Orwell's target was, as nearly always in his writing, Totalitarianism.
ignorant conservatives always think he was warning against socialism. he wasn't.
in fact, Orwell was himself a socialist..
No, his books were about Totalitarianism/Authoritarianism: the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Stalins of the world. The Putins, the Pinochets. People who held power and used propaganda, coercion, and popular appeal to control their populace. "We've always been at war with Oceana" isn't such a far cry from "He made the trains run on time".
or more recently "He saved 1000 jobs" and "He stopped Ford from moving to Mexico".... neither of which is true.
---
as for you "theory" that the "collectivists imported jihadis"..... ya that just makes you a moron who believes the crazy BS Alex Jones spews from his misplaced rear end.
--- also, conservatives aren't classical liberals. and classical liberalism was never "the political Right".
rather, classical liberalism has more in common with todays liberals (I said more in common, not that liberals today are 100% classical liberals either) than with conservatives, and allows for and even advocates for equality under the law (ie, civil rights) for all persons, as well as responsible regulation on private business.
no, conservatives are rather more accurately aligned with neo-classical liberalism (not neo-liberalism).
and seriously, its actually hard to even discuss with you because you're just so far off base, so blinded by base bigotry and ignorance, youre "not even wrong".
Seriously people. Follow his facebook if you don't already. The man is prolific, and still excited to learn, discover, and push himself, and then educate and share with others.
its not about feelings (and that's a strawman since you seem hazy on the concept)
people are not illegal. migration to better conditions is a natural human desire. it is borders that are unnatural artificial constructs.
many undocumented people, being children and babies, didn't get a choice in the matter. they didn't just decide to break the law. there was no conscious action on their part. the illegality comes from a condition they could no more control than they can their skin color or gender. (and this is the basis for it being considered bigotry by the way)
and after living and growing up here, they are as American as any of the rest of us, regardless of their citizenship status.
where would you send them? to a country they've never been to, with a language they don't know, a culture not their own, no friends or family to call on?
besides the term "illegal immigrant" is inaccurate anyway. it implies commiting an action (immigrating)...illegally. except very very few undocumented people actually came here illegally. the vast majority are either brought as children, or came here legally, and then stayed.
the vetting process for refugees, including children, takes 18-24 months, and involves multiple intelligence and law enforcement agencies in multiple countries. when he began the process he would have been 14 years old. he immigrated as a child. he didn't immigrate as a fanatic. he was radicalized after he was already here. probably after being told, by people like you, that he wasn't welcome, that muslims are bad, that he was a terrorist, etc.
But calling Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists is. Calling for a ban on Muslim immigration is. Calling for registration of Muslims is. Implying that an American judge, born in Indiana (?), presiding over your trial, cannot be impartial because he is of Hispanic descent....is as well.
And any rational discussion would have to include these facts, because if it didn't then it wouldn't be rational, but a lie.
So, no, voters who heard the both explicit and coded hate speech of Trump is how we got Trump.
considering that Trump is those things, or at least campaigned that way, and merely pointing them out is making a factual statement and not harassment....yes.
and if you were at all knowledgeable about the topic, rather than woefully ignorant as you seem to be, you'd know that alllivesmatter is inherently racist, and meant to be.
yes, the appointee needs the approval of congress....a congress controlled by the party that opposes net neutrality
no, the democrats didn't have a supermajority in the congress. if they had, the republicans wouldn't have been able to block them at every turn. that's the point of a super majority
no, they aren't the exact same: -Hillary didn't mock a disabled person on national television -Hillary didn't describe and brag about sexual assault -Hillary didn't claim that paying employees for work done was a sacrifice equivalent to a father's loss of a son to combat -Hillary didn't exhibit both explicit and coded racism on the complain trail on multiple occasions -Hillary didn't silence dissent at rallies and suggest that "maybe they deserved to be roughed up a bit", or later excuse supporters who committed violent assault against someone based on race -Hillary didn't have multiple and ongoing legal battles in the campaign involving fraud or sexual assault, or multiple past lawsuits involving discriminatory housing practices
how long does this list need to be before you realize that you're full of cr-- ?
No, reality is things like: - evolution and global warming actually exist - the country is actually in the best shape it's been in decades - equality of civil rights is not special rights - Obama not only didn't wage a war on fossil fuels, but oversaw the largest increase in production basically ever, such that the US is actually now the world's largest producer, and is reaping record profits - Obama simultaneously oversaw the explosion of the "green revolution" and its industry, creating another explosion of entrepreneurs and jobs in a developing industry - Obama actually delivered on all the economic promises of his defeated opponents (and then some), oversaw the longest streak of consecutive economic and job growth, and the largest rise in wages in decades - Obama improved America's standing in the world following the disastrous years of Bush the Lesser, and that we have assisted or taken the lead in several international agreements (Paris climate agreement, TPP (for good or ill), Iran Nuclear deal, etc) leading to an improvement in international relations
Each of which are things whose existence is only denied by American conservatives. - they, as a party platform, question or outright deny the existence of basic scientific facts - they say the country is falling apart - they think granting LGBT the right to marry, or buy goods and services, just llike everyone else is "special" rights, somehow - they think Obama tried, and has, killed the fossil fuel industry - they think the green revolution is sham that wasted taxpayer dollars - they, contrary to all evidence otherwise, maintain that unemployment now...RIGHT NOW...is higher than it was in the great depression - they think the country is a laughing stock right now, because of Obama, and that no one respects us....that somehow the years of Bush the Lesser were a high point in out international relations
Hillary promised none of those things, you are once again spouting BS.
and like trump supporters, you also exhibit the ability to ignore that things are in the best shape they have been in decades, say "everything is s---", and vote for the guy who will actually turn it to s---.
and don't talk about compassion. trumpers have no room, none, to speak about "learning compassion". that is such bs.
really? because you should watch the video, as your remarks are off base.
what the Khan family did and said was in no way inflammatory or poorly thought out, but completely justified and rational. both at the convention and the later campaign ad ("Mr. Trump, would my dead son have a place in your America?")
the sequence of events: -Trump calls for Muslim ban, for registration of people "from certain areas" -Khan family, and other military families too by the way, as well as current past veterans who are Muslim, call him on it, emotionally (justifiably in the case of the Khan family, who lost their son!) yet rationally. -Trump responds by ----- questioning the Khans' integrity ----- by saying he (Trump) made a lot of sacrifices by employing people ----- by implying Mr Khan would not allow his wife to speak ("I'm sure he's a nice guy, but did you see his wife didn't speak? lots of people are saying maybe she wasn't allowed. but im sure he's a nice guy") ----- by lying about his own nonexistent fundraising efforts and contributions
so no. you're the one guilty of distortion, and really, simply trolling.
hell, for trump supporters even Trumps own words do not matter.
Multiple sources, including an opinion piece (on CNN!!! the normalizing fools!) actually state "stop taking Trump literally", "stop believing everything he says".... and this is from people who supported him on the basis that "he tells it like it is" !!!
the problem is blaming the victim is really just blame shifting. and it is done in order to distract from the actual problem. namely, the actual person who committed an actual wrong or crime.
and she was wrong for it, and many liberals opposed her support of the bill, and applauded when it failed to pass. "Hillary did it too" is not a defense.
you really REALLY need to learn some history, as well as remember that he PICKS the WH Counsel and the Attorney General, and he likes Yes Men who bow to him and reinforce his ego. there are people who support the notion of locking up political enemies. whereas if Obama had tried it, LEOs wouldnt have done it, primarly being opposed to him...but LEOs (and military) are predominantly Trump supporters, predominantly -very- conservative. many among them actually wish police or military had more power; many in the military think the country would be better off run by the military. overall the population is becoming decreasingly supportive of democracy, and increasingly supportive of authoritarian style government. they increasing believe "leadership" is the ability to yell and beat and cow people into submission. even in the military where we actually teach people the 14 leadership traits, the troops are forgetting what it means.
law only works and restrains people when people, especially those who enforce it, believe in it. we are increasingly becoming a nation where those persons are ok with inequitable enforcement, particularly against those they disagree with. this is a dangerous state of affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
reality calling.
it misses you.
no, no it wasn't.
Orwell's target was, as nearly always in his writing, Totalitarianism.
ignorant conservatives always think he was warning against socialism.
he wasn't.
in fact, Orwell was himself a socialist. .
No, his books were about Totalitarianism/Authoritarianism: the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Stalins of the world.
The Putins, the Pinochets.
People who held power and used propaganda, coercion, and popular appeal to control their populace.
"We've always been at war with Oceana" isn't such a far cry from "He made the trains run on time".
or more recently "He saved 1000 jobs" and "He stopped Ford from moving to Mexico" .... neither of which is true.
---
as for you "theory" that the "collectivists imported jihadis" .....
ya that just makes you a moron who believes the crazy BS Alex Jones spews from his misplaced rear end.
---
also, conservatives aren't classical liberals.
and classical liberalism was never "the political Right".
rather, classical liberalism has more in common with todays liberals (I said more in common, not that liberals today are 100% classical liberals either) than with conservatives, and allows for and even advocates for equality under the law (ie, civil rights) for all persons, as well as responsible regulation on private business.
no, conservatives are rather more accurately aligned with neo-classical liberalism (not neo-liberalism).
and seriously, its actually hard to even discuss with you because you're just so far off base, so blinded by base bigotry and ignorance, youre "not even wrong".
^This.
Seriously people.
Follow his facebook if you don't already.
The man is prolific, and still excited to learn, discover, and push himself, and then educate and share with others.
its not about feelings (and that's a strawman since you seem hazy on the concept)
people are not illegal.
migration to better conditions is a natural human desire.
it is borders that are unnatural artificial constructs.
many undocumented people, being children and babies, didn't get a choice in the matter.
they didn't just decide to break the law. there was no conscious action on their part.
the illegality comes from a condition they could no more control than they can their skin color or gender.
(and this is the basis for it being considered bigotry by the way)
and after living and growing up here, they are as American as any of the rest of us, regardless of their citizenship status.
where would you send them? to a country they've never been to, with a language they don't know, a culture not their own, no friends or family to call on?
besides the term "illegal immigrant" is inaccurate anyway.
it implies commiting an action (immigrating)...illegally.
except very very few undocumented people actually came here illegally.
the vast majority are either brought as children, or came here legally, and then stayed.
point is: youre wrong.
the vetting process for refugees, including children, takes 18-24 months, and involves multiple intelligence and law enforcement agencies in multiple countries. when he began the process he would have been 14 years old.
he immigrated as a child.
he didn't immigrate as a fanatic.
he was radicalized after he was already here.
probably after being told, by people like you, that he wasn't welcome, that muslims are bad, that he was a terrorist, etc.
White, typically Christian, right-wing fanatics?
Yes. we should do something about them.
No, immigration policy is not hate speech.
But calling Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists is.
Calling for a ban on Muslim immigration is.
Calling for registration of Muslims is.
Implying that an American judge, born in Indiana (?), presiding over your trial, cannot be impartial because he is of Hispanic descent....is as well.
And any rational discussion would have to include these facts, because if it didn't then it wouldn't be rational, but a lie.
So, no, voters who heard the both explicit and coded hate speech of Trump is how we got Trump.
if you don't think trump said or did racist or bigoted things, then you haven't been paying attention.
considering that Trump is those things, or at least campaigned that way,
and merely pointing them out is making a factual statement and not harassment....yes.
and if you were at all knowledgeable about the topic, rather than woefully ignorant as you seem to be,
you'd know that alllivesmatter is inherently racist, and meant to be.
JFC you're dumb
jesus how ignorant are you?
yes, the appointee needs the approval of congress....a congress controlled by the party that opposes net neutrality
no, the democrats didn't have a supermajority in the congress. if they had, the republicans wouldn't have been able to block them at every turn. that's the point of a super majority
no, they aren't the exact same:
-Hillary didn't mock a disabled person on national television
-Hillary didn't describe and brag about sexual assault
-Hillary didn't claim that paying employees for work done was a sacrifice equivalent to a father's loss of a son to combat
-Hillary didn't exhibit both explicit and coded racism on the complain trail on multiple occasions
-Hillary didn't silence dissent at rallies and suggest that "maybe they deserved to be roughed up a bit", or later excuse supporters who committed violent assault against someone based on race
-Hillary didn't have multiple and ongoing legal battles in the campaign involving fraud or sexual assault, or multiple past lawsuits involving discriminatory housing practices
how long does this list need to be before you realize that you're full of cr-- ?
except he didn't stop the jobs from leaving.
Pence did.
the plant is in Indiana.
Pence is still governor of Indiana for a few a weeks.
Pence promised a continuation of some economic incentives.
cities, legislatures, and governors do this all the time, its nothing special.
and in return carrier will keep ~40% of the jobs here.
the other 60% of jobs are still going to mexico.
trump is simply going to take credit for something would have happened anyway.
No, reality is things like:
- evolution and global warming actually exist
- the country is actually in the best shape it's been in decades
- equality of civil rights is not special rights
- Obama not only didn't wage a war on fossil fuels, but oversaw the largest increase in production basically ever, such that the US is actually now the world's largest producer, and is reaping record profits
- Obama simultaneously oversaw the explosion of the "green revolution" and its industry, creating another explosion of entrepreneurs and jobs in a developing industry
- Obama actually delivered on all the economic promises of his defeated opponents (and then some), oversaw the longest streak of consecutive economic and job growth, and the largest rise in wages in decades
- Obama improved America's standing in the world following the disastrous years of Bush the Lesser, and that we have assisted or taken the lead in several international agreements (Paris climate agreement, TPP (for good or ill), Iran Nuclear deal, etc) leading to an improvement in international relations
Each of which are things whose existence is only denied by American conservatives.
- they, as a party platform, question or outright deny the existence of basic scientific facts
- they say the country is falling apart
- they think granting LGBT the right to marry, or buy goods and services, just llike everyone else is "special" rights, somehow
- they think Obama tried, and has, killed the fossil fuel industry
- they think the green revolution is sham that wasted taxpayer dollars
- they, contrary to all evidence otherwise, maintain that unemployment now...RIGHT NOW...is higher than it was in the great depression
- they think the country is a laughing stock right now, because of Obama, and that no one respects us....that somehow the years of Bush the Lesser were a high point in out international relations
Hillary promised none of those things, you are once again spouting BS.
and like trump supporters, you also exhibit the ability to ignore that things are in the best shape they have been in decades, say "everything is s---", and vote for the guy who will actually turn it to s---.
and don't talk about compassion.
trumpers have no room, none, to speak about "learning compassion".
that is such bs.
really? because you should watch the video, as your remarks are off base.
what the Khan family did and said was in no way inflammatory or poorly thought out, but completely justified and rational.
both at the convention and the later campaign ad ("Mr. Trump, would my dead son have a place in your America?")
the sequence of events:
-Trump calls for Muslim ban, for registration of people "from certain areas"
-Khan family, and other military families too by the way, as well as current past veterans who are Muslim, call him on it, emotionally (justifiably in the case of the Khan family, who lost their son!) yet rationally.
-Trump responds by
----- questioning the Khans' integrity
----- by saying he (Trump) made a lot of sacrifices by employing people
----- by implying Mr Khan would not allow his wife to speak ("I'm sure he's a nice guy, but did you see his wife didn't speak? lots of people are saying maybe she wasn't allowed. but im sure he's a nice guy")
----- by lying about his own nonexistent fundraising efforts and contributions
so no.
you're the one guilty of distortion, and really, simply trolling.
hell, for trump supporters even Trumps own words do not matter.
Multiple sources, including an opinion piece (on CNN!!! the normalizing fools!) actually state "stop taking Trump literally", "stop believing everything he says".... and this is from people who supported him on the basis that "he tells it like it is" !!!
WTF is wrong with these idiots?!
the problem is blaming the victim is really just blame shifting.
and it is done in order to distract from the actual problem.
namely, the actual person who committed an actual wrong or crime.
also: mr libertarian also apparently thinks fraud is ok, as long as it involves a video game.
yes. /s
the opposite of no regulation is soul crushing 100% control from A to B.
there is no in between
you forgot the best choice of all: the billionaire's wife.
(or the billionaire, depending on your proclivities)
and she was wrong for it, and many liberals opposed her support of the bill, and applauded when it failed to pass.
"Hillary did it too" is not a defense.
Reality calling.
It misses you.
Why didn't they start this years ago when Obama extended and expanded the Patriot Act?
Congress.
You misspelled Congress.
you really REALLY need to learn some history, as well as remember that he PICKS the WH Counsel and the Attorney General, and he likes Yes Men who bow to him and reinforce his ego. there are people who support the notion of locking up political enemies. whereas if Obama had tried it, LEOs wouldnt have done it, primarly being opposed to him...but LEOs (and military) are predominantly Trump supporters, predominantly -very- conservative. many among them actually wish police or military had more power; many in the military think the country would be better off run by the military. overall the population is becoming decreasingly supportive of democracy, and increasingly supportive of authoritarian style government. they increasing believe "leadership" is the ability to yell and beat and cow people into submission. even in the military where we actually teach people the 14 leadership traits, the troops are forgetting what it means.
law only works and restrains people when people, especially those who enforce it, believe in it.
we are increasingly becoming a nation where those persons are ok with inequitable enforcement, particularly against those they disagree with.
this is a dangerous state of affairs.
"we can't/shouldn't do anything about global warming because India and China aren't doing anything."