politics

Capitalist country profits off of the disabled and needy, what's new?

I have been having this debate with multiple western leftist whom I vigorously despise, and it was about people who commit crimes against humanity, and it is very simple really in my point of view people who did unhuman acts (light upholding apartheid, genocide, cleansing, starting an international War) are by definition unhuman. Really simple actually they have took the humanity away from people and used that as an excuse and they sacrifice their own humanity in The Pursuit of that goal therefore morally at least these people should be counted as dangerous animals or the malaria or whatever unhuman living creature who is causing us mass suffering and death. On the other hand you have the Western liberal who think that they are leftist simply because they don't care if gay people fack, and these people directly benefit from the unhuman acts that their leaders commit, so they turn and blind eye to it or at most say that they are bad people who should be jailed, jail for Bush or Clinton or Kissinger or Putin or whoever does not solve the problem, you talk a lot about prison reform and how it is cruel what you have not seen the other angle which is that these people physically cannot pay back for their crimes within a million lifetimes, I don't really care about your personal moralities and bullshit that you say to be the most moral in the room restorative justice cannot occur because these people have committed such crimes that they have left the boundary of restoring what they have done, to the point of being unhuman. When people understand that there is no way that would have been taken from them would be restored they want Justice in any way shape or facking form, including leaving all morality aside and just severely punishing those who have committed these unhuman acts.

You can moralize but for me as a person who lives in Iraq when I hear what people would want to do to George Bush or jog Biden or Barack Obama or whom ever I hear the most descriptive forms of torture, and the reason for that is that these people have actually came to to moral clarity, because the forms of brutal killings and torture that they would want to commit are the same as those who have been committed by these unhumans, when restorative justice fails, when there is no way shape or form your oppressors can be punished that would actually restore what they have been breaking you break their stuff in the same way, but in such subject, where these people have violated your right not to be tortured and not to be killed and not to be humiliated the retaliation must not be lesser than the pain that they have put upon every single person that they have violated their rights of. Do not f****** come to me with your Lefty morals or your Western human standard saying that war criminals and unhuman actors should be not tortured or should it be not brutally murdered, These people are not human.

archive.today • Opinion | The Disappointed Voters Biden Needs to Win Georgia - The New York Times

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/1348950

"but those who actively self-identify as such are frothing at the mouth reactionaries."

What? It's a good Tweet.

So a few years back germany introduced the Schuldenbremse (debt brake), the constitutional law that forbids them from accruing debt because all of germany thinks national finances work the same as personal finances

With a recent judgement by the constitutional court that said the "well this is debt but it doesn't count" climate fund is, actually, debt, and therefore unconstituational, the federal budget is considered unconstituational and has to be redone, without debt, so a lot less money to go around. Sure, constitutional orders are often ignored but this is big boy adult financism so we gotta make a new one

As such, the 4500€ (~$4900 at the time of writing) subsidy for buying a factory new EV car has been spontaneously canceled on the basis of there is no money to be spent for it unless we stop actually being a state (YMMV on whether or not that might happen to subsidize cars more) and the hitler particle detector of the expastered petite bourgeoisie who thinks they keep the country running via taxes has now exploded as they're all very, very, very, very mad about having bought a new car they can't actually afford without the subsidy and are now stuck paying for it anyways because they signed a contract assuming they'd get the subsidy

A lot of people finding out the german states raison d'etre is actually selling cars, which is entirely unhampered by this decision on the basis of the contracts are already signed and the state will be more than happy to enforce them on behalf of car makers, to which I say; lol, lmao, you fucking bozos

Gotta love how libs keep harping on about "Oh yeah, if you love Palestine so much, just know that they hate gays/women/etc and you would be mistreated by them!" while pretending that the West is some progressive utopia. It really isn't. The imperial core thinks of marginalized groups as useful idiots for propaganda. They don't care about us and we'll be offed by our 'own side' as much as the 'enemy'

1."Federal agencies have the authority to intervene in protests, picket signs, or blockades. The law is impartial: it must be enforced without exception."

2."Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions."

3."Forces are not obligated to consider alternative entrances or pathways. If the main path is blocked, their duty is to clear it."

4."This action continues until the flow of traffic is fully restored."

5."To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing."

6."Instigators and organizers of the protest will be identified."

7."Vehicles used in the protest will be identified and subjected to citations or penalties."

8."Data of the instigators, accomplices, participants, and organizers will be transmitted to the authorities through appropriate channels."

9."Notices will be sent to the judge in cases of damage, such as burning flags."

10."In cases involving minors, relevant authorities will be notified, and the guardians of these youths who bring them to these demonstrations will face sanctions and punishment."

11."The costs incurred by security operations will be borne by the responsible organizations or individuals. In cases involving foreigners with provisional residency, information will be forwarded to the National Directorate of Immigration."

12."A registry will be created for organizations that participate in these types of actions."

Telesur says, "Supported by Washington, a counterrevolutionary movement staged a coup d'état in 1983 and planned the assassination of [Maurice Bishop]." — Whereas ProleWiki essentially says that the Grenada coup was caused by Maurice Bishop violating democratic centralism by refusing to share power with Bernard Coard, which Bishop (and a large majority of the party) had already agreed to, and which was necessary for relieving the stress and overwork put on the New Jewel Movement cadres. And so basically, the Central Committee took action against a national leader acting out of line: in Bishop's own words, "We don't believe in Grenada in presidents for life, or elected people for life: we believe in service for life, and when you stop serving, you must be recalled and get out of the way for somebody else to serve."

This is to say, where Telesur speaks of "a faction of the New Jewel Movement", ProleWiki speaks of "forces loyal to the Central Committee". And where Telesur decries the coup as a US-backed counter-revolution, ProleWiki seems to view the coup relatively more favorably, only criticizing the coup for shattering the prestige of the New Jewel Movement in the eyes of the masses by taking away their dear Bishop. While both Telesur and Prolewiki are in agreement that the coup was a Bad thing for the revolution, because it created both the conditions and pretext for the US invasion of the island, the difference between these two sources seems to be essentially in who they blame: Telesur blames the USA for supporting the coup faction; while Prolewiki blames Bishop for refusing to share power, and only criticizes the CC forces for mismanaging the situation.

So what I want to know is... Which source has the right take here? Was the coup of '83 maybe something in the middle of what Telesur and ProleWiki describe, where the US maybe actively worked to exacerbate the inner conflicts of the party? And why exactly did Bishop back out of the shared power agreement? Was this a matter of "absolute power corrupting absolutely", or did Bishop perhaps have more valid reasons for his actions?

Ultimately, I guess what it all circles back to is: What are the lessons to be learned here?

I mean their actions speak louder than words, but maybe a couple of libs will get converted

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/12/sarasota-school-board-moms-for-liberty-00131448

you gotta for him for domestic policy reasons

https://nitter.net/camiloreports/status/1734675771963125876?t=DW-BAdgBRMSLVd0BbDrqHg&s=19

Article I saw thanks to a repost from Nima .

Shitting on Red Scare is something I'm always here for. I think the core is this:

Maybe there’s a kind of gravity to the slide, the black hole of fascism sucking toward it all the loose particles of those whose commitments were never complex or whose convictions were snapped by despair. And the accusation that arises with almost every left-to-right slider, that they’re sell-outs, just doing it for the money? Yes, some are. Yes, and—because even when it starts that way, the transaction is transformational.

I wanted to put the whole article in here but I think that exceeds the word count?