When did Hitler, during his ascendancy (or ever, really) say he wanted to put the Jews in camps? The camps came way, way, way after dehumanizing them and blaming them for all the Germans' problems.
Does not even compare to the shit your side is doing. And you have to twist that to pretend he wasn't talking about the NRA/gun lobby.
Just keep it up dude. Your side's true colors are showing every single day. You're all thieves. You're watching your dreams of FREE SHIT go up in smoke and becoming increasingly insane, and everyone can see it.
But if we can agree that protests are not effective, then "soap box" option has been exhausted.
The soap box option worked great. We have a tyrannical system of corporate media control, Trump vowed to take it on, regular working class Americans came out to support him and got beaten and bloodied and got enough people on their side to get him in.
About the same Republicans take responsibility for every attack on abortion clinics, black churches, or the muslin community.
And those things are universally condemned, and nobody on the right is speaking in favor of them, having plays where they pretend to burn down a black church or wax poetically about how they wish they could blow up an abortion clinic. You will never see "friend of the show Richard Spencer" on Hannity, or see National Review citing the "scholarly research of Dr. David Duke." These people are pariahs who are given no platform and no defense. But the left has no problem with Madonna talking about how she wants to blow up the White House, and Alec Baldwin is patting Kathy Griffin on the back for holding up a blood severed Trump head in effigy. Any time you say "well, I don't support the rioters beating conservatives on campuses, but I understand the frustrations of blah blah blah" that is support. Nobody, nobody on the right says "well I don't support the burning of black churches, but I understand why downtrodden white people might want to blah blah blah." Nobody does that.
False equivalence. Yes, every political or religious or whatever group has its crazies. But the right disavows theirs, wishes they would go the fuck away and gives them no platform. The left defends or applauds their nutjobs. And regular people are noticing, which is why the left will continue to lose. And thank God for that.
No, it will not happen then, either. And not a one of these Congressmen is going to change their minds, either. We have these things called "rights," and lots and lots of people have already died for them. You may have heard about it, a little thing called WORLD WAR AMERICAN REVOLUTION 2. Nobody's giving up their rights over a few more shootings. That's what "cold dead hands" means.
I'd say it's that you don't understand the ability of protests to change public opinion. It's become a cargo cult. It wasn't the marching that made people come around to Dr. King's side in the Civil Rights Movement. It was the pictures of respectable looking black people in suits and dresses having dogs and fire hoses turned on them for the simple act of marching.
Among the things that brought people around to Trump's side was the pictures of average looking American voters being beaten in the streets by violent leftists and pictures of illegal Mexicans stomping on cop cars.
At what point do the look at the leftists holding the bloody faux-severed heads of your political opponents, mock stabbing them in Central Park plays, see the nut jobs shooting Congressmen on the baseball field, put two and two together and ask, "Oh...we're the baddies?"
That's how it all starts. The idealized right wing is "free market capitalism." People have rights to property, and if you want someone else's property, you need to engage in a voluntary exchange for that property. On the far right you've got anarcho-capitalists, who think the state shouldn't even exist, and "taxation is theft." As a conservative, I sympathize with that, but as Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Unfortunately men are not angels. But since yes, taxation is forcibly taking your shit, and that's wrong, government becomes a necessary evil and so should be limited as much as possible. We're only going to take your shit for things we simply cannot provide any other way, like national defense, police, roads, etc. And even then we're going to feel bad about it.
In the leftist world view, though, the rich don't deserve their property. At the extreme left, property itself is illegitimate, but even the moderate lefties think the rich are evil, they "stole" all their shit, they need the shit, and so forcibly extracting wealth from people is not a necessary evil but a necessary good, and the more the better. And if the evil hated rich don't like it, too fucking bad! """Justice""" will be done! They will never feel bad about what they do the people whose shit they take because they've already decided taking shit is good, and the more the better!
The entire leftist worldview is predicated on violence. That it's good and right and just to take stuff from one group of people and give it to another by force. And once it's okay to do that, and morally justified, you end up with concentration camps, or gulags, or shooting up conservatives at baseball games. The idea that National Socialism is right wing is retarded, because an all-powerful state confiscating the wealth of people (hated minority or not) to provide FREE SHIT to their supporters is not, at all, "right wing." That's the entire leftist handbook.
It just now is left instead of right, and the uniforms have changed.
Right, the National Socialist Worker's Party that instituted free education, free healthcare, massive public works projects, nationalized entire industries, that was totally right-wing. All you have to do is take Bernie Sanders' screeds and replace "the 1%" with "the Jews" and he sounds just like Hitler. It's still the same shit: you've got stuff, we want it, and we're going to bust your heads open in the street to get it.
I wish everyone understood this. Humans are always biased. They have to be. All living things are biased towards their own goals. Perception is based on goals and obstacles, not "truth." It takes massive effort to even attempt to overcome one's own biases. If you think you're not biased, you're probably the most biased.
When it comes to media, at least one technique for trying to suss out some kind of truth is to consume multiple different news sources while understanding the biases of the people producing that news. Read Breitbart, and MSNBC, and HuffPo, always keeping in mind these are biased humans, just like you, presenting their biased worldview. Don't take any of them as "true."
They do this kind of shit all the time. If you're watching CNN for some other reason than to see what they're lying and spinning this time to suit their agenda then bless your little heart.
You don't have to "buy off" the 5 companies. The 5 companies all have similar interests. They're going to publish things that promote the interests of the conglomerates and their subsidiaries (global capitalism, mass immigration) and ignore or discredit anything that goes against their interests (populism, nationalism).
My guess is because since they're simulating "everything" you can't do it at a very high fidelity. So you're going to have every type of woodland creature and insect and lizard. You can't afford to animate them all, but they need to move. They can either move in a shitty way, or in an "artistic" way. So they flip end over end so they can pretend it's an artistic choice instead of a design (or work effort) limitation.
The claim was that European or Chinese businesses would out compete the US with the advanced green technologies. That's not the same thing as the quality of the product.
Is the US economy going to be better off without the Paris accord, or worse off?
Then if it's so important, why not do without the gender bullshit?
And if we're all going to die now, well, Trump offered to renegotiate the accord in a way that's more fair to the US. And who knows, would maybe even get approved by Congress, and therefore be binding! And the Europeans told him to pound sand.
Why do the Europeans hate the world and want us all to die?
I don't want to be a global power. I don't want the US policing the world.
Do you like imperialist American hegemony? How about America just takes care of America, and the rest of the world can deal with their own problems, in their own way, without being bossed around by America?
No. China and the EU see a strategic opportunity here to use technological advances to do the the USA in the 21st Century what the USA did to Britain in the 19th Century—use newer industrial technology to out-compete the established corporate interests.
How exactly does that work? I mean, if the new technological advances make businesses more profitable, wouldn't they adopt them on their own without needing global government agreements to force them to?
I'll let your ad hominem go because you're a faggot.
So, you want to "make war on the Saudis." And then what? You defeat their government, and you now have 33 million muslims with no government. Oh and you're in possession of the holiest sites in all of Islam.
If you grant them "freedom" to choose their own government, they're going to choose another Islamic government because the people like Islamic government. They're muslims. They want muslim government. Also, people tend to get a little testy after they've been invaded and their lives completely disrupted by the destruction of their government, so there's a non-zero chance the new Islamic government is more hostile than the old Islamic government.
If you install your own despot to rule over them, well great you've replaced one despot with another, that the people like even less, and now you're responsible for all the atrocities that come with despotism. I'm assuming this a secular despot, so he's also violently suppressing the people's religion.
You could exterminate the people. But genocide is kind of "frowned upon."
If you want them to have "freedom" (with the constraint that they must not choose another Islamic government, and must choose some kind of peaceful coexistence with others), then you'd have to change their fundamental worldview, which means ridding them of Islam. So you'd kind of have to convert them from Islam to something else. Probably not going to be atheism because it's pretty damn difficult to replace something with nothing (and ultimately this isn't much different than the "secular despot" option above). Buddhism or some shit is pretty alien. Maybe another Abrahamic religion? I don't think they're going to go for Judaism. If only there were some well-established Abrahamic religion that puts a really big emphasis on peaceful coexistence with others, and features as its holy figure the 2nd holiest figure in Islam. If only if only...
"Make war." And then do what? What's the victory condition, and what's the path to get there, given the existence of 33 million inbred Muslims?
Look, my answer to Islam is Coulter's. I'm a traditionalist Catholic. If the Pope called for a crusade I'd be down. But I don't think that's a political reality.
What's your answer to Saudi Arabia? Nuke them? Crusade? I don't think those are politically viable options. Pretty sure telling them "fix your shit" is as good as it's going to get.
Slashdot Mirror
When did Hitler, during his ascendancy (or ever, really) say he wanted to put the Jews in camps? The camps came way, way, way after dehumanizing them and blaming them for all the Germans' problems.
Yeah I'll just leave this here...
Does not even compare to the shit your side is doing. And you have to twist that to pretend he wasn't talking about the NRA/gun lobby.
Just keep it up dude. Your side's true colors are showing every single day. You're all thieves. You're watching your dreams of FREE SHIT go up in smoke and becoming increasingly insane, and everyone can see it.
But if we can agree that protests are not effective, then "soap box" option has been exhausted.
The soap box option worked great. We have a tyrannical system of corporate media control, Trump vowed to take it on, regular working class Americans came out to support him and got beaten and bloodied and got enough people on their side to get him in.
About the same Republicans take responsibility for every attack on abortion clinics, black churches, or the muslin community.
And those things are universally condemned, and nobody on the right is speaking in favor of them, having plays where they pretend to burn down a black church or wax poetically about how they wish they could blow up an abortion clinic. You will never see "friend of the show Richard Spencer" on Hannity, or see National Review citing the "scholarly research of Dr. David Duke." These people are pariahs who are given no platform and no defense. But the left has no problem with Madonna talking about how she wants to blow up the White House, and Alec Baldwin is patting Kathy Griffin on the back for holding up a blood severed Trump head in effigy. Any time you say "well, I don't support the rioters beating conservatives on campuses, but I understand the frustrations of blah blah blah" that is support. Nobody, nobody on the right says "well I don't support the burning of black churches, but I understand why downtrodden white people might want to blah blah blah." Nobody does that.
False equivalence. Yes, every political or religious or whatever group has its crazies. But the right disavows theirs, wishes they would go the fuck away and gives them no platform. The left defends or applauds their nutjobs. And regular people are noticing, which is why the left will continue to lose. And thank God for that.
Also, a violent leftist just shot up a bunch of conservatives. Yes, that totally makes me, a conservative, want to give up my guns now.
No, it will not happen then, either. And not a one of these Congressmen is going to change their minds, either. We have these things called "rights," and lots and lots of people have already died for them. You may have heard about it, a little thing called WORLD WAR AMERICAN REVOLUTION 2. Nobody's giving up their rights over a few more shootings. That's what "cold dead hands" means.
I'd say it's that you don't understand the ability of protests to change public opinion. It's become a cargo cult. It wasn't the marching that made people come around to Dr. King's side in the Civil Rights Movement. It was the pictures of respectable looking black people in suits and dresses having dogs and fire hoses turned on them for the simple act of marching.
Among the things that brought people around to Trump's side was the pictures of average looking American voters being beaten in the streets by violent leftists and pictures of illegal Mexicans stomping on cop cars.
At what point do the look at the leftists holding the bloody faux-severed heads of your political opponents, mock stabbing them in Central Park plays, see the nut jobs shooting Congressmen on the baseball field, put two and two together and ask, "Oh...we're the baddies?"
That's how it all starts. The idealized right wing is "free market capitalism." People have rights to property, and if you want someone else's property, you need to engage in a voluntary exchange for that property. On the far right you've got anarcho-capitalists, who think the state shouldn't even exist, and "taxation is theft." As a conservative, I sympathize with that, but as Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Unfortunately men are not angels. But since yes, taxation is forcibly taking your shit, and that's wrong, government becomes a necessary evil and so should be limited as much as possible. We're only going to take your shit for things we simply cannot provide any other way, like national defense, police, roads, etc. And even then we're going to feel bad about it.
In the leftist world view, though, the rich don't deserve their property. At the extreme left, property itself is illegitimate, but even the moderate lefties think the rich are evil, they "stole" all their shit, they need the shit, and so forcibly extracting wealth from people is not a necessary evil but a necessary good, and the more the better. And if the evil hated rich don't like it, too fucking bad! """Justice""" will be done! They will never feel bad about what they do the people whose shit they take because they've already decided taking shit is good, and the more the better!
The entire leftist worldview is predicated on violence. That it's good and right and just to take stuff from one group of people and give it to another by force. And once it's okay to do that, and morally justified, you end up with concentration camps, or gulags, or shooting up conservatives at baseball games. The idea that National Socialism is right wing is retarded, because an all-powerful state confiscating the wealth of people (hated minority or not) to provide FREE SHIT to their supporters is not, at all, "right wing." That's the entire leftist handbook.
It just now is left instead of right, and the uniforms have changed.
Right, the National Socialist Worker's Party that instituted free education, free healthcare, massive public works projects, nationalized entire industries, that was totally right-wing. All you have to do is take Bernie Sanders' screeds and replace "the 1%" with "the Jews" and he sounds just like Hitler. It's still the same shit: you've got stuff, we want it, and we're going to bust your heads open in the street to get it.
I wish everyone understood this. Humans are always biased. They have to be. All living things are biased towards their own goals. Perception is based on goals and obstacles, not "truth." It takes massive effort to even attempt to overcome one's own biases. If you think you're not biased, you're probably the most biased.
When it comes to media, at least one technique for trying to suss out some kind of truth is to consume multiple different news sources while understanding the biases of the people producing that news. Read Breitbart, and MSNBC, and HuffPo, always keeping in mind these are biased humans, just like you, presenting their biased worldview. Don't take any of them as "true."
They do this kind of shit all the time. If you're watching CNN for some other reason than to see what they're lying and spinning this time to suit their agenda then bless your little heart.
How do you type with your head crammed that far up your ass?
You don't have to "buy off" the 5 companies. The 5 companies all have similar interests. They're going to publish things that promote the interests of the conglomerates and their subsidiaries (global capitalism, mass immigration) and ignore or discredit anything that goes against their interests (populism, nationalism).
"We need a Buzzfeed article to keep hammering on Uber. What don't Buzzfeed readers like?"
"Ummm...Trump?"
"Great, just say Trump = Uber = failing = bad!"
"But Trump and Uber don't have anything to do with each other...at all?"
"I don't give a fuck! Just make it happen!"
Later (and this is from the article):
Uber has sought to steer clear of Trump, but their values are so close that the brands are utterly intertwined in the public imagination.
Presented with absolutely no justification for how the Trump and Uber brands are "utterly intertwined in the public imagination."
My guess is because since they're simulating "everything" you can't do it at a very high fidelity. So you're going to have every type of woodland creature and insect and lizard. You can't afford to animate them all, but they need to move. They can either move in a shitty way, or in an "artistic" way. So they flip end over end so they can pretend it's an artistic choice instead of a design (or work effort) limitation.
everything else around us feels the same way.
Pretty sure rocks don't feel shit.
You may recall a few years ago some Wahhabists destroyed a pair of large stone buddhas in Afghanistan;
Is Afghanistan Saudi Arabia?
I don't mind Muslims killing other Muslims due to religious conflicts
So what's the problem with selling shitty outdated weapons to Saudi Arabia so they can blow up muslims in Yemen?
The claim was that European or Chinese businesses would out compete the US with the advanced green technologies. That's not the same thing as the quality of the product.
Is the US economy going to be better off without the Paris accord, or worse off?
Then if it's so important, why not do without the gender bullshit?
And if we're all going to die now, well, Trump offered to renegotiate the accord in a way that's more fair to the US. And who knows, would maybe even get approved by Congress, and therefore be binding! And the Europeans told him to pound sand.
Why do the Europeans hate the world and want us all to die?
Destruction of the US global power and influence
I don't want to be a global power. I don't want the US policing the world.
Do you like imperialist American hegemony? How about America just takes care of America, and the rest of the world can deal with their own problems, in their own way, without being bossed around by America?
No. China and the EU see a strategic opportunity here to use technological advances to do the the USA in the 21st Century what the USA did to Britain in the 19th Century—use newer industrial technology to out-compete the established corporate interests.
How exactly does that work? I mean, if the new technological advances make businesses more profitable, wouldn't they adopt them on their own without needing global government agreements to force them to?
I'm going to steal that. I like that.
I'll let your ad hominem go because you're a faggot.
So, you want to "make war on the Saudis." And then what? You defeat their government, and you now have 33 million muslims with no government. Oh and you're in possession of the holiest sites in all of Islam.
If you grant them "freedom" to choose their own government, they're going to choose another Islamic government because the people like Islamic government. They're muslims. They want muslim government. Also, people tend to get a little testy after they've been invaded and their lives completely disrupted by the destruction of their government, so there's a non-zero chance the new Islamic government is more hostile than the old Islamic government.
If you install your own despot to rule over them, well great you've replaced one despot with another, that the people like even less, and now you're responsible for all the atrocities that come with despotism. I'm assuming this a secular despot, so he's also violently suppressing the people's religion.
You could exterminate the people. But genocide is kind of "frowned upon."
If you want them to have "freedom" (with the constraint that they must not choose another Islamic government, and must choose some kind of peaceful coexistence with others), then you'd have to change their fundamental worldview, which means ridding them of Islam. So you'd kind of have to convert them from Islam to something else. Probably not going to be atheism because it's pretty damn difficult to replace something with nothing (and ultimately this isn't much different than the "secular despot" option above). Buddhism or some shit is pretty alien. Maybe another Abrahamic religion? I don't think they're going to go for Judaism. If only there were some well-established Abrahamic religion that puts a really big emphasis on peaceful coexistence with others, and features as its holy figure the 2nd holiest figure in Islam. If only if only...
"Make war." And then do what? What's the victory condition, and what's the path to get there, given the existence of 33 million inbred Muslims?
Look, my answer to Islam is Coulter's. I'm a traditionalist Catholic. If the Pope called for a crusade I'd be down. But I don't think that's a political reality.
What's your answer to Saudi Arabia? Nuke them? Crusade? I don't think those are politically viable options. Pretty sure telling them "fix your shit" is as good as it's going to get.
What does changing lobbying rules for executive branch employees have to do with individual cabinet appointees?
What do you think "Drain the Swamp," as a campaign pledge, referred to? I mean specifically?