God, I hate the mainstream news so fucking much.
Still pretty weak, TBH. Language calling Hamas' actions "attacks on random Israeli civilians" while giving at least some credence to the phrase "Israel's right to defend itself." That's a lot of giveaway to imperialist and Zionist propaganda while allegedly trying to clear the air on who holds what opinions.
This is an anti-colonial struggle. Colonized people have a right to defend themselves. Nation-states absolutely fucking do not, nor do colonizers while they violently expand their colonies, uphold apartheid, and continue to commit genocide. Upholding one's oppression is not coherent with self-defense, sorry.
I'm just not going to engage with outright fucking liberals here. Nothing good will come of it. But you don't belong on this instance, TBH, and especially in this community. And that's the last I'm going to say about it here.
More looting and getting serious charges?
More looting, while using the tactics expressed in the linked article: overwhelm the police by taking small, distributed actions where they can't effectively counter them. In other words, more looting and more defending each other against the state, both directly and by being strategic.
violence, robbing and looting doesn’t solve much
Completely wrong.
What I am trying to say is I think it’s better to build, create, progress, rather then destroy someone’s neighborhood or place of work.
It's better to do both. Always. "Someone's neighborhood or place of work," is a liberal, garbage way of framing this. These were attacks on capital and state. Period. The workers don't own those places of work, or have any real say at all about what happens there; they aren't theirs. They don't own the neighborhoods, or have any real say at all about what happens there; they aren't theirs. The idea that attacking state and capital hurts the people they are oppressing is an extremely privileged idea. It needs to be checked wherever it appears. Hard.
Here's a good place for you to start putting some of your nonsense liberal ideas to rest: Peter Gelderloos : Looting is Wealth Re-Distribution.
Yeah, pretty much. The president has enormous power, and that power is even greater outside the country's borders. Especially because of things like the "Authorization to Use Military Force" which gives him pretty much carte blanche to "fight terrorism" anytime and anywhere he likes.
There's also this general process by which the president historically just does what he wants, and the rest of the government shrugs its shoulders and rolls over, and thus his office essentially just has that de facto power, no matter what the constitution or other laws say: Renegade Cut: No More Presidents.
The U.S. president is more powerful than any empire in the world has ever been, is pretty much a king, and basically does what he wants. Liberals often make excuses about how his hands are tied. It would be great if that were the case, but it's really, really not.