So the Germans wiped an entire city off the map withe their bombing too? Maybe because their bombs weren't accurate to hit anything larger than a city?
Keep in mind, when I wrote my comment, I was thinking of the bombing of London, which is about 100 miles away from Coventry. London, of course, is another city full of civilians that the Germans bombed.
Which brings up my point. The GGP called the British bombing of Dredsden "particularly bad" because the British were bombing cities rather than picking out specific targets. Obviously it wasn't "particularly bad" because nobody ELSE in the European theater could hit anything more accurately either. It seems like reason someone would call the British campaigns worse that the German campaigns from the same time period is as a criticism of the modern day British government (which is still around, unlike the German government from that era.) Think about why someone would make that comparison.
Then the invention of the bomber allowed civilian murder to be taken to new extremes in WW2. The British bombing campaign was particularly bad, based as it was on the premise that the smallest target that could reliably be hit by night bombers was a city.
How accurate was German bombing during the Battle of Britain?
All it takes is 1% of surviving owners placed within state or federal structures. And you don't have too look very far. Just look at prominent politicians from South Carolina and their beliefs. Somehow slavery legacy still lives on.
Well, you don't get much more prominent as a politician than US Senator, so let's look* at Senator Tim Scott, R-SC. He certainly looks like he's descended from slaveowners rather than slaves, right?
Also, Senator Scott took office after his predecessor resigned to take a different job; in South Carolina the Governor appoints a new Senator in this instance. Governor Nikki Haley, R-SC, who appointed Scott, is also a fairly prominent South Carolina politician. (After all, she's the governor.) Haley's parents immigrated from India; she isn't descended from slaveowners either.
You're talking out you ass about descendants of slaveowners. It's an easy rhetorical trick, but it's very clearly false.
*For those that aren't going to click the link, it goes to a Google Image Search showing pictures of Senator Scott, who is an African American.
Also, Reagan EMBRACED the term "Star Wars" (which was originally a slur) and the term was popular among the public.
Just like when the Obama administration embraced the phrase Obamacare.
Of course, the Obama administration and its allies in the media have been going back and forth between embracing the term Obamacare and calling anyone who uses it a racist.
It's a Republican plan but it's his signature bill.
It's not a Republican plan. ABSOLUTELY ZERO Republicans voted for this monstrosity in the House, and ABSOLUTELY ZERO voted for it in the Senate.
The fact that two guys who worked at the Heritage Foundation 20 years ago wrote a white paper saying "Hillarycare won't work without an individual mandate" doesn't make Obamacare a Republican plan. You guys screwed this up on your own.
We don't know but I do know one thing that 'girlintraining' does not sound like any girl (or trans) person I know.
YEAH! girlintraining is a traitor to her sex/gender! Everyone knows that REAL Women and REAL Transgendered People HAVE TO BE radical leftists. Only radical leftists are allowed to speak for Women and the Transgendered. Everyone else, even women/transgender people who disagree with the radical left, hate women and hate the transgendered.
Intel isn't providing the optimizations for free to their competitors.* Intel provides the compiler, along with all its optimizations, to its customers in exchange for payment.
*Except the academic, evaluation and Linux-only non-commercial use versions, which could theoretically be downloaded by AMD employees, I guess.
Nowhere have you (or the poster I was replying to) given a moral, ethical, or legal basis for why teachers' unions should be worried about anything other than teachers.
The problem I am addressing is that teachers are advocating to students on behalf of the union, rather than teaching what they are ostensibly there to teach.
This is unethical because they are being paid to teach a specific subject, and they aren't because they are agitating on behalf of the union instead. (Note that the taxpayer is probably OK with paying a teacher to teach kids English, but if the taxpayer doesn't support the union, they would probably object to paying someone to propagandize on its behalf.)
It is immoral because teachers are the authority figure in the classroom. They can punish students for not having the same political views as the teacher, or for their parents not having the same political views as the teacher. The reason we have a secret ballot in this country is to make it harder for your boss to fire you for your political beliefs.
Because it is unethical and immoral for teachers to propagandize to students on behalf of the union instead of teaching, there are laws to make that illegal. In NJ, it is illegal for teachers to advocate for or advocate against a particular candidate for a school board, or to advocate for the passage or defeat of a school budget while they are acting in their capacity as teachers.
The problem is that there is no enforcement of this law.
And people do have recourse against teachers and the systems in which they work. First is the ballot box to replace school boards.
The school board can't fire teachers for advocating on behalf of the union during class time. They union would never allow it. (By the way, if you run against the union, the thugs in the NJEA are going to retaliate against your child.)
Second is the court system.
Huh? You can't sue teachers for malpractice. The court can't punish teachers for violating ethics laws unless the teacher is charged with it, and nobody enforces that law. If it's not a crime, and it's not a tort, what the hell do you want the courts to do?
Is the district you graduated from held captive by the NJEA? Do NJEA members berate students who disagree with them on politics in the classroom?
I made reference to moving, and I meant Pennsylvania, but it would be easier to get to my job from Essex county than PA. What district are we talking about?
What's wrong with an organization set up, funded, and intended for the benefit of teachers being for the benefit of teachers? Why should students be first? Let their parents form an organization to advocate for them. Oh, wait, most schools have a PTA or PTSA.
The biggest problem with the teachers' union is that they advocate for pro-union policies on the taxpayer dime. Obviously, public school teachers are paid with tax money. Obviously, they're supposed to be the authority figures in their classroom. However, there are teachers who abuse their authority figure status to berate students who have/whose parents have different political beliefs, and everyone is forced to pay them to do it. This is already illegal, but students, parents, and taxpayers have NO RECOURSE WHATSOEVER.
If teachers were accountable to PTAs in the way students are accountable to teachers, you'd have a point. But they aren't, and I think you know that. Your argument about PTAs is a meaningless red herring.
You are not making the right distinctions, in some sense the gp wasn't either. The Tea Party is not the old right wing of the Republican Party in the sense of Reagan. The Tea Party is essentially composed of libertarians who really do want less government including the TSA, the military, no EPA, no OSHA, no federal money for schools, etc
There is a "liberal/Rockefeller Republican" vs. "conservative/Tea Party Republican split," but you're putting Ronald Reagan on the wrong side of it. Reagan was against the EPA (by the way, founded under a liberal Republican) and the Department of Education, and Tea Party types are not as pro-military spending cuts as you seem to think.
The Bushes are among those in the more liberal wing of the party; George H.W. Bush opposed Reagan all three times he ran for the nomination. The Tea Party was formed in part from conservatives who were frustrated by the bailouts at the tail end of George W. Bush's administration; and the Bushes and their allies oppose Tea Party candidates today.
You have a $150k/yr job in NJ with no college education? What are you, a state legislator?
Seriously, though, I graduated from a public high school in Morris County. (This is Slashdot, so I'm guessing at what TFA says rather than reading it, but I bet Morris County, NJ is on this list.) The public schools were set up to defend the New Jersey Education Association. You give 90% of the teachers I had in high school half a chance, and they'd shoehorn pro-teachers' union propaganda into whatever they were supposed to be teaching us.
On issues of politics (civics and history classes, but also tangentially related classes like English, which was taught by the head of the union), expressing any opinion other than the approved doctrinal opinion of the teacher would get you shouted down.
A few years ago, I was going to donate money to a candidate who wanted to take a harder line in the upcoming negotiations with the NJEA
I live and work in Morris County today, but my wife and I are going to move before we have kids, because there's no way I would send my kids through that.
However, among the beliefs of the original National Socialist Party were that the government should own the means of production through a command economy. That view is to the left of the base of modern American liberals, who are, of course, the left wing of American politics.
Sadly, American Conservatives belive in the command economy. They meddle in corporations to guide the national economic output. The direction is guided by a command economy, just one run by the rich, that then push the decisions on the country through political power.
Does it matter if it's a handful of private people that make the decisions and push them through the government (the conservative way) or the government makes the decision for itself, if the effect is the same?
I've never heard this critique before. Conservatives believe that the owners of a company (the shareholders or the sole proprietor) should be the ones to decide on the amount of a product to produce. (Obviously, opportunity cost, cost of labor and materials, and demand for the product weigh on this decision.) The government doesn't have anything to do with it.
Your critique can't be that simple though. I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Can you give an example of when you think Conservatives would be demanding, via the government, for more or less of a product?
Interestingly the article mentions the American Nazi Party, which just as the original Nazi party is not left-wing but right-wing
I have no idea what the American Nazi Party believes today. However, among the beliefs of the original National Socialist Party were that the government should own the means of production through a command economy. That view is to the left of the base of modern American liberals, who are, of course, the left wing of American politics. Their eugenics policies towards the physically and mentally handicapped (note: in the 1930s, this included gays) were mirrored by the leftists of their day. (Stalin killed the "unfit" in death camps too, after all.)
Democrat or Republican, the base of American politics is WELL to the right of where the Nazis were. Which is good, because the Nazis were evil and neither of the American political parties were complicit in anything even 1/10th as bad as the Nazis. 11 million people didn't die so you could make retarded comparisons to politicians you dislike, asshole.
The core issue isn't really terrorism, cultural enmity, ethnicity, or religion... it's the idea that "certain lands are for certain people." The only solution is to admit that any person should ultimately be free to live anywhere, as long as they obey the law there.
Oh, and the law should treat everyone equally for this to work. No justice, no peace etc. etc.
Fun fact: 12 of the 120 members of the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) are Arabs. One of them is a former Deputy Speaker of the body. (I'm pretty sure in the US House of Representatives, there's 1 Muslim among the 435 members, although a smaller percentage of our population is Muslim.)
If your ethnic group can make up 10% of the legislature and hold leadership positions in it, your ethnic group is probably on fair footing with the others in the country.
When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which started us on the way to ending discrimination, he said that it would probably cost the Democratic Party the South.
He was right. Nixon adopted the "Southern Strategy" for the Republican party, which was to appeal to the racist southern whites. It was successful. They won elections, and racist Democrats went over to the Republican Party.
So the Democrats were the party of Southern racism.
If you look at the demographics of post-Civil Rights Act elections, you'll see you are wrong about this. Southerners who were voting for Democrats in 1963 (when they were still supporting Jim Crow laws, racism, etc.) largely continued voting for Democrats for the rest of their lives. Younger Southerners (who, even if they were racist, didn't have a Jim Crow supporting party to vote for) began breaking for Republicans in the 70s once they came of age and once it became clear that Johnson's Great Society programs were moving the Democrats towards supporting the concerns of the extremely rich and extremely poor (but not the middle class) of the big cities, which, of course, were predominantly in the North.
It's no coincidence that every Democrat President since Johnson* has been from south of the Mason Dixon line.
Nixon's Southern Strategy, then, was just an appeal to the middle class, and it didn't really pan out outside the top of the ticket until Reagan's wave elections, where you had a strong influence from culture war politics. (Culture war politics is another example of Democrats picking policies that are more popular in the urban North than the rural South.) Johnson may have SAID that the Civil Rights Act lost him the South, and Democrats peddle that line because it helps them cast aspersions on the Republicans today, but history shows that it isn't true. Johnson probably knew it was false when he said it.
*Hawaii, birthplace of Barack Obama, is in fact south of the Mason Dixon line. Obviously it wasn't actually part of the Confederacy.
Emily Gets Her Gun is a book on the topic. The author tried to get a handgun permit in DC and detailed the obstruction she was given by the city government, who is acting as though the handgun ban was never overturned.
Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment (because the rights were there already), but the government is required to RESPECT the rights that you already had.
Irrelevant. The Constitution is a document which restrains the power of the Federal Government. Your "rights" as you otherwise call them out are not otherwise meaningful.
Wait, how is that not relevant? The Founders intended for the United States to be a nation of free people, so they listed some of the rights people had under natural law, along with instructions that the government must respect (or, in your parlance, "is restrained from using its power to infringe upon") those rights.
Also, you took take half of the quote to pick an argument, while leaving the out the relevant context. (I italicized the part I added back in.) Next time, rather than doing so, exercise your fifth amendment right and shut the hell up.
The idea that 'people have natural rights' is not falsifiable.
Good thing that's not the assertion then. Instead, the Founders asserted that "Free people have a bunch of rights, and a government that tries to deny the people these rights does not govern over a free people. Since the American people are to be free, Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. And the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And so on."
The Bill of Rights is a definition, intended to define governments into two categories based on how free their people are. The category that the Founders intended the US to fall into was "A government that governs free people." Other governments, ones that don't recognize the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are "Tyrannical governments that lord over their citizens." Because the Founders gave us a definition, the statement "The US is a Free country" is falsifiable.
This is like having a scientist who also happens to be a catholic minister publishing a study proving that Intelligent Design is true and Evolution is false.
The Catholic Church's stated explanation is evolution. Scientists employed by Catholic universities all over the world are doing the same kind of biology research into the specifics of how evolution works that the rest of the scientific community is.
The Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes is a non-exhaustive list of rights of the natural rights of free people. These rights predated the Constitution, and people are entitled to them with or without the Constitution.
As the USOC [sic - the Supreme Court???] recognized, the first amendment only grants the right from government restrictions on free speech. Other entities such as... schools are not required to grant you the right to free speech.
Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment (because the rights were there already), but the government is required to RESPECT the rights that you already had. This applies to all governmental institutions, which includes most schools.
Please stop treating the Constitution like a religious document. It is not.It is very limited and very specific.
It's obvious you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Funny, but I thought citizens were guaranteed rights to a fair trial. If you have to hire a lawyer to get a fair trial then that means only those who can afford lawyers these rights.
Criminal defendants in the US aren't just guaranteed the right to an attorney. They are guaranteed the services of an attorney, at government expense if necessary. Two of the Miranda rights are "You have the right to an attorney" and "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."
As a sex offender, this guy has an attorney, which means if the guy wrote it himself, it wasn't a legal pleading or anything like that. If it's not a legal pleading with a defined format, there's no reason for whoever reading it to get upset because he used a sans serif font.
The positive assertion you are making is "Republicans support Voter ID laws because they unfairly disenfranchise people who would be voting for Democrats." You still haven't provided any evidence.
I asserted a bunch of things, most prominently "There is a problem where dead people are being allowed to cast votes for Democrats," for which I posted evidence that you still haven't apparently read.
The original post was, though, was my assertion that "People of Hispanic descent are not as incapable of gaining the proper credentials to vote as the Democrats claim, and thus it is wrong for Democrats to claim that." My evidence was that Mexico, which according to Wikipedia is 80% Hispanic, requires Voter ID to vote.
As evidence to refute this, you claimed that America has a checkered history when it comes to voting, and have posted a list of unethical things that Democrats have done to ensure their candidates win. Politicians claiming something that isn't true is unethical (as big a problem on your side of the isle as mine). Responding with a list of unethical things done by Democrats in the past doesn't counter the assertion that "The Democrats are doing something unethical now," no matter how much you wish it to be true.
Listen, you're very clearly just trying to string me along here. Remember how you claimed not to be trolling before? You can drop that facade now. If you want to provide any evidence as to what you've been saying (which I've been asking for since your first post here), I'd love to see it. The only thing I will respond to at this point is evidence that a specific voter ID law is disenfranchising people. Otherwise, I'm done with your damn games.
Since AFAICT no individual has broken the law here...
OK, you're right here. Technically, they are violating federal regulations, not necessarily the law. I conflated the two concepts by using the label "illegal" to describe "violating federal regulations." I assure you, however, that the IRS punishes taxpayers for violating regulations passed by the executive branch in addition to laws passed by the judicial branch.
Ofc we're going by the assumption that humans really do think "oh that guy's being punished for X so I should avoid X" rather than "that guy's being punished for X so I should be more sneaky when I do X", which - if the existence of crime is anything to go by - is how people actually think.
I'm genuinely curious. If you're against giving people incentives to do the things you want, and against punishing people for doing the things you don't want, how do you propose getting people to follow rules?
It's real simple. I need to give the IRS documentation that they can use to find out how much tax I owe under the law. Since unscrupulous types can use some of that information to hurt me, the IRS has to make sure that nobody else gets access to that documentation. How do I know I can trust the IRS safeguard the information?
Right now the official answer is, "Well, depending on how they do it, revealing that information is a violation of federal laws and regulations. An IRS employee who is careless or malicious with the data is subject to termination, fines, and possibly imprisonment." (It's not true, but that's the official answer.)
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind, when I wrote my comment, I was thinking of the bombing of London, which is about 100 miles away from Coventry. London, of course, is another city full of civilians that the Germans bombed.
Which brings up my point. The GGP called the British bombing of Dredsden "particularly bad" because the British were bombing cities rather than picking out specific targets. Obviously it wasn't "particularly bad" because nobody ELSE in the European theater could hit anything more accurately either. It seems like reason someone would call the British campaigns worse that the German campaigns from the same time period is as a criticism of the modern day British government (which is still around, unlike the German government from that era.) Think about why someone would make that comparison.
Then the invention of the bomber allowed civilian murder to be taken to new extremes in WW2. The British bombing campaign was particularly bad, based as it was on the premise that the smallest target that could reliably be hit by night bombers was a city.
How accurate was German bombing during the Battle of Britain?
All it takes is 1% of surviving owners placed within state or federal structures. And you don't have too look very far. Just look at prominent politicians from South Carolina and their beliefs. Somehow slavery legacy still lives on.
Well, you don't get much more prominent as a politician than US Senator, so let's look* at Senator Tim Scott, R-SC. He certainly looks like he's descended from slaveowners rather than slaves, right?
Also, Senator Scott took office after his predecessor resigned to take a different job; in South Carolina the Governor appoints a new Senator in this instance. Governor Nikki Haley, R-SC, who appointed Scott, is also a fairly prominent South Carolina politician. (After all, she's the governor.) Haley's parents immigrated from India; she isn't descended from slaveowners either.
You're talking out you ass about descendants of slaveowners. It's an easy rhetorical trick, but it's very clearly false.
*For those that aren't going to click the link, it goes to a Google Image Search showing pictures of Senator Scott, who is an African American.
Just like when the Obama administration embraced the phrase Obamacare.
Of course, the Obama administration and its allies in the media have been going back and forth between embracing the term Obamacare and calling anyone who uses it a racist.
It's a Republican plan but it's his signature bill.
It's not a Republican plan. ABSOLUTELY ZERO Republicans voted for this monstrosity in the House, and ABSOLUTELY ZERO voted for it in the Senate.
The fact that two guys who worked at the Heritage Foundation 20 years ago wrote a white paper saying "Hillarycare won't work without an individual mandate" doesn't make Obamacare a Republican plan. You guys screwed this up on your own.
We don't know but I do know one thing that 'girlintraining' does not sound like any girl (or trans) person I know.
YEAH! girlintraining is a traitor to her sex/gender! Everyone knows that REAL Women and REAL Transgendered People HAVE TO BE radical leftists. Only radical leftists are allowed to speak for Women and the Transgendered. Everyone else, even women/transgender people who disagree with the radical left, hate women and hate the transgendered.
Fucking idiot.
*Except the academic, evaluation and Linux-only non-commercial use versions, which could theoretically be downloaded by AMD employees, I guess.
Nowhere have you (or the poster I was replying to) given a moral, ethical, or legal basis for why teachers' unions should be worried about anything other than teachers.
The problem I am addressing is that teachers are advocating to students on behalf of the union, rather than teaching what they are ostensibly there to teach.
This is unethical because they are being paid to teach a specific subject, and they aren't because they are agitating on behalf of the union instead. (Note that the taxpayer is probably OK with paying a teacher to teach kids English, but if the taxpayer doesn't support the union, they would probably object to paying someone to propagandize on its behalf.)
It is immoral because teachers are the authority figure in the classroom. They can punish students for not having the same political views as the teacher, or for their parents not having the same political views as the teacher. The reason we have a secret ballot in this country is to make it harder for your boss to fire you for your political beliefs.
Because it is unethical and immoral for teachers to propagandize to students on behalf of the union instead of teaching, there are laws to make that illegal. In NJ, it is illegal for teachers to advocate for or advocate against a particular candidate for a school board, or to advocate for the passage or defeat of a school budget while they are acting in their capacity as teachers.
The problem is that there is no enforcement of this law.
And people do have recourse against teachers and the systems in which they work. First is the ballot box to replace school boards.
The school board can't fire teachers for advocating on behalf of the union during class time. They union would never allow it. (By the way, if you run against the union, the thugs in the NJEA are going to retaliate against your child.)
Second is the court system.
Huh? You can't sue teachers for malpractice. The court can't punish teachers for violating ethics laws unless the teacher is charged with it, and nobody enforces that law. If it's not a crime, and it's not a tort, what the hell do you want the courts to do?
I made reference to moving, and I meant Pennsylvania, but it would be easier to get to my job from Essex county than PA. What district are we talking about?
What's wrong with an organization set up, funded, and intended for the benefit of teachers being for the benefit of teachers? Why should students be first? Let their parents form an organization to advocate for them. Oh, wait, most schools have a PTA or PTSA.
The biggest problem with the teachers' union is that they advocate for pro-union policies on the taxpayer dime. Obviously, public school teachers are paid with tax money. Obviously, they're supposed to be the authority figures in their classroom. However, there are teachers who abuse their authority figure status to berate students who have/whose parents have different political beliefs, and everyone is forced to pay them to do it. This is already illegal, but students, parents, and taxpayers have NO RECOURSE WHATSOEVER.
If teachers were accountable to PTAs in the way students are accountable to teachers, you'd have a point. But they aren't, and I think you know that. Your argument about PTAs is a meaningless red herring.
You are not making the right distinctions, in some sense the gp wasn't either. The Tea Party is not the old right wing of the Republican Party in the sense of Reagan. The Tea Party is essentially composed of libertarians who really do want less government including the TSA, the military, no EPA, no OSHA, no federal money for schools, etc
There is a "liberal/Rockefeller Republican" vs. "conservative/Tea Party Republican split," but you're putting Ronald Reagan on the wrong side of it. Reagan was against the EPA (by the way, founded under a liberal Republican) and the Department of Education, and Tea Party types are not as pro-military spending cuts as you seem to think.
The Bushes are among those in the more liberal wing of the party; George H.W. Bush opposed Reagan all three times he ran for the nomination. The Tea Party was formed in part from conservatives who were frustrated by the bailouts at the tail end of George W. Bush's administration; and the Bushes and their allies oppose Tea Party candidates today.
Seriously, though, I graduated from a public high school in Morris County. (This is Slashdot, so I'm guessing at what TFA says rather than reading it, but I bet Morris County, NJ is on this list.) The public schools were set up to defend the New Jersey Education Association. You give 90% of the teachers I had in high school half a chance, and they'd shoehorn pro-teachers' union propaganda into whatever they were supposed to be teaching us.
On issues of politics (civics and history classes, but also tangentially related classes like English, which was taught by the head of the union), expressing any opinion other than the approved doctrinal opinion of the teacher would get you shouted down.
A few years ago, I was going to donate money to a candidate who wanted to take a harder line in the upcoming negotiations with the NJEA
I live and work in Morris County today, but my wife and I are going to move before we have kids, because there's no way I would send my kids through that.
However, among the beliefs of the original National Socialist Party were that the government should own the means of production through a command economy. That view is to the left of the base of modern American liberals, who are, of course, the left wing of American politics.
Sadly, American Conservatives belive in the command economy. They meddle in corporations to guide the national economic output. The direction is guided by a command economy, just one run by the rich, that then push the decisions on the country through political power. Does it matter if it's a handful of private people that make the decisions and push them through the government (the conservative way) or the government makes the decision for itself, if the effect is the same?
I've never heard this critique before. Conservatives believe that the owners of a company (the shareholders or the sole proprietor) should be the ones to decide on the amount of a product to produce. (Obviously, opportunity cost, cost of labor and materials, and demand for the product weigh on this decision.) The government doesn't have anything to do with it.
Your critique can't be that simple though. I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Can you give an example of when you think Conservatives would be demanding, via the government, for more or less of a product?
Interestingly the article mentions the American Nazi Party, which just as the original Nazi party is not left-wing but right-wing
I have no idea what the American Nazi Party believes today. However, among the beliefs of the original National Socialist Party were that the government should own the means of production through a command economy. That view is to the left of the base of modern American liberals, who are, of course, the left wing of American politics. Their eugenics policies towards the physically and mentally handicapped (note: in the 1930s, this included gays) were mirrored by the leftists of their day. (Stalin killed the "unfit" in death camps too, after all.)
Democrat or Republican, the base of American politics is WELL to the right of where the Nazis were. Which is good, because the Nazis were evil and neither of the American political parties were complicit in anything even 1/10th as bad as the Nazis. 11 million people didn't die so you could make retarded comparisons to politicians you dislike, asshole.
The core issue isn't really terrorism, cultural enmity, ethnicity, or religion... it's the idea that "certain lands are for certain people." The only solution is to admit that any person should ultimately be free to live anywhere, as long as they obey the law there.
Oh, and the law should treat everyone equally for this to work. No justice, no peace etc. etc.
Fun fact: 12 of the 120 members of the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) are Arabs. One of them is a former Deputy Speaker of the body. (I'm pretty sure in the US House of Representatives, there's 1 Muslim among the 435 members, although a smaller percentage of our population is Muslim.)
If your ethnic group can make up 10% of the legislature and hold leadership positions in it, your ethnic group is probably on fair footing with the others in the country.
When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which started us on the way to ending discrimination, he said that it would probably cost the Democratic Party the South.
He was right. Nixon adopted the "Southern Strategy" for the Republican party, which was to appeal to the racist southern whites. It was successful. They won elections, and racist Democrats went over to the Republican Party.
So the Democrats were the party of Southern racism.
If you look at the demographics of post-Civil Rights Act elections, you'll see you are wrong about this. Southerners who were voting for Democrats in 1963 (when they were still supporting Jim Crow laws, racism, etc.) largely continued voting for Democrats for the rest of their lives. Younger Southerners (who, even if they were racist, didn't have a Jim Crow supporting party to vote for) began breaking for Republicans in the 70s once they came of age and once it became clear that Johnson's Great Society programs were moving the Democrats towards supporting the concerns of the extremely rich and extremely poor (but not the middle class) of the big cities, which, of course, were predominantly in the North.
It's no coincidence that every Democrat President since Johnson* has been from south of the Mason Dixon line.
Nixon's Southern Strategy, then, was just an appeal to the middle class, and it didn't really pan out outside the top of the ticket until Reagan's wave elections, where you had a strong influence from culture war politics. (Culture war politics is another example of Democrats picking policies that are more popular in the urban North than the rural South.) Johnson may have SAID that the Civil Rights Act lost him the South, and Democrats peddle that line because it helps them cast aspersions on the Republicans today, but history shows that it isn't true. Johnson probably knew it was false when he said it.
*Hawaii, birthplace of Barack Obama, is in fact south of the Mason Dixon line. Obviously it wasn't actually part of the Confederacy.
Not only is there no ban on firearms in DC, there is not citation you can give to back up your claims. Please prove me wrong.
Done and done. Check out Emily Gets Her Gun, which is a book about the topic. Asshole.
Emily Gets Her Gun is a book on the topic. The author tried to get a handgun permit in DC and detailed the obstruction she was given by the city government, who is acting as though the handgun ban was never overturned.
Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment (because the rights were there already), but the government is required to RESPECT the rights that you already had.
Irrelevant. The Constitution is a document which restrains the power of the Federal Government. Your "rights" as you otherwise call them out are not otherwise meaningful.
Wait, how is that not relevant? The Founders intended for the United States to be a nation of free people, so they listed some of the rights people had under natural law, along with instructions that the government must respect (or, in your parlance, "is restrained from using its power to infringe upon") those rights.
Also, you took take half of the quote to pick an argument, while leaving the out the relevant context. (I italicized the part I added back in.) Next time, rather than doing so, exercise your fifth amendment right and shut the hell up.
The idea that 'people have natural rights' is not falsifiable.
Good thing that's not the assertion then. Instead, the Founders asserted that "Free people have a bunch of rights, and a government that tries to deny the people these rights does not govern over a free people. Since the American people are to be free, Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. And the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And so on."
The Bill of Rights is a definition, intended to define governments into two categories based on how free their people are. The category that the Founders intended the US to fall into was "A government that governs free people." Other governments, ones that don't recognize the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are "Tyrannical governments that lord over their citizens." Because the Founders gave us a definition, the statement "The US is a Free country" is falsifiable.
This is like having a scientist who also happens to be a catholic minister publishing a study proving that Intelligent Design is true and Evolution is false.
The Catholic Church's stated explanation is evolution. Scientists employed by Catholic universities all over the world are doing the same kind of biology research into the specifics of how evolution works that the rest of the scientific community is.
The Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes is a non-exhaustive list of rights of the natural rights of free people. These rights predated the Constitution, and people are entitled to them with or without the Constitution.
As the USOC [sic - the Supreme Court???] recognized, the first amendment only grants the right from government restrictions on free speech. Other entities such as... schools are not required to grant you the right to free speech.
Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment (because the rights were there already), but the government is required to RESPECT the rights that you already had. This applies to all governmental institutions, which includes most schools.
Please stop treating the Constitution like a religious document. It is not.It is very limited and very specific.
It's obvious you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Funny, but I thought citizens were guaranteed rights to a fair trial. If you have to hire a lawyer to get a fair trial then that means only those who can afford lawyers these rights.
Criminal defendants in the US aren't just guaranteed the right to an attorney. They are guaranteed the services of an attorney, at government expense if necessary. Two of the Miranda rights are "You have the right to an attorney" and "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."
As a sex offender, this guy has an attorney, which means if the guy wrote it himself, it wasn't a legal pleading or anything like that. If it's not a legal pleading with a defined format, there's no reason for whoever reading it to get upset because he used a sans serif font.
The positive assertion you are making is "Republicans support Voter ID laws because they unfairly disenfranchise people who would be voting for Democrats." You still haven't provided any evidence.
I asserted a bunch of things, most prominently "There is a problem where dead people are being allowed to cast votes for Democrats," for which I posted evidence that you still haven't apparently read.
The original post was, though, was my assertion that "People of Hispanic descent are not as incapable of gaining the proper credentials to vote as the Democrats claim, and thus it is wrong for Democrats to claim that." My evidence was that Mexico, which according to Wikipedia is 80% Hispanic, requires Voter ID to vote.
As evidence to refute this, you claimed that America has a checkered history when it comes to voting, and have posted a list of unethical things that Democrats have done to ensure their candidates win. Politicians claiming something that isn't true is unethical (as big a problem on your side of the isle as mine). Responding with a list of unethical things done by Democrats in the past doesn't counter the assertion that "The Democrats are doing something unethical now," no matter how much you wish it to be true.
Listen, you're very clearly just trying to string me along here. Remember how you claimed not to be trolling before? You can drop that facade now. If you want to provide any evidence as to what you've been saying (which I've been asking for since your first post here), I'd love to see it. The only thing I will respond to at this point is evidence that a specific voter ID law is disenfranchising people. Otherwise, I'm done with your damn games.
Since AFAICT no individual has broken the law here...
OK, you're right here. Technically, they are violating federal regulations, not necessarily the law. I conflated the two concepts by using the label "illegal" to describe "violating federal regulations." I assure you, however, that the IRS punishes taxpayers for violating regulations passed by the executive branch in addition to laws passed by the judicial branch.
Ofc we're going by the assumption that humans really do think "oh that guy's being punished for X so I should avoid X" rather than "that guy's being punished for X so I should be more sneaky when I do X", which - if the existence of crime is anything to go by - is how people actually think.
I'm genuinely curious. If you're against giving people incentives to do the things you want, and against punishing people for doing the things you don't want, how do you propose getting people to follow rules?
It's real simple. I need to give the IRS documentation that they can use to find out how much tax I owe under the law. Since unscrupulous types can use some of that information to hurt me, the IRS has to make sure that nobody else gets access to that documentation. How do I know I can trust the IRS safeguard the information?
Right now the official answer is, "Well, depending on how they do it, revealing that information is a violation of federal laws and regulations. An IRS employee who is careless or malicious with the data is subject to termination, fines, and possibly imprisonment." (It's not true, but that's the official answer.)