That's the best example you can give? Kaepernick? Well, when he gets fired from a job because someone complained about him to the Human Resources — then you'll have a counter-argument.
You sole citation seriously equates government-sponsored "safe spaces" — from which people are excluded based on their race — with web-sites (like Breitbart), to which everyone is welcome? Pathetic drivel intended for the pathetic Illiberal stinkies... Like yourself.
Republicans do not use political correctness to suppress free speech in the workplace nor outside
Republicans neither threaten nor use violence to suppress free speech
and will call out both until it stops.
There is no both here. it is solely the Democrats, who do this sort of thing. For the Greater Good[TM], of course...
The case at hand is not about dissent or opposition, but about felony rioting — and conspiracy to commit same. If smashing cars is illegal, it is normal — indeed, imperative — for police to find and prosecute the law-breakers, and they are doing it by the book.
Similarly, because the US Constituion and the Pythagoras' Theorem were thought up by slave-owners, it is immoral (and should be illegal!) to use them too!
You most certainly enjoy many benefits of taxation; you just don't want to pony up your contribution.
This is a completely bogus and logically-flawed argument.
If the money is already confiscated from me against my will, I may as well partake of whatever they are spent on. This does not make my opposition to the confiscation in any way invalid or immoral.
But I do find it curious, how people openly arguing against the citizens' privacy can get as highly-moderated on Slashdot as the pro-taxers... FBI searching for a dead terrorist's accomplices? Booo, down with government overreach!! IRS on a fishing expedition through bitcoin transactions? Yeah, give us more!
No rule of law, no police or other first responders, no roads, no military, no contract enforcement, no judicial system
The US had all this aplenty before introducing Federal Income Tax. Today all of those things you list take but a small fraction of the federal budget combined — the rest is consumed by the pseudo-charities like Medicaid.
limited health care, no public education, no science research, no parks, no vaccines, no space program, no internet, no food safety, no drug safety
None of this requires taxation — confiscation of money at the point of a weapon.
You benefit from the results too.
Irrelevant.
Taxes are only theft in the minds of stupid and selfish people.
Yes, the smart people realize, they aren't merely theft, but an outright armed robbery.
I think that Weird Al endorsed Bernie, but I'm not sure.
Well, I sure, that he voted for Hillary at the end.
Who has called Jill Stein, who almost certainly did not vote Democrat, a Nazi?
Ah, I forgot to mention this explicitly, but, of course, people calling others "Nazis" are exempt. And Ms. Stein did that arguing against "another Clinton in White House".
Everybody who was just okay with having Nazi flags around them was labeled a Nazi.
There were far more Communist symbols and slogans around — and Communists are far more murderous than even the Nazis were. Was it Ok to shoot the Communists in Charlotteville and elsewhere? How about driving cars into their crowding?
Let's play a game. You name a group and/or a prominent person, who did not endorse/vote for Hillary Clinton, and I'll find a group and/or a prominent person denouncing him/them as a "Nazi".
Personal anecdotes are no substitute for statistics. You had a request to cite statistics and an opportunity to do it — yet, chose not to. The only conclusion is, you aren't aware of any.
What do I gain out of "my" country being rich when I'm struggling to get by?
Irrelevant and off-topic.
Only in the US.
I call bullshit. Or, to put it politely, "I'm sorry you feel this way".
Nearly two decades into the 21st Century, it has become clear the world has limited resources and the last area of expansion is the oceans.
Ah, the exclusivity of our times — surely, nothing like this has ever happened before. Except around Newfoundland:
After the War of American Independence the new United States demanded, as part of the peace settlement, continuation of the fishing rights they had enjoyed in North Atlantic waters as British colonies. Great Britain at the end of the War was not in a position to resist American demands and the Treaty of Versailles in 1783 accorded United States inhabitants equal rights with British subjects to fish in the waters of British North America, including Newfoundland.
The question is rather, why does it work in Scandinavia
Does it? Neither you, nor Bernie Sanders offer citations...
Moreover, I argue, that it does not. Scandinavia — especially Norway and Denmark — hardly saw any fighting during WW2. Unlike, say, Germany, they had no destruction and their standard of living should be like or above that of the US. It decidedly is not — not even in Norway, where they pump plenty of oil. They are all nice countries, but they aren't as rich as the US.
I say, what good they have is despite Socialism, not thanks to it — anybody claiming, it "works" for them, needs a solid counter-argument.
after a decade and a half, and at a cost of about $12 million annually (around one percent of the state's education budget), Maine has yet to see any measurable increases on statewide standardized test scores.
But government — unlike those greedy KKKorporations — just could not possibly have made such a mistake! Unaffected by profit and other ulterior motives, benevolent and omniscient government officials know better than their naive and easily-excitable subjects ever could.
A corporation making a boondoggle investment like this would've replaced the CEO and, possibly, even gone bankrupt — who wants that? But the government officials responsible for the wasted million$ are all safely employed and/or receiving their well-earned pensions. Per-pupil costs have quadrupled since 1960ies — while the education-quality remained the same (or worsened, depending on who you ask).
Be it a school or a hospital, is not it much nicer, when the government is running something?
Then why do we spend billions on the Middle east but spend almost nothing on the violence in Africa?
Irrelevant.
Your response literally stated that policing funds are sometimes re distributive to the poor thus confirming more core point.
False. You use different semantics for "redistributive". I object to government subsidizing people and corporations — at the expense of other people and corporations.
You claim, law and order and military are the same "redistribution", because some people get more protection than others. Whether that's even true or not, it is irrelevant — police protection is not a subsidy. Indeed, if it were, government protecting demonstrations of assholes with Hitler or Che Guevara on their T-shirts from the rest of us would be subsidizing them.
So your point is entirely invalid and mine stands. Have a nice day.
There aren't parts of our society that benefit far more from our military policies then others? Likewise with police?
Nope, not at all.
I would suggest that the taxes we all pay for these things disproportionately benefit the affluent.
You'd be wrong to suggest it. Law and order benefits us all — indeed, the poor benefit most. The rich can (and do) afford private security, doormen, body guards, and armored cars...
Just because it doesnt follow left wing patterns of redistribution doesn't mean it isn't doing as such.
No, not because of that.
Taxing Paul to defend Peter is Ok. Taxing Paul to support — feed, cloth, shelter, educate — Peter is wrong.
But the absolute worst is taxing Acme, Inc. to subsidize Widgets, Inc. — it is Crony Capitalism and, dare I refer to our earlier discussion, Fascism.
Seems like about 1 million assumptions and taking estimates into facts
Anything to further advance the idea of omniscient and benevolent rulers confiscating, errr, redistributing their subjects' monies for The Greater Good(TM).
If you are against it, you are against The Greater Good, BTW.
Stalin was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of USSR — the highest post.
If that does not make him a Communist, what would make anyone? If those "white-power" schmucks with swastikas are denounced as "Nazis" based on their own say-so, why would you deny Stalin his own distinction?
Now it's debateable what would happen in an ACTUAL communist country with ACTUAL communist policies
Semantics. You wouldn't be splitting hairs like this over whether David Duke is a real Klansman, for example — despite his leaving KKK in the 1980ies...
Point was, and remains, mutual animosity between groups (such as National Socialists vs Socialists) does not at all prove them being radically different — which is what the anon above was arguing, incorrectly.
Communist Vietnam ended the nightmare of Communist Pol Pot in Cambodia — and was punished for that by Communist China. Christians of different sects have been at each other's throats in Europe for centuries. Same for Muslims in the Middle East. Indeed, one may argue, it is the similarity of persuasions, that may be contributing to the level of animosity (see also Uncanny Valley.)
Slashdot Mirror
The same way two Administrations earlier we tried the same with North Korea? That played out beautifully, didn't it?
Rather, because they do understand it better than you do...
Israel stopped Iraq's nuclear-weapons program without invading. Iran's is better protected, but our weapons today are much better than Israel's were in 1981.
That's the best example you can give? Kaepernick? Well, when he gets fired from a job because someone complained about him to the Human Resources — then you'll have a counter-argument.
You sole citation seriously equates government-sponsored "safe spaces" — from which people are excluded based on their race — with web-sites (like Breitbart), to which everyone is welcome? Pathetic drivel intended for the pathetic Illiberal stinkies... Like yourself.
Except Republicans flatly do not do this:
There is no both here. it is solely the Democrats, who do this sort of thing. For the Greater Good[TM], of course...
The case at hand is not about dissent or opposition, but about felony rioting — and conspiracy to commit same. If smashing cars is illegal, it is normal — indeed, imperative — for police to find and prosecute the law-breakers, and they are doing it by the book.
Creator of JavaScript is a homophobe, who opposed gay marriage. It is immoral to use it.
Similarly, because the US Constituion and the Pythagoras' Theorem were thought up by slave-owners, it is immoral (and should be illegal!) to use them too!
This is a completely bogus and logically-flawed argument.
If the money is already confiscated from me against my will, I may as well partake of whatever they are spent on. This does not make my opposition to the confiscation in any way invalid or immoral.
But I do find it curious, how people openly arguing against the citizens' privacy can get as highly-moderated on Slashdot as the pro-taxers... FBI searching for a dead terrorist's accomplices? Booo, down with government overreach!! IRS on a fishing expedition through bitcoin transactions? Yeah, give us more!
The US had all this aplenty before introducing Federal Income Tax. Today all of those things you list take but a small fraction of the federal budget combined — the rest is consumed by the pseudo-charities like Medicaid.
None of this requires taxation — confiscation of money at the point of a weapon.
Irrelevant.
Yes, the smart people realize, they aren't merely theft, but an outright armed robbery.
Together with ACLU, EFF are busy #RESIST(ing) the imaginary "Nazism"...
Well, I sure, that he voted for Hillary at the end.
Ah, I forgot to mention this explicitly, but, of course, people calling others "Nazis" are exempt. And Ms. Stein did that arguing against "another Clinton in White House".
There were far more Communist symbols and slogans around — and Communists are far more murderous than even the Nazis were. Was it Ok to shoot the Communists in Charlotteville and elsewhere? How about driving cars into their crowding?
In denial much?
Let's play a game. You name a group and/or a prominent person, who did not endorse/vote for Hillary Clinton, and I'll find a group and/or a prominent person denouncing him/them as a "Nazi".
Don't forget the Communists/Socialists. A T-shirt with Hitler on it is no better than one with Che Guevara.
Light post for both, right?
Personal anecdotes are no substitute for statistics. You had a request to cite statistics and an opportunity to do it — yet, chose not to. The only conclusion is, you aren't aware of any.
Irrelevant and off-topic.
I call bullshit. Or, to put it politely, "I'm sorry you feel this way".
Ah, the exclusivity of our times — surely, nothing like this has ever happened before. Except around Newfoundland:
Does it? Neither you, nor Bernie Sanders offer citations...
Moreover, I argue, that it does not. Scandinavia — especially Norway and Denmark — hardly saw any fighting during WW2. Unlike, say, Germany, they had no destruction and their standard of living should be like or above that of the US. It decidedly is not — not even in Norway, where they pump plenty of oil. They are all nice countries, but they aren't as rich as the US.
I say, what good they have is despite Socialism, not thanks to it — anybody claiming, it "works" for them, needs a solid counter-argument.
Here is the discussion we had in 2000 about this matter. Some things change, others remain the same...
But government — unlike those greedy KKKorporations — just could not possibly have made such a mistake! Unaffected by profit and other ulterior motives, benevolent and omniscient government officials know better than their naive and easily-excitable subjects ever could.
A corporation making a boondoggle investment like this would've replaced the CEO and, possibly, even gone bankrupt — who wants that? But the government officials responsible for the wasted million$ are all safely employed and/or receiving their well-earned pensions. Per-pupil costs have quadrupled since 1960ies — while the education-quality remained the same (or worsened, depending on who you ask).
Be it a school or a hospital, is not it much nicer, when the government is running something?
Irrelevant.
False. You use different semantics for "redistributive". I object to government subsidizing people and corporations — at the expense of other people and corporations.
You claim, law and order and military are the same "redistribution", because some people get more protection than others. Whether that's even true or not, it is irrelevant — police protection is not a subsidy. Indeed, if it were, government protecting demonstrations of assholes with Hitler or Che Guevara on their T-shirts from the rest of us would be subsidizing them.
So your point is entirely invalid and mine stands. Have a nice day.
Nope, not at all.
You'd be wrong to suggest it. Law and order benefits us all — indeed, the poor benefit most. The rich can (and do) afford private security, doormen, body guards, and armored cars...
No, not because of that.
Taxing Paul to defend Peter is Ok. Taxing Paul to support — feed, cloth, shelter, educate — Peter is wrong.
But the absolute worst is taxing Acme, Inc. to subsidize Widgets, Inc. — it is Crony Capitalism and, dare I refer to our earlier discussion, Fascism.
Non sequitur. I do accept the need to maintain military and police — none of this re-distributive.
Free universal healthcare was exactly that shred. So, BZZ, wrong...
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
Anything to further advance the idea of omniscient and benevolent rulers confiscating, errr, redistributing their subjects' monies for The Greater Good(TM).
If you are against it, you are against The Greater Good, BTW.
Stalin was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of USSR — the highest post.
If that does not make him a Communist, what would make anyone? If those "white-power" schmucks with swastikas are denounced as "Nazis" based on their own say-so, why would you deny Stalin his own distinction?
Semantics. You wouldn't be splitting hairs like this over whether David Duke is a real Klansman, for example — despite his leaving KKK in the 1980ies...
Point was, and remains, mutual animosity between groups (such as National Socialists vs Socialists) does not at all prove them being radically different — which is what the anon above was arguing, incorrectly.
Communist Vietnam ended the nightmare of Communist Pol Pot in Cambodia — and was punished for that by Communist China. Christians of different sects have been at each other's throats in Europe for centuries. Same for Muslims in the Middle East. Indeed, one may argue, it is the similarity of persuasions, that may be contributing to the level of animosity (see also Uncanny Valley.)
I didn't. You are saying, Freedom of Speech is not for everyone. I get it...
Thank you for volunteering to be a live illustration to the point I was making.