The fact of the matter is that the slave states left the Union because they had lost the fight to make a sufficient number of the new states that were going to be carved out of the Western Territory slave states, which meant that within thirty or forty years, there would be enough Free States in the Union to push through an amendment abolishing slavery. They didn't leave for any high purpose, they left explicitly to preserve slavery, proudly said so at the time, and it was only during Reconstruction that the myth that the Civil War was about the evil North trying to put down those brave southern states was spread. The victorious Union sadly allowed this happen, but since, particularly after Lincoln's assassination, the primary goal of Reconstruction was to rehabilitate the former Confederate states as quickly as possible, I suppose they thought allowing the myth that Secession was a states rights issue, rather than a slavery issue, was a useful one to allow to be peddled.
But no matter how much you and the other Confederate apologists try to make this a "North" vs "south" issue, the fact was that secession only happened when the question of the Western Territory couldn't be decided and an avowed supporter of the Abolitionists became president.
There hasn't been an effective far left/Communist movement in the United States since the 1930s. You might as well say "The only thing more dangerous than Nazis is ZOMBIES!!!!" Yes, Communists killed more people than Nazis, and PRC under Mao is responsible for the single largest mass death of people in history (the millions who died of starvation during the Great Leap Forward). But I don't know of any Communist regimes that explicitly picked out ethno-racial community and targeted them for complete extermination. You could argue Stalin tried it with the people of the Ukraine, but you will notice there are still lots of Ukrainians in Eastern Europe, and very few Jews, whereas after the Second World War, two out of every three Jews who had lived in Nazi-occupied areas of Europe had been murdered. So go on, keep peddling your moral equivalency.
The report I quoted shows that the "far left" is responsible for only a very small fraction of the number of extremist murders in the United States, whereas White Supremacist groups are responsible for MOST of the extremist murders in the US.
And I bet you really outraged when all those Lithuanians, Estonians and Latvians toppled statues of Lenin! Truly a crime against humanity.
The fact that you can still have statues of the likes of Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis a century and a half after the Confederacy was beaten into the ground astonishes me. It's one thing to remember one's past, but to actually honor the leaders of the Confederacy with statues and memorials, no thanks, that's not remembering a bitter chapter from the past, that's celebrating it.
It all stems back to the fiction that the former Confederate states were allowed to propagate, that somehow the formation of the Confederacy wasn't about preservation of slavery, that somehow it was some great campaign for liberty. Well, that's bullshit. The Confederacy was entirely about slavery, and it stood and fell on that principle, so fuck Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and all the other men who sent hundreds of thousands off to stain hundreds of battlefields red for the cause of keeping men in shackles because of their skin color. We shouldn't topple their statues, we should fucking dynamite them.
There are violent BLM members. No denying it. But BLM itself doesn't stand for violence, nor is that its goal.
White supremacists, on the other hand, do stand for violence, do stand for racism. You can criticize BLM for perhaps showing some tolerance for hooliganism, but groups like Vanguard America are, to the every last one of them, violent extremists who, like their spiritual forebears, use political conservatism and the First Amendment as cover for their evil ideology.
So no, it ain't the same, and I wonder why you are trying so hard to defend the white nationalists, white supremacists and Neo=Nazis, and trying so hard to make BLM and Antifa into some sort left wing version of them? Is it a silly attempt at equanimity, or perhaps do you sympathize with people who hate blacks, Jews, and believe white people are the master race? Go on, explain yourself.
Exactly right. I don't think Paul Ryan is a Nazi. I don't think Mitch McConnell is a Nazi. I don't think Ted Cruz is a Nazi.
Let's be pretty clear here, the majority of Republicans are not Nazis. But then again, those marching in Charlottesville with their white nationalist and white supremacist flags and sheilds are not your average Republicans. They are, well, yes, that's right, they're Nazis, and their so repugnant and evil that just about goddamned Republican out there is running from them as fast as possible...
With the exception of the Republican President of the United States.
Plenty? How many? Provide a number, along with full citation and reference to the polls and/or studies used to derive the data. Go on, you've made a claim, now actually back it up.
In practical terms there aren't enough public works projects to make such a scheme viable. And why do you assume peoplenwould be lazy? I'd be doing lots of things if I didn't work, many of which wouldn't produce income, but allmof which would keep me busy.
With the 16th amendment, the Constitution gave Congress very wide berth to tax as it saw fit. What it "should" do can be debated, but income taxes are legal, so at that point, your right as a voter is to decide whether you'll vote for a party that personally taxes you or not. But the reality is that the Federal government will continue to tax, and as social dislocation becomes more severe over the coming decades due to automation in both blue and white collar occupations, it's going to mean someone is going to have to pay to support a society where full time work all but disappears, and that's going to mean the wealthy, or more likely, the corporations themselves, seeing as they are the beneficiaries of automation.
"Should" is a useful theoretical question, but at the end of the day when the rubber hits the road, taxes have to support what the citizens' elected representatives decide is necessary.
I don't really look at Google's office apps as competitors for Office or Libre/OpenOffice. They're pretty good for basic work, but if you're going to go to more complex usage scenarios, Google Docs or Sheets is definitely not the tool for you.
I use Google Apps for quicky documents and the like. It means I can access them on my phone, tablet or laptop without too much difficulty. But if I'm writing a lengthy report, I admit that I head on over to Word, because even if I can find some of the features in Google Docs, I find they can be far trickier to use than Word.
The right stems from the very notion of "no taxation without representation". Even the Founding Fathers understood a government needs taxes. The right is inherent in the very nature of society. Libertarian fantasies about taxation as "theft" is just that, fantastical thinking that has absolutely no relation to how a real society could ever function.
It's called Universal Basic Income, because in a few decades it won't just be unskilled workers, automation and AI will be eating in to the more skilled professions as well.
Bullshit. That's what polite society has always been about. Modern democracy gives people wide latitude in their speech and behavior, but that doesn't mean that those who fart in public can't be called out.
If you hold noxious views, then expect people to distance themselves from you. It's your choice to be that kind of person, and it's my choice to call you out and refuse to allow my property to be used for you to spread your beliefs.
The Internet is a global entity. I'm quite sure many of these alt-right groups would have no problem, for instance, getting hosting services in Russia.
And those people are morons. As I said yesterday, your right to speak your mind doesn't, and nor should it, come with a right to demand someone give you a microphone.
And reading a lot of these comments, no, i don't think a lot of those invoking the First Amendment have any idea what it applies to, or how it would completely contravene the entire intent of the First Amendment to try to force public actors to broadcast all messages.
Have you even watched the fucking video? He starts speeding up in a relatively unpopulated part of the street, and drives into a larger body of protesters. Why are you people so interested in making this white supremacist look like a victim?
Slashdot Mirror
The fact of the matter is that the slave states left the Union because they had lost the fight to make a sufficient number of the new states that were going to be carved out of the Western Territory slave states, which meant that within thirty or forty years, there would be enough Free States in the Union to push through an amendment abolishing slavery. They didn't leave for any high purpose, they left explicitly to preserve slavery, proudly said so at the time, and it was only during Reconstruction that the myth that the Civil War was about the evil North trying to put down those brave southern states was spread. The victorious Union sadly allowed this happen, but since, particularly after Lincoln's assassination, the primary goal of Reconstruction was to rehabilitate the former Confederate states as quickly as possible, I suppose they thought allowing the myth that Secession was a states rights issue, rather than a slavery issue, was a useful one to allow to be peddled.
But no matter how much you and the other Confederate apologists try to make this a "North" vs "south" issue, the fact was that secession only happened when the question of the Western Territory couldn't be decided and an avowed supporter of the Abolitionists became president.
There hasn't been an effective far left/Communist movement in the United States since the 1930s. You might as well say "The only thing more dangerous than Nazis is ZOMBIES!!!!" Yes, Communists killed more people than Nazis, and PRC under Mao is responsible for the single largest mass death of people in history (the millions who died of starvation during the Great Leap Forward). But I don't know of any Communist regimes that explicitly picked out ethno-racial community and targeted them for complete extermination. You could argue Stalin tried it with the people of the Ukraine, but you will notice there are still lots of Ukrainians in Eastern Europe, and very few Jews, whereas after the Second World War, two out of every three Jews who had lived in Nazi-occupied areas of Europe had been murdered. So go on, keep peddling your moral equivalency.
The report I quoted shows that the "far left" is responsible for only a very small fraction of the number of extremist murders in the United States, whereas White Supremacist groups are responsible for MOST of the extremist murders in the US.
It's so good that all those out-of-state Nazis came to support the maintaining of statues celebrating the glory of the Confederacy.
Yeah, I'm thinking white supremacists are a helluva lot more dangerous than any left-leaning protester/activist groups:
https://www.adl.org/sites/defa...
You're the one who brought up Soros.
And I bet you really outraged when all those Lithuanians, Estonians and Latvians toppled statues of Lenin! Truly a crime against humanity.
The fact that you can still have statues of the likes of Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis a century and a half after the Confederacy was beaten into the ground astonishes me. It's one thing to remember one's past, but to actually honor the leaders of the Confederacy with statues and memorials, no thanks, that's not remembering a bitter chapter from the past, that's celebrating it.
It all stems back to the fiction that the former Confederate states were allowed to propagate, that somehow the formation of the Confederacy wasn't about preservation of slavery, that somehow it was some great campaign for liberty. Well, that's bullshit. The Confederacy was entirely about slavery, and it stood and fell on that principle, so fuck Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and all the other men who sent hundreds of thousands off to stain hundreds of battlefields red for the cause of keeping men in shackles because of their skin color. We shouldn't topple their statues, we should fucking dynamite them.
I've identified the Neo-nazi! You can always tell a Neo-nazi, they always find a Jew to blame.
Because moderate conservatives should stand hand in hand with their white supremacist brethren, is that it?
There are violent BLM members. No denying it. But BLM itself doesn't stand for violence, nor is that its goal.
White supremacists, on the other hand, do stand for violence, do stand for racism. You can criticize BLM for perhaps showing some tolerance for hooliganism, but groups like Vanguard America are, to the every last one of them, violent extremists who, like their spiritual forebears, use political conservatism and the First Amendment as cover for their evil ideology.
So no, it ain't the same, and I wonder why you are trying so hard to defend the white nationalists, white supremacists and Neo=Nazis, and trying so hard to make BLM and Antifa into some sort left wing version of them? Is it a silly attempt at equanimity, or perhaps do you sympathize with people who hate blacks, Jews, and believe white people are the master race? Go on, explain yourself.
And by "leftist propaganda", you mean calling out Nazis. Yes, truly a thought crime. How dare Nazis be condemned.
Exactly right. I don't think Paul Ryan is a Nazi. I don't think Mitch McConnell is a Nazi. I don't think Ted Cruz is a Nazi.
Let's be pretty clear here, the majority of Republicans are not Nazis. But then again, those marching in Charlottesville with their white nationalist and white supremacist flags and sheilds are not your average Republicans. They are, well, yes, that's right, they're Nazis, and their so repugnant and evil that just about goddamned Republican out there is running from them as fast as possible...
With the exception of the Republican President of the United States.
Plenty? How many? Provide a number, along with full citation and reference to the polls and/or studies used to derive the data. Go on, you've made a claim, now actually back it up.
Don't blame Slashdot because the President of the United States is a loudmouthed idiot.
In practical terms there aren't enough public works projects to make such a scheme viable. And why do you assume peoplenwould be lazy? I'd be doing lots of things if I didn't work, many of which wouldn't produce income, but allmof which would keep me busy.
With the 16th amendment, the Constitution gave Congress very wide berth to tax as it saw fit. What it "should" do can be debated, but income taxes are legal, so at that point, your right as a voter is to decide whether you'll vote for a party that personally taxes you or not. But the reality is that the Federal government will continue to tax, and as social dislocation becomes more severe over the coming decades due to automation in both blue and white collar occupations, it's going to mean someone is going to have to pay to support a society where full time work all but disappears, and that's going to mean the wealthy, or more likely, the corporations themselves, seeing as they are the beneficiaries of automation.
"Should" is a useful theoretical question, but at the end of the day when the rubber hits the road, taxes have to support what the citizens' elected representatives decide is necessary.
I don't really look at Google's office apps as competitors for Office or Libre/OpenOffice. They're pretty good for basic work, but if you're going to go to more complex usage scenarios, Google Docs or Sheets is definitely not the tool for you.
I use Google Apps for quicky documents and the like. It means I can access them on my phone, tablet or laptop without too much difficulty. But if I'm writing a lengthy report, I admit that I head on over to Word, because even if I can find some of the features in Google Docs, I find they can be far trickier to use than Word.
The right stems from the very notion of "no taxation without representation". Even the Founding Fathers understood a government needs taxes. The right is inherent in the very nature of society. Libertarian fantasies about taxation as "theft" is just that, fantastical thinking that has absolutely no relation to how a real society could ever function.
It's called Universal Basic Income, because in a few decades it won't just be unskilled workers, automation and AI will be eating in to the more skilled professions as well.
Bullshit. That's what polite society has always been about. Modern democracy gives people wide latitude in their speech and behavior, but that doesn't mean that those who fart in public can't be called out.
If you hold noxious views, then expect people to distance themselves from you. It's your choice to be that kind of person, and it's my choice to call you out and refuse to allow my property to be used for you to spread your beliefs.
I love how the alt-right attacks identity politics, even as they are its biggest practitioners.
The Internet is a global entity. I'm quite sure many of these alt-right groups would have no problem, for instance, getting hosting services in Russia.
And those people are morons. As I said yesterday, your right to speak your mind doesn't, and nor should it, come with a right to demand someone give you a microphone.
And reading a lot of these comments, no, i don't think a lot of those invoking the First Amendment have any idea what it applies to, or how it would completely contravene the entire intent of the First Amendment to try to force public actors to broadcast all messages.
I can't figure out whether you're just a paranoid schizophrenic or a racist.
Have you even watched the fucking video? He starts speeding up in a relatively unpopulated part of the street, and drives into a larger body of protesters. Why are you people so interested in making this white supremacist look like a victim?
Fascism is a governing model. It isn't limited simply to economics at all.