war fatigue over WWI was a big part of it, which really, people today have forgotten just how utterly devastating that war was. But there was a reason people at the time called it The War To End All Wars: not because of the large numbers of people and countries involved, but for the sheer distaste for war it left in everyone's psyche. The numbers of maimed survivors and killed. The devastated countryside, thousands of square miles reduced to rubble and wasteland, littered with bodies.
as well as for the same reason we don't stop Trump. dont forget that Hitler and party were popularly elected as resentment swelled. And among free democratic nations, we were hesitant to step into other countries and disagree with their elections, and try to change outcomes (that changed for the US following WWII....). So should Trump be stopped now? He's spouting the same sort of populist rhetoric, appealing to the same desperate base of people. Should another nation step and stop him? Or let democracy take its course?
if youre posting "safe space garbage" its a sure sign that youve never known anyone who has been raped or suffers from severe PTSD. the fact you think the progressives made Trump marks you for a complete idiot. the progressives arent hte ones to blame for the republican base being predominantly racist idiots who love trump.
and at this point, the burden of proof is not, and has not been, on the climate scientists arguing AGW's existence. the mountain of proof is so high, so interconnectingly reinforcing, that the burden of proof is on the idiots like you who would deny its very existence.
again: they already have been, but your typical response to all the proof in the world is to ignore it. you have never given one flying fuck about substantiated arguments, not truly, thus you are full of shit, and all your pleas for proof, for arguments, are nothing but a smokescreen to mask you own willful blindness.
you are the man who doth protest too much:
"oh where oh whre is the proof?" here it is, in front of your face. "no the real proof, substantiated arguments" they are substantiated, backed by years of research, and collectively peer reviewed until this in the consensus of the community "no, that's not it." well then you're a fucking idiot, cause youve already been given exactly what you want. we can lead you to water, can even put in a bucket for you, but if you're too goddamned willfully ignorant to drink it, you can fucking die of thirst.
and because we know youll try to argue its somehow not racist to claim that folks of certain skin tones only vote blue because they want free stuff....
2. Democrat plantations
This one has got to be insulting to most blacks, not to mention most non-whites in general. There’s a simple reason why blacks vote for the party of social welfare spending and higher taxes: Because it benefits their bottom line. Blacks benefit from food stamps. They benefit from section 8 housing. They benefit from affirmative action. They benefit from the entire cornucopia of racial socialist policies. They don’t have to explain why to anyone. The reasons are self-evident.
So what does Conservatism Inc. see? It sees a Democract Plantation! You may have heard of wage slavery. Well, Conservatism Inc. looks at the social welfare system and sees “vote slavery.” It doesn’t see blacks acting as self-rational human beings, it sees them as being “enslaved” to a party that “promises” them “more stuff.” Or as Rush Limbaugh called it, Santa Clause.
Does Conservatism Inc. actually believe that opposing social welfare will make blacks better off and win black support? Sure seems like it based on the next myth.
we mock the right because of token folks who get paraded around on Fox news, decrying programs that help poor people, predominantly minority, while ignoring the fact that they themselves got where they are because of those programs. Ben Carson, case in point. Thats why you folks are joke, detached from reality, projecting you own latent racism (that you dont even recognize as racism), onto the other side. IE, hypocritical idiots.
if you cant compose a dissenting opinion without "threatening other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease." then you have issues you need to work on, and calling it a "dissenting opinion" is honestly giving it far too much credibility and consideration. in fact, I rather say its cowardice, a means of hiding your bigotry behind the shield of free speech or 'well that just my opinion'.
(you can sock puppet it all you want. but you comment still has nothing to do with the actual posted summary)
Quoted for emphasis because you apparently didn't even read the summary before rushing to post your ignorant comment.
You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease."
Yeah no. Bigotry is not a 'dissenting political opinion' and you're a fool for even suggesting such. Though even more foolish are the idiots who modded you up.
Greece. Venezuela. Detroit. Do tell us about "liberal" and "socialist" logic: tax and spend your way to prosperity.
Canada Australia England France Germany Finland Norway Sweden San Francisco Seattle New York City Portland
Sorry Ac, but your list only shows that you don't actually comprehend the underlying issues behind the places you listed. Hint: its not what you claimed it is.
again your ignorance is on display. no, the 10th does not bar any such thing. read it again. this time with your brain engaged:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
.
There are two IF-THEN clauses to work through before getting to the part where powers are reserved to the States or People.
The first is the "powers not delegated to the United States". What are the powers delegated to the United States? A good place to start is the 3 articles concerning the 3 branches, and their responsibilities and powers.
Congress:
Article 1 Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
you show no knowledge of how inadequate private charity was and continues to be. social security didn't spring into existence because of a Marxist plot, but in response to that inadequacy of private charity to actually meet the needs of the needy.
And for nearly as long, they have been recognized as mass goods that benefit everyone in the area, with no practical way to restrict the benefits to only those that pay in.
you just also precisely described why social security and socialized medicine are good things (and that means that your statement that they only benefit the recipient is patently false and shows a lack of understanding on your part of how the various parts of the economy interact):
a) when older folks can no longer work, they used to become drags on society, if they were helped at all. now they contribute to the economy. yes its through redistribution, but that redistribution enables economic activity as the economy strives to provide services and goods to meet the wants/needs of the elderly. before they had needs/wants but no way to obtain them. now they can, and that results in economic growth. this is a multiplier effect, where every $1 spent on social security results more than 1$ of economic activity.
b) medicine has been steadily increasing the health and vitality of people for decades. the potential working years of a person have expanded tremendously. while partly that's a result of the shift from manual labor to desk labor, it's also largely contributed to by medicine. the result is that socialized medicine, rather than being a drain on the economy, is actually a boost to it. i.e., another multiplier effect. by keeping people healthy, you allow them to work more, or longer, or both, generating economic activity, and again growing the economy.
publicly funded armies to protect the welfare of the nation and ensure a stable standard of living: old therefore ok. publicly financed medicine to protect the welfare of the nation and ensure a stable standard of living: new therefore bad.
and no, they weren't handled privately until recently. they weren't handled AT ALL.
social security actually predates pensions; the explosion of the middle class, and the resulting concept of a retirement pension, happened in the midst of greatest period of economic prosperity humanity has ever seen, yet that all occurred AFTER social security was created. prior to that pensions were rare, and most folks faced poverty as they grew older and less able to work. prior to social security growing old was synonymous with slipping into poverty. full 3/4 of elderly citizens lived in poverty, a number that, in the nearly 80 years of social security's existence, has fallen to ~15%. (and you suckers insist the war on poverty has been lost...hah!)
wait, so now your just completely ignoring that the bulk of that money was spent fixing the economy that imploded under bush, and financing the wars that started under him too? your just completely ignoring that lil ol' recession now, and the extended summer camps in Iraq and Afghanistan? what buffoonery.
if you cant post your "dissenting opinion" without "threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease", then you have some issues you need to work on.
you act as though you live in a world where equality and treating others with respect and not attacking them over things like skin color or identity are bad things.
You can try to mask it by crying 'free speech', but it still it what it is: hatred and bigotry.
Quit acting like opposing it is evil, and supporting it is somehow right.
Quoted for emphasis because you apparently didn't even read the summary before rushing to post your ignorant comment.
You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease."
Yeah no. Bigotry is not a 'dissenting political opinion' and you're a fool for even suggesting such. Though even more foolish are the idiots who modded you up.
no, the ruling was that Arizona could not have its own immigration law, at all, because immigration, as a facet of US citizenship, is strictly within the purview of the federal government, and not the states.
Slashdot Mirror
war fatigue over WWI was a big part of it, which really, people today have forgotten just how utterly devastating that war was. But there was a reason people at the time called it The War To End All Wars: not because of the large numbers of people and countries involved, but for the sheer distaste for war it left in everyone's psyche. The numbers of maimed survivors and killed. The devastated countryside, thousands of square miles reduced to rubble and wasteland, littered with bodies.
as well as for the same reason we don't stop Trump. dont forget that Hitler and party were popularly elected as resentment swelled. And among free democratic nations, we were hesitant to step into other countries and disagree with their elections, and try to change outcomes (that changed for the US following WWII ....). So should Trump be stopped now? He's spouting the same sort of populist rhetoric, appealing to the same desperate base of people. Should another nation step and stop him? Or let democracy take its course?
if youre posting "safe space garbage" its a sure sign that youve never known anyone who has been raped or suffers from severe PTSD.
the fact you think the progressives made Trump marks you for a complete idiot.
the progressives arent hte ones to blame for the republican base being predominantly racist idiots who love trump.
and at this point, the burden of proof is not, and has not been, on the climate scientists arguing AGW's existence.
the mountain of proof is so high, so interconnectingly reinforcing, that the burden of proof is on the idiots like you who would deny its very existence.
again: they already have been, but your typical response to all the proof in the world is to ignore it.
you have never given one flying fuck about substantiated arguments, not truly, thus you are full of shit, and all your pleas for proof, for arguments, are nothing but a smokescreen to mask you own willful blindness.
you are the man who doth protest too much:
"oh where oh whre is the proof?"
here it is, in front of your face.
"no the real proof, substantiated arguments"
they are substantiated, backed by years of research, and collectively peer reviewed until this in the consensus of the community
"no, that's not it."
well then you're a fucking idiot, cause youve already been given exactly what you want. we can lead you to water, can even put in a bucket for you, but if you're too goddamned willfully ignorant to drink it, you can fucking die of thirst.
random guy on the internet upstages scientists, thinks of something they never thought of in all their years of doing statistics.
news at 11.
technically not a tree
nice hat.
rather shiny.
some sort of metal?
and because we know youll try to argue its somehow not racist to claim that folks of certain skin tones only vote blue because they want free stuff ....
2. Democrat plantations
This one has got to be insulting to most blacks, not to mention most non-whites in general. There’s a simple reason why blacks vote for the party of social welfare spending and higher taxes: Because it benefits their bottom line. Blacks benefit from food stamps. They benefit from section 8 housing. They benefit from affirmative action. They benefit from the entire cornucopia of racial socialist policies. They don’t have to explain why to anyone. The reasons are self-evident.
So what does Conservatism Inc. see? It sees a Democract Plantation! You may have heard of wage slavery. Well, Conservatism Inc. looks at the social welfare system and sees “vote slavery.” It doesn’t see blacks acting as self-rational human beings, it sees them as being “enslaved” to a party that “promises” them “more stuff.” Or as Rush Limbaugh called it, Santa Clause.
Does Conservatism Inc. actually believe that opposing social welfare will make blacks better off and win black support? Sure seems like it based on the next myth.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ten-conservative-myths-about-black-america
we mock the right because of token folks who get paraded around on Fox news, decrying programs that help poor people, predominantly minority, while ignoring the fact that they themselves got where they are because of those programs. Ben Carson, case in point. Thats why you folks are joke, detached from reality, projecting you own latent racism (that you dont even recognize as racism), onto the other side. IE, hypocritical idiots.
bwahahaa.
lets just ignore that who black fucking president thing.
seriously, just shut th fuck up you delusional twit.
if you cant compose a dissenting opinion without "threatening other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease." then you have issues you need to work on, and calling it a "dissenting opinion" is honestly giving it far too much credibility and consideration. in fact, I rather say its cowardice, a means of hiding your bigotry behind the shield of free speech or 'well that just my opinion'.
(you can sock puppet it all you want. but you comment still has nothing to do with the actual posted summary)
Quoted for emphasis because you apparently didn't even read the summary before rushing to post your ignorant comment.
You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease."
Yeah no.
Bigotry is not a 'dissenting political opinion' and you're a fool for even suggesting such.
Though even more foolish are the idiots who modded you up.
ah the "X is worse, so who cares about Y" canard.
Greece.
Venezuela.
Detroit.
Do tell us about "liberal" and "socialist" logic: tax and spend your way to prosperity.
Canada
Australia
England
France
Germany
Finland
Norway
Sweden
San Francisco
Seattle
New York City
Portland
Sorry Ac, but your list only shows that you don't actually comprehend the underlying issues behind the places you listed.
Hint: its not what you claimed it is.
again your ignorance is on display.
no, the 10th does not bar any such thing.
read it again. this time with your brain engaged:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
.
There are two IF-THEN clauses to work through before getting to the part where powers are reserved to the States or People.
The first is the "powers not delegated to the United States". What are the powers delegated to the United States? A good place to start is the 3 articles concerning the 3 branches, and their responsibilities and powers.
Congress:
Article 1 Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be l
you show no knowledge of how inadequate private charity was and continues to be.
social security didn't spring into existence because of a Marxist plot, but in response to that inadequacy of private charity to actually meet the needs of the needy.
also:
And for nearly as long, they have been recognized as mass goods that benefit everyone in the area, with no practical way to restrict the benefits to only those that pay in.
you just also precisely described why social security and socialized medicine are good things (and that means that your statement that they only benefit the recipient is patently false and shows a lack of understanding on your part of how the various parts of the economy interact):
a) when older folks can no longer work, they used to become drags on society, if they were helped at all. now they contribute to the economy. yes its through redistribution, but that redistribution enables economic activity as the economy strives to provide services and goods to meet the wants/needs of the elderly. before they had needs/wants but no way to obtain them. now they can, and that results in economic growth. this is a multiplier effect, where every $1 spent on social security results more than 1$ of economic activity.
b) medicine has been steadily increasing the health and vitality of people for decades. the potential working years of a person have expanded tremendously. while partly that's a result of the shift from manual labor to desk labor, it's also largely contributed to by medicine. the result is that socialized medicine, rather than being a drain on the economy, is actually a boost to it. i.e., another multiplier effect. by keeping people healthy, you allow them to work more, or longer, or both, generating economic activity, and again growing the economy.
so that makes them ok then?
publicly funded armies to protect the welfare of the nation and ensure a stable standard of living: old therefore ok.
publicly financed medicine to protect the welfare of the nation and ensure a stable standard of living: new therefore bad.
and no, they weren't handled privately until recently.
they weren't handled AT ALL.
social security actually predates pensions; the explosion of the middle class, and the resulting concept of a retirement pension, happened in the midst of greatest period of economic prosperity humanity has ever seen, yet that all occurred AFTER social security was created. prior to that pensions were rare, and most folks faced poverty as they grew older and less able to work. prior to social security growing old was synonymous with slipping into poverty. full 3/4 of elderly citizens lived in poverty, a number that, in the nearly 80 years of social security's existence, has fallen to ~15%. (and you suckers insist the war on poverty has been lost...hah!)
history.
learn it some time.
wait, so now your just completely ignoring that the bulk of that money was spent fixing the economy that imploded under bush, and financing the wars that started under him too? your just completely ignoring that lil ol' recession now, and the extended summer camps in Iraq and Afghanistan? what buffoonery.
"Dirty Lying Rich White Career Politician"
Just a FYI but that also applies to most of the republican field of candidates.
Three of the top 4 Republicans aren't white.
Well, 4 out of 5 ain't bad.
if you cant post your "dissenting opinion" without "threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease", then you have some issues you need to work on.
you act as though you live in a world where equality and treating others with respect and not attacking them over things like skin color or identity are bad things.
You can try to mask it by crying 'free speech', but it still it what it is: hatred and bigotry.
Quit acting like opposing it is evil, and supporting it is somehow right.
Quoted for emphasis because you apparently didn't even read the summary before rushing to post your ignorant comment.
You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease."
Yeah no.
Bigotry is not a 'dissenting political opinion' and you're a fool for even suggesting such.
Though even more foolish are the idiots who modded you up.
again: all you've done is show your own ignorance, your incapacity for thought, and gullibility/capability for believing BS.
Not one thing you've said is backed by reality.
Not one.
depends. are you going to enforce the law competently?
or allow them to buy weapons 31 miles away, and bring it back?
no, the ruling was that Arizona could not have its own immigration law, at all , because immigration, as a facet of US citizenship, is strictly within the purview of the federal government, and not the states.
there's a difference.