the Nazi Party was a far-right political party in Germany
Nazi stands for "national socialism". Calling socialism "far right" is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? On the other hand, being nationalist and authoritarian may be considered "far right". And then you have Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., and they killed millions in the name of communism. So left/right labels don't apply neatly to groups/people.
What we're seeing now is the rise of the new "authoritarian left", with their neo-Marxist embrace of "class struggle" tied to identity politics and grievance culture.
Why would they be sent back, when bleeding heart leftists like you conflate refugee with economic migrants and opened the doors in the first place? Even when saner heads in government deny refugee status, they are obstructed by other operatives or the migrant just disappears into the system and is not sent back.
The US can't even deport millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico -- the idea that the US would even try to do so is now equated to Nazism. Political correctness dictates that you can't even call them illegal immigrants.
You seem to have no clue how Europe Asylum politics is working.
Again, look in the mirror.
Actually I know enough refugees in person, and enough people in person that are working in refugee camps in Italy or Greece.
Which am I supposed to believe, your personal anecdotes or my own lying eyes? Look at the photos of the people on the boats. Of course, by now you have to have seen these photos, so at this point I chalk it up to willful deception on your part, like how the Guardian called a crying middle-aged man a child on its front page.
As I said before: you are an idiot.
Yes, I've noticed your ad hominems in lieu of honest arguments. And again, I'll throw it back at you. Look in the mirror. You are what's known as a useful idiot.
Painting the helpers above s "lefties" while they come from all political fractions is completely idiotic.
That's because the center moved to the left, especially in Europe, to the point that even the "right" mainstream parties are afraid of being labeled a racist or *-phobe for acknowledging reality. That's changing, as the commoners are waking up to the facts on the ground.
No, the vast majority flooding in are economic migrants. There is a difference, legally and sensibly.
They have the same values you and I have, you fucking moron.
No, Western values are not universal. Secular government, free speech, and human rights. The polls are out there. The results of current migration are in. You can bury your head in the sand and equivocate, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.
Most refugees coming to Europe are not 'male prime fighting sexual age' but families, grandpa, grandma, ma, pa, kids and grandkids, how damn stupid are you?
Look in the mirror. All you have to do is look at the pictures of the people on the boats. But instead, you see the story of one dead child on a beach propagated by the leftist, "progressive" media and you think that represents the whole story. By the way, that boy's father took the dangerous trip from Turkey, where he was not in war zone and had a job and a place to live. Meaning, by definition, he and his son were not refugees. If his father hadn't made that trip, his son would be alive today.
The situation is so Orwellian, they treat your sensibilities so shabbily, that they'll show you a picture of a middle-aged man as a crying child.
Which part of: they are refugees not invaders (yet!) did you not get?
They are not "refugees", they are economic migrants. They pay a hefty sum to people smugglers to make the trip. The majority of them are males of prime fighting and sexual age.
And which part of "mass migration from a culture that doesn't share Western values and dominated by a religion/ideology that at its core seeks supremacy" did you not get? Because that's the reality of this "refugee" crisis.
All the Russian govt has asked is verify age>18 which even the US govt asks. The way US sites do it is ask for a credit card.
This is not Insightful, it is Wrong. You don't need a credit card to access Pornhub or other porn sites in the US, legally or in practice. Attempts by the federal government to require this were repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional (Communications Decency Act and Child Online Protection Act).
Well the topic I jumped in on was with regards to Trump, in response to: "If coal country here in the U.S. can effortlessly swing to radical extremes because their outdated jobs have gone away,"
But while it's harder for Europe to control their borders, what it really comes down to is a lack of will to stand up for its integrity. Not only did they not even try to control the borders, they opened the flood gates. Who needs invaders when you have mass migration from a culture that doesn't share Western values and dominated by a religion/ideology that at its core seeks supremacy?
Tighten up the boarders and the people will not come as refugees, but as plunderers, invaders, pillagers.
Puh-lease. If the United States can't handle Mexico, then we are already fucked. We also have an ocean on two sides, a friendly neighbor to the north, and even Mexico is mostly friendly. In fact, the situation with illegal immigration is already improving.
The problem with the West isn't a lack of capability, it's a lack of will. It's allowing itself to be destroyed from within, with open arms.
If coal country here in the U.S. can effortlessly swing to radical extremes because their outdated jobs have gone away, think of what's likely to happen in the Middle-East when it's their turn.
I don't recall any Jihadis coming out of coal country. Oh, you mean they voted for the only candidate in the election that gave a finger to political correctness and was willing to control our borders. By the way, coal is still relevant. You need a base load for when the sun doesn't shine. I'll believe renewables are cheaper and coal is going away -- when coal actually goes away.
We have had large muslim populations in the USA for a long time and they have not pushed for women to be oppressed.
They keep it to their own communities, like female genital mutilation, making their women cover up, arranging marriages, and so on. As for the native women, they're fair game for sexual assaults and rape.
Excluding a hateful ideology is not establishing a state religion. Islam is a "religion" that results in terror and authoritarianism all around the world, and it should be treated as such.
As you already admitted, disassociating others is an imposition
Wrong, I was asserting the right to not associate, not "admitting" your Orwellian terminology. What I made clear in that comment and others is that free association, which includes the right to not associate, is not an imposition, but rather it is those who would force association and work for others who are imposing.
But it is you who insists the gay couple must be forced to act against their will. By not getting the particular cake they want, and are willing to pay for.
Paging Dr. Orwell. Paging Dr. Orwell. We've got a live one here. Doublethink is doubleplus activated.
The point you're missing is that you cannot legally refuse business for reasons that are deliberately and specifically rejected by the society we live in.
No, I already acknowledged the legal standing as part of government overreach against the principles of a free society. It is you who refuse to acknowledge that in the general case that, absent those special cases carved out in the law, the business owner has a right to free association and to refuse service. That makes you intellectually dishonest, despite that fact that you already admitted that the baker could have chosen to lie about his reasons and refused service based on his default rights of free association, thus working around the carved out exceptions in the law. It's only possible because the law has carved out those exceptions out of the default freedom of association.
Given your dishonest propaganda and failure to argue honestly, along with the argument going in circles, I will use my right to free association and longer reply.
Nope. It's not, neither you nor I have a right, by default, to impose on others. Zero. None.
Good, then you agree that the gay couple does not have the right to impose their beliefs on the baker, and force him to bake a cake against his will. We are, after all, talking about what it means to live in a free society, so surely you aren't using Orwellian language to call slavery, freedom, and vice versa.
Sorry, but your desire to compel the rest of us to follow the tenets of your religion has been rejected.
I'm an atheist. I have no desire to impose my lack of belief on the baker. It is you who insists the baker must be forced to act against his will. The gay couple, using freedom of association, could have gotten their cake from another baker, so they would have been able to have their wedding and eat their cake too, without imposing on the original baker.
Yes, you can lie about your motivations and get away with a lot of things. That's how con artists work.
The point you're missing is that you can legally refuse business for any number of reasons because that's the default in a free society. A con artist would not recognize this point and would use Orwellian speech to portray a baker exercising freedom of association as "imposing".
Perhaps you didn't notice, that it was your praise for him that was revealed as truthfully a condemnation?
Nope, you thought you had a "gotcha" moment. I was being brutally honest in my take on the situation. If I wanted to "praise" him I would have spun it in a positive manner. The problem is you're so biased that you can't assess the situation in an impartial manner.
C'mon, pony up some real meat
If you want a debate with me, then get an account and use it. I'm generally disinclined to respond to Anonymous Cowards, and when you don't argue in good faith and try to extend the argument to all things Trump, I'm not going to comply.
It's called liberty and freedom of association. It's what the country was founded on.
When you go into business, your personal beliefs should not be driving how you conduct business.
Your business is part of your life, and you should run it as you see fit. For some business owners that may mean taking less profit and doing the "right" thing, whatever it is they consider that to be. In fact, it's generally recognized that business owners have this right except when the government decides to intervene.
Granted, if you consistently make more bad decisions than not, you will eventually go out of business.
Indeed, that's the dumbest thing about this government overreach. The couple could have easily found another baker who would have been happy to take their business. But they decided the business owner had to put aside their religious beliefs and work against their will.
We're talking about dis-association, and you don't have the right to impose that on others.
Actually, you do. It's the default. It's only when the government overreaches that all of a sudden it somehow becomes the business imposing on others instead of practicing their freedom of association, something which was saliently pointed out by the original Anonymous Coward (perhaps you) when they said:
"if he didn't say why he was turning down service he would be fine. Hell, he could probably tell them to fuck off and get out of his store because "he didn't like the way they looked at him" "
So far, you've not shown any legal cases to even support your contention
I'm talking about government overreach. You do realize the courts are part of the government, right?
The baker is at fault for attempting to impose his beliefs on society at large.
What a load of horseshit. Freedom of association is the basic default in a free society. The one imposing is the government and couple insisting he either bakes a cake against his religious beliefs or goes out of business.
Society, however, has decided that bakers can't compel us to respect their refusal to bake cakes for people based on their relationship.
Nobody is compelling "respect". Just take your fucking business elsewhere.
So, I guess my point is that I don't see how any Trump policies won over people who were for Obama.
After 8 years of Obama, another 4 years of "progressive" politics would have been too much. When Obama started, he wasn't even in support of gay marriage. Eight years later, and a Christian baker is forced under the law to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Title IX was abused to cause kangaroo courts and a rash of sexual assault claims that ruined students' lives.
I supported intervention in Libya at the time, but now it looks like a giant mistake, and it looked like Clinton wanted to repeat that mistake in Syria.
Obama wouldn't use the phrase "Islamic terrorism". Clinton wanted to take in 50,000 Muslim refugees, in addition to those we've already taken in. And she certainly wasn't taking a stance against illegal immigration from Mexico, which I've never liked, and I think it's about time we got serious about it.
Talk about damning praise. By your own words, you condemn him. He just wants to claim credit, victory, and doesn't give a shit about the costs of it. And you're right, they won't be without a price. [..] Thank you, thank you for admitting the truth.
You're welcome. I call out bullshit as I see it. I never liked Trump, but I supported him over Hillary this election because I think immigration is out of control, Islam is a real threat, and "progressive" identity politics had gone too far. All exasperated by a political correctness that was strangling the country. I see Trump as an antidote to some of that, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support him.
Slashdot Mirror
the Nazi Party was a far-right political party in Germany
Nazi stands for "national socialism". Calling socialism "far right" is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? On the other hand, being nationalist and authoritarian may be considered "far right". And then you have Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., and they killed millions in the name of communism. So left/right labels don't apply neatly to groups/people.
What we're seeing now is the rise of the new "authoritarian left", with their neo-Marxist embrace of "class struggle" tied to identity politics and grievance culture.
Scott Adams is more interesting than Dilbert. It's still a good comic, but it's old hat.
He doesn't give a fuck who won.
I've been reading/watching him for a while, and he clearly favored Trump. He even explicitly endorsed him.
If that was provable, they would be sent back.
Why would they be sent back, when bleeding heart leftists like you conflate refugee with economic migrants and opened the doors in the first place? Even when saner heads in government deny refugee status, they are obstructed by other operatives or the migrant just disappears into the system and is not sent back.
The US can't even deport millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico -- the idea that the US would even try to do so is now equated to Nazism. Political correctness dictates that you can't even call them illegal immigrants.
You seem to have no clue how Europe Asylum politics is working.
Again, look in the mirror.
Actually I know enough refugees in person, and enough people in person that are working in refugee camps in Italy or Greece.
Which am I supposed to believe, your personal anecdotes or my own lying eyes? Look at the photos of the people on the boats. Of course, by now you have to have seen these photos, so at this point I chalk it up to willful deception on your part, like how the Guardian called a crying middle-aged man a child on its front page.
As I said before: you are an idiot.
Yes, I've noticed your ad hominems in lieu of honest arguments. And again, I'll throw it back at you. Look in the mirror. You are what's known as a useful idiot.
Painting the helpers above s "lefties" while they come from all political fractions is completely idiotic.
That's because the center moved to the left, especially in Europe, to the point that even the "right" mainstream parties are afraid of being labeled a racist or *-phobe for acknowledging reality. That's changing, as the commoners are waking up to the facts on the ground.
They are refugees,
No, the vast majority flooding in are economic migrants. There is a difference, legally and sensibly.
They have the same values you and I have, you fucking moron.
No, Western values are not universal. Secular government, free speech, and human rights. The polls are out there. The results of current migration are in. You can bury your head in the sand and equivocate, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.
Most refugees coming to Europe are not 'male prime fighting sexual age' but families, grandpa, grandma, ma, pa, kids and grandkids, how damn stupid are you?
Look in the mirror. All you have to do is look at the pictures of the people on the boats. But instead, you see the story of one dead child on a beach propagated by the leftist, "progressive" media and you think that represents the whole story. By the way, that boy's father took the dangerous trip from Turkey, where he was not in war zone and had a job and a place to live. Meaning, by definition, he and his son were not refugees. If his father hadn't made that trip, his son would be alive today.
The situation is so Orwellian, they treat your sensibilities so shabbily, that they'll show you a picture of a middle-aged man as a crying child.
Which part of: they are refugees not invaders (yet!) did you not get?
They are not "refugees", they are economic migrants. They pay a hefty sum to people smugglers to make the trip. The majority of them are males of prime fighting and sexual age.
And which part of "mass migration from a culture that doesn't share Western values and dominated by a religion/ideology that at its core seeks supremacy" did you not get? Because that's the reality of this "refugee" crisis.
All the Russian govt has asked is verify age>18 which even the US govt asks. The way US sites do it is ask for a credit card.
This is not Insightful, it is Wrong. You don't need a credit card to access Pornhub or other porn sites in the US, legally or in practice. Attempts by the federal government to require this were repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional (Communications Decency Act and Child Online Protection Act).
I was thinking more about Europe than the US.
Well the topic I jumped in on was with regards to Trump, in response to: "If coal country here in the U.S. can effortlessly swing to radical extremes because their outdated jobs have gone away,"
But while it's harder for Europe to control their borders, what it really comes down to is a lack of will to stand up for its integrity. Not only did they not even try to control the borders, they opened the flood gates. Who needs invaders when you have mass migration from a culture that doesn't share Western values and dominated by a religion/ideology that at its core seeks supremacy?
Tighten up the boarders and the people will not come as refugees, but as plunderers, invaders, pillagers.
Puh-lease. If the United States can't handle Mexico, then we are already fucked. We also have an ocean on two sides, a friendly neighbor to the north, and even Mexico is mostly friendly. In fact, the situation with illegal immigration is already improving.
The problem with the West isn't a lack of capability, it's a lack of will. It's allowing itself to be destroyed from within, with open arms.
I'm a Jihadi because I want to control the border instead of allowing a flood of immigrants. Ok, then. Keep on cucking on.
If coal country here in the U.S. can effortlessly swing to radical extremes because their outdated jobs have gone away, think of what's likely to happen in the Middle-East when it's their turn.
I don't recall any Jihadis coming out of coal country. Oh, you mean they voted for the only candidate in the election that gave a finger to political correctness and was willing to control our borders. By the way, coal is still relevant. You need a base load for when the sun doesn't shine. I'll believe renewables are cheaper and coal is going away -- when coal actually goes away.
We have had large muslim populations in the USA for a long time and they have not pushed for women to be oppressed.
They keep it to their own communities, like female genital mutilation, making their women cover up, arranging marriages, and so on. As for the native women, they're fair game for sexual assaults and rape.
Excluding a hateful ideology is not establishing a state religion. Islam is a "religion" that results in terror and authoritarianism all around the world, and it should be treated as such.
I'm pretty sure he's a bigoteer like you. The Islamophia card is dead. The racist card is dead. It has no meaning.
Go hug a Muslim and PrayFor$City.
As you already admitted, disassociating others is an imposition
Wrong, I was asserting the right to not associate, not "admitting" your Orwellian terminology. What I made clear in that comment and others is that free association, which includes the right to not associate, is not an imposition, but rather it is those who would force association and work for others who are imposing.
But it is you who insists the gay couple must be forced to act against their will. By not getting the particular cake they want, and are willing to pay for.
Paging Dr. Orwell. Paging Dr. Orwell. We've got a live one here. Doublethink is doubleplus activated.
The point you're missing is that you cannot legally refuse business for reasons that are deliberately and specifically rejected by the society we live in.
No, I already acknowledged the legal standing as part of government overreach against the principles of a free society. It is you who refuse to acknowledge that in the general case that, absent those special cases carved out in the law, the business owner has a right to free association and to refuse service. That makes you intellectually dishonest, despite that fact that you already admitted that the baker could have chosen to lie about his reasons and refused service based on his default rights of free association, thus working around the carved out exceptions in the law. It's only possible because the law has carved out those exceptions out of the default freedom of association.
Given your dishonest propaganda and failure to argue honestly, along with the argument going in circles, I will use my right to free association and longer reply.
Nope. It's not, neither you nor I have a right, by default, to impose on others. Zero. None.
Good, then you agree that the gay couple does not have the right to impose their beliefs on the baker, and force him to bake a cake against his will. We are, after all, talking about what it means to live in a free society, so surely you aren't using Orwellian language to call slavery, freedom, and vice versa.
Sorry, but your desire to compel the rest of us to follow the tenets of your religion has been rejected.
I'm an atheist. I have no desire to impose my lack of belief on the baker. It is you who insists the baker must be forced to act against his will. The gay couple, using freedom of association, could have gotten their cake from another baker, so they would have been able to have their wedding and eat their cake too, without imposing on the original baker.
Yes, you can lie about your motivations and get away with a lot of things. That's how con artists work.
The point you're missing is that you can legally refuse business for any number of reasons because that's the default in a free society. A con artist would not recognize this point and would use Orwellian speech to portray a baker exercising freedom of association as "imposing".
Perhaps you didn't notice, that it was your praise for him that was revealed as truthfully a condemnation?
Nope, you thought you had a "gotcha" moment. I was being brutally honest in my take on the situation. If I wanted to "praise" him I would have spun it in a positive manner. The problem is you're so biased that you can't assess the situation in an impartial manner.
C'mon, pony up some real meat
If you want a debate with me, then get an account and use it. I'm generally disinclined to respond to Anonymous Cowards, and when you don't argue in good faith and try to extend the argument to all things Trump, I'm not going to comply.
I have yet to understand this mindset.
It's called liberty and freedom of association. It's what the country was founded on.
When you go into business, your personal beliefs should not be driving how you conduct business.
Your business is part of your life, and you should run it as you see fit. For some business owners that may mean taking less profit and doing the "right" thing, whatever it is they consider that to be. In fact, it's generally recognized that business owners have this right except when the government decides to intervene.
Granted, if you consistently make more bad decisions than not, you will eventually go out of business.
Indeed, that's the dumbest thing about this government overreach. The couple could have easily found another baker who would have been happy to take their business. But they decided the business owner had to put aside their religious beliefs and work against their will.
We're talking about dis-association, and you don't have the right to impose that on others.
Actually, you do. It's the default. It's only when the government overreaches that all of a sudden it somehow becomes the business imposing on others instead of practicing their freedom of association, something which was saliently pointed out by the original Anonymous Coward (perhaps you) when they said:
"if he didn't say why he was turning down service he would be fine. Hell, he could probably tell them to fuck off and get out of his store because "he didn't like the way they looked at him" "
So far, you've not shown any legal cases to even support your contention
I'm talking about government overreach. You do realize the courts are part of the government, right?
Then can you show your history of pointing out how Trump is all hat and no cattle?
I don't know if you are the same Anonymous Coward that I replied to, but either way you should have noticed what I was thanked for.
The baker is at fault for attempting to impose his beliefs on society at large.
What a load of horseshit. Freedom of association is the basic default in a free society. The one imposing is the government and couple insisting he either bakes a cake against his religious beliefs or goes out of business.
Society, however, has decided that bakers can't compel us to respect their refusal to bake cakes for people based on their relationship.
Nobody is compelling "respect". Just take your fucking business elsewhere.
The baker is not at fault for standing up for their beliefs. The problem is an overreaching government. Don't blame the victim.
So, I guess my point is that I don't see how any Trump policies won over people who were for Obama.
After 8 years of Obama, another 4 years of "progressive" politics would have been too much. When Obama started, he wasn't even in support of gay marriage. Eight years later, and a Christian baker is forced under the law to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Title IX was abused to cause kangaroo courts and a rash of sexual assault claims that ruined students' lives.
I supported intervention in Libya at the time, but now it looks like a giant mistake, and it looked like Clinton wanted to repeat that mistake in Syria.
Obama wouldn't use the phrase "Islamic terrorism". Clinton wanted to take in 50,000 Muslim refugees, in addition to those we've already taken in. And she certainly wasn't taking a stance against illegal immigration from Mexico, which I've never liked, and I think it's about time we got serious about it.
Talk about damning praise. By your own words, you condemn him. He just wants to claim credit, victory, and doesn't give a shit about the costs of it. And you're right, they won't be without a price. [..] Thank you, thank you for admitting the truth.
You're welcome. I call out bullshit as I see it. I never liked Trump, but I supported him over Hillary this election because I think immigration is out of control, Islam is a real threat, and "progressive" identity politics had gone too far. All exasperated by a political correctness that was strangling the country. I see Trump as an antidote to some of that, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support him.