Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:


Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people.

So do cows, skateboards, trees, lightning, peanuts and snowstorms. Just because two things have a similar effect does not mean they are analogous.

Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.

You seem to be saying the existence of alcohol-related death justifies the existence of gun-related death. Is this your contention?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.

Nuclear proliferation is always a bad idea. Eventually, a nuclear state will become a failed state, then the world is fethed. More nukes in more countries accelerates this inevitability.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/government-reveals-over-100000-visas-revoked-due-to-travel-ban/2017/02/03/7d529eec-ea2c-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.c4ce33f98f71

Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump’s ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.

..that seems to be quite a few more than was mentioned before ...


One assumes this is yet more " typical terrible one size fits all lawmaking that the govt loves to pass " and people against such actions will be there to protest against it.

Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

 feeder wrote:
Eventually, a nuclear state will become a failed state

I see this happens before our very eyes!

 feeder wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people.

So do cows, skateboards, trees, lightning, peanuts and snowstorms. Just because two things have a similar effect does not mean they are analogous.

Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.

You seem to be saying the existence of alcohol-related death justifies the existence of gun-related death. Is this your contention?

What I am pointing out is hypocracy of certain government leaders, and the media in general who vilify guns and groups such as the NRA because "guns kill people".

At the same time we see advertisements glamorizing alcohol consumption and those same government leaders hosting parties in which alcohol is served.

Relapse wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people.

So do cows, skateboards, trees, lightning, peanuts and snowstorms. Just because two things have a similar effect does not mean they are analogous.

Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.

You seem to be saying the existence of alcohol-related death justifies the existence of gun-related death. Is this your contention?

What I am pointing out is hypocracy of certain government leaders, and the media in general who vilify guns and groups such as the NRA because "guns kill people".

At the same time we see advertisements glamorizing alcohol consumption and those same government leaders hosting parties in which alcohol is served.

You would have a point, if guns and alcohol were analogous. But they aren't, so you don't.

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?

Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.

Whatever one might think of the US administration, Iran having a nuclear weapon is probably not a good thing. In general, more nations having nuclear weapons is probably not a good thing. Nuclear weapons are issues unto themselves in ways that we have luckily avoided major problems up until now, and Iran has engaged in morally dubious actions regarding weapons proliferation (though so has the US)

That said, I think the deal worked out under the previous administration was largely a good one, the Iranians have a right to peaceful power generation purposes of atomic energy, and there are some very good reasons on the part of the Iranians to deeply distrust the United States that often is overlooked or ignored in the US, particularly on the right, in ways that, had they occurred to the US, we certainly would not be ignoring.

The deal is only as good as you can trust the Iranians.

I mean, this goes for any "deal", a "deal" inherently requires consent and trust on both sides.

Building nuclear power stations is a good thing, but developing missiles is quite different. Now I know I have no authority to presume what a country should spend its money on, but I think Iran has more important things to focus on than building missiles to help its people.

That may be, but that's not something any of us have a say in, and it's hardly unique to the Iranians, many could point right back at the US with its vast arsenals of ICBM's or programs like the F-35

With or without any sanctions, down the line Iran will be trying to make a nuclear weapon, like all other nuclear age developing countries,

Hrm, not necessarily true, there are many nations capable of developing nuclear weapons that have not, and some that have developed them that then dismantled their weapons and programs. Germany, Italy, Japan, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, etc.

to assert its status and power as a counterbalance to its neighbours.

So, is anyone else reading the roguePOTUSstaff Twitter account? I almost hope it's not genuine - if it is, well, damn...

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/government-reveals-over-100000-visas-revoked-due-to-travel-ban/2017/02/03/7d529eec-ea2c-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.c4ce33f98f71

Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump’s ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.

..that seems to be quite a few more than was mentioned before ...


One assumes this is yet more " typical terrible one size fits all lawmaking that the govt loves to pass " and people against such actions will be there to protest against it.

If you want to quote me you can attribute it.
Since you seem to want my opinion on this, yes in my opinion Trump's immigration EO was poorly done. I even referred to it as "ham fisted" in the previous US Politics thread. While banning or capping the number of immigrants from specific countries is nothing new to US immigration law and we've always put limits on visas Trump's EO is over zealous and poorly done. If there are specific people Trump believes are too dangerous to be allowed entry to the US then Trump should have devised an EP that targets those people instead of just lumping everyone from a given country together is unjust and lazy. I'm not going to go protest it, I've never protested before and this isn't a tipping point for me. I will continue to vote in every election, encourage others to do the same and call and write to my state legislators and Congressional representative and senators in regards to pending legislation that I either strongly oppose or favor.

Are we talking about not being able to trust countries with deals after just electing the guy running on the "feth these deals" platform?

Crispy78 wrote:
So, is anyone else reading the roguePOTUSstaff Twitter account? I almost hope it's not genuine - if it is, well, damn...

Holy gak. If that's true, we've got Trump and Shadow President Bannon actively looking to provoke Iran into "forcing" US military action.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Mmmhm, I get that. My point is that if Obama had said anything resembling that, you'd be able to hear the GOP screams from Antarctica.

 Spinner wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Mmmhm, I get that. My point is that if Obama had said anything resembling that, you'd be able to hear the GOP screams from Antarctica.

Oh yea 100% agreement. I live in the land of the Great Jade Helm Freakout.

 feeder wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people.

So do cows, skateboards, trees, lightning, peanuts and snowstorms. Just because two things have a similar effect does not mean they are analogous.

Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.

You seem to be saying the existence of alcohol-related death justifies the existence of gun-related death. Is this your contention?

What I am pointing out is hypocracy of certain government leaders, and the media in general who vilify guns and groups such as the NRA because "guns kill people".

At the same time we see advertisements glamorizing alcohol consumption and those same government leaders hosting parties in which alcohol is served.

You would have a point, if guns and alcohol were analogous. But they aren't, so you don't.

I disagree, so here we sit, about to enter a circular debate that will go nowhere. I suggest at this point we let it go.

Relapse wrote:

I disagree, so here we sit, about to enter a circular debate that will go nowhere. I suggest at this point we let it go.

Agreed.

 Wyrmalla wrote:


And then, well there was that whole revolution thing which put a guy who hated Israel and the US in charge, who then went onto purge the moderates. That may have also had something to do with it. I mean the US' involvement in that whole affair didn't help things, but saying that the Iranian regime didn't begin with a hostile stance is understating things

I'm talking about a bigger picture.

The US was interfering in Iran before that, and had supported unpopular leaders who produced the conditions that allowed the revolution to happen at all. In the late 1940s Iran idolized the US. Like us they were a former British colony, wanted a democratic system of government, and hoped to be a regional power. Iran didn't become one of the few states to recognize Israeli Independence in 1947 because it was convenient (it was incredibly inconvenient), they did it in part because we were working with them. Constant US interference into Iranian affairs for the next 40 years not only soured that relationship but produced widespread anti-American sentiment in the country which only got worse when the US became even more hostile and aggressive towards them. We overthrew a democratically elected leader in 1953. We propped up the Shah, who subverted the democratic notions of the state, and we threw a raging hissy fit when our puppet dictator was overthrown. To top it all off, we helped put a madman in charge of Iraq almost solely to oppose Iran, and said madman went on to rage a brutal war against them.

Iran was not a host of anti-American sentiment when it was freed from British rule. We created anti-American sentiment in Iran by doing a long laundry list of really gakky to the people who lived there.

And since NY doesn't like to take second place to California, even in riots against free speech:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media

On a lighter note, we had 8 years of the great "Thanks Obama" meme. What will replace it?

I propose "Gracias Trump!" I admit, it needs work.

 Easy E wrote:
On a lighter note, we had 8 years of the great "Thanks Obama" meme. What will replace it?

I propose "Gracias Trump!" I admit, it needs work.

I personally favor "All praise to Glorious Leader!"

 Frazzled wrote:
And since NY doesn't like to take second place to California, even in riots against free speech:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media

I'd never heard of Gavin McInnes. Now I have, and I feel a need to find out what he's all about.

Well done, rioteers.

 Frazzled wrote:
And since NY doesn't like to take second place to California, even in riots against free speech:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media

I had to google that guy. Same alma mater as my brother! I don't read a lot of Vice. Is it particularly right wing?

At this point I think we need to define what free speech is, as protected under US law.

Is it the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, and everyone else has to shut up and listen?

Or is the right to criticise your government without fear of reprisal?

Ooo...an evil Canadian!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

At this point I think we need to define what free speech is, as protected under US law.

Is it the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, and everyone else has to shut up and listen?

Yes, minus the "everyone else has to shut up and listen" part.

However, we also have a right to peaceful assembly. It's really both that the rioters are violating. They are shutting down both speech and (as far as I know) peaceful assembly.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And since NY doesn't like to take second place to California, even in riots against free speech:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media

I had to google that guy. Same alma mater as my brother! I don't read a lot of Vice. Is it particularly right wing?

Vice is not particularly right wing, more "counter culture" in general, they do have some pretty good stuff, however McInnes doesn't have a relationship with them anymore, he's moved on to becoming a professional controversy generator/troll like Yiannopolous, a part of their livelyhood is generating exactly this kind of reaction, which also appears to be missed in the conversation.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
On a lighter note, we had 8 years of the great "Thanks Obama" meme. What will replace it?

I propose "Gracias Trump!" I admit, it needs work.

I personally favor "All praise to Glorious Leader!"

Okay, here are some attempts...





I don;t know. It just doesn't seem to have the same.... staying power?

Edit: Oh drat! I used the wrong phrase. Meme attempt double fail!

Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S. There is an interesting argument to be made about Milo's yayapouplus's message or whoever people are protesting against and whether it crosses over to intentionally saying false things to evoke a reaction and whether or not that is covered in his free speech.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And since NY doesn't like to take second place to California, even in riots against free speech:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media

I had to google that guy. Same alma mater as my brother! I don't read a lot of Vice. Is it particularly right wing?

Vice is not particularly right wing, more "counter culture" in general, they do have some pretty good stuff, however McInnes doesn't have a relationship with them anymore, he's moved on to becoming a professional controversy generator/troll like Yiannopolous, a part of their livelyhood is generating exactly this kind of reaction, which also appears to be missed in the conversation.

The existence of provocateurs does not justify violence.

First Amendment rights don't vanish when someone says something you disagree with...in fact, that's when it's actually meaningful.

He's doing extremely well so far in office with campaign promises. Two weeks in and we're seeing some solid work being done by the President of the United States.

I'm looking forward to seeing how he managers to get the funding for the wall. I would be extremely disappointed if the 'Build the Wall" was just to get elected.

The UC Berkeley riot was interesting. Antifa are making the actual college students look terrible.

For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.

Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.

Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.

Free speech may indeed have consequences - but they should fall within the rule of law. Thug rule and vigilantism do not fall within the rule of law.