How the hell is spying on an ally legitimate? The only way that could be morally justifiable IMO is if the ally is caught spying on you and refuses to stop when asked...which makes them something more like a "frenemy."
We'll see if Britain can manage to reduce immigration in practice. If they want to trade freely with the EU, they face similar restrictions from the EU whether they're part of it or not. The market seems to think that being tied to the weaker economies was a small price to pay, time will tell.
I can't wait until those loopholes are closed so that people like you lose this lame excuse to violate the hell out of the spirit of the rules while looking the other way and whistling innocently.
As I'd expected, my respect for Scott Adams is further diminished...but to a vastly greater degree than I could've imagined.
He first tries to nitpick away Trump's history of bigotry (arguing that most of it isn't technically *racist* therefore it's nothing to worry about) and then he goes into straight-up apologism on the topic of the subset of Trump's rhetoric which is unmistakably racist (and therefore not OK, unlike other forms of bigotry apparently?). He even praises Trump for using racist rhetoric, painting it as a clever tactic to be admired. Wow. Finally he plays the "colorblind" card, blames Trump's opposition for "talking about race" and trivializes dog-whistle racism in case my eyes weren't at full roll before. Does this stuff work on white American baby boomers? It doesn't work on me for sure.
He says that Trump isn't a loose cannon in business even though he's famous for "altering the deal" with construction contractors and other smaller companies. He makes the same mistake that Trump himself does, mistaking an overwhelming advantage in economic power for "deal-making skills."
Then I start reading his defense of Trump's proposed ban on Muslim travel and I feel like stopping, but I push on through this nonsense. This is boilerplate Islamophobic spiel that no intelligent person would take seriously. Fuck you and your Islamphobia, Scott Adams.
Then his apologism for Trump's mysogyny and homophobia ties it all together into a grand finale: He deflects by repeating Trump's Islamophobic and anti-Mexican bigoted arguments, argues that he can't be mysogynistic because he wants women to own guns (like everyone else), but also because he hires women in his companies and insults others equally (Also like everyone else! Is doing the same for women that he does for others noteworthy or not?), and finally he implies that hiring women is at least partially fashion-driven.
As a footnote he says that he's voting for Hillary because he's worried about his safety if he votes for Trump (uh, what?) and then notes that as a 1%er life is super-good for him right now and he's worried Trump could raise taxes on him while he's pretty sure Hillary couldn't.
Fuck Scott Adams. I had no idea he was this much of an awful human being until now. So thanks for linking that article. I'm still a "rabid anti-Trumper" but now I hate Scott Adams too.
There's no faux fairness here, I'm not trying to be fair, I am openly against the UK leaving the EU, because it appears to me that leaving has no merits whatsoever. I would like to hear any you can think of.
You know that it's always easier to maintain the status quo, and after all the controversy and hand-wringing since the referendum, you know a second one would favor remaining.
True. The mistake has been realized, a taste of the consequences has been had, and the UK's public would like to undo this mistake. You'd prefer to bind them to it against their will, I presume.
And if you're really a patriotic Brit, have a little faith in your fellow Brits
I am not, and those Brits just demonstrated horrendous decision-making skills, so my faith in them is low right now.
For the good of Europe, Britain needs to return to a position of leadership and strength, and for that it needs real sovereignty.
Ah so this is the imperialist nostalgia I've heard so much about, first time I've seen it myself. Britain was only ever a superpower thanks to colonialism. Unless you think you can give that a second try, you'll have to accept that Britain is a relatively small country with no notable abundance of natural resources and as such it will never be a superpower comparable to the US, China, Russia, or arguably the EU you just left.
I've asked this to other Leave supporters: is there something special about the EU's trade and travel agreements that causes them to strip the UK of its sovereignty, and if not, will the UK have to sever all others as well? Will you have to refrain from forming any new ones?
And for the good of its own citizens, it needs to control its borders and immigration--or would you have more foreign Muslims running sex slave enclaves where even your own police will not venture
or more cleaver-wielding maniacs chopping up people in the streets and boasting red-handed to the cameras?
Murderous madmen who chop people up in the streets and boast to the cameras come in all flavors, the last one I can think of killed Jo Cox and was 100% homegrown. And now your new leaders are struggling to find a way to have their cake and eat it too - regardless of whether the UK is in the EU or not, putting any immigration restrictions in place has roughly the same effect on trade with the EU.
I gave up on Pokémon Diamond because it was too much work to play once a week to prevent a mass extinction of the trees in the game. No way in hell I'd play a version that makes me go outside and walk around!
So is there something special about the EU's trade and travel agreements that takes away a nation's independence, or does the UK have to sever all others as well?
And it's not deceitful to suggest that they made an informed and well-considered decision when the most popular search query in the UK the following day was "what is the EU"?
Oh sorry, second after "What does it mean to leave the EU." Thanks for correcting me and strengthening my argument. These people had no fucking clue what just happened the day before.
These are religious statements.
That's a glib way to hand-wave away any argument. Leaving the EU was a clear-cut economic loss no matter how you look at it. What was gained in return for all this loss? I'd like to know, honestly. A token morsel of autonomy, apparently insufficient to deliver any of the promises of the Leave backers. Now they're struggling to make some token immigration restriction to appease the xenophobes.
Would you think a second vote would be more acceptable if as a condition of holding it, there could be no third vote?
The "safety cover" was weeks of campaigning and years of debate leading up to the referendum.
Do not try to suggest the idea of leaving the EU was sprung upon the people with little warning. It's just deceitful.
Ha! And it's not deceitful to suggest that they made an informed and well-considered decision when the most popular search query in the UK the following day was "what is the EU"? When the decision was objectively stupid unless you hate the concept of the EU's power more than the trillions in economic damage currently being wrought? The decision to leave is not a decision an informed populace would make for any reason other than an overpowering tantrum of xenophobia and jingoism, which didn't seem to match the public's mood. It was made due to extreme ignorance.
To consider this a valid and complete and informed opinion of the future of the country would have to be one of the most fucked up (non violent) things in the history of democracy.
I think the Brexit vote might be the greatest failure of democracy in history, in terms of decision-making. People don't vote directly for wars and Hitler wasn't exactly elected.
Just so I understand, you would absolutely be calling for a confirmation vote if Remain had won and Leave had lost?
If there was a huge petition for a second vote like this, absolutely, yes. Like I said, if the people haven't changed their minds, they'll vote the same way again.
But I'll admit that the outcome being clearly wrong by any objective measurement adds additional reason for the second vote.
Do you think there would be a petition for a third vote if the outcome was the same? I don't think so. It's the same reason you usually don't ask a person if they're sure more than once, and important switches only have only one safety cover on them.
The people's will is not being respected, their call to have their choice confirmed is being ignored. The people are being denied an opportunity to express their will. If it's the will of the people to leave the EU and they haven't changed their minds, they'll vote the same way again.
Here's an analogy, a group of people vote on whether the heat in their arctic shelter should be turned off. They vote to turn it off and the man in charge of the thermostat complies.
A few hours later, as it's getting incredibly cold inside and a clearly bad situation is forming, a large fraction of the inhabitants call for a second vote. The man in charge of the thermostat, who just recently altered it in response to a vote, says "No, you've made a decision and the will of the people must be respected!"
Maybe one of the inhabitants asks "For the record, can you list what other issues we're only allowed to vote on once in history?"
Came here to say this. The mean price is driven up by pickup trucks (the prices are skyrocketing on those due to the financing available for them, something like what happened to student loans) and possibly even 6/7-digit supercars. A regular midsize sedan costs somewhere in the ballpark of $18k~$25k, maybe a little more for a hybrid or EV. Surely well under $30k.
Also consider that the light saber is probably the most dangerous hand-to-hand weapon ever imagined, to both the target and wielder...it would take insane skill to not kill yourself with a massless blade that instantly vaporizes flesh on contact.
A libertarian utopia would be rife with deals like these, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it. Landlords could do the same for (separate) TV and phone service too if they liked.
You said it yourself: Hillary is "a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin". That is, according to you, she is going to get tough on Putin and antagonize him. That is what makes her dangerous. (Furthermore, there is nothing "unforeseen" about Hillary's dangerous behaviors; she has a long track record.) If "Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle", great: that means less opportunity for conflict. I don't want the US president, whoever it is, to mess with Russia over the next several years, so if your primary complaint about Trump is that he is a "halfwit manchild", that's just fine with me.
"Not make things easy for" does not mean "antagonize." There is middle ground between being played like a fiddle and antagonism. Unless you think it's best that the next president just rolls over for Putin to minimize the chance of conflict at any cost to the US. I'd like to see Hillary's track record of dangerous antagonism.
You mean the same kind of "war crimes" that Bush and Obama have engaged in, and that Hillary would certainly continue: drone killings of civilians and various "enhanced interrogation" techniques?
So your argument is that "access to the presidency will cause Hillary to demonstrate unforeseen dangerous behaviors."
So if you're worried that a fairly boring politician like Hillary will do this, what do you think Trump would do? I'd be more worried about the person who's openly expressed interest in committing war crimes.
Don't just think about the harm to the person, think about the harm to society. A false positive from the program in TFA could release a more harmful person into society while keeping a less harmful person locked up.
Hillary is a warmonger but she's not an idiot, she knows to keep things cordial with Russia - wasn't she involved in the attempted "relationship reset" between the US and Russia a few years back? That's far from bear-poking.
It could make sense. The Russian government would love to have Trump win the presidency. Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle. Trump doesn't have any "negotiating skills" at all as many believe, he's simply had overwhelming economic power against small/medium businesses which he's always used as a crude weapon in business deals, and he has conflated this with "negotiating skills." The US doesn't have the kind of massive economic advantage over Russia or especially China that Trump has had over the construction contractors he's screwed.
Now you can say a lot of bad things about Hillary, but she's a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin, so from Russia's perspective she's a much less desirable option.
As for me, I see great differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary seems so much false to me, she got all her money from political activities and lobbying, she is a slave of moguls, she is bought and sold. She never had to work hard and never risked everything she had. Her words don’t meet her actions. And her collision with the DNC turned the primaries into farce.
Opposite to her, Donald Trump has earned his money himself. And at least he is sincere in what he says. His position is straight and clear.
LMAO, Donald "Small million-dollar loan from my dad" Trump has earned his money himself! XD
The ultimate flip-flopper is "sincere in what he says" and "his position is straight and clear!" XD
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell is spying on an ally legitimate? The only way that could be morally justifiable IMO is if the ally is caught spying on you and refuses to stop when asked...which makes them something more like a "frenemy."
We'll see if Britain can manage to reduce immigration in practice. If they want to trade freely with the EU, they face similar restrictions from the EU whether they're part of it or not. The market seems to think that being tied to the weaker economies was a small price to pay, time will tell.
I can't wait until those loopholes are closed so that people like you lose this lame excuse to violate the hell out of the spirit of the rules while looking the other way and whistling innocently.
As I'd expected, my respect for Scott Adams is further diminished...but to a vastly greater degree than I could've imagined.
He first tries to nitpick away Trump's history of bigotry (arguing that most of it isn't technically *racist* therefore it's nothing to worry about) and then he goes into straight-up apologism on the topic of the subset of Trump's rhetoric which is unmistakably racist (and therefore not OK, unlike other forms of bigotry apparently?). He even praises Trump for using racist rhetoric, painting it as a clever tactic to be admired. Wow. Finally he plays the "colorblind" card, blames Trump's opposition for "talking about race" and trivializes dog-whistle racism in case my eyes weren't at full roll before. Does this stuff work on white American baby boomers? It doesn't work on me for sure.
He says that Trump isn't a loose cannon in business even though he's famous for "altering the deal" with construction contractors and other smaller companies. He makes the same mistake that Trump himself does, mistaking an overwhelming advantage in economic power for "deal-making skills."
Then I start reading his defense of Trump's proposed ban on Muslim travel and I feel like stopping, but I push on through this nonsense. This is boilerplate Islamophobic spiel that no intelligent person would take seriously. Fuck you and your Islamphobia, Scott Adams.
Then his apologism for Trump's mysogyny and homophobia ties it all together into a grand finale: He deflects by repeating Trump's Islamophobic and anti-Mexican bigoted arguments, argues that he can't be mysogynistic because he wants women to own guns (like everyone else), but also because he hires women in his companies and insults others equally (Also like everyone else! Is doing the same for women that he does for others noteworthy or not?), and finally he implies that hiring women is at least partially fashion-driven.
As a footnote he says that he's voting for Hillary because he's worried about his safety if he votes for Trump (uh, what?) and then notes that as a 1%er life is super-good for him right now and he's worried Trump could raise taxes on him while he's pretty sure Hillary couldn't.
Fuck Scott Adams. I had no idea he was this much of an awful human being until now. So thanks for linking that article. I'm still a "rabid anti-Trumper" but now I hate Scott Adams too.
There's no faux fairness here, I'm not trying to be fair, I am openly against the UK leaving the EU, because it appears to me that leaving has no merits whatsoever. I would like to hear any you can think of.
You know that it's always easier to maintain the status quo, and after all the controversy and hand-wringing since the referendum, you know a second one would favor remaining.
True. The mistake has been realized, a taste of the consequences has been had, and the UK's public would like to undo this mistake. You'd prefer to bind them to it against their will, I presume.
And if you're really a patriotic Brit, have a little faith in your fellow Brits
I am not, and those Brits just demonstrated horrendous decision-making skills, so my faith in them is low right now.
For the good of Europe, Britain needs to return to a position of leadership and strength, and for that it needs real sovereignty.
Ah so this is the imperialist nostalgia I've heard so much about, first time I've seen it myself. Britain was only ever a superpower thanks to colonialism. Unless you think you can give that a second try, you'll have to accept that Britain is a relatively small country with no notable abundance of natural resources and as such it will never be a superpower comparable to the US, China, Russia, or arguably the EU you just left.
I've asked this to other Leave supporters: is there something special about the EU's trade and travel agreements that causes them to strip the UK of its sovereignty, and if not, will the UK have to sever all others as well? Will you have to refrain from forming any new ones?
And for the good of its own citizens, it needs to control its borders and immigration--or would you have more foreign Muslims running sex slave enclaves where even your own police will not venture
Still trying to make Cameron choke on his porridge?
or more cleaver-wielding maniacs chopping up people in the streets and boasting red-handed to the cameras?
Murderous madmen who chop people up in the streets and boast to the cameras come in all flavors, the last one I can think of killed Jo Cox and was 100% homegrown. And now your new leaders are struggling to find a way to have their cake and eat it too - regardless of whether the UK is in the EU or not, putting any immigration restrictions in place has roughly the same effect on trade with the EU.
I gave up on Pokémon Diamond because it was too much work to play once a week to prevent a mass extinction of the trees in the game. No way in hell I'd play a version that makes me go outside and walk around!
So is there something special about the EU's trade and travel agreements that takes away a nation's independence, or does the UK have to sever all others as well?
And it's not deceitful to suggest that they made an informed and well-considered decision when the most popular search query in the UK the following day was "what is the EU"?
no it wasn't.
Oh sorry, second after "What does it mean to leave the EU." Thanks for correcting me and strengthening my argument. These people had no fucking clue what just happened the day before.
These are religious statements.
That's a glib way to hand-wave away any argument. Leaving the EU was a clear-cut economic loss no matter how you look at it. What was gained in return for all this loss? I'd like to know, honestly. A token morsel of autonomy, apparently insufficient to deliver any of the promises of the Leave backers. Now they're struggling to make some token immigration restriction to appease the xenophobes.
Would you think a second vote would be more acceptable if as a condition of holding it, there could be no third vote?
The "safety cover" was weeks of campaigning and years of debate leading up to the referendum.
Do not try to suggest the idea of leaving the EU was sprung upon the people with little warning. It's just deceitful.
Ha! And it's not deceitful to suggest that they made an informed and well-considered decision when the most popular search query in the UK the following day was "what is the EU"? When the decision was objectively stupid unless you hate the concept of the EU's power more than the trillions in economic damage currently being wrought? The decision to leave is not a decision an informed populace would make for any reason other than an overpowering tantrum of xenophobia and jingoism, which didn't seem to match the public's mood. It was made due to extreme ignorance.
To consider this a valid and complete and informed opinion of the future of the country would have to be one of the most fucked up (non violent) things in the history of democracy.
I think the Brexit vote might be the greatest failure of democracy in history, in terms of decision-making. People don't vote directly for wars and Hitler wasn't exactly elected.
Just so I understand, you would absolutely be calling for a confirmation vote if Remain had won and Leave had lost?
If there was a huge petition for a second vote like this, absolutely, yes. Like I said, if the people haven't changed their minds, they'll vote the same way again.
But I'll admit that the outcome being clearly wrong by any objective measurement adds additional reason for the second vote.
Do you think there would be a petition for a third vote if the outcome was the same? I don't think so. It's the same reason you usually don't ask a person if they're sure more than once, and important switches only have only one safety cover on them.
The people's will is not being respected, their call to have their choice confirmed is being ignored. The people are being denied an opportunity to express their will. If it's the will of the people to leave the EU and they haven't changed their minds, they'll vote the same way again.
Here's an analogy, a group of people vote on whether the heat in their arctic shelter should be turned off. They vote to turn it off and the man in charge of the thermostat complies.
A few hours later, as it's getting incredibly cold inside and a clearly bad situation is forming, a large fraction of the inhabitants call for a second vote. The man in charge of the thermostat, who just recently altered it in response to a vote, says "No, you've made a decision and the will of the people must be respected!"
Maybe one of the inhabitants asks "For the record, can you list what other issues we're only allowed to vote on once in history?"
Came here to say this. The mean price is driven up by pickup trucks (the prices are skyrocketing on those due to the financing available for them, something like what happened to student loans) and possibly even 6/7-digit supercars. A regular midsize sedan costs somewhere in the ballpark of $18k~$25k, maybe a little more for a hybrid or EV. Surely well under $30k.
Add these facts with the fact that Roddenberry staged the first interracial kiss ever shown on TV,
First on American TV, two different British TV shows had them earlier.
Also consider that the light saber is probably the most dangerous hand-to-hand weapon ever imagined, to both the target and wielder...it would take insane skill to not kill yourself with a massless blade that instantly vaporizes flesh on contact.
A libertarian utopia would be rife with deals like these, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it. Landlords could do the same for (separate) TV and phone service too if they liked.
You said it yourself: Hillary is "a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin". That is, according to you, she is going to get tough on Putin and antagonize him. That is what makes her dangerous. (Furthermore, there is nothing "unforeseen" about Hillary's dangerous behaviors; she has a long track record.) If "Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle", great: that means less opportunity for conflict. I don't want the US president, whoever it is, to mess with Russia over the next several years, so if your primary complaint about Trump is that he is a "halfwit manchild", that's just fine with me.
"Not make things easy for" does not mean "antagonize." There is middle ground between being played like a fiddle and antagonism. Unless you think it's best that the next president just rolls over for Putin to minimize the chance of conflict at any cost to the US. I'd like to see Hillary's track record of dangerous antagonism.
You mean the same kind of "war crimes" that Bush and Obama have engaged in, and that Hillary would certainly continue: drone killings of civilians and various "enhanced interrogation" techniques?
No, I mean worse - such as killing terrorists' families, and new and (unspecified but) more brutal forms of torture. Torture which Obama ended and Trump would restart.
Furthermore, this isn't a two person race anyway, there are other candidates besides Trump and Hillary.
Jill Stein? Good luck with that. The candidates for the two major parties are set, unless something wildly unforeseen happens.
So your argument is that "access to the presidency will cause Hillary to demonstrate unforeseen dangerous behaviors."
So if you're worried that a fairly boring politician like Hillary will do this, what do you think Trump would do? I'd be more worried about the person who's openly expressed interest in committing war crimes.
As the post above pointed out, there likely isn't...but that doesn't mean much.
Don't just think about the harm to the person, think about the harm to society. A false positive from the program in TFA could release a more harmful person into society while keeping a less harmful person locked up.
Hillary is a warmonger but she's not an idiot, she knows to keep things cordial with Russia - wasn't she involved in the attempted "relationship reset" between the US and Russia a few years back? That's far from bear-poking.
We forget so quickly...
https://www.propublica.org/art...
It could make sense. The Russian government would love to have Trump win the presidency. Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle. Trump doesn't have any "negotiating skills" at all as many believe, he's simply had overwhelming economic power against small/medium businesses which he's always used as a crude weapon in business deals, and he has conflated this with "negotiating skills." The US doesn't have the kind of massive economic advantage over Russia or especially China that Trump has had over the construction contractors he's screwed.
Now you can say a lot of bad things about Hillary, but she's a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin, so from Russia's perspective she's a much less desirable option.
LMAO, Donald "Small million-dollar loan from my dad" Trump has earned his money himself! XD
The ultimate flip-flopper is "sincere in what he says" and "his position is straight and clear!" XD