Hannity doesn't call himself Catholic, and that's also not exactly true.
As an ex-Catholic: Catholics only have to accept things that the Pope says ex cathedra, which means he has to make a formal, official statement speaking for the Church, not just expressing his personal views. You can also criticize the Pope's behavior, the Pope is still a sinner like everyone else, only Jesus is without sin. That's how Catholics deal with all those mideval popes having gay harems and stuff, and it's also how they deal with all the times the Church was wrong, like claiming that the sun revolved around the earth.
Infallibility has to be limited in scope or it wouldn't be possible to weasel out of things.
It is though. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism and capitalism is unsustainable. Both in the sense of environmental sustainability and in the sense of the tendency of the rate of profit to decline.
This whole line of "old ideas become stale" and "young people question orthodoxy" contradicts the thesis, because liberalism is the old idea, is the orthodoxy.
One election, of a handful of elections, doesn't disprove the general trend, that people are fed up and looking at alternatives. Biden winning in 2020 did not mean the end of Trumpism, much less of "illiberalism" in general. This is a general trend, not some absolute prophesy.
Oh, I must have missed all the comments calling every America a nation comprised entirely of Nazis and war junkies, let me double check… no, still can’t find them. Weird.
America has plenty of Nazis and war junkies, but at least in this particular case, most people are opposing the war.
It's very rare for that to happen. When the US invaded Afghanistan, Bush was sitting at around a 90% approval rating. A strong majority of Americans supported invading Vietnam. US military spending is higher than the next nine countries combined, a fact which I harp on constantly. Even so, it's simply factual that Israelis are much more supportive of the Iranian War and the genocide in Gaza than Americans are. So you're wrong on two counts, first that Israelis are more bloodthirsty than Americans (facts are not antisemetic, btw no matter how much you don't like them), and second that I do frequently criticize Americans for being bloodthirsty.
You’ve shown a picture of a bombing made by the US and are blaming it on Israel. It’s not some small minor detail.
It is a minor detail. An incredibly minor, insignificant detail. The US and Israel are in this war together, it's a joint operation. Both commit frequent atrocities. You even acknowledge the fact that Israel has bombed schools and hospitals, which means there's zero actual point to the distinction you're making.
It's pure bad faith, hasbara tactics. You're latching on to whatever insignificant detail allows you to defend Israel and denounce it's critics as antisemitic. You're completely full of shit.
I just said the reason Israelis want to destroy Iran’s missile and nuclear programs is mainly because they are genuinely afraid Iran is developing said programs to be used against them, and that fear isn’t unreasonable
What about Iran? Do Iranians get to be afraid of Israel's nukes? Why does the "reasonable" fear only go one way? Israel is an extremely beligerant, genocidal, expansionist, nuclear armed country. Iran is none of those things.
But people like you don't consider Iranians to be human beings. White people get to have "reasonable" fears. Brown people get their faces shoved into the dirt, their children slaughtered, and anything short of "thank you sir, may I have another?" is labelled as antisemitism by you fucks. You lost every ounce of credibility the moment you dropped that "blood libel" accusation. Fuck off.
Israel and the US are birds of a feather. Whenever I criticize the US role in this shit, people blame Israel. Now I'm criticizing Israel's role and you're trying to blame the US. It's a completely meaningless distinction, they're in bed together and they do all this shit together. You're just playing debatebro and latching onto whatever bullshit you can find to try to label me as antisemitic like you Zionazis fucks always do.
You treat this like some kind of fucking game with your smuglord shit. Fuck off back to Reddit, asshole, no one wants you here.
The reason why Mars is a desert today is because life just never happened to have developed there, but if it had, it would be as inhabited as any fertile land is.
Fertile? Martian land is not fertile. It is incredibly barren. Even if you somehow solved the atmosphere problem, you couldn't grow things there.
Only earth has the soil needed to grow things. Eons of things dying and being processed by worms has transformed wide swaths of the planet into fertile soil filled with nutrients that plants can draw on. Martian land has none of that. It's just rock and dust. Even the Sahara is more hospitable.
Processing Martian soil to be even remotely "fertile" would be very energy intensive even if you brought it back to earth. "Terraforming" the soil on Mars at scale would require massive amounts of material from Earth. And then you have the problem that Martian gravity is too weak to retain a breathable atmosphere, even if you could magically conjure up a planet's worth of air.
Even if all of these problems could be solved, Mars has no oil since oil is also derived from life. What does it have beyond "sunlight, CO2, water?" Earth has all of that and so much more, in abundance.
I'm sorry but you simply don't understand geopolitics at all, nor the sheer scale of what you're imagining.
I guess I just don't understand what possible advantage Mars has over places like the Sahara. And you don't seem to think that an empire is going to suddenly manifest in the Sahara.
Because earth has vastly better natural resources. It would be like trying to build an empire in Antarctica or the Sahara. At least those have air!
With Mars, the environment is completely inhospitable to humans, there's no soil to grow food, no air to breathe, no nothing. To even set up a research station there would be a big achievement, to make that self-sustaining would be an incredible advancement. But you're skipping the research station, skipping the colony, skipping the independent state, and going straight to empire without solving any of the problems in between. How are you even going to feed or provide oxygen to a Martian empire?
America was full of vast, untapped natural resources, and it still took nearly 200 years to become a superpower, after European powers devastated each other.
A technological breakthrough could make Mars colonization feasible. It might even be possible for it to be self-sustaining. Who knows?
But an empire? That's utterly ridiculous. You might as well say that the thing that the American empire will last eternally unless and until we genetically engineer a race of intelligent dragons who will replace it with a dragon empire, and if anyone expresses skepticism of that fantasy, you could just as easily point to "people didn't think the Wright Brothers could fly."
One wrong skeptic a hundred years ago doesn't mean every fantasy is going to happen. There's countless predictions that didn't come true.
"Frontline of humanity" what does that even mean, historically? Humanity has always been spread across the earth.
I see absolutely no evidence for this historically, what I see is just people in the Middle Ages trying to brand themselves as the successors to Rome for PR.
The idea of Mars becoming an "empire" is pure fantasy. We can't even begin to talk about the lack of natural resources when there's literally no air. Maybe in 40,000 years or something, but not on any foreseeable timescale.
If we don’t get spaceflight, the US will stay an imperial entity for eternity.
This is straight up magical thinking. You might as well say that someone has to sacrifice a virgin goat on the night that the stars are in alignment for the US empire to end. There is zero logical or causal connection between those things, and empires don't just last "eternally" unless somebody casts the right magic spell.
blaming this specific bombing on Israel it very close to a blood libel.
"Um, actually it's kind of antisemitic for you to be upset about murdered children." Do you Zionazis not have another line? That rhetoric has been abused so opportunistically that it's done. I don't give a single solitary shit if you call me an antisemite for not wanting murdered children.
Go fuck yourself. "I hope the family allowed for it to be used like this." You allowed it to be used like this by creating it.
That's from the school in Iran that was bombed. But it's fine, I guess! Iran said mean things about Israel, after all! Also, Iran may have been trying to get a deterrent, so obviously we had to kill their schoolchildren over it!
What the fuck is wrong with you? Your war is literally proving that the things they say about Israel are correct and that they were justified in seeking a deterrent.
Hannity doesn't call himself Catholic, and that's also not exactly true.
As an ex-Catholic: Catholics only have to accept things that the Pope says ex cathedra, which means he has to make a formal, official statement speaking for the Church, not just expressing his personal views. You can also criticize the Pope's behavior, the Pope is still a sinner like everyone else, only Jesus is without sin. That's how Catholics deal with all those mideval popes having gay harems and stuff, and it's also how they deal with all the times the Church was wrong, like claiming that the sun revolved around the earth.
Infallibility has to be limited in scope or it wouldn't be possible to weasel out of things.