No. I am more than fed up with you and your silliness. Since you are so silly, I suggest you go somewhere very public and start talking to everyone about how Trump, should be, must be assassinated and see how long you last before you are arrested. The stupid is strong in you.
You believe "transgender" is a choice. Is that correct?
You believe "gay" is a choice. Is that also correct?
What is this "50 years ago" stuff? You are talking about characteristics that the human race has had since before it was human. That's reality. So what are you actually saying? What claim are you actually making?
I do not know why I am giving you the courtesy of a reply when I will not know if any response actually comes from you. Do not think this is dialog. Unless you use an identifier it is not dialog.
And my point is that you can't pretend. His point is that she is pretending. He does not know, can not know and the only reasonable assumption is that she is not lying as who would wish that on themselves?
Look, I do not like the person but aim at the target not the person. He is just arguing ad hominem. That is both worthless and worthless behaviour.
The idealogical conformity that I would prefer is the old idea that universities are places where ideas are explored not censored. There is however a problem when people claim equality of ideas. Intelligent design for example, does not cut it and has no place in schools and universities and should not be encouraged there as it gives them recognition they do not deserve. You might call that idealogical conformity but I would call it intellectual honesty. If we were designed by another being it must be stupid (or careless).
WRT para 2
That is not an argument about mandating warnings it is an argument about how those are implemented. I am a diabetic. I would like to know the Glycemic Index and Glycemic load of the foods I buy. Too bad for me that I do not get it as it is "too hard" for the manufacturer. Snow globes seem stupid though. I (obviously) am in favour of information being supplied.
WRT para 3
Good. Companies should not cheat employees. "schools offering government approved curricula tailored in ways that parents prefer..." you mean propaganda schools? With maybe, prayers to a god required? Been here, done that. I have no desire for my kids to be inculcated rather than educated. No, you lose on that one. Many of those schools are evil beyond belief. Would you send your kids to a Madrassa that taught that women should stay in the home and always obey a male? No, education should be, must be, secular. That is part of the social conformity that is needed to make society work. I am told that many atheists in the USA, particularly in certain areas must keep mum about it and indeed, some are socially obliged to attend a church - or they are not considered members of the community and are readily mistreated. So, no, I do not support you in saying the government is too pervasive in that area. I would say - not enough. You are failing your countries children. (So are we)
Move the goalposts much? The original AC comment said "Hillary supporters", not Democrats. (It is odd, though, that these supposedly anti-capitalist anarchists mostly sat out the last eight years in the US.) Similarly, non-US protests are essentially outside both that AC's claim and your counter-claim that numbers were "about three-to-one the other way". You seem to have conceded that violence is, in fact, mostly being perpetrated by Clinton supporters -- except when you're throwing out conspiracy theories that police instigated the violence.
Oh, put words in my mouth why don't you? Are you claiming the Hillary supporters are not democrats? Seems they would be a subset by definition. Now, I did not call them anti-capatlist anarchists. I do not even know where you got the anti-capitalist from. But it was the cop who called them anarchists not me. As to where have they been? Haven't you kept your eyes open later? Some of the black lives matter people (of course black lives matter, all lives matter) have been even assassinating cops indiscriminately. I have conceded nothing and while I am not a Hillary supporter I have no reason to attack them either and I doubt many of them are violent (most people, most places are not violent). Although I am happy to denigrate Hillary and the democratic party for what they did to Bernie. They deserved to lose.
An emolument is compensation for employment or holding an office. Which foreign royalty or state is paying Donald Trump a salary? You are spouting talking points that you clearly do not understand -- mentioning a hotel without specifying which one, citing supposed terms of a lease without identifying that lease, and throwing around the phrase "emolument law" as if that means anything specific. The only thing you've proven is that you cannot write coherently.
Oh, come on! Emoluments do not have to come from overseas. As for details http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us.... First link on a search for "trump hotel lease"
I can not write coherently? Perhaps you have to be able to think coherently to see it. I am sure everyone else can. Talk to a non-partisan lawyer.
Anyway I am done with you. Reason is not your forte. And I am fed up with reiterating stuff. Bye
There is an article on the net somewhere about reading news as if you were a spy. It makes a lot of sense.
Bearing that in mind (from your first link) 'What started out as a peaceful march, with more than 4,000 people, quickly turned violent. Over the course of the evening, "anarchists" in the crowd threw objects at officers, vandalized local businesses and damaged cars, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson said.'. He said "anarchists" not democrats. I write that off to idiots or a false flag operation. It is not something with which you can tarnish Democrats. So, let me look at the second link.
Okay, read the second link. Lots of American violence, not so much elsewhere. Even the American violence is localised. Notice any correspondence with police reputations in those areas? Breaking ATMs is a democratic thing is it? Considering the numbers of protests and the number of people protesting do you think it was possible for there to be no violence? I see a lot of violent cops. Sorry, I cannot put this down to "democrats" either. You might also want to check how much violence there was in the rest of the world. I'll chalk most of those down to American contempt for Americans in general rather than anything specific.
Do you understand the word emolument? Please check that. Also I need only one example to prove you wrong ok? That is logic, check it. And here is the large calibre weapon that blows your argument away. The contract for the lease on the hotel. It specifically prohibits a particular emolument and Trump is in violation of both lease and emolument law since the moment he took office. Now I have proven you to be incorrect but are you going to admit it? Got my doubts.
If the ideological conformity is one that promotes the freedom all all to be diverse including many different viewpoints then I probably support that if it is done by education (not "re-education") as it is necessary that all agree not to impose or inflict their personal beliefs on others. So there must be some conformity even in diversity. In the US that conformity should be (yes, I know, I know...should) that you are all Americans and follow the rule of law not Allah, Yahveh, Karl Marx, Harpo Marx or anything else. Any lack of conformity in that is basically un-American.
Here is an example, I do not like guns (well, actually I do but I respect them too much to want them around). You may have an open carry license. Fine, do not visit my home carrying a firearm or I will have the police remove you. There you have one legal standard but accomodations to suit others.
As for pervasive government well when I call the police (above) I expect them to turn up and remove you. But really you cannot have a democratic republic without education, knowledge and thought. In that way government should be pervading. But the issue here is exactly what people consider to be pervasive. I would consider the new toilet laws pervasive. A law to address a non-existent issue. So "pervasive" is not something you can argue about really. It is a subjective issue.
I thought you were tone who called me a Trumptard which I dislike as much as libtard. If you did not I apologise for assuming or reading it that way.
We could spend quite a bit of time trying to align definitions before we get to three to one but yes, that is impression I am getting, and not all of it from overseas.
Okay let us look at two US airplane passengers after the election. 1. Democrat woman who refuses to change her seat 2. Republican who walks up and down the aisle telling individuals how they are fucked now and the 'funny coloured' ones will be sent 'home'.
Now they both got thrown of the plane (good!) but one seems passive aggressive while the other is aggressive. The bloke walking up and down the isle was clearly trying to provoke terror.
Now it stopped short of violence on both occasions. But they are clearly not equate-able. If it had not been for the presence of cabin crew how do you think it would have gone? So, overall, I am seeing passive resistance from democrats but aggressive crowing and glee from the republicans. There is too much post truth stuff out there to get a real handle on the numbers but three to one seems to be about the ratio I am seeing of those that are credible. I am sorry if you do not like that but it is my impression. I am not normally thought of as a credulous person, more of a cynic actually.
Okay, it is not an ACT (as it is in many places) but it is law and principle that is mostly universal although some places only provide lip service to their laws on it. But I am not pushing falsehoods. He is in clear violation of its provisions. As I said, I am a cynic and there is no support for his behaviour in the law. None. Those who assert otherwise. Well if they win then you have lost your republic.
I dunno if you are the same AC or not. But this ends here. You are not arguing in good faith and indeed, counter to your own interests if you are indeed gay. Being gay or transgender is not a fucking choice and anyone who is gay or transgender knows that.
Thus the only logical possibility remaining is that you are a troll. Farewell.
False standard? Okay. It is settled then is it not? Wow, the ACs are out if force. Is it just one? Is it a dozen? Who knows and who cares. There has been no "quality of content", it seem mostly content free to me.
Look, I have no sympathy for the Wu woman and her whining. I do not think she is correct. But I take issue with people attacking her here because she is trans. They are separate issues. The number of people who have used "he" just as a provocation is, well, it was surprising to me. Pretty much all has been ad hominem. Never a worthwhile argument and seldom used by respectable people.
Now I do not know who you are, which of the above posts were made by you or some other AC so I do not know what your position is (and do not tell me you said earlier - you are an AC, there is no 'earlier') so your post is just the whistle in the wind of some inaccurate sniper in the bush somewhere. I have restated (again) my point of view. If you want to have a dialog then either identify or email me.
But an AC does not get dialog, cannot have dialog because there can be no continuity. You cannot tell one AC from another (even an IP and MAC dress does not enable that).
In the meantime that "whoosh" is not your remark passing over my head but me simply discarding that remark in the way it deserves.
If you choose to answer this and answer it as an AC remember that it is not an answer because I cannot tell one AC from another (only site admins can and even they can not be sure).
True. Very true. But then try Australia where the regressive, reactionary party is actually called the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is actually anti-liberal. It is the party that wants to rule not govern.
But look at the root of the word, it damn well means freedom. A liberal in the only real sense of the word desires a society where each individual has as much possible freedom as is consistent with a functioning society. The very founders of the US very liberals of some ilk almost exclusively and tried to design a republic to function that way (..if you can keep it). Yet in the US today a liberal is a 'libtard'. [sarcasm] How very, very sane [/sarcasm].
Sorry. Buzztt! There is nothing to address. With an AC here and an AC there.... Its a fucking farmyard and since the cow, the chickens, the horse, the fox are calling themselves AC. Well, collectively this Mr AC makes no sense. So I have nothing to address. I do not know who the fuck wrote what. This whole thread is "nah nah! nah!". An AC cannot have continuity. Nor can an AC respond to a reply. Who know who posted?
I do not even have a dog in this race. The US conquered my country in 1985. My only view point here is "meta".
I do not think my opinion has any weight at all and nor should it. But I will pull up an AC who tries, "but I said before" shit. An AC posts a single post they cannot post a series simply because they are AC and cannot prove (or maintain) that they were the 'prior' AC. An AC comment is never more than a toss-away.
I did not say that people should believe anything because of reputation. But disbelieving because of reputation is a seperate matter. I am prepared to blow karma I have spent decades building but not risk the lives of my kids. Not that it would be too hard to work out who I am anyway.
Part of my point is that an AC cannot claim, "but I said earlier" because AC is AC. No thread, nothing carried forward.
If you post as AC then anyone can post as "you". You get your (pseudo) anonymity but you give up continuity. You simply can not have both. So an AC cannot legitimately claim "but I said before..." as an AC post stands alone, by itself, on its tod, has no continuity... How much do I have to explain the obvious?
So please send me Trump's tax records. Words can be crimes under US law (and most if not all other states). To state otherwise is to propagate falsehood.
Last time I heard beating a bin was property damage not violence. Stop wanking in public.
"You say "The left comes to "protests" ready to riot. This is not like the civil rights movement where men marched in suits and ladies in dresses. The modern left passes out instructions for what kind of clothes to wear for rioting, they bring masks, etc." And I say bullshit. I am a leftie in the political sense. I very much agree with the founding fathers; the epitome of the "left".
Stop being a Werribee Duck and look at the examples you chose. McVeigh, 9/11 hijackers - right wing terrorists both. You looking for examples to illustrate your foolishness? You could not have chosen better.
The USA seems to have become polarised beyond any degree I have ever seen before. I am not sure how things will pan out. I have no respect for Brianna WU but attacking her for being trans and going out of the way to use gendered terms offensively is beyond the pale. Criticise her for what she has said or done wrong by all means but not simply for existing.
Yep (sarcasm) just like grandmothers. Choice or defect? Well, we know it is not a choice because you cannot choose to be gay or straight. So, by your statement it must be a defect. Hope you are not one of those crazy religious people who you have a huge problem with your worldview.
It is not a choice and it is not a defect. It is just the way the world is. You know, like reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Australia, 1965.
Being an ally of the US merely means you are pre-pwnd and held in contempt.
Then please demonstrate the fact that this is so.
That is the operative word. Crap. It has always been the violent right. Always and forever. Always will be.
Do you ever consider things for veracity?
Trump has policies? Right, Get Rich. And Barton's is to break America. That much we do know.
No. I am more than fed up with you and your silliness. Since you are so silly, I suggest you go somewhere very public and start talking to everyone about how Trump, should be, must be assassinated and see how long you last before you are arrested. The stupid is strong in you.
Get your facts correct.
Let me get this straight (no pun intended).
You believe "transgender" is a choice. Is that correct?
You believe "gay" is a choice. Is that also correct?
What is this "50 years ago" stuff? You are talking about characteristics that the human race has had since before it was human. That's reality. So what are you actually saying? What claim are you actually making?
I do not know why I am giving you the courtesy of a reply when I will not know if any response actually comes from you. Do not think this is dialog. Unless you use an identifier it is not dialog.
I think that you will find that not to be the case. Unless Trump releases them they remain a private matter between he and the IRS.
Words have legal impact. There are privacy laws. There are also laws about hate speech. It is illegal to make threats. Cry fire in a theatre. Etc.
You are simply mistaken.
And my point is that you can't pretend. His point is that she is pretending. He does not know, can not know and the only reasonable assumption is that she is not lying as who would wish that on themselves?
Look, I do not like the person but aim at the target not the person. He is just arguing ad hominem. That is both worthless and worthless behaviour.
Anyway I am done on this topic. (I hope)
Yes, your statement was false.
On your para 1
The idealogical conformity that I would prefer is the old idea that universities are places where ideas are explored not censored. There is however a problem when people claim equality of ideas. Intelligent design for example, does not cut it and has no place in schools and universities and should not be encouraged there as it gives them recognition they do not deserve. You might call that idealogical conformity but I would call it intellectual honesty. If we were designed by another being it must be stupid (or careless).
WRT para 2
That is not an argument about mandating warnings it is an argument about how those are implemented. I am a diabetic. I would like to know the Glycemic Index and Glycemic load of the foods I buy. Too bad for me that I do not get it as it is "too hard" for the manufacturer. Snow globes seem stupid though. I (obviously) am in favour of information being supplied.
WRT para 3
Good. Companies should not cheat employees. "schools offering government approved curricula tailored in ways that parents prefer..." you mean propaganda schools? With maybe, prayers to a god required? Been here, done that. I have no desire for my kids to be inculcated rather than educated. No, you lose on that one. Many of those schools are evil beyond belief. Would you send your kids to a Madrassa that taught that women should stay in the home and always obey a male? No, education should be, must be, secular. That is part of the social conformity that is needed to make society work. I am told that many atheists in the USA, particularly in certain areas must keep mum about it and indeed, some are socially obliged to attend a church - or they are not considered members of the community and are readily mistreated. So, no, I do not support you in saying the government is too pervasive in that area. I would say - not enough. You are failing your countries children. (So are we)
Move the goalposts much? The original AC comment said "Hillary supporters", not Democrats. (It is odd, though, that these supposedly anti-capitalist anarchists mostly sat out the last eight years in the US.) Similarly, non-US protests are essentially outside both that AC's claim and your counter-claim that numbers were "about three-to-one the other way". You seem to have conceded that violence is, in fact, mostly being perpetrated by Clinton supporters -- except when you're throwing out conspiracy theories that police instigated the violence.
Oh, put words in my mouth why don't you? Are you claiming the Hillary supporters are not democrats? Seems they would be a subset by definition. Now, I did not call them anti-capatlist anarchists. I do not even know where you got the anti-capitalist from. But it was the cop who called them anarchists not me. As to where have they been? Haven't you kept your eyes open later? Some of the black lives matter people (of course black lives matter, all lives matter) have been even assassinating cops indiscriminately. I have conceded nothing and while I am not a Hillary supporter I have no reason to attack them either and I doubt many of them are violent (most people, most places are not violent). Although I am happy to denigrate Hillary and the democratic party for what they did to Bernie. They deserved to lose.
An emolument is compensation for employment or holding an office. Which foreign royalty or state is paying Donald Trump a salary? You are spouting talking points that you clearly do not understand -- mentioning a hotel without specifying which one, citing supposed terms of a lease without identifying that lease, and throwing around the phrase "emolument law" as if that means anything specific. The only thing you've proven is that you cannot write coherently.
Oh, come on! Emoluments do not have to come from overseas. As for details http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us.... First link on a search for "trump hotel lease"
I can not write coherently? Perhaps you have to be able to think coherently to see it. I am sure everyone else can. Talk to a non-partisan lawyer.
Anyway I am done with you. Reason is not your forte. And I am fed up with reiterating stuff. Bye
There is an article on the net somewhere about reading news as if you were a spy. It makes a lot of sense.
Bearing that in mind (from your first link) 'What started out as a peaceful march, with more than 4,000 people, quickly turned violent. Over the course of the evening, "anarchists" in the crowd threw objects at officers, vandalized local businesses and damaged cars, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson said.'. He said "anarchists" not democrats. I write that off to idiots or a false flag operation. It is not something with which you can tarnish Democrats. So, let me look at the second link.
Okay, read the second link. Lots of American violence, not so much elsewhere. Even the American violence is localised. Notice any correspondence with police reputations in those areas? Breaking ATMs is a democratic thing is it? Considering the numbers of protests and the number of people protesting do you think it was possible for there to be no violence? I see a lot of violent cops. Sorry, I cannot put this down to "democrats" either. You might also want to check how much violence there was in the rest of the world. I'll chalk most of those down to American contempt for Americans in general rather than anything specific.
Do you understand the word emolument? Please check that. Also I need only one example to prove you wrong ok? That is logic, check it. And here is the large calibre weapon that blows your argument away. The contract for the lease on the hotel. It specifically prohibits a particular emolument and Trump is in violation of both lease and emolument law since the moment he took office. Now I have proven you to be incorrect but are you going to admit it? Got my doubts.
If the ideological conformity is one that promotes the freedom all all to be diverse including many different viewpoints then I probably support that if it is done by education (not "re-education") as it is necessary that all agree not to impose or inflict their personal beliefs on others. So there must be some conformity even in diversity. In the US that conformity should be (yes, I know, I know...should) that you are all Americans and follow the rule of law not Allah, Yahveh, Karl Marx, Harpo Marx or anything else. Any lack of conformity in that is basically un-American.
Here is an example, I do not like guns (well, actually I do but I respect them too much to want them around). You may have an open carry license. Fine, do not visit my home carrying a firearm or I will have the police remove you. There you have one legal standard but accomodations to suit others.
As for pervasive government well when I call the police (above) I expect them to turn up and remove you. But really you cannot have a democratic republic without education, knowledge and thought. In that way government should be pervading. But the issue here is exactly what people consider to be pervasive. I would consider the new toilet laws pervasive. A law to address a non-existent issue. So "pervasive" is not something you can argue about really. It is a subjective issue.
I thought you were tone who called me a Trumptard which I dislike as much as libtard. If you did not I apologise for assuming or reading it that way.
We could spend quite a bit of time trying to align definitions before we get to three to one but yes, that is impression I am getting, and not all of it from overseas.
Okay let us look at two US airplane passengers after the election. 1. Democrat woman who refuses to change her seat 2. Republican who walks up and down the aisle telling individuals how they are fucked now and the 'funny coloured' ones will be sent 'home'.
Now they both got thrown of the plane (good!) but one seems passive aggressive while the other is aggressive. The bloke walking up and down the isle was clearly trying to provoke terror.
Now it stopped short of violence on both occasions. But they are clearly not equate-able. If it had not been for the presence of cabin crew how do you think it would have gone? So, overall, I am seeing passive resistance from democrats but aggressive crowing and glee from the republicans. There is too much post truth stuff out there to get a real handle on the numbers but three to one seems to be about the ratio I am seeing of those that are credible. I am sorry if you do not like that but it is my impression. I am not normally thought of as a credulous person, more of a cynic actually.
Okay, it is not an ACT (as it is in many places) but it is law and principle that is mostly universal although some places only provide lip service to their laws on it. But I am not pushing falsehoods. He is in clear violation of its provisions. As I said, I am a cynic and there is no support for his behaviour in the law. None. Those who assert otherwise. Well if they win then you have lost your republic.
I dunno if you are the same AC or not. But this ends here. You are not arguing in good faith and indeed, counter to your own interests if you are indeed gay. Being gay or transgender is not a fucking choice and anyone who is gay or transgender knows that.
Thus the only logical possibility remaining is that you are a troll. Farewell.
False standard? Okay. It is settled then is it not? Wow, the ACs are out if force. Is it just one? Is it a dozen? Who knows and who cares. There has been no "quality of content", it seem mostly content free to me.
Look, I have no sympathy for the Wu woman and her whining. I do not think she is correct. But I take issue with people attacking her here because she is trans. They are separate issues. The number of people who have used "he" just as a provocation is, well, it was surprising to me. Pretty much all has been ad hominem. Never a worthwhile argument and seldom used by respectable people.
Now I do not know who you are, which of the above posts were made by you or some other AC so I do not know what your position is (and do not tell me you said earlier - you are an AC, there is no 'earlier') so your post is just the whistle in the wind of some inaccurate sniper in the bush somewhere. I have restated (again) my point of view. If you want to have a dialog then either identify or email me.
But an AC does not get dialog, cannot have dialog because there can be no continuity. You cannot tell one AC from another (even an IP and MAC dress does not enable that).
In the meantime that "whoosh" is not your remark passing over my head but me simply discarding that remark in the way it deserves.
If you choose to answer this and answer it as an AC remember that it is not an answer because I cannot tell one AC from another (only site admins can and even they can not be sure).
True. Very true. But then try Australia where the regressive, reactionary party is actually called the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is actually anti-liberal. It is the party that wants to rule not govern.
But look at the root of the word, it damn well means freedom. A liberal in the only real sense of the word desires a society where each individual has as much possible freedom as is consistent with a functioning society. The very founders of the US very liberals of some ilk almost exclusively and tried to design a republic to function that way (..if you can keep it). Yet in the US today a liberal is a 'libtard'. [sarcasm] How very, very sane [/sarcasm].
Sorry. Buzztt! There is nothing to address. With an AC here and an AC there.... Its a fucking farmyard and since the cow, the chickens, the horse, the fox are calling themselves AC. Well, collectively this Mr AC makes no sense. So I have nothing to address. I do not know who the fuck wrote what. This whole thread is "nah nah! nah!". An AC cannot have continuity. Nor can an AC respond to a reply. Who know who posted?
I do not even have a dog in this race. The US conquered my country in 1985. My only view point here is "meta".
I do not think my opinion has any weight at all and nor should it. But I will pull up an AC who tries, "but I said before" shit. An AC posts a single post they cannot post a series simply because they are AC and cannot prove (or maintain) that they were the 'prior' AC. An AC comment is never more than a toss-away.
I did not say that people should believe anything because of reputation. But disbelieving because of reputation is a seperate matter. I am prepared to blow karma I have spent decades building but not risk the lives of my kids. Not that it would be too hard to work out who I am anyway.
Part of my point is that an AC cannot claim, "but I said earlier" because AC is AC. No thread, nothing carried forward.
If you post as AC then anyone can post as "you". You get your (pseudo) anonymity but you give up continuity. You simply can not have both. So an AC cannot legitimately claim "but I said before..." as an AC post stands alone, by itself, on its tod, has no continuity... How much do I have to explain the obvious?
So please send me Trump's tax records. Words can be crimes under US law (and most if not all other states). To state otherwise is to propagate falsehood.
Last time I heard beating a bin was property damage not violence. Stop wanking in public.
"You say "The left comes to "protests" ready to riot. This is not like the civil rights movement where men marched in suits and ladies in dresses. The modern left passes out instructions for what kind of clothes to wear for rioting, they bring masks, etc." And I say bullshit. I am a leftie in the political sense. I very much agree with the founding fathers; the epitome of the "left".
Stop being a Werribee Duck and look at the examples you chose. McVeigh, 9/11 hijackers - right wing terrorists both. You looking for examples to illustrate your foolishness? You could not have chosen better.
And mine over yours apparently.
The USA seems to have become polarised beyond any degree I have ever seen before. I am not sure how things will pan out. I have no respect for Brianna WU but attacking her for being trans and going out of the way to use gendered terms offensively is beyond the pale. Criticise her for what she has said or done wrong by all means but not simply for existing.
Thank you for your retraction. Words can be crimes.
Yep (sarcasm) just like grandmothers. Choice or defect? Well, we know it is not a choice because you cannot choose to be gay or straight. So, by your statement it must be a defect. Hope you are not one of those crazy religious people who you have a huge problem with your worldview.
It is not a choice and it is not a defect. It is just the way the world is. You know, like reality.