The attempt that is being made is in the silencing of opposition due to fear of speaking out.
Did your newspapers publish the danish cartoons? I don't know. I know that the NYTimes and US papers punked out. Did your papers publish the Charlie cartoons in the aftermath of the killings? I know the US papers punked out.
Everytime you don't defend freedom of speech, freedom of thought, in the face of adversity you weaken your claim that you are a supporter of free speech.
What did Hillary Clinton do in the aftermath of Benghazi? She blamed the attacks on spontaneous outrage due to a pathetic movie on the prophet muhammad. Did your papers defend free speech or go tisk, tisk, "such bigotry in the movie." If they did not defend free speech. If you did not defend free speech then your remarks above are worthless.
When it comes to actual laws being passed you will have backed down again and again. Now is the time to say freedom of speech trumps blasphemy laws. Now is the time to do something.
The issue is not: "is there Sharia law in Britain".
The issue is: are there a growing amount of people willing to use force to implement Sharia Law in Britain. And if so, and if you want to prevent it - what steps do you take?
I would prefer Liberals start to debate and denounce people who promote blasphemy laws. Too many Muslims act and think like the left-wing's impression of Right-Wing Conservatives but in this case you don't hear a peep.
If Right-Wing Conservatives argued that the punishments stated in Leviticus should be implemented you would be all up in arms. And I would be there with you.
But Muslims are promoting the same punishments - and are carrying them out - and the Progressive Left says....
nothing.
So there isn't a problem of mass bombings and violence? And is this violence coming from a select group of people? And are we importing more people who have no respect for free speech (blasphemy laws) and no tolerance for any opinion that counters their book?
Now, if you then make the inane comparison of Christian fundamentalists who go tsk, tsk and who fight with the ballot box (as opposed to the cartridge box) then you are the one twisting logic.
The simplest solution is to say clearly that freedom of expression trumps blasphemy laws. People can say whatever they want about a religion - even if i's considered blasphemous by adherents of that religion.
And violence, and threat of violence are not acceptable with prison or deportation (if non-citizen) as punishments.
You don't want a draconian surveillance state? Good. Now stand up for freedom of speech and thought and stop trying so hard to not offend.
The above also requires most citizens to pay 30-50% of their income in taxes,
You realize that many people pay 30-50% taxes in the US right?
For $100,000/year:
NYC - 3.5%
NYS - 6%
Federal - 26%
That's over 30% not counting 8.875 sales tax; real estate tax; water and sewage tax; $15 tolls to cross bridges.
yeah. tax rate already meets your standards. And no. Taxes should not go higher. And no, higher taxes will not solve the problem. Every politician comes round and says "raise taxes and 'x' will be done." Years go by, the taxes are raised and 'x' is still not done.
There is science denial in some conservative circles. But how many in "liberal" circles? Gaia activists are strong in liberal circles; as are vaxers.
I think that pollutants - dioxins, PCBs are a million times more of a concern than CO2 levels. I would rather the EPA proved competent in dealing with toxic waste swamps as opposed to declaring some mildly wet suburban area as "wet lands" that cannot be infringed upon without the wrath of government crashing down on you. The lack of priority, the lack of competence makes me wonder about what their ends are. The fact that the EPA gets a pass from their supporters makes me question the sincerity of those individuals as well.
Why would a free-market person or even social conservative want a coal burning car. Oh, you think because, others are not Chicken Littles flapping their arms around then we don't care about the environment. The problem with the EPA is not their stated goal of clean air and water but their ham-handed way of going about it.
Are you saying that free market people do not understand comparative advantage?
Or are you saying that Trump supporters are opposed to the free market?
Or maybe there coalitions that support candidates for a variety of reasons - and that not all the positions held by the supporters are in common? (Think of a Venn diagram).
Free markets supporters of Trump (because Hillary was the opponent) are certainly aware.
Interesting bringing forth a libertarian, free-market argument against Trump. (Unless I misunderstood your position) Therefore you agree that not all Republicans are for the free market.
By the NAFTA is not an example of free and open markets. Neither is TPP.
Stop your FUD. It's ridiculous. Do you really think that Republicans want dirty water and pollution choked skies? Think about what you're saying. Opposition to the ham-handed EPA does not mean wanting to have toxic waste dumps leaching into ground water.
You're giving yourself heart palpitations for no reasons. There are other, well-founded reasons, to be opposed to Trump. This is f00king retarded.
#NeverTrump,
#NeverHillary. Vote Third Party in 2016 and beyond.
curb ILLEGAL immigration. Have a legal process and stick to it.
drill for oil at home because
--- jobs here
-- stop sending money to Saudi Arabia which then funnels their money to expand their totalitarian ideology
-- (conversely they are not opposed to renewable energy)
By opposing the keystone pipeline and wiping out coal progressives have a Trump Presidency. Was it worth it? No.
Why? Because the Democrats used to be the party of labor. No longer. They've been "expanding their base" to the point where now they lost their base. Mitt Romney wasn't able to pull the disenfranchised "labor" party. But Trump certainly was.
Gay rights have won. (Too many people consider a left/right issue when it's not). I consider it won because over 50% of Republicans and Christians under 30 years old agree with a live-and-let-live arrangement on this issue. Interestingly it is the "spiking of the football" by gay activists by calling all those who aren't in favor of gay marriage to be bigots. You realize that you are calling all religious Christians, Jews and Muslims disgusting bigots. And if you believe that then why are you so dead set in importing more of these bigots. You think the Syrian imports are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-individual liberty? Are you fooking kidding me?
You focus on things that were not the driving force for these people. You focus on the progressive agenda - and not the labor agenda; showing once again that the American left is no longer the labor party.
You realize that creationism is a Democratic and Independent "thing" as well.
Your position is poor. It's like saying that since Democrats (some democrats) believe in homeopathy and gaia that Democrats are anti-science and anti-facts.
I voted in union elections and there was a ballot box by every row in the hall. You filled out your ballot in your seat then walked up and inserted it into the ballot box.
Tell me, if you were unhappy with the leadership, who could hurt you by not calling your name during shape-up (when you get called for a job) how would you vote?
Would YOU be comfortable in that scenario.
And don't forget union dues, which are forcibly pulled from your paycheck, and then "donated" to candidates that you may not approve of.
Do you really believe that? Why wouldn't US companies continue to buy from Saddam? What difference would it make to them who they paid for the oil? If you were correct in your assertion - which you're not - then why didn't the US seize the oil; why isn't the oil being pumped by US companies and brought to the US?
That never happened. You pretend you understand something; buy a line of crap and then distort facts to fit your fantasy.
Absolutely correct. I'm one of those 10 percent. I love my fitbit. I've had it for over a year and find it a great little motivator. The only downside is the times I forget it and the dumb thought pops into my head: "why walk the extra blocks / climb the stairs if they're not being recorded."
Look at a graph of global temperatures and you see a huge variation over the hundreds of millions of years. And I'm not talkig about the swing in temperatures pre large-fauna. Even 50 million years ago when mammals comprised the dominant species the temperature and CO2 levels were far higher.
Remember our original posts were focused on the rise of temperature starting 150 years ago.
No. I'm saying that human CO2 production until 1850 was negligible. Infer from this what you will. If there was a huge increase in global warming starting in the 18th C then it had nothing to do with human activity.
Slashdot Mirror
The attempt that is being made is in the silencing of opposition due to fear of speaking out.
Did your newspapers publish the danish cartoons? I don't know. I know that the NYTimes and US papers punked out. Did your papers publish the Charlie cartoons in the aftermath of the killings? I know the US papers punked out.
Everytime you don't defend freedom of speech, freedom of thought, in the face of adversity you weaken your claim that you are a supporter of free speech.
What did Hillary Clinton do in the aftermath of Benghazi? She blamed the attacks on spontaneous outrage due to a pathetic movie on the prophet muhammad. Did your papers defend free speech or go tisk, tisk, "such bigotry in the movie." If they did not defend free speech. If you did not defend free speech then your remarks above are worthless.
When it comes to actual laws being passed you will have backed down again and again. Now is the time to say freedom of speech trumps blasphemy laws. Now is the time to do something.
The issue is not: "is there Sharia law in Britain".
....
nothing.
The issue is: are there a growing amount of people willing to use force to implement Sharia Law in Britain. And if so, and if you want to prevent it - what steps do you take?
I would prefer Liberals start to debate and denounce people who promote blasphemy laws. Too many Muslims act and think like the left-wing's impression of Right-Wing Conservatives but in this case you don't hear a peep.
If Right-Wing Conservatives argued that the punishments stated in Leviticus should be implemented you would be all up in arms. And I would be there with you.
But Muslims are promoting the same punishments - and are carrying them out - and the Progressive Left says
true :-(
Yes. Fortunately blasphemy laws were abolished 8 years ago.
Bull$h!t.
Islam still considers blasphemy laws to be punishable by death.
Islam still kills people for leaving their religion.
All 4 main schools of jurisprudence agrees on those points. Adherents to the religion agree to it.
So there isn't a problem of mass bombings and violence? And is this violence coming from a select group of people? And are we importing more people who have no respect for free speech (blasphemy laws) and no tolerance for any opinion that counters their book?
Now, if you then make the inane comparison of Christian fundamentalists who go tsk, tsk and who fight with the ballot box (as opposed to the cartridge box) then you are the one twisting logic.
The simplest solution is to say clearly that freedom of expression trumps blasphemy laws. People can say whatever they want about a religion - even if i's considered blasphemous by adherents of that religion.
And violence, and threat of violence are not acceptable with prison or deportation (if non-citizen) as punishments.
You don't want a draconian surveillance state? Good. Now stand up for freedom of speech and thought and stop trying so hard to not offend.
And, what if they're not Nazi's? Alt-Right != Nazi.
What is an alt-right? He's someone that took the left-wing-identity-politics and applies the principles to European history.
Identity politics, cultural appropriation nonsense is stupid, inane and pathetic. It applies to all groups.
The Alt-Right is an unintended consequence of the modern progressive's university curriculum.
If the Alt-Right is racist then so are proponents of identity politics. Welcome to the world you created.
I, for one, think that identity politics is racist. Now if identity politics is not racist then the Alt-Right is not racist.
(This doesn't mean that there aren't Neo-Nazis and other out there. Only that the broad brush denunciation is inaccurate.
Common guys. Appreciate the nuance of it all.
The above also requires most citizens to pay 30-50% of their income in taxes,
You realize that many people pay 30-50% taxes in the US right?
For $100,000/year:
NYC - 3.5%
NYS - 6%
Federal - 26%
That's over 30% not counting 8.875 sales tax; real estate tax; water and sewage tax; $15 tolls to cross bridges.
yeah. tax rate already meets your standards. And no. Taxes should not go higher. And no, higher taxes will not solve the problem. Every politician comes round and says "raise taxes and 'x' will be done." Years go by, the taxes are raised and 'x' is still not done.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
There is science denial in some conservative circles. But how many in "liberal" circles? Gaia activists are strong in liberal circles; as are vaxers.
I think that pollutants - dioxins, PCBs are a million times more of a concern than CO2 levels. I would rather the EPA proved competent in dealing with toxic waste swamps as opposed to declaring some mildly wet suburban area as "wet lands" that cannot be infringed upon without the wrath of government crashing down on you. The lack of priority, the lack of competence makes me wonder about what their ends are. The fact that the EPA gets a pass from their supporters makes me question the sincerity of those individuals as well.
Sad that so many people think the above is funny.
Why would a free-market person or even social conservative want a coal burning car. Oh, you think because, others are not Chicken Littles flapping their arms around then we don't care about the environment. The problem with the EPA is not their stated goal of clean air and water but their ham-handed way of going about it.
Funny how the nuances escape you.
Are you saying that free market people do not understand comparative advantage?
Or are you saying that Trump supporters are opposed to the free market?
Or maybe there coalitions that support candidates for a variety of reasons - and that not all the positions held by the supporters are in common? (Think of a Venn diagram).
Free markets supporters of Trump (because Hillary was the opponent) are certainly aware.
Heritage Foundataion.
Von Mises,
AEI,
ARI
See: https://mises.org/library/unde...
Interesting bringing forth a libertarian, free-market argument against Trump. (Unless I misunderstood your position) Therefore you agree that not all Republicans are for the free market.
By the NAFTA is not an example of free and open markets. Neither is TPP.
Stop your FUD. It's ridiculous. Do you really think that Republicans want dirty water and pollution choked skies? Think about what you're saying. Opposition to the ham-handed EPA does not mean wanting to have toxic waste dumps leaching into ground water.
You're giving yourself heart palpitations for no reasons. There are other, well-founded reasons, to be opposed to Trump. This is f00king retarded.
#NeverTrump,
#NeverHillary.
Vote Third Party in 2016 and beyond.
The main impetus of Trump supporters is:
curb ILLEGAL immigration. Have a legal process and stick to it.
drill for oil at home because
--- jobs here
-- stop sending money to Saudi Arabia which then funnels their money to expand their totalitarian ideology
-- (conversely they are not opposed to renewable energy)
By opposing the keystone pipeline and wiping out coal progressives have a Trump Presidency. Was it worth it? No. Why? Because the Democrats used to be the party of labor. No longer. They've been "expanding their base" to the point where now they lost their base. Mitt Romney wasn't able to pull the disenfranchised "labor" party. But Trump certainly was.
Gay rights have won. (Too many people consider a left/right issue when it's not). I consider it won because over 50% of Republicans and Christians under 30 years old agree with a live-and-let-live arrangement on this issue. Interestingly it is the "spiking of the football" by gay activists by calling all those who aren't in favor of gay marriage to be bigots. You realize that you are calling all religious Christians, Jews and Muslims disgusting bigots. And if you believe that then why are you so dead set in importing more of these bigots. You think the Syrian imports are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-individual liberty? Are you fooking kidding me?
You focus on things that were not the driving force for these people. You focus on the progressive agenda - and not the labor agenda; showing once again that the American left is no longer the labor party.
No. Now you're exaggerating by a mile. Having closed borders does not mean holocaust.
Not allowing immigrants who believe 70-90% in different PEW surveys in
- instituting religious law
- instituting blasphemy laws
- a religious philosophy that is counter to enlightenment ideals
We have enough religious totalitarians here. No need to import more.
Really? Do you equate dollars spent for NASA equal to dollars spent for welfare?
The FUD is strong with this one.
You realize that creationism is a Democratic and Independent "thing" as well.
Your position is poor. It's like saying that since Democrats (some democrats) believe in homeopathy and gaia that Democrats are anti-science and anti-facts.
You've never belonged to a union have you?
I voted in union elections and there was a ballot box by every row in the hall. You filled out your ballot in your seat then walked up and inserted it into the ballot box.
Tell me, if you were unhappy with the leadership, who could hurt you by not calling your name during shape-up (when you get called for a job) how would you vote?
Would YOU be comfortable in that scenario.
And don't forget union dues, which are forcibly pulled from your paycheck, and then "donated" to candidates that you may not approve of.
Both sides are potentially guilty of this.
Not everyone networks well. You can be a good programmer and a poor networker.
Do you really believe that? Why wouldn't US companies continue to buy from Saddam? What difference would it make to them who they paid for the oil? If you were correct in your assertion - which you're not - then why didn't the US seize the oil; why isn't the oil being pumped by US companies and brought to the US?
That never happened. You pretend you understand something; buy a line of crap and then distort facts to fit your fantasy.
I'm a NeverTrump.
Failed again. You assume too much.
The contortions the American Right go to to defend a fascist (yes, he is) dictator like Putin show where their true sympathies lie.
The contortions of the American Left for refusing to denounce Islamofascism show where their true sympathies lie.
Absolutely correct. I'm one of those 10 percent. I love my fitbit. I've had it for over a year and find it a great little motivator. The only downside is the times I forget it and the dumb thought pops into my head: "why walk the extra blocks / climb the stairs if they're not being recorded."
Hey, idiot. Most fisherman and gun and ammo readers are more concerned mono-culture than the average person.
Get your head out of your bag of tropes and actually meet and talk to people who aren't like you.
Good point. Unnecessary choice of words.
Look at a graph of global temperatures and you see a huge variation over the hundreds of millions of years. And I'm not talkig about the swing in temperatures pre large-fauna. Even 50 million years ago when mammals comprised the dominant species the temperature and CO2 levels were far higher.
Remember our original posts were focused on the rise of temperature starting 150 years ago.
No. I'm saying that human CO2 production until 1850 was negligible. Infer from this what you will. If there was a huge increase in global warming starting in the 18th C then it had nothing to do with human activity.