In the very same way Communism get ridden of the Bourgeois and Nobles by exterminating them. The objective is basically the same. Create an enemy, polarize the population and unite the bulk of it under you and retrieve the enemy resources. There is very little difference between Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's Communism. The measurable difference is that Stalin manage to actually kill more people.
Socialism in the classic definition is when the the Government (meaning "Society") runs everything, period. The objective may vary, but it is usually justified as "for the benefit of the population". Fascism rules the economy for the benefit of the nation and therefore in their view the people too, On the other hand Communism rules the economy in the benefit of The Proletarian and therefore in their view in the benefit of the people too. In reality both rule the economy in the benefit of the ruling class though.
Nazism is actually a contraction of National Socialism, by the way.
The misuse of the term "Socialism" to imply "Communist Socialism" is something relatively recent and a technique of disinformation our leftist "intellectuals" are very happy in maintaining and enforcing.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Fascism has absolutely nothing to do with Capitalism. Capitalism is as much as possible free-market (as complete free market and laissez faire capitalism don't exist) with minimum government intervention. Fascism is exactly the opposite, as any big state Socialist doctrine. Fascism is exactly like Comunism or Nazism in this sense. The only real difference between each of them is the imaginary enemy and the supposed objective of the movement. In Nazism the enemies are based on xenophobia and the objective is expansionist, in Fascism the enemies are "those that are undermining the Nation" and the objectives are Nationalists, in Communism the enemies are the Bourgeoisie and the Capital, and the objective is Egalitarian.
No civilian has the right to scare people by using warning shots, no matter how threatened he may be. It is reckless, illegal and irresponsible. Even cops will usually get in trouble if they decide to do that. If you are holding a gun, really feel threatened enough and feels it is justifiable be prepared to shoot your attacker.
1) US actually always had more resources than the soviet in pretty much everything.
2) You confuse Communism with Socialism. When we talk Socialism today we usually refer to Communist Socialism, which is a synonym to Communism, or Social Democracy, which has nothing to do with Authoritarianism, but we forget Socialism encompass far more doutrines, Nazism and Facism, for example are types of Socialisms (despite the unwillingness of some in accepting it mostly due to ignorance).
That said USSR was communist, and it didn't work because communist theory is inherently flawed, not because no one implemented it right yet.
Maybe he did it (you can't really trust the news these days), but if so it is irrelevant. There is a motive why spouses can't testify in your benefit, they tend to lie to help you. Even if you are an asshole and do not deserve the help.
What we do know for sure is that she was a recurring aggressor in domestic violence, not a defenseless victim.
But even if he was the aggressor this time, as a victim you don't go out, get a weapon, come back and fire it everywhere but in your aggressor to defend yourself. That is illegal, and should as well be.
If she was in the same circumstances GW was she would certainly have ended acquitted. This has nothing to do with the target, it has to do with how the gun was used and why. In her case it is obvious she wasn't holding her ground, she came back to fire, and she irresponsibly fired warning shots which is illegal no matter the situation.
- being accused of domestic violence or resisting arrest has nothing to do with GZ accusations, but has a LOT to do with this women's (it was inclusive used as an excuse by falsely accusing her husband).
- continued following TM, even when instructed by 911 operators not to, wasn't a good decision, but it was well within his rights.
I don't really know if he was guilty or innocent in this case, but what I am completely sure is that there was reasonable doubt in his case. That was definitely not the case with Marissa Alexander. She was obviously guilty, and tried to falsely accuse her husband to excuse herself. She is exactly where she belongs.
Lets see how misguided you were by the news. The woman in question:
- was previously arrested for domestic violence and no complaint was ever registered against her husband.
- went out of the room and into the garage to get a gun and got back to fire. She didn't run, she didn't lock herself in a room and called the police. And her husband stayed at the room and didn't follow her.
She fired several shots at arbitrary directions that could not only have hurt her family as could have hurt or killed innocent people in the neighborhood.
No, it wasn't about race or gender, it was just a crazy, violent and irresponsible woman playing the domestic violence card to falsely accuse her husband in the hope of getting a free out-of-jail card. An attempt that fortunately failed.
There is a whole wing of most universities dedicated to fields of knowledge which have nothing to do with logic.
The problem here is that you have absolutely no clue about what is logic, my friend. All the wings of universities you think that have nothing with logic are actually basing all their theories and knowledge in logic. including epistemology. Have you ever cared to wonder why the names of all those nice subjects end with "-logy"? Should be a good hint even for you...
Illogical projection is a theoretic concept that more likely than not produces undesirable results and is not used as a tool in any field of knowledge. It is basically what students do when they fail at exams.
Logic does encompass all fields on human knowledge, and that includes Epistemology. Epistemology uses logic and logic alone to analyze knowledge. Without logic there is no Philosophy at all, and despite your unwillingness to accept it, mostly because you probably have no clue about Math or Logic, Math is by definition the formalization of Logic. Your ignorance is shameful, my friend, and your willingness to keep exposing it as a virtue is even more.
Moreover there are many scientific problems that take generations to be solved.
Sure, but without exception they end reduced to math problems. Math encompasses all fields of knowledge, because math is the formalization of logic itself. Those scientific or engineering problems that took generations to solve, took generation either because the math they needed didn't exist yet, or because testing hypothesis and generating knowledge was a slow or unfeasible process.
They are thus either reduced to math problems that took generations to be solved, or measurement problems that made them impossible to be solved until the right tools existed for the task.
It is based on the fact that all human fields of knowledge use without exception logic as the tool to solve problems and math is the formalization of logic.
Oh, my friend, I see you didn't go very far in your math studies. Even already solved problems can be ridiculously hard to understand. Try to even read Andrew Wiles proof of the Fermat Last Theorem, for example. Good luck!
But that is not a hyperbole. It is just a very reasonable inference. No other subject has anywhere near the same logical difficulties and abstraction requirements than modern math. Most Sciences use the math tools discovered decades ago, Engineering uses mostly math tools discovered centuries ago.
As another poster pointed the vanguard problems in math, which are basically the problems the professional mathematicians pursue, usually require many generations to be solved or even to be proved unsolvable. That is proof enough of the hardships.
At the top science's hardships are mostly linked to the difficulty to test hypotheses. Math's hardships on the other hand are linked to sheer mental effort and at a level of abstraction that most of humankind simply isn't capable of exerting.
Math is the most difficult subject known by humankind. Basic math is very easy, college math is reasonably easy, engineering school math is quite hard, mathematics graduation math is considerably harder, and math research is ridiculously hard.
The true indecency was the attacks against innocent people by al Qaida.
Terrorism is indeed indecent and a huge waste of lives, but that does not justify inflicting considerably more damage to US citizens than the trouble one intends to prevent could possibly provoke, even because attempts to suppress terrorism by blunt force are utterly ineffective. Either way these attempts at suppression cannot by any stretch of logic be called a war.
The reason the day to day threat to American lives appears to be low.
You do know that terrorism existed long before 9/11, don't you? And weirdly US was doing just right and the threat was exactly as small without sending armed interventions to the Middle East, without arresting people without warranties, without preventing people from flying without motive, without violating human rights at will and other absurd actions like these. If you think the threat of terrorism is this low because any hugely disproportional effort is being made to prevent what is not there you are a fool, a big damn fool.
Sorry, but your delusions about the magnitude of the threat and the effectivity of US military efforts to prevent it are severely removed from reality. Leaving the Middle East alone would probably minimize the threat far more than any effort the armed forces can make in this direction, considering most terrorist supportive leaders were placed in power directly or indirectly by CIA meddling in this region.
It is comical, because the likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack, which generated this witch hunt you have the indecency of calling a "war", is orders of magnitude lower than the likelihood of being killed car accidents, heart attacks or even of being shot accidentally by a cop. Still the misused term "war" is used by you and by our dear politicians to justify ridiculous expenses with defense, absurd restrictions of personal freedoms as in no-fly lists and other abuses.
Using the US military forces to hunt terrorist groups is not a war at all, just a tremendous waste of resources in a futile game of Whac-A-Mole.
It is a very reasonable comparison when you decide to be very very silly and define what a war is by the number of coffins, my friend. Our discussion is about resources, and this "low level war" which isn't a war at all costs less in resources and lives than traffic accidents. There is no question about what you call "war"against terrorism not being a war at all, no matter how much you delude yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
In the very same way Communism get ridden of the Bourgeois and Nobles by exterminating them. The objective is basically the same. Create an enemy, polarize the population and unite the bulk of it under you and retrieve the enemy resources. There is very little difference between Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's Communism. The measurable difference is that Stalin manage to actually kill more people.
Socialism in the classic definition is when the the Government (meaning "Society") runs everything, period. The objective may vary, but it is usually justified as "for the benefit of the population". Fascism rules the economy for the benefit of the nation and therefore in their view the people too, On the other hand Communism rules the economy in the benefit of The Proletarian and therefore in their view in the benefit of the people too. In reality both rule the economy in the benefit of the ruling class though.
Nazism is actually a contraction of National Socialism, by the way.
The misuse of the term "Socialism" to imply "Communist Socialism" is something relatively recent and a technique of disinformation our leftist "intellectuals" are very happy in maintaining and enforcing.
Which unlike the crazy lady, nobody was able to prove he really did, despite what the press may have told you.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Fascism has absolutely nothing to do with Capitalism. Capitalism is as much as possible free-market (as complete free market and laissez faire capitalism don't exist) with minimum government intervention. Fascism is exactly the opposite, as any big state Socialist doctrine. Fascism is exactly like Comunism or Nazism in this sense. The only real difference between each of them is the imaginary enemy and the supposed objective of the movement. In Nazism the enemies are based on xenophobia and the objective is expansionist, in Fascism the enemies are "those that are undermining the Nation" and the objectives are Nationalists, in Communism the enemies are the Bourgeoisie and the Capital, and the objective is Egalitarian.
No civilian has the right to scare people by using warning shots, no matter how threatened he may be. It is reckless, illegal and irresponsible. Even cops will usually get in trouble if they decide to do that. If you are holding a gun, really feel threatened enough and feels it is justifiable be prepared to shoot your attacker.
1) US actually always had more resources than the soviet in pretty much everything.
2) You confuse Communism with Socialism. When we talk Socialism today we usually refer to Communist Socialism, which is a synonym to Communism, or Social Democracy, which has nothing to do with Authoritarianism, but we forget Socialism encompass far more doutrines, Nazism and Facism, for example are types of Socialisms (despite the unwillingness of some in accepting it mostly due to ignorance).
That said USSR was communist, and it didn't work because communist theory is inherently flawed, not because no one implemented it right yet.
Maybe he did it (you can't really trust the news these days), but if so it is irrelevant. There is a motive why spouses can't testify in your benefit, they tend to lie to help you. Even if you are an asshole and do not deserve the help.
What we do know for sure is that she was a recurring aggressor in domestic violence, not a defenseless victim.
But even if he was the aggressor this time, as a victim you don't go out, get a weapon, come back and fire it everywhere but in your aggressor to defend yourself. That is illegal, and should as well be.
If she was in the same circumstances GW was she would certainly have ended acquitted. This has nothing to do with the target, it has to do with how the gun was used and why. In her case it is obvious she wasn't holding her ground, she came back to fire, and she irresponsibly fired warning shots which is illegal no matter the situation.
- being accused of domestic violence or resisting arrest has nothing to do with GZ accusations, but has a LOT to do with this women's (it was inclusive used as an excuse by falsely accusing her husband).
- continued following TM, even when instructed by 911 operators not to, wasn't a good decision, but it was well within his rights.
I don't really know if he was guilty or innocent in this case, but what I am completely sure is that there was reasonable doubt in his case. That was definitely not the case with Marissa Alexander. She was obviously guilty, and tried to falsely accuse her husband to excuse herself. She is exactly where she belongs.
No matter what people may think really happened there is obviously "reasonable doubt" in this case, and that is what the jury rightfully concluded.
Lets see how misguided you were by the news. The woman in question:
- was previously arrested for domestic violence and no complaint was ever registered against her husband.
- went out of the room and into the garage to get a gun and got back to fire. She didn't run, she didn't lock herself in a room and called the police. And her husband stayed at the room and didn't follow her.
She fired several shots at arbitrary directions that could not only have hurt her family as could have hurt or killed innocent people in the neighborhood.
No, it wasn't about race or gender, it was just a crazy, violent and irresponsible woman playing the domestic violence card to falsely accuse her husband in the hope of getting a free out-of-jail card. An attempt that fortunately failed.
There is a whole wing of most universities dedicated to fields of knowledge which have nothing to do with logic.
The problem here is that you have absolutely no clue about what is logic, my friend. All the wings of universities you think that have nothing with logic are actually basing all their theories and knowledge in logic. including epistemology. Have you ever cared to wonder why the names of all those nice subjects end with "-logy"? Should be a good hint even for you...
Illogical projection is a theoretic concept that more likely than not produces undesirable results and is not used as a tool in any field of knowledge. It is basically what students do when they fail at exams.
Logic does encompass all fields on human knowledge, and that includes Epistemology. Epistemology uses logic and logic alone to analyze knowledge. Without logic there is no Philosophy at all, and despite your unwillingness to accept it, mostly because you probably have no clue about Math or Logic, Math is by definition the formalization of Logic. Your ignorance is shameful, my friend, and your willingness to keep exposing it as a virtue is even more.
As about everything else. The difference is that only math uses math that was discovered last week.
Moreover there are many scientific problems that take generations to be solved.
Sure, but without exception they end reduced to math problems. Math encompasses all fields of knowledge, because math is the formalization of logic itself. Those scientific or engineering problems that took generations to solve, took generation either because the math they needed didn't exist yet, or because testing hypothesis and generating knowledge was a slow or unfeasible process.
They are thus either reduced to math problems that took generations to be solved, or measurement problems that made them impossible to be solved until the right tools existed for the task.
It is based on the fact that all human fields of knowledge use without exception logic as the tool to solve problems and math is the formalization of logic.
3) every problem in any other subject can be ultimately converted to a math problem...
Oh, my friend, I see you didn't go very far in your math studies. Even already solved problems can be ridiculously hard to understand. Try to even read Andrew Wiles proof of the Fermat Last Theorem, for example. Good luck!
But that is not a hyperbole. It is just a very reasonable inference. No other subject has anywhere near the same logical difficulties and abstraction requirements than modern math. Most Sciences use the math tools discovered decades ago, Engineering uses mostly math tools discovered centuries ago.
As another poster pointed the vanguard problems in math, which are basically the problems the professional mathematicians pursue, usually require many generations to be solved or even to be proved unsolvable. That is proof enough of the hardships.
At the top science's hardships are mostly linked to the difficulty to test hypotheses. Math's hardships on the other hand are linked to sheer mental effort and at a level of abstraction that most of humankind simply isn't capable of exerting.
Math is the most difficult subject known by humankind. Basic math is very easy, college math is reasonably easy, engineering school math is quite hard, mathematics graduation math is considerably harder, and math research is ridiculously hard.
Terrorism is indeed indecent and a huge waste of lives, but that does not justify inflicting considerably more damage to US citizens than the trouble one intends to prevent could possibly provoke, even because attempts to suppress terrorism by blunt force are utterly ineffective. Either way these attempts at suppression cannot by any stretch of logic be called a war.
The reason the day to day threat to American lives appears to be low.
You do know that terrorism existed long before 9/11, don't you? And weirdly US was doing just right and the threat was exactly as small without sending armed interventions to the Middle East, without arresting people without warranties, without preventing people from flying without motive, without violating human rights at will and other absurd actions like these. If you think the threat of terrorism is this low because any hugely disproportional effort is being made to prevent what is not there you are a fool, a big damn fool.
Sorry, but your delusions about the magnitude of the threat and the effectivity of US military efforts to prevent it are severely removed from reality. Leaving the Middle East alone would probably minimize the threat far more than any effort the armed forces can make in this direction, considering most terrorist supportive leaders were placed in power directly or indirectly by CIA meddling in this region.
It is comical, because the likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack, which generated this witch hunt you have the indecency of calling a "war", is orders of magnitude lower than the likelihood of being killed car accidents, heart attacks or even of being shot accidentally by a cop. Still the misused term "war" is used by you and by our dear politicians to justify ridiculous expenses with defense, absurd restrictions of personal freedoms as in no-fly lists and other abuses.
Using the US military forces to hunt terrorist groups is not a war at all, just a tremendous waste of resources in a futile game of Whac-A-Mole.
It is a very reasonable comparison when you decide to be very very silly and define what a war is by the number of coffins, my friend. Our discussion is about resources, and this "low level war" which isn't a war at all costs less in resources and lives than traffic accidents. There is no question about what you call "war"against terrorism not being a war at all, no matter how much you delude yourself.