Exactly. A Left-Wing wacko purposely hunts down Republicans and the answer is "abolish guns."
I used to decry the statement "leftism is a mental disorder" but you know what? Maybe there is something there.
A person hunts down people who disagrees with (whether it's Republicans or Democrats, Christians or Muslims, Gays or Straights, Men or Women) your outrage ought to be at the person and those who promote such cause (Trump being killed and beheaded) as opposed to the availability of an inanimate object.
that's just equating "defending Sharia law" with "wanting to implement all Sharia law", which isn't the same
And where do you draw the line? I have heard progressives outraged at Christians and Conservatives but, for far worse statements said by imams and Muslim speakers I've heard....... from progressives.
Saying "Please God" is one thing. Taking over a public square or street is another.
It's one thing to wear a balaclava to keep yourself warm or to protect yourself from wind. It's another to keep yourself covered for political reasons (the KKK, AntiFa); and custom has not been accepted as an end-all-be-all reason to do what you want (even if it has religious rational):
- polygamy
- clitoridectomy (we're now seeing a pushback against circumcision )
- prayer is not considered to be a substitute for surgery
We have gone too far in cases such as preventing the use of firecrackers in Chinese celebrations. And we've been hypocritical (such as allowing one group of people to use mushrooms but not all). Here's an interesting factoid - it's custom NOT religion that requires the full-body covering.
Re arbitration. Of course. Anyone can use arbitration but:
1. arbitration agreements cannot under any stretch of the imagination contravene US law.
2. arbitration agreements cannot be so worded as to circumvent US law. (Send a girl child back to Pakistan to be punished by the family there.)
3.If one party breaks the agreement the US government doesn't enforce the original agreement. It now (as it does for other arbitration agreements) enters the purview of US courts.
No. I didn't even realize that was the question you were asking. No. Of course not.
That being said I think we - as citizens - need to actively convince show proponents of Sharia Law that blasphemy laws have no place here. The prayer in public squares have no place here. That no prayer rooms are required from employers; that the full face must be shown when walking down the street; that sharia courts cannot be used in place of civil courts (and yes they exist ).
Do you actually believe there was a "hack" - an altering or deletion of voting data?
And do you believe it was to help Trump? There's no reason to think that Hillary wouldn't play ball with the Russians. All they would have to do is donate to her foundation. Evidence that Hillary would work with the Russians include removing early warning systems from the Baltic states,uranium mine, giving the Shah's money back to Iran.
If you believe that the above is possible then you should be advocating that we return to the old mechanical systems. They are unhackable.
Except how many Jews and Christians in 2017 are actively promoting blasphemy laws. The majority of Christians under 30 are libertarian enough not to oppose gay marriage.
Jews and Christians aren't promoting stoning of adulterers.
There is plenty of evidence (see the debates on youtube between atheists and Muslims, between Christian apologists and Muslim apologists and hear the questions. Watch the videos muslim speakers (with 1000s in attendance) saying that every iota, every jot must be followed and see the crowd applaud (and these are in the West - not Pakistan).
I understand that not every aspect of sharia is hateful. Who the eff cares if someone eats pork or not. Don't want to eat pork? Fine.
It's horrifying that so many people want this ideology - and I don't care if they do. But not here. We have enough problem with Christian fundamentalists that the last thing I want to do is to import more.
One concept of Islamic Jurisprudence deals with contradiction in the Koran by arguing that those which came later supersede those that came before it. Next time you hear "there is no compulsion in Islam" remember that it is superseded by that which came after. Muslim liars will say to the uninformed - "and remember this is one of the first verses in the Koran." For the uninformed that implies it's one of the more important verses. For the muslim - it's been superseded. I'll let you figure out what verse triumphed.
As an atheist I do not want more Islamic immigration and I want Muslims here to clearly understand that charges of blasphemy will fall upon deaf ears; and that both left and right are united against this sh!t.
We have numerous videos, from Linda Sasour to numerous debates and interviews of people wanting Sharia Law.
Nobody gives a damn about Muslims not eating pork, or fasting during Ramadan. What people care about is the Koran deals with how others ought to behave. The fact that you can find things in the old testament is less important than how people behave.
Ask how your atheist friends would be treated under Sharia, your gay friends. Look at the polling among Muslims regarding blasphemy laws, It's frightening.
And what's sad is when progressives equate Islamofascists with Baptists and Mormons. Imagine if the Greenborough Church (I think that's the one) became one of the dominant Christian denomination and were actively killing people then there would be a point of comparison.
What makes neo Conservatism separate from Paleo Conservatism is
1. foreign interventionism.
2. the rejection of social issues.
3. the general thought that the success of international trade (multi-national companies) is good for world peace and the world economy.
Paleo Conservatives were
1. isolationists
2. thought social issues were of primary importance
3. were more for main street economy and jobs in the US (as opposed to multi-national companies) and were for tariffs.
The quintessential PaleoConservative was Patrick Buchanan -
1. opposed to the Gulf War
2. big on social issues
3. against NAFTA, etc...
That's very true. I would prefer that we denounced Saudi Arabia and brought out the relationship between the Wahabbi's and the Saudi leadership.
As important as that is it is more imperative that both left and right denounce Sharia Law and ask supporters of Sharia Law which tenets of the faith that they denounce?
Instead we have progressives defending Sharia law. WTF?
I guess what counts about the arms sale is - how much of this can be used against the US and its allies (precious little). Will the arm sales help ISIS? No. Will the arm sales help "lone wolf" actors? No.
So. US Companies made billions. US workers have jobs. Local, State and the Federal Government collect taxes.
I'm less exercised about the arms sale than people not standing up and saying that if you want blasphemy laws don't come to this country. If you want Sharia law - fine. But not here.
"I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."
This is a tricky situation but what do we do with people who knowingly publish harmful untruths. The problem, of course, is in determining what is an untruth. Clearly Dan Rather lied with the Bush memos. I think public ridicule is the solution. But he did lie. (Of course there will always be knuckleheads who pretend that it wasn't a lie.)
I understand the outrage, especially if the BS is directed at you, but thankfully this one thing that the President has no control over.
The original NeoCons were ex-Socialists from the 1960s who became conservative in the 1970s. They formed the intellectual framework of what we call Neo-Cons. They convinced others of their interventionist viewpoint and became an important force in the Republican Party during the 1990s. Patrick Buchanan and other (those we now call PaleoCons) railed against the NeoCon viewpoint.
This quote from Wikipedia is pretty good:
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism.[2] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[3][4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.[5][6] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973),[9] though in doing so they may draw upon meaning that Strauss himself did not endorse.
"Security" is not necessarily a concern with SoCons. Culture is. Are there SoCons who are also very big on national security? Of course. The PaleoCons such as Patrick Buchanan (who by the way are non-interventionists) and the NeoCons (ex Socialists who became Conservative in the 1970s - and their intellectual descendants) who, as we all know, are big interventionists.
- Trump is for security against Islamofascism. I hope he's not into nation building and other such things (so far no indication of that).
- Trump is for the US following existing law regarding immigration. Whether you like the laws or not they ought to be enforced - OR CHANGED. The solution is not, as the previous presidents have done, is to ignore existing law because they didn't want to enforce it.
- He's not an ideologue for either free trade or interventionism. Nuanced would be the term if he was Obama. But since he's an evil, orange, oompa-lumpa then we call it "schizo" or "un-thought out" or whatever.
You mock him with the Bill Gates quote. I hope you, like me, equally mock AntiFa and SJW who shut down speech by rioting or by demanding that Facebook or Reddit or whatever remove and restrict content they don't like.
This is a philosophical battle - Free Speech is essential for a free society.
Sure and we can stop obesity by prohibiting the sale of lots of things.
We can reduce drug addiction by executing addicts.
We can eliminate homelessness by executing people found sleeping in the streets.
Of course, government coercion can do all sorts of great things. Can we pass laws that makes smoking so onerous that people would desist? Yes. Do you really want to give such power to the government? Really?
Over 30,000 deaths? Dude. 2/3 of those are suicides.
IF we had a higher suicide rate than countries with strict gun laws then you would have a point. But the US does not have a higher suicide rate.
And protection against the gov't means civil war. None of us want that. Your disdain for the argument in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan should how little you are thinking through the issue.
Now nobody wants the US to turn into Iraq but if you feel that gov't is immorally and unconstitutionally putting people into jail for personal profit - and you don't think you should protect yourself from said government... well. That doesn't make much sense to me.
As of right now it's like Dan Rather saying he has evidence that George Bush's basically did a poor job in the National Guard and it comes out that the evidence was manufactured. (Memos, that were supposed to be from the 1970s, were written in Microsoft Word. OOOPS)
We would never had known that Rather and his crew were lying if they hadn't released the memos.
Now they've smarted up. They save that we have "evidence" but they don't release it. This is something that can be dropped into Github and we would have tens of thousands of people combing through the data.
And there is no reason any free market leaning, not to mention Libertarian leaning, Republican who would have the slightest problem with this. As a matter of fact they would argue that this is the free market in action (note to socialist Free Market means not government directed).
So, your snarky message completely misses the point. Not to mention that SoCons are (at most 25% of Republicans) and there influence is waning in key areas such as gay marriage (That fight has been won) and in abortion they are (even in their most restrictive moments) less restrictive than Roe v Wade. (Roe v Wade, in case you didn't know, restricted abortion to the first trimester)
Glad to see others who want to limit governmental overreach.
Although I think that most people who are in favor of criminalizing drugs do so from the belief that that is the way to stop people from doing harm. Are people too fat raise taxes on soda; does a sick person shoot up a school then guns are the problem and to hell to people who think they have a right to defend themselves from predators (and the gov't); do you need money to do good - then raise taxes.
OK guess I was ranting./rant
Still. I think many people who are for criminalizing drugs do so because they feel that is the way to prevent other people from taking drugs, not because they want to enrich cronies who are giving them kick-back money.
Obviously people who believe in the almighty state AND believe they can individual freedom at the same time are idiotic, brain-dead fools and I shouldn't waste my time talking with them. They're pathetic. They should be ignored and shouted down.
The same goes for x, y and z.
Whenever you disagree with people you should ignore them. Some one call for blasphemy laws. Ignore them. Someone says that diluting a substance 1000x makes it more potent. Ignore them.
No. Always engage. And if you're too tired that day fine - but ignoring doesn't do any good.
The earth moves around the sun? Ignore that idiot.
Tiny beings you can't see cause diseases? Ignore that idiot.
The continents move? Ignore that idiot.
Funny how you parse things to death with the Presidents you dislike and consider it nuance with the Presidents you do like.
Climate Change Aint Real == Humans are not the prime mover of Global Warming.
(note the deception by climate change people. 10 years ago it was global warming... now it's climate change).
The problem with climate change proponents is we're taking our eye off the the real harm - pollutants. (I guess Al Gore and company couldn't profit enough from that.)
There seems to be hostility among many Native Americans to any inquiry that challenges the belief that there was a migration across the Bering Straight about 12 -15,000 years ago and then spread out across previously empty continents. (Empty of humans.)
I really have no stake in this outside of scientific curiosity. If that description of our history fits the facts, great. If it doesn't why should anyone be upset about it? And yet... I've read numerous articles where Native Americans are impeding investigations (more than simply burial rights) and decrying alternative theories. WTF?
Who cares if the Americas were settled by numerous migrations over tens of thousands of years. Let's explore the facts; create reasoned hypotheses based upon evidence and do more research. What happened in the past happened.
Alt-Right? If by Alt-Right you mean Spencer and his band of idiotic misfits then you just lumped in Libertarians (Cato, von Mises, Federalist ) in with white nationalists.
You don't like free-market philosophy? Fine. Not in favor of limited government? OK. Persuade people that your economic and regulatory model is superior. But Spencer and his band are not for the free market and The Federalist and other Free Market organizations are not in favor of the almighty state (whether distributionalist or racist in spirit ).
And, if you can't even read, or accept arguments made by people with an opposing point of view - well then. What does that say about you?
Slashdot Mirror
No muthafuka. How stupid can you be?
I hope you're trolling and not this mentally f**ked up.
A person kills people he disagrees with and you're so f**king stupid as to talk about further restricting guns?
The laws don't prevent this anymore than they prevent prostitution or drugs.
Exactly. A Left-Wing wacko purposely hunts down Republicans and the answer is "abolish guns."
I used to decry the statement "leftism is a mental disorder" but you know what? Maybe there is something there.
A person hunts down people who disagrees with (whether it's Republicans or Democrats, Christians or Muslims, Gays or Straights, Men or Women) your outrage ought to be at the person and those who promote such cause (Trump being killed and beheaded) as opposed to the availability of an inanimate object.
It sounds like a lot but its less than 16 square miles.
640 acres per mile.
10,000 acres
15.625 square miles
And the hunters don't cull the herd? Or is that verboten in California?
that's just equating "defending Sharia law" with "wanting to implement all Sharia law", which isn't the same
And where do you draw the line? I have heard progressives outraged at Christians and Conservatives but, for far worse statements said by imams and Muslim speakers I've heard ....... from progressives.
Saying "Please God" is one thing. Taking over a public square or street is another.
It's one thing to wear a balaclava to keep yourself warm or to protect yourself from wind. It's another to keep yourself covered for political reasons (the KKK, AntiFa); and custom has not been accepted as an end-all-be-all reason to do what you want (even if it has religious rational):
- polygamy
- clitoridectomy (we're now seeing a pushback against circumcision )
- prayer is not considered to be a substitute for surgery
We have gone too far in cases such as preventing the use of firecrackers in Chinese celebrations. And we've been hypocritical (such as allowing one group of people to use mushrooms but not all). Here's an interesting factoid - it's custom NOT religion that requires the full-body covering.
Re arbitration. Of course. Anyone can use arbitration but:
1. arbitration agreements cannot under any stretch of the imagination contravene US law.
2. arbitration agreements cannot be so worded as to circumvent US law. (Send a girl child back to Pakistan to be punished by the family there.)
3.If one party breaks the agreement the US government doesn't enforce the original agreement. It now (as it does for other arbitration agreements) enters the purview of US courts.
No. I didn't even realize that was the question you were asking. No. Of course not.
That being said I think we - as citizens - need to actively convince show proponents of Sharia Law that blasphemy laws have no place here. The prayer in public squares have no place here. That no prayer rooms are required from employers; that the full face must be shown when walking down the street; that sharia courts cannot be used in place of civil courts (and yes they exist ).
And much, much more.
Do you actually believe there was a "hack" - an altering or deletion of voting data?
And do you believe it was to help Trump? There's no reason to think that Hillary wouldn't play ball with the Russians. All they would have to do is donate to her foundation. Evidence that Hillary would work with the Russians include removing early warning systems from the Baltic states,uranium mine, giving the Shah's money back to Iran.
If you believe that the above is possible then you should be advocating that we return to the old mechanical systems. They are unhackable.
Except how many Jews and Christians in 2017 are actively promoting blasphemy laws. The majority of Christians under 30 are libertarian enough not to oppose gay marriage.
Jews and Christians aren't promoting stoning of adulterers.
There is plenty of evidence (see the debates on youtube between atheists and Muslims, between Christian apologists and Muslim apologists and hear the questions. Watch the videos muslim speakers (with 1000s in attendance) saying that every iota, every jot must be followed and see the crowd applaud (and these are in the West - not Pakistan).
I understand that not every aspect of sharia is hateful. Who the eff cares if someone eats pork or not. Don't want to eat pork? Fine.
It's horrifying that so many people want this ideology - and I don't care if they do. But not here. We have enough problem with Christian fundamentalists that the last thing I want to do is to import more.
One concept of Islamic Jurisprudence deals with contradiction in the Koran by arguing that those which came later supersede those that came before it. Next time you hear "there is no compulsion in Islam" remember that it is superseded by that which came after. Muslim liars will say to the uninformed - "and remember this is one of the first verses in the Koran." For the uninformed that implies it's one of the more important verses. For the muslim - it's been superseded. I'll let you figure out what verse triumphed.
As an atheist I do not want more Islamic immigration and I want Muslims here to clearly understand that charges of blasphemy will fall upon deaf ears; and that both left and right are united against this sh!t.
We have numerous videos, from Linda Sasour to numerous debates and interviews of people wanting Sharia Law.
Nobody gives a damn about Muslims not eating pork, or fasting during Ramadan. What people care about is the Koran deals with how others ought to behave. The fact that you can find things in the old testament is less important than how people behave. Ask how your atheist friends would be treated under Sharia, your gay friends. Look at the polling among Muslims regarding blasphemy laws, It's frightening.
And what's sad is when progressives equate Islamofascists with Baptists and Mormons. Imagine if the Greenborough Church (I think that's the one) became one of the dominant Christian denomination and were actively killing people then there would be a point of comparison.
What makes neo Conservatism separate from Paleo Conservatism is
1. foreign interventionism.
2. the rejection of social issues.
3. the general thought that the success of international trade (multi-national companies) is good for world peace and the world economy.
Paleo Conservatives were
1. isolationists
2. thought social issues were of primary importance
3. were more for main street economy and jobs in the US (as opposed to multi-national companies) and were for tariffs.
The quintessential PaleoConservative was Patrick Buchanan -
1. opposed to the Gulf War
2. big on social issues
3. against NAFTA, etc...
That's very true. I would prefer that we denounced Saudi Arabia and brought out the relationship between the Wahabbi's and the Saudi leadership. As important as that is it is more imperative that both left and right denounce Sharia Law and ask supporters of Sharia Law which tenets of the faith that they denounce?
Instead we have progressives defending Sharia law. WTF?
I guess what counts about the arms sale is - how much of this can be used against the US and its allies (precious little). Will the arm sales help ISIS? No. Will the arm sales help "lone wolf" actors? No.
So. US Companies made billions. US workers have jobs. Local, State and the Federal Government collect taxes.
I'm less exercised about the arms sale than people not standing up and saying that if you want blasphemy laws don't come to this country. If you want Sharia law - fine. But not here.
"I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." This is a tricky situation but what do we do with people who knowingly publish harmful untruths. The problem, of course, is in determining what is an untruth. Clearly Dan Rather lied with the Bush memos. I think public ridicule is the solution. But he did lie. (Of course there will always be knuckleheads who pretend that it wasn't a lie.)
I understand the outrage, especially if the BS is directed at you, but thankfully this one thing that the President has no control over.
This quote from Wikipedia is pretty good:
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism.[2] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[3][4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.[5][6] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973),[9] though in doing so they may draw upon meaning that Strauss himself did not endorse.
"Security" is not necessarily a concern with SoCons. Culture is. Are there SoCons who are also very big on national security? Of course. The PaleoCons such as Patrick Buchanan (who by the way are non-interventionists) and the NeoCons (ex Socialists who became Conservative in the 1970s - and their intellectual descendants) who, as we all know, are big interventionists.
- Trump is for security against Islamofascism. I hope he's not into nation building and other such things (so far no indication of that).
- Trump is for the US following existing law regarding immigration. Whether you like the laws or not they ought to be enforced - OR CHANGED. The solution is not, as the previous presidents have done, is to ignore existing law because they didn't want to enforce it.
- He's not an ideologue for either free trade or interventionism. Nuanced would be the term if he was Obama. But since he's an evil, orange, oompa-lumpa then we call it "schizo" or "un-thought out" or whatever.
You mock him with the Bill Gates quote. I hope you, like me, equally mock AntiFa and SJW who shut down speech by rioting or by demanding that Facebook or Reddit or whatever remove and restrict content they don't like.
This is a philosophical battle - Free Speech is essential for a free society.
Sure and we can stop obesity by prohibiting the sale of lots of things.
We can reduce drug addiction by executing addicts.
We can eliminate homelessness by executing people found sleeping in the streets.
Of course, government coercion can do all sorts of great things. Can we pass laws that makes smoking so onerous that people would desist? Yes. Do you really want to give such power to the government? Really?
Over 30,000 deaths? Dude. 2/3 of those are suicides.
... well. That doesn't make much sense to me.
IF we had a higher suicide rate than countries with strict gun laws then you would have a point. But the US does not have a higher suicide rate.
And protection against the gov't means civil war. None of us want that. Your disdain for the argument in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan should how little you are thinking through the issue.
Now nobody wants the US to turn into Iraq but if you feel that gov't is immorally and unconstitutionally putting people into jail for personal profit - and you don't think you should protect yourself from said government
Bingo. Give the man a f**king cigar.
Every server gets constantly "attacked."
Make the data public and let us examine it.
As of right now it's like Dan Rather saying he has evidence that George Bush's basically did a poor job in the National Guard and it comes out that the evidence was manufactured. (Memos, that were supposed to be from the 1970s, were written in Microsoft Word. OOOPS)
We would never had known that Rather and his crew were lying if they hadn't released the memos.
Now they've smarted up. They save that we have "evidence" but they don't release it. This is something that can be dropped into Github and we would have tens of thousands of people combing through the data.
You do realize that Trump is not a SoCon right?
And there is no reason any free market leaning, not to mention Libertarian leaning, Republican who would have the slightest problem with this. As a matter of fact they would argue that this is the free market in action (note to socialist Free Market means not government directed).
So, your snarky message completely misses the point. Not to mention that SoCons are (at most 25% of Republicans) and there influence is waning in key areas such as gay marriage (That fight has been won) and in abortion they are (even in their most restrictive moments) less restrictive than Roe v Wade. (Roe v Wade, in case you didn't know, restricted abortion to the first trimester)
Glad to see others who want to limit governmental overreach.
/rant
Although I think that most people who are in favor of criminalizing drugs do so from the belief that that is the way to stop people from doing harm. Are people too fat raise taxes on soda; does a sick person shoot up a school then guns are the problem and to hell to people who think they have a right to defend themselves from predators (and the gov't); do you need money to do good - then raise taxes.
OK guess I was ranting.
Still. I think many people who are for criminalizing drugs do so because they feel that is the way to prevent other people from taking drugs, not because they want to enrich cronies who are giving them kick-back money.
First of all banning is not a solution.
Have you not seen how well that's worked on alcohol and weed and other drugs?
The only question for a regulatory body would be to answer: "Do eCigarettes add unstated (or unknown) poisons into your body?"
A secondary question would be: "Are eCigarettes better than actual cigarettes?"
On the surface the answer is yes:
One is not burning paper and leaves. One is primarily ingesting nicotine.
Yes. Absolutely. And debate Young Earthers.
Obviously people who believe in the almighty state AND believe they can individual freedom at the same time are idiotic, brain-dead fools and I shouldn't waste my time talking with them. They're pathetic. They should be ignored and shouted down.
The same goes for x, y and z.
Whenever you disagree with people you should ignore them. Some one call for blasphemy laws. Ignore them. Someone says that diluting a substance 1000x makes it more potent. Ignore them.
No. Always engage. And if you're too tired that day fine - but ignoring doesn't do any good.
The earth moves around the sun? Ignore that idiot.
Tiny beings you can't see cause diseases? Ignore that idiot.
The continents move? Ignore that idiot.
Funny how you parse things to death with the Presidents you dislike and consider it nuance with the Presidents you do like.
... now it's climate change).
Climate Change Aint Real == Humans are not the prime mover of Global Warming.
(note the deception by climate change people. 10 years ago it was global warming
The problem with climate change proponents is we're taking our eye off the the real harm - pollutants. (I guess Al Gore and company couldn't profit enough from that.)
There seems to be hostility among many Native Americans to any inquiry that challenges the belief that there was a migration across the Bering Straight about 12 -15,000 years ago and then spread out across previously empty continents. (Empty of humans.)
... I've read numerous articles where Native Americans are impeding investigations (more than simply burial rights) and decrying alternative theories. WTF?
I really have no stake in this outside of scientific curiosity. If that description of our history fits the facts, great. If it doesn't why should anyone be upset about it? And yet
Who cares if the Americas were settled by numerous migrations over tens of thousands of years. Let's explore the facts; create reasoned hypotheses based upon evidence and do more research. What happened in the past happened.
There it is. End of story. (For me, anyway.)
OK.
:)
I didn't go to the article. I'm sure that must come as a surprise.
What?
Alt-Right? If by Alt-Right you mean Spencer and his band of idiotic misfits then you just lumped in Libertarians (Cato, von Mises, Federalist ) in with white nationalists.
You don't like free-market philosophy? Fine. Not in favor of limited government? OK. Persuade people that your economic and regulatory model is superior. But Spencer and his band are not for the free market and The Federalist and other Free Market organizations are not in favor of the almighty state (whether distributionalist or racist in spirit ).
And, if you can't even read, or accept arguments made by people with an opposing point of view - well then. What does that say about you?