SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump's executive order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. also applies to green card holders from those countries, the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday. "It will bar green card holders," acting DHS spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told Reuters.
Green cards serve as proof of an individual's permanent legal residence in the U.S. A senior administration official clarified on Saturday afternoon that green card holders from the seven countries affected in the order who are currently outside the U.S. will need a case-by-case waiver to return to the U.S. Green card holders in the U.S. will have to meet with a consular officer before departing the country, the official said.
Source: The Hill
At least one case quickly prompted a legal challenge as lawyers representing two Iraqi refugees held at Kennedy International Airport in New York filed a motion early Saturday seeking to have their clients released. They also filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and other immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry. Shortly after noon on Saturday, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an interpreter who worked on behalf of the United States government in Iraq, was released. After nearly 19 hours of detention, Mr. Darweesh began to cry as he spoke to reporters, putting his hands behind his back and miming handcuffs.
[...] Inside the airport, one of the lawyers, Mark Doss, a supervising attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project, asked a border agent, "Who is the person we need to talk to?"
"Call Mr. Trump," said the agent, who declined to identify himself.
[...] An official message to all American diplomatic posts around the world provided instructions about how to treat people from the countries affected: "Effective immediately, halt interviewing and cease issuance and printing" of visas to the United States. Confusion turned to panic at airports around the world, as travelers found themselves unable to board flights bound for the United States. In Dubai and Istanbul, airport and immigration officials turned passengers away at boarding gates and, in at least one case, ejected a family from a flight they had boarded.
[...] Iranian green card holders who live in the United States were blindsided by the decree while on vacation in Iran, finding themselves in a legal limbo and unsure whether they would be able to return to America. "How do I get back home now?" said Daria Zeynalia, a green card holder who was visiting family in Iran. He had rented a house and leased a car, and would be eligible for citizenship in November. "What about my job? If I can't go back soon, I'll lose everything."
Source: The New York Times
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday January 28 2017, @10:03PM
Who will rid us of this turbulent priest? I doubt Congress will ever find the balls to impeach him when he finally goes too far and actually commits a crime while president.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday January 28 2017, @10:13PM
Trump isn't the problem. He's a symptom.
Always remember that a large minority of fools and/or racists *wanted* what he promised - and what he's now delivering - and voted for him. On top of that, he was made president because the large minority was allowed to have its say over the majority by the undemocratic electoral college system.
In short, remove this Trump and another one will be elected sooner or later.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by charon on Saturday January 28 2017, @10:50PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday January 28 2017, @11:34PM
No. It will be, "Go fuck yourself". When they pulled an Eric Cartman and hooted and hollered and threw poo like the juvenile monkeys they are, and delighted in the delicious tears of the "opposition", they deserve NO QUARTER.
They entirely deserve what they're going to get, and even now, as the horror is dawning upon as all, they ignorantly back the Child Emperor and tell him has clothes on. When you cannot even accept photographic evidence of crowd sizes, you've become dangerously delusional and irrationally partisan.
Quietly, I hoped for the best and that Trump was going to make Corporate America reap the world wind. I knew that he was going to be betray his supporters ultimately. The Republican party is going to use him as much as possible, and throw their constituency under the bus. Just like always.
When they figure out that Trump was just as much a backstabbing mother fucker as Obama was, I'm going to enjoy their tears and realizations of just how fucking wrong they all were.
To be entirely fair, voting for Hillary was almost impossible UNTIL Trump created the Overton Super Window of Cake or Death. Which was really Neck-Deep-In-Shit and Painful-As-Fuck-Death.
To be fair, I think most of them voted out of fear. Those that "delight in the tears" are the White Nationalists prematurely celebrating a victory that is not coming. Oh excuse me, the internment camps and rampant bigotry is their victory, and Trump their gone-full-retard cheerleader in chief.
The Trump voters who are silent (The silent non-majority in fly over country and elsewhere) are the ones already crying and realizing that they may in fact have to join the resistance at some point. Either that, or a fuck ton of Americans decided to roll the dice with "let's burn the fucker down". Of which, I wished just as much at some point until Bernie Sanders came along.
If I have any tears, it's that Bernie Sanders did not get the nomination and get the votes that would prevented Hitler 2.0 from obtaining power.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:24AM
Our own featherbrained Uzzard has said in so many words that he's in the "burn it all down" camp, as if this excuses him. I hope they have a size XXL turkey baster waiting for him in Hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by J_Darnley on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:29AM
> burn it all down
Is there anything wrong with that mindset?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:39AM
I am not even going to dignify that with a response. Those flames will consume you too.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by J_Darnley on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:57AM
Oh, then please let it be soon. Thank you.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:51AM
Being burned alive is not a pleasant way to go, though I guess it is the traditional christian thing
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:50AM
I need no excusing. Burning it all down is the most efficient and painless way to restore it. You, you'd have us spend another hundred years of riots and murders and trying to convince people to your way of thinking by calling them cocksuckers. You should be ashamed. Or silent. Either would do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:28AM
Kiss my ass, Uzzard. You think I wanted the status quo to stay in place? No. I want to see change as much as you do. But I want to see it done in ways that don't result in anything from a long, slow decline a la the Roman Republic all the way up to World War III.
You have no ability to handle nuance. Everything's black or white with you. We need a surgeon, not a berserker with an axe. Take your amoral nihilist bullshit and shove it so far up your ass your daddy chokes on it in Hell, then go join him.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:59AM
Right. Because all the surgeons have been so successful.
"Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids you kill today?"
Wasn't he the great signer of the civil rights reform?
Or, if you like, Nixon, signer of so much environmental legislation that is deeply beloved these days.
You see, all those people in power love to tell us how nuanced and delicate and intelligent and surgical and careful they're being while wrecking more rights, while consolidating more power, while continuing to build the system that is the problem itself.
So maybe - just possibly, maybe - the scalpel isn't what it will take. Or there is a right surgeon somewhere, but we have no way of knowing who that is, and were to find such a person. Then it's time for the berserker, the Samson, the bull in the china shop.
Alas, but there it is.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:03PM
And what makes you think *I* think Obama was a surgeon? No, he was a slimy, self-serving, cowardly "community organizer," and his outrages agaisnt privacy, search and seizure, and due process are all the more egregious because of his background as a "constitutional Scholar."
Don't misunderstand me here; I believe the system went off the rails at least a decade before I was born, probably more. The blow that landed the country supine was Ford pardoning Nixon; Reagan's election was the mortal wound, and we've been bleeding out since then. I want to see the Demcorats either die or get back to where they were when they ran McGovern. We need statesmen, damn it all.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:05PM
I hesitate to interrupt a good flamewar, but I'll just throw another perspective into the mix. If you're going to start citing the decline of the Roman Republic, I really think you need to go back to FDR and the shift of the Democratic Party toward populism. (Teddy R. was also a good populist, but his changes were much less radical than FDR.) Constitutional law changed more during FDR's presidency than any other before or since, particularly with the switch in time that saved nine [wikipedia.org]. Whether or not that was because Owen Roberts actually feared the court-packing scheme or not, the net result was that the U.S. transitioned during FDR's presidency from a federal government with limited powers to one with essentially no limit on its powers.
That changed the nature of the presidency fundamentally, as well as the entire governmental system of the U.S., creating a path whereby future leaders in the U.S. could increase power exponentially. Couple that to FDR's populism and turn to embrace the "working man" in both North and South (rather than the traditional purview of the Democrats, i.e., southern racists), and you have the creation of the modern populist march toward republic decline.
Would we be anywhere near so worried about the damage a new President might do if he had only the pre-FDR powers of the federal government working for him?**
Those sorts of things (increasing powers of the central government, consolidation of power under a single government official, a turn toward populism and rural areas, a tendency to stay in power long than tradition -- FDR was elected for four terms, leading to a Constitutional amendment to prevent that sort of thing, and even stuff like concern over the plight of war veterans) should sound eerily familiar to those with knowledge of the Roman Republic. The Gracchi brothers in particular... except the Roman Senators had the good sense to club Tiberius Gracchus to death when he sought to be elected again.
84 years after the rise of Tiberius Gracchus, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and effectively ended the Roman Republic. FDR was elected in 1932 -- 84 years later, we hailed a new leader in early November, who has continuously threatened attacks on Washington and our existing governmental structure.
I'm not arguing for some sort of mystical historical coincidence here. Just saying the Romans themselves would have viewed this set of coincidences as a very inauspicious omen.
[**I'm not saying FDR's actions as President were necessarily bad, or even that some consolidation in federal power is necessary in a modern world. But the way these shifts occurred and the resulting empowerment of the executive was bound to lead to a Constitutional crisis sooner or later. That's why the Romans fought so hard for centuries to keep power isolated and temporary.]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:45AM
I disagree that it's the most efficient, and you're full of fucking shit about the painless part. That being said, I can't blame you for feeling that way. The only thing that pulled me away from Trump was the new Progressive platform the Democrats were building and the slight chance that Hillary might play ball. Before that, Bernie seemed like the only sane option out of all of them.
Otherwise, I'd voted for burning it all down too, but not with the delusion that it would be the most efficient and painless way to do it. It's just the way they we have, because the most efficient and painless way would be to be united, organized, and with an idea of just what we want to accomplish. Burning it down is just easier.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:26AM
You, you'd have us spend another hundred years of riots and murders and trying to convince people to your way of thinking by calling them cocksuckers.
Basic, basic error, oh Might Bizzarando! We do not want to convince anyone to our way of thinking, we just want to convince them to think! Yourself is a fairly good example! So please, think before you burn stuff down? Arson is almost never the solution to your problems. But thinking can sometimes be!
Consider the last time rightwing nutjobs got us into a mess, way on back in Vietnam!
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:18PM
We do not want to convince anyone to our way of thinking, we just want to convince them to think!
Fine sentiment! But what does thinking mean here? Let's google a bit.
There's very strong indications that "thinking" merely means agreeing with aristarchus. For example, I wrote [soylentnews.org]:
And we've since found that Marxism is broken in a variety of ways. We don't need the broken beliefs of Marxism. We can do better. And I find it remarkable how so often the response to the obvious benefits of capitalism (such as a globally wealthier humanity [voxeu.org]) is to merely insist they don't exist.
What was your substantive response to this criticism?
This is obviously untrue, and you do not know what you are talking about, and it has become even more obvious that for an otherwise educated person, your knowledge of economic theory of any sort is extremely deficient.
Note the dishonest rhetoric. There is no reasoning here, just an ad hominem attack that I don't know what I'm talking about even though I give quite a few indications in this thread that I do. If someone with way too much time on their hands should happen to read the rest of the thread, they'll also note your curious insistence on what thinking is incapable of (such as insisting that one can't think for another even in the face of my examples to the contrary - the edifices of math and sciences don't exist in your universe, of course).
Then there's aristarchus downplaying corruption because we didn't know [soylentnews.org] whether it worked or not:
I don't know if that could make Clinton win, but it certainly didn't hurt Sanders at least a bit.
Log in, Francis! Yes, you don't know, that is kind of the point. And certainly? didn't? I do not think you meant to use a negative there, did you not? So what about the algorithm?
And to clarify [soylentnews.org] his opinion:
Are you really going to try to downplay corruption just because it had an unknown effect
Is this an actual question? How can it be corruption if it had no effect? Or a counter-corrupting effect? All you are saying is that you don't know. You are saying nothing. By trying to make it seem like I am saying something, you are still saying nothing. What was the algorithm the Clinton campaign used? Oh, you don't know? Was it corrupt? Maybe, you don't know. Was it inaccurate on predictions? Obviously. Why? You don't know.
Notice his insistence on "know". So yes, something can be discounted because aristarchus doesn't know. A classic application of the argument from ignorance fallacy. One might want to consider the truisms here. We know that the DNC actually did pull these schemes for Clinton and they had the choice of not doing so. That implies certain expectations from the parties in the know that their schemes would work as expected.
Then there's one of the many times aristarchus sneers at jmorris:
Just not seeing any possibility of a practical application until that happens.
More evidence that jmorris does not understand science. The motto is: Ars gratia artis, you may notice it when the MGM lion roars at the beginning of your practical application pirated movie. But more precisely, Scientia gratia scientae, or "knowledge is its own reward." This is the problem with conservatives, Falangists, Neo-conservatives, Neo-nazis, alt-right, L/libertarians, Roundheads, Know-nothings, Francoists, Peronists, and all the other right wing people on the planet: They do not value anything unless it can be sold. Whores and Mercenaries, and Trumpeteers, they are, the lot of them. Weird science, indeed.
But yet, jmorris remains quite correct and quite understanding of what science and knowledge and what they can do or not do for us. Notice here that you give absolutely no reason for why "knowledge is its own reward" is at all relevant and completely ignore that knowledge has cost as well as reward. Your argument is not knowledge, but its opposite, anti-knowledge, which would make us worse off than if we remained ignorant. I suppose that is its own reward too.
Through these three examples, I think I demonstrate that you frequently do twist the meaning of "think", "know", "understanding", etc to mean "agrees with aristarchus". Far too often, you use empty assertions of knowing to cudgel your foes: khallow doesn't share my opinion of Marx, therefore, he is ignorant; Frances doesn't perfectly understand the impact of Clinton-biased DNC interference in Sanders's campaign and I, aristarchus know even less than Frances does, so therefore, it could have actually helped Sanders and not be corruption; and jmorris spoke of practical application of science so I, aristarchus must belittle him with irrelevant cliches about knowledge.
And that leads me to my final observation. aristarchus, how can you help others think when you so many times refuse to do it yourself and when you twist the meaning of mundane words and concepts, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:49PM
λογίζομαι γάρ, ὦ φίλε ἑταῖρε—θέασαι ὡς πλεονεκτικῶς—εἰ μὲν τυγχάνει ἀληθῆ ὄντα ἃ λέγω, καλῶς δὴ ἔχει τὸ πεισθῆναι: εἰ δὲ μηδέν ἐστι τελευτήσαντι, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν τοῦτόν γε τὸν χρόνον αὐτὸν τὸν πρὸ τοῦ θανάτου ἧττον τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀηδὴς ἔσομαι ὀδυρόμενος, ἡ δὲ ἄνοιά μοι αὕτη οὐ συνδιατελεῖ—κακὸν γὰρ ἂν ἦν—ἀλλ᾽ ὀλίγον ὕστερον ἀπολεῖται. παρεσκευασμένος δή, ἔφη, ὦ Σιμμία τε καὶ Κέβης, οὑτωσὶ ἔρχομαι ἐπὶ τὸν λόγον: ὑμεῖς μέντοι, ἂν ἐμοὶ πείθησθε,
σμικρὸν φροντίσαντες Σωκράτους, τῆς δὲ ἀληθείας πολὺ μᾶλλον, ἐὰν μέν τι ὑμῖν δοκῶ ἀληθὲς λέγειν, συνομολογήσατε, εἰ δὲ μή, παντὶ λόγῳ ἀντιτείνετε, εὐλαβούμενοι ὅπως μὴ ἐγὼ ὑπὸ προθυμίας ἅμα ἐμαυτόν τε καὶ ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσας, ὥσπερ μέλιττα τὸ κέντρον ἐγκαταλιπὼν οἰχήσομαι.
Plato, Phaedo, 91b-c [tufts.edu]
To paraphrase, ὦ φίλε khallow, you should think little of aristarchus, but much more of the truth.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:08PM
To paraphrase, ὦ φίλε khallow, you should think little of aristarchus, but much more of the truth.
Don't you worry, I already have that covered. Also, should you ever become interested in the things you purport to care about, like say knowledge or truth, please let us know how that works out, kay?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:19PM
Oh, khallow! You were just starting to think, even critically, for a little bit there! And then you just shut it all down and made it all about me. I am truly sorely disappointed. Won't you try again?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:58PM
And then you just shut it all down and made it all about me. I am truly sorely disappointed.
You no doubt noticed that I didn't do that. I can't correct what I didn't do.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:25PM
You no doubt noticed that I didn't do that.
No, I did notice that you did, which is why I brought it up. Are you alright, khallow? This is not up to your normal level of coherence.
I can't correct what I didn't do.
Granted. But you could correct what you didn't know you did! See? There is that word again! ἐπιστήμη, the "epi" means "on" or "upon"; the "sta" root means to "stand", as in stasis, statue, etc. So knowledge is actually closer to "understand", even though the Greek means "stand upon".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:40PM
But you could correct what you didn't know you did!
Actually no, you completely miss the point of control systems (like this one of making corrections). Without sufficiently accurate feedback there is no control no matter what parameters I can adjust. In this case, there hasn't been sufficiently accurate feedback.
(Score: 1) by charon on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:27AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:44AM
Why, because he's angry? Even if you think those sentiments are counterproductive, you have to admit most "right"-wingers don't seem to give a good god damn about anything until it affects them. They only learn when they personally suffer.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by charon on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:06AM
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:16AM
I'm mostly with you on this, but some people also need to learn a sharp lesson. They will learn not to touch the hot stove if they burn their hands.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:33AM
Some people are very slow to learn.
How many people have been killed in France recently by "refugees"? How many people in Europe have been killed by "refugees"? How many rapes have there been in Europe?
From this article, it appears that maybe Trump is being a little heavy handed, or ham fisted. But, it's time to stop embracing Islam. This isn't Islam, and I'd be alright with tearing down every mosque in this nation.
You are experiencing that Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times."
(Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:41AM
Did you look closely at the list of countries immigration is banned from, and those it is NOT banned from? The split is entirely along the lines of "what countries does Benito the Cheeto have business interests in?" Notice how Saudi Arabia is NOT on the list, despite the fact that most of the 11 Sept. hijackers were Saudis?
I'd maybe have a little more respect for this idea if he was consistent and banning ALL Muslim immigration. As you know, I am no fan of Islam.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:09AM
I'd maybe have a little more respect for this idea if he was consistent and banning ALL Muslim immigration. As you know, I am no fan of Islam.
Oh, I thought you hated all Abrahamic religions equally.
When are you going to call for banning entry from all christian majority countries?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:31AM
Most of the supposed Christian majority countries are ChrINOs, if you take my meaning. They're cultural Christians. Though TBH I'd like to see a ban on Russian immigration, considering the Orthodox church's bizarre relationship with Putin. Y'know, now that we've stooped to the level of banning immigration for religious reasons.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:18AM
Azuma - sometimes I hate you, LOL.
Some buttwipe modded me "troll", and I saw your name right below it. I reach for the mod button to give it right back to you, but I actually read your post before modding. Dammit.
Yeah, you're right. Saudi Arabia should lead the list of banned countries. I have been sickened for years with our cozy relationship with the House of Saud. I've often talked about tribal politics, and Saud epitomizes everything that is wrong with tribalism.
It seems that every corrupt son of a bitch in this country who weilds power has close relations with the House of Saud. Maybe I exaggerate, but Herr Bush was closeted with a Saud soon after 9/11/01. Bush bent over backward to avoid offending the Saudis.
And, part of me agrees with those who want to nuke Mecca and Medina, and every other holy site Islam owns. That would erase Saudi Arabia from the map.
You KNOW that the House of Saud is well and truly fucked up, when they can generate a whole new viral form of Islam that believes the rest of Islam isn't violent enough. Suadi Arabia and Wahhabiland are just about synonymous.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:30AM
I never hate you; I just pity you. You are so, so close to getting it sometimes, and then you disappear up your own asshole for weeks at a stretch. I know you were fucked up by what happened to you as a kid, and then as a young adult, but you don't have to continue that cycle.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:35AM
Oh, FFS - you talk about disappearing up an asshole, then you start with the psycho-cocksucker bullshit. Pull your own head out, alright?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:08AM
That's what happens when you share details, people can put some pieces together and maybe see the motivations behind some actions. Hazy psycho babble sure, but doesn't mean there isn't some truth.
From what I've seen, on one hand you see a lot of crazy messed up things, but other times you preach the crazy messed up things.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:15PM
The AC below you is correct. You are more damaged than you realize. That in itself doesn't make everything you say automatically wrong, but to people who can see the patterns of abuse and know in broad terms what they do to the sufferers, it makes motives you think are hidden turn very, very transparent.
Break. The. Cycle. You are not what was done to you. You are you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:05PM
So, basically, you are justifying certain presumptions common to many liberal minded people. I'm damaged. Well - is there truth in the common presumption that a bride who was raped is also "damaged goods"? Are you saying that no decent man would ever want a rape victim for a wife?
Then, you're also justifying presumptions that a black male growing up in the ghetto is damaged, and that he will never amount to anything. And, statistics seem to support your presumption.
And, finally, you have justified my presumption that a lot of Muslim immigrants are bad for this country, and that Trump is right.
Stick all of that where the sun don't shine - and enjoy it.
You can't tell us that every individual is unique, when you like those individuals, then turn around and tell me that I'm transparent, predictable, and whatever else because I shared a little of my early life with you.
If that isn't clear enough for you, Azuma, then let me put it this way: You're full of shit.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:08PM
Wow, false equivalencies out the asshole.
You know what? I work with rape victims, many of them *commercial* rape victims. Fuck yeah they're damaged...but that doesn't make them less people. Your mistake is that you assume I think of people as goods, even using the phrase in scare quotes. Go to Hell.
Similarly, fuck yeah growing up in the ghetto is gonna damage people. That, again, doesn't mean they're less human for it. Go to Hell for this too.
And no, I haven't justified shit you said, idiot. I'm not saying you aren't unique (sorry, special snowflake, didn't mean to hurt your feelings here). You're damaged, sure, but so am I. That doesn't mean you're "Just another X" in my eyes, it means "I've seen the patterns of this damage before, and combined with your post history I have a very good idea of what you will say and when."
If you don't like this--and the extreme vehemence of your reaction, which I ALSO predicted, bears this out--too bad. If it bothers you so very much to be so predictable, start putting some effort into breaking the bonds of your past, rather than using them as an excuse to lash out.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:20AM
Why hasn't mecca and merdina been nuked?
Root of all evil and all that
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:45PM
If you nuke the Muslim holy lands, you also need to hit SLC, Jerusalem, Vatican City, Wherever the Eastern Orthodox Christian's place is, A variety of places in India, and don't forget LA to take out the Scientologists.
And that is before cleaning house on the political groups who might as well be religions.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:07AM
> Some people are very slow to learn.
Story of your life bro, story of your life!
Surprised to see you self-aware for once.
How many people have been killed in France recently by "refugees"?
How many people in Europe have been killed by "refugees"?
How many rapes have there been in Europe?
I dunno, why don't you tell us?
Oh you can't? Because you are an imbecile who can't even back up his bigotry with half facts?
So much for being self-aware.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:25AM
And, obviously, you're a jagoff who doesn't keep up with current events. Without any research at all, it's safe to say that Islam has killed Europeans on European soil every year since 9/11/01. Allahu Akhbar, asshole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:38AM
Oh please. By that logic, the much larger number of casualties due to non-muslims [crimeresearch.org] means we gotta keep all those white people from europe out too.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday January 30 2017, @09:10PM
For some of the Trump supporters, it is absolutely more productive to tell them to fuck off. These are the people that no amount of science, no amount of evidence based reasoning, no amount of facts, no amount of discussion WILL EVER move them away from fear based reasoning and blind obedience to authoritarianism in accordance with their burgeoning ethnocentrism.
These are the people that cannot have a productive discussion at all. Unable to debate, even a little, and ONLY capable of the most juvenile and intellectual debased behaviors. That applies to some fuckers around here like linkdude64whatthefuckhisnameis. That infuriating joy in a delusional concept of "winning", while ALL THE WHILE BEING IN THE DANGER YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE SUGGESTS. They literally cannot acknowledge the big huge fucking cliff we have steered the bus called America towards. You're in horror, perhaps with real tears, begging them to look and see the cliff, and they can only take the time to troll you. Sometimes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can only drown the sob trying to get them to drink. What's so fucked, and why I'm so ANGRY, is that they're taking us down with them.
Yes, they can fuck off and die in a fire. These are the DEPLORABLES that Hillary mentioned that can only act like racist, bigoted, misogynistic alpha male dickwads. You tell them, "Ummm, hey dude. The sky might be falling here, and by falling, I mean actual evidence we have a problem". The response? "Haha, you fucking lost. Just get over it. Liberal tears! mmmmmmmmmmm". Meanwhile, we are ALL OF ON THE FUCKING BUS HEADING TO THE CLIFF AND THEY ARE CELEBRATING LIKE THE DELUSIONAL DEPLORABLE MONKEYS THEY ARE. I see them suffering from the same mental, and societal, failures that lead to the children killing Piggy in The Lord Of The Flies. Yeah, talking works real with these dickheads.
There are poor people who don't fall for that bullshit and still have well thought out and principled positions. Not all poor people are instantly the deplorables that prop up the Child Emperor. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, those RACIST SCUM need to lie in the bed they made.
Poor, rich, or middle class, there are some Trump supporters (which i referenced) that can be spoke too and dealt with. I haven't, in a blanket fashion, kicked out all Trump supporters out my life. Just the ones that cannot, and will not, speak reasonably and are fucking obsessed with Islam, Big Media, and killing the towelheads. No time for that bullshit.
For the record, the reasonable Trump supporters are ALL SILENT AND NOT SAYING SHIT. A good many of them made the decision like The Mighty Buzzard to vote out of fear and specific hate for the Establishment. I actually share Bannon's sentiment of completely destroying the Establishment, but I cannot condone his White Nationalism while doing it.
The Trump supporters that actually have a fucking brain and want real positive change, I can speak with and offer my hand in friendship and cooperation. The fucking deplorables that can only act like the aggressive gone-full-retard monkeys that they are, can go fucking die painfully. Hopefully, quite soon.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:07AM
most "right"-wingers don't seem to give a good god damn about anything until it affects them.
Really?
Because as far as I can tell its the "left" that didn't mind government by edict, suspension of the constitution, selective law enforcement, and wholesale government seizure over the the last 8 years who are now doing all the whining and crying.
Where was your outrage then?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:15AM
Right here. You're fucking blind if you missed it. Try again, dipshit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:54AM
I'm a Socialist (anti-Capitalist) and there are not enough folks metaphorically standing close to me to accomplish what you have claimed.
I'm also an anti-Authoritarian (on a completely different axis of the political palate). [politicalcompass.org]
Anti-Authoritarians have showed up by the tens of thousands in scores of USAian cities (and across the globe) to march against Trumpian Fascism.
They have also been calling/writing/visiting their Congresscritters (most effectively done at his/her local office) to let their views be known.
This latter group is almost exclusively Right of center WRT economics.
They DON'T reject Capitalism[1]; they think that the economic system that allows concentrated wealth (and, subsequently, concentrated political power) can be tweaked a bit and everything will be just dandy.
[1] They also DON'T form/join worker-owned cooperatives; DON'T even tend to form/join labor unions; DON'T fight like hell when publicly-owned stuff gets slated to be privatized; yada,yada,yada.
It would be good if people would get a clue and stop calling those folks "The Left".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:55AM
Yeah, you can't be a socialist and anti-authoritarian. It's logically impossible to tell people you will be controlling what they have earned and not be authoritarian.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:36AM
Socialism isn't Stalinism nor is it any other form of State Capitalism.
Taking away people's stuff doesn't have anything to do with Socialism.
You're describing Despotism.
Once again, Socialism is an ECONOMIC system.
It is a system of PRODUCTION where ownership is distributed, not concentrated, and the workers are also the owners.
The associated -governmental- system is Democracy.
Examples of Socialism include Mondragon in Spain (since 1956) and the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of worker-owned cooperatives which sprang from laid-off workers starting their own businesses via Italy's Maracora law which re-thought unemployment benefits beginning in 1985.
...but do continue to show that you know NOTHING about the topic.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:06AM
Oh, cool!
So, in socialism, nobody's telling you what to do with capital you accumulated, because it's a democratic system that does not involve state mandates!
Yay! I'm there for socialism!
(Sounds kind of like capitalism, but gewg__ will explain the details real soon now, I'm sure.)
Since nobody's taking stuff from anybody from the mighty halls of government, I can accumulate billions! Yay, socialism!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:22AM
In that both Capitalism and Socialism are methods of production[1], you are correct.
[1] That was already mentioned. Apparently, you missed it.
In Capitalism there are people who produce nothing yet share in the profits.
In fact, in Capitalism those non-productive people get to decide how the profits are divided up.
Socialism realizes that those non-productive people aren't necessary.
Only workers make the decisions and only workers share in the profits.
Socialism is a much more logical system.
I can accumulate billions
Sure. Socialist workplaces are still businesses.
There are profits from those businesses.
The difference is that a Socialist business doesn't have any non-productive people skimming off any profits--much less, most of the profits.
It is all left for the workers to divide up, reinvest, whatever they choose.
Again, Socialism is a much more logical system.
Socialism works very nicely for the 100,000 worker-owners of Mondragon in the Basque Country of Spain.
It works just fine for the worker-owners in the more than 8,000 cooperatives in Emilia-Romagna in northern Italy.
In short, Socialism works.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @12:18AM
OK, cool, so if I socialistically accumulate socialist billions and reinvest them socialistically as I choose, how am I different from a capitalist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @01:14AM
Normal people, having accumulated over a billion, would retire and engage in recreation.
Some Capitalists, have small-penis insecurities, continue trying to accrue wealth long after it makes any sense.
I can't imagine how you could *invest* billions in a *Socialist* enterprise.
In order for an enterprise which you have seeded (not "invested in") to be Socialist, *you* would have to work there and produce.
The vote of any worker there (with all matters being democratically decided) would also be equal to your (single) vote.
If you can't break free from your maximize-profits, top-down thinking, and make-money-without-doing-labor notions, you will never be welcome in any Socialist operation.
Socialism is about maximizing the wellbeing of the community.
Socialism is NOT about a few individuals maximizing wealth extraction.
N.B. The Socialist operations already mentioned compete with Capitalist operations and routinely eat their lunches, earning roughly the same per widget.
Not having to surrender any of the profits to someone who was not involved with the production of those widgets means that every worker earns more per widget.
Socialism is better than Capitalism.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @02:42AM
The reference was to the workers COLLECTIVELY reinvesting profits back into the operation i.e. a larger building; newer, more efficient equipment; expanded capability.
It's clear that you are simply a drone where you work and aren't involved in any decision making.
That's just as well; you have no imagination.
different from a capitalist?
Are you skimming off profits while not producing any widgets yourself?
That would be a Capitalist.
If you're the boss and you're actively involved in producing widgets and you reinvest *your* money into YOUR OWN company, that makes you an entrepreneur.[1]
Socialists can also (collectively) be entrepreneurs--without the "boss" part.
[1] Did you know that the French don't even have a word for "entrepreneur"?
(That's a Dubya-ism.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Monday January 30 2017, @12:53AM
Socialism doesn't have to be someone "controlling" what you earned. It can be entirely voluntary, in which case yes you can be anti-authoritarian. There's entire political movements based on the idea. You might want to look into them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @01:57AM
You're -almost- there.
Socialism IS entirely voluntary.
Don't think Socialism is for you?
Go work for a Capitalist operation.
(The 2 systems can both exist at the same time; they are just competing methods of production.)
The Bob Crosby Orchestra, back in the 1920s, was a worker-owned cooperative.
Though the name[1] sounds like one guy[2] was the boss, they actually made decisions democratically.
At the time, there were lots of bands which had a "leader" (owner) who made all the decisions.
[1] Bob's big brother Bing had already made a name for himself, so the band capitalized[3] on that fame.
[2] Bob was actually the least-skilled of the bunch; he didn't play an instrument and couldn't read sheet music.
[3] See what I did there? 8-)
Forced Collectivism is NOT "Socialism".
That's called Tyranny.
It's also governmental.
The governmental system that coexists with Socialism is Democracy.
Properly described, Socialism is DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday January 30 2017, @01:48PM
I don't think that that's true; if you draw the political compass with its 2 axes "left-right economy" and "authoritarian-libertarian" then you can have both old-fashioned authoritarian left wing parties (e.g. Socialistische Partij in the Netherlands) and non-authoritarian left wing parties (e.g. Groen Links in the Netherlands). Of course just because you can draw it doesn't mean it makes sense or can exist :-)
If you mean something like: "socialism needs authoritarianism in order to force the corporations to pay tax" (I'm interpreting your "tell people you will be controlling what they have earned" here):
To form a corporation, is just a legal stamp that the *government* gives on a bunch of people's plans. The government can just dissolve the incorporation, if the corporation refuses to pay their taxes due, or if it refuses to have its accounts signed off by an external accountant.
Therefore the government doesn't need to be particularly authoritarian; it can be all hippy lovey dovey, and still refuse bloodsuckers to game the system, just by sticking to the already agreed rules. See how the directors like it if they are no longer shielded, and it's their own house on the line for any risks they take. If *I* would stop paying the bills, the government would wring me dry (I'm unincorporated self-imployed in Sweden, so the government is already wringing me dry, but that's beside the point).
Of course multinational corporations could threaten the government that they'll leave (taking the employment with them) if the government does'nt cut them some slack. So let them. Good riddance. I suspect it's for that reason that Royal Dutch Shell has headquarters both in the Netherlands and in the UK; so they can try to play both governments out against each other for favours.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @09:01PM
Socialistische Partij
A political party (and pretty much anything) can call itself by any name it wants to.
(...and, again, Socialism is an ECONOMIC system.)
When you see a political party calling itself "Socialist", you have to ask "Are they attempting to empower The Workers?"
(Led by actual Socialists, the government of Italy did this in 1985 with their Maracora law.)
...or is the party/government simply trying to grab power in the name of the traditional elites?
(In Greece, SYRIZA recently pulled this bait-and-switch thing. Add Podesta in Spain as well.)
Socialism embodies distributed power and wealth, strong Democracy (with everyone getting a vote and all votes being equal)[1], and public ownership of natural monopolies (roads, bridges, water systems, electricity, natural gas, communications infrastructure, airports, mass transit, etc.).
If you have ONLY the last bit, what you have is is NOT Socialism.
It may be Liberal Democracy/Social Democracy/Christian Democracy as in northern Europe.
...and you likely have an Oligarchy.[1]
It could also be that you have State Capitalism (with a Totalitarian gov't.)
[1] To achieve actual Democracy and avoid Oligarchy will obviously require publicly-funded elections and hand-counting of paper ballots by lots of citizens.
If you let the rich buy up/mechanize your electoral system, you are doomed to always get what you've always had (a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich).
"Left" is Anti-Capitalist.
If you have questions about what is Left and what isn't, the World Socialist Web Site [google.com] will be glad to straighten you out.
.
If you mean something like: "socialism needs authoritarianism in order to force the corporations to pay tax"
Socialism overlaps Libertarianism in the principle that government should be as small and as local as possible.
For the logical exceptions to "small", see "natural monopolies", above.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:57AM
I lean left and support many progressive ideas, however I was not okay with many of Obama's policies. The one thing the voters have in common, republican and democrat alike, is that we are both constantly lied to and misled by the politicians. Both parties are deeply flawed and corrupt and the best thing we can do as a people is to set aside our differences and come together to fight for real political reforms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:27AM
If I have any tears, it's that Bernie Sanders did not get the nomination and get the votes that would prevented Hitler 2.0 from obtaining power.
Its easy to assume the best of something that was never tested.
Winning a 3rd term for any party is very rare.
And it isn't like Bernie didn't have his weaknesses.
For example that whole "democratic socialist" thing does not play well with a large portion of america, especially the parts that voted for trump.
You can argue til you are blue in the face that "socialist" and "democratic socialist" are two completely different things.
But did you pay attention to this election? Reality did not matter. Only perception. And the republicans would have pounded that one home.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:36AM
Bernie's biggest weakness was that knife in his back, with Wasserman-Schultz's fingerprints all over it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:57AM
Nope, it was the same as Trump's. His own mouth. He said the word "socialist" and still expected that he might get elected in the US.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:03AM
Sanders put the knife in his own belt when he said the email issue was nothing in the debates. Trump won on that issue, Sanders could have to. For Sanders to bend the knee like everyone else for the coronation of the queen put him in with the establishment. Ron Paul never bent the knee, Sanders could have refused as well.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:59AM
The majority of people I know who supported trump did it exclusively because they hated hillary. So far nothing has been done that is worse than the result of a hillary.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:30AM
Yuuuuup, it shoulda been Sanders.
People saw Hillary and said "Oh, HELL NO!, I'd rather vote for the circus clown!"
I still believe Sanders would have won.
Stupid goes with stupid, DNC went with Hillary.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28 2017, @11:00PM
Not really, none of the Trump supporters I met were enthusiastic about the racism and sexism. They were enthusiastic about somebody burning the government to the ground. And he's well on pace for that.
The only reason he lost is because the DNC thought they could cram another Clinton down our throats. She should have been charged over her mishandling of classified materials and I'm looking forward to President Trump making good on his promise to have her before a grand jury. Just during the time that investigation was going on, somebody else was ultimately punished for lesser incompetence in the handling of classified materials.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:09AM
> ... making good on his promise to have her before a grand jury.
If this actually comes to pass, keep your eyes open for the real activity. The grand jury (or whatever) will be a smokescreen for something that you and I are not meant to see.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:40AM
Your statement, taken literally, is true. The public is most certainly not intended to see or to understand how the powerful really do things.
All the same, drag that bitch to court. Drag her, her husband, and Bush all before the same court. Don't forget Cheny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:36AM
All the same, drag that bitch to court. Drag her, her husband, and Bush all before the same court. Don't forget Cheny.
And while we're at it, take Runaway, too! Drag his cowardly candy-ass to jail for fomenting false charges against a fellow American, double-parking eighteen-wheelers, being a racist, stealing valor by falsely claiming to be a vet, and I am sure that there are a few other violations of the laws of God and man that he is in violation of.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:19AM
I'm looking forward to President Trump making good on his promise to have [Hillary] before a grand jury
You have to go all the way down to #14 before you get to "opposition candidates", but the whole list is worth a read.
The 14 Characteristics of Fascism [ratical.org]
...and, if there was actual justice to be had, Donnie Tiny Hands would have gone to prison years ago for an extensive pattern of what are, at best, deceptive business practices.
Donald Trump's Wealth Is Built On Stiffing Scores Of Contractors, Businesses, and Employees For Years [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:13AM
Yeah, that is pretty much a reflection of two facts. The first fact is how crooked NYC business is. (Don't bother telling me how clean it totally is, I know some pretty big money people there personally, including family, and it's about as clean as a neglected sewer.)
The second is that people are stupid. If you know for a fact that some guy is a complete asshole about payment, you make damn sure you get penalties in the contract. If that's not enough, you demand bonds in escrow up front. Or you don't do business with them, period.
At some point, if you have free enterprise, you need to let people make those huge mistakes. Sucks to be them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:03AM
he was made president because the large minority was allowed to have its say over the majority by the undemocratic electoral college system
and the nearly half of the voters who could^w should have but didn't vote?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:05AM
Who had a majority? A majority is still greater than 50%, right?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 28 2017, @10:39PM
I'm sorry - when did discrimination based on religion become legal? Doesn't this merit a quick trip to the Supreme Court for a ruling?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:53AM
It depends. Will the SCOTUS buy the fig-leaf that its about "terrorism-plagued countries?" Or will 45's multiple statements that it is about religion, including one just Friday when he said Christians will get a fastlane be enough to stop people from pretending?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:37AM
Once again - Islam is not a "religion" per se. Islam is a political, social, economic, judicial, AND religious system. Islam doesn't recognize presidents, kings, emperors, prime ministers, etc. Islam is awaiting the return of the Caliph. The Caliph will impose Sharia law on the world.
Islam is not a religion, it does not fit into your concept of religion.
How many religions preach jihad, and death to the infidels?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:43AM
Christianity, until a 300-year overdose on Enlightenment thinking left Yahweh dead in the philosophical equivalent of a pay toilet :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:02AM
I notice that while you always enjoy dumping on Christianity, you have failed to refute my statement above. In fact, you have failed to even address the statement.
ISLAM IS AS POLITICAL A MOVEMENT AS IT IS RELIGIOUS!! Every time a sizeable population of Muslims settles in an area, they demand to impose Sharia law in that area. They fully intend to undermine the legal system of any and all regions they settle in. It's almost like they have a mission statement to subvert the law in any land they live in.
ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION!! Stop drinking the manure tea.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:34AM
You're naive as hell if you think Christianity wasn't--and in some cases today, like the fucking Dominionist coup d'etat that just happened in the US!--isn't a political movement. I grant Islam is more tightly coupled to politics than Christianity, but really...go back a few centuries and there's almost no difference. Islam hasn't had an Enlightenment, or at least not one that stuck.
Now, if we're talking about the founders of the religion, there you have a point: Jesus was anti-worldly, or at least believed that the question was going to be moot Real Soon Now (oops...!) while Muhammed was all about conquest.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:12AM
Islam hasn't had an Enlightenment,
There you have it. Islam is one giant pig-fuck. Dirty little animals, filled with superstition, wallowing in filth, trying to make sense of a world that makes no sense - just like the piggy-Europeans who suffered through the "Great Plague". Yeah, remember those Europeans, shitting in their city streets, sleeping with rats, dropping dead by the thousands because they believed the Church would save them? To ignorant to wash their dirty asses, to build proper latrines, to stupid to keep the rats out of their food?
And, Islam will never have an enlightenment, no renaissance. Islam rejected ALL OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. Islam has no use for philosophy, of any flavor. Islam actively defends itself from outside influences. Look up Chop-Chop square - youtube is a good-enough resource. Anyone who "offends" Islam in any way, is subject to being beheaded on Chop-Chop.
Do you see that kind of thing in Rome? In any European or American city?
Korea is commonly accepted as the worst of despotic regimes, but I've never heard of anything like Chop-Chop square in Korea.
It says a hell of a lot about Islam, when they are worse than Little Kim with respect to human rights. Blatant, ongoing contempt for human rights - worse than the Bush regime, by orders of magnitude.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:50AM
That's all of us.
Actually, and in line with everything else you are saying, they are trying NOT to make sense out of the world that does make a lot of sense (to anyone familiar with basic science).
That's because you (or anyone else on this side of the border) have never heard of ANYTHING in north Korea. Nothing certain, at any rate, except for the names & mugshots of beloved leaders. Having grown up in USSR, I think I have a pretty good guess about what's going on there, and let me tell you, there's a lot of chop-chop, and on a whole another level too, like town- or even district-level. Because that's what ALWAYS happens without accountability, and when the information channel is fully controlled by the men in military uniform.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:17AM
That's all of us, except for that thin veneer.
Heh - the very first hit on Google for thin veneer. Of course, my default search is set for "past year" rather than forever, so ironic hits like this shouldn't be to surprising.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-07/thin-veneer-civilization-we-all-take-granted-evaporating-all-over-globe [zerohedge.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:20AM
Runaway, you are stupid. You keep saying things that are just not true. I am starting to think you may be an alias for Kellyanne Conway!
Islam rejected ALL OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. Islam has no use for philosophy, of any flavor
Wrong! Completely wrong! Not right! False! And you are too stupid to even suspect how wrong you might be. Ok, look up some names.
al-Kindi
al-Ghazali
ibn Sina
ibn Rushd
Maimonides
You may not know it, but Islam did have an enlightenment. It just happened during Europe's Dark Ages (which, I take it Arkansas is still in?), and was in fact responsible for Europe's Renaissance in several ways. One of these was the re-introduction of the works of Aristotle, via Arabic translations through Moorish Spain, which were the source for St. Thomas Aquinas, whom the Church refers to as Doctor Angelicus, and whose work elevated Aristotle to the title of "The Philosopher". Without Ibn Rushd (Arabic: ابن رشد; 14 April 1126 – 10 December 1198), full name (Arabic: أبو الوليد محمد ابن احمد ابن رشد, translit. ʾAbū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rushd), often Latinized as Averroes, Christian philosophy as it is today quite simply would not exist. And therefore, no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Enlightenment, and obviously, no Runaway.
Once again, your ignorance of history ill serves you! Perhaps it might interest you to know that Maimonides was a Jewish philosopher who lived his entire life under Muslim rule. His nickname is Rambam. During the Middle Ages, a jew was much better off under Muslim rule than under Christian rule, where things like pogroms, blood libel, and proto-naziism were common.
No, none of this stuff that scares both you and Trump is due to Islam, it is due to the fact (real fact, not alternative!) that both you and Trump do not know what the hell is going on. I suggest you take a look at the end of WWI, the partition of the former Empire, the rise of the House of Saud and Arab nationalism, and then it will be clear to you that all this is nothing with any long historical roots of Islam, it is the natural consequence of European (Christian!) Imperialism. Yes, that is why they hate you. You claim to have been a sailor in the US Navy. I would have thought that this would be rather clear to you. But then, if you were a sailor, well, that does explain a lot.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:48AM
Aristarchus, our very own pedarast!! Tell us, just how old were you when you realized you preferred boys over girls?
You do realize that you're a fucking GENIUS, don't you? Europe's dark ages - roughly between the years 500 and 1000. Islam - sometime after the year 600. So - Islam had an enlightenment during Europe's dark ages? Bull-fucking-SHIT. During the second half of Europe's dark ages, Islam was busy killing off all the animists, the Jews, Christians, and other religions throughout Arabia and north Africa. Golden age? WTF are you even talkiing about?
Perhaps you are confusing some rather well known facts about Arabs and Arabia in general with Islam? Arabs are credited with PRESERVING much of the world's historical and scientific knowledge during Europe's dark ages. That is, ARABS, not MUSLIMS. The two words are not synonymous. Grab yourself a dictionary, if you don't believe me.
Preach to me some more about how stupid I am. I really don't know how high your education went - but my education was more advanced than yours before I reached Senior High School.
Muslim enlightenment. Christ on a crutch, man, who are you buying your drugs from? If Islam is so enlightened, then WTF do wahabbists come from?
Do you want to try again? Would you like to point to another period in time when Islam became "enlightened"? Maybe you'll go back further in history? Maybe about 10,000 B.C?
(Score: 2, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday January 29 2017, @11:19AM
Preach to me some more about how stupid I am. I really don't know how high your education went - but my education was more advanced than yours before I reached Senior High School.
Not necessary, old man, you are doing quite well on your own without any help from me, or any other Soylentil. So you are saying your education was HUGE? Was it the best education ever? Was every other education a looser compared to yours? Did you have a larger crowd for your education than other posters? Do you not see what has happened to you? You have become a Donald clone! A New York Flim-Flam Real Estate Developer with an inferiority complex! Nice to see you did Google some dates, though. That's a start. But please, do try not to be so stupid in the future, OK?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @11:41AM
No, my education wasn't truly special - yours was. Special, as in "special needs alternative education".
Tell us more about Islam and "enlightenment". Some of us may enjoy the laugh. I actually used the search term, "Islam enlightenment". Don't blame me if you don't like the sources:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/296509-islam-never-went-through-the-enlightenment/ [unexplained-mysteries.com]
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail.aspx?ID=4294992664 [wwnorton.com] (that one sort of supports your claim that Islam has had an enlightenment - in the 19th century, not during the dark ages, you nitwit)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age [wikipedia.org] (maybe you meant golden age, rather than enlightenment? I note that this article attempts to credit Islam with maths that predate Islam.)
Regardless how many of the claims for Islam's Golden Age are true or exaggerated - Islam has NOT outgrown the concept of spreading it's influence at the point of a sword. Islam insists, to this day, that ONLY an adult Muslim male's word has any value at court. Adult female Muslim's word is only worth 1/2 of a man's word. All the rest of us? We have no value, therefore our word has no value.
Shall we move along? Do you have any more fairy tale claims to make for Islam? Or, shall we discuss the sexual proclivities of certain Greeks?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:12PM
Wow, you're *mad.* He got you with facts. Listen, Runaway, just because an Enlightenment doesn't stick, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Thanks to that very same al-Ghazali, though, mysticism and muddy-headed thinking prevailed, and Islam degenerated back into its Iron Age roots rather quickly.
Unfortunately, al-Ghazali was responsible for leading Islam off the path of the old Greek philosophers with the "Incoherence of the Philosophers," whereas Christianity mostly stuck to them, and his idea of occasionalism (basically, everything is Allah's will, and his immediate, direct will at that). Averroes, IIRC, wrote a rebuttal in the next century but by then it was far too late. This was the death of epistemology in the mass of Islam.
That said...if the presence of extremists and violent members of a religion means any Enlightenment it's had is null and void, you just tarred Christianity with that same brush. You don't seem to understand something here: we, in the US, have just had the Christian equivalent of the Wahhabbis seize power. They didn't do it violently (directly...) but that's because their fellow travelers have spent the last 50 years flying under the radar slowly encroaching on this country's government. Forget Trump; Trump is a shiny, loud, pseudo-populist distraction. Look at Pence, look at DeVos, look at all the Birchers and Dominionists in the new cabinet.
If there ever were a case of the pot calling the kettle black...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:06PM
"Islam degenerated"
Islam never left the Iron Age, despite the words of a couple sweet-talking devils.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:46PM
despite the words of a couple sweet-talking devils.
Now the truth can be told. We here at the Demonic Division of SJW, World Domination Squad, can now reveal to the world that Runaway1956 has finally sold his soul. He hates irrationally, piles insults on those who would help him, and is possessed of logorhea of the internets! Just another success story for our efforts here at Demonic SJWs! Keep up the good work, daemons!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:10PM
Did you fucking read one single thing I wrote? Jesus. You're deranged.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:13PM
Uhhhh, I read all the important stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAHSbIz8fEY [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:22AM
Christianity is not exempt from this behavior. There's a mormon compound outside salt lake city that imposes its own laws. There a few states that have laws on the books that state atheists aren't allowed to run for public office.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:40AM
Oh-kay - so when was the last time that any of these Christians dragged an atheist out onto the town square for a public beheading?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:48AM
It is religion enough to garner protection from the freedom from discrimination based on religious beliefs.
Now, if the Supreme Court to wants to rule Islam not exempt from discrimination, that is their purview. In so far as existing case law is concerned, Islam is just as protected from religious discrimination as is Catholicism (a religion with a long history of violence and atrocities), Lutheranism (radicals that they were 200 years ago), Hinduism (Ghandi was not exactly politically neutral, was he?), and Presbyterianism (party animals to the core, especially their elders' councils.)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:06AM
"It is religion enough to garner protection from the freedom from discrimination based on religious beliefs."
Well, it was, at least.
There is little to argue in the rest of your post. I will add that the religions you named were radical at their inception, and eventually burnt themselves out. Islam, on the other hand, started out violent, and has remained violent. It varies a little over time - this century it mellows a little, and then next century, it gets more radical. But, Islam has never been a "religion of peace".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:57AM
Yeah. Christians are so mellow that they had to hire muslims to guard Christendom's holiest place [cnn.com] - where Jesus died and was resurrected - the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
The muslims aren't there to guard it from outsiders. They are there to keep the peace between Christians who literally can't stop fighting over the church. [catholiceducation.org] Not theological debates, actual physical brawls. [youtube.com] Just steps away from Jesus's actual tomb.
So don't give me this shit about how peaceful christians are when its muslims who have to keep them in line.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:15AM
Did I claim that Christians are peaceful? No - I merely stated that they have burnt out. Christians no longer raise armies to go crusading around the world in the name of Jesus. When was the last crusade? The last crusade worthy of the name would have to be when the Catholics destroyed the Aztec empire. Those good Spanish Christians were offended beyond description at the idea of sacrificing lovely young virgins to some heathen Sun God. I don't think the destruction of the Incan empire counts as a crusade - that was all about money. But, you could make an argument that it does count, if you like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:21AM
Did I claim that Christians are peaceful? No - I merely stated that they have burnt out.
Oh so now we are down to hair splitting.
When you said "islam is not a religion of peace" you meant "christianity and islam are not religions of peace."
Got it.
Christians no longer raise armies to go crusading around the world in the name of Jesus.
And what muslims have gone around the world with armies?
And don't even try to pretend ISIS counts, their military operations are all about taking land from their neighbors and their host states.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:54AM
ISIS is all about Islam. ISIS is the distillation of Islam. ISIS is that portion of Islam which has tired of waiting for the Caliph to return, so they are actively setting things up for the Caliph. And, if the Caliph doesn't return to claim the throne they've set up for him, they'll just name a new Caliph.
There is a Muslim army bivouaced in Europe right now. An entire division laid seige to that fancy tunnel under the English Channel. Multiple divisions are loitering in a little known suburb in Belgium.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brussels-attacks-a-look-at-molenbeek-the-small-belgian-suburb-home-to-some-of-the-world-s-most-a6946321.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:08AM
ISIS is the distillation of Islam the way the Inquisitors were the distillation of the Catholic church - a radical minority with a well deserved reputation for hypocrisy of the highest order.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:18AM
I think you're kinda helping me to make my point. The inquisitors were finally put down, of course. Islam accepts their not-so-very-small minority. Despite our wishes, ISIS enjoys both active and tacit support from the rest of Islam. They enjoy more Muslim support than they suffer Muslim condemnation. Money and recruits continue to filter in to ISIS. If and when the money and recruits disappear, then ISIS will be finished.
And, what will replace ISIS? We probably won't like that a lot more than we like ISIS.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:26AM
Yeah, Amin my office mate is all about supporting ISIS. Every day on the way home to pick his kid up from school, he stops off at the local ISIS camp to offer his support, NOT.
Islam is a tremendously large religion, 23% of the world population (as compared to Christianity's collective 31%). Worldwide, not even 1% of muslims are militant or supportive of militant muslims. Now, 1% of 1.6 billion is still 16 million, or >10x the size of the U.S. Armed forces, but you don't go around discriminating against 1.6 billion people for what a couple of million people do "in their name."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:30AM
Yeah, Amin my office mate is all about supporting ISIS. Every day on the way home to pick his kid up from school, he stops off at the local ISIS camp to offer his support, NOT.
That's because he's not a real muslim.
Just ask derpaway. If you aren't wild-eyed ISIS you aren't a legit muslim. You don't really know your own religion. But derpdick does!
Either that or you are pretending, just waiting for the right chance to go all eid-al-fitr on some infidel's ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @06:31AM
Guy works at my office left a highly paid job to spend three years at mecca for some religious duty.
He kept on going about how halal meat is cleaner, women should cover themselves, etc etc. People at the office just smiled and nodded and ignored him.
Now we have ten more like him. It was disturbing seeing a young women at work being told in the tea room that she should cover up and get married
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:47AM
Despite our wishes, ISIS enjoys both active and tacit support from the rest of Islam.
You could not be further from the truth: [pewresearch.org]
% of population with favorable / unfavorable view of ISIS
American christians are more supportive of terrorism [gallup.com] than the 3.2 million american muslims:
Percent who say it is never justified for an individual or small group to kill civilians.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:35AM
ROFLMAO @ Lebanon 0%/100% With such a preposterous leadin, the other numbers aren't even worthy of discussion. Obviously, no one went to the trouble of polling any members of Hezbollah. I'll bet I could get the same results in Lebanon, if I stayed in Beirut, and polled people arriving and departing the airport. However, if I were to include airport workers in the poll, the results would shift a little bit.
If you went out into the countryside, and found a nice little Hezbollah stronghold, you could probably reverse those numbers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:03AM
ROFLMAO @ Lebanon 0%/100% With such a preposterous leadin,
Again, Runaway? Really, again? You obviously know nothing about Lebanon if you are surprised by the figures. Hezbollah? The Druze? Do you possibly not even know that major factions in Lebanon are Christian? And that the Muslims are predominately Shia? Oh, you, like the President of Small Hands and Little Knowledge, do not understand the difference between Shia and Sunni? Not to mention the Sufis. So seriously, Runaway, you are only embarrassing yourself, and your nation, by so openly displaying your ignorance without the slightest indication that you are even the slightest bit aware of how profound your ignorance is.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:58AM
Unlike you, I have actually been to Lebanon. Seriously, Aristarchus, you're only making my case. With all those different factions, you're not going to find 100% agreement on any honestly conducted poll in Lebanon. You're far more likely to get a poll with a result of 100% right here in the US. Good luck with that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @11:55AM
> Hezbollah
Wait. Let me get this straight. You think Hezbollah would support ISIS?
Hezbollah is shia. ISIS doesn't even think shia are real muslims. They are the first people ISIS kills.
Derpdick you don't even know what you don't know.
You parade your ignorance like it is genius
You are truly a modern man. Alt-facts for an alt-idiot.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:51PM
Polls are skewed by what the polled believe the poller should hear.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:40PM
Oh please. If you've got a better source, then post it.
And no, pulling shit out of your ass is not a better source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:53AM
I think you're kinda helping me to make my point. The inquisitors were finally put down, of course.
No, he is not. My God (or "Their God", it's all the same god), you are a complete and total ignoramous! Must be an American! Quick, what is the capital of Romania? OK, yep, American! You know nothing about history, you know nothing about Islam, you know nothing about religion, and you know nothing about politics. I expect your math abilities are on par.
So tell us, Runaway, who "put down" the Inquisitors? Shirley you know that there is an Office of the Inquisition in the Vatican right up to the present day? Oh, you didn't? OK, stick with me. Did you know that the Catholic Church has meddled in American politics very recently? Just ask yourself, how many Supreme Court Justices are Catholic? What is the percentage of the American population that is Catholic? Did you know that Newt Gingrinch converted to Catholocism? Did you ever wonder why? Do you know that Mussolini was a Catholic, before he was a communist and while he was a Fascist? Did you know that Franco, Fascist Dictator of Spain, was a Catholic with the full support of the Church? And did you know (oh, why do I even keep on asking) that along with the Mormons, the Catholic church was a major backer of Prop. 8 in California (and that Mozilla guy). And of course, the recent march to enslave women was a propaganda event largely paid for by the Catholic Church.
Now, I would just want to parallel your insane paranoid coward's rant: Christianity is not just a religion! It is a political, cultural, and ideological movement that has its own hierarchy, its own law (Canon Law, look it up!), and does not recognize the rights of nations or individuals (especially women) to rule themselves! Christianity is completely opposed to the principle of liberal democracy, and the freedoms of the citizen and the rights of man! So, I ask again, who took out the Spanish Inquisition? Hmmm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:14AM
> There is a Muslim army bivouaced in Europe right now.
Words have meanings. You really need a dictionary.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:35AM
And a picture is worth a thousand words. Find those images of "refugees" in Europe. Mostly military aged males, with some camp followers. It's difficult to see any real differences between those "refugee" camps, and a poorly equipped army. Yes, there HAVE BEEN armies that were very poorly equipped. For reference, use some of the Crusaders. A few well-armed royalty and clergy, leading a rabble of farmboys who might manage to steal a serviceable weapon on the march to the Holy Lands.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:28AM
In your case, a picture is worth a thousand lies.
Find those images of "refugees" in Europe. Mostly military aged males,
"Military aged" ... fuck off dickless.
The entire population of Syria skews young - the median age is 23.8 years. [bymap.org] Of course the refugees are going to have similar demographics.
As for being primarily men, bullshit.
The reason that one picture you saw in your fetid echo chamber of hate was mostly men is because all the women and children were on the next train. [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:24AM
Yeah, and you're not a gullible fool, either. Men always ride one train, and put the women and children on another. That's how civilized people treat women and children. I've stated several times that Snopes isn't a reliable "fact checker". They are liberal, and they'll swear to whichever liberal lie they choose to.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:06AM
They don't wear pointy white hoods anymore, but those guys very often justified their actions in the name of Christian morals. The hoods are gone, but the sentiment remains in the hearts and minds of a significant slice of rural America.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:27AM
The pointy hoods. Need I remind you that their membership numbers are steadily decreasing? I was a bystander when the KKK put on a recruiting drive in Arkansas and the rest of the South. I'm pleased to inform you that the rednecks and small town yokels whom you would most expect to join a white supremacy movement simply rejected all the stupid shit that the KKK offered them.
That "significant slice" is far less significant than you seem to think. I think it is near-accurate to say that that the attitude was, "Yeah, maybe Negroes suck, but these supremacist assholes suck worse!" It might be a little more accurate to describe it as, "Hey, I have some black friends who are decent people - and these out-of-towners want to fuck with my friends?"
I'll grant that the south isn't just one big happy family, yet, and there are still racial tensions, but it is no longer fertile ground for white supremacists and their stupidity.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:02AM
I lived in Gainesville, Florida for about 8 years - the official KKK membership there has plummeted, but the sentiments against blacks (the town is still highly segregated to this day), Asians (I personally know of racially targeted vandalism - red paint splattered on Asian homes in the night along with messages like "gooks get out," in 2007), Muslims (same freak priest who threatened to burn Qurans on the anniversaries of 9/11 sent 7 year olds to school with T-shirts reading "Islam is of the Devil"), and any other minority group you can name are still alive and well in town and especially the rural county outside the University. After one elementary school there had developed a reputation as a "good place for children with disabilities," the school board actively dismantled the programs - the politicians in town, including head of the school board, etc. are the children of the open KKK members who were in politics in the 1920s. They know better than to do or say things that will get them slapped down by the law, so they skirt as close to the edge as they can instead. Some call themselves the "silent majority" but while they are neither, they do exist and they do still negatively impact many people's lives.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:21AM
So what if the KKK membership has dropped over the last 50 years anyway? 50 years is nothing.
They were founded on christmas eve. [history.com]
They call their chapters churches. [splcenter.org]
They call themselves a christian organization. [christianpost.com]
They burn crosses.
And their members were integrated into society. Mayors, bankers, police, etc.
They weren't the fringe. They were the core of "good christian" society.
Derpdick is just in denial because he's just one door down from the christian taliban himself.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:54PM
They are also the terror wing of the Democratic Party. The South is no longer a one party Democrat controlled area, so no more unofficial political cover for Democratic Party terrorists, so no more KKK. Remember the rule, terrorism ALWAYS has a State sponsor either directly supporting it or turning a blind eye or it quickly dies out. These days they are about as dangerous as Code Pink, both are more interested in publicity stunts to raise brand awareness than accomplishing anything productive.
There is also the detail that the Democratic Party switched its racist tactics, believing all that "demographic destiny, ascendant black/brown coalition, etc." nonsense and switched out their target group from black to white, so they now run air cover for BLM, the Panthers, La Raza, etc. The few KKK members left are confused, rather far to the left of the bell curve misfits and probably have more FBI in their ranks than actual believing members.
The 1488 Stormfags are another kettle of fish entirely though. Some of them are very misguided by not nearly as dumb, making them worthy of keeping an eye on. They have some Truth in their propaganda, just enough to pull in a few people who aren't really paying attention, they just mash it all up and mix in some really crazy Nazi shit until you can't sort it out. Thankfully they aren't growing a lot, probably because even though the government schools no longer teach about Nazis, most folks still know they came to a really bad end and are universally reviled. Now good luck getting someone under thirty to know WHY Nazis are bad or anyone to know they were forked off the Socialist tree. Even on the Alt-Right they are seen as, at best, useful shock troops for any future escalation by the left.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:02AM
POTUS does not make laws, nor interpret them. All that is within POTUS' purview is the manner of enforcement of the laws, as written by the Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Some of Trump's executive orders are treading on legislation and re-interpretation, it may take some time to reign that in, but it should be happening in due time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:54AM
Islam is awaiting the return of the Caliph. The Caliph will impose Sharia law on the world.
Still fucking quivering in your boots, eh, Runaway? I recommend you run away and hide, perhaps to some backwater where the Caliphate will never find you. But mostly, stop posting on the internets! You are only painting a target on your backside, for when the Muslins and the Linsey-Woolseys come.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:09AM
Please - post something of substance. There is no possible answer to your drivel. BTW - do you still beat your wife, or has she kicked your ass into submission?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:54AM
BTW - do you still beat your wife, or has she kicked your ass into submission?
We like to mix it up [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:53PM
There is no possible answer to your drivel.
Lemme guess, but you are still going to try to answer, anyway, Runaway?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:45AM
> Once again - Islam is not a "religion" per se.
Once again you are full of shit.
Have you heard of the holy roman empire?
You sound exactly like the assholes who couldn't deal with the catholic president.
Like the pope would be giving orders to washington.
All major religions are exactly the same way. People pick and choose what suits them in the environment they live in.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:02AM
Sophistry - yes, I see what you're doing there.
Yes, of course, I've heard of the Holy Roman Empire. And, if you have any shreds of intellectual honesty, you know that the Empire and the Church are not synonymous. The Holy Roman Empire was almost purely political, but it wore religious clothing to disguise itself in front of the masses. The Church, on the other hand, is a religion, that dabbles in politics, using the threat of eternal damnation to keep the masses in line.
I realize that the differences may be to subtle for some to understand, but there is a huge difference. One of the giveaways, is the word "empire" in the name of the Holy Roman Empire. The Church, as evil as I believe it to be, never bothered to assume such a name, relying instead on it's religious influence over the various kings and rulers who feared going to hell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:26AM
No I don't think you actually see what I did there since you just went Fuill Sophist in response.
The HRE wasn't really 'religious' because reasons.
Reasons that don't apply to islam because other reasons.
Complexity and nuance for christians.
Ignorant declarations for muslims.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:37AM
The Empire attempted to usurp the position of the Church. Is that clear enough for you? The Empire was all about politics and power. The Church is all about religion and power. Maybe you should read a few books on metaphysics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:49AM
Again it sails right over your head.
What you think the Ottoman Empire wasn't all about politics and power?
Metaphysics?
Dude you don't even know what word means.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:59AM
You seem to confuse the Ottoman with Islam. The Ottoman was not the Caliph, and none of the emperors declared himself to be the Caliph. Doing so would probably have ensured a very swift death.
So, what's next? Are you going to tell us what a great Christian leader Hitler was?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:12AM
The Ottoman was not the Caliph,
Holy fucking fake news, Batman! Runaway has just given us alternate facts!
Just one question, oh Runaway who is so wise in metaphysics, why do the call it "The Ottoman Caliphate", then? We will wait while you google furiously to cover your ass. Extra credit, History for 100! Who ended the Turkish Ottoman Caliphate? (Runaway: not as smart as a 5th grader. Jeff Foxworthy is face-palming as we speak.)
--
And, BTW, everyone knows that the Ottoman was a sort of footrest that people used to have to use before the Lazy-boy was invented.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @11:13AM
You are confusing three different terms.
Sultan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sultans_of_the_Ottoman_Empire [wikipedia.org]
Amir - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emir [wikipedia.org]
Caliph - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph [wikipedia.org]
The Ottoman could claim both of the former titles, but the latter title refers to a SPIRITUAL LEADER.
http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/why-have-caliph [laphamsquarterly.org]
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:21AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:44AM
The same reasoning applies to almost any political movement. Only 10-15% or Republicans are really Republicans - the rest are just poor chumps who want to make a living, and get by in the world. Ditto for Democrats, or almost any other group you care to name.
The problem is that the vast majority of Democrats give their tacit consent to be led by the hard-core party members, just as Republicans, or Muslims. A "this is acceptable" attitude enables the rabid party members to run amok. That was true of Russia's communists, Germany's Nazis, Amercia's democrats and republicans, and Islam in general.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Murdoc on Sunday January 29 2017, @04:25AM
You're right, this really could apply to virtually everyone. But doesn't that just mean that there's even less reason to single out Muslims if the rest of us are just as guilty?
But wait! Then there's all those Muslims you seldom hear about who are speaking out about it:
And that's just the first page or so of my quick search.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:40AM
They need to speak louder, and longer. There need to be a lot more of them. And, they need to renounce Sharia law if they want to come to the US. Oil and water don't mix very well under common circumstances. We can't have one legal system that applies to part of the population, while another system applies to the rest.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Murdoc on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:12AM
How about we ALL get together and renounce the crap that caused most of this problem in the first place, which is the US meddling where it doesn't belong? Oh right! We can't, because they've got us all so fearful of the evil Muslim menace that we* give them our full support for screwing around where they don't belong. Which of course causes more of the mess, which makes use more afraid... nice little catch 22 we got going there, eh? Nice for all the people making money and getting into office for it anyway.
*I say 'we' metaphorically as I'm not an American.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @10:31PM
And, they need to renounce Sharia law if they want to come to the US.
Also tell the so called "christians" that if they want to stay in the US they need to renounce their own version of Sharia Law.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:21AM
There is no Christian court in the country, other than the Mormon sects. They are the only ones I"m aware of who like to set up their own private compounds, then dispense "justice" from within that compound.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:59AM
It always was. Discrimination is entirely legal except in very limited circumstances.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @03:59AM
Since the 1960s, discrimination by race is illegal for almost everything.
Since the 1760s, discrimination by religion has been illegal for almost everything.
Sex, age, height, weight - those are less protected, but freedom of religion was a founding principle. The Jap internment camps of WWII wouldn't have flown post civil rights.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday January 29 2017, @12:00PM
What president Trump did is NOT discrimination based on religion.
He banned people from *poor* muslim-majority countries (Yemen, Somalia, etc.) to come to the USA, and from Iraq and Iran (don't know how to call them; they're not as rich as the BRICS for sure).
But he didn't ban people from: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar etc.
So rich Arab muslims are still welcome, despite that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi.
And he also didn't ban people from Algeria and Malaysia and Indonesia and Egypt, AFAIK. Lots of muslims in those countries.
This disproves that his action is
(A) to keep muslims out (Saudi princes still welcome!)
(B) to keep terrorists out (Saudi princes still welcome!)
Also, the only people from poor muslim-majority countries that have the money for plane tickets are its affluent people, so we can't even conclude that he wants to keep poor muslims out while embracing rich muslims (plenty of rich "upper crust" people in those banned countries!)
We must therefore conclude that his action had another reason, which doesn't directly make sense. Maybe it is to do a stress test on the border security system, to see if they obey even nonsensical orders, and weed out the officers who don't obey every wish of their new Leader.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @01:53PM
Congratulations, you are making the very arguments that will be put forth in Federal court to try to get the order reinstated. It is now up to the judges to decide. Yes, Trump will be appointing _some_ judges, but that takes time, and if our system is worth anything, cases like this will not be heard by judges appointed by the executive who issues the order (they _should_ recuse themselves).
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday January 29 2017, @05:28PM
I think Trump, or rather the people behind his throne who thought this idea up, were already aware of this loophole to claim "our action is not religious discrimination because X,Y and Z".
I don't know, can they use the following dialogue:
Judge: "Your action has inconvenienced Americans and Green Card holders, was there an overriding reason to do it nevertheless?"
Trump: "Yes, we knew it was going to have side-effects but decided to do it anyway because reasons"
Judge: "What were those reasons?"
Trump: "National security."
Judge: "What kind of national security reasons?"
Trump: "secret reasons :-) end of discussion."
All of us in democratic countries are so accustomed that governments provide reasons for their actions, or at least a fig-leaf of an excuse.
Autocrats however only need one reason: "I'm the boss and you're not".
I still don't understand at all *WHY* the Trump government decided to do this thing.
I can think of one valid reason, but that's so far into tin-foil hat territory that it's ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 29 2017, @07:18PM
Well, from Johnson through Obama, I believe like you do: the President is a figurehead propped up by a political machine to do its bidding and take its flack. However, Trump (and candidate Perot), seem to be different animals - I'm sure the political machinery started lining up behind Trump starting about a year ago, and really kicked into high gear when he pulled ahead in the RNC, but Trump got himself (barely) elected by being off-the-cuff, crude, and generally believable. This first round of executive orders really sounds, mostly, like more of the same - ideals of his age, and he is quite old, predating civil rights for his value formative years.
I think he wanted to block immigration from all the Muslim countries he could get away with because: he wanted it. He no doubt has consulted with advisers who gave him some kind of a leg to stand on (like W with torture and WMD), but the quality of staff he's presenting to the media is pretty green and frankly lacking - it will be interesting to see if he can manage to maneuver enough effective firepower to his side to actually hold on to this order, or if he just went off half cocked and is going to be embarrassed by reality, again.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mendax on Monday January 30 2017, @01:51AM
Well, maybe. I suspect it will never make it that far. Discrimination based on religion is well-settled law. The Supreme Court generally doesn't take a case under those circumstances. In any case, I suspect The Donald is going to find himself having to deal with the courts on many occasions. I'm still waiting for the impeachment trial that is bound to happen. Now that's the "court" I want to see him in.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 30 2017, @02:50AM
It appears that Federal courts are going to take this one on, I wasn't sure if they had jurisdiction on executive orders or not - apparently they do. Mr. Trump has managed to break a new record: negative approval poll ratings in only 8 days - some presidents don't go there until into their 2nd term.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mendax on Monday January 30 2017, @03:23AM
The federal courts have jurisdiction on any actions of the President, or the federal government for that matter.
As far as the negative approval ratings, he was below 50% before his inauguration. As I said earlier, I'm waiting for the impeachment. If he gets unpopular enough, there will be enough Republicans who will want to get rid of him before the mid-term elections. in 2018, before he drags the party down with him.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.