Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Use english words please.Where would you draw the line?
By reducing the influence of money in politics we will be able to create a government that actually represents the will of the people.
There is no "line".
There is no magic formula.
Each country has its own mix. Sweden is not the same as Germany. Finland is not the same as the UK. Canada is not Japan.
Even China and Russia are a MIX of socialism and capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you seem to say if those companies are boycotted other companies that treat their employees better will rise up in those countries.
No. You suggested this earlier and I thought I made it clear that these people will have to fend for themselves. Just like the people of Cuba.
There is no way for you to argue, on moral grounds, that slavery is ok, because the slaves are relatively "better off".
My suggestion is to cut off human rights violating countries (and companies that do business with those countries) and tell them that if they shape-up then we will resume buying from them. They may simply start selling to China, who cares? Like you said earlier, we must respect their sovereignty.
We just don't need to be complicit.
Would you buy groceries from a corner store if you knew the owner was also an atrocious notorious criminal?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no magic formula.How much Socialism is too much then? Where would you draw the line?
Each country has its own mix. Sweden is not the same as Germany. Finland is not the same as the UK. Canada is not Japan.
Even China and Russia are a MIX of socialism and capitalism.
Profit motive does not always lead to best practices. Free markets and deregulation are the playground of the billionaire class.
Venezuela was destroyed by some combination of poor planning and bad management.
If you see a fast-food establishment that goes out of business, do you instantly conclude that their business model is fundamentally flawed?
Does this mean that all fast-food establishments will inevitably also go out of business? No. It was most likely caused by some combination of poor planning and bad management.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
how do you control companies in other or working in other countries, it's the "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" kind of thing. the U.S. could invade or overthrow the current government and replace it with a democratic republic, wouldn't that benefit the citizens in the best and long term way?obviously no one really cares enough to go to that extreme.
There's really no need to go crazy and start shooting people.
Let's just politely say, we will no longer be purchasing products from the 25 worst human rights offending countries. Every year we will be adding another 5% until we are only buying products from either the best 25 countries or from all countries that comply with basic human rights and health and safety regulations.
I need (as opposed to a want) clothes, what manufacture produces clothes that are 100%, fabric etc socially acceptably produced? And lets keep it real, I would never pay $150 for jeans for example.
Sure, and currently there are hundreds of thousands of perfectly good pairs of blue jeans that get shredded every day because they are unsold stock at second-hand stores.
You might even be able to find a pair brand new for about $50. Every time you buy a product made in a country ruled by a vicious dictator, you are putting money in their pockets. You are supporting censorship and murder. Everyone seems to be onboard when it's Cuba or Iran, but strangely they are not the worst offenders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm just saying there are people who thought Hugo Chavez was a great man for the people and equalized the wealth.And there are people who don't have a clue what's going on in Venezuela right now or even where it is on the map.BTW my roommate is from Venezuela, and he thinks you are dumb.
A few bad examples do not completely disqualify a concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It’s also the case that there are plenty of skilled labor jobs being outsourced to foreign countries. The loss is not only to people with minimal job skills.
A problem for those Americans who are impoverished, and might take minimal skill jobs is that it is now much harder to get jobs of this type. When President Clinton enacted the Welfare to Work plan in the 1990s, he was attempting to encourage people to get back to work so as to reduce government spending in welfare. Unfortunately, with fewer jobs available for unskilled workers, people may find themselves in exceptional poverty. Poverty does not benefit the US economy since it reduces consumer spending and tax revenues.
There is another “side” to the issue of outsourcing that needs to be addressed. Not all people in other countries economically benefit from outsourced jobs, and some companies aren’t dedicated to providing humane working conditions. Outsourced work may be performed by children, or in inhumane working conditions. Abuses of foreign employees might not benefit US trade or political relationships. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
On the one hand you say that "it's not the responsibility of the U.S. to save the world" and then on the other hand you say "what about all the poor people?".I guess what I'm asking is given the government structure of these countries I don't see a realist way consumers can have a positive net effect. It's a catch 22, those people would be worse off w/o the crappy wages and jobs. Are there actual businesses in these countries that are better in any appreciable way? Since there are poor in every country, the U.S. citizens should only buy U.S. products until everyone isn't poor.
What I'm saying seems pretty simple.
(IFF) you value human rights (THEN) don't do business with companies that violate human rights.
(IFF) you don't value human rights (THEN) abolish OSHA and minimum wage laws to create a "level" playing field.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
here's the thing it's not the responsibility of the U.S. to save the world, other countries tax the fk out of imports basically forcing it's citizens to buy their own good
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Buying from criminals promotes crime. Just because some countries erect barriers to international trade does not in any way imply that it is an ideal policy for anyone else to emulate.
how would buying products from Venezuela help their workers or are their workers paid and treated adequately? How about Mexico?
The reports key findings include:
- Out of a total of 141 countries, the number where workers faced arbitrary arrest and detention increased from 35 to 44, and included countries such as Spain and Brazil.
- In almost 60 per cent of countries, certain types of workers are excluded from their fundamental labour rights.
- Unionists were murdered in 11 countries, one up from last year, including 22 deaths in Colombia alone.
- Seventy per cent of countries have workers with no right to strike.
- Two thirds of countries deny workers collective bargaining rights.
- More than half of countries in the survey deny workers access to the rule of law. [LINK]
term limits for congress, all elected positions
Good idea.
I was quoting AOC aka Nostradumbass
Thanks for clearing that up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
do you think the people who work in terrible conditions for low pay would be better off if we didn't buy their products?
Probably not. But if you buy from a company that pays a living wage and complies with health and safety standards, presumably those workers will be better off.
(the world ending in 12 years was a joke btw)
Well, that's a relief.
term limits #1
Please elaborate.
tariff and trade all need to be on a level playing field, say what you will about Trump but alt east he's trying to do something compared to the nothing that has been done.
Tariffs do nothing to improve conditions for workers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Have you heard of counter-intelligence-disinformation?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I spilled my coffee...I am sure I specifically stated Odin did not use thunderbolts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
So your god can't be living given the definitions you gave above.
Excellent point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God, and I challenge you to find anything else worthier of being callled God. You can't, there is nothing greater. No amount of sophistry or mental gymnastics is going to override what is truly reality.
This is not currently in dispute.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would seem then that any future agreement should be made on the dollar amount itself.Let's say for example, that the USA makes an agreement to not burn any additional coal for the next 100 years. At the time of the agreement it was predicted to have a cost of 1 trillion dollars. Five years later the USA discovers that to keep the agreement will cost 50 trillion dollars, which would turn the USA into a 3rd world nation economically. Changing circumstances dictate that the National interests come before the international agreement. Realistically, the USA expects other nations when they form non-binding agreements to pull out as well if their national interests change due to circumstance. The only real international agreements that seem to matter these days are financial obligations, where trust can actually be measured with a dollar sign and a Moody's credit rating. In the end, with nations, most of these agreements are about money, not morals.
For example, we commit to spending (losing) 1 trillion dollars to reduce coal emissions.
Agreements should be quantifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So, do you purchase products and services exclusively from manufacturers who follow these rules?nope, but I don't have control over what other countries do or don't do.
You only need to be able to control which products and services you pay for yourself.
Chanting, "bring our boys home" does absolutely nothing to change the underlying brutal system that causes these types of problems in the first place.voting or revolution, take your pick.
Voting with your dollars is also an option.
...the government shouldn't do anything to assist the disadvantaged.what are suppose to be "safety nets" are now entitlements, addictions, way of life.
Under Clinton, welfare reform limited the amount of time people could stay in the program and made quantifiable check lists of requirements that measure progress.
you don't trust charities and wealthy philanthropists to step up and take care of those in needed?
Contrary to popular perception, charities are only required to use 7% of their funds to actually help people. This means that in most cases, 93% of your money is actually going to run the organization itself. This does not seem particularly efficient.
but you trust the government to do so? yeah some are scams, the government is incompetent blah blah blah but the point stands, people were taken care of before these programs existed.
Private organizations and philanthropists can pick and choose who and when and how they are going to "help" people. Government programs have stricter guidelines regarding who they can help and when and for how long.
The Amish don't typically use any of these services so it can be done.
The Amish are not a model for modern society.
what happens in other countries, is it the fault of the ones taking advantage and the ones allowing it to happen, I'd say more so one than the other. Regardless I'm not Mother Teresa and I don't think anyone here can make that claim either.
Are you suggesting a "sink or swim" model is preferable? Mother Teresa didn't do much of anything to "help" people. She mostly just watched them die.
I wasn't around in (1912–13)
Do you know anyone who buys bananas?
the rich run the world that's how it is and they mostly don't care about anything else, any poor people in the U.S. government? any considered middle class that have been in for 20+ years?
Do you think anything can be done to fix this "problem"?
I do try to buy products where the workers are treated fairly etc whenever possible, I don't by Nike brand for instance.
Good onya mate!
If you watch Shark Tank the free market (capitalism) is allowing entrepreneurs to create business based on many things that "give back" to the workers or society. This is becoming a trend and will continue to grow so long as the government doesn't stop it with regulations and other ways to manipulate the business.
Yes, it appears that more and more people are considering the broader implications of where they spend their dollars.
the world is ending in 12 years so wgaf?
Of all the ways we reassure ourselves, the least comforting is this, "it's already too late". [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If anyone expects other countries to abide by their agreements, then they should also abide by their own agreements.Answer mine and I will answer yours.
In exactly the same way that a business or an individual that expects other businesses or individuals to abide by their agreements should also abide by their own agreements.
It's a simple matter of credibility.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
"So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?"Clearly with all the international agreements the USA has previously broken, there has been a national issue with them. Do you disagree?As far as the "should" goes, I agree that national interests should supercede international agreements.Do you disagree? Why?
Question number one: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a personal promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?
Question number two: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a professional business promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
So, where to stand on abortion again? I think this is the biggest issue. And this is where the SJW separates themselves.I don't think there are any leftists out there that are pro-life, but I do believe there are quite a few out there on the right that are pro-choice, I am one of them. I think the left adopts the feelings and the mentality of the left because they believe in a woman's right to choose, and anyone else who doesn't is crazy, so everything else they believe must be crazy. I do think this is the same of the right with some people too, but not as high a percentage... I could be wrong.If it came out that Neeson agreed to an abortion back when he was 17, the right would have had his head as well. The pro-choice right would have just kept their mouth shut.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You never answered my question from post 16. [LINK]
"So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?"
First you claim that the U.S. broke some imaginary perpetual treaty with Russia. Then you go on an off-topic rant about how the U.S. breaks agreements all the time (the implication being that this practice is standard operating procedure and should be, presumably, morally neutral?).
Certainly the U.S. has broken many agreements with, and grossly mistreated the Native American Tribes. This is a tragedy if not an outright crime.
Do you believe this is right or wrong or purely neutral?
Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a personal promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?
Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a professional business promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?
The question is, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?
All of the Trump withdrawals were also from non-ratified international agreements. What's your real point here?
I never mentioned this person.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I've never mentioned any dispute regarding the definition of "National interests".Fine, then you already know the reason for all these broken international agreements.
These are unratified agreements, not broken agreements.
Your original question is answered.
I'm going to guess that your double-dodge-red-herring-leap-to-conclusion is a reflection of the fact that there never was any perpetual alliance between the United States and Russia.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your link is a laundry list of signed but unratified treaties and agreements. These are not broken agreements, and none of them have anything to do with a perpetual alliance with Russia.
Now stop dodging and tell me what agreement you are referring to please.
I've never mentioned any dispute regarding the definition of "National interests".
Created:
Posted in:
Do you believe that employees should be treated fairly and have a basic right to safe and humane working conditions?aren't there already laws that provide that? osha? labor department etc.
Excellent point. So, do you purchase products and services exclusively from manufacturers who follow these rules?
how does that cause "murder, rape" ? and how many murder and rapes are you responsible for?
The latest allegations out of Guatemala illustrate that Coke isn't doing enough to lean on its bottling companies to safeguard workers, or putting enough pressure on the Guatemalan government, which labor groups have accused of being behind an increase in attacks [death threats and murders of union members]. [LINK]
For a decade and a half, the big chocolate makers have promised to end child labor in their industry—and have spent tens of millions of dollars in the effort. But as of the latest estimate, 2.1 million West African children still do the dangerous and physically taxing work of harvesting cocoa. What will it take to fix the problem? [LINK]
In 1911, Zemurray conspired with Manuel Bonilla, an ex-president of Honduras (1904–07), and the American mercenary Gen. Lee Christmas, to overthrow the civil government of Honduras and install a military government friendly to foreign businessmen.
To that end, the mercenary army of the Cuyamel Fruit Company, led by Gen. Christmas, effected a coup d'état against President Miguel R. Dávila (1907–11) and installed General Manuel Bonilla (1912–13). The U.S. ignored the deposition of the elected government of Honduras by a private army, justified by the U.S. State Department's misrepresenting President Dávila as too politically liberal and a poor businessman whose management had indebted Honduras to Great Britain, a geopolitically unacceptable circumstance in light of the Monroe Doctrine. The coup d'état was consequence of the Dávila government's having slighted the Cuyamel Fruit Company [later, United Fruit Company, now Chiquita Brands International] by colluding with the rival United Fruit Company to award them a monopoly contract for the Honduran banana, in exchange for the UFC's brokering of U.S.government loans to Honduras.[11][14] [LINK]
Please explain.his claim that people do nothing to change the [underlying brutal system] situation is wrong, people protest like they did during Vietnam for instance and currently to get the U.S. out of foreign countries/wars Trump was elected (that was one reason anyway)
ResurgetExFavilla actually says...
But instead of doing anything about it, we just look for the tiniest admissions of moral fault to pounce on, maintaining our own veneer of 'respectability' while refusing to criticize a brutal system.
Chanting, "bring our boys home" does absolutely nothing to change the underlying brutal system that causes these types of problems in the first place. [LINK]
do you want to abolish social security? Do you want to abolish corporate welfare? Do you want to abolish farm subsidies?trying to ween the government addicts takes a lot of time and effort, just like most addictions, but first they generally have to hit rock bottom. but yes those "programs" should but phased out and the control should be given over to the individual to run their own lives.
Without programs to help "level the playing field" for the disadvantaged, the "advantaged, stratospherically wealthy caste of disloyal and amoral global citizens" will basically squeeze the life out of everyone and anyone who is unable to compete at their level. They will use every possible opportunity to pit the little people against each other by fomenting fear and distrust among them. [LINK]
"divides its citizenry in order to enrich a tiny, stratospherically wealthy caste of disloyal and amoral 'global citizens'.this is true.
I'm not sure how you can agree with this statement and yet maintain that the government shouldn't do anything to assist the disadvantaged.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You should already know the answer to that.
I generally try to let people speak for themselves. Can you answer the question?
Should we be perpetual allies with Russia simply because we had a national interest to be their Allies in 1941?
Nobody has suggested we ever had a perpetual alliance with Russia. This is a straw-man and a red-herring.
Of course not. National interests supercede any international agreements. This is a universal principle, not just a USA thing.
Are you suggesting that we should never keep our word because others might be untrustworthy? [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I have a few resources trying to hunt down the video that I saw.I have no reason to disbelieve you. Question is: given the Snopes debunk, how will you convince others of what u saw?
The video I saw was a "one on one" interview in a darkened office. There is some speculation that it may have been an "off the record" interview.
Apparently he said some disparaging things about republicans in the nationally televised Oprah interview as well.
The complete 1988 Oprah video used to be available uncut, but now there are only a few short clips online.
"It turns out, a meme was released into social media with a similar quote to what Donald Trump said in his 1988 interview. After circulation of this meme, the online records of the full interview were slowly erased from the internet. Thus, the meme became the scapegoat for people's memory of the full video and the "republicans are the dumbest" quote. The craziest part of all of this, is that the meme was clearly produced to deceive and misinform people. I say this because the meme misquotes the interview, saying it was People Magazine in 1998, not Oprah 1988. This is a classic tactic meant to distract people. Also, the meme includes a phrase referencing Fox News, which wasn't founded until 1996; making the quote seem fake." [LINK]
The thing about missing information is that most people don't notice what isn't there, and strangely they still trust the media (even a random internet site) more than individuals. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Every single person in this country who doesn't live in a self-sufficient cabin in the woods is culpable for murder, rape, theft on a colossal scale.seriously? you believe that?
Do you believe that employees should be treated fairly and have a basic right to safe and humane working conditions?
they he says something about not doing something about it.....Trump was elected, he said he'd get us out of other countries and stop the wars etc,
This is apropos of nothing. Please explain.
unfortunately the sheeple and lemmings want free stuff, which is never free, and government handouts, they want to government to take care of them. That's not every single person, that's not me.
I see. So, do you want to abolish social security? Do you want to abolish corporate welfare? Do you want to abolish farm subsidies?
"divides its citizenry in order to enrich a tiny, stratospherically wealthy caste of disloyal and amoral 'global citizens'.this is true.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Say Republicans Are the "Dumbest Group of Voters"?
Here's the funny thing.
I saw this video myself. I brought this up yesterday at work, and three of my coworkers distinctly remember seeing this video.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?I believe that Countries like Hungary and Australia have a valid reason to resist UNHCR when their National interests are put at risk.UNHCR has no mechanism to punish these countries either. UN resolutions should not be a suicide pact.International courts are invalid for the very reason of conflicting national interests.China has already violated the Paris CO2 resolutions, where is the penalty? Sanctions only do so much. National interests always supercede sanctions.
So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The constitution is not based on UN Laws.
This is a non sequitur. Nobody ever made such a claim.
I'll also say that most of the UN resolutions are non-binding, or non-enforceable, and many go against the national interests of America.
So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?
Created:
Posted in:
"How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country, to believe this cr*p?" [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
No, that misses the point. The point is that we live in a horrible country which ruins entire nations so that the spoiled, indolent American masses can revel in the latest wave of distracting junk. Every single person in this country who doesn't live in a self-sufficient cabin in the woods is culpable for murder, rape, theft on a colossal scale. Furthermore, we are culpable of supporting a brutal domestic political machine which oppresses and divides its citizenry in order to enrich a tiny, stratospherically wealthy caste of disloyal and amoral 'global citizens'. But instead of doing anything about it, we just look for the tiniest admissions of moral fault to pounce on, maintaining our own veneer of 'respectability' while refusing to criticize a brutal system. It's cowardly and distasteful. As Christ put it:'Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.'
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You saw the Korematsu decision from the FDR judges.
Do you believe their decision was principled or unprincipled (argumentum in terrorem)?
Do you have any opinion on the 1951 Refugee Convention?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are no phrases in the constitution that specifically guarantees rights to foreign invaders or foreign combatants.
So, you don't believe in human rights based on the United States constitution?
What do you think of,
The Refugee Convention builds on Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries. A refugee may enjoy rights and benefits in a state in addition to those provided for in the Convention.[2]
"Settled law" is a provable myth as long as the SCOTUS retains its powers. One more judge on the bench wearing a MAGA hat and illegal invaders can kiss their rights byebye. However the phrase "we the people of the United States of America" appears a few times in the American Constitution, that is the guarantee.
So you believe the law is not based on any core constitutional principles, but is instead arbitrarily subject to the whims of nine political appointees?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
Have you seen the movie "The Oath"? [LINK]I'm not sure the message they are trying to convey with it, or if there is even supposed to be a message (it's basically a comedy), or a moral to it, but it is pretty crazy, and it does show how people can get out of control, with even loved ones if they don't agree on views.... and some that just go with the flow, and some who stick up for their beliefs no matter what, and call others out for not caring as much.
This movie is a direct reference to Japanese-American and Italian-American citizens in internment camps who were asked to sign a personal unconditional declaration of loyalty to the United States government.
Many of them refused to sign because it seemed deeply unfair that their loyalty was even being questioned.
They were considered guilty until proven innocent.
In early 1943, War Relocation Authority officials, working with the War Department and the Office of Naval Intelligence,[137] circulated a questionnaire in an attempt to determine the loyalty of incarcerated Nisei men they hoped to recruit into military service. The "Statement of United States Citizen of Japanese Ancestry" was initially given only to Nisei who were eligible for service (or would have been, but for the 4-C classification imposed on them at the start of the war). Authorities soon revised the questionnaire and required all adults in camp to complete the form. Most of the 28 questions were designed to assess the "Americanness" of the respondent — had they been educated in Japan or the U.S.? were they Buddhist or Christian? did they practice judo or play on a baseball team?[137] The final two questions on the form, which soon came to be known as the "loyalty questionnaire", were more direct:
Question 27: Are you willing to serve in the armed forces of the United States on combat duty, wherever ordered?Question 28: Will you swear unqualified allegiances to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any and all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, or other foreign government, power or organization?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@DBlaze
Yes... Good video. I still believe there is a far right though, which is just as crazy as the left.
The first half seems reasonable enough, but the second half is loaded with straw-men intended as a rush to disqualify opponents and capped off with a false dilemma. [LINK]
I know that all of those people advocating for Northam to resign have thought something like Neeson did at some point or another in their lives.
Overstatement.
I can kind of see back in the 80's, doing a talent show, or dressing up during halloween, where people didn't take offense to really anything because it was Halloween. You just didn't dress up as a famous person who died too recently, you have to give it some time. Now people are getting offended for other people instead of looking out for themselves. There is something called a distasteful joke, but really, only to the wrong audience.
You need to draw a principled line in the sand. If you're offended when people say white men massacred the Native Americans and Native South Americans, then you need to put yourself in the shoes of people who are offended by blackface and imagine that they are just as offended as you are when you are (justifiably) offended.
Your are probably right about the Clinton impeachment to an extent, but I think it is mostly social media and technology. It has made the world much smaller, and has brought attention to things that wouldn't have been known at earlier times... and would not have been news worthy. Now people can argue with each other about the smallest tweets or videos of situations, call each other names, tell them they are going to find them and punch them in the face, as far as I know they never do (you wouldn't see these arguments in the street, only online).. Actors and entertainers that opinions are respected (I honestly don't know why people look up to them), chiming in like they know more than everyone else, without having any idea of what the situation really is.
Opinions are, by definition, unqualified. And plenty of people were openly and physically hostile for thousands of years before computers were ever invented.
It's also the never ending want and need for a utopia....... Which is and always will be a wish, it does not exist. As long as people exist, a utopia will not.
Everyone has opinions about how they can make society "better". The stronger the disagreement in opinion, the more heated and potentially violent the manifestation will become. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I graduated high school in 1984 and I have to disagree that everybody knew not to joke about blackface. Ronald Reagan’s inaugural ball featured a nationally televised blackface performance. Saturday morning kiddy television- The 3 Stooges and Merry Melodies did lots and lots of blackface bits coming as they did out of vaudeville. Trading Places and Soul Man and many big movies of the mid ‘80s did blackface. TV did lots and of blackface. If you went to a big enough Halloween party, you were almost guaranteed to see blackface. Certainly, there were also plenty of folks objecting to these performances but the tolerance level for offensive speech was far higher- at least, saying or doing something racist was not generally cause for dismissal and blackface was a fairly minor offense. By the mid-80s, perhaps everybody knew blackface was offensive but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t ordinary, the way gay jokes or rape jokes were both offensive and commonplace
Ronald Reagan’s inaugural ball -
Created:
Posted in:
"The point of the story was at that time in his life he let anger and hate take him over. Once he got ahold of the feelings he was very glad to not have done something to ruin his and someone else's life. If we can't discuss things like this and show how moving past hate and bigotry makes you a better person then racism will always exist. He really put himself out there by doing this and the hate he is getting for it shows people care more about snipits in the media than the content of what is being conveyed." [LINK]
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
“If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”
Going on YouTube to find the video now returns zero results. Searching Facebook where it was initially shared returns the same thing. Yet these searches harbor hundreds of comments from other people stating that they too have seen the video which has seemingly gone missing, as seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZtfSIgsH1o, and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NtE8GISBhM , etc.
Which raises the following questions:
- Why aren't all of Trumps full interviews available anywhere? 3 minute clips of Oprah are cute, but not full factual interviews. (copyright arguments would be waived as the information now falls under fair use: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/, however YouTube takes things down at anyones request as their system is so broken it spawned numerous protests that even got the CEOs attention (#WTFU, #MakeYouTubeGreatAgain, etc.))
- If YouTube's claim system is this easily exploitable and copyright was stopping Oprah, Howard Stern and the like from being uploaded, why are selective parts from those interviews that paint Trump in a positive light the only ones allowed to stay? Last time I checked, Fair Use for things like educational purposes didn't just cover the parts of them that make someone look good (see: Coke/Pepsi branding laws in movies.)
- Why is the quote in question suddenly being attributed to People Magazine when the words were spoken on video?
- Why, if the video does hopefully turn up, were Google's search results hiding everything as far back as 1993?
- Why again, if the quote supposedly came from People Magazine, is - "Trump republicans ...'are stupid'" - the number one most-searched autocomplete result on YouTube, the place people go to find videos?
- The idea that a video is being copyright flagged on both YouTube and Facebook the instant it's uploaded is not out of the realm of possibility. There's a reason finding SNL clips is so hard.
- The misattribution of the quote (to People Magazine, instead of the original videos source) is a tactic that has been around for decades used to fool people into thinking something didn't happen/wasn't true and - it's more important purpose - to stop people who actually do their research from researching the given subject further and deter them from finding out what truly happened.
- The obvious argument that Trump calling people names is virtually his campaign slogan at this point so the idea of him saying something that harsh/that way is absolutely within said realm of possibility.
- The peculiar fact that it appears as if no one has even raised the question of whether or not the quote was true on Reddit.
- And arguably the biggest issue, of whether or not the ecosystems involved (YouTube, Google, Facebook...) have become closed enough - and the public has become comfortable enough - to truly let something "disappear" in 2016. (Shoutouts to /r/news.)
Created:
That's why we must vote the "deep state" candidates out of office.Democrats could repeal the Patriot Act and don't cause it gives them extra power too.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The American Constitution is for Americans, not non-Americans.
This statement is provably false.
Jurisdiction is derived from sovereignty.
This is correct, and a non sequitur.
There are no guarantees from the Constitution for illegal invaders or foreign combatants.
This statement is provably false.
Also, here is a bad SCOTUS decision from a court packed with justices from the infamous Fascist FDR.Sometimes the government can deny Constitutional rights to Americans as well.
Guilty until proven innocent I guess.
The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory." [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Alec
The BoP would be on the person making the claim.
In the United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Section 412 of the Patriot Act permits indefinite detention of immigrants;[8] one of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla,[9] whose ultimate prosecution and conviction in the United States have been highly controversial. The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch.[10][11][12][13]
On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") that would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens, leading to criticism that the right of habeas corpus had been undermined.[14][15] The House of Representatives and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011, and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.[16] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."[17] The ACLU stated that "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law."[18]
On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,[19] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.[20][21][22][23][24]
In 2013, the House of Representatives[25] and the Senate[26] reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers. Moreover, on July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.[27] The appellate court ruled that "plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre-enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens." On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[28][29] [LINK]
In 2013, the House of Representatives[25] and the Senate[26] reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers. Moreover, on July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.[27] The appellate court ruled that "plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre-enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens." On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[28][29] [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Alec
Does the US government currently hold anyone "without charges or trial"?The US government doesn't do that to Italians anymore.
Created:
In Highlandtown, life changed overnight. Federal agents across the country immediately arrested 98 Italian “aliens,” including ten in Baltimore. The agents identified their targets with the help of the Census Bureau. [LINK]
Italian-Americans had faced prejudice for decades by the time the order was drafted, says Guglielmo. Italians were the biggest group of immigrants to the United States who passed through Ellis Island for much of the late 19th and early 20th century; between 1876 and 1930, 5 million Italians moved to the U.S. Not without backlash: By the 1920s, pseudo-scientists and polemicists in the 1920s popularized the notion that Italians were a separate race from Anglo-Americans. [LINK]
The same chill settled in Connecticut. One morning in spring 1942, federal officers knocked on the door of a New Haven home. The man who opened the door, Pasquale DeCicco, was a pillar of his community and had been a U.S. citizen for more than 30 years. He was taken to a federal detention center in Boston, where he was fingerprinted, photographed and held for three months. Then he was sent to another detention facility on Ellis Island.
Still with no hearing scheduled, he was moved again to an immigration facility at Fort Meade, Maryland. On July 31, he was formally declared an enemy alien of the United States. He remained at Fort Meade until December 1943, months after Italy’s surrender. He was never shown any evidence against him, nor charged with any crime.
EO 9066 not only allowed the government to arrest and imprison “enemy aliens” without charges or trial—it meant their homes and businesses could be summarily seized. On the West Coast, California’s attorney general Earl Warren (later the Chief Justice of the United States) was relentless in registering enemy aliens for detention.
Even Joe DiMaggio’s parents in Sausalito weren’t spared. Though their son, the Yankees slugger, was the toast of New York, General John DeWitt, a leading officer in the Western Defense Command, pressed to arrest Joe’s father, Giuseppe, who had lived in the U.S. for 40 years but never applied for citizenship papers. DeWitt wanted to make a point: “No exceptions.”
2 minute video summary. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So I am not wrong nor am I right So I guess you have to retract your statement from the previous post"See no truth, Hear not truth, Speak no truth"
Link please.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is also no evidence that a wall would stop or deter zero invisible unicorn invaders.
Have fun making up numbers out of thin air.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Where are your facts that a border wall stops zero criminals or terrorists?
Where's your classic appeal to ignorance?
Where are your facts that a border wall stops zero invisible unicorns?
There is zero evidence that even a single terrorist suspect has even attempted to cross the southern border on the ground.
And, according to the conservative CATO institute,
"Illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal immigrants are 69 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal and illegal immigrants are underrepresented in the incarcerated population while natives are overrepresented." [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Mharman
Chris Wallace calls BS on border wall. [LINK]
Created: