But their preferred candidate was Bush middle? I think there would have been many moderate conservatives and independents who would have crossed the line on that one. But maybe that was the plan all along.
Hmm, interesting point on the specific trolling of the left. You are right about the backlash he is creating. It did give him quite a bit of free coverage during the election as well. It does make one wonder what the true motives are. Maybe to get more people politically active? That he has done, but with a negative side effect. It seems that there is not as much "middle ground" as their used to be.
I have, in the past, also pointed out that the ranting and raving that is currently going on does not help ones position. Rational thought and discussion would have a better result.
Yes, that happened at a company I was at as well. The Windows dev team was frantically asking "what date was the last back up done" to the infrastructure team. We over on the Unix side of the house breathed a sigh of relief as they were asking all of us to consolidate our repositories into SourceSafe but we voted it down just 2 weeks prior.
That is why you NEVER allow a LARGE centralized government. They took control of that and look at the chaos that ensued.
During that time frame of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), there were conflicts between left and right factions vying for control. BOTH SIDES used thugs
USPD (Socialist Democrats leaned toward democracy, liberal, left) and MSPD( Parliamentary Democrats leaned more toward monarchy, conservative, right). Neither wanted the communists. Hitler was pissed off at both of them to form his own party (USPD - felt betrayed by them, MSPD - prior monarchy). But he leaned towards a socialist, the government takes care of basic needs, food shelter, work. But he also went WAY overboard on the nationalism. So I understand why many raised concerns when the phrase "America First" started to make their rounds in Europe. However, remember the US fought in that war as well against that sociopath.
I believe there is a lot of confusion when comparing German left and right vs.US left and right. Remember that the US never had a monarchy.
So when you are referencing the far right in Germany, you are talking about re-installing the former ruling class (monarchy). Germany's left was somewhat equivalent of the US type government. When we talk about left vs right in the US, we are talking about (left, liberal, more central government control vs. right, conservative, less central government control). This was supposed to balance the powers of the states to run their own territories as long as they conformed to the central government core laws.
By the government, you mean the people who put them into office, the ones who felt that their country was headed in the wrong direction, the people who felt threatened in their own country? That particular period shows that a socialist approach put onto a populace that did not want it and the effect was, well you can guess. That was the rise of the Third Reich, where a large centralized government along with the military had control over all states. Once they gained control of the central government, they implemented means to give them MORE power over the states. This path has been tried. We do not need to repeat it. Once you have a large centralized government that controls all, this is where dictatorships and totalitarian regime arise. When limits are put on a government, then you can have a true representation of the people. On another note, this can also be applied to capitalism as well. When a company becomes so large, that it controls most of the means to prosper, the same effect occurs.
When there are extreme left and right sides this is what needs to be prevented. This is the current situation that the US is in today, extremism. Unfortunately, it seems that the most vocal are only blaming one side for all this chaos, but it does take two to have a conflict. You censure one side and not the other, there is only one outcome for that. This is what needs to be prevented. To make my point, why is it that your remarks only addressed the far-right thugs and not the other? There were heavily armed thugs on BOTH SIDES of the disagreements in that time period and the deaths of non-participating citizens that got caught up in the middle of it shows that (The Early Years). This is the biggest issue that I have seen so far is again, that the most vocal are only blaming one side just as you are doing.
ME AN SJW!!!! WTF!!! Now that is colorful from you the "King of telling people how it should be", that is rich. And now your statements reflect your true nature. Everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy and must be eliminated, excised and killed in the crib. (Sound familiar? It should because that is what the Nazis did to the Jews)
And I like how they threw that "and many are Trump supporters" in there to insinuate that Trump is fascist (but that is from the NYT so it was not unexpected).
I kind of hate to break it to you, but it is because of people who continue to think like you do is the reason the Democrats will lose again in 2020.
You are missing the point. The reason they got there was because they felt disenfranchised and oppressed in their own country PRIOR to all that mess.
I know I can totally ignore all their BS into their own irrelevance until they actually become a threat. However this did nothing other than harden their resolve, they will adapt and they even got TONS of free media coverage to boot.
And that worked out well for the Democrats this last election, right? I do not believe that the current administration spent a whole lot of money on Prime Time slots at all.
Geez, I hope you are right, but I will not count on that. WWII did happen because of something similar to this. The originals (fascists) pretty much started out the same way to what is unfolding here now. And that event should NEVER happen again if at all possible.
Not so sure about this one. Now we as a community will never know who, what or even when they may cause mayhem again. They will go dark.
Just because you remove them from the public eye, does not make them disappear. It does not eliminate their message. They will adapt.
Does it send a message? Yes it does. It says that a majority of the people do not believe in their BS and would prefer not for it to be public. But it will not solve the real underlying problem of why they exist in the first place. This solution is just making it someone else's issue later on down the road.
IMO this is nothing but a short term band-aid to a much bigger issue.
Agreed, this seems to be a ruse for relations to revert back to where they were. One would think that the Cuban government would want this investigated as well. It is in both our countries interests that we normalize and keep the relations on a good standing instead of outright accusing them of foul play.
It seems that SOMEONE is pulling out the old Cold War playbook again.
Hmmm. kinda of makes you wonder who benefits from this.
I kind of like to think about being proactive and not reactive whenever possible. That proactive does tend to get more desirable results. Whereas, reactive is like saying "Oh shit, we better take care of that someday".
I have opted for one of my own. Most people take a look at my phone and say "Holy Crap, what is a Motorola Razor and why does it flip open like a Star Trek communicator? What are you, in the 20th century still?". Hey, problem solved.
Yea, that is the bizarre part about the English language. Spoken does not always follow the written. I have condition myself to not use them in writing, however spoken is another story. I sometimes use them unless I am trying to emphasize a point. Such as: "I don't use contractions" in normal speak. And when I want to emphasize that same statement with "I DO NOT use contractions" instead of "I DON'T use contractions".
Ahhh, you have to love the little subtleties of this language.
On a side note you also pointed out another. "Cannot" vs. "Can not" (contraction: can't). Who made the decision on that one? Did they just run out of space on the page for the official definition or was their hand writing so bad that is was interpreted incorrectly? Just another thing that makes you go "Hmmmm".
You know, I never really like contractions. It seems that all most of them (at least the ones that are most misused) do is eliminate a single space and a letter. I try and avoid them in written communications. Let's (here's one) (and another) take a look at some of them. Instead of "let us" one would use "let's" Saved space, and time = 1 letter and a space. "Here's" instead of "here is", again same savings.
I am sure there are some like "You're" that increase this time saving (oh wait, yet another single saving), but realistically it would just be better to NEVER use them in the first place. (notice I did not use "I'm" or even "didn't").
Some English and grammar rules just seem...., well..... stupid. And yeah, I know. It must be a boring Thursday for this type of post.
Whoa, now that brings back memories. 1995 Version 2.3 (Kernel 1.2.8) The last full version of the static libraries release. And my computer adventures were never the same again. I used that in place of Windows until Windows 98 and Diablo was released (the only reason I used Windows back then).
Slashdot Mirror
Hey I know, why don't they get their friends at Google to help them transition to their email system.
Sometimes sacrifices of a few are required to save many..... That one works as well.
We have enough fake news sources, don't be another.
They will not statistics on that until closer to the end of the year at the earliest, and probably not until early to mid 2018.
And another point, I believe that enforcing our current laws are enough that new ones are not required.
And what was the "preferred" choice of the Republicans, we already had Bush Sr. and Jr., Bush middle?
Also, what were the Democrats thinking that we needed another Clinton? This country isn't a freakin' family run business anyway
Maybe we should be looking at it from another perspective. We put Trump in there to punish both Democrats and Republicans.
LOL, that comment reminds me of Zorg.
But their preferred candidate was Bush middle? I think there would have been many moderate conservatives and independents who would have crossed the line on that one. But maybe that was the plan all along.
Hmm, interesting point on the specific trolling of the left. You are right about the backlash he is creating. It did give him quite a bit of free coverage during the election as well. It does make one wonder what the true motives are. Maybe to get more people politically active? That he has done, but with a negative side effect. It seems that there is not as much "middle ground" as their used to be.
I have, in the past, also pointed out that the ranting and raving that is currently going on does not help ones position. Rational thought and discussion would have a better result.
Yes, that happened at a company I was at as well. The Windows dev team was frantically asking "what date was the last back up done" to the infrastructure team. We over on the Unix side of the house breathed a sigh of relief as they were asking all of us to consolidate our repositories into SourceSafe but we voted it down just 2 weeks prior.
During that time frame of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), there were conflicts between left and right factions vying for control. BOTH SIDES used thugs USPD (Socialist Democrats leaned toward democracy, liberal, left) and MSPD( Parliamentary Democrats leaned more toward monarchy, conservative, right). Neither wanted the communists. Hitler was pissed off at both of them to form his own party (USPD - felt betrayed by them, MSPD - prior monarchy). But he leaned towards a socialist, the government takes care of basic needs, food shelter, work. But he also went WAY overboard on the nationalism. So I understand why many raised concerns when the phrase "America First" started to make their rounds in Europe. However, remember the US fought in that war as well against that sociopath.
I believe there is a lot of confusion when comparing German left and right vs.US left and right. Remember that the US never had a monarchy. So when you are referencing the far right in Germany, you are talking about re-installing the former ruling class (monarchy). Germany's left was somewhat equivalent of the US type government. When we talk about left vs right in the US, we are talking about (left, liberal, more central government control vs. right, conservative, less central government control). This was supposed to balance the powers of the states to run their own territories as long as they conformed to the central government core laws.
When there are extreme left and right sides this is what needs to be prevented. This is the current situation that the US is in today, extremism. Unfortunately, it seems that the most vocal are only blaming one side for all this chaos, but it does take two to have a conflict. You censure one side and not the other, there is only one outcome for that. This is what needs to be prevented. To make my point, why is it that your remarks only addressed the far-right thugs and not the other? There were heavily armed thugs on BOTH SIDES of the disagreements in that time period and the deaths of non-participating citizens that got caught up in the middle of it shows that (The Early Years). This is the biggest issue that I have seen so far is again, that the most vocal are only blaming one side just as you are doing.
And I like how they threw that "and many are Trump supporters" in there to insinuate that Trump is fascist (but that is from the NYT so it was not unexpected).
I kind of hate to break it to you, but it is because of people who continue to think like you do is the reason the Democrats will lose again in 2020.
I know I can totally ignore all their BS into their own irrelevance until they actually become a threat. However this did nothing other than harden their resolve, they will adapt and they even got TONS of free media coverage to boot.
And that worked out well for the Democrats this last election, right? I do not believe that the current administration spent a whole lot of money on Prime Time slots at all.
Oppression, however, should never be the answer.
Just because you remove them from the public eye, does not make them disappear. It does not eliminate their message. They will adapt.
Does it send a message? Yes it does. It says that a majority of the people do not believe in their BS and would prefer not for it to be public. But it will not solve the real underlying problem of why they exist in the first place. This solution is just making it someone else's issue later on down the road.
IMO this is nothing but a short term band-aid to a much bigger issue.
Sadly we can chalk up another 'win' to groupthink, oppression of minorities, and censorship.
Really, isn't the best way to fight such complete stupidity to keep it in the open?
Yes
Isn't censoring such people just making them feel more targeted, and therefore strengthening their solidarity?
Yes
All this has done is give a bunch of disenfranchised idiots more reason to hate..
And yes
Shine a light on them, don't chase them away to skulk in the dark, where they will do what they will do without anyone watching.
Careful, that independent thought will get you into trouble with our groupthink overlords.
Aaaaah, finally a sane voice in all this craziness.
BRB, my stock of popcorn ran out. I think I will double down on the purchase as this thread will probably become VERY amusing.
So NOT true. Where do you think all those handy-dandy tools that you currently use came from? You are trolling young man.
It seems that SOMEONE is pulling out the old Cold War playbook again.
Hmmm. kinda of makes you wonder who benefits from this.
I kind of like to think about being proactive and not reactive whenever possible. That proactive does tend to get more desirable results. Whereas, reactive is like saying "Oh shit, we better take care of that someday".
I have opted for one of my own. Most people take a look at my phone and say "Holy Crap, what is a Motorola Razor and why does it flip open like a Star Trek communicator? What are you, in the 20th century still?". Hey, problem solved.
Ahhh, you have to love the little subtleties of this language.
On a side note you also pointed out another. "Cannot" vs. "Can not" (contraction: can't). Who made the decision on that one? Did they just run out of space on the page for the official definition or was their hand writing so bad that is was interpreted incorrectly? Just another thing that makes you go "Hmmmm".
I am sure there are some like "You're" that increase this time saving (oh wait, yet another single saving), but realistically it would just be better to NEVER use them in the first place. (notice I did not use "I'm" or even "didn't").
Some English and grammar rules just seem...., well..... stupid. And yeah, I know. It must be a boring Thursday for this type of post.
Whoa, now that brings back memories. 1995 Version 2.3 (Kernel 1.2.8) The last full version of the static libraries release. And my computer adventures were never the same again. I used that in place of Windows until Windows 98 and Diablo was released (the only reason I used Windows back then).