The ideals that were formerly considered “conservative” — small government, fiscal responsibility, etc. — have been replaced by white Christian nationalism, water-carrying for would-be autocrats, and immense amounts of deficit spending for the sole purpose of making America whiter.
Oh, stop it. Just stop. You should really start coming to terms with the fact that you've been had, Tim. Well, I guess they say that it's easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled.
You see, all that horrible stuff you hate so much, rightly, about Trump and his fans and allies - that was always what conservative and right-wing politics was all about. All the time. It's just that before Trump came along, it was seen as inappropriate to say so too openly in polite society.
That's why conservatives back then came up with some more "respectable" sounding ideas, like "small government" (even back then small enough to fit into a uterus), "fiscal responsibility" (lol), or "personal responsibility" (don't get me started). All that was never more than a fig leaf for the things they were really all about. It's just that, as a minor side effect, all this fig leaf bullshit created a few people who really believed in it. Apparently including you.
You should really get over it. Stop thinking that, out of all the people who saw themselves as conservatives 20 years ago and are still around today, 90 or 99 percent got it all wrong about what conservatism is all about, and that you're one of the few brave souls who know the truth.
Perhaps it might be a good idea if every conservative and right-winger would be made to walk up to a blackboard, Bart Simpson style, and write a hundred time "It's not censorship when people say mean things about the things that I'm saying."
Then again, it probably wouldn't do much good, because it would only make their resentments explode even more.
Oh, thank you! I guess I thank the Academy, my parents, God, all the people who clicked on the light bulb icon, and so on.
However, it wasn't entirely my insight: IIRC, either Trevor Noah or his scriptwriters made a similar point back during Trump's first term, or perhaps even already during the 2016 campaign.
Normally when people buy something, they own it afterward. If someone buys a tape or disc containing data, they at least own the tape or disc and can sell that. But what people call “buying” movies and music online results in them still not owning it afterward (“all rights reserved” by the copyright holder; some courts have even called it false advertising to use the term “buy”).
That applies only to the current business practices of a number of entertainment companies, not to the general principle of buying data.
And I don’t see how copyright is defensible.
Simple: on the grounds that it allows some people to get paid for work which would otherwise be unpaid.
Note, however, that I wasn't mainly objecting to your anti-copyright stance, but to your glib plan of first abolishing copyright and then "maybe" trying to see if there might be some other way to pay the people who currently get paid through some form of the copyright system.
Perhaps I could get behind ending copyright, but only if the policy change would be done in such a way that first, some reliably working other system for paying creative people would get up and running, and then the old system would be abolished.
So you believe one election proves that you're going to win forever, and you think other people are denying reality?
You believe the only reason your side could ever possible lose an election is because of fraud, and you think other people are denying reality?
Do you know how many elections there were in the history of the USA where someone won the popular vote? Did each of those prove that the side whose guy won was going to win forever?
The USA just had three elections in a row where the incumbent's party lost. The last time that happened was in the late 19th century. And you think the fact that your side won the third of those means that you're going to win forever. Sure. Whatever.
I know that time can fly when you're biologically no longer a teenager, but the election you're bragging about was more than a year ago. A year can be, and in this case clearly was, a long time in politics.
But I like that you're so certain you can never lose again. People who believe that won't put any serious effort into avoiding the kinds of mistakes that lead to them losing.
Why not? It ended up demonstrating his corruption even more clearly than he had demonstrated it in the past. Why is it not great when we are proven right about something? Ultimately, this makes him look pretty ridiculous on top of all else. Why is something that ends with one of our most important opponents making himself look even more ridiculous than he had already done in the past somehow not great for us?
It used to be that Americans mocked other countries for being ruled by the kind of people who act like that.
First of all, it was not a shooting, it was a series of shots. Even if the first shot would have been self-defense, which it wasn't, the shots after that wouldn't have been self-defense. A series of shots can never be self-defense, because if the first shot makes it impossible for the targeted person to pose any further threat, none of the subsequent shots can be justified by a supposed threat from that person.
Besides, some of the videos show the murderer refusing a passing medical professional's offer of medical assistance after the shots. Even if everything up to that point would have been self-defense, which it wasn't, it would still have become murder at that point.
Alex Pretti was a tragic mistake,
How exactly is it a "mistake", or "tragic", to grab a man, hold him down for a while, beat him up, and, while doing that, shoot him dead with a series of shots? Something can only be a "tragic mistake" if the people doing it thought, "tragically" and "mistakenly", that what they did was a good idea, when in fact it wasn't. There's no way how grabbing a man, holding him down for a while, beating him up, and, while doing that, shooting him dead with a series of shots, could ever be a good idea in the first place. Therefore, doing that can never be a tragic mistake.
but he was a continuous agitator looking for confrontation
Which, in a free country, is not in any way wrong or illegal. Besides, "a continuous agitator looking for confrontation" is a pretty good description of you, too, although of course your cause isn't nearly as just as his.
he was kinda seeking this out.
Ah, the standard excuse of pretty much all the worst criminals in the world, and their supporters.
BTW, he commited a felony when he kicked off that taillight 11 days earlier,
Do you have any idea how much this statement makes you sound not just repulsive, but pathetic, too?
Everything you say is a lie.
The only way to demonstrate this would be to list every single claim about a matter of fact in Mike's post, and demonstrate why each of them is not just false, but was also made with the knowledge that it is false. If there is even a single true statement in Mike's post, your assertion is false.
The deportations are the straightforward application of the law.
Even if that's true of the deportations themselves, it's clearly not true of all the other things the goons are doing, such as arresting citizens, arresting permanent residents, and entering buildings without proper warrants. None of those things are applications of the law.
YOU DO NOT GET TO STOP LEO FROM DOING THEIR JOBS.
That depends entirely on the situation. When you've got a tyrannical system passing tyrannical laws and enforcing them in tyrannical way, then while it is, of course, under the system's own laws illegal to oppose it, it is not wrong under any reasonable standard of right and wrong.
The deportations will continue until morale improves.
You know very well that that's a paraphrase of a quote that is usually quoted to illustrate the cluelessness and general ignorance of the kind of people who seriously believe that that approach can actually work.
Yes, exactly. Keep in mind that the Donald himself has a degree from an Ivy League school. Yes, one of the "lesser" Ivies, but still.
Perhaps formal academic credentials are a bit like restaurant recommendations: they can give you some first idea of which places might be worth checking out, but you shouldn't trust them over what your own taste buds are telling you.
But this is Tom Homan. And he can’t help himself. When asked how many ICE & CBP agents are on the ground, he talked about how 3,000 of them are “in theater.” That’s a freaking military term, Tom. You’re admitting that ICE & CBP is an invading force.
What was the legal term for levying war against the United States, if you're from there, again?
Anne Frank was a victim of the actual Nazis for being Jewish. To claim that mantle because a Federal agency is being heavy handed is bullshit and Walz knows it.
The original post explicitly points out that the Nazis didn't start by murdering Anne Frank. They started by doing stuff that was already very bad, but not yet large-scale mass murder. The whole point of the post is that the Trump crowd is currently, for now, still in that early stage.
but util he’s wearing a hack kreuz he’s not a Nazi
A lot of his fans are showing off swastikas and other Nazi symbols, and were 10 years ago. Ten years ago, criticizing Trump while having a Jewish-sounding name already got you bombarded with oven and gas chamber memes on the old Twitter. What do you think why people who love symbols like that love him so much? Are they somehow sadly mistaken that he's one of them?
We should just admit that this stuff’s available for free to everyone, once published, and legalize it (kind of like what’s happening with drugs, way too slowly). And maybe then figure out how people can make money in entertainment, with fewer out-of-touch rich assholes involved.
I don't see how "Let's abolish the way creative people currently get paid, and then see if can maybe figure out some other way to pay them afterwards" is a particularly attractive or defensible stance to take.
"I'm going to take your food supply away - but don't worry, a while after your food has run out, I'll think about whether I'll maybe try to help you somehow find some new food somewhere."
1) Who would be the Allies in that scenario?
2) How would anyone be left alive afterwards?
You certainly have interesting standards for what you see as "stuff to be excited about".
This reminds me, Trump loves to rant and rave about how poorly and dysfunctionally the countries of origin of many migrant to the USA are run, and how bad things look like there.
You know why those countries are so poorly run, Donald? You know why things are so bad there?
Because countries like that are usually run by people who love to pay out large amounts of public money to themselves. Because they're usually run by people who love to name everything after themselves. Because they're usually run by people who love to decorate everything in sight with lots of glittering gold. Because they're usually run by people who love to have their subordinates praise them to high Heaven all the time. Because they're usually run by people who let their armed goons do whatever they want. #
In short, because they're run by people like you.
Oh, don't worry. The very smart or even brilliant theorists of the free market have explained ten thousand times that in a market economy, customers are guaranteed to always get the best possible deal free enterprise is practically able to give them. So while it might appear as if something like what you describe is happening, that is clearly impossible.
I mean, who are you going to believe - Milton Friedman or your lying eyes?
In the case of Cotton, I agree.
In the case of this Milhoan, you might be right, but I don't think it's guaranteed.
Contrary to common belief, being smart and being dumb are by no means mutually exclusive. And I say that as an IMO reasonably smart guy who has sure done his share of stupid things in life.
Among other things, there are ways in which otherwise smart people can make themselves kind of artificially stupid. Some of these are stubbornness, ego gratification, and a complete refusal to admit mistakes. For instance, I once got treated by a doctor who apparently had a god complex and therefore, when I told him about the side effects of some medication he had prescribed to me, couldn't imagine that a decision he had made might have been a wrong decision, and insisted that the side effects had to be something I had been born with.
When someone is really strongly psychologically invested in believing something stupid, they'll often believe it even though, in theory, they should be too smart for that.
Please start understanding that you've been fooled, Tim
Perhaps it might be a good idea if every conservative and right-winger would be made to walk up to a blackboard, Bart Simpson style, and write a hundred time "It's not censorship when people say mean things about the things that I'm saying." Then again, it probably wouldn't do much good, because it would only make their resentments explode even more.
Can't wait for the trolls to tell us all about how awesome this makes him and how it means that he's really owning the libs really hard.
Oh, thank you! I guess I thank the Academy, my parents, God, all the people who clicked on the light bulb icon, and so on. However, it wasn't entirely my insight: IIRC, either Trevor Noah or his scriptwriters made a similar point back during Trump's first term, or perhaps even already during the 2016 campaign.
So you believe one election proves that you're going to win forever, and you think other people are denying reality? You believe the only reason your side could ever possible lose an election is because of fraud, and you think other people are denying reality? Do you know how many elections there were in the history of the USA where someone won the popular vote? Did each of those prove that the side whose guy won was going to win forever? The USA just had three elections in a row where the incumbent's party lost. The last time that happened was in the late 19th century. And you think the fact that your side won the third of those means that you're going to win forever. Sure. Whatever. I know that time can fly when you're biologically no longer a teenager, but the election you're bragging about was more than a year ago. A year can be, and in this case clearly was, a long time in politics. But I like that you're so certain you can never lose again. People who believe that won't put any serious effort into avoiding the kinds of mistakes that lead to them losing.
Why not? It ended up demonstrating his corruption even more clearly than he had demonstrated it in the past. Why is it not great when we are proven right about something? Ultimately, this makes him look pretty ridiculous on top of all else. Why is something that ends with one of our most important opponents making himself look even more ridiculous than he had already done in the past somehow not great for us? It used to be that Americans mocked other countries for being ruled by the kind of people who act like that.
Yes, exactly. Keep in mind that the Donald himself has a degree from an Ivy League school. Yes, one of the "lesser" Ivies, but still. Perhaps formal academic credentials are a bit like restaurant recommendations: they can give you some first idea of which places might be worth checking out, but you shouldn't trust them over what your own taste buds are telling you.
All that said, if people really really don't want to call it "Nazism" or "fascism", we could always compromise on Bret Devereaux's expression "I can't believe it's not fascism!".
1) Who would be the Allies in that scenario? 2) How would anyone be left alive afterwards? You certainly have interesting standards for what you see as "stuff to be excited about".
This reminds me, Trump loves to rant and rave about how poorly and dysfunctionally the countries of origin of many migrant to the USA are run, and how bad things look like there. You know why those countries are so poorly run, Donald? You know why things are so bad there? Because countries like that are usually run by people who love to pay out large amounts of public money to themselves. Because they're usually run by people who love to name everything after themselves. Because they're usually run by people who love to decorate everything in sight with lots of glittering gold. Because they're usually run by people who love to have their subordinates praise them to high Heaven all the time. Because they're usually run by people who let their armed goons do whatever they want. # In short, because they're run by people like you.
Oh, don't worry. The very smart or even brilliant theorists of the free market have explained ten thousand times that in a market economy, customers are guaranteed to always get the best possible deal free enterprise is practically able to give them. So while it might appear as if something like what you describe is happening, that is clearly impossible. I mean, who are you going to believe - Milton Friedman or your lying eyes?
In the case of Cotton, I agree. In the case of this Milhoan, you might be right, but I don't think it's guaranteed. Contrary to common belief, being smart and being dumb are by no means mutually exclusive. And I say that as an IMO reasonably smart guy who has sure done his share of stupid things in life. Among other things, there are ways in which otherwise smart people can make themselves kind of artificially stupid. Some of these are stubbornness, ego gratification, and a complete refusal to admit mistakes. For instance, I once got treated by a doctor who apparently had a god complex and therefore, when I told him about the side effects of some medication he had prescribed to me, couldn't imagine that a decision he had made might have been a wrong decision, and insisted that the side effects had to be something I had been born with. When someone is really strongly psychologically invested in believing something stupid, they'll often believe it even though, in theory, they should be too smart for that.
Sorry, I'm just sometimes getting a bit frustrated with the lack of attention paid to basic spam cleanup.
When I first read the title of this post, I misread it as "Stop Killer Games", and thought it was about some anti-gaming thing.