did slavery and the systematic persecution of blacks and other minorities never happen in your world or something? cause last time I checked it wasn't liberals or progressives who first people into those categories.
Also, no that is not a highly incendiary phrase. (again: reflection of your own ignorance and bigotry) It literally translates as "God is great" or "God is the greatest."
It's instead a rather common religious invocation in Islam used in various contexts as roughly equivalent to: -"In Jesus name we pray" in formal prayer -"Praised be his name", as in giving thanks -"Amen" as a response to someone else -"Lord have mercy" as a response to a stressful or unexpected happenstance -etc
therefore, your example with the police officer would be better written to be less ignorant as thus:
I guess I can have a policeman a few feet away, turn to you, point my finger and say "I believe in God!" and expect the policeman to do nothing, right?
I guess I can have a policeman a few feet away, turn to you, point my finger and say "I'm going to shoot you!" and expect the policeman to do nothing, right?
Yes. Or at the most be detained and interviewed... and not summarily executed.
You're a moron. The fact is that Israel is pretty much the ONLY place in the Middle East with ANYTHING resembling freedom of religion, speech, and personal actions. Go try to just carry a Bible into Saudi Arabia and find out what happens...
Sorry, no. That statement only reveals your own ignorance about the entire region.
The area is not represented just by Israel, ISIS, and Saudi Arabia much as ignorant people like you would like it so. Picking Saudi Arabia is basically picking the most extreme example of restrictive government. It's no more wholly representative of all ME countries than Dylan roof is of all white people. Israel is fairly free...if you're Jewish. If you're not, you face a separate and unequal existence similar to the Jim Crow south, or apartheid South Africa.
Firstly, I'm not convinced that he promotes hatred.
Then you haven't been paying attention. The fact he uses prettier language and doesn't resort to spittle and invective doesn't change who and what he is. And that is a neo-Nazi racist.
He is "dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States". He has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” He dreams of a "new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all white Europeans". He backs creation of an Aryan homeland. He thinks that “At the end of the day, America belongs to white men.”
We've learned in the last few weeks that the mainstream media is quick to mislabel something as bigoted and other related labels, so long as it promotes their position. To get to the truth you have to actually find the statements some person was saying, and then determine for oneself whether they're bigoted or not.
And so far you're 0 for 20.
(And I haven't taken the time or effort to do this for Richard Spencer, never heard of him before this moment.)
Yet you feel qualified/compelled to give an opinion implicitly defending him not two sentences earlier.
And further, asking whether Trump was bigoted caused people to post entirely non-bigotry quotes as "proof" of his racism. Mexico isn't a race, he was specifically referring to criminals, Islam is not a race (it's a culture), and so on.
Also, excusing "mere bigotry" because it's not "racism" under the limited concepts of the English language... doesn't change the fact its still bigotry
It's gotten so that no one can even mention race in an academic sense without being called a bigot, because the left knows that it's an easy way to shut down debate on the subject.
What academic sense would that be? Fake "studies" that minorities are less intelligent, more prone to crime, etc? this is a BS complaint.
Secondly, the term "KKK member" has strong connotations, "white supremacist" is largely indicative of bias, but "white nationalist" seems like it's a tailored term to insult and demean most of the people who voted for Trump. It's trying to equate voting for Trump with white supremacy, which again is a way of shutting down debate on the issue.
No, it accurately describes who and what they are: Racists who want a 100% ethnically white European country. who want no minorities present, or if they are, to not be endowed with the same rights as whites.
I'm white, I want the government to put the US first in things (such as trade agreements), but I'm not a racist or hateful person. Why am I (and half the country) always marginalized by the left?
First answer why you support the legalized marginalization of minorities (evidenced by past comments in support of various conservative ideologies), and then you'll have your answer.
It's estimated that there are less than 50,000 white supremacists in the entire country, and less than 1000 of the tattooed, nazi-ish, violent types that you see in a Banshee episode.
at least one, and likely two, orders of magnitude off.
Trump got elected because there are real issues that were not being addressed by the establishment, but no one on the left *or* right has owned up to this simple fact.
No he got elected because we use an undemocratic system, a system that ensures ~half the country (or rather half the population of each state) has zero voice in the election, a system that was obsoleted the moment political parties were created, that was meant to ensure wealthy land owning elites would always have an un
selling goods and services is not religious behavior. and you should be ashamed for making such an ignorant statement.
operating a public business means being open to all the public.
this was done to prevent the widespread discrimination that came before, where no one got together and decided a course action, but each shop owner through his own individual discriminatory decision led to a collectively discriminated against group.
quit pretending this a new notion that came out of thin air, and you are seeing it for the first time. and if you really are seeing it for the first time, then your education was sorely lacking, and you should work to correct your ignorance.
Biology lesson: by your definition, women "abort" their eggs every month when they menstruate. that makes you, and anyone who uses that definition, ignorant morons.
reality: -there are no taxpayer funded abortions -there is no provision for it in the ACA -abortions are dropping, in direct relation to increased availability of contraception, and better education -the LSofP case involves contraception, not abortificants -the ACA was not only not meant to fail, but it has succeeded rather well, within its limited abilities. the only better reform that could have happened would have been the public option, aka, Medicare for All, aka single payer. -premiums increased before Obamacare too. the difference is, they are increasing more slowly now, than they did before (so once again: Obamacare is working) -you're clueless, as usual
meanwhile back in reality: -the economy is in its best shape, basically ever -the rate of premium increase is actually lower than it was pre-obamacare*
(*yes, your individual plan may have gone up a lot, but when you've got a super plan for super cheap, that's called a market correction. the fact remains, that on the aggregate, while premiums have always increased year to year, the increases under obamacare were smaller than they were before obamacare)
the cost isn't zero either, and standard xray machines are now also now rarely used for general diagnostics....because it's xrays. ionizing radiation that carried its own risks and so frequent usage is avoided.
for example MRIs and other machines are used much more commonly now, for the simple reason that they provide many times more information, and better diagnosis, than your "standard xray machine" canard.
and MRI machines ARE expensive. and every hospital has one...or several.
in fact the installed capacity of MRI machines is incredibly high, far beyond what is actually needed in this country; the only country with a higher (and more inefficient) installed capacity of MRI machines is Japan.
this shows a rather marked ignorance of how exactly insurance even came to be.
as medicine became more advanced (ie, moved past Doc Anderson hopping in his buggy to come give you liniment), costs began rising.
eventually someone figured out "hey, we don't all get sick at the same time." "lets pool our money together." "we'll all pay in. George, you'll pay in a bit more since you get sick more often" "when one of gets sick and needs the doc, we'll pay out of the pool."
that's the origin of insurance in a nutshell....before it became a self-serving for-profit industry, with fees, "determinations" as whether you really need treatment, treatment denials, pre-existing conditions, etc.
the insurance industry exists because it, however ineptly and inefficiently, fills a need: specifically, that people CANNOT pay for their care on their own when tragedy strikes. medical bankruptcies would be even more common without insurance, than with it.
so no, you're wrong. the way forward is not to go backwards. the forward is to go the next step further than insurance and institute single payer or some other form of government level control....like every other civilized nation that gets better care at half the cost.
the fallacy here is in thinking that the health care industry hasn't been acting like a market.
IT HAS. For decades.
And the result has been that the people who need the health care aren't the ones being served, not really, not in the classical economic sense, but rather its the insurance and provider industries that are. Because the simple fact is that when you are sick, you ARE NOT a rational actor in an ideal market.
If your doctor says you need this 300k$ surgery to survive, and then you need to take this $500 a pill medication every day for the rest of your life, or you will die... you're not going to shop around. you're not going to say wait, hold on. you're gonna say "OK".
And they know this. Prices are high simply because they can be.
Because market fetishists delude themselves into thinking it will sort itself out, even though all evidence says otherwise, and the majority of other nations have figured out that it IS indeed possible to reign in costs through the power of government. We (the USA) are the only self-deluded outlier in this subject.
the US does not have the worlds most advanced medicine. nor does it have the best system.
the systems in place throughout Europe are not "demonstrably inferior".
our quality, outcomes, and life expectancy are all below average, while our costs are the highest in the world. most of Europe enjoys better outcomes, better quality of care, and higher life expectancies, for between 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of comparable care in the US.
All you've done is prove you don't know what you're talking about, nor do you know the definitions of socialism or fascism. Again.
a) the poorest people and the oldest people are often the same people. there is significant overlap b) the bus/train is going to run anyway. the difference between an empty seat and an unpaying seat is zero. there is no net increase in cost to taxpayers. c) drivers past a certain age are a liability on the roads. keeping them off the roads is a boon to taxpayers. d) therefore, given A B and C, seniors who are able to still be out and about and not just shut in their homes or a nursing facility are a boon to the local economy, whether they are working or consuming. it also keeps them more active and engaged and improves their quality of life.
Conclusion: there are no regressive consequences here.
Free rides should be given to the poorest people, as well as the oldest people
china is an ascendant power. they have the worlds largest economy. they have the worlds fastest growing economy, growing at 8% GDP year after year for the past 14 years or so, including during the global recession.
they even surpassed the US in Purchasing Power Parity, giving rise to a new ascendant middle class in their country. many European nations had already done so, having more social programs that support people and so stretch their money further. But the fact china, seen still as a 3rd world hell hole by many (ignorant) americans, has also done it now.
China has in fact been a bit help with NK, being one of the few countries capable of restraining them, that NK is willing to listen to.
We risk China being the Athens to our Sparta, even without Trump throwing all diplomatic caution to the wind. Hint: it didn't turn out well for Sparta, nor most of the rest of the greek peninsula.
Rorberbach (sp?) as Sec State, Putin's biggest cheerleader in congress. Palin as Sec Energy Harold Hamm as Energy, oil biollionare from OK who basically paid/extorted OK's earthquake researchers to blame anything else but fracking Mary Failin as Sec Interior, after all, who better to be in charge of the park system, than someone loves to sell state land to private companies for profit Carson as HUD Sessions as Atty General, a man who thinks a) racism doesn't exist, b) civil rights laws are needed, c) has history of racist treatment of minorities, in charge of enforcing civil rights protections Tom Price as HHS, a man who wants to end medicare/Medicaid/aca. Devos as Sec Ed, a woman who want to kill the public education system and turn it into a profit driven industry Mnuchin, as Treasury, a man who opposes all regulation of banking/wall st. Ross as Commerce, who actively supports the idea of starting a trade war Joe Arpaio as Homeland, a racist and recently fired sheriff who routinely violated prisoners rights David Clarke as Homeland, sheriff for milwaulke who thinks all people who disagree with him/trump should be sent to Gitmo and have citizenship revoked Sam Brownback as agriculture, the gov of Kansas who ran the state into the ground by making it a "red state utopia" of every conservative economic policy wet dream.
who says they are less experienced? who says they aren't an authority?
TWC actually has climate scientists and researchers on staff who participate and contribute to the body of research on the subject. members of TWC staff have gone on to join other groups performing some of the leading edge research.
dismissing TWC staff as just "less experienced meteorologists" is ignorant and does them a disservice.
of the two groups, it is the founder who is lacking in experience. Yes, he was a TV meteorologist for some 50 years. But he never performed, published, or was involved in ANY climate research. Nor did he ever become qualified to do so. And when he tries to make scientific arguments, they are not based on any scientific data, and are soundly disproven the data that does exist.
He's sole claim to fame is he looked and sounded good on TV, and was a successful entrepreneur (starting up TWC).
To try and claim any sort parity between him and the current TWC staff, or even worse try to claim he is the more qualified....is a complete denial of reality.
Slashdot Mirror
did slavery and the systematic persecution of blacks and other minorities never happen in your world or something?
cause last time I checked it wasn't liberals or progressives who first people into those categories.
now youre putting words in peoples mouth and then accusing them based on that strawman.
Also, no that is not a highly incendiary phrase. (again: reflection of your own ignorance and bigotry)
It literally translates as "God is great" or "God is the greatest."
It's instead a rather common religious invocation in Islam used in various contexts as roughly equivalent to:
-"In Jesus name we pray" in formal prayer
-"Praised be his name", as in giving thanks
-"Amen" as a response to someone else
-"Lord have mercy" as a response to a stressful or unexpected happenstance
-etc
therefore, your example with the police officer would be better written to be less ignorant as thus:
I guess I can have a policeman a few feet away, turn to you, point my finger and say "I believe in God!" and expect the policeman to do nothing, right?
To which the answer is still: Yes.
I guess I can have a policeman a few feet away, turn to you, point my finger and say "I'm going to shoot you!" and expect the policeman to do nothing, right?
Yes.
Or at the most be detained and interviewed... and not summarily executed.
You're a moron. The fact is that Israel is pretty much the ONLY place in the Middle East with ANYTHING resembling freedom of religion, speech, and personal actions. Go try to just carry a Bible into Saudi Arabia and find out what happens...
Sorry, no.
That statement only reveals your own ignorance about the entire region.
The area is not represented just by Israel, ISIS, and Saudi Arabia much as ignorant people like you would like it so. Picking Saudi Arabia is basically picking the most extreme example of restrictive government. It's no more wholly representative of all ME countries than Dylan roof is of all white people. Israel is fairly free...if you're Jewish. If you're not, you face a separate and unequal existence similar to the Jim Crow south, or apartheid South Africa.
That makes you the moron.
"I can't be racist, I have a black friend."
Firstly, I'm not convinced that he promotes hatred.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
The fact he uses prettier language and doesn't resort to spittle and invective doesn't change who and what he is.
And that is a neo-Nazi racist.
He is "dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States".
He has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing”
He dreams of a "new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all white Europeans".
He backs creation of an Aryan homeland.
He thinks that “At the end of the day, America belongs to white men.”
We've learned in the last few weeks that the mainstream media is quick to mislabel something as bigoted and other related labels, so long as it promotes their position. To get to the truth you have to actually find the statements some person was saying, and then determine for oneself whether they're bigoted or not.
And so far you're 0 for 20.
(And I haven't taken the time or effort to do this for Richard Spencer, never heard of him before this moment.)
Yet you feel qualified/compelled to give an opinion implicitly defending him not two sentences earlier.
And further, asking whether Trump was bigoted caused people to post entirely non-bigotry quotes as "proof" of his racism. Mexico isn't a race, he was specifically referring to criminals, Islam is not a race (it's a culture), and so on.
Again: then you haven't been paying attention.
Also, excusing "mere bigotry" because it's not "racism" under the limited concepts of the English language... doesn't change the fact its still bigotry
It's gotten so that no one can even mention race in an academic sense without being called a bigot, because the left knows that it's an easy way to shut down debate on the subject.
What academic sense would that be?
Fake "studies" that minorities are less intelligent, more prone to crime, etc?
this is a BS complaint.
Secondly, the term "KKK member" has strong connotations, "white supremacist" is largely indicative of bias, but "white nationalist" seems like it's a tailored term to insult and demean most of the people who voted for Trump. It's trying to equate voting for Trump with white supremacy, which again is a way of shutting down debate on the issue.
No, it accurately describes who and what they are: Racists who want a 100% ethnically white European country. who want no minorities present, or if they are, to not be endowed with the same rights as whites.
I'm white, I want the government to put the US first in things (such as trade agreements), but I'm not a racist or hateful person. Why am I (and half the country) always marginalized by the left?
First answer why you support the legalized marginalization of minorities (evidenced by past comments in support of various conservative ideologies), and then you'll have your answer.
It's estimated that there are less than 50,000 white supremacists in the entire country, and less than 1000 of the tattooed, nazi-ish, violent types that you see in a Banshee episode.
at least one, and likely two, orders of magnitude off.
Trump got elected because there are real issues that were not being addressed by the establishment, but no one on the left *or* right has owned up to this simple fact.
No he got elected because we use an undemocratic system, a system that ensures ~half the country (or rather half the population of each state) has zero voice in the election, a system that was obsoleted the moment political parties were created, that was meant to ensure wealthy land owning elites would always have an un
selling goods and services is not religious behavior.
and you should be ashamed for making such an ignorant statement.
operating a public business means being open to all the public.
this was done to prevent the widespread discrimination that came before, where no one got together and decided a course action, but each shop owner through his own individual discriminatory decision led to a collectively discriminated against group.
quit pretending this a new notion that came out of thin air, and you are seeing it for the first time.
and if you really are seeing it for the first time, then your education was sorely lacking, and you should work to correct your ignorance.
fracking is extremely leaky.
belief in insane conspiracy theories rather than rational logical historically founded facts....why am I not surprised?
cant tell if satire, or moron.
once again you prove that definitions are hard for you.
Biology lesson: by your definition, women "abort" their eggs every month when they menstruate.
that makes you, and anyone who uses that definition, ignorant morons.
reality:
-there are no taxpayer funded abortions
-there is no provision for it in the ACA
-abortions are dropping, in direct relation to increased availability of contraception, and better education
-the LSofP case involves contraception, not abortificants
-the ACA was not only not meant to fail, but it has succeeded rather well, within its limited abilities. the only better reform that could have happened would have been the public option, aka, Medicare for All, aka single payer.
-premiums increased before Obamacare too. the difference is, they are increasing more slowly now, than they did before (so once again: Obamacare is working)
-you're clueless, as usual
meanwhile back in reality:
-the economy is in its best shape, basically ever
-the rate of premium increase is actually lower than it was pre-obamacare*
(*yes, your individual plan may have gone up a lot, but when you've got a super plan for super cheap, that's called a market correction. the fact remains, that on the aggregate, while premiums have always increased year to year, the increases under obamacare were smaller than they were before obamacare)
the cost isn't zero either, and standard xray machines are now also now rarely used for general diagnostics....because it's xrays. ionizing radiation that carried its own risks and so frequent usage is avoided.
for example MRIs and other machines are used much more commonly now, for the simple reason that they provide many times more information, and better diagnosis, than your "standard xray machine" canard.
and MRI machines ARE expensive.
and every hospital has one...or several.
in fact the installed capacity of MRI machines is incredibly high, far beyond what is actually needed in this country; the only country with a higher (and more inefficient) installed capacity of MRI machines is Japan.
this shows a rather marked ignorance of how exactly insurance even came to be.
as medicine became more advanced (ie, moved past Doc Anderson hopping in his buggy to come give you liniment), costs began rising.
eventually someone figured out "hey, we don't all get sick at the same time."
"lets pool our money together."
"we'll all pay in. George, you'll pay in a bit more since you get sick more often"
"when one of gets sick and needs the doc, we'll pay out of the pool."
that's the origin of insurance in a nutshell....before it became a self-serving for-profit industry, with fees, "determinations" as whether you really need treatment, treatment denials, pre-existing conditions, etc.
the insurance industry exists because it, however ineptly and inefficiently, fills a need: specifically, that people CANNOT pay for their care on their own when tragedy strikes. medical bankruptcies would be even more common without insurance, than with it.
so no, you're wrong.
the way forward is not to go backwards.
the forward is to go the next step further than insurance and institute single payer or some other form of government level control.... like every other civilized nation that gets better care at half the cost .
the fallacy here is in thinking that the health care industry hasn't been acting like a market.
IT HAS.
For decades.
And the result has been that the people who need the health care aren't the ones being served, not really, not in the classical economic sense, but rather its the insurance and provider industries that are. Because the simple fact is that when you are sick, you ARE NOT a rational actor in an ideal market.
If your doctor says you need this 300k$ surgery to survive, and then you need to take this $500 a pill medication every day for the rest of your life, or you will die...
you're not going to shop around. you're not going to say wait, hold on. you're gonna say "OK".
And they know this.
Prices are high simply because they can be.
Because market fetishists delude themselves into thinking it will sort itself out, even though all evidence says otherwise, and the majority of other nations have figured out that it IS indeed possible to reign in costs through the power of government. We (the USA) are the only self-deluded outlier in this subject.
...while having a heart attack...
sure buddy.
sure.
keep telling yourself that.
the US does not have the worlds most advanced medicine.
nor does it have the best system.
the systems in place throughout Europe are not "demonstrably inferior".
our quality, outcomes, and life expectancy are all below average, while our costs are the highest in the world.
most of Europe enjoys better outcomes, better quality of care, and higher life expectancies, for between 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of comparable care in the US.
All you've done is prove you don't know what you're talking about, nor do you know the definitions of socialism or fascism.
Again.
a) the poorest people and the oldest people are often the same people. there is significant overlap
b) the bus/train is going to run anyway. the difference between an empty seat and an unpaying seat is zero. there is no net increase in cost to taxpayers.
c) drivers past a certain age are a liability on the roads. keeping them off the roads is a boon to taxpayers.
d) therefore, given A B and C, seniors who are able to still be out and about and not just shut in their homes or a nursing facility are a boon to the local economy, whether they are working or consuming. it also keeps them more active and engaged and improves their quality of life.
Conclusion: there are no regressive consequences here.
Free rides should be given to the poorest people, as well as the oldest people
FTFY
china is an ascendant power.
they have the worlds largest economy.
they have the worlds fastest growing economy, growing at 8% GDP year after year for the past 14 years or so, including during the global recession.
they even surpassed the US in Purchasing Power Parity , giving rise to a new ascendant middle class in their country.
many European nations had already done so, having more social programs that support people and so stretch their money further.
But the fact china, seen still as a 3rd world hell hole by many (ignorant) americans, has also done it now.
China has in fact been a bit help with NK, being one of the few countries capable of restraining them, that NK is willing to listen to.
Start a fight?
Yes.
They very well might.
Learn your history, specifically Thucydides’s Trap.
We risk China being the Athens to our Sparta, even without Trump throwing all diplomatic caution to the wind.
Hint: it didn't turn out well for Sparta, nor most of the rest of the greek peninsula.
Partial List:
Rorberbach (sp?) as Sec State, Putin's biggest cheerleader in congress.
Palin as Sec Energy
Harold Hamm as Energy, oil biollionare from OK who basically paid/extorted OK's earthquake researchers to blame anything else but fracking
Mary Failin as Sec Interior, after all, who better to be in charge of the park system, than someone loves to sell state land to private companies for profit
Carson as HUD
Sessions as Atty General, a man who thinks a) racism doesn't exist, b) civil rights laws are needed, c) has history of racist treatment of minorities, in charge of enforcing civil rights protections
Tom Price as HHS, a man who wants to end medicare/Medicaid/aca.
Devos as Sec Ed, a woman who want to kill the public education system and turn it into a profit driven industry
Mnuchin, as Treasury, a man who opposes all regulation of banking/wall st.
Ross as Commerce, who actively supports the idea of starting a trade war
Joe Arpaio as Homeland, a racist and recently fired sheriff who routinely violated prisoners rights
David Clarke as Homeland, sheriff for milwaulke who thinks all people who disagree with him/trump should be sent to Gitmo and have citizenship revoked
Sam Brownback as agriculture, the gov of Kansas who ran the state into the ground by making it a "red state utopia" of every conservative economic policy wet dream.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
who says they are less experienced?
who says they aren't an authority?
TWC actually has climate scientists and researchers on staff who participate and contribute to the body of research on the subject.
members of TWC staff have gone on to join other groups performing some of the leading edge research.
dismissing TWC staff as just "less experienced meteorologists" is ignorant and does them a disservice.
of the two groups, it is the founder who is lacking in experience.
Yes, he was a TV meteorologist for some 50 years.
But he never performed, published, or was involved in ANY climate research.
Nor did he ever become qualified to do so.
And when he tries to make scientific arguments, they are not based on any scientific data, and are soundly disproven the data that does exist.
He's sole claim to fame is he looked and sounded good on TV, and was a successful entrepreneur (starting up TWC).
To try and claim any sort parity between him and the current TWC staff, or even worse try to claim he is the more qualified....is a complete denial of reality.
further reading:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
one is backed by science.
the other is not.
end of story.