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.

 Frazzled wrote:
in interesting political news...is it ok to punch a Nazi?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html?_r=0

Nope. Violence isn't solution even against idiots.

Top of that this actually plays into their hands so...The puncher just helped their cause so...

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
in interesting political news...is it ok to punch a Nazi?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html?_r=0

Nope. Violence isn't solution even against idiots.

Top of that this actually plays into their hands so...The puncher just helped their cause so...

Speaking of, the thug also assaulted a bystander who pursued him and tried to catch his face on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMmbWKV6jn0

 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.

Psssht, supermodels aren't even that good in bed.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Psssht, supermodels aren't even that good in bed.

Suit yourself... I'm on #TeamKatieUpton!

 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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Psssht, supermodels aren't even that good in bed.

Yeah that's totally been my experience from all the times I've totally had sex with lots of supermodels all at once.

 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".

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Psssht, supermodels aren't even that good in bed.

Yeah that's totally been my experience from all the times I've totally had sex with lots of supermodels all at once.

Can't prove you haven't.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Can't prove you haven't.

Alternate facts.

As predicted, the back-pedaling from a flat repeal has begun.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/collins-cassidy-obamacare-repeal/index.html

Backpedalling is really bad for your knees. Might have to have surgery bad.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Can't prove you haven't.

Alternate facts.

Clearly people are forgetting the rule; Pics or it didn't happen!

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from speech.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

This thread is fething insane.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
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.

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.



"bigotry" and "foreign propaganda" trying to push down the pillars of Justice, Equality, Unity, and Liberty.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
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.

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:

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

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.

One example:

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/spg/

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:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

tneva82 wrote:
Fight nazi's yes but do it properly. You fight bad idea with truth.

Truth didn't end Nazi Germany and its genocide, killing Nazis did.

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.