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.
ender502 wrote: True to a point. Even Adam Smith said the government would have to help when competing against other nations government subsidized industries.
Part II, Book IV. Smith suggests subsidies and tariffs might be used for industries that are important to national defense, and tariffs put in place in retaliation to foreign tariffs (though he discusses it as a strategy to force the other country to drop their tariff, he doesn't consider the tariff good in itself).
So while your statement isn't wrong, it also isn't really a full or complete statement on Smith's views on the issue either.
Though we have never had a truely "free" market it doesn't mean that we have a government controlled one like cold war communist countries. That doesn't make a free market ideaology a lie, only pragmatic. Capitalists will take every bit of help they can get....especially if someone else (the tax payer) is footing the bill.
It's very important to remember that the 'free market' is a bit of political gibberish, it has no real meaning, and certainly has no meaning in economics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: No, that's wrong as well. You can hate Islam without being a bigot as long as you have well considered reasons for hating it.
bs. You can't decide to hate a billion people and be anything other than a bigot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Yes, the Republicans are not blameless here...
So, for all those who were cheering on Reid after he nuked the filibuster (sans scotus picks)... you're witnessing the reprocussions of this decision now that obviously benefits the Republican party *now*.
I don't know if anyone was cheering him on. Maybe some where, I don't know. Personally I thought the change was necessary, and I still do. If players find a way to exploit a rule to block up the whole game, the rule has to go, even if the rule was quite nice when players were better behaved.
The Senate was built to be a much more deliberative body than their counter parts in the House.
And when the individuals elected to the senate don't behave in a deliberative manner, the answer isn't to just pretend they are. When the parties vote consistently as uniform blocs, then the old rules don't work anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That's horse gak. The GOP party never ran on the idea that government can't do anything. Both parties argue that "their way" is better.
Not quite. Newt Gingrich came up with an idea to win congress back in the 90s. His idea was that if the minority party negotiates and gets for themselves some of the things they want, while the majority gets a bi-partisan bill and a solved problem, then the electorate will be broadly happy with government and there won't be electoral change. So instead Gingrich decided on a strategy of absolute obstructionism, and when he led Republicans to retaking the house in 1994, he considered his idea vindicated (and while it was gakky, cynical politics, it did work).
Figuring he was on to a good thing, Gingrich pushed on, figuring he could neuter a president with more obstructionism. This led to the government shutdowns of the mid-90s. Eventually election reversals cost Gingrich his leadership, but the idea was set in place, when Republicans lost power in 2008 they returned to the same strategy, obstruct everything, and ride the expected wave of dissatisfaction back in to majority positions. Once again, it's hard to say it hasn't worked, though we should recognise the danger and cynicism inherent in the practice.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/19 16:36:56
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's never going to be any compromise when one side builds their entire ideology on the idea that government can't successfully do anything.
That's horse gak. The GOP party never ran on the idea that government can't do anything. Both parties argue that "their way" is better.
They compromise all the fething time. Reid thought it's a political win to sick it to the GOP while he could.
If you're paying attention, the Democrat Party has been steadily getting their asses kicked.
They are. But it's because they aren't playing the same gameas the republicans. Democrats are trying to make things better. Republicans are actively trying to destroy the american democratic system.
ender502
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/19 16:51:25
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
He is one of the few Westerners brave enough to openly recognize the threat of Islam.
Islam isn't a threat. Not any more than Christianity was the problem in Nazi Germany.
The way that racism tries to pretend it is something other than racism is almost as sad as how easily it is exposed when confronted by facts. Like salt on a slug.
ender502
Islam is a race now?
Wrong. Religions are ideas, and as such, are not immune from criticism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/19 17:00:21
He is one of the few Westerners brave enough to openly recognize the threat of Islam.
Islam isn't a threat. Not any more than Christianity was the problem in Nazi Germany.
The way that racism tries to pretend it is something other than racism is almost as sad as how easily it is exposed when confronted by facts. Like salt on a slug.
ender502
Islam is a race now?
You realize this was literally explained just a few posts after this right? Like you had to see them just to respond to this one
He is one of the few Westerners brave enough to openly recognize the threat of Islam.
Islam isn't a threat. Not any more than Christianity was the problem in Nazi Germany.
The way that racism tries to pretend it is something other than racism is almost as sad as how easily it is exposed when confronted by facts. Like salt on a slug.
ender502
Islam is a race now?
You realize this was literally explained just a few posts after this right? Like you had to see them just to respond to this one
It doesn't require an explanation - it's just plain incorrect. What post are you referencing anyway?
He is one of the few Westerners brave enough to openly recognize the threat of Islam.
Islam isn't a threat. Not any more than Christianity was the problem in Nazi Germany.
The way that racism tries to pretend it is something other than racism is almost as sad as how easily it is exposed when confronted by facts. Like salt on a slug.
ender502
Islam is a race now?
You realize this was literally explained just a few posts after this right? Like you had to see them just to respond to this one
It doesn't require an explanation - it's just plain incorrect. What post are you referencing anyway?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Since when was Islam a race? Its a religion you can covert to. If you can convert to it, its not a race.
The term you are looking for is Islamophobic.
Insert explanation of the term "cultural racism" here, followed by two pages of posts throwing a hissy-fit over a concept that dates from the 70's.
Halfway there now...
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: No, that's wrong as well. You can hate Islam without being a bigot as long as you have well considered reasons for hating it.
bs. You can't decide to hate a billion people and be anything other than a bigot.
bs back to you good sir. You can hate Islam without hating 1 billion people. Just the same way you can hate Christianity without hating all the Christians just like you can hate atheism without hating all the atheists.
There's a difference between hating the religion/ideology and hating all the people who believe in that religion/ideology.
The only time you become a bigot is when that disdain is unfounded, unfair or irrational. There's plenty of well grounded reasons to hate Islam though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ender502 wrote: I've been told that being rude is not allowed...but lies, distortions and just plain being wrong is OK.
Yeah that's not really true. You aren't allowed to be rude to a specific individual, but you can be rude to a whole group of people that individual belongs to and it's totally fine
Welcome to the internet!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/19 17:24:42
Again, we are at the point where people can't even dispute that there is a prejudice against a huge group of people, and instead they are arguing about the correct definition of their prejudice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/19 17:27:01
d-usa wrote: Again, we are at the point where people can't even dispute that there is a prejudice against a huge group of people, and instead they are arguing about the correct definition of their prejudice.
It's because people incorrectly conflate ideas (ie. disliking muslims makes you a racist... it doesn't. Or disliking Islam makes you a bigot.... it doesn't).
Of course there are people who are racists and bigots, but I think the number of people who are genuinely racist bigots is actually quite small and we can't actually discuss racists and bigots until we stop just throwing huge groups of people incorrectly into the racist/bigot basket.
prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/Submit
noun
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"English prejudice against foreigners"
synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, prejudgment
"male prejudices about women
There is absolutely nothing bigoted about forming an opinion on an ideology based on experience - labeling it as racism in an attempt to dismiss those opinions is simply absurd.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/19 17:40:53
prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/Submit
noun
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"English prejudice against foreigners"
synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, prejudgment
"male prejudices about women
There is absolutely nothing bigoted about forming an opinion on an ideology based on experience - labeling it as racism in an attempt to dismiss those opinions is simply absurd.
By that logic all christians are rabid gay haters and who would rather enslave people who are not white.
Seeing as how we are jumping on the "experience" band wagon
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah that's not really true. You aren't allowed to be rude to a specific individual, but you can be rude to a whole group of people that individual belongs to and it's totally fine Welcome to the internet!
No, the mods will have a quiet word with you here about that sort of thing too. But you probably won't get in actual trouble until you remind a fellow poster that brown shirts aren't supposed to be worn after labor day.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/Submit
noun
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"English prejudice against foreigners"
synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, prejudgment
"male prejudices about women
There is absolutely nothing bigoted about forming an opinion on an ideology based on experience - labeling it as racism in an attempt to dismiss those opinions is simply absurd.
By that logic all christians are rabid gay haters and who would rather enslave people who are not white.
Seeing as how we are jumping on the "experience" band wagon
If a vast majority of Christians embraced "Christian law," and if Christian law required hating gays and enslaving people who are not white, then I'd say that a nation that values its sexual and racial diversity would be well-advised not to admit Christian immigrants.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah that's not really true. You aren't allowed to be rude to a specific individual, but you can be rude to a whole group of people that individual belongs to and it's totally fine Welcome to the internet!
No, the mods will have a quiet word with you here about that sort of thing too. But you probably won't get in actual trouble until you remind a fellow poster that brown shirts aren't supposed to be worn after labor day.
I don't catch the brown shirts thing.... I assume it's not a Firefly reference
Mods seem rather forgiving when it comes to insulting entire groups of people, I've reported posts in this thread labelling large swathes of people something derogatory and it seems to go unnoticed.
It seems to me that it's the general trend on internet forums to just insult the general group a person belongs to rather than the individual themselves, eg...
Person 1: I think blah
Person 2: You're an imbecile
Gets you banned, but...
Person 1: I think blah
Person 2: People who think blah are imbeciles
prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/Submit
noun
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"English prejudice against foreigners"
synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, prejudgment
"male prejudices about women
There is absolutely nothing bigoted about forming an opinion on an ideology based on experience - labeling it as racism in an attempt to dismiss those opinions is simply absurd.
By that logic all christians are rabid gay haters and who would rather enslave people who are not white.
Seeing as how we are jumping on the "experience" band wagon
My personal experience is that veterans are violent drunks who get into fist fights with nurses while high on meth and who routinely lie about their military service, and who eventually resort to cop killing.
You know, if it's okay to paint a huge group of people based on personal experience with a small subset of that group.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/19 17:50:31
d-usa wrote: My personal experience is that veterans are violent drunks who get into fist fights with nurses while high on meth and who routinely lie about their military service, and who eventually resort to cop killing.
You know, if it's okay to paint a huge group of people based on personal experience with a small subset of that group.
Yeah see that would be silly. But it may be appropriate based on actual study***** that veterans are more prone to alcoholism, violence, drug problems and mental health issues.
*****(I don't know I haven't actually looked at the numbers)
If that were true (and I don't know if it is ) then it's not painting all veterans with the same brush but rather identifying specific problems veterans face that influence how they may act in society.
Similarly you can point out traits in Islam without painting all Muslims with the same brush.
My personal experience is that veterans are violent drunks who get into fist fights with nurses while high on meth and who routinely lie about their military service, and who eventually resort to cop killing.
I've been in a lot of fist fights but mostly it was the bikers rather than the military personnel who were on meth. So I dispute this humorous generalization.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/Submit
noun
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"English prejudice against foreigners"
synonyms: preconceived idea, preconception, prejudgment
"male prejudices about women
There is absolutely nothing bigoted about forming an opinion on an ideology based on experience - labeling it as racism in an attempt to dismiss those opinions is simply absurd.
By that logic all christians are rabid gay haters and who would rather enslave people who are not white.
Seeing as how we are jumping on the "experience" band wagon
If a vast majority of Christians embraced "Christian law," and if Christian law required hating gays and enslaving people who are not white, then I'd say that a nation that values its sexual and racial diversity would be well-advised not to admit Christian immigrants.
Did you read the article? The vast maority of respondents in countries that don't don't have functional governments (iraq, afghannistan and pakistan) want sharia law. It actually represents a semblance of law and order. Those in more modern states and europe do not want sharia law because it just isn't needed. Why don't people just spin the old yarn about no go zones too.
And if they want sharia law...so what? Imposing it would never happen. But if you're so scared of religious laws trumping civil law:
I think you should explain where Marco Rubio and so many evangelical christians are going wrong. And if you are going to say that Christians shouldn't be forced to follow laws they disagree with based on religious conviction, then you have to give the same right to muslims as well.
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: No, that's wrong as well. You can hate Islam without being a bigot as long as you have well considered reasons for hating it.
bs. You can't decide to hate a billion people and be anything other than a bigot.
bs back to you good sir. You can hate Islam without hating 1 billion people. Just the same way you can hate Christianity without hating all the Christians just like you can hate atheism without hating all the atheists.
There's a difference between hating the religion/ideology and hating all the people who believe in that religion/ideology.
The only time you become a bigot is when that disdain is unfounded, unfair or irrational. There's plenty of well grounded reasons to hate Islam though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ender502 wrote: I've been told that being rude is not allowed...but lies, distortions and just plain being wrong is OK.
Yeah that's not really true. You aren't allowed to be rude to a specific individual, but you can be rude to a whole group of people that individual belongs to and it's totally fine
The Bush-era registry that just happened to target majority-Muslim countries
Kobach knows exactly what he’s talking about. As a staffer in George W. Bush’s Justice Department after 9/11, he led the effort to put together the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS.
Under NSEERS, certain “foreign citizens and nationals” in the US had to come into immigration offices for fingerprinting, photos, and interviews — and then had to check in again at designated intervals.
But this “special registration” system was selective. It only applied to people on non-immigrant visas (including tourism and work visas). It only applied to men over the age of 16. And it only applied to people from a list of countries the Bush administration considered “havens for terrorists.”
There were 25 countries on the “special registration” list. Twenty-four were majority-Muslim countries. The 25th was North Korea.
Over the next decade, more than 80,000 men were put into NSEERS “special registration” database — Muslims and non-Muslims from suspected countries alike. But to Muslim American and civil rights groups, the fact that the Bush administration was responding to 9/11 by ordering thousands of Muslim men to show up to register with the government was de facto discriminatory.
Obama ended that program in
The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) or INS Special Registration[1] is a system for registering certain non-citizens within the United States, initiated in September 2002 as part of the War on Terrorism. Portions were suspended as of April 27th, 2011
FYI. Just throwing it out there that there was a program in place and that Trump is not making this "NEW" but rebooting it
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Since when was Islam a race? Its a religion you can covert to. If you can convert to it, its not a race.
The term you are looking for is Islamophobic.
On the other hand, when people talk about Islam being a threat, they tend to be talking about people from the middle east and have a clear racial stereotype in mind.
No, we are quite clear on the realities of Chechens, Bosniaks, and Albanians, We are also very supportive of the Kurds. And our ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Al Shabaab enemies have been very clear and open about their plans to infiltrate and are very good at doing so. This is not something the left gets to brush off as "just them racist rednecks" its a clear and obvious danger from our enemies own mouths.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/19 18:36:43
I'm sure Lincoln would agree with Trump's statement. On a more serious note, I didn't see anything particularly harmful in their speech. I certainly wouldn't want to be harangued at a theater, but here it appears to be quite reasonable. Unless the video is missing something.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/11/19 19:19:35
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Spinner wrote: So...we're on the record with Donald Trump asking for a safe space, right?
And also that being asked to uphold the principles upon which the country was founded is apparently harassment.
I thought Trump was meant to be tough
I agree that the theatre is a special place and even that it is a safe space, but only in the sense that theatre should always be safe to challenge peoples ideas, beliefs and prejudices. Theatre does not just exist to make people feel warm and fuzzy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/19 19:35:01
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Spinner wrote: So...we're on the record with Donald Trump asking for a safe space, right?
It would be funny if they weren't in power. Many of the alt right bang on about the right to offend, and how "progressives" are trying to stifle free speech by criticising offensive, divisive, bigoted attacks on people, yet Trump is so thin skinned. It's classic bullying tactics.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Spinner wrote: So...we're on the record with Donald Trump asking for a safe space, right?
It would be funny if they weren't in power. Many of the alt right bang on about the right to offend, and how "progressives" are trying to stifle free speech by criticising offensive, divisive, bigoted attacks on people, yet Trump is so thin skinned. It's classic bullying tactics.
its not just the alt right, and progressives are attacking everything that is not in lock step with their ideology. As I have said before, it was not trumps people attacking us Libertarians here, it was all hillary's people. We are considered racist bigots for supporting Gary Johnson instead of hillary. The progressives are displaying massive hypocrisy here and they continue to try to redefine bigotry as anything they dont agree with. As a Libertarian I am much less concerned with the obviuos buffoonery of trump than I am the insidiuos evil of the left.
~4100
~1660
