d-usa wrote: The petty argument is not about the size.
The actual argument is about the lie.
Eh? I thought Spicer et. & el. were arguing it's the largest crowd ever...
Did they walk that back?
No, Whem'. The point is that they lied about something so insignificant, and obviously, not what the lie was. And that they then talked about keeping the media "in check" (or whatever the phrase was)... because they called them out on such an obvious lie.
Remember what Spicer actually said: "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe."
Snopes won't call it false instead calling it unproven.
Team Trump got the Press (and all you) to piss and moan over it the last few days, massively diminishing the coverage of the Women's March and other issues. Pretty brilliant move really. Media shown a cookie and dove right for it, not realizing they got played. False or not, Team Trump is making the media dance like an organ grinder's monkey.
d-usa wrote: The petty argument is not about the size.
The actual argument is about the lie.
Eh? I thought Spicer et. & el. were arguing it's the largest crowd ever...
Did they walk that back?
No, Whem'. The point is that they lied about something so insignificant, and obviously, not what the lie was. And that they then talked about keeping the media "in check" (or whatever the phrase was)... because they called them out on such an obvious lie.
Ah...
Meh... media did this to themselves (see last 8 years covering Obama)...
All this chicken little hysteria is falling right into their trap.
Seriously, this is stray voltage here...
So are you ever going to answer the question of how the media was lax on Obama? Now I'm sure they will be far more aggressive with Trump, (because he attacks them all the time), but you have yet to answer on how the media didn't go after Obama's mistakes/lies?
Funnily enough, they seem to have had no shortage of links to, wait for it, media websites, that pointed out each and every flaw and slip and misstep of the Obama administration. Strange how that works.
I personally like the #seanspicersays. As in #seanspicerssays the rebels were not responsible for the destruction of the Death Star.
Of course this has been covered over and over and over again in this thread and the ones before them. But you and others will just repeat it again. Go alternative facts!
I particularly liked the links about FEMA concentration camps and Jade Helm taking over the US. Whats less humorous is that there were people who weren't trolling and honestly believed them.
d-usa wrote: Are we still repeating the lie that the media was not adversarial towards Obama?
You don't see how the press largely fawned over Obama himself??
Lie? Really?
You mean like the alternate fact - that the press secretary and other people in the Obama administration explicitly said false things about Benghazi? You mean like the alternate fact - the Obama administration sent Susan Rice to lie to the public over what transpired in Benghazi and not be ashamed? You mean like the alternate fact - that Obama and HRC blamed that youtube video over the fallen's own caskets? Was there press pushback? No... because it all occured in the backdrop of the 2012 elections, and the press by and large protected Obama. You mean like the alternate fact - that the Obama administration lied about the extent of the IRS targeting of conservatives? First it started as low level staffers... then, it was just peeps in Cincinnati... all.the.way. to Lois Lerner who was held in contempt of Congress for her refusal to cooperate. You mean like the alternate fact - where the Obama admin lied about cash transfers to Iran and the nature of the Iranian deal... You mean like the alternate fact - that Obama's own AG Holder is the first AG to be held in contempt of Congress over Fast & Furious... push back... do you see it? You mean like the alternate fact - on how divisive Obama was whilst in the WhiteHouse... Mr. "I Won" and Mr. "I have pen and phone"... never showing any inkling of wanting to work with anyone 'across the aisle'. You mean like the alternate fact - And probably the whopper where the president himself saying repeatedly ‘If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it’ while millions of people lost their healthcare plans... media always faults the GOP for "not fixing" the law.
Press don't got much credibility here... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So are you ever going to answer the question of how the media was lax on Obama? Now I'm sure they will be far more aggressive with Trump, (because he attacks them all the time), but you have yet to answer on how the media didn't go after Obama's mistakes/lies?
H.R.586 - To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.
... and it begins.
It's an interesting argument because there is no realistic practical way of determining that fertilization has taken place except retrospectively. If a woman has unprotected sex, and takes the morning after pill, there is no medical way of showing that her ovum had been fertilized unless it was, the pill fails, and several weeks later it is seen that she has become pregnant.
Another aspect of this is that fertlized ova do not automatically implant in the uterus, and when failing to do so either abort naturally or become a life threatening condition (implantation in the fallopian tube.)
In short, the concept is bs from a medical standpoint.
H.R.586 - To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.
... and it begins.
Actually thats not off from current case law. The real issue is when life can can exist outside the womb. As technology advances the state's compelling interest in protecting the life of its citizenry will advance.
An interest that isn't so compelling when it comes to medical insurance.
Wow, for someone who says they really don't like Trump, you are sure defending his perspective. I wonder why that is? #seanspicersays: Whembly isn't handwaiving outright lies and doing our work for us by distracting from the fact that we are using "alternative facts".
Gordon Shumway wrote: Wow, for someone who says they really don't like Trump, you are sure defending his perspective. I wonder why that is? #seanspicersays: Whembly isn't handwaiving outright lies and doing our work for us by distracting from the fact that we are using "alternative facts".
Gordon Shumway wrote: Wow, for someone who says they really don't like Trump, you are sure defending his perspective. I wonder why that is? #seanspicersays: Whembly isn't handwaiving outright lies and doing our work for us by distracting from the fact that we are using "alternative facts".
Nah... just countering the idea that the press was 'adversarial' towards the Obama administration... nothing to do with Trump.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Wow, for someone who says they really don't like Trump, you are sure defending his perspective. I wonder why that is? #seanspicersays: Whembly isn't handwaiving outright lies and doing our work for us by distracting from the fact that we are using "alternative facts".
Who are you talking to?
Sorry, I should have used quotes. I was talking to Whembly, but didn't want the massive text quote.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), who campaigned hard against the Trans-Pacific Partnership in last year’s Democratic presidential primaries, praised President Trump for an executive order to officially pull the United States out of the deal.
“I am glad the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead and gone,” Sanders said. “For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals – including the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normal trade relations with China and others – which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers. Now is the time to develop a new trade policy that helps working families, not just multinational corporations. If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers, then I would be delighted to work with him.”
Most Democrats in Congress opposed the TPP, putting them at odds with the Obama administration until its final day in office. During the campaign, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton came out against the TPP after praising the negotiations that had resulted in it. After the election, Sanders and others saw Trump’s victory as the stake through the heart of the trade deal.
And today, Democrats who like Sanders had campaigned against Trump joined him in saluting the executive order.
“I support President Trump’s issuing of an executive orders that will pull the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his recent steps to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) in a statement. “NAFTA has adversely impacted middle class families in Pennsylvania and the TPP would have cost jobs and hurt income growth, which is why I voted against fast tracking the deal in 2015.”
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) shared a similar reaction on Twitter:
Withdrawing from #TPP & moving to renegotiate #NAFTA are good 1st steps from @POTUS, but more must be done to keep his word to WI workers.
— Sen. Tammy Baldwin (@SenatorBaldwin) January 23, 2017
Like Sanders, both Baldwin and Casey are up for re-election in 2018. Unlike Sanders, both watched their states break for Donald Trump in 2016, after decades of solid Democratic wins.
That victory not only emboldened the trade skeptics in the Democratic Party, but stirred a sense of urgency for the party to abandon any “neoliberal” tendencies. With Hillary Clinton defeated, and Barack Obama in retirement, no leading Democrat now supports major international trade deals. In an interview this month with the Washington Post, former Obama administration Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, now a candidate to run the Democratic National Committee, pointedly declined to say what the end of the TPP meant for workers.
Other forces on the left have gone further, asking that they, not Trump, get the credit for the turn against the TPP — and pointing out that by the end, it was Republicans in Congress who wanted it passed. In a statement today, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that “a powerful coalition of labor, environmental, consumer, public health and allied groups came together to stop the TPP,” giving little credit to Trump.
“Today’s announcement that the US is withdrawing from TPP and seeking a reopening of NAFTA is an important first step toward a trade policy that works for working people,” said Trumka. “While these are necessary actions, they aren’t enough. They are just the first in a series of necessary policy changes required to build a fair and just global economy. We will continue our relentless campaign to create new trade and economic rules that end special privileges for foreign investors and Big Pharma, protect our planet’s precious natural resources and ensure fair pay, safe conditions and a voice in the workplace for all workers.”
And in his own statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insisted that “TPP was dead long before President Trump took office.”
“We await real action on trade,” he said.
I don't really know enough about the TPP... only that lots a people don't like it.
Re-negotiation of trade deals may be a good thing from time-to-time as economic realities may have changed since it's implementation.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Federal govt has a vested interest in making sure that university systems they subsidize allow for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions.
Good luck turning that into a practical policy. What are you going to do, monitor every speaker at universities and add up their ideological bias, with funding withheld if the average gets too far left or right? Or should we skip the idea that universities get to set their own policies and assign each university a list of speakers to invite with funding penalties if they don't comply?
You're correct that student protests that result in the cancellation of guest speakers/lecturers isn't a violation of constitutionally protected free speech but while lawful it's still a terrible, unreasonable and intolerant practice.
SHUT UP DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING WE NEED TO HAVE FREE SPEECH HERE.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Team Trump got the Press (and all you) to piss and moan over it the last few days, massively diminishing the coverage of the Women's March and other issues. Pretty brilliant move really. Media shown a cookie and dove right for it, not realizing they got played. False or not, Team Trump is making the media dance like an organ grinder's monkey.
Of course that media distraction comes at the cost of presenting it as "Trump is a narcissistic clown who wants 1984 to be reality", so I'd say that's hardly a win.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Wow, for someone who says they really don't like Trump, you are sure defending his perspective. I wonder why that is? #seanspicersays: Whembly isn't handwaiving outright lies and doing our work for us by distracting from the fact that we are using "alternative facts".
Nah... just countering the idea that the press was 'adversarial' towards the Obama administration... nothing to do with Trump.
If that were the case, how was it possible for you constantly post (before you started using spoilers, thanks by the way) massive stories about all of the misdeeds of the Obama admin? The extensive research you have posted ad nauseum about Benghazi, for example. All you know about it, as I'm guessing you weren't actually there, comes from "the media". Or Clinton's email stupidity? That came from "the media" too.
Here's the thing: everything we know about the world that doesn't come from our own personal observations, comes from "the media". "Media" is the middle man when it comes to stuff we can't personally experience or see. That is important. You must be consuming "the media" to have had such a hatred, or rather lack of appreciation, of Obama, as I doubt you have met him. That means that the media must have been printing/posting bad stuff about him or your reading skills are just bad.
whembly wrote: *Long list of stuff that has nothing to do with your original argument*
You know what, I'm just going to stop humoring your Trumpian technique of not every actually seeing a single argument to completion. And this entire post has nothing to do with your argument, and offers no actual support to it.
You don't get to make the claim that the press was always soft on Obama and after 8 years if finally adversarial again, and then simply switch to another argument the moment you get called out on it, and then repeat the original argument the next month, only to switch to another different argument when you get called out on it again.
That's how every argument goes. You state A, then switch to "but B", then "what about C" and "yeah but D did E".
So just for this single time, give the thread that has put up with your underhanded arguments and refusal to ever see an actual argument to completion the common courtesy to see your argument through to the end instead of just switching the subject the moment it falls apart.
So let's be clear, for the argument of "the press was soft on Obama" it doesn't matter even one tiny little bit what Obama did because the argument was not about him. The argument is about the press and your claim that they were not adversarial to the Obama administration. It's not about Benghazi, it's not about about any other number of pet causes you have, it's about a single actor "the press" doing a single action "not being adversarial to Obama".
So finish that one argument before jumping into three different ones.
You're correct that student protests that result in the cancellation of guest speakers/lecturers isn't a violation of constitutionally protected free speech but while lawful it's still a terrible, unreasonable and intolerant practice.
SHUT UP DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING WE NEED TO HAVE FREE SPEECH HERE.
So you’re arguing for or against the Heckler’s Veto here?
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), who campaigned hard against the Trans-Pacific Partnership in last year’s Democratic presidential primaries, praised President Trump for an executive order to officially pull the United States out of the deal.
“I am glad the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead and gone,” Sanders said. “For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals – including the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normal trade relations with China and others – which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers. Now is the time to develop a new trade policy that helps working families, not just multinational corporations. If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers, then I would be delighted to work with him.”
Most Democrats in Congress opposed the TPP, putting them at odds with the Obama administration until its final day in office. During the campaign, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton came out against the TPP after praising the negotiations that had resulted in it. After the election, Sanders and others saw Trump’s victory as the stake through the heart of the trade deal.
And today, Democrats who like Sanders had campaigned against Trump joined him in saluting the executive order.
“I support President Trump’s issuing of an executive orders that will pull the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his recent steps to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) in a statement. “NAFTA has adversely impacted middle class families in Pennsylvania and the TPP would have cost jobs and hurt income growth, which is why I voted against fast tracking the deal in 2015.”
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) shared a similar reaction on Twitter:
Withdrawing from #TPP & moving to renegotiate #NAFTA are good 1st steps from @POTUS, but more must be done to keep his word to WI workers.
— Sen. Tammy Baldwin (@SenatorBaldwin) January 23, 2017
Like Sanders, both Baldwin and Casey are up for re-election in 2018. Unlike Sanders, both watched their states break for Donald Trump in 2016, after decades of solid Democratic wins.
That victory not only emboldened the trade skeptics in the Democratic Party, but stirred a sense of urgency for the party to abandon any “neoliberal” tendencies. With Hillary Clinton defeated, and Barack Obama in retirement, no leading Democrat now supports major international trade deals. In an interview this month with the Washington Post, former Obama administration Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, now a candidate to run the Democratic National Committee, pointedly declined to say what the end of the TPP meant for workers.
Other forces on the left have gone further, asking that they, not Trump, get the credit for the turn against the TPP — and pointing out that by the end, it was Republicans in Congress who wanted it passed. In a statement today, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that “a powerful coalition of labor, environmental, consumer, public health and allied groups came together to stop the TPP,” giving little credit to Trump.
“Today’s announcement that the US is withdrawing from TPP and seeking a reopening of NAFTA is an important first step toward a trade policy that works for working people,” said Trumka. “While these are necessary actions, they aren’t enough. They are just the first in a series of necessary policy changes required to build a fair and just global economy. We will continue our relentless campaign to create new trade and economic rules that end special privileges for foreign investors and Big Pharma, protect our planet’s precious natural resources and ensure fair pay, safe conditions and a voice in the workplace for all workers.”
And in his own statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insisted that “TPP was dead long before President Trump took office.”
“We await real action on trade,” he said.
I don't really know enough about the TPP... only that lots a people don't like it.
Re-negotiation of trade deals may be a good thing from time-to-time as economic realities may have changed since it's implementation.
There you go again, posting stuff from "the media". You sure like to hate on them while at the same time using them to make your observations. We can't trust it. It is from "the media". They have agendas.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Wow, for someone who says they really don't like Trump, you are sure defending his perspective. I wonder why that is? #seanspicersays: Whembly isn't handwaiving outright lies and doing our work for us by distracting from the fact that we are using "alternative facts".
Well he's been #TrumpForWhiteHouse from the beginning. No surprise therefore he protects his candinate.
whembly wrote: *Long list of stuff that has nothing to do with your original argument*
You know what, I'm just going to stop humoring your Trumpian technique of not every actually seeing a single argument to completion. And this entire post has nothing to do with your argument, and offers no actual support to it.
You don't get to make the claim that the press was always soft on Obama and after 8 years if finally adversarial again, and then simply switch to another argument the moment you get called out on it, and then repeat the original argument the next month, only to switch to another different argument when you get called out on it again.
That's how every argument goes. You state A, then switch to "but B", then "what about C" and "yeah but D did E".
So just for this single time, give the thread that has put up with your underhanded arguments and refusal to ever see an actual argument to completion the common courtesy to see your argument through to the end instead of just switching the subject the moment it falls apart.
So let's be clear, for the argument of "the press was soft on Obama" it doesn't matter even one tiny little bit what Obama did because the argument was not about him. The argument is about the press and your claim that they were not adversarial to the Obama administration. It's not about Benghazi, it's not about about any other number of pet causes you have, it's about a single actor "the press" doing a single action "not being adversarial to Obama".
So finish that one argument before jumping into three different ones.
So... I post some stuff that actually supports my assertions... but, you wanna ignore them because, seemingly, it's too inconvenient for you...
What gives man?
Lemme state this succinctly then:
The.Press.Were.Not.Adversarial.To.The.Obama.Administration.
Those issues, if they occurred during a GOP administration, the press would rightly have gone DEEP THROAT on their asses.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), who campaigned hard against the Trans-Pacific Partnership in last year’s Democratic presidential primaries, praised President Trump for an executive order to officially pull the United States out of the deal.
“I am glad the Trans-Pacific Partnership is dead and gone,” Sanders said. “For the last 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals – including the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normal trade relations with China and others – which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a ‘race to the bottom’ which has lowered wages for American workers. Now is the time to develop a new trade policy that helps working families, not just multinational corporations. If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers, then I would be delighted to work with him.”
Most Democrats in Congress opposed the TPP, putting them at odds with the Obama administration until its final day in office. During the campaign, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton came out against the TPP after praising the negotiations that had resulted in it. After the election, Sanders and others saw Trump’s victory as the stake through the heart of the trade deal.
And today, Democrats who like Sanders had campaigned against Trump joined him in saluting the executive order.
“I support President Trump’s issuing of an executive orders that will pull the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his recent steps to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) in a statement. “NAFTA has adversely impacted middle class families in Pennsylvania and the TPP would have cost jobs and hurt income growth, which is why I voted against fast tracking the deal in 2015.”
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) shared a similar reaction on Twitter:
Withdrawing from #TPP & moving to renegotiate #NAFTA are good 1st steps from @POTUS, but more must be done to keep his word to WI workers.
— Sen. Tammy Baldwin (@SenatorBaldwin) January 23, 2017
Like Sanders, both Baldwin and Casey are up for re-election in 2018. Unlike Sanders, both watched their states break for Donald Trump in 2016, after decades of solid Democratic wins.
That victory not only emboldened the trade skeptics in the Democratic Party, but stirred a sense of urgency for the party to abandon any “neoliberal” tendencies. With Hillary Clinton defeated, and Barack Obama in retirement, no leading Democrat now supports major international trade deals. In an interview this month with the Washington Post, former Obama administration Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, now a candidate to run the Democratic National Committee, pointedly declined to say what the end of the TPP meant for workers.
Other forces on the left have gone further, asking that they, not Trump, get the credit for the turn against the TPP — and pointing out that by the end, it was Republicans in Congress who wanted it passed. In a statement today, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that “a powerful coalition of labor, environmental, consumer, public health and allied groups came together to stop the TPP,” giving little credit to Trump.
“Today’s announcement that the US is withdrawing from TPP and seeking a reopening of NAFTA is an important first step toward a trade policy that works for working people,” said Trumka. “While these are necessary actions, they aren’t enough. They are just the first in a series of necessary policy changes required to build a fair and just global economy. We will continue our relentless campaign to create new trade and economic rules that end special privileges for foreign investors and Big Pharma, protect our planet’s precious natural resources and ensure fair pay, safe conditions and a voice in the workplace for all workers.”
And in his own statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insisted that “TPP was dead long before President Trump took office.”
“We await real action on trade,” he said.
I don't really know enough about the TPP... only that lots a people don't like it.
Re-negotiation of trade deals may be a good thing from time-to-time as economic realities may have changed since it's implementation.
There you go again, posting stuff from "the media". You sure like to hate on them while at the same time using them to make your observations. We can't trust it. It is from "the media". They have agendas.
On the one hand, I believe that violence in lieu of speech is wrong, even against Nazis (assuming the nazis are being peaceful, or about as peaceful for any group that advocates genocide).
On the other, to see that Nazi feth get punched and then completely wuss out did my heart good.
whembly wrote: *Long list of stuff that has nothing to do with your original argument*
You know what, I'm just going to stop humoring your Trumpian technique of not every actually seeing a single argument to completion. And this entire post has nothing to do with your argument, and offers no actual support to it.
You don't get to make the claim that the press was always soft on Obama and after 8 years if finally adversarial again, and then simply switch to another argument the moment you get called out on it, and then repeat the original argument the next month, only to switch to another different argument when you get called out on it again.
That's how every argument goes. You state A, then switch to "but B", then "what about C" and "yeah but D did E".
So just for this single time, give the thread that has put up with your underhanded arguments and refusal to ever see an actual argument to completion the common courtesy to see your argument through to the end instead of just switching the subject the moment it falls apart.
So let's be clear, for the argument of "the press was soft on Obama" it doesn't matter even one tiny little bit what Obama did because the argument was not about him. The argument is about the press and your claim that they were not adversarial to the Obama administration. It's not about Benghazi, it's not about about any other number of pet causes you have, it's about a single actor "the press" doing a single action "not being adversarial to Obama".
So finish that one argument before jumping into three different ones.
So... I post some stuff that actually supports my assertions... but, you wanna ignore them because, seemingly, it's too inconvenient for you...
What gives man?
Lemme state this succinctly then:
The.Press.Were.Not.Adversarial.To.The.Obama.Administration.
Those issues, if they occurred during a GOP administration, the press would rightly have gone DEEP THROAT on their asses.
On the one hand, I believe that violence in lieu of speech is wrong, even against Nazis (assuming the nazis are being peaceful, or about as peaceful for any group that advocates genocide).
On the other, to see that Nazi feth get punched and then completely wuss out did my heart good.
Well Supremecists, KKK, American Nazis no because they aren't nazis.
Real NAZIS - put a bullet in their brains. But as the Nazi party died Spring 1945, they would be 90+ now...
Team Trump got the Press (and all you) to piss and moan over it the last few days, massively diminishing the coverage of the Women's March and other issues.
I think you're giving Trump too much credit. He is simultaneously not that dumb, nor that smart (in the words of Coke's ceo). Calling so much attention to his own lackluster crowd only makes the horde that descended on Washington the next day even more apparent, and made Trump look like a complete egotist with no grasp on reality for the trouble.
At some point people are going to have to stop blaming everyone but Trump for the stupid stuff Trump does (the party of personal responsibility on full display).
On the one hand, I believe that violence in lieu of speech is wrong, even against Nazis (assuming the nazis are being peaceful, or about as peaceful for any group that advocates genocide).
On the other, to see that Nazi feth get punched and then completely wuss out did my heart good.
Well Supremecists, KKK, American Nazis no because they aren't nazis.
Real NAZIS - put a bullet in their brains. But as the Nazi party died Spring 1945, they would be 90+ now...
This guy was a Nazi feth (alright, neo-Nazi feth) through and through, though. He just hasn't done anything because, like most Nazis, he's a spineless coward.
On the one hand, I believe that violence in lieu of speech is wrong, even against Nazis (assuming the nazis are being peaceful, or about as peaceful for any group that advocates genocide).
On the other, to see that Nazi feth get punched and then completely wuss out did my heart good.
Well Supremecists, KKK, American Nazis no because they aren't nazis.
Real NAZIS - put a bullet in their brains. But as the Nazi party died Spring 1945, they would be 90+ now...
This guy was a Nazi feth (alright, neo-Nazi feth) through and through, though. He just hasn't done anything because, like most Nazis, he's a spineless coward.
Not a Nazi. Shoot Nazis
Just a nazi. Point and laugh at them nelson style. HAH hah!
So your proof that the press was soft on Obama are stories covered by the press?
Now who's underhanded here?
Furthermore, many in the industry admits there's bias:
Spoiler:
“There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program [ObamaCare] at the time of passage and during the context of the President’s re-election. I think any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand.”
— Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, November 21, 2013.
Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings: “The presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day, when they’re near him, they lose their mind sometimes. You know, they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish. And they swoon.”
Host Martin Bashir: “And, of course, you don’t.”
Hastings: “Oh, I do. No, I do, I do, I do. Oh, I totally, oh, man....”
— Discussing Hastings’ book about the 2012 presidential campaign on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, January 24, 2013.
“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”
— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.
“Ultimately journalism has changed....Partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.”
— CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO Les Moonves as quoted in a June 7, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Robin Abcarian and Kathleen Hennessey.
“I think that the media is as divided on this issue [of gay marriage] as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he’s never going to get negative coverage for this....When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it’s very hard to lose politically.”
— Mark Halperin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10, 2012.
“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic.”
— Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.”
— New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
— USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.”
— New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19, 2011 Sunday Magazine.
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.”
— Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14, 2011.
"The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."
— Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, 'Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism.'
"I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo."
— Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think....Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?"...
Time's Mark Halperin: "I think mistakes have been made and people will regret it....If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful President, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way."
— MSNBC's Morning Joe, October 28, 2008.
"If you were going to events during the primaries, what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there's this part of history....The American people are smart, they can see this. That's why Obama's on every magazine cover.... There's no question in my mind the media has been more supportive of Senator Obama."
— NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, October 26, 2008.
"Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck."
— National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, September 20, 2008.
Host Howard Kurtz: "Are journalists rooting for the Obama story?"
The Politico's John Harris, referring to when he worked at the Washington Post: "It wouldn't surprise me that there's some of that....A couple years ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they needed to go through detox when they came back — 'Oh, he's so impressive, he's so charismatic,' and we're kind of like, 'Down, boy.'"
— Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, January 13, 2008.
"From a reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that."
— NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an MSNBC.com video about the Obama campaign posted January 7, 2008.
"If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists."
— Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.
A Nazi is a Nazi is a god damn fething Nazi. This pussyfooting around letting human gak stains run their fething mouths is bs. People expect folks to smack their kids in the mouth when they say nasty gak so why do these racist cock gobblers get a free pass?
lonestarr777 wrote: A Nazi is a Nazi is a god damn fething Nazi. This pussyfooting around letting human gak stains run their fething mouths is bs. People expect folks to smack their kids in the mouth when they say nasty gak so why do these racist cock gobblers get a free pass?
It always bother me how quick and easy people gleefully cast aside any principles they normally hold as soon as there's nazis concerned I mean, I guess there's a fair bit of tongue in cheek involved for most, but it is a bit disconcerting.
Zywus wrote: It always bother me how quick and easy people gleefully cast aside any principles they normally hold as soon as there's nazis concerned I mean, I guess there's a fair bit of tongue in cheek involved for most, but it is a bit disconcerting.
That's because the saying is "never again", not "never again, unless stopping the Nazis would require hurting anyone".
So your proof that the press was soft on Obama are stories covered by the press?
Now who's underhanded here?
Furthermore, many in the industry admits there's bias:
Spoiler:
“There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program [ObamaCare] at the time of passage and during the context of the President’s re-election. I think any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand.”
— Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, November 21, 2013.
Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings: “The presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day, when they’re near him, they lose their mind sometimes. You know, they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish. And they swoon.”
Host Martin Bashir: “And, of course, you don’t.”
Hastings: “Oh, I do. No, I do, I do, I do. Oh, I totally, oh, man....”
— Discussing Hastings’ book about the 2012 presidential campaign on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, January 24, 2013.
“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”
— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.
“Ultimately journalism has changed....Partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.”
— CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO Les Moonves as quoted in a June 7, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Robin Abcarian and Kathleen Hennessey.
“I think that the media is as divided on this issue [of gay marriage] as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he’s never going to get negative coverage for this....When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it’s very hard to lose politically.”
— Mark Halperin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10, 2012.
“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic.”
— Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.”
— New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
— USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.”
— New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19, 2011 Sunday Magazine.
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.”
— Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14, 2011.
"The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."
— Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, 'Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism.'
"I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo."
— Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think....Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?"...
Time's Mark Halperin: "I think mistakes have been made and people will regret it....If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful President, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way."
— MSNBC's Morning Joe, October 28, 2008.
"If you were going to events during the primaries, what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there's this part of history....The American people are smart, they can see this. That's why Obama's on every magazine cover.... There's no question in my mind the media has been more supportive of Senator Obama."
— NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, October 26, 2008.
"Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck."
— National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, September 20, 2008.
Host Howard Kurtz: "Are journalists rooting for the Obama story?"
The Politico's John Harris, referring to when he worked at the Washington Post: "It wouldn't surprise me that there's some of that....A couple years ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they needed to go through detox when they came back — 'Oh, he's so impressive, he's so charismatic,' and we're kind of like, 'Down, boy.'"
— Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, January 13, 2008.
"From a reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that."
— NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an MSNBC.com video about the Obama campaign posted January 7, 2008.
"If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists."
— Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.
And he still has had more negative coverage than both his opponents, and adversaries coverage during his terms.
Are you walking back your argument from "no adversarial press" to "not adversarial enough for your liking"?
So your proof that the press was soft on Obama are stories covered by the press?
Now who's underhanded here?
Furthermore, many in the industry admits there's bias:
Spoiler:
“There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program [ObamaCare] at the time of passage and during the context of the President’s re-election. I think any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand.”
— Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, November 21, 2013.
Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings: “The presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day, when they’re near him, they lose their mind sometimes. You know, they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish. And they swoon.”
Host Martin Bashir: “And, of course, you don’t.”
Hastings: “Oh, I do. No, I do, I do, I do. Oh, I totally, oh, man....”
— Discussing Hastings’ book about the 2012 presidential campaign on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, January 24, 2013.
“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”
— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.
“Ultimately journalism has changed....Partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.”
— CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO Les Moonves as quoted in a June 7, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Robin Abcarian and Kathleen Hennessey.
“I think that the media is as divided on this issue [of gay marriage] as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he’s never going to get negative coverage for this....When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it’s very hard to lose politically.”
— Mark Halperin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10, 2012.
“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic.”
— Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.”
— New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
— USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.”
— New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19, 2011 Sunday Magazine.
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.”
— Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14, 2011.
"The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."
— Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, 'Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism.'
"I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo."
— Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think....Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?"...
Time's Mark Halperin: "I think mistakes have been made and people will regret it....If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful President, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way."
— MSNBC's Morning Joe, October 28, 2008.
"If you were going to events during the primaries, what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there's this part of history....The American people are smart, they can see this. That's why Obama's on every magazine cover.... There's no question in my mind the media has been more supportive of Senator Obama."
— NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, October 26, 2008.
"Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck."
— National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, September 20, 2008.
Host Howard Kurtz: "Are journalists rooting for the Obama story?"
The Politico's John Harris, referring to when he worked at the Washington Post: "It wouldn't surprise me that there's some of that....A couple years ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they needed to go through detox when they came back — 'Oh, he's so impressive, he's so charismatic,' and we're kind of like, 'Down, boy.'"
— Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, January 13, 2008.
"From a reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that."
— NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an MSNBC.com video about the Obama campaign posted January 7, 2008.
"If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists."
— Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.
And he still has had more negative coverage than both his opponents, and adversaries coverage during his terms.
There's a difference between negative stories themselves compared to how it's spun.
Ya know... the bias towards a certain ideology or group.
Are you walking back your argument from "no adversarial press" to "not adversarial enough for your liking"?
And he is still using "the media" to point out how bad "the media" is. The hypocrisy is amazing. Hey, Whem, point out how badly "the media" was indebted to Obama without quoting a media source.
I am sick and tired of nasty people getting a pass on being ugly to each other because 'Free Speech'. I get it, you can say anything you want, but if you make a joke about a VW bugs ashtray you shouldn't be surprised if you find your lip bloody. You wanna act like a piece of human garbage, you go right ahead, don't expect a lick of sympathy from me if someone teaches you some damn manners.
I live in a rural backwards hellhole, I know firsthand you ain't reaching these people with kind words and good intentions.
More of these scumbags deserve being taught to think before they run their mouth.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And he is still using "the media" to point out how bad "the media" is. The hypocrisy is amazing. Hey, Whem, point out how badly "the media" was indebted to Obama without quoting a media source.
Now you're being dense and playing the gotcha game.
I am sick and tired of nasty people getting a pass on being ugly to each other because 'Free Speech'. I get it, you can say anything you want, but if you make a joke about a VW bugs ashtray you shouldn't be surprised if you find your lip bloody. You wanna act like a piece of human garbage, you go right ahead, don't expect a lick of sympathy from me if someone teaches you some damn manners.
I live in a rural backwards hellhole, I know firsthand you ain't reaching these people with kind words and good intentions.
More of these scumbags deserve being taught to think before they run their mouth.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
That said, you're more the free to respond in a non-violent manner. Go ahead and let 'em know what you think....
It's really the price we need to pay to enjoy freedom of expression.
So your proof that the press was soft on Obama are stories covered by the press?
Now who's underhanded here?
Furthermore, many in the industry admits there's bias:
Spoiler:
“There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program [ObamaCare] at the time of passage and during the context of the President’s re-election. I think any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand.” — Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, November 21, 2013.
Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings: “The presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day, when they’re near him, they lose their mind sometimes. You know, they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish. And they swoon.” Host Martin Bashir: “And, of course, you don’t.” Hastings: “Oh, I do. No, I do, I do, I do. Oh, I totally, oh, man....” — Discussing Hastings’ book about the 2012 presidential campaign on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, January 24, 2013.
“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.” — Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.
“Ultimately journalism has changed....Partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.” — CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO Les Moonves as quoted in a June 7, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Robin Abcarian and Kathleen Hennessey.
“I think that the media is as divided on this issue [of gay marriage] as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he’s never going to get negative coverage for this....When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it’s very hard to lose politically.” — Mark Halperin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10, 2012.
“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic.” — Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.” — New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.” — USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.” — New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19, 2011 Sunday Magazine.
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.” — Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14, 2011.
"The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins." — Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, 'Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism.'
"I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo." — Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think....Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?"... Time's Mark Halperin: "I think mistakes have been made and people will regret it....If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful President, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way." — MSNBC's Morning Joe, October 28, 2008.
"If you were going to events during the primaries, what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there's this part of history....The American people are smart, they can see this. That's why Obama's on every magazine cover.... There's no question in my mind the media has been more supportive of Senator Obama." — NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, October 26, 2008.
"Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck." — National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, September 20, 2008.
Host Howard Kurtz: "Are journalists rooting for the Obama story?" The Politico's John Harris, referring to when he worked at the Washington Post: "It wouldn't surprise me that there's some of that....A couple years ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they needed to go through detox when they came back — 'Oh, he's so impressive, he's so charismatic,' and we're kind of like, 'Down, boy.'" — Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, January 13, 2008.
"From a reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that." — NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an MSNBC.com video about the Obama campaign posted January 7, 2008.
"If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists." — Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.
And he still has had more negative coverage than both his opponents, and adversaries coverage during his terms.
Are you walking back your argument from "no adversarial press" to "not adversarial enough for your liking"?
This would be 100% accurate if you were born in 2008 and did not live through previous administrations.
Frazzled review of overall press coverage: worst to best: This is a completely scientific review and 100% accurate. Further its the best review ever done after bigly levels of number crunching.
Worst: Reagan. The media HATED Reagan with the white hot passion of thousand suns. They would run daily homeless stories the moment he was elected. Bush II: for 12 months after 9/11 they were very positive. before no. After Iraq heck no. Justified coverage...maybe Bush I last year. painted as inept and uncaring about recession even though helped said recession and recession was over. Clinton 1st Half. Initially loved (saxaphone guy) but deteriorated. Clinton 2nd H: Clinton got it right and distracted the media and he (Morris) played them like a master conductor with the plan of a new issue/news a day. Bush I first 3 years. Media liked him overall and treated him like THE ADULT IN THE ROOM.
I've never seen the media lose their minds like they did over Trump. Part of the media was cray cray over Obama but its spread to all the media is cray cray over Trump. Clinton: first 6 years
d-usa wrote: The petty argument is not about the size.
The actual argument is about the lie.
Eh? I thought Spicer et. & el. were arguing it's the largest crowd ever...
Did they walk that back?
No, Whem'. The point is that they lied about something so insignificant, and obviously, not what the lie was. And that they then talked about keeping the media "in check" (or whatever the phrase was)... because they called them out on such an obvious lie.
Remember what Spicer actually said: "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe."
Snopes won't call it false instead calling it unproven.
Team Trump got the Press (and all you) to piss and moan over it the last few days, massively diminishing the coverage of the Women's March and other issues. Pretty brilliant move really. Media shown a cookie and dove right for it, not realizing they got played. False or not, Team Trump is making the media dance like an organ grinder's monkey.
Is Entertainment Weekly a trustworthy source? They provide actual viewership numbers and Nielson ratings in the article. I'm not sure if this is an instance of semantic differences or outright lying. I don't have cable and I'm not on facebook or twitter so I'm not really exposed to stuff like press conferences in real time.
Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years
James Hibberd@JamesHibberd
Updated January 23, 2017 at 8:17am EST
Donald Trump’s inauguration ratings were the second-highest in 36 years, according to Nielsen.
The swearing-in of the 45th president was seen by 30.6 million viewers across 12 networks.
The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office.
But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).
Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.
And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.
In terms of linear coverage, Fox News topped all networks, averaging 8.8 million viewers for the day and peaking with 11 million viewers from noon to 1 p.m. This was the highest-rated inauguration coverage in the network’s history. While on broadcast, NBC was top ranked with 5.8 million viewers for the day.
Is Entertainment Weekly a trustworthy source? They provide actual viewership numbers and Nielson ratings in the article. I'm not sure if this is an instance of semantic differences or outright lying. I don't have cable and I'm not on facebook or twitter so I'm not really exposed to stuff like press conferences in real time.
Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years
James Hibberd@JamesHibberd
Updated January 23, 2017 at 8:17am EST
Donald Trump’s inauguration ratings were the second-highest in 36 years, according to Nielsen.
The swearing-in of the 45th president was seen by 30.6 million viewers across 12 networks.
The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office.
But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).
Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.
And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.
In terms of linear coverage, Fox News topped all networks, averaging 8.8 million viewers for the day and peaking with 11 million viewers from noon to 1 p.m. This was the highest-rated inauguration coverage in the network’s history. While on broadcast, NBC was top ranked with 5.8 million viewers for the day.
It really is as simple as the rain. Even if it was light rain, the forecast was rain. People aren't going to go out and stand on the mall in rain when they can just sit at home and watch the inauguration on TV/Internet. I don't think his popularity is really relevant to why people didn't turn out.
Zywus wrote: It always bother me how quick and easy people gleefully cast aside any principles they normally hold as soon as there's nazis concerned I mean, I guess there's a fair bit of tongue in cheek involved for most, but it is a bit disconcerting.
That's because the saying is "never again", not "never again, unless stopping the Nazis would require hurting anyone".
If these alt right neo Nazis start to take action against people then yes they should be forcibly stopped. However, the whole "never again" concept doesn't mean that you should go out and assault somebody because you don't like their twitter feed or the what they post on the internet.
BTW, how is the stock market doing? My Windows keeps sending me notices (despite continually turning them off...) that the market is down "amid anxiety about Trump's policies."
whembly wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
This is not a freedom of/from speech issue, it's a freedom from Nazis issue. You punch Nazis because ideas like "we should commit genocide" should not be tolerated, and should be crushed before they turn into actions.
Remember the Grim Milestone that was plaster every night and newspaper during Duyba's tenure?
Nary a peep for Obama's...
I remember those with Nixon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: BTW, how is the stock market doing? My Windows keeps sending me notices (despite continually turning them off...) that the market is down "amid anxiety about Trump's policies."
whembly wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
This is not a freedom of/from speech issue, it's a freedom from Nazis issue. You punch Nazis because ideas like "we should commit genocide" should not be tolerated, and should be crushed before they turn into actions.
The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
There's nothing stopping you from going up to the Nazi and call out the asshattery if they expouses "we should commit genocide".
whembly wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
This is not a freedom of/from speech issue, it's a freedom from Nazis issue. You punch Nazis because ideas like "we should commit genocide" should not be tolerated, and should be crushed before they turn into actions.
Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
Time to take a trip back to San Francisco....
The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
There's nothing stopping you from going up to the Nazi and call out the asshattery if they expouses "we should commit genocide".
whembly wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
This is not a freedom of/from speech issue, it's a freedom from Nazis issue. You punch Nazis because ideas like "we should commit genocide" should not be tolerated, and should be crushed before they turn into actions.
Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
whembly wrote: The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
If said communist is advocating the extermination of an entire race, then yes. But I haven't seen too many of those "communists".
whembly wrote: The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
So... you fear the rise of Nazi Germany in our court system?
Opposed killing Hitler? WTF? We were at war with Germany!
whembly wrote: The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
If said communist is advocating the extermination of an entire race, then yes. But I haven't seen too many of those "communists".
Are there people in the US organizing legalized mass executions that require our violent opposition? Not liking what people say in public or online isn't a reasonable justification to kill them or even assault them. That's true regardless of whether or not whembly has access to a time machine, the ability to plot a successful assassination of Hitler and the will to carry it out.
LordofHats wrote: BTW, how is the stock market doing? My Windows keeps sending me notices (despite continually turning them off...) that the market is down "amid anxiety about Trump's policies."
whembly wrote: The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
If said communist is advocating the extermination of an entire race, then yes. But I haven't seen too many of those "communists".
Pol Pot's commies kiled 1/4 of their population.
Mao's commies killed 100mm people. They also had fun things like forced abortion.
Stalin's commies killed 25mm.
Communist slaughter made the German Nazis look like child's play.
Also if its about race, can I taze a BLM protester then? how about a KKK marcher? Can I make a face at a hipster. Please tell me I can make a face at a hipster.*
*did you know hipsters are just men wearing women's clothing? Look at the color patterns...
LordofHats wrote: BTW, how is the stock market doing? My Windows keeps sending me notices (despite continually turning them off...) that the market is down "amid anxiety about Trump's policies."
Down 27 per Yahoo.
Is that a lot, so-so, barely anything?
Thats almost literally nothing. The Dow is at 19,799 as a comparison, down 27.
LordofHats wrote: BTW, how is the stock market doing? My Windows keeps sending me notices (despite continually turning them off...) that the market is down "amid anxiety about Trump's policies."
Down 27 per Yahoo.
Is that a lot, so-so, barely anything?
Barely...
But... I think you'd know that, so I must be missing something...
People hide behind freespeech to say some of the damn nastiest gak in this country. They don't listen, they don't learn, they don't care.
They call for lynchings, they scream for ovens, they demand rapings, they declare that god hates folk because of their skin, or gender, or sexuality.
And people click their tongues and tut tut, going "Now now, be nice, Because thats their right."
But god forbid someone has enough of their gak. God forbid someone gets knocked down a peg for being an donkey-cave. God fething forbid someone actually gets what they deserve for once.
I will never, ever, damn someone for punching a nazi, a bigot, or sexists.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And he is still using "the media" to point out how bad "the media" is. The hypocrisy is amazing. Hey, Whem, point out how badly "the media" was indebted to Obama without quoting a media source.
Now you're being dense and playing the gotcha game.
No, I'm not. If your basic premise is "we can't trust the media because the media is in the tank for the other guy", you cannot turn around and use the media as an example for any point you are trying to make. If we take your premise at any value, we have to disregard any point you attempt to make when you use "the media" as an example of it. It isn't a gotch, just a recognition of how rediculous attempting to paint "the media" with a broad brush really is. Don't like the media? Fine. Quit using it to bolster any of your arguments. Can't? Fine, quit using it as a scapegoat for stupitidy.
whembly wrote: The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
If said communist is advocating the extermination of an entire race, then yes. But I haven't seen too many of those "communists".
Are there people in the US organizing legalized mass executions that require our violent opposition? Not liking what people say in public or online isn't a reasonable justification to kill them or even assault them. That's true regardless of whether or not whembly has access to a time machine, the ability to plot a successful assassination of Hitler and the will to carry it out.
We can at least draw cartoon villain moustaches on their posters though right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: People hide behind freespeech to say some of the damn nastiest gak in this country. They don't listen, they don't learn, they don't care.
They call for lynchings, they scream for ovens, they demand rapings, they declare that god hates folk because of their skin, or gender, or sexuality.
And people click their tongues and tut tut, going "Now now, be nice, Because thats their right."
But god forbid someone has enough of their gak. God forbid someone gets knocked down a peg for being an donkey-cave. God fething forbid someone actually gets what they deserve for once.
I will never, ever, damn someone for punching a nazi, a bigot, or sexists.
Sounds like you're an anti Nazi bigot. Can I punch you?
Any other portion of the Bill of Rights, you'd like to do away with?
I will say on the whole "commies kill more than nazi's front", it's true, that more died under Stalin, he also had 30 or so years to do it in, whereas Hitler killed a lot more per year. USSR and Nazi Germany were still both horrible though. Although Pol Pot still takes the dubious award for "most effective mass murderer".
And no hitting nazis or commies unless they are violent. It's bad, even if they are Nazis.
whembly wrote: The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
If said communist is advocating the extermination of an entire race, then yes. But I haven't seen too many of those "communists".
Are there people in the US organizing legalized mass executions that require our violent opposition? Not liking what people say in public or online isn't a reasonable justification to kill them or even assault them. That's true regardless of whether or not whembly has access to a time machine, the ability to plot a successful assassination of Hitler and the will to carry it out.
We can at least draw cartoon villain moustaches on their posters though right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: People hide behind freespeech to say some of the damn nastiest gak in this country. They don't listen, they don't learn, they don't care.
They call for lynchings, they scream for ovens, they demand rapings, they declare that god hates folk because of their skin, or gender, or sexuality.
And people click their tongues and tut tut, going "Now now, be nice, Because thats their right."
But god forbid someone has enough of their gak. God forbid someone gets knocked down a peg for being an donkey-cave. God fething forbid someone actually gets what they deserve for once.
I will never, ever, damn someone for punching a nazi, a bigot, or sexists.
Sounds like you're an anti Nazi bigot. Can I punch you?
Any other portion of the Bill of Rights, you'd like to do away with?
You can even draw cartoons of the prophet Mohammed if you want to Frazz that's the power of Free Speech.
lonestarr777 wrote: People hide behind freespeech to say some of the damn nastiest gak in this country. They don't listen, they don't learn, they don't care.
They call for lynchings, they scream for ovens, they demand rapings, they declare that god hates folk because of their skin, or gender, or sexuality.
And people click their tongues and tut tut, going "Now now, be nice, Because thats their right."
But god forbid someone has enough of their gak. God forbid someone gets knocked down a peg for being an donkey-cave. God fething forbid someone actually gets what they deserve for once.
I will never, ever, damn someone for punching a nazi, a bigot, or sexists.
Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...
whembly wrote: So... you fear the rise of Nazi Germany in our court system?
Not so much, because I think enough people believe in the principle of killing Nazis that we won't get to that point.
Opposed killing Hitler? WTF? We were at war with Germany!
I'm talking about before Hitler got into power. If you got sent back in time to the 1930s would you support killing Hitler before he can commit genocide, or would you talk about how Hitler has a right to freedom of speech and we can't commit violence just because he has an opinion we don't like?
(The correct answer is you kill Hitler.)
Prestor Jon wrote: Are there people in the US organizing legalized mass executions that require our violent opposition?
If we get to that point then it is far too late. You punch/kill/whatever it takes Nazis so that we don't have mass executions, you don't wait until the Nazis have started to carry out their promises of genocide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior?
I think "advocating genocide for the sake of racial purity" is a pretty good indicator that one is a Nazi, and a test the recipient of a well-deserved "alternative hug" passes.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And he is still using "the media" to point out how bad "the media" is. The hypocrisy is amazing. Hey, Whem, point out how badly "the media" was indebted to Obama without quoting a media source.
Now you're being dense and playing the gotcha game.
No, I'm not. If your basic premise is "we can't trust the media because the media is in the tank for the other guy", you cannot turn around and use the media as an example for any point you are trying to make. If we take your premise at any value, we have to disregard any point you attempt to make when you use "the media" as an example of it. It isn't a gotch, just a recognition of how rediculous attempting to paint "the media" with a broad brush really is. Don't like the media? Fine. Quit using it to bolster any of your arguments. Can't? Fine, quit using it as a scapegoat for stupitidy.
Your position only works if you are intellectually honest and care for consistency. If you are an opportunist, why not use something for your benefit and decry that same system if it benefits you to do so? Especially if you have supporters whom are not bothered by such tactics?
You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.
You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.
You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.
This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.
lonestarr777 wrote: You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.
You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.
You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.
This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.
So if they shoot you in the face in self defense, who deserved it?
Reagan was called a Nazi. Did he deserve to be shot? How about those calling for it? Inversely, Obama was called a Communist. Should he have been shot? How about those calling for it?
And people wonder why I carry a full auto wiener dog for protection. That fat little fether can bite, let me tell you. Also snore in your ear when he falls asleep.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And he is still using "the media" to point out how bad "the media" is. The hypocrisy is amazing. Hey, Whem, point out how badly "the media" was indebted to Obama without quoting a media source.
Now you're being dense and playing the gotcha game.
No, I'm not. If your basic premise is "we can't trust the media because the media is in the tank for the other guy", you cannot turn around and use the media as an example for any point you are trying to make. If we take your premise at any value, we have to disregard any point you attempt to make when you use "the media" as an example of it. It isn't a gotch, just a recognition of how rediculous attempting to paint "the media" with a broad brush really is. Don't like the media? Fine. Quit using it to bolster any of your arguments. Can't? Fine, quit using it as a scapegoat for stupitidy.
Your position only works if you are intellectually honest and care for consistency. If you are an opportunist, why not use something for your benefit and decry that same system if it benefits you to do so? Especially if you have supporters whom are not bothered by such tactics?
lonestarr777 wrote: You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.
You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.
You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.
This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.
My sensitive sensibilities? That's an odd name for the rule of law and the protection of free thinking. If you feel the need to beat somebody's face in because they hold up a sign you don't like or make a comment you don't agree with you're a bigger threat than they are. There's no cause for handing out beatdowns for people mouthing off in ways that you don't like. If you really want to start fights with strangers over bullgak statement you're the one that's thin skinned.
You can't beat ideas with violence. If somebody is espousing an idea you don't like then you shouldn't listen to it. If you don't want the "wrong" ideas to catch on then educate your kids/friends/coworkers/etc to know better. You know who tried to squash a "bad" idea with violence? People opposed to desegregation. How'd that turn out? They beat, blasted with fire hoses, sicced dogs on and killed way too many people for getting the "wrong" uppity idea and their side lost. What happened to the thousand year Reich? Where's the USSR that Stalin put together now? You can't suppress ideas with violence you can only make them outmoded and ignorant through widespread education and social progress.
Plus picking fights with strangers is just stupid. You don't know that person, what the person is capable of, if they're armed, etc. and committing assault is going to get you in a lot of legal trouble regardless of the opinions expressed by the person you attacked. The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And he is still using "the media" to point out how bad "the media" is. The hypocrisy is amazing. Hey, Whem, point out how badly "the media" was indebted to Obama without quoting a media source.
Now you're being dense and playing the gotcha game.
No, I'm not. If your basic premise is "we can't trust the media because the media is in the tank for the other guy", you cannot turn around and use the media as an example for any point you are trying to make. If we take your premise at any value, we have to disregard any point you attempt to make when you use "the media" as an example of it. It isn't a gotch, just a recognition of how rediculous attempting to paint "the media" with a broad brush really is. Don't like the media? Fine. Quit using it to bolster any of your arguments. Can't? Fine, quit using it as a scapegoat for stupitidy.
Your position only works if you are intellectually honest and care for consistency. If you are an opportunist, why not use something for your benefit and decry that same system if it benefits you to do so? Especially if you have supporters whom are not bothered by such tactics?
And that pretty much sums it up.
So interesting that you'll just skip by the citations I've posted. You know... actual media industry peeps admitting outright their liberal bias and their soft treatment of the Obama administration....
Prestor Jon wrote: Are there people in the US organizing legalized mass executions that require our violent opposition?
If we get to that point then it is far too late. You punch/kill/whatever it takes Nazis so that we don't have mass executions, you don't wait until the Nazis have started to carry out their promises of genocide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior?
I think "advocating genocide for the sake of racial purity" is a pretty good indicator that one is a Nazi, and a test the recipient of a well-deserved "alternative hug" passes.
Talking smack isn't a reasonable justification for attacking people and hurting or killing them. The idea that we have to preemptively kill people before they do something wrong is faulty logic as well as the antithesis of our concept of justice. You're innocent until proven guilty. If you haven't committed a crime yet then you aren't guilty of doing anything wrong so there's no justification for taking any action against you. It's not step 1 is posting bullgak online and immediately leads to step 2 genocidal murder camps. There are plenty of steps in between that provide ample time and opportunity to prevent any actual genocide or other crimes and injustices from happening without destroying free speech or assaulting people over "wrong" opinions.
You know... actual media industry peeps admitting outright their liberal bias and their soft treatment of the Obama administration....
Media chase clicks. There wasn't a lot of "bad Obama" stories by mainstream media because they don't generate that many clicks among mainstream consumers. Most people think Obama's a decent guy who did his best with what he had. That's probably the truth.
Trump is a click hungry media's wet dream. everyday, it's a whole new host of what-the-actual-fethery to click on.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And he is still using "the media" to point out how bad "the media" is. The hypocrisy is amazing. Hey, Whem, point out how badly "the media" was indebted to Obama without quoting a media source.
Now you're being dense and playing the gotcha game.
No, I'm not. If your basic premise is "we can't trust the media because the media is in the tank for the other guy", you cannot turn around and use the media as an example for any point you are trying to make. If we take your premise at any value, we have to disregard any point you attempt to make when you use "the media" as an example of it. It isn't a gotch, just a recognition of how rediculous attempting to paint "the media" with a broad brush really is. Don't like the media? Fine. Quit using it to bolster any of your arguments. Can't? Fine, quit using it as a scapegoat for stupitidy.
Your position only works if you are intellectually honest and care for consistency. If you are an opportunist, why not use something for your benefit and decry that same system if it benefits you to do so? Especially if you have supporters whom are not bothered by such tactics?
And that pretty much sums it up.
So interesting that you'll just skip by the citations I've posted. You know... actual media industry peeps admitting outright their liberal bias and their soft treatment of the Obama administration....
But how in the world can I trust them as sources? They are the media. The media can't be trusted to not be trusted when they say they can't be trusted. Your argument has no merit because you used the media as a source.
See the problem with blaming "the media" yet?
Peregrine wrote: I'm talking about before Hitler got into power. If you got sent back in time to the 1930s would you support killing Hitler before he can commit genocide, or would you talk about how Hitler has a right to freedom of speech and we can't commit violence just because he has an opinion we don't like?
(The correct answer is you kill Hitler.)
Yeah, but you don't have the precognitive ability predict who will actually follow up on any rhetoric. You don't kill for an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it. Killing shouldn't be a course of action in the first place, but if it must, it should at least be because something is done, not on a "maybe".
Peregrine wrote: I'm talking about before Hitler got into power. If you got sent back in time to the 1930s would you support killing Hitler before he can commit genocide, or would you talk about how Hitler has a right to freedom of speech and we can't commit violence just because he has an opinion we don't like?
(The correct answer is you kill Hitler.)
Yeah, but you don't have the precognitive ability predict who will actually follow up on any rhetoric. You don't kill for an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it. Killing shouldn't be a course of action in the first place, but if it must, it should at least be because something is done, not on a "maybe".
You know... actual media industry peeps admitting outright their liberal bias and their soft treatment of the Obama administration....
Media chase clicks. There wasn't a lot of "bad Obama" stories by mainstream media because they don't generate that many clicks among mainstream consumers. Most people think Obama's a decent guy who did his best with what he had. That's probably the truth.
Trump is a click hungry media's wet dream. everyday, it's a whole new host of what-the-actual-fethery to click on.
this is probably the most accurate way of putting it. Even when Obama had a foot-in-mouth issue, he generally did very well at attempting to rectify it quickly, such as the thing with HL Gates and Crowley, where he invited them both over for beer after making an ass of himself and smoothed the whole thing over and the controversy died quickly.
lonestarr777 wrote: You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.
You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.
You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.
This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.
So if they shoot you in the face in self defense, who deserved it?
Reagan was called a Nazi. Did he deserve to be shot? How about those calling for it?
Inversely, Obama was called a Communist. Should he have been shot? How about those calling for it?
And people wonder why I carry a full auto wiener dog for protection. That fat little fether can bite, let me tell you. Also snore in your ear when he falls asleep.
Frazzled, of all people I would never expect you to defend a god damn Nazi. You, Mr. Anti-Politically correct, Mr. Kill everyone from California cause California. I bet your tune would change in a damn heartbeat if anyone was saying this nasty gak to your family or anyone you hold dear. I want you to know the reason I don't have you on ignore is because you can be a good person, it shines through and even if you say something that makes my blood boil I know that inside you're an alright guy who just makes me sigh and slap my forehead on occasion.
I ain't gonna stand here and say that you aren't allowed to think people deserve to be dreadsocked. I ain't that much of a hypocrite. But some folks more than others deserve a black eye for being a twit.
Prestor Jon wrote:
lonestarr777 wrote: You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.
You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.
You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.
This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.
My sensitive sensibilities? That's an odd name for the rule of law and the protection of free thinking. If you feel the need to beat somebody's face in because they hold up a sign you don't like or make a comment you don't agree with you're a bigger threat than they are. There's no cause for handing out beatdowns for people mouthing off in ways that you don't like. If you really want to start fights with strangers over bullgak statement you're the one that's thin skinned.
You can't beat ideas with violence. If somebody is espousing an idea you don't like then you shouldn't listen to it. If you don't want the "wrong" ideas to catch on then educate your kids/friends/coworkers/etc to know better. You know who tried to squash a "bad" idea with violence? People opposed to desegregation. How'd that turn out? They beat, blasted with fire hoses, sicced dogs on and killed way too many people for getting the "wrong" uppity idea and their side lost. What happened to the thousand year Reich? Where's the USSR that Stalin put together now? You can't suppress ideas with violence you can only make them outmoded and ignorant through widespread education and social progress.
Plus picking fights with strangers is just stupid. You don't know that person, what the person is capable of, if they're armed, etc. and committing assault is going to get you in a lot of legal trouble regardless of the opinions expressed by the person you attacked. The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
I'm so fething tired, I think I'm the only Dakka poster here who's blue collar... I have to keep my mouth shut or I'll get fired at my job. I have to pretend I'm a racist. That I think Hilary should have been raped in an alley, actual conversation I got dragged into... That everyone on government assistance is subhuman, when my family and I have had to make use of those programs. And I know, there ain't no way in hell to reach these people, to even make them reconsider some of this, you can't reach everyone, you can't fething save everyone from themselves... but by fething god I will smile and thank someone who can stand up and make them think for a minute they done fethed up.
So go ahead, think less of me all you want... but I know first hand... you are never gonna fething reach these people and make them see the light.
It wouldn't surprise me if there are relatively few 'blue collar' workers on Dakka. Collecting toy soldiers would I imagine very much be a white-collar / 'middle class' (sorry, I'm British, we don't really do the whole -worker thing here) thing.
For example, I would imagine the (stereo)typical blue collar workers, who do earn more money than the standard white collar person may not tend to think, "oh you know what, I'm earning a bunch of money, lets go spend it on piles of plastic I'll never paint." Lets face it, it's a rare breed in general that'd think that's a good idea...
Well in the US, class systems are not so cut and dry. Within a state middle class can fluctuate wildly from city to city and county to county. Where I live the middle income starts at 180k (not me lol) and the city next door upper class starts at 30k.
Compel wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if there are relatively few 'blue collar' workers on Dakka. Collecting toy soldiers would I imagine very much be a white-collar / 'middle class' (sorry, I'm British, we don't really do the whole -worker thing here) thing.
For example, I would imagine the (stereo)typical blue collar workers, who do earn more money than the standard white collar person may not tend to think, "oh you know what, I'm earning a bunch of money, lets go spend it on piles of plastic I'll never paint." Lets face it, it's a rare breed in general that'd think that's a good idea...
I imagine there's a few people around who have only worked blue collar jobs, maybe played table top games in the past when they were cheaper, can no longer afford to play them, but are still around Dakka because they wish they could...
*whistles quietly in corner*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: Well in the US, class systems are not so cut and dry. Within a state middle class can fluctuate wildly from city to city and county to county. Where I live the middle income starts at 180k (not me lol) and the city next door upper class starts at 30k.
I think that has less to do with middle class fluctuating and more to do with "Middle Class" being an idealized state in American culture. People who are not middle class will convince themselves they are, even when pulling in dirt, or gold. I've me a doctor who identified as middle class (and oh man, do you know how expensive a Mercedes is? He could barely afford it), and I've met people living on welfare/food stamps who identified as Middle Class.
It comes down to a question of how we define what the "Middle Class" is. Is it an income or wealth bracket, a certain state of financial security, a cultural outlook, or a combo of things? Either way, the "Middle Class" is outside of academics likely a worthless identifier because it already is basically whatever someone wants it to be.
Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...
What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.
BrotherGecko wrote: Well in the US, class systems are not so cut and dry. Within a state middle class can fluctuate wildly from city to city and county to county. Where I live the middle income starts at 180k (not me lol) and the city next door upper class starts at 30k.
And the line between "blue-collar" and "white-collar" is often not really clear. A lot of people seem to put physical labor as blue collar. However, both my parents do physical labor. father works at NPS, does a lot of ground-work, tagging animals, taking care of grounds ect, although less as he's relented accepting a managerial promotion, and my mother works for a horse boarding farm. But both have college degrees (father has masters in Resources Management, mother has a bachelors in Entomology). It's sort of straddling the line.
And the line between "blue-collar" and "white-collar" is often not really clear.
It's pretty clear, but I think much like "middle class" people identify with these terms for reasons beyond their actual definitions.
A lot of people seem to put physical labor as blue collar. However, both my parents do physical labor.
Blue collar defines manual labor outside of agriculture; factory workers, construction workers, miners, janitors, and stuff.
White collar is usually service industry stuff, and office work. Pink collar kind of broke off from white collar to define people who work in customer service, and sales (the front end of the service industries).
There's some jobs that "float" nebulously in these terms, like police officers or technicians. EDIT: There is another division between these terms based on wage earnings; blue collar being hourly, while white collar being salary (pink collar in this dynamic being commission/contract work). At the end of the day though these were terms invented to help with demographic studies. I feel they've since that time taken on lives of their own.
lonestarr777 wrote: You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.
You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.
You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.
This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.
Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?
lonestarr777 wrote: You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.
You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.
You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.
This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.
Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?
That's a reach and a half. But I'm not really surprised.
lonestarr777 wrote: You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.
You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.
You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.
This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.
Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?
The primary differrence between the qualifiers being made would see to be; do a dick thing and you're gonna get decked. Dressing up and going out to have a pleasant evening isn't really a dick thing.
Though personally I find trolling racists way funner than punching them
Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...
What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.
Like with anything else... more speech.
<not having a go with you Nuggz>
Frankly, I'm finding it very surprising that we have to explain that we don't 'hit' people, not even if someone makes you 'mad'.
I mean, that arguments boils down to "Violence is okay, as long as it's against members of disfavored groups" is horrible and insane.
lonestarr777 wrote: I'm so fething tired, I think I'm the only Dakka poster here who's blue collar...
You aren't.
I have to keep my mouth shut or I'll get fired at my job. I have to pretend I'm a racist. That I think Hilary should have been raped in an alley, actual conversation I got dragged into... That everyone on government assistance is subhuman, when my family and I have had to make use of those programs. And I know, there ain't no way in hell to reach these people, to even make them reconsider some of this, you can't reach everyone, you can't fething save everyone from themselves... but by fething god I will smile and thank someone who can stand up and make them think for a minute they done fethed up.
I put up with the same stuff at my job and I've talked about it numerous times in these threads, only no seems to actually pay attention to it. I ignore the ridiculous drivel that spills out of their mouths for the most part and I don't have to pretend to be or think anything because I don't care what the people I work with think about me.
My understanding is that, like NAFTA, there was bi-partisan support and resistance to the TPP. Today, President Trump put the last nail in the TPP's coffin and gave it a viking funeral.
What do you guys think about the TPP? Was it good or did it need to go? Will we be protecting American jobs or is this just robbing Peter to pay Paul somehow?
Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...
What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.
If there is evidence that the cleric may be breaking the law he should be investigated and if he is found to be breaking the law he should be charged and prosecuting. Absent of any evidence of criminal activity the govts should leave the cleric alone same as anybody else. The law applies equally to everybody it's not applied selectively to different people.
Peregrine wrote: I'm talking about before Hitler got into power. If you got sent back in time to the 1930s would you support killing Hitler before he can commit genocide, or would you talk about how Hitler has a right to freedom of speech and we can't commit violence just because he has an opinion we don't like?
(The correct answer is you kill Hitler.)
Yeah, but you don't have the precognitive ability predict who will actually follow up on any rhetoric. You don't kill for an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it. Killing shouldn't be a course of action in the first place, but if it must, it should at least be because something is done, not on a "maybe".
So down with the Bush doctrine?
Not sure what that's supposed to mean? Like how we invaded a country that had documented evidence of chemical weapons, nuclear resources INCLUDING yellow cake, and documents stating the intent to sit on their programs until sanctions were lifted? Probably, probably not, but nice try politicizing something that had nothing to do with D vs R.
Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?
While I don't agree with Lonestarr's conclusions, I can certainly empathise (I think that's the right one?) with his feelings.
However, to take a stab at it, in my own non philosophical way.
The traditional aspect of 'blame the victim' is the act of laying the responsibility of the negative actions on the victim, rather than laying the responsibility on the perpetrator.
Whereas, in those examples, it is, in effect, 'mob justice.' Someone does a violent / negative thing and receives a violent / negative outcome in response. This is not a civil thing to do, however one would then ask, if such an event is happening, is it truly a civil time?
As I keep on repeating in this thread, I'm British and so come with not just a different perspective on things, but also different knowledge and, more importantly, a lack of knowledge (yes, really).
For example, some of the stuff I've been reading over the past couple of weeks as a result of the Trump thing has included references to Martin Luther King Jr speeches (particularly due to the whole spat Trump had with John Lewis a bit ago). So, I'm not completely ignorant of them, - Even the UK knows of the "I have a dream" speech. :p And yeah, being into comic books I was vaguely aware of the ties of the American Civil Rights Movement and The X-Men. Anyhow, I'm wandering off topic...
Basically, I've been reading wee bits and pieces of the MLK things for the very first time and fowks, there really are similarities in there with this whole mess. And I don't mean hysterical type similarities (EG the 'classic' argument of, Hitler likes dogs, you like dogs, you're Hitler!), I mean actual real similarities relating to societal change in America and a push back performed against it by the more privileged groups, and they're not in some of the cheerier 'Inspirational Thought for the Day' style quotes.
And it's not gonna be easy, it's not gonna be clearcut. It's not going to be a case of people being 100% saints. Heck even going too far with the analogies of those times is messy - for example, the last letter/speech I read decried the USA's status as the world's police, something that is currently closer in alignment to Trump's point of view, yet in the same document very much talks against the privileged rich.
So, wow, that was quite a ramble. I think I'll shuffle off to bed now.
Breotan wrote: My understanding is that, like NAFTA, there was bi-partisan support and resistance to the TPP. Today, President Trump put the last nail in the TPP's coffin and gave it a viking funeral.
What do you guys think about the TPP? Was it good or did it need to go? Will we be protecting American jobs or is this just robbing Peter to pay Paul somehow?
I will give Trump a little credit on this one. TPP looks like it was going to be a mixed bag, and IMO had far too much corporate influence to provide a significant net benefit to US citizens. However, a not-insignificant benefit would be forming stronger economic ties to a lot of countries that are likely going to be knocking on China's door now. I don't really know a whole lot about it, but from what I have read I was struck with the impression that the negotiations had gone on too long with too many sources of input, and that TPP had grown too bloated to make the benefits worth it. Clinton was also against TPP by the time she was running.
I don't really think Trump has gone through the details and evaluated the potential effects, I think its more of a knee-jerk going along with his standard rhetoric. I tentatively believe backing out of the TPP was the right course, or rather not a wrong one. However we should still work on economic treaties with the countries involved, either collectively or individually, as the idea of doing so is good even if TPP was perhaps a bad way of doing it.
Peregrine wrote: I'm talking about before Hitler got into power. If you got sent back in time to the 1930s would you support killing Hitler before he can commit genocide, or would you talk about how Hitler has a right to freedom of speech and we can't commit violence just because he has an opinion we don't like?
(The correct answer is you kill Hitler.)
Yeah, but you don't have the precognitive ability predict who will actually follow up on any rhetoric. You don't kill for an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it. Killing shouldn't be a course of action in the first place, but if it must, it should at least be because something is done, not on a "maybe".
So down with the Bush doctrine?
Not sure what that's supposed to mean? Like how we invaded a country that had documented evidence of chemical weapons, nuclear resources INCLUDING yellow cake, and documents stating the intent to sit on their programs until sanctions were lifted? Probably, probably not, but nice try politicizing something that had nothing to do with D vs R.
Who said anything about D vs. R? I was just asking about your idea about not committing to killing before something is actually done, not just with the possible intent or capability to do it-a maybe.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I don't really think Trump has gone through the details and evaluated the potential effects, I think its more of a knee-jerk going along with his standard rhetoric.
That's an interesting point because President Trump has also stated that he wants to renegotiate NAFTA. This was another trade deal that both the Republicans and President Clinton liked and a lot of unions hated. Not sure what the President intends to renegotiate and what he thinks is fine. I don't see Mexico or Canada being thrilled about the prospect regardless.
lonestarr777 wrote: You call yourself a skinhead and spread your hate? You deserve it.
You joke about how once Obamas out office he deserves to be strung up? You deserve it.
You hold up a sign calling for women on a march to be raped? You deserve it.
This ain't fething rocket science on who earns some missin teeth. I'm sorry my violence offends your sensitive senseibilities but cry me a fething river. Some folks deserve to hav their teeth rattled.
Isn't this along the same line of thought, though, that states if women dress a certain way, or put themselves out there in clubs or dangerous areas, then getting raped is their fault?
That's a reach and a half. But I'm not really surprised.
Not at all. If a woman dresses in what some say is a provocative style and goes to unsafe places with less than savory people,there are those who would say it's her fault she got raped.
In my mind it's a similar case if some idiot is spouting racist or Nazi garbage if the person gets decked there are those who would say it was merited, free speech or not.
The person and the only person responsible if someone gets raped is the rapist. That is how responsibility works.
The person who says Nazi propaganda is responsible for saying Nazi propaganda. The person who punches someone saying Nazi propaganda is responsible for punching someone who says Nazi propaganda.
So Trump just signed an executive order freezing the size of the federal workforce. Meh. What's incredible is in the press conference about the event Sean Spicer told yet another easily disproven lie; “counters the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years."
Except that total federal employees are now 2.8m. When Obama took office total federal employees were... 2.8m. The math nerds among you may recognise that as the same number, and may then go on to notice that when a number is the same as it was before, it hasn't increased.
That kind heavy maths work is beyond Sean Spicer, beyond Trump, and beyond the Republican party (who have been repeating the claim echoed by Trump for years).
whembly wrote: Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?
Emergency stabilising is not healthcare. That fething bs line needs to fething stop. Because it means pretending that a person with cancer has 'healthcare' even though they will receive no treatment, there will be nothing invested in a cure. It just means that when their organs give up the hospital will do something to get them working again in the short term, while leaving the cancer untreated.
This should make everyone furiously fething angry.
whembly wrote: Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?
Emergency stabilising is not healthcare. That fething bs line needs to fething stop. Because it means pretending that a person with cancer has 'healthcare' even though they will receive no treatment, there will be nothing invested in a cure. It just means that when their organs give up the hospital will do something to get them working again in the short term, while leaving the cancer untreated.
This should make everyone furiously fething angry.
Nor is the ACA or any insurance "healthcare".
Stop conflating insurance to healthcare.
The former is a financial construct... the latter is getting help.
Peregrine wrote: I'm talking about before Hitler got into power. If you got sent back in time to the 1930s would you support killing Hitler before he can commit genocide, or would you talk about how Hitler has a right to freedom of speech and we can't commit violence just because he has an opinion we don't like?
(The correct answer is you kill Hitler.)
Yeah, but you don't have the precognitive ability predict who will actually follow up on any rhetoric. You don't kill for an opinion, no matter how much you dislike it. Killing shouldn't be a course of action in the first place, but if it must, it should at least be because something is done, not on a "maybe".
whembly wrote: The cynic in me is that they know exactly what they're doing... they're trying to break the Democrat's stranglehold over the union voters...
Breaking union influence is certainly a Republican agenda but I'm not entirely certain it's one of President Trump's.
In other news certain to inflame passions all across the internet,
Trump names new FCC chairman: Ajit Pai, who wants to take a 'weed whacker' to net neutrality
whembly wrote: The cynic in me is that they know exactly what they're doing... they're trying to break the Democrat's stranglehold over the union voters...
Breaking union influence is certainly a Republican agenda but I'm not entirely certain it's one of President Trump's.
I think it's Trump's peeps guiding him on this one...
In other news certain to inflame passions all across the internet,
Trump names new FCC chairman: Ajit Pai, who wants to take a 'weed whacker' to net neutrality
whembly wrote: Nor is the ACA or any insurance "healthcare".
Stop conflating insurance to healthcare.
The former is a financial construct... the latter is getting help.
Of course insurance is part of the healthcare system, it is the means by which almost all people are able to access lifesaving treatment. With insurance a person can get chemo, without insurance almost all people will be able to access chemo.
The idea that the primary means of accessing healthcare would be seen as seperate to the system is utterly ridiculous.
And quite honestly, the idea that you'd sit there are make pedantic arguments like that, or do anything other than say 'we need to make sure the system gives access to treatment for every person with a serious condition' is more than a bit disappointing.
Compel wrote: And I had to check my phone before bed.
The person and the only person responsible if someone gets raped is the rapist. That is how responsibility works.
The person who says Nazi propaganda is responsible for saying Nazi propaganda. The person who punches someone saying Nazi propaganda is responsible for punching someone who says Nazi propaganda.
whembly wrote: Nor is the ACA or any insurance "healthcare".
Stop conflating insurance to healthcare.
The former is a financial construct... the latter is getting help.
Of course insurance is part of the healthcare system, it is the means by which almost all people are able to access lifesaving treatment. With insurance a person can get chemo, without insurance almost all people will be able to access chemo.
The idea that the primary means of accessing healthcare would be seen as seperate to the system is utterly ridiculous.
And quite honestly, the idea that you'd sit there are make pedantic arguments like that, or do anything other than say 'we need to make sure the system gives access to treatment for every person with a serious condition' is more than a bit disappointing.
Insurance is the most common way to get these treatments... but, it's not the only way.
The other big ones are government programs, ie Medicare/Mediad/TriCare/etc... These aren't 'insurance'... it's a government subsidized system for those who qualify.
And more, hospital organizations (sometimes working with drug companies) offers 'free' treatment to those who qualifies.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do all that we can to ensure access to 'healthcare'...
I'm arguing that the ACA isn't the best way to achieve that...
Prestor Jon wrote: The ACA doesn't provide people with healthcare. The ACA sets up the system through which the Federal govt funds subsidies for private insurance plans purchased by citizens and for the reimbursement to state govts for the cost of new enrollees in medicare or Medicaid programs. Subsidizing the cost of health insurance =/= providing healthcare.
When you subsidise healthcare and make it available to people with pre-existing conditions, that means people who didn't have healthcare now have it. That means more people have healthcare than had it before. Your argument that government itself isn't actually giving the organ transplant is meaningless nonsense. Without ACA 20 million people would not have access to that treatment.
The ACA increased the number of people with health insurance but it really didn't do much of anything to change the quality of health care and it only had a secondary impact on the availability of health care to the extent that people with active health insurance plans have an easier time getting preventative and long term care at a more reasonable cost than those without health insurance.
"A secondary" impact that increases access to treatment by 20 million people. Holy fething gak what an incredible thing you just posted.
CptJake wrote: Remember what Spicer actually said: "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe."
Snopes won't call it false instead calling it unproven.
That's misrepresenting Snopes position (anyone noticing a theme?). They clearly state "Trump's 2017 inauguration ranks fifth in terms of television viewership". They later point out that Trump's effort to add in digital viewings is nonsense, because Trump got less digital viewing than Obama. The only way Trump can reach a bigger number is adding digital viewings to his number but not adding Obama's to his. Which is so obviously stupid that it should make everyone a little bit sad. So the argument that it was the biggest viewing audience is plainly and utterly false.
They say unproven because there is no official count of the people present on the day. They then go on to list evidence that Trump's crowd was much smaller than Obama's, including aerial photographs and train tickets. But while all evidence points to Trump having a much smaller crowd, as there is no definitive count his statement can't be called absolutely false, as much as it can be said to be a statement made in direct contrast to all available evidence.
Team Trump got the Press (and all you) to piss and moan over it the last few days, massively diminishing the coverage of the Women's March and other issues. Pretty brilliant move really. Media shown a cookie and dove right for it, not realizing they got played. False or not, Team Trump is making the media dance like an organ grinder's monkey.
And here's the 'Trump is playing 8th dimensional chess you guys, he's manipulating everyone with his master strategy'. No, he's telling stupid, pointless lies. The women's march was largely meaningless and would have been easy to frame as sour grapes by the losing side. But Trump set about acting like a petulant child and told obvious lies as well, which gave the women's marches meaning and relevance.
There seems to be this idea that because Trump won all the stupid lies and ridiculous campaign promises he made must have been genius. But it's actually much like a sad loser in a bar bragging that he totally had sex with two supermodels last night. Just because the other barflies might believe him doesn't mean it was a masterful lie brilliantly told, it actually just says something about the people who are silly enough to allow themselves to buy in to his nonsense. The election we just saw was far more about the 60m people who decided to vote for Trump, than it was about Trump himself.
whembly wrote: I don't really know enough about the TPP... only that lots a people don't like it.
TPP did a lot of things, but there was actually very little free trade in it. Sure, the agricultural protections on Japan's dysfunctional farms was finally going to go, but on the whole there was very little in there to remove trade protections for the simple reason that almost all trade protections are already gone.
Instead, what TPP looked to do was create an agreed upon set of basic standards for business in all member countries. It's the first trade deal that didn't just remove trade barriers, but required its member to meet minimum standards on labour codes and safety standards, intellectual property, and rules to control government support for state owned companies. That is, TPP really was the first step towards fair trade, a move towards having all companies trading from similar starting points. It was in large part designed as a trade pact to control and limit China, as you'll notice those three key elements above are the three key Chinese competitive advantages. The plan was that by capturing such a large market within TPP, eventually China would have to sign on themselves or be left in the cold as their current bilateral trade deals wound up, and in doing so China would have to reform to meet the requirements of TPP. That means China would have to improve their worker rights and safety, start following international copyright laws, and stop subsidizing their state owned companies.
The irony that Trump claims such fierce opposition to Chinese trade, but campaigned on dumping the trade deal that would reform trade with China was yet another piece of the sad pile of nonsense that is Donald Trump.
Re-negotiation of trade deals may be a good thing from time-to-time as economic realities may have changed since it's implementation.
As long as it is based on economic realities, and not political populism. Unfortunately this is a case of the latter.
Ya know the really freaky thing about all this media circus going on right now? It coincides with the STDS9 episodes I just watched. Season 3, episodes 11 and 12 - Past Tense part 1 & 2.
Get your Netflix up and running and you'll see what I'm talking about.
whembly wrote: I mean, that arguments boils down to "Violence is okay, as long as it's against members of disfavored groups" is horrible and insane.
No, it's "violence in self defense or in defense of innocent victims is justified". Remember, these are literal Nazis we're talking about. Not "I disagree with you so I'm going to call you a Nazi", people who literally advocate the extermination of "lesser" races to protect racial purity and establish a white nation. And who would eagerly do so if they get into power. These ideas are simply unacceptable in civilized society.
LordofHats wrote: BTW, how is the stock market doing? My Windows keeps sending me notices (despite continually turning them off...) that the market is down "amid anxiety about Trump's policies."
Anecdotal, and just talking about Australian shares, but my own portfolio lost about 3% the day Trump won. Two days later it bounced up about 5%, and since then has gained another 5 to 6%. Most gains in mining and retail. I have no clue why.
Really everything you need to know about how stocks and politics interact should come from Republican and financial commentator Michael Boskin. In 2009 he wrote a piece headlined "Obama’s Radicalism Is Killing the Dow”, in which he said market losses were because Obama was totally awful in all the socialist ways. Three days after his piece was published the market hit bottom, and then over the course of Obama's presidency the market grew almost 300%, in one of the longest bull runs in history.
The point is that using politics as a guide to your investing is a very good way to lose money. Investing requires objectivity, calm heads and patience, politics removes all those things.
Breotan wrote: Ya know the really freaky thing about all this media circus going on right now? It coincides with the STDS9 episodes I just watched. Season 3, episodes 11 and 12 - Past Tense part 1 & 2.
Get your Netflix up and running and you'll see what I'm talking about.
It reminds me of Babylon 5, and the whole Nightwatch subplot that critics at the time said was too unbelievable because it lacked subtlety. They didn't even have the phrase "alternative facts".
LordofHats wrote: BTW, how is the stock market doing? My Windows keeps sending me notices (despite continually turning them off...) that the market is down "amid anxiety about Trump's policies."
Anecdotal, and just talking about Australian shares, but my own portfolio lost about 3% the day Trump won. Two days later it bounced up about 5%, and since then has gained another 5 to 6%. Most gains in mining and retail. I have no clue why.
Really everything you need to know about how stocks and politics interact should come from Republican and financial commentator Michael Boskin. In 2009 he wrote a piece headlined "Obama’s Radicalism Is Killing the Dow”, in which he said market losses were because Obama was totally awful in all the socialist ways. Three days after his piece was published the market hit bottom, and then over the course of Obama's presidency the market grew almost 300%, in one of the longest bull runs in history.
The point is that using politics as a guide to your investing is a very good way to lose money. Investing requires objectivity, calm heads and patience, politics removes all those things.
I most just lack the knowledge to guage how well the market is doing on any given day XD Show me a graph and I can make sense of it, tell me the "market is down 29 points" and I don't really know how significant (or insignificant) that is.
My understanding is that the market often gets hinky during election season and new administration as people react reflexively to the uncertainty/discomfort with a new administration.
Peregrine wrote: The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
You may have noticed Hitler was acting upon his words, by actually building death camps and putting people in them. These nazis are just saying hateful gak.
You react to actions with action, and you react to words with words. Simple stuff, really.
whembly wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
This is not a freedom of/from speech issue, it's a freedom from Nazis issue. You punch Nazis because ideas like "we should commit genocide" should not be tolerated, and should be crushed before they turn into actions.
I see Peregrine has made a U-turn...last week he (among others) was chewing out Whembly for supposedly advocating violence against protesters. And this week HE is advocating violence against Nazis. Hypocrite.
sebster wrote: You may have noticed Hitler was acting upon his words, by actually building death camps and putting people in them. These nazis are just saying hateful gak.
So far. If we get to the point of actually building death camps and murdering people then we've failed badly by missing our opportunity to crush the Nazis earlier. Learn from history, don't let Nazism be acceptable, ever.
sebster wrote: You may have noticed Hitler was acting upon his words, by actually building death camps and putting people in them. These nazis are just saying hateful gak.
So far. If we get to the point of actually building death camps and murdering people then we've failed badly by missing our opportunity to crush the Nazis earlier. Learn from history, don't let Nazism be acceptable, ever.
"Fight Fascism with Fascism".
2017 is off to a good start.
If they use words, respond with words.
If they break the law, jail them.
If they use violence, respond with (lawful) violence.
Until then, if you're using violence against people who are un-disputably nasty and despicable but otherwise peaceful and law-abiding, then YOU are the fascist.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I see Peregrine has made a U-turn...last week he (among others) was chewing out Whembly for supposedly advocating violence against protesters. And this week HE is advocating violence against Nazis. Hypocrite.
I must have missed the part where the protesters were protesting in favor of literal genocide.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I see Peregrine has made a U-turn...last week he (among others) was chewing out Whembly for supposedly advocating violence against protesters. And this week HE is advocating violence against Nazis. Hypocrite.
I must have missed the part where the protesters were protesting in favor of literal genocide.
See my edit.
If they use words, respond with words. If they break the law, jail them. If they use violence, respond with (lawful) violence.
Until then, if you're using violence against people who are un-disputably nasty and despicable but otherwise peaceful and law-abiding, then YOU are the fascist and it is YOU who should be jailed.
If they use words, respond with words.
If they break the law, jail them.
If they use violence, respond with (lawful) violence.
So it would have been wrong to shoot Hitler before he started committing genocide? Or even after the Nazis started committing genocide, entirely legally under German law, because they hadn't broken any laws yet?
Until then, if you're using violence against people who are un-disputably nasty and despicable but otherwise peaceful and law-abiding, then YOU are the fascist and it is YOU who should be jailed.
It's called self defense. The saying is "never again", not "never again unless stopping another genocide would require hurting someone". If you are advocating the mass murder of entire races then you have gone so far beyond the bounds of what is acceptable in civilized society that you do not deserve its protections.
On a slightly less insane, and sort of entertaining note, i found this propaganda poster on Wikipedia a while back, and it's remarkably relevent when you read it.
Spoiler:
"bigotry" and "foreign propaganda" trying to push down the pillars of Justice, Equality, Unity, and Liberty.
If they use words, respond with words. If they break the law, jail them. If they use violence, respond with (lawful) violence.
So it would have been wrong to shoot Hitler before he started committing genocide? Or even after the Nazis started committing genocide, entirely legally under German law, because they hadn't broken any laws yet?
If a country's intelligence services learn that he is planning to carry out genocide, and has started putting those plans into effect, then no. Assassinating him to prevent those plans would be entirely justified and I would enthusiastically support such an operation, in the same way that I enthusiastically support the assassination of Jihadi bomb-makers planning and preparing to carry out bombings.
(and its for that reason that I think the UK's decision not to bomb the railways to the Nazi death camps after they learned of their existence was criminally negligent).
Or are you referring to your earlier absurd time travel argument?
It's called self defense. The saying is "never again", not "never again unless stopping another genocide would require hurting someone". If you are advocating the mass murder of entire races then you have gone so far beyond the bounds of what is acceptable in civilized society that you do not deserve its protections.
SO FETHING JAIL HIM.
What you're arguing is that we should discard the principles of freedom of speech and rule of law, the very principles upon which Western liberal civilization was founded on, the moment somebody says something you and the Left dislikes and wants to stamp out, no matter how much of a hypocrite it makes you.
Peregrine, you are no better than the people you so despise. You give liberals a bad name.
Prestor Jon wrote: Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.
The government is also a healthcare provider via the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service.
Other than the VA and the Indian Health Service, do any of those departments actually own and operate hospitals and healthcare providers or do they just provide health insurance policies?
They own and operate hospitals and heath care facilities.
The DoD has giant hospitals for soldiers wounded in combat, and clinics at all major bases. Walter Reed is just one example.
The Department of Justice operates clinics and health care facilities via ICE and the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP is the primary care provider for all federal inmates, and operates entire hospitals located within a prison.
What's the distinction between the DoD and the VA? The veterans in my family always refer to it as the VA but at least one of them received care at Walter Reed, IIRC.
And thanks for the clarifications, I shouldn't have overlooked the BoP (so many privatize prisons these days) and ICE.
(Missed your reply earlier today)
DoD provides care around the world for all active duty members and their families with Tricare covering services not provided by DoD itself (I think). VA only provides services for qualifying veterans, and non for family members.
Veterans can get Tricare for life, but that goes back towards insurance and not directly providing care.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If a country's intelligence services learn that he is planning to carry out genocide, and has started putting those plans into effect, then no. Assassinating him to prevent those plans would be entirely justified and I would enthusiastically support such an operation, in the same way that I enthusiastically support the assassination of Jihadi bomb-makers planning and preparing to carry out bombings.
So we agree that using violence to stop Nazis is the right thing to do, and the only point of disagreement is whether it should be done by individuals or by the state?
SO FETHING JAIL HIM.
Unfortunately his actions are legal under US law, much like Hitler's were legal under German law. If the state will not act to end Nazism then I'm not going to shed any tears at all when people take matters into their own hands and solve the problem.
What you're arguing is that we should discard the principles of freedom of speech and rule of law, the very principles upon which Western liberal civilization was founded on, the moment somebody says something you and the Left dislikes and wants to stamp out, no matter how much of a hypocrite it makes you.
This is a straw man and you know it. Nowhere did I advocate the use of violence against anything I dislike. People are free to express a great many opinions that I disagree with, and the use of violence to suppress them is not acceptable. But we are not talking about ordinary political opinions here. This is not a matter of whether right-wing or left-wing economic policy is good, or what the government's role in health care should be, or anything like that. This is not about saying "lol, ur a nazi" at anyone we disagree with. This is about literal Nazis, people who proudly and openly advocate mass murder of "undesirable" races to create a white-only nation, and who would eagerly carry out that mass murder if they had the power to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for anyone who missed it earlier, here is the recipient of the "alternative hug" presenting his opinions on genocide:
whembly wrote: I mean, that arguments boils down to "Violence is okay, as long as it's against members of disfavored groups" is horrible and insane.
No, it's "violence in self defense or in defense of innocent victims is justified". Remember, these are literal Nazis we're talking about. Not "I disagree with you so I'm going to call you a Nazi", people who literally advocate the extermination of "lesser" races to protect racial purity and establish a white nation. And who would eagerly do so if they get into power. These ideas are simply unacceptable in civilized society.
But way to fight it is not violence. That's the slippery path that leads to tyranny. First you allow violence against some idea. When that's acceptable you then widen it and allow slightly better but still bad idea. Then widen bit more. And then bit more. Eventually it's acceptable to lot wider than just nazi's.
Same goes for freedom of speech. As long as it's not protected for everybody eventually it will tumble down until freedom of speech is really "you are free to speak as long as it's this goverment-approved thinking".
Fight nazi's yes but do it properly. You fight bad idea with truth. That's something Bush&co should have learned and there wouldn't be such a mess with terrorism in the first place.
No we don't agree. No, it is not a straw man. That is exactly what you are doing, advocating violence against people who hold views you consider descipable but who haven't otherwise committed actions that justify violence.
You say these people want to perform genocide and are planning to, I say prove it.
Where are the death camp blue prints? Where are the internal party memos? Where are the construction material purchase orders? Where are the death camp guard training facilities? Where are the stockpiles of guns and poison gas? Those are ACTIONS, steps taken to fulfill that goal which justify the use of violence to prevent it being carried out.
Some nutter saying "I hate black people and want to kill them" are WORDS, which do not justify violence. Use Words and the rule of law to oppose them. If their words are criminal, then use the rule of law to prosecute them. If their words are not criminal, then CHANGE the law and make them criminal.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No we don't agree. No, it is not a straw man. That is exactly what you are doing, advocating violence against people who hold views you consider descipable but who haven't otherwise committed actions that justify violence.
It's a straw man because you're ignoring the difference between "people who haven't committed genocide yet" and "people who do not want to commit genocide". There are a great many people who hold views I consider despicable, but I don't consider violence against them to be acceptable. But, again, we are talking about literal Nazis here, not a mere difference of opinion.
You say these people want to perform genocide and are planning to, I say prove it.
What more proof do you need than his own words saying "genocide is the solution"?
Where are the death camp blue prints? Where are the internal party memos? Where are the construction material purchase orders? Where are the death camp guard training facilities? Where are the stockpiles of guns and poison gas? Those are ACTIONS, steps taken to fulfill that goal which justify the use of violence to prevent it being carried out.
And those ACTIONS are way past the point where Nazis should have been dealt with. You don't wait until the mass murder has started to think about maybe doing something about the Nazi problem. If having Nazis get punched in the face until they are too terrified to speak about their beliefs is what it takes to prevent us from getting to the point where people are building death camps then I am perfectly fine with that use of violence.
Unlike you Peregrine, I do not want to live in a society where the State or anybody else has the right or the ability to murder people for what they say and think. Because that IS Fascism, regardless of which end of the political spectrum it lies on. Have you heard of the political horseshoe theory? Because you are the walking talking living embodiment of it.
"In a coat of gold or a coat of red a lion still has claws..."
I'm done with this fething lunacy. I need to sleep.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No we don't agree. No, it is not a straw man. That is exactly what you are doing, advocating violence against people who hold views you consider descipable but who haven't otherwise committed actions that justify violence.
It's a straw man because you're ignoring the difference between "people who haven't committed genocide yet" and "people who do not want to commit genocide". There are a great many people who hold views I consider despicable, but I don't consider violence against them to be acceptable. But, again, we are talking about literal Nazis here, not a mere difference of opinion.
But once you go "okay it's fine against this group" then eventually it's "fine against this and bit wider group" and then "fine against this and that and yet another group" until we come into "it's fine against republicans/Democrats/whatever party you dislike who are threat to america".
Tyranny NEVER begins big. It begins gradually. It starts sneakily. It starts with making people being used at small evils until they are ready for large evils. That's how nazi's started. What you are proposing is precisely what nazi's did...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Unlike you Peregrine, I do not want to live in a society where the State or anybody else has the right of the ability to murder people for what they say and think.
And this is what you don't get: it's not about what they say and think, it's a matter of self defense. Using violence to stop Nazis is acceptable because the last time Nazis got into power the result was genocide, genocide that was only ended once we finally stopped appeasing the Nazis and started killing them. There is no peaceful coexistence with someone whose goal is the mass murder of millions, if not billions, of innocent victims. The only thing preventing another horrifying evil is the fact that Nazis are kept out of power, whatever it takes. And I would greatly prefer to live in a world where some Nazis suffered violence even if it wasn't absolutely necessary than one in which we said "it isn't legal to stop them" as the Nazis got into power again and resumed their genocidal plans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: But once you go "okay it's fine against this group" then eventually it's "fine against this and bit wider group" and then "fine against this and that and yet another group" until we come into "it's fine against republicans/Democrats/whatever party you dislike who are threat to america".
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Unlike you Peregrine, I do not want to live in a society where the State or anybody else has the right of the ability to murder people for what they say and think.
And this is what you don't get: it's not about what they say and think, it's a matter of self defense. Using violence to stop Nazis is acceptable because the last time Nazis got into power the result was genocide, genocide that was only ended once we finally stopped appeasing the Nazis and started killing them. There is no peaceful coexistence with someone whose goal is the mass murder of millions, if not billions, of innocent victims. The only thing preventing another horrifying evil is the fact that Nazis are kept out of power, whatever it takes. And I would greatly prefer to live in a world where some Nazis suffered violence even if it wasn't absolutely necessary than one in which we said "it isn't legal to stop them" as the Nazis got into power again and resumed their genocidal plans.
Next you are proposing pre-emptive violence against slightly better group than nazi's. Then when that's okay then slightly better than that. Eventually you are fine against pre-emptive violence against anybody who is against your idea even when they aren't doing anything violently.
Peregrine wrote: So far. If we get to the point of actually building death camps and murdering people then we've failed badly by missing our opportunity to crush the Nazis earlier. Learn from history, don't let Nazism be acceptable, ever.
You've building this weird kind of logic where if you don't use violence against someone now when they're just using words, then you become incapable of using violence against them later if they start taking actions. This is obviously wrong and utterly contrived. It is an invention by you purely because you like the idea of using violence against some other people.
But even ignoring the importance of open debate in a functioning democracy, on an immediate, anti-nazi level shifting over from debate to violence is a really stupid decision for anyone who isn't a nazi. Nazis don't win with debates - their arguments are utterly, exceptionally horrible. But nazis are actually pretty good at violence. Before Hitler took power the movement grew largely through shows of force, mostly against the socialists. There was a long series of street battles, and the nazis owned that gak, they belted hell out of the socialists. Crazy, angry racists are people you want to take on in a battle of minds, not fists.
The slippery slope is how the Nazis got into power. They didn't start out in the 1920s by openly calling for genocide. They tested the waters, pushed the boundaries, broke social taboos and then pressed on with progressively worse actions and views. Slippery slopes are not automatically a fallacy.
I do not want violence to be normalized no matter which group its used against, because one day that will backfire and be used against us. It weakens a free society, when you start permitting violence against certain designated groups in society. You're breaking social taboos, and setting a precedent. NEVER set a precedent that you don't want to be used against you.
Today its Nazis.
Tomorrow, it'll be Muslims.
Peregrine is using the same arguments that are used by so called 'Islamophobes.' "Its self-defense!"
First of I mean this in the most straightforward way possible. This isn't about spite or anger or anything, it's just about discussion.
Can we either put Whembly, Peregrine, etc on ignore, or just not respond to them unless they are in the realm of sanity? Huge sections of this thread are responses to a handful of posters pointing out the same errors in logic over and over to no avail. It's to the point where the discussion isn't politics so much as vainly attempting to correct their views on politics. Of course when someone comes in with something illogical it makes sense to point out the flaws and such, but there are a handful of posters who end up dominating this thread though sheer repetition of the same bad logic over and over. It's been explained, the evidence has been laid out, and the case has been proven dozens of times but certain individuals simply refuse to be budged and I think we should just accept that and move on rather than sidelining things so often.
Or in other words, it's one thing to engage a person with radically different views in a discussion, but quite another to continue trying after that person has proven to be talking at you rather than with you.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Peregrine is using the same arguments that are used by so called 'Islamophobes.' "Its self-defense!"
It's not the same argument at all. Islamophobes are saying it about people who are saying "we aren't violent, we don't want to hurt anyone" based on the violent actions of a tiny minority of extremists. People in favor of violence against Nazis are advocating it against people who are saying "we are violent, we want to exterminate anyone who doesn't fit our standards of racial purity". To be Muslim is not inherently to be violent. To be a Nazi is. The only non-violent Nazis are those who are not yet powerful enough to use violence in pursuit of horrifying evil.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: You've building this weird kind of logic where if you don't use violence against someone now when they're just using words, then you become incapable of using violence against them later if they start taking actions. This is obviously wrong and utterly contrived. It is an invention by you purely because you like the idea of using violence against some other people.
The issue is that if you let Nazis get to the point of actually committing mass murder or other acts of violence it's probably too late to stop them without a foreign power stepping in. By that point the Nazis have the support of the majority and the power of the state available to defend themselves. You can try to use violence but you probably aren't going to succeed, much like internal resistance in Nazi Germany failed and only defeat in war (at the cost of millions of lives) managed to stop the slaughter.
But even ignoring the importance of open debate in a functioning democracy, on an immediate, anti-nazi level shifting over from debate to violence is a really stupid decision for anyone who isn't a nazi. Nazis don't win with debates - their arguments are utterly, exceptionally horrible. But nazis are actually pretty good at violence. Before Hitler took power the movement grew largely through shows of force, mostly against the socialists. There was a long series of street battles, and the nazis owned that gak, they belted hell out of the socialists. Crazy, angry racists are people you want to take on in a battle of minds, not fists.
This may be true of history, especially if you let the Nazis grow to a point where they have enough numbers to win. If the price of not letting them get organized to that point is Nazis getting punched in the face until they're too afraid to speak in public then that's a price I'm willing to pay.
Peregrine wrote: Unfortunately his actions are legal under US law, much like Hitler's were legal under German law.
Nope, many of Hitler's actions weren't legal. The SA were formed early in Hitler's rise to power to attack political enemies, which you may note is illegal. Hitler then attempted his Beer Hall Putsch, they captured government buildings and 20 people died. Coups are pretty damn illegal, and Hitler ended up doing five years for high treason.
The issue with Hitler's rise to power isn't that he committed no crimes, the issue is with how ridiculously lenient the authorities were. There was no political will to pursue the acts of violence undertaken by Nazi thugs up the chain of command. And after the coup, Hitler managed to have the NDSAP made legal again after his release from prison, because he really, really promised he'd be lawful from now on. The Nazis kept using violence, but efforts to penalize the Nazis through the courts for their continued violence and intimidation was minimal.
sebster wrote: The issue with Hitler's rise to power isn't that he committed no crimes, the issue is with how ridiculously lenient the authorities were. There was no political will to pursue the acts of violence undertaken by Nazi thugs up the chain of command. And after the coup, Hitler managed to have the NDSAP made legal again after his release from prison, because he really, really promised he'd be lawful from now on. The Nazis kept using violence, but efforts to penalize the Nazis through the courts for their continued violence and intimidation was minimal.
This is true, there were acts that were technically illegal, but de facto legal because the state accepted them. Whatever the academic debate on the legality of Hitler's actions may be the practical situation was that you couldn't call the police and have Hitler arrested for murder over the death camps. Any solution to the Nazis had to come outside the law, either by internal resistance illegally killing Nazis and retaking the country or by external invasion and conquest destroying the Nazi military and government.
NinthMusketeer wrote: First of I mean this in the most straightforward way possible. This isn't about spite or anger or anything, it's just about discussion.
Can we either put Whembly, Peregrine, etc on ignore, or just not respond to them unless they are in the realm of sanity? Huge sections of this thread are responses to a handful of posters pointing out the same errors in logic over and over to no avail. It's to the point where the discussion isn't politics so much as vainly attempting to correct their views on politics. Of course when someone comes in with something illogical it makes sense to point out the flaws and such, but there are a handful of posters who end up dominating this thread though sheer repetition of the same bad logic over and over. It's been explained, the evidence has been laid out, and the case has been proven dozens of times but certain individuals simply refuse to be budged and I think we should just accept that and move on rather than sidelining things so often.
Or in other words, it's one thing to engage a person with radically different views in a discussion, but quite another to continue trying after that person has proven to be talking at you rather than with you.
It seems at least as disruptive as a rule 1 violation. I'd much prefer to be called a fethtard than be forced to engage in Groundhog Day hell.
This thread is for US politics discussion. At the moment we're being bogged down way too much in one or two things which are barely related. So let's end these particular tangents:
-is it right to kill to stop the theoretical rise of a new Hitler
-should we put other users on ignore
-at what point is it ok to punch a nazi
AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether the husbands and wives of gay city employees in Houston deserve spousal benefits, a surprising and rare about-face spurred by pressure from Gov. Greg Abbott and dozens of other top Republicans.
"No city employee — whether heterosexual or homosexual — has a 'fundamental right' to receive employee benefits for his or her spouse," reads the lawsuit against Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. "It is perfectly constitutional for the government to offer benefits or subsidies to some married couples while withholding those benefits from others."
... ..separate but equal has worked so well in the past.
I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
Yeah what's next? Offer them based on political belief? Religion? Eye color? Slippery slope that one. Why one married couple should be allowed but not other?
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
Yeah what's next? Offer them based on political belief? Religion? Eye color? Slippery slope that one. Why one married couple should be allowed but not other?
Next thing you know our entire society will be structured by height
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
Yeah what's next? Offer them based on political belief? Religion? Eye color? Slippery slope that one. Why one married couple should be allowed but not other?
Republicans. Nothing but trouble.
I don't see how this legal argument survives judicial scrutiny. At the same time, the city is offering this to all spouses so I don't even see where the suing party has requisite interest to bring a suit.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Violence is never the answer, especially if you claim the moral high ground, then you are just a hypocrite.
To the contrary, if you look at politics throughout history you will notice that violence has been the answer A LOT of times. We still like to think that we live in "the end of history" so that doesn't apply to us, but I think people are gonna have rude awakening regarding that in the coming decades.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Violence is never the answer, especially if you claim the moral high ground, then you are just a hypocrite.
To the contrary, if you look at politics throughout history you will notice that violence has been the answer A LOT of times. We still like to think that we live in "the end of history" so that doesn't apply to us, but I think people are gonna have rude awakening regarding that the coming decades.
And invariably it has created new problems.
Violence doesn't solve answers. It just changes them into new one. Like current refugee and terrorism problems. Bush&co tried to solve problem with bombs and we got just new problem instead
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
But then it is Texas (hide me from Frazzled...)
Evidently the State of Texas doesn't adhere to any discrimination laws... It'd take one lawyer to say "swap the word gay for black, etc" to have the thing dropped.
Though the history of equal rights would infer that it won't be as simple as that, and god, if it somehow goes through then that's an awful president to set.
"Don't tell me violence doesn't solve anything. Look at Carthage."
And if we really want to get philosophical about it;
“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence.”
Within Heinlein's (fascist Heinlein, not hippy Heinlein ) conception of politics, he reverses Clausewitz's maxim "war is the continuation of politics through other means" to categorize the state as an inherently violent force. The electorate in a democratic system cannot absolve itself of violent action by its very nature, not can the state wield power irresponsibly and without limit least the system collapse on itself (which ironically just swing the whole thing into a circle of violence ain't that depressing?). So go grab yourself a copy of Starship Troopers (you only need to read like... half of it), and for further reading I suggest Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth as a useful counter point, because a mod kindly asked for an end to discussions concerning the morality and supremacy of violent action that have nothing to really do with US Politics
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: Evidently the State of Texas doesn't adhere to any discrimination laws... It'd take one lawyer to say "swap the word gay for black, etc" to have the thing dropped.
Damn it would be nice if it were that easy, but it probably won't be XD
And I say that for the same reason a football fan gets up for a beer on the third down; the superstitious hope that it'll all work out in the end
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
But then it is Texas (hide me from Frazzled...)
Evidently the State of Texas doesn't adhere to any discrimination laws... It'd take one lawyer to say "swap the word gay for black, etc" to have the thing dropped.
Though the history of equal rights would infer that it won't be as simple as that, and god, if it somehow goes through then that's an awful president to set.
Evidently you're...wrong else there wouldn't be lawsuits about it now would there.
But you are correct. GLBT is not a protected category.
Its an interesting legal argument as there are situation where more benefits are effectively given, but I don't think it will hold in court. This impacts a whole variety of issues, not just their weird thing about targeting "Dem Gayz" so expect it will get rocked back quickly. Even if not, nothing keeping the employer from voluntarily providing benefits which most majors do now (example-Apple providing LBGT spousal benefits before marriage was legal).
Strange though as to get to this they would have had to have solved all the other problems yet there still seem to be some.
AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether the husbands and wives of gay city employees in Houston deserve spousal benefits, a surprising and rare about-face spurred by pressure from Gov. Greg Abbott and dozens of other top Republicans.
"No city employee — whether heterosexual or homosexual — has a 'fundamental right' to receive employee benefits for his or her spouse," reads the lawsuit against Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. "It is perfectly constitutional for the government to offer benefits or subsidies to some married couples while withholding those benefits from others."
... ..separate but equal has worked so well in the past.
Very disappointed that Turner is supporting this discrimination, but I imagine it is in response to the political backlash against the HERO ordinance (centered around, you guessed it, bathrooms....). And while the former mayor certainly seemed to only be concerned with LGBT issues at the expense of other major concerns, I don't see the logic in spending resources defending this position. You see, Houston has serious financial issues, including pension liabilities, under maintained infrastructure (roads) and huge bills from capital expenditures (like the Superbowl).
Which seems to be a common theme in modern American politics- ignoring the nitty gritty stuff like budgets and financial issues, then clashing on peripheral social policies (like bathroom legislation).
I don't think one can deny that whilst the handover hasn't been THE END OF THE WORLD !!! nigh on instantaneously as some of the more...err..... enthusiastic ... people would've had you believe , it's also true that some of the things that have happened don't appear to be well or at times at all , thought out.
Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...
What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.
If there is evidence that the cleric may be breaking the law he should be investigated and if he is found to be breaking the law he should be charged and prosecuting. Absent of any evidence of criminal activity the govts should leave the cleric alone same as anybody else. The law applies equally to everybody it's not applied selectively to different people.
Right, so advocating a policy of genocide isn't criminal according to the Brandenburg test in the US. It would probably qualify as hate speech, but that's more of a civil thing.
The Australians have pretty strict anti-terrorism laws according to which people can be charged with inciting violence. I believe something similar exists in the UK. To be clear, punching people over their beliefs is always puerile. In terms of recourse from your average citizen, they're either worth a bullet or they're not, which is why I'd like to see a legal basis for addressing incitement to violence.
... TBf you don't see many people trying to get into North Korea so maybe it's part of a rebranding exercise.
...just January 20th, 2017?
Not any other January 20th, but specifically that one.
And this was published on the 24th.
Feel retroactively patriotic.
Well, yeah - January 20, 2017 is, so far, the only day that Trump's been inaugurated as president. If we're allowed to have elections in 2020, and if Trump wins again, we'll probably see January 17, 2020 also be a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion."
Basically, it's a "Hail Trump" day for the tiny-handed buffoon's ego.
AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether the husbands and wives of gay city employees in Houston deserve spousal benefits, a surprising and rare about-face spurred by pressure from Gov. Greg Abbott and dozens of other top Republicans. "No city employee — whether heterosexual or homosexual — has a 'fundamental right' to receive employee benefits for his or her spouse," reads the lawsuit against Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. "It is perfectly constitutional for the government to offer benefits or subsidies to some married couples while withholding those benefits from others."
... ..separate but equal has worked so well in the past.
Very disappointed that Turner is supporting this discrimination, but I imagine it is in response to the political backlash against the HERO ordinance (centered around, you guessed it, bathrooms....). And while the former mayor certainly seemed to only be concerned with LGBT issues at the expense of other major concerns, I don't see the logic in spending resources defending this position. You see, Houston has serious financial issues, including pension liabilities, under maintained infrastructure (roads) and huge bills from capital expenditures (like the Superbowl).
Which seems to be a common theme in modern American politics- ignoring the nitty gritty stuff like budgets and financial issues, then clashing on peripheral social policies (like bathroom legislation).
I don't see where Turner is supporting this from the article. As mayor he's the one being sued.
Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...
What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.
If there is evidence that the cleric may be breaking the law he should be investigated and if he is found to be breaking the law he should be charged and prosecuting. Absent of any evidence of criminal activity the govts should leave the cleric alone same as anybody else. The law applies equally to everybody it's not applied selectively to different people.
Right, so advocating a policy of genocide isn't criminal according to the Brandenburg test in the US. It would probably qualify as hate speech, but that's more of a civil thing.
The Australians have pretty strict anti-terrorism laws according to which people can be charged with inciting violence. I believe something similar exists in the UK. To be clear, punching people over their beliefs is always puerile. In terms of recourse from your average citizen, they're either worth a bullet or they're not, which is why I'd like to see a legal basis for addressing incitement to violence.
We do have laws against incitement to violence but I believe they are dependent on a more direct and immediate chain of causation. If a cleric is encouraging the congregation to go commit violence and then the congregation walks out of the mosque and starts violently rioting then the cleric could probably get charged with incitement. If the cleric preaches to the congregation (and the congregation is thousands of different people coming to different prayer times throughout the week) and one member of the congregation decides to plot and carry out a seemingly religiously motivated mass murder a month later can the authorities really show that the cleric was a primary cause to the violence? If the vast majority of the congregation didn't become murderous and the attacker had to spend time and resources on his own to prepare and carry out the attack is the cleric really responsible or was the attacker just deranged on his own?
This article is for the Trump defenders and anybody who still thinks Trump isn't a thin-skinned, morally-bankrupt ass that would rather blatantly lie to anyone and, logic would deduce, be gladly branded a liar before he can even begin to accept a reality where he isn't the most loved. The absolute lack of intellectual integrity necessary to not only exist in this kind of bubble, but constantly seek to manufacture it, should disqualify him to be dog catcher.
... TBf you don't see many people trying to get into North Korea so maybe it's part of a rebranding exercise.
...just January 20th, 2017?
Not any other January 20th, but specifically that one.
And this was published on the 24th.
Feel retroactively patriotic.
Well, yeah - January 20, 2017 is, so far, the only day that Trump's been inaugurated as president. If we're allowed to have elections in 2020, and if Trump wins again, we'll probably see January 17, 2020 also be a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion."
Basically, it's a "Hail Trump" day for the tiny-handed buffoon's ego.
Right; a Hail Trump day that was announced four days too late for anyone to celebrate if they wanted to. He just signed himself a Gold Star Certificate, and he forgot the actual gold star.
Or maybe he just wanted the certificate.
I can't believe how much of the time he's spent in office so far has been used on ego-stroking bullcrap. I mean, I can, because of course it has (and, in all honesty, it's probably better than him trying to do things), but seriously? He starts the job after a weekend off, officially writes a Good Job Buddy card, and sends his press secretary out to argue about the size of his...crowds.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The Australians have pretty strict anti-terrorism laws according to which people can be charged with inciting violence. I believe something similar exists in the UK. To be clear, punching people over their beliefs is always puerile. In terms of recourse from your average citizen, they're either worth a bullet or they're not, which is why I'd like to see a legal basis for addressing incitement to violence.
We have laws for inciting a criminal offence, yeah. They vary state by state, because like yourselves we have a federal system and states decide their own criminal codes.
I don't think the genocide thing would qualify, by my understanding. It isn't enough to argue that an illegal act is a good idea in the abstract. You actually have to actually incite oeople, call them to take the criminal act. It can be to specific individuals, or it can be to people in general, but it must involve an actual call to action.
sebster wrote: I don't think the genocide thing would qualify, by my understanding. It isn't enough to argue that an illegal act is a good idea in the abstract. You actually have to actually incite oeople, call them to take the criminal act. It can be to specific individuals, or it can be to people in general, but it must involve an actual call to action.
Actually I don't believe it does. The laws don't get used often as you said, but I believe one case they were successfully used was against a person who published on a website denying the holocaust. According to wikipedia the federal "Racial Discrimination Act 1975"
The Act makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."
But as you say, individual states also have their own laws, but several of them are "vilification" and "vilification" doesn't have to mean a specific call to action, it can be inciting hatred, contempt. ridicule and that sort of stuff.
That's why we've had people speaking out against our laws, because even though they aren't necessarily used all that frequently and often get thrown out even when they are sought to be used, they do linger close to the whole "oppression of free speech" and border on the line of having a right to not be offended.
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
Kilkrazy wrote: The obvious rebuttal is that gay marriage isn't "real" marriage so gay "partners" are not legally spouses and do not have spousal rights.
That is why this Texas scheme is an attack on gay marriage.
Oh Traditional Marriage, the uniting of a family between two fiefdoms to end conflict or combine wealth/land, which sometimes happened between males too.
I swear to god the check marks for a dictator are being checked off one at a time.
I've never seen a more dubious execution of the country's wants and needs from a single president and a lapdog republican party that wants to prove how ineffective the government is by demoralizing it and destroying it.
Freezing New officers, beillegerent attacks on those who offer dissent, and want to control what the media says with their own facts. Ugh this is horrible.
BigWaaagh wrote: This article is for the Trump defenders and anybody who still thinks Trump isn't a thin-skinned, morally-bankrupt ass that would rather blatantly lie to anyone and, logic would deduce, be gladly branded a liar before he can even begin to accept a reality where he isn't the most loved. The absolute lack of intellectual integrity necessary to not only exist in this kind of bubble, but constantly seek to manufacture it, should disqualify him to be dog catcher.
Frazzled wrote: [Its an interesting legal argument as there are situation where more benefits are effectively given, but I don't think it will hold in court. This impacts a whole variety of issues, not just their weird thing about targeting "Dem Gayz" so expect it will get rocked back quickly. Even if not, nothing keeping the employer from voluntarily providing benefits which most majors do now (example-Apple providing LBGT spousal benefits before marriage was legal).
.
Strangely enough, my brother's previous employer is involved in a rather long and drug out lawsuit over anti-heterosexual discrimination. Back in the mid 1990's they started offering same-sex spousal benefits (I am supportive of this) even though gay marriage wasn't legal. Then gay marriage became legal, but the company never changed its policy. Some people at the company tried to get their girlfriends/boyfriends on company health care and were denied because they were not married, however there were two non-married gay partners allowed to be on the company health care (as the 1990's policy allowed this).
This does violate the equal protections policy, and in my opinion the company should either allow all non-married partners (regardless of sexual orientation) or remove all non-married people from their health care plan.
BigWaaagh wrote: This article is for the Trump defenders and anybody who still thinks Trump isn't a thin-skinned, morally-bankrupt ass that would rather blatantly lie to anyone and, logic would deduce, be gladly branded a liar before he can even begin to accept a reality where he isn't the most loved. The absolute lack of intellectual integrity necessary to not only exist in this kind of bubble, but constantly seek to manufacture it, should disqualify him to be dog catcher.
While I agree that Trump is VERY full of himself and not able to accept facts he doesn't like, I would find it to be fully within reason to ballpark 500,000 to one million illegals voting. I linked to a news article a few months back where 2000 illegal voters from just 8 rural Virginia counties self-admitted to voting illegally. As these counties have both relatively low populations, and low populations of Hispanics and there are roughly 3,200 counties in the US, 500,000 to one million sounds about right. Not that there are any real hard numbers to rely on, and I'd be happy to see numbers that state otherwise.
Pryor appeared to have an edge because he is a protege of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for U.S. attorney general. Pryor has been an outspoken critic of abortion rights and gay rights, which won him admirers on the right, but also made him a target for liberals and Democrats. He once described the Roe vs. Wade decision as “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”
I see the party of small government strikes again!
Frazzled wrote: I've heard of these types of claims. Was it resolved?
I'm unsure. I heard about the trial from my brother, as he kept in contact with an old friend that worked there. Last I heard the judge kept granting extensions and delays that lasted more than a couple years. Honestly, I wonder why they'd even fight it. The lawsuit itself must be costing them more money than any change to the policy could cost.
BigWaaagh wrote: This article is for the Trump defenders and anybody who still thinks Trump isn't a thin-skinned, morally-bankrupt ass that would rather blatantly lie to anyone and, logic would deduce, be gladly branded a liar before he can even begin to accept a reality where he isn't the most loved. The absolute lack of intellectual integrity necessary to not only exist in this kind of bubble, but constantly seek to manufacture it, should disqualify him to be dog catcher.
While I agree that Trump is VERY full of himself and not able to accept facts he doesn't like, I would find it to be fully within reason to ballpark 500,000 to one million illegals voting. I linked to a news article a few months back where 2000 illegal voters from just 8 rural Virginia counties self-admitted to voting illegally. As these counties have both relatively low populations, and low populations of Hispanics and there are roughly 3,200 counties in the US, 500,000 to one million sounds about right. Not that there are any real hard numbers to rely on, and I'd be happy to see numbers that state otherwise.
Just so we're clear, I decided to go through your posting history to find this "news article".
PJ Media (originally known as Pajamas Media) is an American online media company and operator of an eponymous conservative news, opinion and commentary collaborative blog that was founded in 2004. Its majority owner is technology entrepreneur, billionaire, and angel investor Aubrey Chernick.
And while we're at it, here's a lovely tidbit about J. Christian Adams:
After leaving the Justice Department, Adams became a contributor to Pajamas Media. He has been a guest commentator for Fox News, Rush Limbaugh's DailyRushbo.com, the Heritage Foundation, Newsmax TV and other conservative media. On June 28, 2010, The Washington Times published a guest commentary by Adams in which Adams accused the Justice Department of racial bias by dropping the New Black Panthers case. Subsequently, Adams accused Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath in investigative hearings before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. On July 6, 2010, Adams testified before the Commission on Civil Rights that the Justice Department's decision was driven by racial bias against white Americans.
This is the "New Black Panthers case" in question.
So, in other words, it's not an actual news article so much as it is a blog posting.
But even then, if illegals are voting--as has been said time and time again, they shouldn't be on the voter rolls.
LordofHats wrote: Just remember. The real victim is Trump. How dare people vote against him. Obviously they're all just cheaters.
Clearly, they are just angry liberals, trying to devalue the trump.
Remember the liberals are just jobless angry people with no education whatsoever, and my oh my did you see how many people were at trumps election? recording breaking I heard billions of people attended and watched him. Even god cried tears as our dear furherdictatorgod christ reborn president was born and made a new holiday of his new appointment!
A holiday that can never be celebrated, because he felt the need to attach a year to it just so we all know we're celebrating Trump specifically and not just the presidential changeover.
If we have to suffer through what his brain farts out, can we at least get it in Bill the Cat's body? At least then he'd be able to play a sweet electric tongue.
Spinner wrote: A holiday that can never be celebrated, because he felt the need to attach a year to it just so we all know we're celebrating Trump specifically and not just the presidential changeover.
If we have to suffer through what his brain farts out, can we at least get it in Bill the Cat's body? At least then he'd be able to play a sweet electric tongue.
Sir, you seem to be lacking in P A T R I O T I S M.
Spinner wrote: A holiday that can never be celebrated, because he felt the need to attach a year to it just so we all know we're celebrating Trump specifically and not just the presidential changeover.
If we have to suffer through what his brain farts out, can we at least get it in Bill the Cat's body? At least then he'd be able to play a sweet electric tongue.
Sir, you seem to be lacking in P A T R I O T I S M.
Spinner wrote: A holiday that can never be celebrated, because he felt the need to attach a year to it just so we all know we're celebrating Trump specifically and not just the presidential changeover.
If we have to suffer through what his brain farts out, can we at least get it in Bill the Cat's body? At least then he'd be able to play a sweet electric tongue.
To be fair to Trump, presidents can only declare on-off "holidays". Only congress can create annual holidays.
Pryor appeared to have an edge because he is a protege of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for U.S. attorney general. Pryor has been an outspoken critic of abortion rights and gay rights, which won him admirers on the right, but also made him a target for liberals and Democrats. He once described the Roe vs. Wade decision as “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”
I see the party of small government strikes again!
The joke that is Roe v Wade is not small government but bad law.
Spinner wrote: A holiday that can never be celebrated, because he felt the need to attach a year to it just so we all know we're celebrating Trump specifically and not just the presidential changeover.
If we have to suffer through what his brain farts out, can we at least get it in Bill the Cat's body? At least then he'd be able to play a sweet electric tongue.
To be fair to Trump
No.
More seriously, if he wanted it to be less of a joke, he could have picked a date that wasn't four days earlier than the release of the document declaring the 'Day of Patriotism'. It's not like he couldn't have still made it all about him. The day he was selected as a candidate, his birthday, the anniversary of his third marriage, the last time he paid taxes, something.
More seriously, if he wanted it to be less of a joke, he could have picked a date that wasn't four days earlier than the release of the document declaring the 'Day of Patriotism'. It's not like he couldn't have still made it all about him. The day he was selected as a candidate, his birthday, the anniversary of his third marriage, the last time he paid taxes, something.
I'd honestly question if Trump even understands the President can't declare an annual holiday. For all we know the White House lawyers who wrote that up just nodded through the entire conversation.
Wait, so the state is telling people they're not allowed to talk to someone? Where's the free speech brigade?
It's not a free speech issue it's a matter of job duties per your employer whom you willingly choose to work for. Your employer has the authority to determine who represents them to the media. I can't speak to the media about my employer or as a representative of the company we have a marketing dept/or person for that. EPA employees can still speak to the media just not in regards to the EPA or in an offfical capacity as an EPA employee/representative. Same with social media they can post what they want just not about their employer. I would think that every employer has a company policy regarding how employees represent the employer on social media and people get fired over tweets, posts, etc that make the company look bad all the time. I've voiced my displeasure in seeing companies cave to pressure from online outrage over statements from employees that are pretty clear to be personal views not official or unofficial company positions but it's not illegal.
Hey everyone lets play a game of spot the dictator!
Alrighty so Trump has successfully done the following:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Alrighty so Trump has successfully done the following:
Spoiler:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Oh I heard we are also pulling out of the UN as well!
You do realize that those characteristics are general enough that most of them can be checked off for every president we've had in my lifetime from Carter through Obama, right?
So, it's worth pointing out with Trump Day, that previous presidents have done the same, since H.W. Bush:
H.W. Bush - "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving", 1989 Clinton - "National Day of Fellowship and Hope", 1993, National Day of Hope and Renewal", 1997. G.W. Bush - "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving", 2001. (He did want to be just like Daddy, didn't he?) Obama - "National Day of Reconciliation and Renewal", 2009, "National Day of Hope and Resolve" 2013.
So while not so self-aggrandizing, Trump's proclamation of a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion" seems to lack the humility and tact of previous presidents.
Alrighty so Trump has successfully done the following:
Spoiler:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Oh I heard we are also pulling out of the UN as well!
You do realize that those characteristics are general enough that most of them can be checked off for every president we've had in my lifetime from Carter through Obama, right?
Wait, so the state is telling people they're not allowed to talk to someone? Where's the free speech brigade?
It's not a free speech issue it's a matter of job duties per your employer whom you willingly choose to work for. Your employer has the authority to determine who represents them to the media. I can't speak to the media about my employer or as a representative of the company we have a marketing dept/or person for that. EPA employees can still speak to the media just not in regards to the EPA or in an offfical capacity as an EPA employee/representative. Same with social media they can post what they want just not about their employer. I would think that every employer has a company policy regarding how employees represent the employer on social media and people get fired over tweets, posts, etc that make the company look bad all the time. I've voiced my displeasure in seeing companies cave to pressure from online outrage over statements from employees that are pretty clear to be personal views not official or unofficial company positions but it's not illegal.
Agreed. I'm surprised they had that ability in the first place, especially given the previous administration's attempts to put leakers...in prison.
infinite_array wrote: So, it's worth pointing out with Trump Day, that previous presidents have done the same, since H.W. Bush:
H.W. Bush - "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving", 1989
Clinton - "National Day of Fellowship and Hope", 1993, National Day of Hope and Renewal", 1997.
G.W. Bush - "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving", 2001. (He did want to be just like Daddy, didn't he?)
Obama - "National Day of Reconciliation and Renewal", 2009, "National Day of Hope and Resolve" 2013.
So while not so self-aggrandizing, Trump's proclamation of a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion" seems to lack the humility and tact of previous presidents.
When the Wienie Party takes control in 2020, the following holidays will immediately be enacted.
*Chase Cat Day
*Eat Steak Until You Puke Day
*Nap On Sofa Day*
Agreed. I'm surprised they had that ability in the first place, especially given the previous administration's attempts to put leakers...in prison.
The previous administration didn't have environmental policies which fly in the face of the scientific evidence, and so would therefore have nothing to fear from what the EPA would be communicating to the press.
Agreed. I'm surprised they had that ability in the first place, especially given the previous administration's attempts to put leakers...in prison.
The previous administration didn't have environmental policies which fly in the face of the scientific evidence, and so would therefore have nothing to fear from what the EPA would be communicating to the press.
After all, this is about a government organization not even being allowed to communicate with the public on non-classified information. Not about an administration prosecuting leakers of classified information. The two things are nothing alike.
You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
How is the EPA announcing the results of (just as an example) an investigation into the effects of an oil spill going to misrepresent their employer?
Frazzled wrote: You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
How is the EPA announcing the results of (just as an example) an investigation into the effects of an oil spill going to misrepresent their employer?
Irrelevant what it is, if the employer has a policy that all statements go through one office.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
Not in government, private business sure, but not government. Governments officials from lots of different organizations, share information, which is publicly available in one way or another, all the time. The information they share already is public, the Trump admin is trying to hide it by making it harder to get to.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
Not in government, private business sure, but not government. Governments officials from lots of different organizations, share information, which is publicly available in one way or another, all the time. The information they share already is public, the Trump admin is trying to hide it by making it harder to get to.
Not any more.
Do I agree with this? I agree with it ten thousand times as much as I voted for the guys that signed the executive order, 10 hundred thousand times even.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
How is the EPA announcing the results of (just as an example) an investigation into the effects of an oil spill going to misrepresent their employer?
Depends on who's talking. A given employee might not have the full picture, all the facts or the most current information and therefore inadvertently give misleading statements. Having an employee put the wrong spin on things is also a concern.
Now I don't agree with a blanket dept wide ban on media interaction. The EPA should have a dedicated spokesperson and website through which they communicate with the public and the media. I personally think Trumps policy on this is hamfosted short sighted and counterproductive but I don't think it's illegal. Possibly there are govt transparency laws that the EPA must comply with and issue updates current policy and status to the public and or Congress but I don't know for sure on that.
Can't believe the GOP refuses to work win the democrats and offer a sensible candidate. It's their fault the filibuster gets nuked rather than working with the democrats on finding a candidates they can advise and consent on...
d-usa wrote: Can't believe the GOP refuses to work win the democrats and offer a sensible candidate. It's their fault the filibuster gets nuked rather than working with the democrats on finding a candidates they can advise and consent on...
Those are sensible candidates, and your filibuster is going away. You want to filibuster, you have to do it the way Dog intended, like the right and honorable Mr. Smith! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/
If Trump puts up someone less conservative, he immediately loses half the House and Senate, the NRA, etc. etc.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
Whose the employer we are talking about? Congress whose legislation the EPA has to carry out? The President who has to carry out the legislation of Congress? Or the people who pay the bills and hire the bosses (Congress and President).
I want to say this. The government is not a business, never has been, never will be. The EPA represents the best interests of the people with in the confines of the mandates of Congress not as a personal mouth piece for the Trump administration to carry out business practices for its cronies.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
Whose the employer we are talking about? Congress whose legislation the EPA has to carry out? The President who has to carry out the legislation of Congress? Or the people who pay the bills and hire the bosses (Congress and President).
I want to say this. The government is not a business, never has been, never will be. The EPA represents the best interests of the people with in the confines of the mandates of Congress not as a personal mouth piece for the Trump administration to carry out business practices for its cronies.
Wait, so the state is telling people they're not allowed to talk to someone? Where's the free speech brigade?
It's not a free speech issue it's a matter of job duties per your employer whom you willingly choose to work for. Your employer has the authority to determine who represents them to the media. I can't speak to the media about my employer or as a representative of the company we have a marketing dept/or person for that. EPA employees can still speak to the media just not in regards to the EPA or in an offfical capacity as an EPA employee/representative. Same with social media they can post what they want just not about their employer. I would think that every employer has a company policy regarding how employees represent the employer on social media and people get fired over tweets, posts, etc that make the company look bad all the time. I've voiced my displeasure in seeing companies cave to pressure from online outrage over statements from employees that are pretty clear to be personal views not official or unofficial company positions but it's not illegal.
That's all true. Even so, you have to admit it is rather a bummer to be working in the EPA news and PR department right now.
Still, at least we have more positive evidence about Trump advancing the cause of transparency in government, eh?
Frazzled wrote: You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
Whose the employer we are talking about? Congress whose legislation the EPA has to carry out? The President who has to carry out the legislation of Congress? Or the people who pay the bills and hire the bosses (Congress and President).
I want to say this. The government is not a business, never has been, never will be. The EPA represents the best interests of the people with in the confines of the mandates of Congress not as a personal mouth piece for the Trump administration to carry out business practices for its cronies.
or that his Orangeness is now head of the Executive, the Prima Donna, the head Honcho, The Il Duce...er...
You dodged because I'm assuming as a Libertarian, your now less comfortable with expressing support for dictatorship or tyranny in a democratic republic. Because describing our government as being at the will and discretion of the executive is as about as anti libertarian as you can get.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. One is common practice so that people don't misrepresent their employer. The other was the Obama Administration trying to try leakers...and wiretap reporters s co-conspirators.
Whose the employer we are talking about? Congress whose legislation the EPA has to carry out? The President who has to carry out the legislation of Congress? Or the people who pay the bills and hire the bosses (Congress and President).
I want to say this. The government is not a business, never has been, never will be. The EPA represents the best interests of the people with in the confines of the mandates of Congress not as a personal mouth piece for the Trump administration to carry out business practices for its cronies.
or that his Orangeness is now head of the Executive, the Prima Donna, the head Honcho, The Il Duce...er...
You dodged because I'm assuming as a Libertarian, your now less comfortable with expressing support for dictatorship or tyranny in a democratic republic. Because describing our government as being at the will and discretion of the executive is as about as anti libertarian as you can get.
I dodged what? I never expressed support for dictatorship. I didn't even vote for HRC.
Quit listening to the voices in your head. Their fake, unlike the voices in my head, which are real.
Wait so in this reference America is Gohan, and Racoom is the "enemies of Freedom", and standing there not helping Krillin is clearly the Liberal Agenda... but who the feth is Vegeta XD
LordofHats wrote: Wait so in this reference America is Gohan, and Racoom is the "enemies of Freedom", and standing there not helping Krillin is clearly the Liberal Agenda... but who the feth is Vegeta XD
Don't use see its china! China is clearly the masterminds.
China is the one that is stealing our jobs! Taking away from the poor and ensuring we aren't free!
LordofHats wrote: Wait so in this reference America is Gohan, and Racoom is the "enemies of Freedom", and standing there not helping Krillin is clearly the Liberal Agenda... but who the feth is Vegeta XD
Don't use see its china!
China is clearly the masterminds.
China is the one that is stealing our jobs! Taking away from the poor and ensuring we aren't free!
And apparently punching young children to the brink of death XD
Wait, so the state is telling people they're not allowed to talk to someone? Where's the free speech brigade?
It's not a free speech issue it's a matter of job duties per your employer whom you willingly choose to work for. Your employer has the authority to determine who represents them to the media. I can't speak to the media about my employer or as a representative of the company we have a marketing dept/or person for that. EPA employees can still speak to the media just not in regards to the EPA or in an offfical capacity as an EPA employee/representative. Same with social media they can post what they want just not about their employer. I would think that every employer has a company policy regarding how employees represent the employer on social media and people get fired over tweets, posts, etc that make the company look bad all the time. I've voiced my displeasure in seeing companies cave to pressure from online outrage over statements from employees that are pretty clear to be personal views not official or unofficial company positions but it's not illegal.
What are you talking about? We are their employer, not Trump. The guy we hired to run our Government just told the people working for us not to talk to us.
Technically you are the employer of the CIA too, but you don't want them blurting out information about their operations and findings.
However this is to side-step the point, which is that Trump doesn't want bad news about Climate Change escaping from his control. This cunning plan will of course fail because all the other scientists in the world concerned with Climate Change do not work for the EPA and cannot be silenced by Trump.
Presumably Trump will order the EPA to announce "alternative facts" that concur with and support his view rather than scientific findings.
Shares of ETP, the company building the 450,000 barrel-a-day Dakota pipeline, ended the day up 3.5 percent in U.S. trading.
Trump owned ETP stock through at least mid-2016, according to financial disclosure forms, and ETP's chief executive, Kelcy Warren, donated $100,000 to his campaign.
Hey man, as long as he's not picking winners and losers or anything.
Starting to wonder if we're going to see AIM revitalized into a serious national force. The FBI pulled seriously shady gak to get that movement to spend more time literally killing each other, but they almost became a resident US version of the IRA back in the late 70s and early 80s.
I actually found this somewhat interesting, and by interesting I mean convenient.
Are there many instances where that's happened before? Yes, I can see the Trump administration finding that whole petition system being a problem, and something they'd either filter the results of or do away entirely.
I keep getting flashes from "It Can't Happen Here", which I suppose is a rather obvious line to make.
I actually found this somewhat interesting, and by interesting I mean convenient.
Are there many instances where that's happened before? Yes, I can see the Trump administration finding that whole petition system being a problem, and something they'd either filter the results of or do away entirely.
I keep getting flashes from "It Can't Happen Here", which I suppose is a rather obvious line to make.
That sounds a lot like a literature or arts reference you're making, pal. Not in mah country!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Actually I don't believe it does. The laws don't get used often as you said, but I believe one case they were successfully used was against a person who published on a website denying the holocaust. According to wikipedia the federal "Racial Discrimination Act 1975"
Okay, I'm not sure of the case you're mentioning or the legal history. The laws for incitement for violence were passed by various states in the early 00s. The Racial Discrimination Act is federal law passed in the 1970s. Maybe they interact in some way but I don't know how.
But as you say, individual states also have their own laws, but several of them are "vilification" and "vilification" doesn't have to mean a specific call to action, it can be inciting hatred, contempt. ridicule and that sort of stuff.
That's why we've had people speaking out against our laws, because even though they aren't necessarily used all that frequently and often get thrown out even when they are sought to be used, they do linger close to the whole "oppression of free speech" and border on the line of having a right to not be offended.
The laws against villification are different, more recent, and much more problematic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I always marry for huge tracks of land.
I believe in traditional marriage, which is why I've committed my pre-pubescent daughter in marriage to a French nobleman in order to secure an alliance.
Prestor Jon wrote: Now I don't agree with a blanket dept wide ban on media interaction. The EPA should have a dedicated spokesperson and website through which they communicate with the public and the media. I personally think Trumps policy on this is hamfosted short sighted and counterproductive but I don't think it's illegal. Possibly there are govt transparency laws that the EPA must comply with and issue updates current policy and status to the public and or Congress but I don't know for sure on that.
Yeah, Trump ordering a blanket ban is hamfisted and gives a pretty good sign that we are going to see a very ugly 4 years in terms of agency and executive relations, and not just with EPA. But it is nowhere close to illegal - employers are allowed to tell how employees interact with the public, including telling them not to interact at all.
What a wonderful example of the many ways for-profit-healthcare is horrible.
I fully expect that there will be no investigation, no demand for corporate responsibility, and that this will continue to be cited as an example of why Obamacare was "failing."
Automatically Appended Next Post: So after 8 years of "Obama will declare martial law", Trump
Now promises to send federal troops to takeover Chicago?
I'm not seeing enough flag waving here D. Don't make me report you to the Trumpstapo.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm not sure anyone is claiming it's illegal, it's just a gakky rule, meant to silence naysayers.
To be a bit pedantic, there is nothing wrong with putting in place a policy to silence naysayers. That's good management.
The problem here is that the Trump administration is that by putting in place a blanket ban on all communication, they are assuming everyone is a naysayer just by virtue of working at the EPA. That's the start of a dysfunctional relationship.
Shares of ETP, the company building the 450,000 barrel-a-day Dakota pipeline, ended the day up 3.5 percent in U.S. trading.
Trump owned ETP stock through at least mid-2016, according to financial disclosure forms, and ETP's chief executive, Kelcy Warren, donated $100,000 to his campaign.
This is the problem with Trump refusing to divest his business interests. Building pipelines are more important to Republicans than Jesus, so this project would be happening no matter who gave money to Trump, or how much Trump owned of the pipeline. But when you own stock in companies it looks dodgy no matter what.
And of course, we're inevitably going to see a whole bunch more Trump decisions that are done purely to improve his own businesses, because the guy is a two bit hustler.
Mostly though this is just funny, because we just went through a year of Republicans pretending to be so concerned about money being given to the Clinton foundation and so they voted for Trump. You couldn't write this stuff as parody.
Trump can't help but assume the EPA is his enemy because he is a Climate Change Denier and the EPA like nearly all scientific environmental organisations is seriously concerned about it happening.
Add the general Republican idea that everyone is in it for the money, so the EPA only exists to get cushy jobs for its staff, and you have the basis for a very toxic relationship before it even begins.
Here's a good summation of why Trump's CIA speach was so horrible, from Kurt Eichenwald (among other things he writes for the NYT so I guess some of you can use that as an excuse to ignore this... mainstream media bias or something or other). Copy pasted off twitter;
I am going to try to explain why there is so much outrage in the intelligence agencies about what Trump did on Saturday in his CIA speech... …Imagine having a campaign rally at the National Cemetary. Or a cocktail fundraiser amid the grave markers of US soldiers in Normandy… ...this "event'' Trump held, purportedly to greet CIA employees, was in the Memorial Wall room, where 117 CIA employees who died in... ...service to our country are honored. Many more have died, and it takes special approval to receive a star on the wall or be listed in... ...the book, called the Book of Honor. Many of the names of the fallen will never be known, because their identities have to be kept... ..secret even in death. Rarely is that room used for anything, but when it is, solemn nature of it is recognized. GW Bush was, I believe... ...the first president to hold an event there in 2001, but it was exceedingly respectful and in keeping with the meaning of the room. The... ...second major event was an appearance by Obama after the killing of Bin Laden, when he went to the CIA to thank the people there for their... ...often anonymous sacrifices that led to that success in the fight against terrorism. Again, solemn and fitting with the meaning of the... ...room. Both Bush and Obama paid deep homage to those honored in the book and by the stars. CIA employees listened respectfully, but did... ..not turn the events into rallies. Then, Trump. He has the audacity to bring people from his team to cheer for him and sit in the front... ...rows. I can't imagine CIA employees cheering and whooping it up at Memorial Wall. It would be like screaming "BOO-yah!" at a funeral... ..Trump made a single, over-the-shoulder mention of the stars. But he spent most of his time griping about the media, bragging about the... ...number of times he had been on the cover of Time Magazine, and complaining that everyone was lying about numbers at his inauguration.... ...and all the while, his professional cheerleaders who couldn't find their way to the CIA bathroom are sitting there, cheering for the.... ..man who apparently needs applause everywhere he goes. It was an abomination, perhaps the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen... ...done by any president in that kind of place. I felt sure we would hear from former director Brennan pretty fast. Why? Because one of... ...those stars on the wall belongs to a close friend of his who died in service of this country. And he knows who all the others are as... ..well. For him, I'm sure, it was like watching someone having a picnic on the graves in the National Cemetery. And then the same Trump.... ..staff that was too lazy or stupid to do the advance work on the CIA trip, so that they knew the meaning of the wall, go on TV to attack... ...Brennan as a partisan hack for wanting a room of such enormous meaning to be treated with the solemnity it deserves. And that is an... ..important element here. I actually don't blame Trump for this horror show on Saturday. Few people outside of govnt know the meaning of... ...the wall. That was his staff's job, and they clearly had no idea what they were sending Trump to do. No sane person would agree to.... ...send a cheering squad. They are incompetent. Worse, they are arrogant, and respond to others pointing out their undeniable errors by... ...attacking and whining. No, anger at the dishonoring of patriots who died is not partisan. U don't want criticism? Do your jobs better.... ...and when you screw up, like you did by turning most solemn place in intel world as a rah-rah location, just admit it, apologize, and move on.
But of course, we were all assured that it didn't matter that Trump knew little to nothing about the government he wanted to lead, because he was going to appoint the very best people to advise him. Turns out clueless dolts employ clueless dolts, and then they gak on government agencies in pointless, thoughtless ways.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump can't help but assume the EPA is his enemy because he is a Climate Change Denier and the EPA like nearly all scientific environmental organisations is seriously concerned about it happening.
Add the general Republican idea that everyone is in it for the money, so the EPA only exists to get cushy jobs for its staff, and you have the basis for a very toxic relationship before it even begins.
Very true. But all that probably describes Bush's opening assumptions about the EPA, and he still managed to try and walk the EPA slowly towards a new direction. Trump just goes straight at it, brute force with an expectation of meek compliance. And for what it's worth, the first administrator of the EPA that Bush appointed, Christine Whitman, thinks that Trump's pick of Pruitt is a disaster.
I am going to try to explain why there is so much outrage in the intelligence agencies about what Trump did on Saturday in his CIA speech...
…Imagine having a campaign rally at the National Cemetary. Or a cocktail fundraiser amid the grave markers of US soldiers in Normandy…
...this "event'' Trump held, purportedly to greet CIA employees, was in the Memorial Wall room, where 117 CIA employees who died in...
...service to our country are honored. Many more have died, and it takes special approval to receive a star on the wall or be listed in...
...the book, called the Book of Honor. Many of the names of the fallen will never be known, because their identities have to be kept...
..secret even in death. Rarely is that room used for anything, but when it is, solemn nature of it is recognized. GW Bush was, I believe...
...the first president to hold an event there in 2001, but it was exceedingly respectful and in keeping with the meaning of the room. The...
...second major event was an appearance by Obama after the killing of Bin Laden, when he went to the CIA to thank the people there for their...
...often anonymous sacrifices that led to that success in the fight against terrorism. Again, solemn and fitting with the meaning of the...
...room. Both Bush and Obama paid deep homage to those honored in the book and by the stars. CIA employees listened respectfully, but did...
..not turn the events into rallies. Then, Trump. He has the audacity to bring people from his team to cheer for him and sit in the front...
...rows. I can't imagine CIA employees cheering and whooping it up at Memorial Wall. It would be like screaming "BOO-yah!" at a funeral...
..Trump made a single, over-the-shoulder mention of the stars. But he spent most of his time griping about the media, bragging about the...
...number of times he had been on the cover of Time Magazine, and complaining that everyone was lying about numbers at his inauguration....
...and all the while, his professional cheerleaders who couldn't find their way to the CIA bathroom are sitting there, cheering for the....
..man who apparently needs applause everywhere he goes. It was an abomination, perhaps the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen...
...done by any president in that kind of place. I felt sure we would hear from former director Brennan pretty fast. Why? Because one of...
...those stars on the wall belongs to a close friend of his who died in service of this country. And he knows who all the others are as...
..well. For him, I'm sure, it was like watching someone having a picnic on the graves in the National Cemetery. And then the same Trump....
..staff that was too lazy or stupid to do the advance work on the CIA trip, so that they knew the meaning of the wall, go on TV to attack...
...Brennan as a partisan hack for wanting a room of such enormous meaning to be treated with the solemnity it deserves. And that is an...
..important element here. I actually don't blame Trump for this horror show on Saturday. Few people outside of govnt know the meaning of...
...the wall. That was his staff's job, and they clearly had no idea what they were sending Trump to do. No sane person would agree to....
...send a cheering squad. They are incompetent. Worse, they are arrogant, and respond to others pointing out their undeniable errors by...
...attacking and whining. No, anger at the dishonoring of patriots who died is not partisan. U don't want criticism? Do your jobs better....
...and when you screw up, like you did by turning most solemn place in intel world as a rah-rah location, just admit it, apologize, and move on.
I'm confused... Should I dislike Trump more, or should I dislike the CIA less?
This is a very challenging decision for me
But of course, we were all assured that it didn't matter that Trump knew little to nothing about the government he wanted to lead, because he was going to appoint the very best people to advise him. Turns out clueless dolts employ clueless dolts, and then they gak on government agencies in pointless, thoughtless ways.
I think what we're really looking at is
1) a man who has no idea how government works and assumes that as President he has absolute authority over executive departments (which he does not have legally or otherwise). His executive actions are actually very strange when you read them. Take his National Day of Patriotism, and setting aside the stupidity of announcing it four days late watch is conference. Trump is either really good at playing dumb, or he really doesn't understand that he can't just make a new holiday. The document itself is worded such as to be a legal, if pointless, order, but at the same time it's apparent intent is to do something he can't actually do. The pipeline order is the same. Trump can't actually magic the pipeline into existence (the presidents ability to bypass regulation requirements only goes so far), which his order doesn't do that, but at the same time that appears to be it's intent. We have may have literally elected a man who doesn't know the executive powers and needs a writing staff of lawyers to cover for him.
2) an attempt by the Administration as an institution to brow beat the Executive branch into compliance with ideology over policy, particularly elements of that branch that are by their very nature contrary to Trump's agenda. It's not just an assertion of his agenda or his ideology, it's a show of power.
3) Maybe not all hope is lost, because as spineless as the Republicans might be, we keep seeing government employees speak out which means there's still someone(s) in the Federal government with a sense of the responsibility they hold. So, silver lining
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm hearing that there will be an executive order this week to start building the wall.
I dread to think how this is going to play out.
Really that's just another display of how Trump doesn't actually know the Presidential powers. He can't just order the wall to be built. Sure he can say it, but without the funds from Congress he can't actually do it without breaking the law.
And of course I fully expect there will be no complaints about executive overreach
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: True, Congress needs to give the green light to funding, but seeing that it's in the hands of the GOP, I shouldn't think that would be a problem.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that.
One the wall will without doubt become a financial black hole, two I think there are some Republicans who know it won't work and is an utter waste of tax dollars, and three there are probably some strategists who recognize that the the party is losing with the fastest growing demographic in the country almost solely because of the immigration platform it espouses. They cannot simultaneously do everything on Trump's agenda (the wall, deportations of DREAM children, shutting down early voting) unless they want to forever seal that demographic as lost.
Hispanics turned out in a record number in the 2016 election, and Trump still falls way behind how the party was doing there 20 years ago. Bush won 44% of the hispanic vote in 2004, opposed to Trump's 26-29%, and he'll probably lose on that if the wall is actually built because the indications are that some of his hispanic support came from people who didn't think his agenda would go through. Worse off there are bad signs in traditionally Red States on this, namely Texas. Obama lost Texas in 2012 by 16%. Hillary only lost it by 9%. Hillary Clinton of all Democrats gained ground in Texas. A lot of that will probably come down to "never Trump" Republicans not turning out, but it's a bad sign for the GOP considering the demographic changes in the state.
I have no idea if the US constitution allows a president to fund something with their own money
I don't think it matters to Trump. He will make a big grandstand show of writing out the orders, do a self-promotional Tweet, his supporters get excited.
When nothing happens it will be someone else's fault.
You're working under the assumption that the GOP is operating on a rational basis, having clearly considered the arguments with its usual tact and common sense.
I admire your naïve belief that the GOP has been operating like a normal political party these past years.
Yes, they can block this, but given their recent track record, they are justly as likely to allow Trump a budget of $500 billion to build the wall.
That is also true, but I'm good with Trump making a fool of himself on this. We do not need this damn boondoggle. I can't imagine any proposed policy that would be a bigger waste of money.
You're working under the assumption that the GOP is operating on a rational basis, having clearly considered the arguments with its usual tact and common sense.
I don't think they do, but if Glenn Beck can see the madness then I think there's reason to think that not everyone in the party is this crazy.
Yes, they can block this, but given their recent track record, they are justly as likely to allow Trump a budget of $500 billion to build the wall.
The party itself doesn't have to block. You'd only need a few of them in the Senate and House to cross party lines and join the Dems on the issue and the issue can be stalled out.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it matters to Trump. He will make a big grandstand show of writing out the orders, do a self-promotional Tweet, his supporters get excited.
When nothing happens it will be someone else's fault.
When the concrete wall is replaced with a discounted roll of barbed wire from Homebase*, China will be blamed for transforming the bricks into wire
for non Brits, Homebase is a large UK store chain that specialises in DIY.
LordofHats wrote: That is also true, but I'm good with Trump making a fool of himself on this. We do not need this damn boondoggle. I can't imagine any proposed policy that would be a bigger waste of money.
... ... .
I don't think that is how his supporters will see things. A lot of them already accepted the "Wall" as a purely symbolic concept, not a practical project.
