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: 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 ---