War Room Lounge v93: I got a strep infection in my scrotum and I have no idea how

[Fawlty]

Oh ok. That's my opinion as well. I could see an Iranian organized retaliatory strike in Iraq, but I don't think this will actually lead to war.

Hoping all our military personnel in ME are on high alert and able to stay safe. There's even bigger targets on them now.

Citizens abroad, too. We're probably going to hear a story or two about some dumbshit starry-eyed American kids getting kidnapped soon enough.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Anyone have suggestions for wording of the two week resignation letter when I'm stating local and this company I'm leaving is such a power house in town, I wouldn't be shocked if sometime down the road it may be appealing to attempt to come back?

How do I phrase my desire to leave after not even a year and a half, yet keep that door open if that's possible?

 

[Falsedawn]

Anyone have suggestions for wording of the two week resignation letter when I'm stating local and this company I'm leaving is such a power house in town, I wouldn't be shocked if sometime down the road it may be appealing to attempt to come back?

How do I phrase my desire to leave after not even a year and a half, yet keep that door open if that's possible?

To all who are concerned,

Fuck it, I'm out. Save me a plate at the cookout.

Sincerely,
HockeyBJJ (Your homie)

 

[Fawlty]

Anyone have suggestions for wording of the two week resignation letter when I'm stating local and this company I'm leaving is such a power house in town, I wouldn't be shocked if sometime down the road it may be appealing to attempt to come back?

How do I phrase my desire to leave after not even a year and a half, yet keep that door open if that's possible?

Are you leaving for an opportunity you feel you need to take, or because your currents folks suck? The first kind of letter is way easier to write.

 

[Trotsky]

One thing in re Iran that people in the United States continually get wrong is the effect of US aggression against the Islamic Republic government.

Effectively, the United States - and the Republican Party specifically - are extremely beneficial to the Republic hardliners. If it weren't for US aggression, it's very possible that liberalism and secularism would have prevailed by now. But the threat of invasion and destruction of Iran doesn't just push moderates to support of the Republic: it pushes left wingers there too.

I have several friends in and from Iran and, unsurprisingly if you know me as a poster, they are quite far left. They are cosmopolitan, irreligious, and very critical of the conservative Islamic government. But, when faced with the prospect of an imperialist war by the United States overriding their country's sovereignty and threatening to turn it into a rubble heap, they side with Iran's government and are critical of people who do not.

In short, meddlesome conservatives in the United States are the kindling for nationalism and right-wing extremism abroad.

 

[Falsedawn]

One thing in re Iran that people in the United States continually get wrong is the effect of US aggression against the Islamic Republic government.

Effectively, the United States - and the Republican Party specifically - are extremely beneficial to the Republic hardliners. If it weren't for US aggression, it's very possible that liberalism and secularism would have prevailed by now. But the threat of invasion and destruction of Iran doesn't just push moderates to support of the Republic: it pushes left wingers there too.

I have several friends in and from Iran and, unsurprisingly if you know me as a poster, they are quite far left. They are cosmopolitan, irreligious, and very critical of the conservative Islamic government. But, when faced with the prospect of an imperialist war by the United States overriding their country's sovereignty and threatening to turn it into a rubble heap, they side with Iran's government and are critical of people who do not.

In short, meddlesome conservatives in the United States are the kindling for nationalism and right-wing extremism abroad.

It's almost like that whole coup thing soured them on the whole "US intervention" concept, even more so than other countries we've previously razed to the ground.

It's a feature of conservatism, not a bug.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Are you leaving for an opportunity you feel you need to take, or because your currents folks suck? The first kind of letter is way easier to write.

Leaving because the health insurance at this place is ridiculously bad. Don't feel comfortable starting a family with an $8,000 deductible. I feel like framing it this way to my manager could be best, as then it's like blaming corporate policy not anything about the team or day to day work? Not sure that's the right route though.

Also, not enjoying the work here anymore. But keeping that to myself.

 

[TheGreatA]

One thing in re Iran that people in the United States continually get wrong is the effect of US aggression against the Islamic Republic government.

Effectively, the United States - and the Republican Party specifically - are extremely beneficial to the Republic hardliners. If it weren't for US aggression, it's very possible that liberalism and secularism would have prevailed by now. But the threat of invasion and destruction of Iran doesn't just push moderates to support of the Republic: it pushes left wingers there too.

I have several friends in and from Iran and, unsurprisingly if you know me as a poster, they are quite far left. They are cosmopolitan, irreligious, and very critical of the conservative Islamic government. But, when faced with the prospect of an imperialist war by the United States overriding their country's sovereignty and threatening to turn it into a rubble heap, they side with Iran's government and are critical of people who do not.

In short, meddlesome conservatives in the United States are the kindling for nationalism and right-wing extremism abroad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Mohammadi_(student)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Batebi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heshmat_Tabarzadi

Treatment like what these guys faced, is probably what pushes left-wingers to support the regime.

The alternative is to rot in jail for thought crimes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I also think it's important to note (for the peanut gallery) that the Hillary/Trump commentary in re Iran was reasonable and excusable leading up to the election. Clinton's rhetoric was markedly more hawkish than Trump's in the debates, for instance. So I don't at all blame casual voters for thinking Clinton was the more hawkish pick on this topic.

WTF?

 

[tonni]

 

[Trotsky]

It's a feature of conservatism, not a bug.

You know I'm always down to shit on conservatives, but I don't think this is true, strictly philosophically speaking. It's a feature of reactionary politics - of nationalism, of racism, of xenophobia and ethnocentrism, and of hatefulness generally - but I don't think it's a feature of conservatism as a (pseudo-) philosophy.

WTF?

Yeah, I didn't know this was controversial. Lots of people commented on it at the time. Clinton's chest-thumping in re Iran during the debates was shameful. And much more overt than Trump ambiguous and dodgy answers.

Between that and the fact that Trump made a big deal out of publicly trashing the interventions in Iraq/Libya, both of which Clinton publicly supported, it was completely excusable to think Trump was more doveish on the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Mohammadi_(student)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Batebi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heshmat_Tabarzadi

Treatment like what these guys faced, is probably what pushes left-wingers to support the regime.

The alternative is to rot in jail for thought crimes.

Repression of leftists post-revolution has absolutely not pushed leftists to support them. Quite the opposite. Historically, it has turned leftists into neocon expats.

 

[TheGreatA]

Repression of leftists post-revolution has absolutely not pushed leftists to support them. Quite the opposite. Historically, it has turned leftists into neocon expats.

Not necessarily support them, but to not advocate against them, either.

Soleimani actually played a pretty big hand in the repression of democratic activists. He, along with like-minded military men, pushed the Supreme Leader to adopt a hard-line, repressive stance against students, protesters and activists, by threatening him with a military take-over, if this was not done. This ended with legislation against "thought crimes" and detaining of "thought criminals". This was previous to any significant U.S activity in the region.

Him dying might actually ultimately open up more room for liberal movements in the country. Not necessarily in the short-term, but long-term.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, I didn't know this was controversial. Lots of people commented on it at the time. Clinton's chest-thumping in re Iran during the debates was shameful. And much more overt than Trump ambiguous and dodgy answers.

Between that and the fact that Trump made a big deal out of publicly trashing the interventions in Iraq/Libya, both of which Clinton publicly supported, it was completely excusable to think Trump was more doveish on the issue.

Sounded crazy to me, and I looked it up and saw this:



And it still sounds crazy to me. But I think at this point it's pretty clear that your perceptions of Clinton are and were grossly out of line with reality.

 

[Trotsky]

Sounded crazy to me, and I looked it up and saw this:



Still sounds crazy to me. But I think at this point it's pretty clear that your perceptions of Clinton are and were grossly out of line with reality.

Conversely, I think it's pretty clear that you'll proactively defend Clinton from literally any criticism, no matter how benign or appropriate, and then recoil when people say you defend her. I mean, hell, you looked at my posts decrying this action and this administration and saying Clinton would have been better, and picked out the two sentences slightly critical of Clinton to wave your hands about.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Conversely, I think it's pretty clear that you'll proactively defend Clinton from literally any criticism, no matter how benign or appropriate, and then recoil when people say you defend her.

When people like about me (as you're doing here and have consistently done, even going back to your previous account), I tend to dislike it, yes.

Also note that if it were a matter of "defending," I'd say that whatever her position was was correct. In this case, though, I'm saying that you have misrepresented what it was. It's not a "good or bad" argument; it's a "accurate or not" one.

I mean, hell, you looked at my posts decrying this action and this administration and saying Clinton would have been better, and picked out the two sentences slightly critical of Clinton to wave your hands about.

Two sentences that were inaccurate and bizarre that I asked you to explain, which you didn't do. After having your position refuted, you are responding with your usual slime.

 

[Mendacious]

Sounded crazy to me, and I looked it up and saw this:



And it still sounds crazy to me. But I think at this point it's pretty clear that your perceptions of Clinton are and were grossly out of line with reality.

She’s endorsing the Iran deal here which is the same as endorsing peace with Iran and she notes that there aren’t any better options (the only other option being to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities)

If Hillary says that we have to honor a mutual defense treaty, I guess that makes her a hawk?

 

[Jack V Savage]

She’s endorsing the Iran deal here which is the same as endorsing peace with Iran and she notes that there aren’t any better options (the only other option being to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities)

If Hillary says that we have to honor a mutual defense treaty, I guess that makes her a hawk?

Exactly. The sleazy leftist propaganda strategy has two steps:

1. Lie about her.
2. Anyone who says, "hey, that doesn't sound right," is a superfan of hers and can thus be ignored on the subject.

Game over. No need to actually think. We can go back to our bubble.

 

[Rational Poster]

Exactly. The sleazy leftist propaganda strategy has two steps:

1. Lie about her.
2. Anyone who says, "hey, that doesn't sound right," is a superfan of hers and can thus be ignored on the subject.

Game over. No need to actually think. We can go back to our bubble.

BuT shE waNteD a nO flY ZoNe!!!!!

 

[Trotsky]

She’s endorsing the Iran deal here which is the same as endorsing peace with Iran and she notes that there aren’t any better options (the only other option being to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities)

If Hillary says that we have to honor a mutual defense treaty, I guess that makes her a hawk?

Of course being in favor of the nuclear agreement is a good thing. And, in that clip, Clinton does not say anything unreasonably hostile or chest-thumping. I assume that's why JVS chose that clip.

When people like about me (as you're doing here and have consistently done, even going back to your previous account), I tend to dislike it, yes.

Two sentences that were inaccurate and bizarre that I asked you to explain, which you didn't do. After having your position refuted, you are responding with your usual slime.

Just lol @ "responding with your usual slime." You are once again seeking my posts out, confronting me any time even the most innocuous criticism of Clinton comes up, and issuing personal insults without provocation (" it's pretty clear that your perceptions of Clinton are and were grossly out of line with reality"), and then claiming that I am slimy? Because I don't have full video of the 2016 debates to cite to, regardless of Clinton's grotesquely and famously venomous longstanding posture on Iran? Just like literally every other poster, right or left, is slime when they disagree with, or even point out, your weird allegiance to and defenses of Clinton?

Dude, seriously, you're behaving more and more miserable, toxic, and vindictive as of late. And you're welcome to fuck off and not engage me.

 

[Trotsky]

Also, again for the peanut gallery, in addition to lying about Iran being weeks away from nuclear capability (for the umpteenth time) and fearmongering about the need to be tough with them in the general debates, Clinton also flexed her anti-Iran muscle in the primary debates as well, making a point to mention that, regardless of Iran "coming to the table," she lobbied for increasing sanctions even after the deal.

https://www.thenation.com/article/i...on-on-iran-policy-sanders-is-right-heres-why/
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/hi...llicosity_toward_iran_sounded_very_dangerous/