No, socialism by definition, is done by government in power. You cannot honestly blame GOP on federal redistribution of income when they're not in power. (Yes, they have in the past, but at the present time, they don't.)
That being said, the more recent data show that it's not the case at all that Democratic areas: lucrative government contracts are going to large metropolitan areas that mostly support Democrats.
They have not all been. The National Social German Workers' Party, being the most obvious example, many fascists explicitly call themselves socialists.
Mein Kampf was not the policy manifesto of the NSDAP. A right to employment, nationalization of department stores, economic protectionism, prohibiting economic speculation, mandating profit sharing in large enterprises, prohibiting private pensions, mandating public pensions, etc., were all part of their policy.
Mein Kampf is not at all interesting to read, but it was never intended to be read by the poor and uneducated. Nazis (including Hitler) marketed their ideology mostly at the middle class. If you convince yourself that evil can only be done with ignorance of a majority, history is lost on you.
Seriously? You're talking about "Big Pharma" and don't know what a monopsony is? A monopsony is a market for a particular good or industry in which there is a single purchaser, the inverse of a monopoly. It is used in many countries to regulate the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that whole countries get all the evils of capitalism, with all the evils of socialism.
Countries that don't produce them, though. The US does most of the world's pharmaceutical research and other countries have public monopsonies to keep prices down on buying them, removing any margin for investment, research, and innovation, exasperating the problem here in the U.S. of expensive drugs.
You do know there are train services other than AMTRAK and postal services other than USPS...right?
Sorry, but I've gotta nitpick here: Amtrak and USPS are monopolies. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the only inter-city passenger rail service in the United States. Their government-funding allows them to charge an average 30.7 per passenger mile, while airlines (even with their semifrequent bailouts and tax breaks) only milk passengers 13.0 per passenger mile, and they even define late arrival differently!
The USPS is in a similar situation. FedEx and UPS can deliver parcels all they want, but they are prohibited from establishing a service similar to USPS' letter mail, and cannot deliver anything into a dedicated receptacle (mailbox). USPS is the regulatory agency empowered by Congress to revise these regulations. (As it stands, they allow UPS and FedEx to handle urgent letters but still prohibit non-urgent letter delivery, or anything comparable to First-Class mail.
Yes, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party was socialist. There was more to their policy agenda than territorial expansion and genocide. Just because they're not remembered for their economic policies does not change what those policies were. Fascism is indeed a form of socialism that preserves nominal private ownership of industry while placing it under public control.
That said, fascism being a highly misused and overused word, its use has become almost meaningless. But, yes, Barack Obama and George W. Bush (and many other American politicians) are fascists, a type of socialist.
I'd say that's a legitimate concern. Why is everyone so quick to conclude everyone in government is incompetent? It's irrational so chill the fuck out.
The accusation here is not that they're incompetent, but too competent at doing the wrong thing (prohibiting parents from giving informed consent to relatively minor risks to/for their children) because political appointees don't share the same child-rearing values as parents that would decide differently from them.
If a lot of households have weapons, it means that the criminals are more likely to carry a weapon.
And that other people are more likely to be armed, too.
If the criminals are likely to carry weapons, it means that even more households will acquire a gun, too. Stalemate.
Except that it's not a stalemate. Criminals are always a minority. Were they a majority, they'd be in government.
How do you start disarmament?
The better question is how to make criminals' weapons no advantage over noncriminals: make sure the actual cost of being better armed than everyone else is insurmountable, stop giving people who already don't follow the law an advantage.
The military industrial complex is not a rightwing institution in America; it's entrenched as deeply in the Left as it is in the Right. I don't think you understand the term military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex is not the military; it's the nexus of political influence to grant favors to companies in industry that develop the technology used by the military. Engineers designing new weapons are cogs in the military-industrial complex, but the weapon systems they design and build are mostly not legal to own outside of military and police.
The rightwing gun owners are mostly not part of the military-industrial complex (unless it's their day job).
The funny thing is he thought the Turner Diaries was a NORMAL and intellectually stimulating thing to read, just like the Bible.
Does this really need a response? I've never seen the Turner Diaries at a gun show. No one would tolerate that; someone pushing it would be kicked out. I am sure, though, that is as intellectually stimulating as the Bible (or a brick, for that matter).
It's one thing to be Libertarian about gun ownership, and quite another to be fanatical about gun ideology and just plain Gun Happy, as most Americans seem to be.
What, pray tell, is gun ideology? Guns don't require ideology. A shoots B with gun C. B is now dead. This can be empirically demonstrated; there's no ideology to it. It is a useful tool.
298. [1] A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. [R.S., c.C-34, s.264.]
301. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. [R.S., c.C-34, s.265.]
Looks like you're right! 5 years for if you knew it was false, that must mean the other one, 2 years, is for if it's true, right?
Congratulations! You're well on your way to building up a strawman to argue against, rather than considering the points made!
Because there's no gray area beween "known to be false" and "known to be true" so anything not known to be false is true!
You're not new at this whole strawman thing, are you? You spend much time arguing against those evil atheist Darwinists, too? I never said that the truth cannot be to a defendant's favor. However, "known to be true" does not mean "true" and "known to be false" does not mean "false." Many false things have been known to be true at the time they were said.
Oh wait, "lawful justification or excuse", fuck! They always have to cover their asses with caveats, don't they. That could mean anything!
No, actually it can't mean anything. Its construction is limited by law.
That could even mean, as the courts have held, that if you have a good faith reason to believe the statement of fact is truthful, you're off the hook.
A good faith reason that something is truthful is not proof of its truth. The truth absolute defense doctrine requires proof acceptable to a court that the statement is true, not that it was believed to be true. Because it occurs in civil cases only, the normal standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.
Oh wait, you don't even need to go that far because the Canadian Criminal Code doesn't stop at Article 301.
I didn't say it did.
309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit. [R.S., c.C-34, s.273.]
As I said, belief that something is true does not make it true, and it's not a positive defense against the accusation.
310. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
(a) on the public conduct of a person who takes part in public affairs; or
(b) on a published book or other literary production, or on any composition or work of art or performance publicly exhibited, or on any other communication made to the public on any subject, if the comments are confined to criticism thereof. [R.S., c.C-34, s.274.]
It's too bad for your argument that fair comment is a very narrow legal term, that protects only statements that are already not defamatory. A fair comment is one that is made on a matter of public interest, is provable, made without malice or ill will, a statement of known fact or a synthesis (combination) of known facts or an opinion that could reasonably be held by anyone well-informed on the subject. So, it pretty much constricts the
Yeah, that's not speech and you can't eliminate hatred by outlawing it.
Yeah, but you can encourage it's growth by talking/spreading it.
Actually, you can't encourage it's anything because that's gibberish. Learn to apostrophate properly.
Saying that free speech spreads hate is like saying Lysol makes people sick. Yes, out of a large-enough population, some idiot will try to drink Lysol, but restricting its availability will make everyone sick.
There are many ways to fight hate speech. In canada, we fight it by making hate speech illegal. we fight it by making it illegal to spread, we mock it with our TV programming, education system and comedians.
If you make speech selectively illegal, it's no longer free speech, it's restricted speech. Restricting people's activities because of their ideas or origin is the very criterion used to identify a crime as a hate crime.
In the USA, dissenting voices are usually dealt with by a lynch mob (or some other draconian measure meted out by an arbitrary justice system with no remaining checks or balances). Oh, and glenn beck.
I've lived in the United States for 24 of the previous 26 years (non-continuously). I have never seen or known anyone that was “dealt with by a lynch mob,” or any “other draconian measure” in our criminal justice systems. Restricting speech because you don't want to hear someone is draconian.
As for checks and balances, that's a term referring to separation of powers doctrine (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances), which is much more fundamental to the U.S. Constitution (and the individual state constitutions) than it is to the Canadian Constitution. If you just don't like the outcomes, go ahead and say that. Just realize that if you are ever sued for or charged with defamation, and later you're lawfully admitted into the United States, collection of a debt resulting from criminal or civil defamations suits in foreign courts is illegal in the United States, a measure that unanimously passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.
As for Glenn Beck, he's our Lysol-drinking idiot and it's better that everyone keep an eye on him.
Truth is a defense in civil suits for defamation (libel and slander) in the United States. It is not so in Canadian criminal cases. It is only mitigating (reduces maximum sentence from five years to two years).
A weapon is an instrument used for the purpose of harming another. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence.
The difference between "17 hours" or "only 17 hours" is in emphasis, not formalized rules, so it's not a pedantic difference. The fact that it took 17 hours is impressive at a time when it took weeks otherwise, but to emphasize that point, when comparing comparing the hoax-believers of the day to moon hoaxers would be moronic (because it's irrelevant to the point I was making).
"Over it" is definitely the appropriate prepositioning. That sentence needed to explicitly identify the medium and carrier of the signal to convey the intended meaning.
That is exactly what happened with the first transatlantic telegraph cable. It went into service in August 1857, and failed in September 1857. By the time most people had heard about it, it was already broken and many believed it was a hoax. There were several failed attempts before a successful transatlantic cable run had been made again (a decade later). There wasn't much understanding of reactance either, so it took about 2 minutes for every character. (The first telegraph sent over it took 17 hours.)
Slashdot Mirror
No, socialism by definition, is done by government in power. You cannot honestly blame GOP on federal redistribution of income when they're not in power. (Yes, they have in the past, but at the present time, they don't.)
That being said, the more recent data show that it's not the case at all that Democratic areas: lucrative government contracts are going to large metropolitan areas that mostly support Democrats.
They have not all been. The National Social German Workers' Party, being the most obvious example, many fascists explicitly call themselves socialists.
Mein Kampf was not the policy manifesto of the NSDAP. A right to employment, nationalization of department stores, economic protectionism, prohibiting economic speculation, mandating profit sharing in large enterprises, prohibiting private pensions, mandating public pensions, etc., were all part of their policy.
Mein Kampf is not at all interesting to read, but it was never intended to be read by the poor and uneducated. Nazis (including Hitler) marketed their ideology mostly at the middle class. If you convince yourself that evil can only be done with ignorance of a majority, history is lost on you.
Seriously? You're talking about "Big Pharma" and don't know what a monopsony is? A monopsony is a market for a particular good or industry in which there is a single purchaser, the inverse of a monopoly. It is used in many countries to regulate the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that whole countries get all the evils of capitalism, with all the evils of socialism.
Countries that don't produce them, though. The US does most of the world's pharmaceutical research and other countries have public monopsonies to keep prices down on buying them, removing any margin for investment, research, and innovation, exasperating the problem here in the U.S. of expensive drugs.
You do know there are train services other than AMTRAK and postal services other than USPS...right?
Sorry, but I've gotta nitpick here: Amtrak and USPS are monopolies. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the only inter-city passenger rail service in the United States. Their government-funding allows them to charge an average 30.7 per passenger mile, while airlines (even with their semifrequent bailouts and tax breaks) only milk passengers 13.0 per passenger mile, and they even define late arrival differently!
The USPS is in a similar situation. FedEx and UPS can deliver parcels all they want, but they are prohibited from establishing a service similar to USPS' letter mail, and cannot deliver anything into a dedicated receptacle (mailbox). USPS is the regulatory agency empowered by Congress to revise these regulations. (As it stands, they allow UPS and FedEx to handle urgent letters but still prohibit non-urgent letter delivery, or anything comparable to First-Class mail.
Those documents, while ignored almost entirely by every president since T.J., don't say a damned thing about socialism.
Yes, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party was socialist. There was more to their policy agenda than territorial expansion and genocide. Just because they're not remembered for their economic policies does not change what those policies were. Fascism is indeed a form of socialism that preserves nominal private ownership of industry while placing it under public control.
That said, fascism being a highly misused and overused word, its use has become almost meaningless. But, yes, Barack Obama and George W. Bush (and many other American politicians) are fascists, a type of socialist.
I'd say that's a legitimate concern. Why is everyone so quick to conclude everyone in government is incompetent? It's irrational so chill the fuck out.
The accusation here is not that they're incompetent, but too competent at doing the wrong thing (prohibiting parents from giving informed consent to relatively minor risks to/for their children) because political appointees don't share the same child-rearing values as parents that would decide differently from them.
Umm, to extend your metaphor: to control the bleeding on the way to the E.R.
This is why there should an "Insightful Troll" or "trolls trolling trolls" label.
This is a vicious circle:
Actually, it's more vicious than you think.
If a lot of households have weapons, it means that the criminals are more likely to carry a weapon.
And that other people are more likely to be armed, too.
If the criminals are likely to carry weapons, it means that even more households will acquire a gun, too. Stalemate.
Except that it's not a stalemate. Criminals are always a minority. Were they a majority, they'd be in government.
How do you start disarmament?
The better question is how to make criminals' weapons no advantage over noncriminals: make sure the actual cost of being better armed than everyone else is insurmountable, stop giving people who already don't follow the law an advantage.
The military industrial complex is not a rightwing institution in America; it's entrenched as deeply in the Left as it is in the Right. I don't think you understand the term military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex is not the military; it's the nexus of political influence to grant favors to companies in industry that develop the technology used by the military. Engineers designing new weapons are cogs in the military-industrial complex, but the weapon systems they design and build are mostly not legal to own outside of military and police.
The rightwing gun owners are mostly not part of the military-industrial complex (unless it's their day job).
The funny thing is he thought the Turner Diaries was a NORMAL and intellectually stimulating thing to read, just like the Bible.
Does this really need a response? I've never seen the Turner Diaries at a gun show. No one would tolerate that; someone pushing it would be kicked out. I am sure, though, that is as intellectually stimulating as the Bible (or a brick, for that matter).
It's one thing to be Libertarian about gun ownership, and quite another to be fanatical about gun ideology and just plain Gun Happy, as most Americans seem to be.
What, pray tell, is gun ideology? Guns don't require ideology. A shoots B with gun C. B is now dead. This can be empirically demonstrated; there's no ideology to it. It is a useful tool.
You'd think that if you never looked at turnover rates in the military.
Nope.
Not so fast.
Looks like you're right! 5 years for if you knew it was false, that must mean the other one, 2 years, is for if it's true, right?
Congratulations! You're well on your way to building up a strawman to argue against, rather than considering the points made!
Because there's no gray area beween "known to be false" and "known to be true" so anything not known to be false is true!
You're not new at this whole strawman thing, are you? You spend much time arguing against those evil atheist Darwinists, too? I never said that the truth cannot be to a defendant's favor. However, "known to be true" does not mean "true" and "known to be false" does not mean "false." Many false things have been known to be true at the time they were said.
Oh wait, "lawful justification or excuse", fuck! They always have to cover their asses with caveats, don't they. That could mean anything!
No, actually it can't mean anything. Its construction is limited by law.
That could even mean, as the courts have held, that if you have a good faith reason to believe the statement of fact is truthful, you're off the hook.
A good faith reason that something is truthful is not proof of its truth. The truth absolute defense doctrine requires proof acceptable to a court that the statement is true, not that it was believed to be true. Because it occurs in civil cases only, the normal standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.
Oh wait, you don't even need to go that far because the Canadian Criminal Code doesn't stop at Article 301.
I didn't say it did.
As I said, belief that something is true does not make it true, and it's not a positive defense against the accusation.
It's too bad for your argument that fair comment is a very narrow legal term, that protects only statements that are already not defamatory. A fair comment is one that is made on a matter of public interest, is provable, made without malice or ill will, a statement of known fact or a synthesis (combination) of known facts or an opinion that could reasonably be held by anyone well-informed on the subject. So, it pretty much constricts the
Yeah, that's not speech and you can't eliminate hatred by outlawing it.
Yeah, but you can encourage it's growth by talking/spreading it.
Actually, you can't encourage it's anything because that's gibberish. Learn to apostrophate properly.
Saying that free speech spreads hate is like saying Lysol makes people sick. Yes, out of a large-enough population, some idiot will try to drink Lysol, but restricting its availability will make everyone sick.
There are many ways to fight hate speech. In canada, we fight it by making hate speech illegal. we fight it by making it illegal to spread, we mock it with our TV programming, education system and comedians.
If you make speech selectively illegal, it's no longer free speech, it's restricted speech. Restricting people's activities because of their ideas or origin is the very criterion used to identify a crime as a hate crime.
In the USA, dissenting voices are usually dealt with by a lynch mob (or some other draconian measure meted out by an arbitrary justice system with no remaining checks or balances). Oh, and glenn beck.
I've lived in the United States for 24 of the previous 26 years (non-continuously). I have never seen or known anyone that was “dealt with by a lynch mob,” or any “other draconian measure” in our criminal justice systems. Restricting speech because you don't want to hear someone is draconian.
As for checks and balances, that's a term referring to separation of powers doctrine (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances), which is much more fundamental to the U.S. Constitution (and the individual state constitutions) than it is to the Canadian Constitution. If you just don't like the outcomes, go ahead and say that. Just realize that if you are ever sued for or charged with defamation, and later you're lawfully admitted into the United States, collection of a debt resulting from criminal or civil defamations suits in foreign courts is illegal in the United States, a measure that unanimously passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.
As for Glenn Beck, he's our Lysol-drinking idiot and it's better that everyone keep an eye on him.
Really? I suggest you look at 297-317 of the Canadian Criminal Code.
Yeah, that's not speech and you can't eliminate hatred by outlawing it.
Truth is a defense in civil suits for defamation (libel and slander) in the United States. It is not so in Canadian criminal cases. It is only mitigating (reduces maximum sentence from five years to two years).
A weapon is an instrument used for the purpose of harming another. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence.
Automisy is self-loathing or self-hatred.
Pedantic correction:
"The first telegraph sent over it took 17 hours."
The difference between "17 hours" or "only 17 hours" is in emphasis, not formalized rules, so it's not a pedantic difference. The fact that it took 17 hours is impressive at a time when it took weeks otherwise, but to emphasize that point, when comparing comparing the hoax-believers of the day to moon hoaxers would be moronic (because it's irrelevant to the point I was making).
"Over it" is definitely the appropriate prepositioning. That sentence needed to explicitly identify the medium and carrier of the signal to convey the intended meaning.
He isn't a 'Russian nutcase' as this was documented in the TV Series: Conspiracy Theory with Jesse the Body Ventura.
Thank you for making my point.
That is exactly what happened with the first transatlantic telegraph cable. It went into service in August 1857, and failed in September 1857. By the time most people had heard about it, it was already broken and many believed it was a hoax. There were several failed attempts before a successful transatlantic cable run had been made again (a decade later). There wasn't much understanding of reactance either, so it took about 2 minutes for every character. (The first telegraph sent over it took 17 hours.)