Unless you're just saying this (^) for some strange, legal, limitation of liability reasons I stand corrected.
No, I just respect the work of NYCL (NewYorkCountryLawyer).
I'm just not sure that "tearing down the statues of their great grandfathers' heroes" or refusing to listen or speak to them is likely to improve their sense of history.
I don't think it will. I also don't see them understanding that when non-whites, or people whose ancestors fought for the Union, walk by those statues it's kind of a slap in the face. They belong in a history museum rather than a public square. That's the story of an army that fought against the US government and lost (notwithstanding that victors write the history), it's kind of odd to celebrate them in public rather than a museum.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure 'chatting', but we should probably stop 'spamming' a days old thread now.;-)
Healthcare and job training is the responsibility of the individual.
In the US it is. In many other civilized societies they realize that the long-term dividends provided by universal access to high-quality health care and education more than pay for themselves in the long run. We used to value education, now the federal government is giving out student loans at 10x the interest rates that businesses get. Go capitalism? Similarly, health care should be seen as a fundamental human right, not a luxury. But you would rather treat being poor as a pre-existing condition. The problem with health care in the US is insurance. If everyone paid even a part of their existing insurance premiums into a single pot that could be used to pay for health care for everyone, the insurance industry would go away and we would stop treating sick people like a commodity. Capitalism doesn't need to be heartless. The US pays, by far, the most per capita for health care, and our overall performance is no better than 15th place. That puts us in 37th place overall. That is a horrible return on investment. And, what do we get for all that money? The added benefit of an insurance industry that tries to fuck everyone over at any opportunity, and a bill for $150,000 if you have to go to the hospital because a venomous snake bit you. The world's largest economy can absolutely afford to pay for quality health care for everyone. But for you, it's not that it can't be done, just that you don't want to do it. You want to make people pay for it themselves, if they can afford it, for no apparent reason.
"Yaaaaaaaay life! It's so precious! Wait, you're already born? GO FUCK YOURSELF, STOP BEING POOR."
So back to whether or not you should force children to be born, now you want people with no support structure at all thrust into a system that will not care for or educate them, and just hope that all goes well because life is so precious (before you're born) and they can just pick themselves up by their bootstraps and the entire system totally won't be set up against them. If you've never lived in a foreign country and don't have a spouse who has ever lived in a foreign country then you might not be the best judge of how good (or bad) the system is here. It is strongly set up against the majority of people. It is not designed to help people succeed like it used to be, it is designed for people to make money any way they can on the backs of everyone else.
And, just so we're clear, I'm not in favor of murdering babies. You know, just so there's no confusion. I understand that you silly conservatives like to set up your strawmen where you re-define your opponent's views and then try to knock those down, but that's not how it works. You either know that, and you're an idiot for doing it anyway, or you don't know it, in which case you're just an idiot. If you want to have a rational debate it's best to avoid logical fallacies. Or, you could just quit while you're behind.
I mean, their organisations might well have fairly strict rules.
I'm thinking that "no black people" does not a well-regulated militia make.
You're the lawyer
A common misconception.
I thought the purpose of the second amendment was to guard against governmental overreach.
That's how I understand it. So I think that it's a little bit ironic that some of these racist groups are trying to sue the police for not protecting them, when the police didn't want to get involved because they were outclassed by the people crying about not getting government protection. There's a certain irony seeing heavily armed protesting racists suing a police force for not protecting them. I think that irony lies in the fact that, if they were not heavily armed, then the police would have protected them.
I just have a certain amount of sympathy, and also some embarrassment, realizing that there are people in the US who personally fought against the Nazis, they watched friends die and had to do things they never thought they would have to do, only to see a bunch of young entitled kids with no sense of history carrying Nazi flags around American cities because they don't like black people. It's shameful, and it's entirely lost on these kids. The people who defeated the Nazi army are still alive, and they have to watch this happen. It's embarrassing to realize that this is part of America.
Why shouldn't the mother have the right to stop the pregnancy if trying to raise a kid would essentially ruin her life? Why give all of the priority to one side and none to the other? You're sacrificing one life for the benefit of the other and acting like you're not. I'm doing the same, I just don't act like I'm doing something other than what I am. You see how this debate goes? Next we can debate what the definition of a "person" is. I would approach that debate by asking you how old you are, and whether you track your age from the day you were born or conceived. I would also point to the government's view, and whether or not you can claim a fetus as a dependent. I could also approach it from a scientific view to try to answer that question. Hopefully your counter-argument would be evidence-based and not rely on something subjective or unprovable like a religious belief. As far as adoption goes, let's look at the state of the 400,000 orphans in the US and see how their lives turn out. I would even suggest that if you want to force people to be born then you have an obligation to provide them with health care and a good education, as much as they want, at no cost to them. I imagine that's where our views would diverge though, a common theme among conservatives is that protection of life stops when they exit the vagina. After that, they're on their own, completely free to enjoy all of these benefits of capitalism, like anti-marijuana laws paid for by pharmaceutical and alcohol companies to put them right into a for-profit prison where they have no access to decent health care or any kind of job training. It's the American way.
That's the nature of the entire abortion debate in this country. I understand that's how you feel, and you understand that your opinion is the only correct one, that you don't want to hear any other viewpoints, and therefore you can feel good about restricting the liberty of other people. You might know what I would say to counter your narrow argument, but you don't want to hear it because you believe that your opinion is the only correct opinion in the debate. To you it's less of a debate and more about "I'm right, so shut up." If you get raped, and carrying to term might kill you, hey tough shit cookie that's God's plan, you shouldn't have allowed yourself to get raped in the first place. Let's bring another unwanted person into this world so that we can immediately deny them access to health care, because we care so much about life. Let that kid grow up on the street and get thrown in jail for carrying around a bag of plants, because we care about liberty and the sanctity of life so much. No, this issue is black and white and your opinion is 100% always the correct option, right? Like I said, a modern conservative.
Why do they do that, is it because there are crowds walking around waving Nazi flags chanting things like "Jews will not replace us?"
The only people that were out there were there to antagonize the other or otherwise tricked into thinking there is a huge threat that neo-nazi's are going to soon take over the US.
You've got such a narrow view. You keep suggesting that there are exactly two choices or sides. I'm going to, again, disagree and say that there are a large number of counter-protesters who simply want to show up to oppose racism, so that racist groups walking around our cities waving flags of enemies of the United States and chanting racist slogans do not become a normal, unchallenged occurrence. It's good that the racists get challenged when they go out to do racist shit instead of people just ignoring it and acting like that doesn't happen here. It DOES happen here, people trying to say things like "this is not the America I know" simply choose to avoid looking at the reality of what's happening in our country right now. This behavior deserves to be challenged and opposed.
Isn't there some kind of protection, specifically laid out in (amendments to) your Constitution for groups like this?
Well, there's this (emphasis mine):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So the next question would be whether this is a well regulated organization, or a bunch of guys who bought body armor and helmets and came as a show of force and intimidation.
I can't say, on seeing, or hearing, either of the groups in those first two mini-clips, that I'd feel impelled to do them harm.
Them showing up like that doesn't require violence, but it quite obviously puts violence on peoples' minds. When you show up armed and armored, it makes people pay attention. It would be like going to a barbecue and trying not to think about food (this is America, so a food analogy is right on target).
Sure, they do look somewhat intimidating (2), but certainly no more so than the police appear.
The governor of Virginia defended the hands-off behavior of police by saying the protesters were better equipped. So this "militia" (and I use that term here very loosely) is apparently impeding the operation of the police because of their heavily armed and armored appearance. That's pretty much exactly opposite of the purpose of the second amendment quoted above. It seems like when they show up like that, they are basically daring people to attack them. That goes back to whether or not these demonstrations have an inherent threat of violence.
I can't say I agree, or disagree for that matter, with what they stand for, or what they say (3) but I'm pretty sure they have a right to believe it, a right to say it, and I'm pretty sure their forebears died for those rights same as (y)ours did.
No problem, if they want to have a debate then I don't see any problems with that. If they want to drive cars through crowds of people and dare others to attack them that I think that's a bit of an issue. And, if they want to parade through American streets waving the flags of governments that our country has fought extremely bloody wars against, then those people are probably not looking for any kind of debate. If they're going to wave a battle flag of the Confederate army, which fought against the United States, or a Nazi party flag, which 60 million or so people died fighting against, then sure they have the right to say whatever they want to say, but I wonder why they even live in the United States in the first place. This is not the Confederate States of America, and it's not the Third Reich.
Your post kind of jumps all over the place, I feel like I'm reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book. I don't know the background of the person who organized the rally, it doesn't really strike me as having anything to do with the Democratic party though. Regarding "herding people together", from what I understand the racist side showed up several hours earlier than what the plan was, and there were so many people that the police asked everyone to go to another, larger, park. I don't know the location of where the various clashes and murders happened, I don't know if those were predominately in or near the original park, the larger park, or between the two.
If you wanted to drive a wedge between 'moderate' and 'hard-core' Republicans I would struggle to think of a better way to do it than this.
That wedge was driven many months ago, during the campaigns. Donald Trump is the wedge, his nomination caused a lot of Republicans to be disillusioned and brought a lot of his supporters into the process.
Wow, that didn't take long. You switch from "you do you" and liberty to justifying your anti-liberty views just like that. You're definitely a modern conservative. You take an issue like abortion, change the definition to say it's murder, et voila, now you can feel good about restricting other peoples' liberty. Well, RIP your high horse. He had a good, if short, run.
People who opposed the normalization of racism were on the streets 50 years ago, when racism was (at least in the US) normalized.
Oh, it's a good thing that we fixed racism 50 years ago then, I'm glad it doesn't exist anymore.
I'm pointing out that this is more than "two groups". Even among the racists, there is more than one group represented there, people are out there for different reasons. Among the counter-protesters, again people are there for different reasons. Many people out there are not extremists or terrorists at all.
Unless you want an abortion. Or you want to smoke weed. Or you want to marry someone of the same sex. There are any number of examples of "conservatives" not living up to the small government mantra.
All this race crap and identity politics is all the bag of the left's divisiveness.
Ahh. Well that clearly explains why these idiots vote for Republicans (let me guess: No True Republican is coming next).
David Duke, to Trump:
I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists.
Also David Duke:
This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in. That's why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he's going to take our country back.
OK, now it's your turn to talk about how people on the right aren't actually on the right, because of a narrow definition that you use which people don't actually live up to. You can wax philosophical or historical all you want, but keep in mind that the people who you claim are not right-wing are the people who vote for conservative, not liberal, politicians. That's the reality of the situation, regardless of how much you want to claim that conservatives are all about small government. That argument is about as intelligent as claiming that the Democratic party is actually the racist one here in 2017 because back in the mid-1800s the party was in favor of slavery. Let's try to stick to reality here.
All this race crap and identity politics is all the bag of the left's divisiveness.
"Those people are so divisive!" he says, while pointing to the "other" group.
I don't know if those are "the facts". You say "both sides", and you mention "black supremacists". What about the people who are neither white supremacists, nor black supremacists? What about people - of any race - who simply oppose the normalization of racism? Which terrorist organization do those people belong to? How about Heather Heyer, which terrorist organization was she a member of?
Let's find the article they posted, let's review GoDaddy's TOS, and then let's put our heads together and figure how the action of posting that content violated the TOS. It's not hard to understand. Again, they can believe whatever they want to believe, but if they actually post content that violates the TOS, then GoDaddy would be in the right for kicking them off. If you want to look up the terms and see what they say, and complain about that, or look up the article and see what it says, and then complain that it doesn't violate the terms, fine. Trying to twist my words around just makes you look like an idiot though.
Hmm, not peaceful by default? Really? Would that be because displaying the swastika* is violence in itself, or because someone seeing the swastika displayed is automatically impelled to violence?
Is "neither" an option? How about because they show up looking like this?
The tragedy in charlottesville is two sides of the same leftist coin fighting each other since the 20th century (or earlier).
Don't be an idiot. Regardless of what the groups call themselves, are you really trying to suggest that the racist groups are fighting for socialism? When they praise Hitler they aren't praising his economic policies. These groups are far right, the historical basis of other racists groups has fuck-all to do with that.
The media blames the group whose major agenda item is hating other people, out there walking around in body armor with rifles, mowing down people with cars? That group is probably the victim, right?
Actually, political affiliation is considered one of the protected attributes. So there is a narrow argument could be made that this is discrimination on the basis of a political affiliation (that being with a white suprematist moment).
That's a very narrow argument, because they weren't kicked out because of any affiliation, but because of their actions. It was their actions that violated the TOS, not their beliefs.
I would much rather their arguments be calmly refuted.
Yeah, they would rather you do that too, it's easier for them to walk all over you if you just remain calm and try to reason with them. The guy driving the Challenger probably loves calm, rational debate. Start with him, sit down and have a nice chat.
Protected classes exist because the people in those classes weren't getting treated fairly because of one reason or another. For example, racists didn't treat black people fairly. Maybe one day the concept of protected classes won't be needed any more because people will be enlightened enough that they'll understand that there's no reason to treat people differently based on race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Until that day comes, protected classes need to be part of the law though. It's unfortunate, but it's true and the news is proof that we're a long, long way from no longer needing them.
I have some predictions of my own. It's possible that the earth will warm up 10 degrees C in the next century. It's also possible that the earth will cool 5 degrees C in the next century. Both of these outcomes have a non-zero probability. Spread the word!
Climate change is "solved" in the sense that taking no action could eventually lead to our extinction (and that of many other species), but the earth will chug along for another few million years, life will come back, and then boom, no more man-made climate change.
I'm happy to see the massive solar farm being built in the Sahara though, that's a step in the right direction. It's unfortunate that the US isn't taking as much advantage of its own desert areas to do the same though. Others in Australia and the Gobi desert could go a long way towards providing enormous amounts of peak-time power generation.
While scientists may not realize what's going on, or may not want to admit it, the reality is that average people do see and understand what has happened. They've come to associate "science" with "political agendas". Average people are rapidly losing trust in scientists and science in general.
That statement is generally correct, but not because scientists have politicized science. It's correct because politicians have politicized science, for some reason. Some politicians think that if you get enough votes, then pi equals exactly 3. Thankfully, the scientific method doesn't require specific political beliefs.
Let's talk about "average people", though. 77% of Americans believe that angels literally exist. 55% of Americans believe that the founders of the United States founded it as a Christian nation in the Constitution. 25% of Americans think that the sun revolves around the earth (I'll also point out that those 25% of people also probably don't trust scientists, which is not the fault of scientists). 40% of Americans don't believe in evolution, which is something so trivially obvious that I don't understand how someone can't find it to be self-evident. 51% of Americans were not confident that the Big Bang happened, and only 27% of Americans think the earth is 4.5 billion years old. 44% of Americans - that's less than half - are confident that vaccines do not cause autism. I'll take this opportunity to point out that the study which showed a link between vaccines and autism was retracted for fraudulent data, and its author lost his medical license because of it. Still, that retracted study causes confusion among your "average people". For some reason they'll believe a fraudulent study, but not believe that it's fraudulent, and you're trying to suggest that the problem is scientists with a political agenda. 36% of Americans think that Donald Trump is honest. A disturbing amount of people think the planet is flat, using "logic" leaps where I can't even understand the mental gymnastics they used to get from point A to point B.
Anyway, those are your "average people", probably the same kind of people who seem really impressed when you tell them you're a "computer scientist."
I'd love to see a not-so-clandestine operation to take out Kim. We've already admitted that we were watching him on the launchpad for an hour before one of their recent tests, that was a clear warning. Maybe the next time we see that we should take the opportunity to end the war before it begins. NK is a more difficult target for the "traditional" kind of covert op, unless we can recruit some defectors or South Koreans to somehow enter the country and get to Kim.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're just saying this (^) for some strange, legal, limitation of liability reasons I stand corrected.
No, I just respect the work of NYCL (NewYorkCountryLawyer).
I'm just not sure that "tearing down the statues of their great grandfathers' heroes" or refusing to listen or speak to them is likely to improve their sense of history.
I don't think it will. I also don't see them understanding that when non-whites, or people whose ancestors fought for the Union, walk by those statues it's kind of a slap in the face. They belong in a history museum rather than a public square. That's the story of an army that fought against the US government and lost (notwithstanding that victors write the history), it's kind of odd to celebrate them in public rather than a museum.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure 'chatting', but we should probably stop 'spamming' a days old thread now. ;-)
Indeed.
Healthcare and job training is the responsibility of the individual.
In the US it is. In many other civilized societies they realize that the long-term dividends provided by universal access to high-quality health care and education more than pay for themselves in the long run. We used to value education, now the federal government is giving out student loans at 10x the interest rates that businesses get. Go capitalism? Similarly, health care should be seen as a fundamental human right, not a luxury. But you would rather treat being poor as a pre-existing condition. The problem with health care in the US is insurance. If everyone paid even a part of their existing insurance premiums into a single pot that could be used to pay for health care for everyone, the insurance industry would go away and we would stop treating sick people like a commodity. Capitalism doesn't need to be heartless. The US pays, by far, the most per capita for health care, and our overall performance is no better than 15th place. That puts us in 37th place overall. That is a horrible return on investment. And, what do we get for all that money? The added benefit of an insurance industry that tries to fuck everyone over at any opportunity, and a bill for $150,000 if you have to go to the hospital because a venomous snake bit you. The world's largest economy can absolutely afford to pay for quality health care for everyone. But for you, it's not that it can't be done, just that you don't want to do it. You want to make people pay for it themselves, if they can afford it, for no apparent reason.
"Yaaaaaaaay life! It's so precious! Wait, you're already born? GO FUCK YOURSELF, STOP BEING POOR."
So back to whether or not you should force children to be born, now you want people with no support structure at all thrust into a system that will not care for or educate them, and just hope that all goes well because life is so precious (before you're born) and they can just pick themselves up by their bootstraps and the entire system totally won't be set up against them. If you've never lived in a foreign country and don't have a spouse who has ever lived in a foreign country then you might not be the best judge of how good (or bad) the system is here. It is strongly set up against the majority of people. It is not designed to help people succeed like it used to be, it is designed for people to make money any way they can on the backs of everyone else.
And, just so we're clear, I'm not in favor of murdering babies. You know, just so there's no confusion. I understand that you silly conservatives like to set up your strawmen where you re-define your opponent's views and then try to knock those down, but that's not how it works. You either know that, and you're an idiot for doing it anyway, or you don't know it, in which case you're just an idiot. If you want to have a rational debate it's best to avoid logical fallacies. Or, you could just quit while you're behind.
I mean, their organisations might well have fairly strict rules.
I'm thinking that "no black people" does not a well-regulated militia make.
You're the lawyer
A common misconception.
I thought the purpose of the second amendment was to guard against governmental overreach.
That's how I understand it. So I think that it's a little bit ironic that some of these racist groups are trying to sue the police for not protecting them, when the police didn't want to get involved because they were outclassed by the people crying about not getting government protection. There's a certain irony seeing heavily armed protesting racists suing a police force for not protecting them. I think that irony lies in the fact that, if they were not heavily armed, then the police would have protected them.
I just have a certain amount of sympathy, and also some embarrassment, realizing that there are people in the US who personally fought against the Nazis, they watched friends die and had to do things they never thought they would have to do, only to see a bunch of young entitled kids with no sense of history carrying Nazi flags around American cities because they don't like black people. It's shameful, and it's entirely lost on these kids. The people who defeated the Nazi army are still alive, and they have to watch this happen. It's embarrassing to realize that this is part of America.
Why shouldn't the mother have the right to stop the pregnancy if trying to raise a kid would essentially ruin her life? Why give all of the priority to one side and none to the other? You're sacrificing one life for the benefit of the other and acting like you're not. I'm doing the same, I just don't act like I'm doing something other than what I am. You see how this debate goes? Next we can debate what the definition of a "person" is. I would approach that debate by asking you how old you are, and whether you track your age from the day you were born or conceived. I would also point to the government's view, and whether or not you can claim a fetus as a dependent. I could also approach it from a scientific view to try to answer that question. Hopefully your counter-argument would be evidence-based and not rely on something subjective or unprovable like a religious belief. As far as adoption goes, let's look at the state of the 400,000 orphans in the US and see how their lives turn out. I would even suggest that if you want to force people to be born then you have an obligation to provide them with health care and a good education, as much as they want, at no cost to them. I imagine that's where our views would diverge though, a common theme among conservatives is that protection of life stops when they exit the vagina. After that, they're on their own, completely free to enjoy all of these benefits of capitalism, like anti-marijuana laws paid for by pharmaceutical and alcohol companies to put them right into a for-profit prison where they have no access to decent health care or any kind of job training. It's the American way.
That's the nature of the entire abortion debate in this country. I understand that's how you feel, and you understand that your opinion is the only correct one, that you don't want to hear any other viewpoints, and therefore you can feel good about restricting the liberty of other people. You might know what I would say to counter your narrow argument, but you don't want to hear it because you believe that your opinion is the only correct opinion in the debate. To you it's less of a debate and more about "I'm right, so shut up." If you get raped, and carrying to term might kill you, hey tough shit cookie that's God's plan, you shouldn't have allowed yourself to get raped in the first place. Let's bring another unwanted person into this world so that we can immediately deny them access to health care, because we care so much about life. Let that kid grow up on the street and get thrown in jail for carrying around a bag of plants, because we care about liberty and the sanctity of life so much. No, this issue is black and white and your opinion is 100% always the correct option, right? Like I said, a modern conservative.
The media portrays this as a neo nazi march
Why do they do that, is it because there are crowds walking around waving Nazi flags chanting things like "Jews will not replace us?"
The only people that were out there were there to antagonize the other or otherwise tricked into thinking there is a huge threat that neo-nazi's are going to soon take over the US.
You've got such a narrow view. You keep suggesting that there are exactly two choices or sides. I'm going to, again, disagree and say that there are a large number of counter-protesters who simply want to show up to oppose racism, so that racist groups walking around our cities waving flags of enemies of the United States and chanting racist slogans do not become a normal, unchallenged occurrence. It's good that the racists get challenged when they go out to do racist shit instead of people just ignoring it and acting like that doesn't happen here. It DOES happen here, people trying to say things like "this is not the America I know" simply choose to avoid looking at the reality of what's happening in our country right now. This behavior deserves to be challenged and opposed.
Isn't there some kind of protection, specifically laid out in (amendments to) your Constitution for groups like this?
Well, there's this (emphasis mine):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So the next question would be whether this is a well regulated organization, or a bunch of guys who bought body armor and helmets and came as a show of force and intimidation.
I can't say, on seeing, or hearing, either of the groups in those first two mini-clips, that I'd feel impelled to do them harm.
Them showing up like that doesn't require violence, but it quite obviously puts violence on peoples' minds. When you show up armed and armored, it makes people pay attention. It would be like going to a barbecue and trying not to think about food (this is America, so a food analogy is right on target).
Sure, they do look somewhat intimidating (2), but certainly no more so than the police appear.
The governor of Virginia defended the hands-off behavior of police by saying the protesters were better equipped. So this "militia" (and I use that term here very loosely) is apparently impeding the operation of the police because of their heavily armed and armored appearance. That's pretty much exactly opposite of the purpose of the second amendment quoted above. It seems like when they show up like that, they are basically daring people to attack them. That goes back to whether or not these demonstrations have an inherent threat of violence.
I can't say I agree, or disagree for that matter, with what they stand for, or what they say (3) but I'm pretty sure they have a right to believe it, a right to say it, and I'm pretty sure their forebears died for those rights same as (y)ours did.
No problem, if they want to have a debate then I don't see any problems with that. If they want to drive cars through crowds of people and dare others to attack them that I think that's a bit of an issue. And, if they want to parade through American streets waving the flags of governments that our country has fought extremely bloody wars against, then those people are probably not looking for any kind of debate. If they're going to wave a battle flag of the Confederate army, which fought against the United States, or a Nazi party flag, which 60 million or so people died fighting against, then sure they have the right to say whatever they want to say, but I wonder why they even live in the United States in the first place. This is not the Confederate States of America, and it's not the Third Reich.
Your post kind of jumps all over the place, I feel like I'm reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book. I don't know the background of the person who organized the rally, it doesn't really strike me as having anything to do with the Democratic party though. Regarding "herding people together", from what I understand the racist side showed up several hours earlier than what the plan was, and there were so many people that the police asked everyone to go to another, larger, park. I don't know the location of where the various clashes and murders happened, I don't know if those were predominately in or near the original park, the larger park, or between the two.
If you wanted to drive a wedge between 'moderate' and 'hard-core' Republicans I would struggle to think of a better way to do it than this.
That wedge was driven many months ago, during the campaigns. Donald Trump is the wedge, his nomination caused a lot of Republicans to be disillusioned and brought a lot of his supporters into the process.
The moment we start broad brush
Wow, that didn't take long. You switch from "you do you" and liberty to justifying your anti-liberty views just like that. You're definitely a modern conservative. You take an issue like abortion, change the definition to say it's murder, et voila, now you can feel good about restricting other peoples' liberty. Well, RIP your high horse. He had a good, if short, run.
People who opposed the normalization of racism were on the streets 50 years ago, when racism was (at least in the US) normalized.
Oh, it's a good thing that we fixed racism 50 years ago then, I'm glad it doesn't exist anymore.
I'm pointing out that this is more than "two groups". Even among the racists, there is more than one group represented there, people are out there for different reasons. Among the counter-protesters, again people are there for different reasons. Many people out there are not extremists or terrorists at all.
Conservatism is you do you
Unless you want an abortion. Or you want to smoke weed. Or you want to marry someone of the same sex. There are any number of examples of "conservatives" not living up to the small government mantra.
All this race crap and identity politics is all the bag of the left's divisiveness.
Ahh. Well that clearly explains why these idiots vote for Republicans (let me guess: No True Republican is coming next).
David Duke, to Trump:
I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists.
Also David Duke:
This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in. That's why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he's going to take our country back.
OK, now it's your turn to talk about how people on the right aren't actually on the right, because of a narrow definition that you use which people don't actually live up to. You can wax philosophical or historical all you want, but keep in mind that the people who you claim are not right-wing are the people who vote for conservative, not liberal, politicians. That's the reality of the situation, regardless of how much you want to claim that conservatives are all about small government. That argument is about as intelligent as claiming that the Democratic party is actually the racist one here in 2017 because back in the mid-1800s the party was in favor of slavery. Let's try to stick to reality here.
All this race crap and identity politics is all the bag of the left's divisiveness.
"Those people are so divisive!" he says, while pointing to the "other" group.
I don't know if those are "the facts". You say "both sides", and you mention "black supremacists". What about the people who are neither white supremacists, nor black supremacists? What about people - of any race - who simply oppose the normalization of racism? Which terrorist organization do those people belong to? How about Heather Heyer, which terrorist organization was she a member of?
Let's find the article they posted, let's review GoDaddy's TOS, and then let's put our heads together and figure how the action of posting that content violated the TOS. It's not hard to understand. Again, they can believe whatever they want to believe, but if they actually post content that violates the TOS, then GoDaddy would be in the right for kicking them off. If you want to look up the terms and see what they say, and complain about that, or look up the article and see what it says, and then complain that it doesn't violate the terms, fine. Trying to twist my words around just makes you look like an idiot though.
Regardless of Von Braun's motivations for joining the Nazi party, his name is Wernher, not Verner.
Hmm, not peaceful by default? Really? Would that be because displaying the swastika* is violence in itself, or because someone seeing the swastika displayed is automatically impelled to violence?
Is "neither" an option? How about because they show up looking like this?
The tragedy in charlottesville is two sides of the same leftist coin fighting each other since the 20th century (or earlier).
Don't be an idiot. Regardless of what the groups call themselves, are you really trying to suggest that the racist groups are fighting for socialism? When they praise Hitler they aren't praising his economic policies. These groups are far right, the historical basis of other racists groups has fuck-all to do with that.
The media blames the group whose major agenda item is hating other people, out there walking around in body armor with rifles, mowing down people with cars? That group is probably the victim, right?
Actually, political affiliation is considered one of the protected attributes. So there is a narrow argument could be made that this is discrimination on the basis of a political affiliation (that being with a white suprematist moment).
That's a very narrow argument, because they weren't kicked out because of any affiliation, but because of their actions. It was their actions that violated the TOS, not their beliefs.
I would much rather their arguments be calmly refuted.
Yeah, they would rather you do that too, it's easier for them to walk all over you if you just remain calm and try to reason with them. The guy driving the Challenger probably loves calm, rational debate. Start with him, sit down and have a nice chat.
They weren't kicked out because of their race.
Protected classes exist because the people in those classes weren't getting treated fairly because of one reason or another. For example, racists didn't treat black people fairly. Maybe one day the concept of protected classes won't be needed any more because people will be enlightened enough that they'll understand that there's no reason to treat people differently based on race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Until that day comes, protected classes need to be part of the law though. It's unfortunate, but it's true and the news is proof that we're a long, long way from no longer needing them.
I have some predictions of my own. It's possible that the earth will warm up 10 degrees C in the next century. It's also possible that the earth will cool 5 degrees C in the next century. Both of these outcomes have a non-zero probability. Spread the word!
Stand by while I attempt to locate The Point for you. Initial indications are that it massively overshot the planned landing area.
Climate change is "solved" in the sense that taking no action could eventually lead to our extinction (and that of many other species), but the earth will chug along for another few million years, life will come back, and then boom, no more man-made climate change.
I'm happy to see the massive solar farm being built in the Sahara though, that's a step in the right direction. It's unfortunate that the US isn't taking as much advantage of its own desert areas to do the same though. Others in Australia and the Gobi desert could go a long way towards providing enormous amounts of peak-time power generation.
While scientists may not realize what's going on, or may not want to admit it, the reality is that average people do see and understand what has happened. They've come to associate "science" with "political agendas". Average people are rapidly losing trust in scientists and science in general.
That statement is generally correct, but not because scientists have politicized science. It's correct because politicians have politicized science, for some reason. Some politicians think that if you get enough votes, then pi equals exactly 3. Thankfully, the scientific method doesn't require specific political beliefs.
Let's talk about "average people", though. 77% of Americans believe that angels literally exist. 55% of Americans believe that the founders of the United States founded it as a Christian nation in the Constitution. 25% of Americans think that the sun revolves around the earth (I'll also point out that those 25% of people also probably don't trust scientists, which is not the fault of scientists). 40% of Americans don't believe in evolution, which is something so trivially obvious that I don't understand how someone can't find it to be self-evident. 51% of Americans were not confident that the Big Bang happened, and only 27% of Americans think the earth is 4.5 billion years old. 44% of Americans - that's less than half - are confident that vaccines do not cause autism. I'll take this opportunity to point out that the study which showed a link between vaccines and autism was retracted for fraudulent data, and its author lost his medical license because of it. Still, that retracted study causes confusion among your "average people". For some reason they'll believe a fraudulent study, but not believe that it's fraudulent, and you're trying to suggest that the problem is scientists with a political agenda. 36% of Americans think that Donald Trump is honest. A disturbing amount of people think the planet is flat, using "logic" leaps where I can't even understand the mental gymnastics they used to get from point A to point B.
Anyway, those are your "average people", probably the same kind of people who seem really impressed when you tell them you're a "computer scientist."
I'd love to see a not-so-clandestine operation to take out Kim. We've already admitted that we were watching him on the launchpad for an hour before one of their recent tests, that was a clear warning. Maybe the next time we see that we should take the opportunity to end the war before it begins. NK is a more difficult target for the "traditional" kind of covert op, unless we can recruit some defectors or South Koreans to somehow enter the country and get to Kim.
Right, black people like Elon Musk, Mark Shuttleworth, Charlize Theron, J. R. R. Tolkien, and other South Africans.