Re: Re: Re: "two diametrically-opposed political parties"? Wha?
It's not "a single person wing." It's a faction within the Democratic Party that call themselves "the Warren Wing" because they subscribe to her views. It's still fairly new, so the name might not last as things continue to progress. (I kind of hope it does change, actually; if you're for an idea, you should be for it because it's a good idea, not because some person, even an admirable person, is for it.) But for the moment, that's what they're calling it.
Re: "two diametrically-opposed political parties"? Wha?
To be fair, things are changing quite a bit in the last couple years, with the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and the "Warren Wing" on the political scene. We've got people actually talking very seriously about breaking up the big banks, mass debt forgiveness on student loans, expanding Social Security by raising taxes on the rich rather than cutting it in an attempt to keep it solvent for longer, and all sorts of stuff that would have been essentially unthinkable ten years ago.
(Note: I'm not advocating all this stuff. I agree with some parts of it and disagree with other parts. But it's a fact, not a matter of opinion, that a strong, viable, closer-to-diametrically-opposed political platform is currently emerging in US politics. It'll be interesting to see where it goes.)
In 2003, I was living in Argentina. It was an interesting time, and one of the things that happened was a presidential election. There were five major candidates, and in the end it came down to two guys, where the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error. Former president Carlos Ménem, trying to win his way back into La Casa Rosada (in the USA we have the White House; the Argentine equivalent is the Pink House,) garnered a very narrow plurality of the vote, with Néstor Kirchner coming in a very close second.
The most recent US election at the time was the one in 2000, and we all remember what a horrendous mess that was. (For values of "all" including US citizens who are not significantly younger than myself.) So it was interesting to watch what happened.
The short version is, instead of wasting time and money on endless recounts and re-recounts and re-re-recounts and court cases and whatnot, they scheduled a runoff election in a few weeks' time. But here's the interesting thing: that runoff election never happened. It quickly became clear that almost everyone who had not voted for Ménem the first time was going to support Kirchner in the runoff, and so Ménem conceded. And I couldn't help but think, this is so much more civilized than the way we did it. (And when a perpetual basket case of a nation like Argentina has more civilized elections than we do, you know something's seriously wrong!)
But something like that can't happen without multiple strong parties in the first place.
Before advocating getting rid of something, you need to ask, "would I rather have this thing, or the problem that this thing solves." Because this one's a doozy, and the case could be made that we owe the entirety of modern civilization to the patent system.
The problem that patents solve is trade secrets. How big a problem is it? I've mentioned this before on here. The earliest known samples of steel date back to the 14th century BC. For millennia, the secrets of making steel were discovered, kept secret, then all too frequently lost again when the smith who figured it out died, time and time again. The only reason it didn't happen again in the 19th century is because of the patent system, which required the details to be published in order to receive protection for this "new" invention.
And when that patent expired, cheap steel was available for everyone, and it kickstarted the Industrial Revolution, which gave us mass-produced steel. From the automobile and the skyscraper to the cutlery you eat with and the zipper on your trousers, steel is everywhere in modern life, and we'd never have gotten there without patents.
Yes, the current system is broken, but that means it needs to be fixed, not killed. Getting rid of it would mean going back to the old system of keeping new discoveries secret, which literally set civilization back by 3000 years!
If a person is on your property and you tell him to leave and he does not, he is trespassing. Call the police; the law is on your side. But if you attack him--even if it's just with a hose--then the law is on his side and he could take you to court and have a pretty good chance of winning, even though he was trespassing.
I'm not quite sure where Google is getting that convenient summary definition in the big box at the top from, but when you look at the actual links it comes up with, they all say "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" or very similar.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians are as bad and how about screw you relgious nutjobs
Both the Old and New Testaments are full of directives in favor of slavery.
That's the problem with natural languages: they're very imprecise. We tend to combine things that are superficially similar into the same word (calling American bison "buffalo" even though they're biologically quite distinct from actual buffalo, for example) and most of the time it's a useful trick to reduce cognitive load. But sometimes you get cases like this.
The terms translated as "slave," "slavery," etc. in the Old Testament referred to indentured servitude to work off a debt, and almost every relevant passage in the Law was about defining the rights of indentured servants and limiting the abusive things that their "master" could potentially do to them. It was an economic choice that could and frequently did benefit the servant just as much as the master, and the consideration in the law for a servant who has worked off his debt choosing to voluntarily remain in the master's service afterwards was something that really did happen.
All of the abominations of slavery in the American South--treating people as inherently property for life, beatings and other physical abuse, sexual abuse, breaking up families by selling one slave to another master but not their family members--were strictly forbidden and condemned by Biblical law. American slavery literally bore zero resemblance to Biblical indentured servitude.
As for racism, consider that when Mitt Romney was preaching in France, his church still taught that blacks were cursed and damned.
Unsurprisingly, your ignorance of Mormon doctrine is very much on par with your ignorance of Biblical doctrine. Please, stick to subjects you actually know about, rather then just regurgitating random stuff you saw on some attack site. It just makes you look bad when someone who's actually studied this stuff sees what you wrote.
Meh. Bitcoin's a bad joke, with a long history of fraud and scams from beginning to end, and the sooner that end comes, the better. If California manages to discourage its residents from getting involved in it, so much the better.
The underlying blockchain technology solves some interesting problems and might (maybe?) become something useful in the future. But trying to use it as a currency/investment/whatever-they're-saying-Bitcoin-is-now belongs in the "this won't end well dept" much moreso than attempting to discourage businesses from getting caught up in it!
I just did, and that's what I found: "The deliberate destruction of an entire race." The earliest known use of the term dates back to World War II, to describe the Nazis' attempted extermination of the Jews. (And look at how big of a war they had to set off to even unsuccessfully attempt it! Israel has never done anything even close to anything that could be considered genocidal, unless there's been a major Middle Eastern war of conquest and extermination that I'm somehow completely unaware of.)
Imagine trying to do a story about the “Blurred Lines” lawsuit without playing copyrighted clips from the songs involved.
Techdirt did a story about this lawsuit (more than one, IIRC) without feeling the need to include any sound clips, and the coverage was quite informative. Why exactly is playing the song necessary for talking about legal issues involving the song?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Genocide: the systematic murder of an entire race/ethnic group. Keep in mind that most Arabs live in Muslim countries in the Middle East, and not in Israel. For Israel to even attempt such a thing, they would by definition have to invade all of their neighbors, and then quite a bit beyond that!
They've shown remarkable restraint in dealing with the mother of all illegal immigrant problems, probably far more than most countries would, faced with an equivalent scenario.
You read the text while driving (don't do that), so you deliver an extra case when you arrive.
Don't do that? I do that all the time, and it's perfectly safe: my car has a Bluetooth link to my phone, and it uses text-to-speech to read text messages to me. It's no more of a dangerous distraction than listening to the radio.
Jewish re-colonisation of the region began after WW1 long before any siginificant US involvement in the region.
It began long before that. I've read contemporary accounts of the Zionist/re-colonization movement from the mid-19th century. By the time of WW1, there was a rather significant Jewish population again in their ancestral homeland, but outside of Jerusalem, which holds religious significance to Islam, Muslim/Arab occupancy was almost nonexistent, because the land was a hostile, barren desert even by Middle Eastern standards, and no one wanted to live there.
Today's so-called "Palestinians" are Jordanian invaders who moved in after the people of Israel had done a bunch of hard work to make it liveable, and they have zero legitimacy.
Yeah, them and just about everyone else who love to paint themselves as victims of intolerance. It's a pretty common tactic because it works so well. (Just think about how many other groups you could replace the words "Islam" and "Muslims" with in that sentence and have it still be equally true.)
Israeli policy is at best skirting the line of genocide and at worst a policy of racism that the idea for which they seem to have gotten from their own history less than a century ago.
Just out of curiosity, what would you consider the appropriate response to being invaded and having your land colonized by people who do not recognize your entire cultural/racial/religious right to exist, at all, and have been trying to wipe your people off the face of the earth for centuries?
This is the position Israel is in with the "Palestinians," and when you keep this in mind, their response to it all shows remarkable restraint!
Then that should be addressed. I agree that we're too harsh on the victims of drug dealers; but I've seen far too much political sentiment in recent years trying to claim that we're too harsh on dealers themselves, and that's 100% pure, unadulterated crap.
This is typical of Middle Eastern Muslim culture; it's another expression of the exact same moral paradigm that leads to covering women head-to-toe in black cloth: "If our people (read: men) are exposed to [insert stimulus here], it will cause them to [insert sin here], therefore they should not be exposed to [stimulus], and if they are, and they fall, the sin is upon the head of [the one who provided the stimulus]."
This statement logically reduces to "our men have no self-control, and therefore should not be held accountable for their own choices," and it takes a special kind of blindness and complete lack of introspection to say something like this and then, in the same breath, condemn "Islamophobia". Wouldn't any reasonable person be afraid of a moral system founded on that basic paradigm?!?
Also, approximately 48.7% of those are for drug crimes (compared to 2.9% for violent crimes and 7% for sex crimes).
You had me, and then you lost me. You forget that all drug dealing is violent crime. It's just a subtler, more insidious form of violence than physical force.
If I were to kill you with a gun or a knife, you might suffer for a few moments, but then it's over, and you're dead. But if I kill you with an addiction, you end up just as dead in the end, but it takes years of suffering and misery before it's over, and along the way I end up taking all of your money, destroying your family, destroying your health, destroying your relationship with your friends, and quite possibly being responsible for your descent into crime as well, in order to come up with more money to feed your addiction.
Anyone who thinks a drug dealer is somehow less bad than a "violent criminal," or deserving of a lesser punishment than a murderer would receive, does not understand these simple facts.