While in the US space program, “Only the Delta IV Heavy rocket remains in use as of August 22, 2019”
That’s so true. The thing they (moderates) have in common with the Trump chuds is their willful disregard of obvious facts and common sense. This phenom exists on the left, too, but, imho, it is far less dangerous because on the left, those wildlings are against shoot-em-ups to solve one’s problems and end their persecution. Riot, maybe, smash some windows, burn a few cars and tear down the capitalist hate machine, perhaps. But typically not to mow down a crowd with an AR 15 to prove a point. Yes, there are a few of those, but I’d say only 1 violent leftist to every 10 violent righties. Maybe 1 to 100. The left is far less violent than the right. We are pissed off, but it’s a different kind of pissed off.
And the later Atlas marks resemble the Atlas ICBM very little indeed.
FFS look at the upper left. That’s where the classification should be. It’s blacked out.
The idiot doesn’t know how to do that. He had help tweeting it, which is even worse.
Or stuff gets “accidentally” black out before he gets to see it.
Hating the outcomes of a particular set of policies (anti-immigration racism, that is LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE, supporting anti-LBGQT+ measures, supporting anti-woman measures, tariffs, anti-environmental policies that will literally kill us all, cozying up to dictators, pulling us out of treaties that have kept humanity from annihilating itself, etc, etc) is NOT the same thing as hating Barack Obama because he’s black. Not 
Even Remotely Being black isn’t a policy. Mitch McConnell had a policy of obstruction on ANYTHING Obama proposed, solely because he was black. There was no other reason for him to behave in the way that he did. None. Especially when Obama was such a centrist candidate, who proved himself more than willing to compromise with the republicans and to adopt some of their ideas - the ACA being prime among them, being it was originally a republican policy in MA, that was generally speaking a “market based” solution that the republicans claim to support. Obama also was willing to push market based solutions for the environment (private-public partnerships and cap and trade policies, for example).
What is aimed at the current president is for logical and sound reasons, mainly that his policies are brutal and are aimed at vulnerable groups of our fellow human beings. We should ALL oppose that. It has little to do with hating the man for no reasons, which is precisely what the GOP peddled for 8 solid years, in order to pander to the racist contingent in the party, which haw now taken over the party.
Uh, yeah, about that First Amendment thingy… some more issues now that it’s chewed apart…
https://www.amazon.com/Disappearing-Civil-Liberties-Coffee-Mug/dp/B000M1ERL0
I’m assuming the appeals court denied the First Amendment defence because they felt there was an exception based on Mckesson allegedy using his speech to incite a dangerous situation. It’s open to legitimate debate, but yeah, we’re going to see more and more conservative appointees ruling along these lines until any speech that criticises a law enforcement officer or department is excepted as a “public danger”.
Il Douche may have only the vaguest, most broad and self-serving conception of lese majeste as applied to Presidents and former Presidents, but conservatives and some wealthy so-called Libertarians are intent on making sure that their precious guard labour feels secure and that their authoritah is respected.
I’m with you there. I mean, I don’t think I ever personally identified as a centrist, but I think I used to think of centrism and moderation to be sensible. Like you describe yourself: people who had more progressive views on some things, more conservative views on others. Of course I have to respect that: Have your own mind! Think your own thoughts!
But at some point I realized that having a wide variety of different opinions on different issues isn’t “centrist” it’s just human. Centrists are either sniveling authoritarians clinging to power, or principle-less people with no long term memory waiting to be bought off by the newest shiny thing.
Being moderate, neutral or centrist as a principle is utterly insane. In something like the troubles a lot of people might have used the term “moderate” to mean “opposed to violence”. But opposition to violence isn’t a moderate position, it’s a principled stand. It should remain there, unwavering, regardless of where the rest of the political spectrum moves. If someone who is a real pacifist looks at the political situation they find themselves in and sees violence-inciting behaviour from both the right and the left, that doesn’t make them a moderate, that makes them orthogonal to the current political debate.
And neutrality is hardly admirable. I’m neutral in my small children’s arguments over toys, and that’s probably the right position for me to take. But neutral about a territory’s independence from a nation? Neutral about the rise of authoritarianism? Neutral on whether [category of people] are people? Neutral about the outbreak of a war? “I just don’t know” may be a respectable admission, but “neutrality” about real issues is pretty much deciding to be on the wrong side of history for fear of being on the wrong side of history.
The NIWC took the principle of being neither pro-British or pro-Irish on the question of control of NI.
I wouldn’t describe the NIWC as centrist or moderate. It seems to me they were radical about finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict. But if we’d call the “centrist” then I am completely behind that kind of centrism. Centrism that stands firmly on principles and has real goals rather than just being centrist for the sake of centrism.
Completely agree with you
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
