1y ago

White House Seeks $105 Billion to Arm Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan

news.antiwar.com White House Seeks $105 Billion To Arm Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan - News From Antiwar.com

On Friday, the White House rolled out its proposed $105 billion bill to arm Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The legislation also includes funding for the border and humanitarian assistance. US officials say over $50 billion will go to American weapons manufacturers. The Biden administration is proposin...

You're viewing a single thread.

98 comments

This shit is going to pass with full bipartisan support and libs are still going to be confused the next time someone tells them both ~~sides~~ parties are the same.
- This shit is going to pass with full bipartisan support
  Hell yeah
- the point is that the democrats are a right wing party, as evidenced by their ongoing funding of war at the expense of their own citizens' well being.
  this is like extremely basic logic
  
  You know two things can be "right wing" and still not the same, right? Both Nazis and Republicans are right wing...but you're smart enough to realize they aren't the same, correct?
  
  Both Nazis and Republicans are right wing...but you're smart enough to realize they aren't the same, correct?
  This comparison really isn't helping your point lmao
  
  Lol yeah I kind of second guessed it based on how stupid people can be and that there would be some people dumb enough to think republicans are equivalent to the Nazis.
  
  Sure they're not literally identical, but both are fascist parties that have more ideological similarities then they do differences. And the Nazi ideology is on record taking inspiration from Jim Crow laws in the US.
  
  Most humans have more ideological similarities than they do differences, so of course that is going to be true, especially when you're pulling from a group of people who come from extremely similar cultures.
  But that doesn't change the fact that there are obvious differences between the two parties on issues that are impactful and important.
  
  Both groups had race science laws, one inspiring the other
  Well, people are more similar than dissimilar, so of course there are commonalities!
  
  Torpedos own point by failing to contrast fascist against fascist
  "No ur dumb actually"
  
  Though the gap narrows by the day
  
  Every square is a rectangle, not all rectangles are square.
  
  Go tell your math teacher that all rectangles are equal to each other because they're all squares. Lol
  
  Yes yes I'm sure there's an incredible diversity of thought among Nazis. You are very smart for seeing the nuance among monsters.
  
  If you want to make a good argument as to why they are all the same, while there are clear and important distinctions between the two major us parties, I'd love to hear it.
  But if you are going to make stupid arguments like "they are all the same because they agree on this one thing!" Or "they are all the same like rectangles are all the same!" Then you are going to get called out for it, and pouring on the sarcasm in place of an argument doesn't make your initial point any less stupid.
  
  My argument was not all Republicans are Nazis, but all Nazis are Republicans. Am. I. Wrong?
  
  The specific combination of factors in the historical formation of U.S. society—dominant “biblical” religious ideology and absence of a workers’ party—has resulted in government by a de facto single party, the party of capital. The two segments that make up this single party share the same fundamental liberalism. Both focus their attention solely on the minority who “participate” in the truncated and powerless democratic life on offer. Each has its supporters in the middle classes, since the working classes seldom vote, and has adapted its language to them. Each encapsulates a conglomerate of segmentary capitalist interests (the “lobbies”) and supporters from various “communities.”
  American democracy is today the advanced model of what I call “low-intensity democracy.” It operates on the basis of a complete separation between the management of political life, grounded on the practice of electoral democracy, and the management of economic life, governed by the laws of capital accumulation. Moreover, this separation is not questioned in any substantial way, but is, rather, part of what is called the general consensus. Yet that separation eliminates all the creative potential found in political democracy. It emasculates the representative institutions (parliaments and others), which are made powerless in the face of the “market” whose dictates must be accepted.
  Samir Amin, Revolution from North to South
  
  If the claim was that they were the same in the support of capitalism, the economic system primarily responsible for making us the juggernaut that we are, then I would have not said anything. But when it comes to social, environmental, and how to use (if at all) that generated wealth to support the less fortunate among us, they differ drastically.
  
  You are literally doing the second paragraph I quoted in your reply here. You cannot seperate capitalism and the laws of accumulating capital from social and environmental issues. They are intrinsically linked. Just as the second paragraph said, you did not even question this so "seperation", you just accepted it as the general consensus.
  
  Slavery and imperialism have been very profitable for the masters of the imperial core, yes
  
  My mistake, I meant "both parties," as in Democrats and Republicans.
  
  I knew what you meant and your edit doesn't change the my point at all.
  
  In that case taps sign
  
  Insta-debunk because when it comes to environmental issues, they are very different and this only lists abortion as a difference.
  Of course, it comes as no surprise that "muh both sides"-ers base their arguments on dishonest cherry picking.
  
  Earth is still on track to be completely uninhabitable by the end of the century but hey, Dems pay lip service to climate change so kudos to them!
  dishonest cherry picking
  What part of this image is dishonest? Be specific. You clearly didn't even bother to look very closely at it, since you failed to notice how your "yeah well what about environmental issues
  " rebuttal had already been directly addressed by the very diagram you were responding to.
  
  Lol at the smuglord image after posting a sophomoric oversimplified venn diagram while tapping it. You win biggest projection of the day.
  But no it doesn't actually address it, it mentions climate change, which is one aspect, and still not correct.
  But that being said, just last year the Dems passed the inflation reduction act which was the most significant bill in us history to address climate change.
  But whatever I'm sure is the republicans would have done the same thing.
  
  Lol at the smuglord image after posting a sophomoric oversimplified venn diagram while tapping it. You win biggest projection of the day.
  Then how about actually addressing the fucking points? If it's such a "sophomoric oversimplified venn diagram" as you claim, then explain to the class how it's sophomoric and oversimplified. Engage with the content and stop being such a coward.
  But that being said, just last year the Dems passed the inflation reduction act
  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 2005 levels aka too little too late. And Biden opened up a bunch of offshore drilling negating any climate impact that bill might have had. Great job, Democrats.
  which was the most significant bill in us history to address climate change.
  You say that like it's a high bar.
  But whatever I'm sure is the republicans would have done the same thing.
  At least the Republicans are up front about how awful they are and don't pretend to help by pissing on us as they throw more fuel on the fire.
  
  Then how about actually addressing the fucking points?
  I've never said nor suggested that there was nothing they agree on. While I could quibble about most of "they are the same" points in the middle, and strongly disagree with others, it's really besides the point. There are things on which they are drastically different.
  then explain to the class how it’s sophomoric and oversimplified.
  I literally did, or debunked it as cherry-picked garbage, and you accused me of being a smuglord for doing so. Am I supposed to address every little point on it? Or can I just demonstrate how it is cherry-picked garbage?
  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 2005 levels aka too little too late.
  I tend to agree. But all we can do is move forward at this point. But that doesn't change the fact that with republicans we would do nothing, if not just make policy to make it even worse.
  You say that like it’s a high bar.
  No, I did not. You just need to be dismissive of it because it negates your worldview.
  At least the Republicans are up front about how awful they are and don’t pretend to help by pissing on us as they throw more fuel on the fire.
  Ah, so we agree both sides are not the same. Good on you for coming around. Although, in a kind of weird way. But, this kind of further proves a belief of mine that "muh both sides" is just an attempt to excuse bad behavior by Republicans so people can justify still voting for them.. . and maybe I can add now "despite openly being against their interests."
  
  There are things on which they are drastically different.
  Things which Democrats do little to nothing about. Remind me how abortion rights are going, again?
  Am I supposed to address every little point on it?
  I'm just asking you to back up the arguments you made, buddy. You insisted the entire diagram I provided was "dishonest" "cherry picking" and "sophomoric" and all I want is for you to do is explain exactly how, which you refuse to do aside from going on about climate change, one point among many that were presented.
  But that doesn't change the fact that with republicans we would do nothing.
  So "doing nothing" and "doing a tiny bit of something then immediately negating it with something worse" are totally different things that we need to respect, got it.
  Ah, so we agree both sides are not the same
  "Both parties are the same" means "both parties only serve capital." This isn't a very complex point and you only make yourself look foolish by failing to grasp it.
  
  This administration has opened up a shitload of new oil drilling, weird lanyard nerds coping
  Not to mention the environmental impact of all these new wars
  
  Not to mention the environmental impact of all these new wars
  Lol thanks for proving my point that it's a right wing talking pointing by implicitly blaming the wars on democrats.
  
  This comment thread is about the bipartisan support for the wars. How is that blaming them on democrats?
  
  They are trying to demonstrate that Democrats don't care about the environment, which is why they pointed to new oil drilling and then go on to say "not to mention" about the war. Maybe you are right, and they didn't mean to link it to the Dems, but it pretty clearly did.
  
  The point of all of this is bipartisan support of terrible shit, you just fell back into your habit of looking at things in terms of arguing against Republicans.
  
  My man which party's administration has given 400 quantillion dollars to Ukraine to prolong it's dumb war
  
  Aren't Democrats currently arming one side of the Russo Ukrainian conflict and arming the Israeli occupation? And didn't those same Democrats increase military funding?
  
  I believe that democrats should at the very least oppose genocide (rather than encourage it) if they want to be considered different from the republicans.
  
  Opposing genocide is apparently labelled anti-Semitic nowadays.
  
  Remember when Hitler and Lincoln both signed the "Don't eat shit" Bill before one lost a war and ate shit while the other won a war and ate shit? Good thing they did, because otherwise your example would be shit.
  
  if agreeing on legislation doesnt make them the same, what does?
  
  If they agreed on all legislation, then they would be the same. You are correct and I agree.
  But the poster is using agreement on one piece of legislation as evidence they are the same. Surely you are intelligent enough to see the fault in this logic.
  
  Your wording had it like qualifying as being the same has nothing to do with agreeing on legislation. This is one piece of legislation, but so is every piece of legislation we discuss one at a time. Its still a piece of supporting evidence.
  
  Your wording had it like qualifying as being the same has nothing to do with agreeing on legislation.
  Not my intent, but happy to clear it up.
  Its still a piece of supporting evidence.
  I stand corrected. It's just terrible evidence that doesn't even remotely come close to proving the point.
  
  What makes it bad evidence??
  
  Because it's so easily shown to be drastically incomplete.
  It's like we have two polygons. You say "We have good evidence that they are the same shape because they are both polygons!" Well, sure, that's one tiny piece of the question. But we have to ask how many sides they have, what the angles are between the sides, how long the sides are in length, etc... It's terrible to claim you have good evidence they are the same because they are both polygons.
  
  again, we're only talking about one piece of legislation to begin with. Come back by when something like votes are cast for congress owning stock.
  
  No one here is claiming they don't have anything in common. Having another thing in common would not change anything. But I'm definitely interested in seeing what happens. Although I suspect if it passes, it will pass with bipartisan support, with people from both sides also voting against it.

98 comments