This subthread is about people claiming, Republicans and Democrats of today are somehow the opposite of what they both were in the 19th century. To prove that, one needs to show both: that Republicans have become more racist racist and approving of slavery (more than Lincoln, who was guilty of both, BTW) and that Democrats stopped.
Well, you did say: "Right wing social values that led to mass genocide". By definition, one has to be a racist to knowingly commit genocide, so you do accuse Conservatives (or "their values") of not just racism, but of much more evil things. Now, instead of retracting that (patently false, BTW) statement and apologizing, you are denying having said anything of the kind — and playing a victim in the process.
I'm not interested in your — sure to come — attempts to split hairs and am unlikely to even read your further replies in this thread, much less follow-up again.
For WordPress to drop a site, even a fascist site, is a very big deal
So, first they came for Nazis, but I didn't worry, because I am not a Nazi... You know, how it ends — only the sites approved and endorsed by ANTIFA or Black Lives Matter will be safe.
He never actualy said "Jews" you know that ? Every speech he said "Jews and Socialists" - he ALWAYS considered those groups in cahoots.
Yes, and Stalin had Trotsky killed — does that mean, one them was not a hard-core Communist?
it was NEVER the platform of the ruling NAZI party, it was abandoned long before then.
First of all, thank you for accepting the listed points from Hitler's "Programme" as common with (other) Socialists. Second, the platform was decidedly not abandoned — the points listed were all implemented, including the "universal healthcare" so dear to the hearts of today's Collectivists (Fascists and Socialists alike), including ANTIFA.
Your pathetic attempts at bleating something in reply to my well-reasoned and clearly articulated posts do not count as "educating". Not before, not now.
If an Obamacare supporter sent a link to a critical article, how would that identify a dissenter?
The name and other credentials of the article's author would then be known to the White House. Once the same article is forwarded a certain number of times, its author could be put on the list of people to target (such as by additional IRS to scrutiny, for example). In addition (or stead) the same can be done to the publication the author works for.
Is it possible you're an illogical and rather stupid person?
It is possible, though unlikely. With you, on the other hand, both are certain...
But the fact is that they didn't request names, just stories.
Yours is a very charitable explanation and does not at all qualify for "fact". Both forwarded e-mails and links to news-stories would've identified the dissenters: people, who, unlike those conspiring to commit the crime of felony rioting, have done nothing illegal.
The IRS did discriminate against certain political groups by performing deeper audits.
This is, what they admitted to — after getting caught. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect them of going after individuals too — because the same exact motive would play, the same means and mechanisms can be (and likely were) used by the same people in all such cases:
Shortly after I did my April 2012 interview with President Obama, my wife, friends and some viewers suggested that I might need to watch out for the IRS. I don’t accept “conspiracy theories”, but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me.
Whether the IRS limited their abuses "only" to groups, or gone after prominent individual "haterz" too is not even relevant. You are trying to find a distinction that makes no difference — it was an outrageous thing to do and far worse than DoJ is even suspected of doing in the case being discussed today.
If you are looking for bad actors who actually threatened or cause physical harm/disruption - then use regular police work to fid that out.
This is regular police work. This is no different from going through all people mentioned in a suspect's rolodex/phonebook of old, for example.
Simply sniffing out all who disagree with the current administration
Contrary to the title, this is not about an "anti-Trump" web-site, such are a dime-a-dozen. This is about a "pro-riot" web-site, which indicates its purpose — organizing a conspiracy to commit a crime (rioting) — in its very name.
And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare.
In addition his IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations
Things that never happened for $200, Alex. Stop with the #fakenews.
Right here are the citations for you — something the anonymous OP should've included in his post, of course:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov
In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes.
Two out of two things you dismissed as "fake news" are in fact true and indisputable. Good score, keep it up!
crashes a whole lot less. How much less? In our tests so far, 64-bit Firefox reduced crashes by 39% on machines with 4GB of RAM or more.
A rather sad state of affairs — good software does not crash, period... If the RAM-size is a factor (and I do confirm that it is), you are leaking... And Mozilla knows this — they even implemented some tools to monitor the problem.
American groups advocating racial hatred almost exclusively identify themselves as conservative
Citations missing... Even if we stipulate this for a second — so what? It is the "Conservatives are racists", that you need to prove, not the other way around. How many Republicans would not vote for an otherwise qualified candidate because of his race? And how many Democrats?
Statistics, please — anecdotes are fun, but not convincing.
Strom Thurdmond is an excellent, although not at all unique, example
Senator Thurmond switched party-affiliation because of his respect for state-rights, not because of racism. Indeed, the Wikipedia-page you cited says exactly that and offers no evidence of his being a racist at all, much less "advocating racial hatred".
Get back to me when
I intend to ignore further posts from you, that will not cite a respectable source for every statement you make.
their Right wing social values that led to mass genocide
There is nothing "Right wing" about it, and that's the point — notably, you aren't citing anything specific. "Right wing" are about the Individual, however cantankerous, whereas the Left wing — be they Socialists or Fascists — are all about the (glorious) Collective.
Also, with the exception of Hitler, there was no "mass suicides" either — neither Mussolini nor Franco were especially murderous, for example. For true mass murder, Socialists/Communists can't be beat, even Hitler is a distant second. And yet, you did buy that Che Guevara T-shirt, didn't you?
it's really the reason to hate Nazi's
You seem to use "Nazi" and "Fascist" interchangeably, which is incorrect. Only German Fascists were Nazis, and even for them the genocide was completely "unnecessary". But I do not accuse "ANTIFA" of preparing gas-chambers for anyone. But they are quite unabashed about supporting the same Collectivism that is a major hindrance to both economic growth and human rights.
Citations? Does the name "National Socialists" mean anything? Have you read their Programme? Here, let me quote the best parts for you:
We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations
We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest
The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement)
The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised
Do you see anything above, that "ANTIFA" members (or Bernie Sanders fans, pardon the tautology) would not endorse enthusiastically?
The fascists were hardcore crony capitalists!
This is true, but does not contradict, what I said earlier in the slightest. Government controlling the corporations, telling them what to (not) do with the carrot of tax reductions and the stick of regulation and taxation, is exactly that. Already American corporations spend billions of dollars lobbying government figures — that is crony capitalism and is a direct result of government's control of the means of production. Instead of paying higher wages, or investing in more R&D, or marketing their products to customers, businesses spend on government officials, who — without any "skin in the game" hold the make-or-break power over most enterprises. Whether there is nominal ownership of the factories by the government, or simply near-total control, does not really matter...
That guy is just flat out lying to you.
He is rather more convincing, than you are, sorry. He also cites a number of Western Socialists, who loved Hitler in particular and Nazis in general — because their ideas were the same.
you can see it in the voting blocks and identity messaging.
No, I can't. I do not know a Republican, who'd argue in support of slavery, for example. Meanwhile, for all your links to K-party systems in late 19th/early 20th century, which do not prove your point at all, we do know of prominent KKK-members running for office — overwhelmingly on Democratic tickets.
Nope, it's the truth [wikipedia.org]
What am I supposed to see on that Wikipedia page? Could you be more specific, please? The more bombastic a claim, the stricter the evidence requirements, you know...
Oh my, you double-down on the error
You are in error.
But such shifts certainly do happen...
Tell that to the folks, like yourself
I just said it to the entire Internet... Are you disagreeing? Claiming, that such shifts do not happen?
They are none of those things. They are not a government.
Distinction without difference. The OP claimed, that "there are rules" — that is a dubious argument, when the rules are written and interpreted by the same party regardless of whether that party is governmental or not.
You have to let them in, otherwise you're legislating, adjudicating and acting on rules all at once.
I'll object to and resist their moving in, but not because "I have rules" against it...
Go Daddy doesn't host their site, they only provide the domain name registration.
Oh... That's even worse then. When I once complained to a Domain Registrar about a bona-fide spammer using them, they said, they can not — by some sort of the registrar charter — shut him down for any reason other than non-paying his annual fee.
Maybe, that changed, but I do not see any provision allowing the company to stop DNS-service to a customer based on their content in their ToS. Do you?
Because we have idiot politicians that tell the police to not intervene. If the cops were allowed to keep the two groups separate and put down any violence
Unfortunately, "putting down violence" requires violence. Some times brutal violence.
The brutal violence, which, however necessary and unavoidable, would be on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube within seconds — shot from the angles and edited for emphasizing the brutality while hiding, what made it necessary and unavoidable.
We are the idiots, and our politicians reflect that... Especially, Democratic politicians, I might add...
Antifa was fighting the original fascists in Italy in 1921 already.
And the Democratic Party was supporting slavery in the 19th century — and still had a KKK "Grand Wizard" among it Senators until his recent death.
Yes its the same organization.
Whether it is "the same" or not, it is openly violent and favors the ever-increasing government control of the means of production. Which makes them very very Fascist.
They do. But they are also the legislature (creating rules), judiciary (determining, whether a rule is broken), and executive (acting on such determination) at once. Whether their action is sincere, or simply seeking to avoid boycotts and/or DOSing, they are wrong.
I do hate Daily Stormer with passion — since 2014, when they dismissed all of Ukraine's figures as "Jews" — if GoDaddy was Ok with them before, there is no reason to kick them out now.
Certainly not with such haste... 24 hours to move a site? Ridiculous...
The massive outrage about this is curiously selective. The "alt-right" are blamed for the violence even though they held their gathering and were attacked by the counter-protesters, who've been viciously violent before. All of the reports about the car charging into a crowd mention "melees" and "skirmishes" already occurring prior to that in passing. Oh, that's because someone died? Well, there were politically-motivated attacks with a deadly weapon before — sheer luck, that asshole merely injured his victims.
Lastly, much as the Nazist symbols and racism annoy me, they clearly have no real following and thus pose little danger. Meanwhile, the symbols of Communists and other hate-groups (like Black Lives Matter) were also on display and those, despite being far deadlier, do not seem to outrage anyone...
In most cases, that means hiding the sex from the person doing the hiring
Dude, your earlier words are right here in this thread: "Additional cultural and gender view points make for better software/hardware/business decisions". This is you arguing for hiring women because they are women — not hiding their identity, but making it obvious and influencing the hiring decision.
women embedded in Iraq were instrumental in gaining access to homes without fighting being necessary because they were a) women and could thus speak to the women in the home and b) presented less of a threat profile to the local men.
So, they were useful in dealing with sexists? Seriously, that's your example?
I can't answer because I am not a woman. I cannot tell you what insights that experience might provide on a battlefield.
Your admission of ignorance is touching, but where was that humility, when you stated confidently, that there it is never the case, where the feminine viewpoint may be detrimental? Nothing useful some times is useful at all times — except feminine viewpoint?..
The giant pink elephant in the room of your thinking remains: you openly argue for considering a person's sex, when making a hiring decision. How do you not see this position as sexist, escapes me...
There was a movie, where a female musician fooled the admissions panel of a major orchestra by wearing her husband's shoes to the audition. To prevent bias, the rest of the applicant's body was always hidden by a curtain, but she suspected — correctly — that the men saw her shoes and rejected her in the earlier audition because they could see female footwear. Her character was very sympathetic and all the viewers cheered her victory and felt disgust with the old farts, that made such trickery necessary, and how their jaws dropped when the curtain was lifted and they realized, they were had.
The men may soon need to learn to wear high heels. And though to some that may seem like a well-deserved payback, it is just as disgusting and unfair. Individuals ought to be judged on their individual merits, period.
Not just "diverse" — feminine viewpoint is what you like. Why is it useful in a software engineering team? I'd understand, why it may help to have people liking different technologies (C vs. Java), but what is so special about women?
And if whatever it is really does exist, and sexually-diverse engineering teams really are better than others, why don't companies seek that voluntarily — without the threat of legal action?
And, no, it is NEVER detrimental.
How could it be?
Not for the sake of diversity -- for the sake of better engineering!
As well as better fighting, right? What is it, that a woman adds to an infantry company, that makes her more desirable in one than a stronger man? She can not carry as much ammunition or handle a mortar as handily — what is it, that she does bring to a fight to compensate for those obvious shortcomings?
Slashdot Mirror
This subthread is about people claiming, Republicans and Democrats of today are somehow the opposite of what they both were in the 19th century. To prove that, one needs to show both: that Republicans have become more racist racist and approving of slavery (more than Lincoln, who was guilty of both, BTW) and that Democrats stopped.
The Southern Strategy/realignment proves neither — it is/was an appeal on issues of economics and rights, not racism. Meanwhile, throughout the 20th century a number of Democratic politicians not merely thought KKK's endorsement, but outright joined the organization — because they calculated, correctly, that it would help them among Democratic voters.
Well, you did say: "Right wing social values that led to mass genocide". By definition, one has to be a racist to knowingly commit genocide, so you do accuse Conservatives (or "their values") of not just racism, but of much more evil things. Now, instead of retracting that (patently false, BTW) statement and apologizing, you are denying having said anything of the kind — and playing a victim in the process.
I'm not interested in your — sure to come — attempts to split hairs and am unlikely to even read your further replies in this thread, much less follow-up again.
So, first they came for Nazis, but I didn't worry, because I am not a Nazi... You know, how it ends — only the sites approved and endorsed by ANTIFA or Black Lives Matter will be safe.
The question presumes, women have some sort of unique insight/opinion — simply due to their sex. People have lost their jobs for such ideas.
Yes, and Stalin had Trotsky killed — does that mean, one them was not a hard-core Communist?
First of all, thank you for accepting the listed points from Hitler's "Programme" as common with (other) Socialists. Second, the platform was decidedly not abandoned — the points listed were all implemented, including the "universal healthcare" so dear to the hearts of today's Collectivists (Fascists and Socialists alike), including ANTIFA.
Your pathetic attempts at bleating something in reply to my well-reasoned and clearly articulated posts do not count as "educating". Not before, not now.
The name and other credentials of the article's author would then be known to the White House. Once the same article is forwarded a certain number of times, its author could be put on the list of people to target (such as by additional IRS to scrutiny, for example). In addition (or stead) the same can be done to the publication the author works for.
It is possible, though unlikely. With you, on the other hand, both are certain...
Yours is a very charitable explanation and does not at all qualify for "fact". Both forwarded e-mails and links to news-stories would've identified the dissenters: people, who, unlike those conspiring to commit the crime of felony rioting, have done nothing illegal.
This is, what they admitted to — after getting caught. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect them of going after individuals too — because the same exact motive would play, the same means and mechanisms can be (and likely were) used by the same people in all such cases:
Whether the IRS limited their abuses "only" to groups, or gone after prominent individual "haterz" too is not even relevant. You are trying to find a distinction that makes no difference — it was an outrageous thing to do and far worse than DoJ is even suspected of doing in the case being discussed today.
This is regular police work. This is no different from going through all people mentioned in a suspect's rolodex/phonebook of old, for example.
Contrary to the title, this is not about an "anti-Trump" web-site, such are a dime-a-dozen. This is about a "pro-riot" web-site, which indicates its purpose — organizing a conspiracy to commit a crime (rioting) — in its very name.
And Obama outright asked the people to turn in names of people they knew who weren't on board with Obamacare. In addition his IRS attacked individual citizens based on their political affiliations
Things that never happened for $200, Alex. Stop with the #fakenews.
Right here are the citations for you — something the anonymous OP should've included in his post, of course:
Obama's Whitehouse asking people to "flag" opponents of Obamacare:After people got outraged about this solicitation, the above text was eventually removed.
The IRS really did target conservatives:Two out of two things you dismissed as "fake news" are in fact true and indisputable. Good score, keep it up!
A rather sad state of affairs — good software does not crash, period... If the RAM-size is a factor (and I do confirm that it is), you are leaking... And Mozilla knows this — they even implemented some tools to monitor the problem.
Long way to go, Mozilla. But, at least, you aren't against "gay marriage" any more.
Citations missing... Even if we stipulate this for a second — so what? It is the "Conservatives are racists", that you need to prove, not the other way around. How many Republicans would not vote for an otherwise qualified candidate because of his race? And how many Democrats?
Statistics, please — anecdotes are fun, but not convincing.
Senator Thurmond switched party-affiliation because of his respect for state-rights, not because of racism. Indeed, the Wikipedia-page you cited says exactly that and offers no evidence of his being a racist at all, much less "advocating racial hatred".
I intend to ignore further posts from you, that will not cite a respectable source for every statement you make.
There is nothing "Right wing" about it, and that's the point — notably, you aren't citing anything specific. "Right wing" are about the Individual, however cantankerous, whereas the Left wing — be they Socialists or Fascists — are all about the (glorious) Collective.
Also, with the exception of Hitler, there was no "mass suicides" either — neither Mussolini nor Franco were especially murderous, for example. For true mass murder, Socialists/Communists can't be beat, even Hitler is a distant second. And yet, you did buy that Che Guevara T-shirt, didn't you?
You seem to use "Nazi" and "Fascist" interchangeably, which is incorrect. Only German Fascists were Nazis, and even for them the genocide was completely "unnecessary". But I do not accuse "ANTIFA" of preparing gas-chambers for anyone. But they are quite unabashed about supporting the same Collectivism that is a major hindrance to both economic growth and human rights.
Citations? Does the name "National Socialists" mean anything? Have you read their Programme? Here, let me quote the best parts for you:
Do you see anything above, that "ANTIFA" members (or Bernie Sanders fans, pardon the tautology) would not endorse enthusiastically?
This is true, but does not contradict, what I said earlier in the slightest. Government controlling the corporations, telling them what to (not) do with the carrot of tax reductions and the stick of regulation and taxation, is exactly that. Already American corporations spend billions of dollars lobbying government figures — that is crony capitalism and is a direct result of government's control of the means of production. Instead of paying higher wages, or investing in more R&D, or marketing their products to customers, businesses spend on government officials, who — without any "skin in the game" hold the make-or-break power over most enterprises. Whether there is nominal ownership of the factories by the government, or simply near-total control, does not really matter...
He is rather more convincing, than you are, sorry. He also cites a number of Western Socialists, who loved Hitler in particular and Nazis in general — because their ideas were the same.
Sure, sure. But this does not mean, Republicans became Democrats...
No, I can't. I do not know a Republican, who'd argue in support of slavery, for example. Meanwhile, for all your links to K-party systems in late 19th/early 20th century, which do not prove your point at all, we do know of prominent KKK-members running for office — overwhelmingly on Democratic tickets .
What am I supposed to see on that Wikipedia page? Could you be more specific, please? The more bombastic a claim, the stricter the evidence requirements, you know...
You are in error.
I just said it to the entire Internet... Are you disagreeing? Claiming, that such shifts do not happen?
Semantics. Whether it is a "rule" is irrelevant. Point is, it being a rule is not, by itself, a justification.
No, actually, that's a lie. Oft-repeated, but still a lie.
There was no "shift" in the case of Republicans. But such shifts certainly do happen...
Distinction without difference. The OP claimed, that "there are rules" — that is a dubious argument, when the rules are written and interpreted by the same party regardless of whether that party is governmental or not.
I'll object to and resist their moving in, but not because "I have rules" against it...
Oh... That's even worse then. When I once complained to a Domain Registrar about a bona-fide spammer using them, they said, they can not — by some sort of the registrar charter — shut him down for any reason other than non-paying his annual fee.
Maybe, that changed, but I do not see any provision allowing the company to stop DNS-service to a customer based on their content in their ToS. Do you?
Unfortunately, "putting down violence" requires violence. Some times brutal violence.
The brutal violence, which, however necessary and unavoidable, would be on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube within seconds — shot from the angles and edited for emphasizing the brutality while hiding, what made it necessary and unavoidable.
We are the idiots, and our politicians reflect that... Especially, Democratic politicians, I might add...
And the Democratic Party was supporting slavery in the 19th century — and still had a KKK "Grand Wizard" among it Senators until his recent death.
Whether it is "the same" or not, it is openly violent and favors the ever-increasing government control of the means of production. Which makes them very very Fascist.
They do. But they are also the legislature (creating rules), judiciary (determining, whether a rule is broken), and executive (acting on such determination) at once. Whether their action is sincere, or simply seeking to avoid boycotts and/or DOSing, they are wrong.
I do hate Daily Stormer with passion — since 2014, when they dismissed all of Ukraine's figures as "Jews" — if GoDaddy was Ok with them before, there is no reason to kick them out now.
Certainly not with such haste... 24 hours to move a site? Ridiculous...
The massive outrage about this is curiously selective. The "alt-right" are blamed for the violence even though they held their gathering and were attacked by the counter-protesters, who've been viciously violent before. All of the reports about the car charging into a crowd mention "melees" and "skirmishes" already occurring prior to that in passing. Oh, that's because someone died? Well, there were politically-motivated attacks with a deadly weapon before — sheer luck, that asshole merely injured his victims.
Lastly, much as the Nazist symbols and racism annoy me, they clearly have no real following and thus pose little danger. Meanwhile, the symbols of Communists and other hate-groups (like Black Lives Matter) were also on display and those, despite being far deadlier, do not seem to outrage anyone...
Dude, your earlier words are right here in this thread: "Additional cultural and gender view points make for better software/hardware/business decisions". This is you arguing for hiring women because they are women — not hiding their identity, but making it obvious and influencing the hiring decision.
I think, we are done here...
So, they were useful in dealing with sexists? Seriously, that's your example?
Your admission of ignorance is touching, but where was that humility, when you stated confidently, that there it is never the case, where the feminine viewpoint may be detrimental? Nothing useful some times is useful at all times — except feminine viewpoint?..
The giant pink elephant in the room of your thinking remains: you openly argue for considering a person's sex, when making a hiring decision. How do you not see this position as sexist, escapes me...
There was a movie, where a female musician fooled the admissions panel of a major orchestra by wearing her husband's shoes to the audition. To prevent bias, the rest of the applicant's body was always hidden by a curtain, but she suspected — correctly — that the men saw her shoes and rejected her in the earlier audition because they could see female footwear. Her character was very sympathetic and all the viewers cheered her victory and felt disgust with the old farts, that made such trickery necessary, and how their jaws dropped when the curtain was lifted and they realized, they were had.
The men may soon need to learn to wear high heels. And though to some that may seem like a well-deserved payback, it is just as disgusting and unfair. Individuals ought to be judged on their individual merits, period.
Not just "diverse" — feminine viewpoint is what you like. Why is it useful in a software engineering team? I'd understand, why it may help to have people liking different technologies (C vs. Java), but what is so special about women?
And if whatever it is really does exist, and sexually-diverse engineering teams really are better than others, why don't companies seek that voluntarily — without the threat of legal action?
How could it be?
As well as better fighting, right? What is it, that a woman adds to an infantry company, that makes her more desirable in one than a stronger man? She can not carry as much ammunition or handle a mortar as handily — what is it, that she does bring to a fight to compensate for those obvious shortcomings?