Is it disrespectful to sit during the Pledge?

[Plzen]

-snip-

20th Century communists almost always inherited existing autocracies. Czechoslovakia has a fairly free 1946 election before the KSČ took over, but that’s probably about the only exception.

Right-wing nationalistic and capitalistic authoritarians, on the other hand, overthrew plenty of democracies over the course of the 20th Century. Pinochet, to point out an example you used, transformed a democratic country into a dictatorship.

While I would agree that the left-wing has had a larger body count, doubly so if you only count the Cold War after most of the bloodiest nationalist regimes of the Century are out of the running, it was indisputably the right that posed the greater threat to democracy.

[Fahran]

20th Century communists almost always inherited existing autocracies. Czechoslovakia has a fairly free 1946 election before the KSČ took over, but that’s probably about the only exception.

They actively attempted to impose autocracy and subjugation on nations such as South Korea, Poland, and Afghanistan. These efforts often involved mass purges of intellectuals and educated people hostile to Communism, the toppling of more popular regimes to facilitate the installation of ideologues, and ill-conceived reforms that created long-lasting, chronic instability in places like Somalia, Cambodia, and Afghanistan.

Right-wing nationalistic and capitalistic authoritarians, on the other hand, overthrew plenty of democracies over the course of the 20th Century. Pinochet, to point out an example you used, transformed a democratic country into a dictatorship.

Pinochet also facilitated Chile's transition back to a functional democracy. He was by no means a decent or honorable person, but I will point out that his junta, which was reliant on the backing of the United States and allied powers, has vanished whereas the Communist Party still retains an iron grip on public life in Cuba. We also shouldn't overstate the extent to which Allende was democratic and well-intentioned. Chile was well on its way to economic collapse and constitutional crisis when the Donkey decided to betray the trust of the man who had appointed him to such lofty heights. As a general rule, do not trust Latin American leaders when they begin amassing power. They're usually jerks.

While I would agree that the left-wing has had a larger body count, it was indisputably the right that posed the greater threat to democracy.

In terms of scale? Probably. In terms of death toll and longevity? Not really. Agrarian reforms have an especially bad track record under hardline command economies. I still like the Plan of Ayala though.

[Katganistan]

Exactly. It's needed.

Ehhh, it's a pretty crappy distress signal, and if you ever find yourself relying on it, you done fucked up.

*shrug*
US Flag code says aye. So do boaters.

[Kowani]

Right-wing nationalistic and capitalistic authoritarians, on the other hand, overthrew plenty of democracies over the course of the 20th Century. Pinochet, to point out an example you used, transformed a democratic country into a dictatorship.

Pinochet also facilitated Chile's transition back to a functional democracy.

This is…not exactly true.

He was by no means a decent or honorable person, but I will point out that his junta, which was reliant on the backing of the United States and allied powers, has vanished whereas the Communist Party still retains an iron grip on public life in Cuba.

That’s not really an argument. The methods in which the two came to (and in one case, fell from) power aren’t comparable.

We also shouldn't overstate the extent to which Allende was democratic and well-intentioned. Chile was well on its way to economic collapse

Which was the US’ Fault. Recommended Reading: The Pinochet File

[Kubra]

20th Century communists almost always inherited existing autocracies. Czechoslovakia has a fairly free 1946 election before the KSČ took over, but that’s probably about the only exception.

They actively attempted to impose autocracy and subjugation on nations such as South Korea, Poland, and Afghanistan. These efforts often involved mass purges of intellectuals and educated people hostile to Communism, the toppling of more popular regimes to facilitate the installation of ideologues, and ill-conceived reforms that created long-lasting, chronic instability in places like Somalia, Cambodia, and Afghanistan.

Right-wing nationalistic and capitalistic authoritarians, on the other hand, overthrew plenty of democracies over the course of the 20th Century. Pinochet, to point out an example you used, transformed a democratic country into a dictatorship.

Pinochet also facilitated Chile's transition back to a functional democracy. He was by no means a decent or honorable person, but I will point out that his junta, which was reliant on the backing of the United States and allied powers, has vanished whereas the Communist Party still retains an iron grip on public life in Cuba. We also shouldn't overstate the extent to which Allende was democratic and well-intentioned. Chile was well on its way to economic collapse and constitutional crisis when the Donkey decided to betray the trust of the man who had appointed him to such lofty heights. As a general rule, do not trust Latin American leaders when they begin amassing power. They're usually jerks.

While I would agree that the left-wing has had a larger body count, it was indisputably the right that posed the greater threat to democracy.

In terms of scale? Probably. In terms of death toll and longevity? Not really. Agrarian reforms have an especially bad track record under hardline command economies. I still like the Plan of Ayala though.

Yo the rest is whatever but when it comes to afghanistan that's dead in the water, bro.
Like that's a clear "American supports the bad guys" deal.
As for Cambodia, the soviet supported regime is very clearly superior to the sort-of American-backed one, which was, y'know, Pol Pot. also *very* clear.

[Fahran]

Yo the rest is whatever but when it comes to afghanistan that's dead in the water, bro.
Like that's a clear "American supports the bad guys" deal.
As for Cambodia, the soviet supported regime is very clearly superior to the sort-of American-backed one, which was, y'know, Pol Pot. also *very* clear.

The Soviets toppled a relatively popular dictator who both respected the population's religious convictions and had an eye towards gradual modernization to replace him with a cabal of ideologues and sycophants who enjoyed scant support beyond Kabul itself. When they incited widespread rebellions by actively antagonizing Muslims, the Soviets facilitated another coup and directly occupied Afghanistan. Mohammed Daoud Khan should have been left in power if the eventual goal was a secular republic. And, honestly, the Lion of Panjshir is probably a lot more popular in modern Afghanistan than Taraki. Honestly, depending on which mujaheddin leaders we're talking about, they were a lot better than the Soviet puppets. It's a bit Islamophobic that they're all characterized as being the Taliban.

With regard to Cambodia, Soviet and Chinese meddling in Southeast Asia are what enabled the Khmer Rouge to come to power in the first place. We shouldn't forget that the Soviet-backed North Vietnamese government played a somewhat decisive role in destabilizing Cambodia and even went so far as to provide direct military support to the Khmer Rouge and allied groups. The Chinese under Mao gave unequiovcal support to Pol Pot. The United States simply refused to acknowledge the government the North Vietnamese installed after the genocide and an ill-considered war for political pragmatism. And that government was drawn from Khmer Rouge as well since they more or less killed all the educated opposition.

[Kernen]

I am confident the topic isnt about ideological body counts.

[Vassenor]

I should hope not. That's a distress signal.

Is that universal
like what if you're french and in distress

Tie the flag in a knot.

[Gim]

Also if we're going to talk about the regimes the US propped up during the Cold War, let's talk about the treatment of Buddhists in South Vietnam too.

There are Buddhists in Vietnam?

[Ifreann]

"Language has changed" is a refutation of your argument that "God" does not necessarily refer to the Christian deity since deists centuries ago spoke about "Nature's God", and is just one point I made in that post.

A self-refuting argument given that one could just as easily argue that the meaning has morphed beyond a dogwhistle to evangelical Christians as our population has become more diverse religiously. Really, it's not a compelling argument at all that a violation of separation of church and state has occurred or is occurring.

You could argue that, but you'd be obviously wrong. In English we do not refer to Odin, Zeus, or Jupiter as "God". We do not refer to Vishnu, Shiva, or Brahman as "God". We do not refer to Ra, Mut, Nut, Ptah, Hemsut, Tefnut, Sokar, Selket, Seshmu, Reshpu, Sobek, Wadjet, Heket, Mafdet, Nephthys or Nekhbet as "God". We do not even refer to the singular deity of Islam as "God", even though that is a fair translation of "Allah". When we say "God" in English, we almost exclusively mean the Christian deity, and the peculiarities of American politics sometimes include the Jewish deity.

I wouldn't, I'm sure it wouldn't achieve anything.

Because it's not an especially strong legal argument.

Because the Supreme Court is full of conservative Republicans.

[Gim]

Because the Supreme Court is full of conservative Republicans.

You mean the Judge and the Jury?

[Aclion]

Because it's not an especially strong legal argument.

Because the Supreme Court is full of conservative Republicans.

Funny, for a bunch of conservative republicans their opinions are pretty diverse.

[Gim]

Because the Supreme Court is full of conservative Republicans.

Funny, for a bunch of conservative republicans their opinions are pretty diverse.

Only the conservative ones; wait until the radical ones voice their opinions.

[Salandriagado]

Also if we're going to talk about the regimes the US propped up during the Cold War, let's talk about the treatment of Buddhists in South Vietnam too.

There are Buddhists in Vietnam?

In 1963, they were a solid majority of the population. They aren't any more.

[Gim]

There are Buddhists in Vietnam?

In 1963, they were a solid majority of the population. They aren't any more.

I thought, since they were Indochina, Hinduism would be pretty pervasive.

[Salandriagado]

In 1963, they were a solid majority of the population. They aren't any more.

I thought, since they were Indochina, Hinduism would be pretty pervasive.

Nope. There's a primarily-Hindu ethnic minority, but that's about it.

[Aclion]

Funny, for a bunch of conservative republicans their opinions are pretty diverse.

Only the conservative ones; wait until the radical ones voice their opinions.

What radical ones. Kavanahuh the Quantum Rapist has shown himself to be quite moderate.

[Rojava Free State]

I should hope not. That's a distress signal.

Is that universal
like what if you're french and in distress

They have the white flag for that occasion

[Rojava Free State]

20th Century communists almost always inherited existing autocracies. Czechoslovakia has a fairly free 1946 election before the KSČ took over, but that’s probably about the only exception.

They actively attempted to impose autocracy and subjugation on nations such as South Korea, Poland, and Afghanistan. These efforts often involved mass purges of intellectuals and educated people hostile to Communism, the toppling of more popular regimes to facilitate the installation of ideologues, and ill-conceived reforms that created long-lasting, chronic instability in places like Somalia, Cambodia, and Afghanistan.

Right-wing nationalistic and capitalistic authoritarians, on the other hand, overthrew plenty of democracies over the course of the 20th Century. Pinochet, to point out an example you used, transformed a democratic country into a dictatorship.

Pinochet also facilitated Chile's transition back to a functional democracy. He was by no means a decent or honorable person, but I will point out that his junta, which was reliant on the backing of the United States and allied powers, has vanished whereas the Communist Party still retains an iron grip on public life in Cuba. We also shouldn't overstate the extent to which Allende was democratic and well-intentioned. Chile was well on its way to economic collapse and constitutional crisis when the Donkey decided to betray the trust of the man who had appointed him to such lofty heights. As a general rule, do not trust Latin American leaders when they begin amassing power. They're usually jerks.

While I would agree that the left-wing has had a larger body count, it was indisputably the right that posed the greater threat to democracy.

In terms of scale? Probably. In terms of death toll and longevity? Not really. Agrarian reforms have an especially bad track record under hardline command economies. I still like the Plan of Ayala though.

The argument that right wing dictatorships are better because they collapse is a fallacy. Does communism still run eastern europe? No. Therefore Augusto Pinochet was definitely the greater of evils in Chile and thousands of Chileans died because America couldn't leave well enough alone

[Rojava Free State]

Only the conservative ones; wait until the radical ones voice their opinions.

What radical ones. Kavanahuh the Quantum Rapist has shown himself to be quite moderate.

Kavanaugh is just a trump yes man. Trump being the selfish con artist he is would much rather have someone who let's him do as he wants than have an actual conservative with values.

Remember when Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation? Suddenly trump wasn't calling him a hero anymore. He became a "dumb southerner" and a "retard" in trump's world. And sadly, trump's fan base largely went along with the presidents attacks on his own attorney General because they care about actual defined values less than he does. To them, trump is infallible and anything he says is right, which makes no sense because he constantly contradicts himself and changes course every five seconds, and he stabs his own people in the back over the smallest shit.

[Loben The 2nd]

Disrespectful? Yes.


Should it be illegal? no.

[Fahran]

Funny, for a bunch of conservative republicans their opinions are pretty diverse.

Only the conservative ones; wait until the radical ones voice their opinions.

This is nonsense. Two of the "conservative Republicans" gave opinions that more or less saved the ACA. Because, despite attempts to politicize the court stretching back to the 1960's, the SCOTUS is not the same as the legislature. Anyhow we're getting off-topic. My point is that the pledge is not presently seen as a violation of separation of church and state. And that has nothing to do with a "conservative" majority. It wasn't challenged when the court leaned slightly "liberal" either because Kennedy and probably a few of the other "liberal" justices would probably have come to the conclusion that whoever brought the suit lacked standing - if I had to guess.

[Vegaslovakia]

Hell no. America needs to stop making kids do this. This thing, the thing they are doing now, is a part of brainwashing.

[Fahran]

The argument that right wing dictatorships are better because they collapse is a fallacy. Does communism still run eastern europe? No. Therefore Augusto Pinochet was definitely the greater of evils in Chile and thousands of Chileans died because America couldn't leave well enough alone

My argument isn't really that right-wing dictatorships are good or less bad. It's more along the lines of there being no clear good guys in the Cold War overall. That includes left-wing "heroes" and "martyrs" like Allende who had little respect for the rule of law and who invited constitutional crises or set themselves up as dictators. It's silly to use a grey conflict where almost everyone had terrible qualities as your justification for hating one political actor involved enough that you despise and disrespect the entire political community. I'm not a Pinochet fan girl by any means. I wouldn't have referred to him as the Donkey and a traitor if I was.

[Dogmeat]

In 1963, they were a solid majority of the population. They aren't any more.

I thought, since they were Indochina, Hinduism would be pretty pervasive.

Not for the last 1,000 years.