Comment on Ben Shairo taking over TPUSA by gracejoy

Parent Post: Ben Shairo taking over TPUSA · In Reply To

gracejoy · 9/18/2025, 12:51:36 PM · permalink

"*Betrayed by whom? Jamal endorsed Hillary . ethically/morally/philosophically worse than MBS/Trump. He was no hero/saint, and not very principled, either*."  
  
Betrayed by Jared &amp; MBS. Note the image in my previous post, the 1st A defends journalists as intrinsic to free speech; &amp; while I can't speak to Saudi Arabian law, from what I understand, Jamal went there under false pretense. I want to say that to debate which of two evils is "*worse*" is an exercise in semantics.  
.

''...*not saying they should be persecuted \[but\] I don't have to risk my life/money/well-being \[for the unworthy\]. ...a nation should behave . based on OTNI . not . abstract 'moral' principle, especially when one is not going to be consistent about it anyway*."  
  
The Constitution isn't an inconsistent "*Abstract* '*moral*' *principle*." I would argue that whatever "*principle*" you prefer is even inconsistent, for example your preference for MBS/Trump over Hillary: Your conclusion would always change depending on the options. I prefer the Constitution.  
.  
"...*ROK . ROKAF . MBS . ROK is 'poaching' a good customer from \[Russia\] . OTNI . Yemen . It's all a matter of OTNI; that's how ROK electorate sees it*."  
  
It's not my job to judge between corrupt politicians (see also my comment about "*semantics*" under your first quote). It's also irrelevant to the 1 A.

I don't know OTNI; but I'm sure I'd prefer the Constitution. I'm not sure relevance of your links to Apocalypse Now, The Heat, &amp; Lü Boshe. Not knowing your premise for posting them in the first place, let alone here, I'll say that the only similarity I noticed is that Cao Cao killing his "Uncle" Lü Boshe to mitigate fallout from killing Lü Boshe is superficially similar to Martin Sheen's character shooting the woman dead, at the end. It's an improper comparison, though, since Martin hadn't joined the panicked slaughter. Another superficial similarity is between Chen Gong &amp; Martin, in that both disapproved the killing of the innocent (Lü Boshe &amp; Vietnamese woman); but Chen Gong had joined the original slaughter of innocents, while Martin didn't.  
  
I'll add that while I understand Chen Gong's premise, when he said it was a "genuine mistake when you killed those people," it would seem that if ever one was going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone, it would be to someone one considers an "Uncle:" Before slaughtering his entire family, he should double checked.  
  
Martin's role is unrelated to the other story: Chen Gong was able to walk away to not be part of murdering Lü Boshe, when he realized he'd helped slaughter Lü Boshe's innocent family on hearsay. Martin, otoh, had no part in the original slaughter, had no option to leave, &amp; killed the obviously innocent woman to end the insanity: It's unlikely the woman would have survived the trip to the hospital, let alone if she got help.

My country has its own Constitution. I don't care how the "*ROK electorate sees it.*"  
  
I don't enjoy philosophical musings trying to find similarities among unlike situations, or never-ending debates over which "evil" is worse. It's all pointless &amp; a waste of time, imo.

12 bumps

hyokkim · 9/18/2025, 8:17:06 PM · permalink

''Betrayed by Jared &amp; MBS.''  
  
Jamal was no friend of either; he was nothing more than a nosy, busybody, party pooper; MBS is at least trying to modernize his country, and improve the living standard; what was Jamal's vision for Saudis in the end?   He wanted it to become just like U.S. under Hillary!   Fuuuck Jamal, fuuuck him!  
  
![video](https://www.youtube.com/embed/pibWI0Vx-aY)
  
''the 1st A defends journalists as intrinsic to free speech''  
  
OTNI should come first; nation exists for the sake of the people, not journalists.   People should come first before the abstract legal principle that a nation does not really believe in the first place.  
  
''while I can't speak to Saudi Arabian law, from what I understand, Jamal went there under false pretense. I want to say that to debate which of two evils is "worse" is an exercise in semantics.''  
  
Not true; whatever promotes OTNI should come first; at least MBS is trying to improve Saudi; what has Hillary done?   MBS is leagues beyond Hillary.  
  
''The Constitution isn't an inconsistent "Abstract 'moral' principle."  
  
U.S. has already abandoned the Constitution a long time ago, without even a shred of good reason, certainly not OTNI.   
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066  
  
''I would argue that whatever "principle" you prefer is even inconsistent, for example your preference for MBS/Trump over Hillary: Your conclusion would always change depending on the options.''  
  
Yes, my principle is always consistent: OTNI.   I support MBS/Trump over Hillary, based on OTNI.   Yes, my conclusion based on OTNI, will always change whoever/whatever promotes OTNI.  But the end result will always be OTNI.  
  
''It's not my job to judge between corrupt politicians (see also my comment about "semantics" under your first quote). It's also irrelevant to the 1 A.''  
  
Now, you're engaging in pedanticism.   Whoever promotes OTNI, better, whether he's corrupt (within reason) or not is irrelevant.  People do not exist for 1A; 1A exists for people, for OTNI.   If 1A gets in the way of OTNI, OTNI should come first before 1A.  
  
''I don't know OTNI; but I'm sure I'd prefer the Constitution.''  
  
OTNI = Optimal Totalitarian National Interest = True Fascism  
  
Constitution has been dead for a long time.  
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066  
  
''I'll say that the only similarity I noticed is that Cao Cao killing his "Uncle" Lü Boshe to mitigate fallout from killing Lü Boshe is superficially similar to Martin Sheen's character shooting the woman dead, at the end. It's an improper comparison, though, since Martin hadn't joined the panicked slaughter.''  
  
You're being pedantic again; it would not have made any difference whether Sheen character had joined in the initial massacre or not; he was implicated by the end.   Sheen was the leader of the mission; he was responsible for what his men had done.   What was done was done; it couldn't be undone.   He had to go for the optimal decision for the all parties concerned.  Just like Cao Cao had done.  
  
''Another superficial similarity is between Chen Gong &amp; Martin, in that both disapproved the killing of the innocent (Lü Boshe &amp; Vietnamese woman); but Chen Gong had joined the original slaughter of innocents, while Martin didn't.''  
  
You're being pedantic again; Chen Gong was a 'dead man' just as Martin was implicated.   It would not have mattered whether Chen had joined the slaughter or not.  Chen honestly believed they were under threat, while Martin didn't.     
  
''I'll add that while I understand Chen Gong's premise, when he said it was a "genuine mistake when you killed those people," it would seem that if ever one was going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone, it would be to someone one considers an "Uncle:"  
  
![video](https://www.youtube.com/embed/PaPUD__lrOo)

Along the journey, they passed by the house of Lü Boshe, a sworn brother of Cao Cao's father. There, they killed Lü Boshe's family by mistake, while Cao Cao personally murdered Lü in cold blood later. Chen Gong was shocked by what he witnessed. That night, as Cao Cao slept, Chen Gong considered killing him, but thought it unrighteous to do so. He instead left Cao Cao and travelled to his own hometown in Dong Commandery (東郡; near present-day Puyang, Henan).''  
  
Now, that righteous Chen later on joined a real scumbag, Lü Bu;  
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BC_Bu  
  
''Martin, otoh, had no part in the original slaughter, had no option to leave, &amp; killed the obviously innocent woman to end the insanity: It's unlikely the woman would have survived the trip to the hospital, let alone if she got help.''  
  
So, there, Martin was Cao!   He had to go for the optimal, in real time, on demand, just like Cao.  
  
''My country has its own Constitution. I don't care how the "ROK electorate sees it."  
  
Why U.S. is going down the toilet; U.S. has abandoned her Constitution a long time ago, without even a shred of good reason, certainly not OTNI.   ROK electorate on the other hand, always go for OTNI, not the legal pretense.  Law should exists to serve OTNI, the people, not vice versa.  Law is merely a rough guide line, a tool, not the master.   You're being a wag the dog.  
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066  
  
''I don't enjoy philosophical musings trying to find similarities among unlike situations, or never-ending debates over which "evil" is worse. It's all pointless &amp; a waste of time, imo.''  
  
You're being pedantic, hiding behind semantics.   Nations should exist to serve the people, OTNI, not some abstract legal pretense.  People do not exist to serve the Constitution, but vise versa, especially when people already abandoned the Constitution anyway, without even a good reason!

8 bumps

gracejoy · 9/18/2025, 8:30:02 PM · permalink

7 bumps

hyokkim · 9/18/2025, 9:11:14 PM · permalink

5 bumps

gracejoy · 9/19/2025, 12:11:11 PM · permalink

3 bumps

hyokkim · 9/19/2025, 6:48:56 PM · permalink

1 bump

gracejoy · 9/18/2025, 1:47:48 PM · permalink

2 bumps

Signature