I am?
You cant? I could easily see the police wanting to using it on protestors wielding various weapons before they get the chance to use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Printable View
I am?
You cant? I could easily see the police wanting to using it on protestors wielding various weapons before they get the chance to use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Fascism is a political system, throwing it around in inappropriate ways cheapens that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Don't worry about that. The "Putin is still a fascist" posts have cheapened it enough here.
Heh. I think you should keep your pet topic limited to its own thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You're the one calling him a Tory, and I corrected you on that. Check out his posts in the Corbyn thread for his sympathies. If you want to stick to the thread topic, then GB is a Trump supporter. So he's been on the winning side in 3 votes so far: Corbyn, Brexit and Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Wonderful! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Looks like someone rolled a 1 on sense motive.
Except that Putin's government can be demonstrated to be of a Fascist nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
In the USA, police already have the right to use force to disarm or stop an attacker who poses grievous threat to them and/or bystanders. Property confiscation when it is clearly used as part of a criminal act for which the person has been judged guilty is not without its place, but public protest is both Constitutionally guaranteed and, in the vast majority of instances, reasonably peaceful.
If you are starting a riot, then the cops will wade in with their truncheons and a whiff of teargas. Confiscating your property because you failed to get a permit for your peaceful protest would be government intimidation and specifically counter to the first amendment. The police can, and have, arrested such persons for trespass or blocking public thoroughfares (misdemeanors), but to do more would be outrageous.
I should clarify: the impression I am getting is that these legal expansions are there so that, when the police see anyone in a protest crowd that appear to be wanting to turn violent, they can either arrest or confiscate what they need to premptively prevent escalation.
I am sure that is the intent. I worry that it will encourage "preemptive violence on the part of the police. In addition, curtailing protests BEFORE they turn violent violates the spirit of our Constitution and, I suspect, the letter of it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Civil forfeiture is robbery. It's original intent, during the drug war, was to nueter the drug lords ability to access their cash. However, this has devolved into taking whatever a cash a black guy has on him during a traffic stop in east Texas. The cops then use this cash to further militarize, and what's the point of those toys if you can't use them?
Its totally insane that a tool originally intended for drug king pins and pension swindlers is now used to fund police departments and an incentive to uncover "wrong doing". Meaning, a bit of weed in the house.
Total 8th amendment violation. Total bastardized version of due process.
Also so Arizona is now looking to apply racketeering charges to protesters. Fascists man.
seamus summoned me
Protest is inherently an act of political violence and therefore any individual intending to protest may conceivably be indicted along with his or her property under the proposal.
Fundamental civil rights contradiction. The bill won't stand (long).
We are going to have define terms. You're not going to weasel your out of this using your vocabulary.
Is TacFlamers damage in the 30s?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
En garde!
Hannah Arendt wants to distinguish between violence and power. One perspective she briefly cites (in On Violence) is one that, while not exactly equating the two or linking violence to a manifestation of power, describes power as like a subset of violence. (But Arendt would not agree, arguing that violence and power are opposite.) Speaking on democracy, the institutions and laws of republican government are maintained not by power of men or laws, but of the people's consent in the legitimacy of the two. In other words, the people exercise the power over the state to give the state power, or to diminish it (separate from authority).
There are plenty of conceptions of political violence today, but I think most which don't simply limit or predicate the definition to or on bodily force, harm, or intimidation for political cause or in political context, are related to the musings above. (Though again Arendt would disagree, seeing violence as instrumental rather than as a relationship inflicting "damage".)
So, in light of a recursive power to power of republican subjects, protest could be interpreted directly as an act of violence against the state in that it aims to turn that power against itself, to diminish it.Quote:
Originally Posted by On Violence, 42
To be clear, you would be much likelier to see leftist activists espousing views on political violence that can label most acts of policy as potentially or inherently violent, and probably only radicals who accept protest itself as inherently violent. I don't actually follow anarchist theory or praxis to be precise about it, but have encountered various Internet conversations, so I look to the classic work for familiar ground. What I mean with my post above is that Republicans hoping to expand laws in the interest of limiting undesirable protest, or punishing those who engage in it, fall into the trap of playing with this logic of power. The legislation can't operate without the assumption that protest is violence diffuse, with individual eruptions emerging therefrom, which on its face then has to contradict the letter of the Constitution - which would have to be interpreted as legitimizing this specific violence of people over state. Now we're in Steve Bannon territory or sommthin. A Republican sticking to their more natural instinct that the process of protest and any given violent event must be distinguished cannot simply find "a protest" a violent enterprise, so law or policy should only be used to either balance the exercise of protest against other rights or somehow trim about a "true" core of protest. So traditionalists can defend the Boston Tea Party by pointing out holistic virtues, or by separating out the destruction or rowdiness for condemnation apart from the rest. But that's another story
Just a notion.
:shrug:
On a more concrete note, some old surveys from the early 70s suggest an interesting diversity in common understandings of violence.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Sounds to me like political entities were/are looking to redefine the word violence in such a complex (or at least intentionally confusing) way as to let them call thier actually peaceful opponents violent and thus attach the original stigmas in the eye of the common man while simultaneously allowing them to stigmatise any intellectual calling this out as ignorant or irrationally opposed to the term's redefining.
I completely agree with whatever Monty just said.
There are also reports about an increasing number of "attacks" on Jewish cemeteries in the US since Trump took office, it sounds a lot like the increase of attacks on immigrants after the Brexit referendum.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/26...-cemetery.html
And meanwhile in German carnival:
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/...-videowebl.jpg
"Pension fund"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Deutsche Rentenversicherung is the public pension fund of Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I assume it's the one you pay into via automatic deductions from your paycheck and that will later pay your pension according to the law.
At least the 73 million members would suggest that is what it is.
They ever figure out who toppled the tombstones?
Im going to refrain from comment untill then, not going to set myself up for embarrassment should the suspected perps turn out to be the exact ones to make me look like an idiot.
Edit: oh these are new ones, not yet it seems.
The coming of wisdom...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Hallelujah brother.
That's "father" to you.
Nah...the trope he is riffing on is the "we are all brothers in Christ" slogan. And that version kindly does NOT emphasize that I am old enough to have sired him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Unless they have the perps on camera or someone saw them, it would seem that we're all reserving comment until kingdom come.
Next time someone drives a car into a group of people....oh wait, that just happened, driver turned out to be a native German but some say the police can't be trusted on that anyway, has to be a refugee. :dizzy2:
http://www.the-postillon.com/2017/02...-to-japan.html
Quote:
Washington (dpo) - US President Donald Trump today offered his condolences to the Japanese government. He said that he was deeply moved by the devastation wreaked upon Tokyo by Godzilla and that he was shocked to the core when he saw the bloodbath on television yesterday evening.
I will just leave this Bern right here...
https://i.imgur.com/mkIzP8Z.png
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/statu...88569850494976
Really, why is he still President? He is a petulant child.
Here are some more carnival impressions including some explanatory text:
https://www.thelocal.de/20170227/in-...trump-no-mercy
A few more in this list.
Can't wait to see his speech to Congress. He could say "I own you all." and they would all clap for him
They say Trump is calling for the remilitarization of the Rhineland.
The defense spending hike still wouldnt have as much an impact as cutting wasteful spending would do. Like for years we have been building more tanks despite the military saying they dont need any more tanks yet Congressman X from wherever doesnt want to close the tank factory in his district. That and arbitrary troop limits which forces commanders to make use of really expensive contractors instead of bringing in more soldiers who are on our dime anyways.
Plus diverting money away from our soft power apparatuses is a horrible idea.
Argument for tanks and other items is that expertise of engineers and technicians must be maintained. Solution: directly pay them comparatively-little to tinker with related stuff on at least a part-time basis, keep them sharp. Not complete contracts or products, just anything related to the necessary skill set for our major platforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
At some point remember, it is more straightforward and cost-effective for the government to disembody private military-industrial corporations and absorb their skilled workers as operators of internal (federal) agencies.
It's best-suited for a proper great-power war, but you really have to wonder at the opportunity scale of paying ever more to keep renters on your property in anticipation of a future boom.
.Doesn't work that well. There are all sorts of "never written down anywhere" micro-behaviors etc. that those people working in the assembly process have to keep current in institutional memory in order to generate the best possible results. And that body of knowledge is often so specialized to the military product that the company cannot use it on "civvy street" effectively. I used to live near Newport News Shipbuilding -- the folks who make CVNs and will be making the CVNX's. They could not build an oil tanker to spec on time and under budget...but could make a supercarrier. Refueling jobs helped, but not enough; building a sub....did not work well as all the good sub builders work at a different place so it was slow and not as high quality, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Like our old "arsenal" system....which was never efficient enough. Or maybe the PLA's factory system....which is NOT the most effective center for manufacturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
All in all, the stuff is too specialized; has periods of non-production that are simply too long to maintain staff through; and then gets wrecked/bent/broken/expended in job lots when in actual use mandating rapid full replacement.
Military manufacture is likely never to be fully rationalizable.
In other words, it should depend on how much of a warmup-phase, and where, we are willing to tolerate for advanced production. The existing base wouldn't be sufficient for a real surge anyway and would be delayed in expansion for such a war footing (pretending that any sort of war now would depend on swamping a theater with many thousands of tanks or planes). It's not something to determine out of hand, but is worth looking into as a cost-saver while still maintaining adequate institutional and technical knowledge.
So every fact Trump said was wrong.
But nothing to see here, run along. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
...says the independant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
And everyone else...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-to-congress/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ress-congress/
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/516717...on-of-congress
http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald...ech-fact-check
I wonder was there ever such a prolonged opposition to any President after he had been sworn in and election battles had been left behind?
Et tu, Brutes?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.fb07aca9bee1
Not quite, the article neglects to include the context of the statement; specifically the question it answers:
Sessions can say that the context gave him the impression that they were asking specifically about information exchanges which he didnt consider the meetings with the ambassador as, without any record of the meetings noone can claim he was wrong to do so.Quote:
Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?
These do not make the assertion of trump's speech being exclusively lies, as the independant does. Such a claim in a title that the content does not sustain is the hallmark of a fox news style propaganda outlet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Edit it seems the independant changed the title since yesterday, I wonder why...
And if that is a lie and he gets away with it, is still a good thing of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
No, if you want to be pedantic, it said every fact was a lie, but a speech is not exclusively made up of facts as the subtitle also explains now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Of course I didn't check whether those were all the fact in his speech, but you shouldn't blame them for misrepresenting things and then misrepresent their claim yourself. :stare:
It is quite telling that you always comment on the small misrepresentations of the press and completely ignore the enormous misrepresentations of Trump...
If. It's not exactly uncommon for senators to meet with diplomats in official capacities, sessions meeting the russian ambassador twice without mentioning the election is completely plausable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I checked the way back machine and apparantly it hasnt changed it's title, I mistook Beskar's title for the article's. I'll own up to that one.Quote:
No, if you want to be pedantic, it said every fact was a lie, but a speech is not exclusively made up of facts as the subtitle also explains now.
Of course I didn't check whether those were all the fact in his speech, but you shouldn't blame them for misrepresenting things and then misrepresent their claim yourself. :stare:
Thus far the "enormous misrepresentations" of trump that have been posted here have either pendantic crap I couldnt care less about him lying about, like inaugeration numbers, or the media spinning what he says, as with the sweden comments.Quote:
It is quite telling that you always comment on the small misrepresentations of the press and completely ignore the enormous misrepresentations of Trump...
The media's "small misrepresentations" on the other hand have been dominated by either stupid (Russia hacked the election, update #8,925), blatant character assassination (pissgate) or flirting with treason (CNN's "wouldnt it be sad if 18 people were assassinated as they gether for swearing in and an obama appointee got to be president? Hint. Hint.")
I will admit to jumping on the left wing propaganda sources that are used here, Beskar and Hopalong being repeat offenders, but I do that more out of annoyance at seeing a lack of objections from the rest of board, whereas right wing propaganda invariably gets you a group tounge lashing.
Of course it is, it's just a bit strange that every meeting Trump team members had with Russians somehow never seems to have happened until someone finds out it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Bogus is stuff like this: http://www.eater.com/2017/2/28/14753...up-personalityQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It's a bit like saying you're a terrible person because you try not to get Ebola instead of embracing the new experience.
As for his lies being unimportant, now that is also bogus since he uses these lies to justify his retarded policies. He lies about Mexicans and then builds a wall, he makes a bullshit point about islamic countries and then bans their citizens from entering the US. He makes bogus claims about the economy in an attempt to gather more support and so on and on. Not to forget his bogus claim of draining the swamp and being there for every American, and then he greenlights two pipelines without any further consideration while several agencies like the EPA are basically shut down "until further consideration" or however it was justified.
He's so deep in the swamp, he can't even reach his bootstraps anymore. And it's certainly not small stuff noone cares about.
Make America Great Again? :smash:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A nice little summary of The Russian Invasion so far:
http://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide
Main takeaway: Much smoke, no fire
Some of the stuff has been (or perceived as) "true enough" to cost Flynn his job, and raise questions about Sessions veracity.
It could be "Bigger than Watergate!" as some claim; it could be just another embarrassing speed bump
And it is even stranger, that those meeting were with Russians only - no Chinese, Germans, Turks or Syrians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The "shadowy" Russian ambassador:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39150526
"Nice guy", "Dogged pursuit of nation's objectives", "Hosts great lunches"; he must be a spy!!!
The line between being an effective diplomat or a spy is awfully fine; as yet, no substance to the charge he is a spy (anymore than any diplomat)
It was the erosion from severe rainfall, climate change denier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Actually...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Attachment 19519
Me think Trump reorganised USA deployment: Russia not big threat, China much bigger threat (in building and sea grubber), let's encircled China with help (or neutralised) Russia.
In some ways this whole Russia smoke seems to distract people from really scary details like Jeff Sessions being a racist and that Stephen Miller, the fascist minion who said the emperor is not to be questioned, worked as Session's aide and they both got chosen by Trump, who promised to choose "the best people".
Which should really make one wonder about the intentions of someone who thinks these are the best people...
Russians don't even need to enter the equation to see a problem there.
Is this valid about Flynn as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Indeed, which is why flynn wasnt let go for it, but for making pence look like a fool through not giving him the full picture before pence went to bat for him.
No, bogus is turning this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. "
Into this:
Drug dealers, criminals, rapists': What Trump thinks of Mexicans - BBC
He referred to Mexicans as “rapists,” -Washington Post
Mr. Trump’s claim that illegal Mexican immigrants are “rapists,” -LA Times
Many of his scandalous about mexicans and muslim comments have been either proven a cassandra truth or a couple of repeat offending media outlets spinning it to make him sound worse than he is. See the sweden debacle for a prime example of both; the media claimed he was making up an attack when he was referring to an interview on sweden that aired the night before, and sweden isnt the multicultural paradise his detractors ended up eating crow over claiming in response.Quote:
As for his lies being unimportant, now that is also bogus since he uses these lies to justify his retarded policies. He lies about Mexicans and then builds a wall, he makes a bullshit point about islamic countries and then bans their citizens from entering the US. He makes bogus claims about the economy in an attempt to gather more support and so on and on.
Might I suggest getting your news from the entire political spectrum instead of just left wing ones?
A declaration of failure at draining the swamp 2 months in is premature and reeks of losers spite. Such assessments are to be saved for the end of his tenure not the first few months, for the last days are where every previous effort at swamp draining has been taken back during the previous admins.Quote:
Not to forget his bogus claim of draining the swamp and being there for every American, and then he greenlights two pipelines without any further consideration while several agencies like the EPA are basically shut down "until further consideration" or however it was justified.
He's so deep in the swamp, he can't even reach his bootstraps anymore. And it's certainly not small stuff noone cares about.
Not sure if this is is a joking or serious accusation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
I meant did Flynn surreptitiously confer with such a number of different overseas politicians as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
No, that's not bogus, it is partially exaggerated. You even quote his exact sentence: "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists."Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The context of "And some, I assume, are good people." does not make it better, it makes it worse, because he's implying a majority of them are criminals.
The claim that he speaks to border guards as "evidence" from a notorious liar is just terrible and about as reliable as the claim that he is a Russian puppet. So basically, according to your own standard of proof, everybody who believes him is an idiot.
First of all the Sweden thing is also partially bogus. Not to say Sweden doesn't have problems with immigrants, but the impact often appears to be highly exaggerated and sensationalized by right wing media. As for where people get their news from, maybe you should stop reading right-wing fake news and listening to crazy libertarian metalhead fascists? I've seen their articles and watched their videos and I do not get my news from them because they're full of shit and far more biased than any of the media bias you came up with above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I don't need fascist ********* who tell me what to believe and how to feel like a superior "winner".
I prefer my news from somewhat neutral sources, mostly German ones, that I can sometimes only find "left wing" sources in English to link to here is a problem with your culture (or your interpretation, or the fact right wing sources ignore things), not mine. :stare:
As for Trump being right about Mexicans or Muslims, provide an example because I'm not aware of one.
Not sure whether you are merely unaware of his cabinet choices and the contexts or whether you just prefer to ignore them. If I wait until the end of his term to rate the direction he is going in, it could already be too late, that's idiocy. And if you think his cabinet choices are fine, how do you judge him and his advisors talking about his daughter's business, her using official meetings to make photos for advertisement campaigns for her private business, or him talking to the President of Turkey about his Turkish business partners? If it looks like a glibbery swamp monster, talks like a glibbery swamp monster and walks like a glibbery swamp monster, and all of its friends are glibbery swamp monsters, then it can pay off to be rather cautious about its claims that it wants to drain the swamp...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Probably, because Paul Ryan said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
This is also illustrating how flawed it is to rely on various comedy/late night shows to digest the news for you, which I see a lot of people doing. They don't have deep enough understanding of politics and their primary function is to entertain.Quote:
"With respect to Michael Flynn talking to other governments during the transition: That's his job. That's what he is supposed to be doing. It is entirely appropriate, it is actually the job description, to talk to other nations, to ambassadors, to start beginning relationships. That is very much appropriate," Ryan said.
Even serious news organizations are starting to rely on questionable sources, and news are getting published with less and less expert scrutiny beforehand.
Social media and new journalism schools for you: The Buzz, speed and conformism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
But in the end all that does is blame the consumer since the news organizations try to do what increases their ad revenue or sales or whatever makes them more money. In other words, they only react to what the users want. If they uphold journalistic standards and go down because only five people read their articles, that doesn't help anyone either.
Now we can go further and ask ourselves why many/most people don't take the time to read well-researched articles...
The Russians recently said that their propaganda wing has updated from the Soviet era where they tried to argue logically that their way was right (and generally failed). Now they try just to drown the airways with noise as most of the time people loose sight of what is in fact true amongst everything else.
Trump also appears to be using the same playbook.
~:smoking:
'blades:
The US media has done this kind of reporting with every GOP Presidential nominee or President since Goldwater (I should note that they hammered Johnson and Carter pretty hard at times too). It is an established norm of US political life. GOP folks get to score a few points with their core constituencies by bashing the media from time to time (Trump is just doing it a little more forcefully than most).
FOX is nearly as bad in their treatment of non-GOP types (fair and balanced stops when the business news shows end in the late afternoon). US talk radio programs are almost ubiquitously hard-right and some are darned-near rabid in their anti liberal (USA definition) stance.
The "distraction game" had another curve-ball recently.
Obama wire-tapping Trump! Whoa!!! IF TRUE this could be bigger than Watergate!
Trump provided no evidence of his Twitter claim, no one seems to have seen any evidence but IF TRUE we may see a retroactive impeachment!!! (I mean, why not if we're just making stuff up)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN16D21T
At least Trump is "righting the ship" and sailing America on its traditional course.
Immigration bans are a proud tradition in America and here we go again
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...igration-bans/
The tradition is almost as old as America itself, and usually follows a "Moral Panic" (They are coming for our jerbs, or wemen, and stuff!; They are different, they have drugs, they are low-lifes...etc.)
As usual, the data that backs up these panics is either non-existent, fabricated, or false.
Of course its not just America, its a game all the world plays at some point in time; Why do we fall for it?
http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.c...l-moral-panic/
Immigration never really stops. We go through periods where the numbers are very low and we are relatively selective. This usually follows a stretch where we have a lot of immigration in a short time frame and we need to assimilate the wave. At least that is how it has been.
I'll get to husar when I find the time.
Turns out I was right not to comment but, funnily enough, it turns out husar shouldnt have commented either. As Shaka khan mentioned: this time it it was the weather:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Headstones were found toppled in Brooklyn’s Washington Cemetery on Sunday morning. Early reports characterized the incident as a 'possible hate crime' however the cemetery director confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that the tombstones in question had long been deteriorating and some had toppled over years ago.
In other News they found the guy behind some of the bomb threats; it wasnt the KKK or the Islamic State, no, it was allegedly a false flagger:
And for the kicker, this was the fellow:Quote:
A former journalist has been charged with being behind a wave of hoax bomb threats against Jewish organisations that led to fears of a rise in anti-Semitism across the United States.
Juan Thompson, 31, was arrested in St. Louis, Missouri as part of an investigation into more than 100 threats made by phone and email since January to Jewish community centres, schools, and child care facilities in three dozen states.
Until last year Thompson, was employed by The Intercept, a campaigning news website where one of the editors is Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who revealed classified documents disclosed by Edward Snowden.
In a statement The Intercept said it was "horrified" by Thompson's actions, and that he was fired last year for making up sources and quotes. It added: "These actions are heinous and should be fully investigated and prosecuted."
Prosecutors charged Thompson with cyberstalking in relation to eight threats, and it was not clear whether they believed he was responsible for scores more.
It was alleged that Thompson carried out the fear campaign with the intention of blaming it on a girlfriend who had ended their relationship last summer.
He made up an email address to make it seem like the woman was sending the threats, prosecutors said.
In one message he said the woman "hates Jewish people" and wanted to "kill as many Jews asap".
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sla...ediumlarge.jpg
That's like, your opinion. Without commenting on it here I might have never found out what actually happened since I don't scour US news for the latest updates every day. And then you should not forget that it was apparently not the only incident:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I'll go out on a limb here and say this was not the weather at least: http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Chicag...-attack-480598
What's more interesting is this: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...t-why-n2294553
Although his question why there was no reporting under Obama seems a bit weird given that his own numbers talk of a continuing decline, there'd have to be actual data for 2017 to see whether there is actually a considerable uptick now.
What exactly is the kicker here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Why would you even bother asking. We all know at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Continue.
Well, it would be rather weird for Greyblades to try and absolve his political movement of anti-semitism by making a clearly racist argument for what seems like no good reason at all. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Obviously he will now say that we're the racists for thinking about racism first and he posted the picture because the guy is clearly wearing his shirt and pullover in traditional British style, pointing out how terrible British culture is. :no:
The key word in my post was "surreptitiously", that is without notifying the boss. Evidently this very fact (and not that the talks did take place) was what got the Americans' hackles up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
His political movement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I *think* the kicker is that we would all have assumed it was White Supremacists or Islamists, and that guy looks like neither.
Exactly, a hate crime is in all the news, one side says radical islamist, another says nazi thugs, and all along its some ex journalist with a grudge against a former lover who seems to be the epitome of the middle class african american.
It coupd only be more absurdly out of left field if it turned out he was a Buddhist.
I think they go by the name "Hydra" and Trump appears to be a leading figure. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
As for the rest, I may have slightly misinterpreted Greyblades post, but since you always defend people for not getting my humor without smileys of explanations, you will probably understand how merely posting a picture can easily lead to misunderstandings.
On the topic of pictures, the one in your signature seems to be broken.
Wikileaks is Russian propaganda. I will never be truly happy until Snowden is tried and imprisoned for his crimes.
Not gonna happen. He hasn't done anything warranting death in the jurisdictions in which he is accused of some crime. Mind you, if he is guilty as charged, a prolonged "reborative" stay in a penal institution would be quite appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I was not aware of a link between Snowden and Wikileaks, other than sometimes-overlapping interests and ideology.
Think of my posts like you would a Trump tweet. So meaningless, people end up being convinced they are deep. Like looking at a glass of tap water and convincing yourself it's the Pacific.
Should have been written in crayon.
Link
Quote:
If House Republicans' recently introduced American Health Care Act doesn't work out, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) has another proposal in the works that he seems pretty darn confident about. The bill, introduced March 1, is modestly titled, "World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017."
American Health Care reminds me of some third-world famines.
Oh sure, we could feed you, but really...there's no money in that.
And yet, as a nation you spend more on healthcare than anywhere else - with significantly poorer outcomes. The $750bn health insurance business is a leech sucking out money in exchange for inefficiently managing health provision.
Well, the new Republican healthcare bill will apparently fix all the problems wealthy people had with the healthcare system.