>insulting meg kelly is not the same as being a woman hater
Suggesting that abortion-seekers should be punished IS however flagrant misogyny. In fact it's SO misogynistic that no pro-life group or politician in America supports it (which is why he later backtracked).
>wanting to keep illegal immigrants out is not racist Actually... yes it is. Of course none of the people who say that think of THEMSELVES as racists, but they are all wrong about that and everybody ELSE dissagrees with their conclusion.
>wanting to keep muslims out until we can figure out a better solution to the refugee problem is not racist (or xenophobic) Now that really IS racist in the extreme - the most terrible racist acts of the 20th century *all* began with failures to be compassionate towards stateless people.
The latter description isn't actually very accurate. Quoting out of context is a fallacy and would be supporting the person if that was the whole story. My argument is that the rest of what was said did not in fact invalidate the claims based on the original quotes. If anything it made those quotes *worse*.
A typical response from the Trump-supporters would be "he's not a racist because Mexican is not a Race and Muslim is not a race".
The fact that these groups comprise many races rather than just one does NOT, however, make his words and proposed policies any less racist. If it did - white supremacist organisations all over the USA would not be actively encouraging their members to vote for him, and he would have dissavowed them quicker and more forcefully.
And that time he said we should put American Muslims in camps, law-abiding citizens who have never committed a crime, never been convicted, never even been suspected should be locked up just because some other people who happen to share their religion have done some bad things... that was when we started calling him Hitler - because that's exactly what Hitler said in the beginning.
No administration has ever tried to enforce that law, not even the one that passed it. The closest anybody came was to try and stop people running on the communist party ticket - which is where the court case comes from. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for being a communist.
Just because nobody has been prosecuted and the law would likely be overturned if they did - does not however change that in the meantime the law stands. So falsely accusing somebody of breaking it remains slander.
I didn't say they changed their name - I said they abandoned the socialism DESPITE it being in their name. I can see that the sentence was ambiguous though so your misunderstanding is understandable.
Now as for what they practised economically: it was fascism - which is a form of capitalism invented by Hitler's great hero Musolinni who, himself, preferred to call it "corporatism". Not all that different in fact from modern-day USA except without the sham elections. My point wasn't about "true" socialism - it was that Hitler despised everything remotely related to socialism (the idea of welfare as socialist didn't even exist in those days that's a post-Reagan idea). The biggest evidence of Hitler's feelings about socialism is that the very first people he killed was all the socialists in parliament.
My understanding was that this finding only applied to Arizona. The supreme court hasn't ruled on it because nobody appealed the finding - and it thus remains in place elsewhere.
If the law was actually ruled unconstitutional at a national level - how can it still be on the books ?
Every people feels marginalized and or threatened at some point, hell it's perfectly possible to feel that way without any actual cause while being the most powerful group in the most powerful country on earth - just ask Trump's supporters.
But you seem to be seriously ignorant of history: The NAZIs never once won a plurality of votes. Their 1921 coup failed because they lacked sufficient support to keep the capitol. By 1929, under the effects of the depression (and with quite a lot of Hitler-youth) coming of age they won a grand-total of 19 seats in parliament, the only seats they ever won in an election. At this stage in Germany about 90% of all votes were divided between the mainstream rightwing and mainstream leftwing party (with about 45% each) and the other 10% divided among various small fringe parties. The best electoral success the NAZIs ever got was to be the biggest of the fringe parties. At this point the mainstream rightwing party tried to neutralize Hitler's rhetoric by giving him the presidency - a largely ceremonial post with no real power (the chancelor held that) but it was hoped it would keep him happy and quiet. Then the chancelor died. One of the powers the president DID hold is appointing the chancelor's successor should he die in office. Hitler then appointed himself (exploiting a loophole in the constitution) and subsequently combined the two offices into the single office of Fuhrer. Then he got rid of his difficulties in parliament by killing all the leftwing politicians (which rapidly got the rightwingers to change to the NAZI party). In a matter of weeks a minority fringe party had seized absolute power in Germany.
The Hutus and the Tutsis were not at war in the past - they didn't even EXIST in the past. They are not two distinct ethnic groups. This artificial grouping was literally CREATED by the French colonial powers who gave the Tutsi (selected on the basis of "tallest") endless privileges and opportunities while oppressing the Hutus. The Hutus eventually got sick and tired of the Tutsi's continuing economic power (because the fall-out of such an unequal society doesn't just disapear when you remove the colonists) and decided to murder them all (egged on by talk radio hosts). Everything else is political theater - THAT was the crux of the problem, a nationalist revolt against people who were - in fact - part of their OWN nation.
Now if you are so badly informed about the history under discussion - why do you think you are right about nationalism ? Nationalism made a sort of weird sense when the Huns practiced it, or the Romans, or the Vikings... but it was barbaric then and it is barbaric now. It will always be barbaric and it will always lead to barbaric outcomes. The biggest mistake we made in the 20th century was devolving the enforcement of human rights to nation-states, and in so doing basically depriving all human rights from anybody who finds themselves stateless. This is the plight of the refugees Trump fears so much - made stateless by the war in their country. It's the plight of the Palestinians driven from their homeland by Jews who were, at the time, themselves stateless and desperately trying to establish one. As Jewish scholar Hanah Arendt pointed out back then - to solve one statelessness crisis by causing another will lead to an endless, unwinnable war and terrible hardship that will breed terrorism and violence. She was right on every single count.
Nations, and indeed Countries, are a relic of ancient ideas which simply do not FIT in the 21st century. The next step to a better world can ONLY consist of the abolition of both. Eventually, it will happen - history has been inexorably heading that way for 2000 years, it is not a process that can be stopped. You can either accept it and enjoy it and look forward to it... or you can try to fight against it, which everyone who does it ends up killing a lot of innocent people and inevitably failing anyway. America will be no more successful at fighting the current of history than the Islamic lead
Can never be slander: "Jack wants to kill his wife" Can be slander: "Jack is killing his wife".
Calling Trump Hitler is not accusing him of a crime. Ergo it cannot be slander. It is, at most, saying his speeches advocate policies that would be criminal but thats still free speech. Calling Sanders a Marxist is a crime because you are accusing him falsely of engaging in criminal behaviour.
Even so there is no evidence to suggest Sanders would sue or prosecute you for doing so. He has not sued Fox which did that a few times. However if you want to do it its okay for him to say 'but you cannot use my own trademarks to do it'. Parody is not protected if its also slanderous. And there is not even any evidence he has done that. All you have is a lawyer who did that without consulting him.
When those taxes are justified ? After all - the price of fuel won't actually reflect the REAL cost of choosing to drive (the vast majority of which is externalized over the rest of humanity and not paid by you choosing to drive today) unless it's closer to 300 dollars to fill up your tank.
And that's WITHOUT considering climate change, that's JUST the immediate costs you're inflicting on society RIGHT NOW.
Ironically - your unsupported claim so frequently cited by those who think Austrian or Chicago school economics is anything more than a pseudo-scientific cult, is proven wrong by exactly that approach having worked - quite well - many times.
Of course it can be overdone, but you don't refuse to take the best medicine for the disease because some people have overdosed on it. You control the dosage with the best information available.
The worst is that even Austrian economists knew it was bullshit (yet their followers never seem to know this) and actually advocated for universal basic income - Hayek most prominently so. Hayek famously declared that "without a floor price on labour, the labour market cannot ever be a free market" - then spend quite a few chapters explaining how the result of that can only ever be complete economic collapse.
How sad that all the fans of Hayek seem to know all the bullshit he spouted which is so utterly disproven by the empirical facts he openly refused to acknowledge (because - like a good Austrian - he deemed 'empiricism' to be meaningless and that's what makes it a pseudo-scientific cult) and yet none of them know or advocate for the ONE thing he got dead right which has been proven over and over by empirical data both in looking at history and numerous long-term controlled studies all over the world.
Nobody has called Trump "literally Hitler" - since that would be physically impossible. Identical speeches ? Also echoed in the speeches of the only NAZIs to every actually run a country for an extended period of time WITHOUT being at war (notably Verwoerd, Botha and Vorster's) speeches. Identical proposals and policies to not-yet-in-power Hitler ? Entire speeches that could have been quoted from Mein Kampf ?
Literally Hitler ? No. As close as makes no fucking difference ? Only somebody who is utterly ignorant of history could fail to see it.
But then - ALL NATIONALISM is Nazism, the NAZIs abandoned the socialist part of their name long before they ever even got in power - hell during their failed coup attempt in 1921 they killed all the socialists in parliament before being thrown out. The very first thing they did after president Hitler declared himself Fuhrer was to kill every socialist in parliament (again) - 400 people executed in a single night. But the nationalism - they clung to that. All nationalism is 100% absolutely and utterly inexcusable evil. And it's an evil no less prevalent in the United States than it was in Germany. Those who love their country, and associate that love with a specific nation - are doomed to repeat ALL the worst evils humanity have visited on one another because with zero exceptions it was ALWAYS nationalism that drove it. It was Nationalism that drove appartheid (hell the party doing it was even called the "National Party"). It was Nationalism that drove the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Nationalism that exploded in the genocide in Serbia under Milosovich.
There is no version of Nationalism, especially ethno-Nationalism that has ever or could ever fail to lead to atrocity. All nationalists are Hitler WANABES. Nearly none of them know it. They seem to only ever figure that out AFTER they did something fucking terrible.
>They've been calling Trump a Racist Misogynist, despite him not saying anything racist or misogynistic
He has done both, repeatedly. Those who claim otherwise try to use some weird-assed technicalities to make it seem like his flagrant bigotry isn't ACTUALLY the specific KIND of bigotry being discussed. It literally comes down to "it's not racism it's xenophobia and that's supposed to be less evil" (and that would have been trueish if any of the imigrants he has an issue with were white - treating your own race as special IS racism - hating on MANY races is not LESS racist than hating on one). The things he has said about and to women were flagrant misogyny too - like his recent declaration that women who seek abortions should be punished. No wonder be backtracked from that one later the same day - even the most backward of pro-lifers don't say THAT in public ! When you're more misogynistic than Todd Aiken, you're a fucking misogynist.
And even if none of this was true it wouldn't change the fact that calling him all those things is NOT comparable to calling Bernie a communist because none of those things are federal crimes. Accusing somebody of a crime without proof is slander, merely calling him names is not. It's legal to call a politician names, its NOT legal to slander ANYBODY - even a politician.
Actually we have proof to the contrary. The article explicitly states that the lawfirm did this without the instruction or consent of the campaign that hired them. The seller actually said he is confident that Bernie would put a stop to it as soon as he is informed.
It will be telling to see if that prediction turns out to be accurate.
Only to the kind of idiot who thinks a gun is the most dangerous weapon around. There are weapons a million times more dangerous than guns or even atom bombs... and liberals have almost all of them.
Guns can be pried from your fingers... but you can't pry our weapons out of our skulls.
We can predict the next eclipse (the next several in fact) - and the solar system is chaotic. Chaotic systems are not wholly unpredictable. They have what's known as a prediction-horizon, a maximum period after which predictions become impossible as errors in measurement add up. The more accurately you can measure - the further you can push the prediction-horizon. For the solar system the prediction horizon is about 2 million years. For weather it's about a week. For climate - about a million years (climate is far, far infinitely far simpler than weather - still chaotic but far less so).
Earthquakes however fall into the category where we can accurately predict *if* but not *when* - partly due to insufficient measurement. I can say with absolute certainty that Japan will get hit by another big earthquake and probably before the century is out. Nobody can yet tell you when. We can do the *where* very well, any city on a fault line WILL get hit every now and then. Other places it is exceedingly rare and if you account for mining and groundwater depletion sources you can usually predict those too.
We can't predict where the next flood will be, or when, but I can predict with absolute certainty that a major flood coupled with millions dead from choking on CO2 will happen in central Africa in the near future. We know there is a massive CO2 bubble building under a lake. We know that when such bubbles eventually burst they send out a shockwave that sends the water over the banks and floods everything nearby in a pool of mud while a cloud of CO2 too thick to breath settles over the landscape and kills everything in a 20 mile radius. We know - because it happened already - within the last century in fact, and we know it will happen again because we can see the build-up happening. We don't know when because we can't see how big the build-up already is - we can't see because the same geological forces that is making the bubble is also boiling the lake... you can't scuba dive in a boiling lake, especially a very deep one. We can't go down to look and we don't have much camera equipment designed to survive being boiled.
We can't extend the prediction horizon for earthquakes or make the predictions more accurate because we lack the means to accurately measure. Just like the boiling lake problem - we can see where the problem areas are, but we lack the technology to get the data to tell us when those problems will happen.
That doesn't mean there is nothing we can do. As we speak the Kenyan Government is busy reinforcing the banks of the boiling lake with concrete and steel, hoping to strengthen them enough to prevent flooding when the bubble bursts and hopefully contain most of the gas. It may not work - but knowing it's coming, we can take measures to mitigate the potential harm. Even if it doesn't work, it's better to try and fail than not to try - again. And that's what we actually need to do about earthquakes. We need to make the cities built on likely strike-zones far more capable of keeping their citizens alive when it comes.
Half the number of parts. Making a bigger version of a part usually costs less than making two. Especially for things like jet engines which are fairly labour intensive. There is limited gain to be had from automation and almost no economies of scale because the market is just too small. The total annual sales of all jet engines are in the tens because they last q very long time and their used on things thar take ages to build and once sold are used for years or even decades.
This is one reason airplane companies do not usually make their own engines like car companies do. They buy engines from companies like Rolls Royce that specialize in engines and have non-jet businesses to sustain them between.
Because in the real world budgets matter and engines are expensive. Military Cargo planes may have four engines even though empty they can fly just fine on 2 but thats because "full" means "add the mass of a tank" or even "add the mass of another plane" like the B52s that were used to carry the X15 to altitude. The X15 being a rocket plane it is far less fuel efficient than a jet. It could go to space but it didnt carry enough fuel to get there from ground level.
>Maybe we should get worked up about the dangers of Bird strike [wikipedia.org] and stop people from keeping or flying birds near airports.
We already do. But since the number of people into Falconry and homing pigeon races (pretty much the only bird-related hobbies where the birds actually fly) are relatively little, you don't KNOW about the regulations that apply to them unless you're one of them.
Wow you would think the PHD level engineers that have been designing jet engines for decades would have thought of that... and maybe if it was so easy, they would have done it by now ?
There's only about a billion reasons it wouldn't work, and one of the first that springs to mind is that jet engines are sucking in air - at a huge speed (in many cases several times the speed of sound)... you stick a grill in there, you are reducing the possible airflow. That grill will have to be made of something incredibly (probably impossible) strong just to prevent it getting sucked in itself (seriously - you have no idea the force a jet engine generates -it's not like an air-conditioner - those things put out hundreds of KILONewtons in thrust). And if you actually build your super-grill, you will hugely weaken the engine because it will not be able to get air in as fast. Even most basic grill that actually does something useful will be at least a 30% reduction in engine power (50% is more likely for anything strong enough to do the job)... so now you'll need twice as many engines. Which means twice the fuel, and of course you've greatly increased the weight of the aircraft so you have to increase the wing-size massively to compensate... but that means you have to go *faster* to be able to generate enough lift which means you need more engines...
They don't call it the tyranny of the rocket equation for nothing.
You don't hear about bird mitigation efforts... because they've been in place for decades, are non-controversial and there's very little part of them that Joe Average is affected by. Pretty much unless you are into Falconry or breeding homing-pigeons the odds of them affecting you are near-zero.
But just like people into those hobbies, if your hobby is flying drones - then you can reasonably expect to be affected by such safety measures and laws as applies to drones.
Just because *you* haven't heard of something, does not mean it doesn't exist. In fact there are huge measures in place at airports around the world to try and reduce the risk of bird collisions because they can and do cause actual disasters. Drones would be a greater risk.
I'm not even sure we need a new law - if you fly a drone anywhere near an airport there isn't a sane judge in the free world who will NOT find your ass guilty of reckless endangerment at the very least.
The article is using an out-of-date terminology that you are choosing to assign a meaning to that it doesn't have and never had. There is no such thing as a transvestite. It was an incorrect term when it was first coined and there is nobody it reasonably applies to. Straight men with a fetish for female clothing ? Not a pathology, nothing wrong with it, doesn't need a term. Male genitaled people who are actually women ? That would be transgender.
There is no such thing as a transvestite.
So the question becomes - which of the two groups that word was previously used for applies to THIS scenario ? Upon reading the article - transgender seems by far the most likely (cross-dressing men generally tend to keep their hobby secret and rarely go public with it - just like most other fetishists).
Slashdot Mirror
>insulting meg kelly is not the same as being a woman hater
Suggesting that abortion-seekers should be punished IS however flagrant misogyny. In fact it's SO misogynistic that no pro-life group or politician in America supports it (which is why he later backtracked).
>wanting to keep illegal immigrants out is not racist ... yes it is. Of course none of the people who say that think of THEMSELVES as racists, but they are all wrong about that and everybody ELSE dissagrees with their conclusion.
Actually
>wanting to keep muslims out until we can figure out a better solution to the refugee problem is not racist (or xenophobic)
Now that really IS racist in the extreme - the most terrible racist acts of the 20th century *all* began with failures to be compassionate towards stateless people.
The latter description isn't actually very accurate. Quoting out of context is a fallacy and would be supporting the person if that was the whole story.
My argument is that the rest of what was said did not in fact invalidate the claims based on the original quotes. If anything it made those quotes *worse*.
A typical response from the Trump-supporters would be "he's not a racist because Mexican is not a Race and Muslim is not a race".
The fact that these groups comprise many races rather than just one does NOT, however, make his words and proposed policies any less racist. If it did - white supremacist organisations all over the USA would not be actively encouraging their members to vote for him, and he would have dissavowed them quicker and more forcefully.
And that time he said we should put American Muslims in camps, law-abiding citizens who have never committed a crime, never been convicted, never even been suspected should be locked up just because some other people who happen to share their religion have done some bad things... that was when we started calling him Hitler - because that's exactly what Hitler said in the beginning.
No administration has ever tried to enforce that law, not even the one that passed it. The closest anybody came was to try and stop people running on the communist party ticket - which is where the court case comes from. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for being a communist.
Just because nobody has been prosecuted and the law would likely be overturned if they did - does not however change that in the meantime the law stands. So falsely accusing somebody of breaking it remains slander.
A skull can't stop .308 sure... it can do better.
It can design a more powerful weapon.
Actually - I was talking about science and scientists.
With science -I can make guns, or bombs. You can't however, make science out of guns and bombs.
I didn't say they changed their name - I said they abandoned the socialism DESPITE it being in their name. I can see that the sentence was ambiguous though so your misunderstanding is understandable.
Now as for what they practised economically: it was fascism - which is a form of capitalism invented by Hitler's great hero Musolinni who, himself, preferred to call it "corporatism". Not all that different in fact from modern-day USA except without the sham elections. My point wasn't about "true" socialism - it was that Hitler despised everything remotely related to socialism (the idea of welfare as socialist didn't even exist in those days that's a post-Reagan idea). The biggest evidence of Hitler's feelings about socialism is that the very first people he killed was all the socialists in parliament.
My understanding was that this finding only applied to Arizona. The supreme court hasn't ruled on it because nobody appealed the finding - and it thus remains in place elsewhere.
If the law was actually ruled unconstitutional at a national level - how can it still be on the books ?
Every people feels marginalized and or threatened at some point, hell it's perfectly possible to feel that way without any actual cause while being the most powerful group in the most powerful country on earth - just ask Trump's supporters.
But you seem to be seriously ignorant of history:
The NAZIs never once won a plurality of votes. Their 1921 coup failed because they lacked sufficient support to keep the capitol. By 1929, under the effects of the depression (and with quite a lot of Hitler-youth) coming of age they won a grand-total of 19 seats in parliament, the only seats they ever won in an election. At this stage in Germany about 90% of all votes were divided between the mainstream rightwing and mainstream leftwing party (with about 45% each) and the other 10% divided among various small fringe parties. The best electoral success the NAZIs ever got was to be the biggest of the fringe parties. At this point the mainstream rightwing party tried to neutralize Hitler's rhetoric by giving him the presidency - a largely ceremonial post with no real power (the chancelor held that) but it was hoped it would keep him happy and quiet. Then the chancelor died. One of the powers the president DID hold is appointing the chancelor's successor should he die in office. Hitler then appointed himself (exploiting a loophole in the constitution) and subsequently combined the two offices into the single office of Fuhrer. Then he got rid of his difficulties in parliament by killing all the leftwing politicians (which rapidly got the rightwingers to change to the NAZI party). In a matter of weeks a minority fringe party had seized absolute power in Germany.
The Hutus and the Tutsis were not at war in the past - they didn't even EXIST in the past. They are not two distinct ethnic groups. This artificial grouping was literally CREATED by the French colonial powers who gave the Tutsi (selected on the basis of "tallest") endless privileges and opportunities while oppressing the Hutus. The Hutus eventually got sick and tired of the Tutsi's continuing economic power (because the fall-out of such an unequal society doesn't just disapear when you remove the colonists) and decided to murder them all (egged on by talk radio hosts). Everything else is political theater - THAT was the crux of the problem, a nationalist revolt against people who were - in fact - part of their OWN nation.
Now if you are so badly informed about the history under discussion - why do you think you are right about nationalism ? Nationalism made a sort of weird sense when the Huns practiced it, or the Romans, or the Vikings... but it was barbaric then and it is barbaric now. It will always be barbaric and it will always lead to barbaric outcomes.
The biggest mistake we made in the 20th century was devolving the enforcement of human rights to nation-states, and in so doing basically depriving all human rights from anybody who finds themselves stateless. This is the plight of the refugees Trump fears so much - made stateless by the war in their country. It's the plight of the Palestinians driven from their homeland by Jews who were, at the time, themselves stateless and desperately trying to establish one.
As Jewish scholar Hanah Arendt pointed out back then - to solve one statelessness crisis by causing another will lead to an endless, unwinnable war and terrible hardship that will breed terrorism and violence. She was right on every single count.
Nations, and indeed Countries, are a relic of ancient ideas which simply do not FIT in the 21st century. The next step to a better world can ONLY consist of the abolition of both. Eventually, it will happen - history has been inexorably heading that way for 2000 years, it is not a process that can be stopped. You can either accept it and enjoy it and look forward to it... or you can try to fight against it, which everyone who does it ends up killing a lot of innocent people and inevitably failing anyway. America will be no more successful at fighting the current of history than the Islamic lead
Specifically: the Communist Control Act of 1954 signed into law by Eisenhower.
You can argue whether it WOULD be ruled constitutional - but it's a purely academic argument because the supreme court has never ruled on it at all.
It's still a federal crime to be a communist. The law isn't actively enforced these days - but Senator McCarthy's favorite law is still the law.
Can never be slander: "Jack wants to kill his wife"
Can be slander: "Jack is killing his wife".
Calling Trump Hitler is not accusing him of a crime. Ergo it cannot be slander. It is, at most, saying his speeches advocate policies that would be criminal but thats still free speech.
Calling Sanders a Marxist is a crime because you are accusing him falsely of engaging in criminal behaviour.
Even so there is no evidence to suggest Sanders would sue or prosecute you for doing so. He has not sued Fox which did that a few times.
However if you want to do it its okay for him to say 'but you cannot use my own trademarks to do it'. Parody is not protected if its also slanderous.
And there is not even any evidence he has done that. All you have is a lawyer who did that without consulting him.
When those taxes are justified ? After all - the price of fuel won't actually reflect the REAL cost of choosing to drive (the vast majority of which is externalized over the rest of humanity and not paid by you choosing to drive today) unless it's closer to 300 dollars to fill up your tank.
And that's WITHOUT considering climate change, that's JUST the immediate costs you're inflicting on society RIGHT NOW.
Ironically - your unsupported claim so frequently cited by those who think Austrian or Chicago school economics is anything more than a pseudo-scientific cult, is proven wrong by exactly that approach having worked - quite well - many times.
Of course it can be overdone, but you don't refuse to take the best medicine for the disease because some people have overdosed on it. You control the dosage with the best information available.
The worst is that even Austrian economists knew it was bullshit (yet their followers never seem to know this) and actually advocated for universal basic income - Hayek most prominently so. Hayek famously declared that "without a floor price on labour, the labour market cannot ever be a free market" - then spend quite a few chapters explaining how the result of that can only ever be complete economic collapse.
How sad that all the fans of Hayek seem to know all the bullshit he spouted which is so utterly disproven by the empirical facts he openly refused to acknowledge (because - like a good Austrian - he deemed 'empiricism' to be meaningless and that's what makes it a pseudo-scientific cult) and yet none of them know or advocate for the ONE thing he got dead right which has been proven over and over by empirical data both in looking at history and numerous long-term controlled studies all over the world.
Nobody has called Trump "literally Hitler" - since that would be physically impossible. Identical speeches ? Also echoed in the speeches of the only NAZIs to every actually run a country for an extended period of time WITHOUT being at war (notably Verwoerd, Botha and Vorster's) speeches. Identical proposals and policies to not-yet-in-power Hitler ?
Entire speeches that could have been quoted from Mein Kampf ?
Literally Hitler ? No.
As close as makes no fucking difference ? Only somebody who is utterly ignorant of history could fail to see it.
But then - ALL NATIONALISM is Nazism, the NAZIs abandoned the socialist part of their name long before they ever even got in power - hell during their failed coup attempt in 1921 they killed all the socialists in parliament before being thrown out. The very first thing they did after president Hitler declared himself Fuhrer was to kill every socialist in parliament (again) - 400 people executed in a single night.
But the nationalism - they clung to that. All nationalism is 100% absolutely and utterly inexcusable evil. And it's an evil no less prevalent in the United States than it was in Germany.
Those who love their country, and associate that love with a specific nation - are doomed to repeat ALL the worst evils humanity have visited on one another because with zero exceptions it was ALWAYS nationalism that drove it. It was Nationalism that drove appartheid (hell the party doing it was even called the "National Party"). It was Nationalism that drove the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Nationalism that exploded in the genocide in Serbia under Milosovich.
There is no version of Nationalism, especially ethno-Nationalism that has ever or could ever fail to lead to atrocity. All nationalists are Hitler WANABES. Nearly none of them know it. They seem to only ever figure that out AFTER they did something fucking terrible.
Except that nobody claimed copyright at all. This was a trademark letter. A completely different law with literally NOTHING in common.
>They've been calling Trump a Racist Misogynist, despite him not saying anything racist or misogynistic
He has done both, repeatedly. Those who claim otherwise try to use some weird-assed technicalities to make it seem like his flagrant bigotry isn't ACTUALLY the specific KIND of bigotry being discussed. It literally comes down to "it's not racism it's xenophobia and that's supposed to be less evil" (and that would have been trueish if any of the imigrants he has an issue with were white - treating your own race as special IS racism - hating on MANY races is not LESS racist than hating on one). The things he has said about and to women were flagrant misogyny too - like his recent declaration that women who seek abortions should be punished. No wonder be backtracked from that one later the same day - even the most backward of pro-lifers don't say THAT in public !
When you're more misogynistic than Todd Aiken, you're a fucking misogynist.
And even if none of this was true it wouldn't change the fact that calling him all those things is NOT comparable to calling Bernie a communist because none of those things are federal crimes. Accusing somebody of a crime without proof is slander, merely calling him names is not. It's legal to call a politician names, its NOT legal to slander ANYBODY - even a politician.
Actually we have proof to the contrary. The article explicitly states that the lawfirm did this without the instruction or consent of the campaign that hired them. The seller actually said he is confident that Bernie would put a stop to it as soon as he is informed.
It will be telling to see if that prediction turns out to be accurate.
Only to the kind of idiot who thinks a gun is the most dangerous weapon around. There are weapons a million times more dangerous than guns or even atom bombs ... and liberals have almost all of them.
Guns can be pried from your fingers... but you can't pry our weapons out of our skulls.
We can predict the next eclipse (the next several in fact) - and the solar system is chaotic. Chaotic systems are not wholly unpredictable. They have what's known as a prediction-horizon, a maximum period after which predictions become impossible as errors in measurement add up.
The more accurately you can measure - the further you can push the prediction-horizon. For the solar system the prediction horizon is about 2 million years. For weather it's about a week. For climate - about a million years (climate is far, far infinitely far simpler than weather - still chaotic but far less so).
Earthquakes however fall into the category where we can accurately predict *if* but not *when* - partly due to insufficient measurement. I can say with absolute certainty that Japan will get hit by another big earthquake and probably before the century is out. Nobody can yet tell you when. We can do the *where* very well, any city on a fault line WILL get hit every now and then. Other places it is exceedingly rare and if you account for mining and groundwater depletion sources you can usually predict those too.
We can't predict where the next flood will be, or when, but I can predict with absolute certainty that a major flood coupled with millions dead from choking on CO2 will happen in central Africa in the near future. We know there is a massive CO2 bubble building under a lake. We know that when such bubbles eventually burst they send out a shockwave that sends the water over the banks and floods everything nearby in a pool of mud while a cloud of CO2 too thick to breath settles over the landscape and kills everything in a 20 mile radius.
We know - because it happened already - within the last century in fact, and we know it will happen again because we can see the build-up happening.
We don't know when because we can't see how big the build-up already is - we can't see because the same geological forces that is making the bubble is also boiling the lake... you can't scuba dive in a boiling lake, especially a very deep one. We can't go down to look and we don't have much camera equipment designed to survive being boiled.
We can't extend the prediction horizon for earthquakes or make the predictions more accurate because we lack the means to accurately measure. Just like the boiling lake problem - we can see where the problem areas are, but we lack the technology to get the data to tell us when those problems will happen.
That doesn't mean there is nothing we can do. As we speak the Kenyan Government is busy reinforcing the banks of the boiling lake with concrete and steel, hoping to strengthen them enough to prevent flooding when the bubble bursts and hopefully contain most of the gas. It may not work - but knowing it's coming, we can take measures to mitigate the potential harm. Even if it doesn't work, it's better to try and fail than not to try - again. And that's what we actually need to do about earthquakes. We need to make the cities built on likely strike-zones far more capable of keeping their citizens alive when it comes.
Half the number of parts. Making a bigger version of a part usually costs less than making two.
Especially for things like jet engines which are fairly labour intensive. There is limited gain to be had from automation and almost no economies of scale because the market is just too small. The total annual sales of all jet engines are in the tens because they last q very long time and their used on things thar take ages to build and once sold are used for years or even decades.
This is one reason airplane companies do not usually make their own engines like car companies do. They buy engines from companies like Rolls Royce that specialize in engines and have non-jet businesses to sustain them between.
Because in the real world budgets matter and engines are expensive. Military Cargo planes may have four engines even though empty they can fly just fine on 2 but thats because "full" means "add the mass of a tank" or even "add the mass of another plane" like the B52s that were used to carry the X15 to altitude. The X15 being a rocket plane it is far less fuel efficient than a jet. It could go to space but it didnt carry enough fuel to get there from ground level.
>Maybe we should get worked up about the dangers of Bird strike [wikipedia.org] and stop people from keeping or flying birds near airports.
We already do. But since the number of people into Falconry and homing pigeon races (pretty much the only bird-related hobbies where the birds actually fly) are relatively little, you don't KNOW about the regulations that apply to them unless you're one of them.
Wow you would think the PHD level engineers that have been designing jet engines for decades would have thought of that ... and maybe if it was so easy, they would have done it by now ?
There's only about a billion reasons it wouldn't work, and one of the first that springs to mind is that jet engines are sucking in air - at a huge speed (in many cases several times the speed of sound)... you stick a grill in there, you are reducing the possible airflow. That grill will have to be made of something incredibly (probably impossible) strong just to prevent it getting sucked in itself (seriously - you have no idea the force a jet engine generates -it's not like an air-conditioner - those things put out hundreds of KILONewtons in thrust). And if you actually build your super-grill, you will hugely weaken the engine because it will not be able to get air in as fast. Even most basic grill that actually does something useful will be at least a 30% reduction in engine power (50% is more likely for anything strong enough to do the job)... so now you'll need twice as many engines. Which means twice the fuel, and of course you've greatly increased the weight of the aircraft so you have to increase the wing-size massively to compensate... but that means you have to go *faster* to be able to generate enough lift which means you need more engines...
They don't call it the tyranny of the rocket equation for nothing.
You don't hear about bird mitigation efforts ... because they've been in place for decades, are non-controversial and there's very little part of them that Joe Average is affected by. Pretty much unless you are into Falconry or breeding homing-pigeons the odds of them affecting you are near-zero.
But just like people into those hobbies, if your hobby is flying drones - then you can reasonably expect to be affected by such safety measures and laws as applies to drones.
Just because *you* haven't heard of something, does not mean it doesn't exist. In fact there are huge measures in place at airports around the world to try and reduce the risk of bird collisions because they can and do cause actual disasters. Drones would be a greater risk.
I'm not even sure we need a new law - if you fly a drone anywhere near an airport there isn't a sane judge in the free world who will NOT find your ass guilty of reckless endangerment at the very least.
The article is using an out-of-date terminology that you are choosing to assign a meaning to that it doesn't have and never had. There is no such thing as a transvestite. It was an incorrect term when it was first coined and there is nobody it reasonably applies to.
Straight men with a fetish for female clothing ? Not a pathology, nothing wrong with it, doesn't need a term.
Male genitaled people who are actually women ? That would be transgender.
There is no such thing as a transvestite.
So the question becomes - which of the two groups that word was previously used for applies to THIS scenario ? Upon reading the article - transgender seems by far the most likely (cross-dressing men generally tend to keep their hobby secret and rarely go public with it - just like most other fetishists).