andrewjoy wrote: ↑ That is quite common now
disagreeing with argument = hate now
some people have even made a career out of it.
http://kotaku.com/new-york-times-publis ... 1788583833New York Times Publishes Intense Game About Voter Suppression
Sure, I think that many Germans at the time believed that when they voted for the Nazi party. People tend to be naive and stupid, not bothering to read up on what was really behind the slogans. There were also more moderate politicians in the Nazi party at the time who did have more towards socialist-democratic ideals, people which Hitler later had expelled and/or murdered.adhoc wrote: ↑Hitler came to power when Germany was poor with promises to break the power of the banking elite that is keeping Germany in an iron fist, to help all Germans, to bring economical prosperity, to bring social justice, etc. That is why it was called national socialism (=nazi).
That tactic become quite common even among the PC (politically correct) crowd nowadays as a way of dissuading arguments.andrewjoy wrote: ↑disagreeing with argument = hate now
It may be objected, if man does not act from free will, what will happen if the incentives to action are equally balanced, as in the case of Buridan's ass? [In reply,] I am quite ready to admit, that a man placed in the equilibrium described (namely, as perceiving nothing but hunger and thirst, a certain food and a certain drink, each equally distant from him) would die of hunger and thirst. If I am asked, whether such a one should not rather be considered an ass than a man; I answer, that I do not know, neither do I know how a man should be considered, who hangs himself, or how we should consider children, fools, madmen, &c.
Nah, you explicitly called me a name first, out of the blue. Not in this thread, but in the past. I don't forget, though.kbdfr wrote: ↑I attacked your arguments, not you as a person.
Sorry if you feel not agreeing with you is a personal offense.
Totally agree...isn't a US / Russia friendship a better prospect for our future than the contrary? Hillary is much scarier in this regard because she is the one prodding the bear and pissing them off.webwit wrote: ↑Why is it a bad thing that Trump gets along with Putin? The alternative would be that he wouldn't get along with Putin. We are blessed at the moment to be out of the cold war with a realistic, tangible threat of nuclear war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/opini ... rgate.html[...] Taken together, these investigations revealed astounding abuses of presidential power by Nixon, which included other illegal break-ins and burglaries; illegal electronic surveillance; misuses of agencies of government like the I.R.S., C.I.A. and F.B.I.; the practice of making political opponents into enemies and using the instruments of government to attack them; and then employing perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it all up.
Whatever mistakes Mrs. Clinton made, her actions bear no similarities whatsoever to Nixon’s criminalization of his presidency, and his efforts to corrupt much of the executive branch. As Nixon’s secretly recorded conversations show, he rejected the advice of his lawyers at every stage of Watergate; he was determined to do it his way. When he was forced to resign, or be removed from office by the impeachment process, he never truly apologized. Once out of office, he claimed he did not need the pardon he accepted that precluded his criminal prosecution, and he went to his grave claiming he was innocent of criminal behavior, absurdly asserting when the president does it, that means it is legal.
Contrast that with Mrs. Clinton, whose “scandal” is the result of her desire — like that of many, including President Obama — not to give up her Blackberry email account when she entered the executive branch. Only slowly did she come to appreciate the security risk of not using the antiquated State Department system.
She was unaware that a few classified items — some of which were classified after the fact — were in her private email system. Unlike Nixon, she has apologized. The F.B.I. record also shows that — again, unlike Nixon — she had no criminal intent in any of her actions.
Still, the efforts to draw a comparison between Mrs. Clinton and Nixon by Mr. Trump and many Republicans are telling, for several reasons.
First, they show how little they understand about Watergate itself. [...]
Second, Mr. Trump’s insistence that “Emailgate” is worse than Watergate serves to divert attention from the fact that, in my opinion, Mr. Trump is remarkably Nixonian, perhaps even more so than Nixon himself.
I say that because while Nixon’s dark and nasty side, largely hidden from public view, got him in trouble, he was also a man of intelligence, with a strong understanding of government, a deep knowledge of the world and a heartfelt vision for lasting peace. If Mr. Trump has such positive qualities, he has kept that side of him well hidden, while giving free rein to his dark and nasty worldview. [...]
Sorry, I often don't remember who I have been arguing with,adhoc wrote: ↑Nah, you explicitly called me a name first, out of the blue. Not in this thread, but in the past. I don't forget, though.kbdfr wrote: ↑I attacked your arguments, not you as a person.adhoc wrote: ↑[…] You fail to see you were the one to first attack me personally, which is the only reason why I started doing it so...thanks, you too.
Sorry if you feel not agreeing with you is a personal offense.
I searched and found the post where I called you not just a single name,kbdfr wrote: ↑And as I rely on facts, I'd be interested to hear when, where, and on which occasion I called you a name.
And of course which name
I obviously shouldn't have posted that, even if it was an imperative inferencekbdfr wrote: ↑[…] None of the links you posted indicates a single case of [quoting you again] "Germany arresting their citizens for critisizing their government".
There is a simple reason to that: it is just not true,
and you are either a liar or a a gullible idiot.
Slovenia...eastern Europe? You must be american. I hope. And noone on this world runs a more intense propaganda program than the US. Get real.jacobolus wrote: ↑kbdfr: don’t worry about adhoc. Russia has been running a propaganda/disinformation campaign throughout Eastern Europe for the past decade, and by now plenty of otherwise reasonable folks living there have become apologists for authoritarianism. It’s a sad story, but don’t hold him personally responsible.
The choice is not absolute, the purist sense of absolute, as we technically have more than two choices. And I live in a state that surely will go to Trump, and not enough people will vote for independents or third parties to influence the overall result. One Democratic candidate has won Indiana since 1964, which was Obama in 2008. I feel very comfortable with my intended vote in the presidential election, and do not consider any person's vote to be a throwaway vote.
This is so true, it's scary and not even funny. I fear for what is going in Turkey right now.seebart wrote: ↑Oh boy you two are really "giving this a go". As a german I'm not even going to get into this argument. Bottom line is Trump is a fraction as intelligent as Hitler, and hopefully only a fraction as evil. Want to see a live transformation of a country from democracy > dictatorship? Just look at Turkey right now.
The danger of being friendly with Russia is that Putin clearly is an autocrat that has intimidated, harassed, and even killed opponents/activists in politics, media, journalism, and elsewhere. If you are okay with a leader that does that to citizens of his own country, then might you be okay with a similar situation in your own country? That type of chuminess is on a completely different level of being friendly with, for example, Justin Trudeau in Canada.002 wrote: ↑Totally agree...isn't a US / Russia friendship a better prospect for our future than the contrary? Hillary is much scarier in this regard because she is the one prodding the bear and pissing them off.webwit wrote: ↑Why is it a bad thing that Trump gets along with Putin? The alternative would be that he wouldn't get along with Putin. We are blessed at the moment to be out of the cold war with a realistic, tangible threat of nuclear war.
Well good, then we have our choice of Putin-esque leaders.webwit wrote: ↑https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/76 ... 56/video/1
That's how it's supposed to work. And the only rational way to vote, IMO. Unfortunately, the parties themselves have corrupted that. And, to a lesser extent, the voters have bought the line of BS that they're selling.vivalarevolución wrote: ↑In general, I vote for the person that I think will do the best job, regardless of party.
The primary goal of both the Democratic and Republican parties is the same: to capture and maintain power. Everything else is secondary, which includes actually running a government and protecting individuals from the mob mentality and the government.chuckdee wrote: ↑That's how it's supposed to work. And the only rational way to vote, IMO. Unfortunately, the parties themselves have corrupted that. And, to a lesser extent, the voters have bought the line of BS that they're selling.vivalarevolución wrote: ↑In general, I vote for the person that I think will do the best job, regardless of party.
We should all look to the American media as the shining example of impartial reporting on the electionjacobolus wrote: ↑Russian media backs Trump, questions US democracy
http://bigstory.ap.org/1608ed9579624d56ae6110f73c31f844
She would deserve it just slightly more than Obama did.webwit wrote: ↑I wonder if Clinton will get the Nobel Peace Prize for being the first female president of the United States.
They just had to award that prize as the ultimate feel-good cherry-on-top for the ultimate feel-good presidential campaign. Even the Nobel Prize committee was drinking the Obama kool-aid. And they basically destroyed whatever credibility they had left.
Right, that whole episode was embarrassing for the committee, not for Obama. No way he could have turned that down.vivalarevolución wrote: ↑They just had to award that prize as the ultimate feel-good cherry-on-top for the ultimate feel-good presidential campaign. Even the Nobel Prize committee was drinking the Obama kool-aid. And they basically destroyed whatever credibility they had left.
'THE SOCIOPATH' A Crowdfunded Documentary About The Enigma That Is Donald Trump