US Elections 2016

[ShadySands]

I dunno, my wife is terrified of terrorists even though she knows she's more likely to get killed by a million other things that she doesn't give a second thought to. For me, I have no such fears as I prefer to worry about real dangers like supporting our family in the event of layoffs or medical emergencies... eldritch horrors, lightning sharks, and drop bears.

[BruceVC]

http://www.cityam.com/228884/global-terrorism-index-2015-mapped-terror-attack-deaths-and-economic-cost-hit-an-all-time-high-as-uk-is-hardest-hit-of-any-eu-country

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058

Thanks Elerond, I appreciate as usual your studious efforts to find relevant links to make a point

 

But I'm not sure if people  are not bothering to read my posts in detail or I'm not explaining my point properly, I did say what I mean by terrorist attacks " This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by  Islamic extremists So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya " 

 

 

So war ravaged countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dont count and neither does the violence we see committed by Al-Shabaab because they are involved in a civil war for decades. So  its interesting but not relevant to tell me "Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years." because I know Muslims represent the majority of victims....because much of the violence and civil wars is in Muslim countries 

 

So maybe I need to clarify the question, its not about number of victims but its about attacks from foreigners or domestic people who follow extremism but not in a war ...okay now that sounds complicated  Anyway my point still stands but I do think Pakistan may have actually been subjected to more terrorist attacks than the USA ?

[BruceVC]

I dunno, my wife is terrified of terrorists even though she knows she's more likely to get killed by a million other things that she doesn't give a second thought to. For me, I have no such fears as I prefer to worry about real dangers like supporting our family in the event of layoffs or medical emergencies... eldritch horrors, lightning sharks, and drop bears.

I admire your wife's concern because this tells me she hasn't been exposed to this kind of  violence. Its a kind of innocence that once lost is gone forever so I do admire the fact she is really worried about a terrorist attack

 

I share your concerns but also I live in such a violent country but we are all totally desensitized to the high crime rate...its weird I know its wrong to not feel anything knowing I live in a country where we have about 50 murders a day and 350 rapes a day yet I'm fine with that  fact and  I love my country and I'm fine with that? 

[Elerond]

 

http://www.cityam.com/228884/global-terrorism-index-2015-mapped-terror-attack-deaths-and-economic-cost-hit-an-all-time-high-as-uk-is-hardest-hit-of-any-eu-country

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058

Thanks Elerond, I appreciate as usual your studious efforts to find relevant links to make a point

 

But I'm not sure if people  are not bothering to read my posts in detail or I'm not explaining my point properly, I did say what I mean by terrorist attacks " This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by  Islamic extremists So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya " 

 

 

So war ravaged countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dont count and neither does the violence we see committed by Al-Shabaab because they are involved in a civil war for decades. So  its interesting but not relevant to tell me "Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years." because I know Muslims represent the majority of victims....because much of the violence and civil wars is in Muslim countries 

 

So maybe I need to clarify the question, its not about number of victims but its about attacks from foreigners or domestic people who follow extremism but not in a war ...okay now that sounds complicated  Anyway my point still stands but I do think Pakistan may have actually been subjected to more terrorist attacks than the USA ?

 

 

So countries like India, Thailand, Pakistan, Sri Lankka, Nigeria that also countries that aren't ravaged by war (against terrorists) suffer much more terrorist attacks both in numbers and in fatalities than USA. Which is something that next president of USA should be aware especially when those countries are their allies, important for their big companies.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Elerond

[Namutree]

 

 

Democratic side? It's a toss up. Bernie is the idealist that everyone wants but would ultimately be powerless in the office due to his inability to push his agenda, while Hillary would end up as the new "Steel Maiden" who manages to steamroll over congress while using her husband as a political tool to keep support. She'd probably get quite a few pieces of what Sanders wants done through, but not all.

I think Hillary will win the nomination but I'm thinking it will be closer than I originally thought it would be. I'm not sold that she would win the whole thing but if she does then I'm not so sure she would be able to "get stuff done" either and especially not the things that are more important to me.

 

As for me, I'm going to back Bernie til the end then likely vote 3rd party

 

The one thing that Hillary would be able to do is play politics. Between her and her husband in office you've got nearly a century of political experience and acumen to wheel and deal for political gains. And while she doesn't seem to have the same grand "Change everything" plan for politics, I'm willing to bet that the republicans would be far more willing to deal with her than they would with Bernie.

 

 

Republicans hate Hilary about as much as Hitler. They may have issues with Bernie's politics, but they despise Hilary on a personal level. I've never met one who even thinks that she's a decent human being.

[Leferd]

Republicans hate Hilary about as much as Hitler. They may have issues with Bernie's politics, but they despise Hilary on a personal level. I've never met one who even thinks that she's a decent human being.

I think that speaks more about the paranoia of the these people than about the Republican Party.

[BruceVC]

 

 

http://www.cityam.com/228884/global-terrorism-index-2015-mapped-terror-attack-deaths-and-economic-cost-hit-an-all-time-high-as-uk-is-hardest-hit-of-any-eu-country

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058

Thanks Elerond, I appreciate as usual your studious efforts to find relevant links to make a point

 

But I'm not sure if people  are not bothering to read my posts in detail or I'm not explaining my point properly, I did say what I mean by terrorist attacks " This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by  Islamic extremists So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya " 

 

 

So war ravaged countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dont count and neither does the violence we see committed by Al-Shabaab because they are involved in a civil war for decades. So  its interesting but not relevant to tell me "Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years." because I know Muslims represent the majority of victims....because much of the violence and civil wars is in Muslim countries 

 

So maybe I need to clarify the question, its not about number of victims but its about attacks from foreigners or domestic people who follow extremism but not in a war ...okay now that sounds complicated  Anyway my point still stands but I do think Pakistan may have actually been subjected to more terrorist attacks than the USA ?

 

 

So countries like India, Thailand, Pakistan, Sri Lankka, Nigeria that also countries that aren't ravaged by war (against terrorists) suffer much more terrorist attacks both in numbers and in fatalities than USA. Which is something that next president of USA should be aware especially when those countries are their allies, important for their big companies.

 

You right Elerond, okay I have to concede that my point is misleading but for example India hasn't had over 40 attacks or Sri Lanka? But anyway I retract my whole point because I meant to say " Western country " ...and that seems to lack empathy 

Edited February 21, 2016 by BruceVC

[Elerond]

You right Elerond, okay I have to concede that my point is misleading but for example India hasn't had over 40 attacks or Sri Lanka? But anyway I retract my whole point because I meant to say " Western country " ...and that seems to lack empathy

 

There has been about 5000 terrorist incidents in India between 2003-2014 according to Global Terrorism Database and those attacks have took over 5000 lives. In Sri Lanka there has been about 800 terrorist attacks that have took over 1000 lives

Edited February 21, 2016 by Elerond

[BruceVC]

 

You right Elerond, okay I have to concede that my point is misleading but for example India hasn't had over 40 attacks or Sri Lanka? But anyway I retract my whole point because I meant to say " Western country " ...and that seems to lack empathy

 

There has been about 5000 terrorist incidents in India between 2003-2014 according to Global Terrorism Database and those attacks have took over 5000 lives. In Sri Lanka there has been about 800 terrorist attacks that have took over 1000 lives

 

Elerond I just wanted to let everyone know I admitted I was wrong. I hope this allows other members to admit they wrong...if they are. One of the common issues I find on forums like this where people discuss politics is that many people have an issue admitting they wrong....its like everyone has to always be right. Anyway I don't feel like a fool admitting you were right, I feel better about myself 

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tE6T-ecmg

[Meshugger]

^That one was very well made. Awesome!

[Guard Dog]

Well, I have some homework to do catching up with this thread. It remains to be seen if what support Bush had will coalesce around Rubio. I'm hoping Carson & Kasich will understand both the futility of remaining in the race and the importance of an alternative to Trump being identified before Super Tuesday. If Trump has a big day there this thing is over. If it can be narrowed to a three horse race then maybe sanity can prevail.

 

I heard an interesting theory that Obama may nominate Orrin Hatch to the SCOTUS. If he does the Senate leadership should take that and be grateful. He figures to be to the left of Kennedy but he is certainly no Kagan or Breyer. I would be shocked if Obama did that but it does make sense in a way. Hatch is 82 and Obama would be betting a Hillary win puts that seat in play again. Plus it all but submarines any kind of confirmation fight and removes the chairman of the judiciary committee that is holding up his other appointments in one swoop.

[Tigranes]

Im on the phone so brief and messy but

 

1. The apple case is a bit different from prism and the rest of the surveillance apparatus. If as the fbi claims this case is just about a crimunals phone, i have no issue, crack away. The problem is, its not just a generic sluppery slope - the fbi and the gov are on record as specifically having tried hard to create universal back doors for years (google the clipper chip controversy in the 90s, and of course james comey doing pr these days trlling everyone encryption is evil). The state had been very blatantly pushing and thats why it is realistic to look at this as not just about one phone. Ideally we would find some way to unlovk that phone without setting a dangetous precedent but im not sure how.

 

2. The fundamental concerns with prism and other programs isnt 'privacy' in the bourgeois sense of let me watch my porn in peace. If it was this would be a no brainer. The founding principlea of all liberal democracies, especially America, is that you need people to congregate, communicate, and deliberate freely without fear of manipulation or punishment. Innumerable studies and real life applications show that people behave differently given the most innocuous of observation mechanismd. The problem of surveillance is always about the very core of political citizenship.

 

3. The 40 number you keep citing from a well known conservative think tank, ok, but as ive said above nobody has be3n able to actually prove the exact efficacy of, say, prism. The NSA admits this. But i have some synpathy for them. It is ignorant to demand specific individual cases where prism has caused someones ruined life or has caused the prevention of a terror attack. Prevention and deterrence are by nature resistant of such proof. Intelligence activity is complex and missing one program you can never say is or is not crucial. E.g. nyc subways spent millions after 911 to install new cameras and surveillance. At least of 2012 it has not been linked to a single terror attack prevention. So is it useless? Should it be scrapped? Hard to say. It is a risk game and it is a just in case game. To say we should OK prism just because of terrorism is to say we should also OK curfews and martial law and police states and closed borders and whatever else. You can never eliminate danger and you can never show exactly whether something makes us safer enough to be 'worth' the harms. You do have to make informed guesses, and you also have to work on broader moral groubnds, because it is indeed about stopping people getting killed and it is lso about the basic elements of democratic society.

[HoonDing]

Trump's a moronic blowhard, but he has his heart in the right place.

[ktchong]

Here is the rule of US politics in this celebrity-obsessed country:  Celebrities ALWAYS win when they run for political office. Only one celebrity has lost a political election, and that celebrity was Clay Aiken, who was an openly gay man running for congress in a conservative Southern state. All the other celebrities who ran for office - Ronald Regan, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Jerry Springer, Al Franken, Sonny Bono, etc. - every single one of them, won.   Donald Trump is popular than many of those other celebrities who ran for office *and* won. Given this country's track record, I am fairly certain that Donald Trump will become the next President of the United States. (Unfortunately.)

Edited February 21, 2016 by ktchong

[Guard Dog]

A Trump Presidency would not necesarily be a disaster. As long as he is man enough to understand what he knows and what he doesn't he can recruit a cabinet and staff of smart and capable people. Executive leadership is all about communicating a vision to your team and then getting out of their way and letting them excecute it. In fact some of our best Presidents have been "hands off" leaders and some of our worst have been micromanagers.

[Volourn]

"No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is  much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance  and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's  and information  gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since  2001 including any Muslim country?"

 

40 attacks? That's it? That is your proof? Muslim countries  are being attacked EVERY DAY by Islamic extremists.  Every single day multiple times.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Volourn

[Malcador]

As long as he is man enough to understand what he knows and what he doesn't he can recruit a cabinet and staff of smart and capable people. Executive leadership is all about communicating a vision to your team and then getting out of their way and letting them excecute it. In fact some of our best Presidents have been "hands off" leaders and some of our worst have been micromanagers.

Recall people saying similar about GWB

[HoonDing]

Bruce's jingoism juxtaposed with an anti-Chinese bias, while likely trolling, is still hilarious.

[Barothmuk]

 

 

 

So it looks like Hillary won.

I was scrolling through this woman's twitter at work. She has a Black Panthers avatar, quotes Malcolm X and yet calls herself a liberal, is an ardent Clinton supporter, considers Sanders a pie in the sky idealist who only cares about white people problems and opposes his moderate socdem reforms.

 

Just ... wat?

[Wrath of Dagon]

ps to wod-- there is no Constitutional right to have a peaceful and undisturbed festival, but there is a fundamental right to free speech. am likely to muddy the waters a bit, but part o' first amendment is the public forum doctrine.  if wod wants to hold an undisturbed festival, he should avoid sidewalks, streets and parks, and he should avoid making it open to the public.  over-simple observation is that streets, parks and sidewalks is fair game for protesters.  hold a street festival and the possibility that losers carrying pig heads and offensive placards becomes increasing likely.

If they're disturbing my festival, they're violating my right of free speech, no? How come you can't have a protest in the Supreme Court? That's also public property, but obviously they won't allow you to disrupt the proceedings. Nor can you protest inside any government building. You can protest outside all you want. The festival wasn't held on a side walk, they got a permit for the public space they used, so as long as they follow the laws, they can control that space for the duration of the permit. The protestors could also get a permit for the same space at a different time, and protest themselves silly, or they could protest outside. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, as absolutists would like us to believe. Someone's right of free speech doesn't mean I'm obligated to also listen to them while I'm going about my business.

[Rostere]

there is nothing ironic about gd's posting.

 

"That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948."

 

gd, and those like him, has been arguing the importance o' free speech since 1787... and before.  given you can't cite 1948, we will use skokie.  in 1977, the largely jewish community o' skokie illinois were understandably offended when illinois nazis chose to have a march through the streets o' their town.  the reaction o' the community were predictable.  most americans were offended by nazis parading down the streets of a quiet suburban town, but folks like gd were equal disturbed that the offensiveness o' speech could be provided as the rationale for denying a fundamental right to american citizens. if europe had waited until 1977 to suppress offensive speech in response to the plight o' the jewish community o' skokie, gd's current posting still would't result in irony. same scenario, but different year.

 

perhaps you feel that the jewish americans o' 1948 or 1977 were hypocritical, but there is nothing ironic about GD'S behavior.  his behavior is, thankfully, as predictable as were the folks living in skokie in 1977.  americans have a far greater respect for free speech than does most europeans (am knowing this offends many europeans, but is an inescapable conclusion) so it should come as no shock at all that in 1787, 1977 or 2016, folks such as gd is raging 'bout liberty and the ease with which some enlightened folks were willing to give up that liberty.  again, is precisely 'cause o'f folks like GD that America has a different perspective regarding free speech.  call it arrogance or obtuse if you wish, but GD'S demands to preserve liberty is in no way ironic.

 

again, duh.  is no ironic, or quixotic, or hyperbolic that can be reasonable attributed to GD'S posting that you identified.  the best you can argue is the hypocrisy o' some Americans... very predictable hypocrisy and is nothing particular ironic about hypocrisy.

 

I fear that what I was trying to say was completely lost on you. You are arguing out in empty air about something completely different. I understand that analogies in the form of fables are useful for getting children to understand things so here goes, I've made a little story for you:

 

All the Muslims Gromnir sees on TV are terrorists which chant "death to America" and similar. One day, Gromnir makes a business trip to the Indonesia. He visits several Muslim families and find out that they eat cheeseburgers, watch Game of Thrones and play Obsidian RPGs and are seemingly unaware of all the Muslims who want to steer planes into buildings, death to America and all that. Gromnir then writes about his findings on an Internet forums. "is kind of ironic that muslims were different than gromnir expected".

 

Ironic: happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.

 

Do you understand now? The irony is that from my perspective, actual Americans have a different opinion than expected.

 

I don't get why you insist so much on me citing some text on this matter. It is common knowledge and that entire story is the first thing which comes up when you discuss the history of hate speech laws in Sweden. The Nazi propagandist in question was called Einar Åberg. I can't find any good English sources on the Internet which talk about this at all (and I suspect the English literature on Swedish historical jurisprudence is very scarce...) but here is an article in Swedish which talks about the limits of free speech in Sweden. Check out the timeline near the bottom.

 

*insert more ros misapprehensions 'bout law*

 

for chrissakes...

 

the journalist article is much relevant given YOUR description o' how hate crimes work.  

 

"For an example of what not constitutes hate speech you have the statement "homosexuals are a cancerous tumor on society". What hate speech does encompass however, is for example the use of Nazi symbols in certain ways. It's not illegal with swastikas in games, movies, historical re-enaction et.c., but if you were to publicly hand out leaflets with swastikas, pictures of Hitler and an invitation to join your political party, that would be considered hate speech (but ONLY if this is done in the public sphere, so if I gave you one such invitation in a meeting between friends, it would not be illegal). Maybe you view hate speech laws as a slippery slope, but that's not how things have turned out in reality. So while I understand your criticism, as it turns out, this type of legislation does not end up being used wrongly."

 

is possible you is confused, but is nothing remote like common law defamation or incitement... which is why the eu had to come up with new laws and why the USA has no such. you use wiki to misunderstand? shocking.

 

But this specific example was chosen deliberately exactly to illustrate that difference, what hate speech does encompass which might be legal in the US. I try to illustrate the difference to you all, and you take this one specific example to say that hate speech is different from defamation or incitement. Of course it would seem different, if you look at only this example. Just how dense are you, really?

 

regardless, the article is talking exact 'bout what you deem to be hate speech. you didn't actual read it, did you? incitement can be criminalized in the US.  we criminalize incitement.  article makes that very point. however, we don't have special rules for classes and categories o' people.

 

Yes, I read the article. And no, it does not talk about hate speech, that is, "hets mot folkgrupp" as it is defined in Swedish law. Let's see what the article mentions as hate speech:

 

"bigoted speech, blasphemy, blasphemy to which foreigners may respond with attacks on Americans or blasphemy or flag burning or anything else"

 

But none of these have anything to do with hate speech as familiar to me except possibly "bigoted speech". Bigoted speech would be considered hate speech if it is essentially libel or slander, but directed against a group of people.

 

So what does the article mention as separate from hate speech?

 

"fighting words" - Yeah, this is separate from hate speech.

 

"true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct" - The difference here between American and Swedish law is that the the crime of hate speech can include threats towards groups of people which are not likely to produce any imminent illegal conduct. The crime lies rather in the intent, or intended end goal of the incitement.

 

“group libel” - Apparently this is contested. But this would definitely fall into the category of hate speech, as stated before.

 

“hostile environment harassment law” - Seems to be contested, so I won't comment.

 

So, in fact, the reality of what "hate speech" encompasses if in fact to a large degree overlapping with what is illegal in the US.

 

So yeah, that means that in my opinion, that defamation and hate speech are similar. With the difference - judging from actual cases - that hate speech also includes threats, non-imminent threats, abstract threats (symbols of genocidal ideologies et.c.), which is what I was saying all along. So that's the long explanation of why defamation in the US legal sense of the word is similar to hate speech, in the Swedish legal sense of the term.

 

burn a cross on a person's lawn in the US and you is likely gonna be criminalized for any number o' different violations o' state criminal codes. however, what we do not have is special categories o' crimes that is dependent on the race, color, creed, or gender o' the speaker or listener.

 

But the crime of hate speech is not in any way "dependent on the race, color, creed, or gender o' the speaker or listener". And I have no idea where you would even get that idea from. I think you might be referring to the concept of a "hate crime" which is a different thing.

[Rostere]

And for more on-topic discussion:

 

"Why I'm more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump"

 

"Donald Trump's Rise is the Rejection of more than a Quarter of Bush Republicanism"

 

"Marco Rubio is the real Bush in the 2016 race"

 

Rubio has risen to don the mantle of neocon darling. Luckily, because of his extreme-right views on other issues like taxes and abortion he's pretty much unelectable in a general election.

 

 

As long as he is man enough to understand what he knows and what he doesn't he can recruit a cabinet and staff of smart and capable people. Executive leadership is all about communicating a vision to your team and then getting out of their way and letting them excecute it. In fact some of our best Presidents have been "hands off" leaders and some of our worst have been micromanagers.

Recall people saying similar about GWB

Yeah, this is pretty much the danger with Trump. A Trump/Rubio ticket would be horrifying, potentially even more catastrophic for the US than GWB/Cheney.

[Gromnir]

took you a long time to respond, and that is what you come up with?

 

again, it still ain't irony.  is a difference 'tween irony and hypocrisy.  is a difference 'tween irony and simple ignorance... something don't become ironic 'cause you is wilfully obtuse.  dramatic irony can happen when audience/reader is aware o' information unknown to the characters in the play/book/movie, but such use o' irony is inappropriate as you is not a character from a play.  did you sudden become aware when GD posted in defense o' speech that Americans actual were serious 'bout free speech rights?  as a character from a play, if you had been somehow kept in the dark about American pov o' free speech and your only previous experience were based on the 2014 article you link, then we can see ros as a character exemplifying dramatic irony.  unfortunately, you are the freaking audience. you saw GUARD DOG's posting in defense o' free speech as ironic? sadly, this is a misuse o' the term. perhaps you and alanis morissette can create a support group?  dunno.  given that the US did not choose to suppress free speech in 1787, 1948 or 1977, or at anytime since then, it stands to reason that folks such as GD, ordinary Americans, rejected the pleas o' offended groups hundreds and even thousands o' times.  were anybody on these boards genuine surprised that Gromnir and others posted in defense o' free speech rights?  no?  GD's behavior were the expected and quite possibly the norm.  is why there were no actual surprise at behavior incongruous with what one would expect.  point out jewish-americans in 1977 or 1948 were offended by nazi propaganda, or that black groups were offended by kkk rallies, or that catholics and christians were offended by jon stewart's vagina-manger does not sudden make GD's behavior ironic.  

 

thanks for final posting a link, but am also amused if you thinks we should be convinced by a swedish article from 2014 that doesn't even identify the s'posed jewish-american groups that convinced sweden to change its free speech laws... and as we already noted, the existence o' such wouldn't create irony.  is also, if is accurate, it is a pretty sad commentary on swedes that they didn't follow America's lead and side with defending liberty.

 

 

"Of course it would seem different, if you look at only this example. Just how dense are you, really?"

 

all the examples is gonna be different.  you already got defamation and incitement just as does the US.  the US doesn't have hate speech laws. the reason why the examples is different is because defamation and incitement is fundamental different.  how obtuse are you gonna be 'bout this? sweden and other euro nations had to come up with new laws 'cause your previous legal traditions did not provide a basis for criminalizing and punishing those behaviors you now, as a society, find intolerable. 

 

am sorry, but from start to finish you is simple being obtuse.  your ignorance makes irony possible?  so now your ignorance is justification for seeing defamation and hate speech as similar?  truth is a defense against defamation, and opinion is NOT considered defamatory, even in sweden. for chrissakes, for defamation you gotta prove injury except in cases of libel where certain categories is considered inherent damaging.  point out that your ancestors raped Gromnir's ancestors is not defamation.

 

"I guess I owe people like you some kind of thanks. Hundreds of years ago, when my ancestors and distant cousins were raping and killing your Indian ancestors and stealing their land, people like you made all of that possible. I can't say it feels very good now, but I'm sure you gave those old Europeans one hell of a good time in America, at the expense of all the Indians. I'm sure my ancestors did not call your ancestors "terrorists", but there must have been other words - "savage brutes", "filthy beasts", "barbarians" - words justifying revenge attacks on your women and children for resisting your ethnic cleansing."

 

is offensive and makes ros look bad, but ain't defamatory.  the only person whose reputation were damaged when you shared such thoughts were ros.  we can't show that we suffered any kinda damage.  heck, we can't even claim that our feelings were hurt as the statement were utter ridiculous, but hurt feelings is not actionable... save for when re-imagined as hate crimes.

 

even sweden's peculiar Criminal defamation laws wouldn't seem similar to hate.  read actual laws and you is gonna see.  call somebody, "a dirty catholic who should burn in the hell he imagined," is not gonna be criminalized defamation even in sweden.  call somebody, "a dirty catholic child pornographer who should burn in the hell he imagined," is gonna get you defamation in sweden or the US.  again, your defamation laws weren't enough... weren't even close.  is precisely why you need hate laws to criminalize those who offend. 

 

is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but you show little interest in fixing that shortcoming.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

edit: we post linky to ros' rape post just so it not seem like Gromnir did anything funny and imagine a person or group o' people making offensive comments.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66123-israel-vs-palestine/?p=1473922

Edited February 22, 2016 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

As long as he is man enough to understand what he knows and what he doesn't he can recruit a cabinet and staff of smart and capable people. Executive leadership is all about communicating a vision to your team and then getting out of their way and letting them excecute it. In fact some of our best Presidents have been "hands off" leaders and some of our worst have been micromanagers.

Recall people saying similar about GWB

 

Consider that if Bush picked someone other than Cheney as VP and had Robert Gates for defense secretary from the start instead of Rumsfeld, he'd probably have a much more successful presidency. Believe it or not, I also think Trump understands foreign policy much better than GWB did.