What a horridly heterophobic rant.
It has been demonstrated that the intelligence agencies (plural) in the US government is the tail that wags the dog. This is historically true and more than likely true today as well. When you've got the dirt on many people, how tempting would it be to leverage that into getting your way? It's a temptation many could not avoid exploiting.
I was going to say that.
RSA compromised with money. Cisco compromised already documented. Juniper? I don't know but I wouldn't doubt it.
NSA, you've turned the world against the US and all its businesses. Happy yet?
With the failure of so many blue cities and states, it should be increasingly more obvious that their philosophy/ideology is wrong. Issues like gun control invariably fail to account for the increase in crime which results. (Interestingly, states which outlawed radar detectors enjoyed better road safety when those bans were lifted, so why can't they accept the same for gun laws? Unfair comparison? Maybe.) The practice of taxing to provide too much to people and making them dependent on the government will result in a strain on the economy and the local tax payers. Some people will continue living in such areas while others will certainly want to leave which certainly decreases the people from which they can leech taxes which means they will have to increase taxes to compensate and the downward spiral continues.
Why do they not get it? Also, who are they giving these government contracts to? Their friends? Yeah, they are. That kind of crap needs to stop too.
It's supposed to be the courts. But when the courts rule one way and then law enforcement ignores it, we're just lost. It's depressing. Law enforcement will, for example, trample various right and punish locally even executing prisoners (calling it an accident) when they know the judiciary will rule against them. It's sick. It's disgusting. We don't have rule of law. We have rule of governments.
> They would have to dig it out from above
Or, leave it where it is for a future TBM to run into.
At the moment, until the people can trust their government again, participating in government makes you a bad guy especially if your job is essentially protecting the bad guys.
The most significant move to protect the security of the US is for the US to stop ficking with people in other nations. While I recognize that won't stop the Chinese or the Israelis (the Israelis will consider the US an enemy if we stop supporting them) it's a step in the direction of regaining the trust of the people of the US and the other nations of the world. Without trust, we don't have anything... or we won't for long to be sure.
The world is already routing around the damage.
Put that experience on a resume and you're likely to see more rejections than you would expect normally. There was a time when "government job" meant something but now it means something else entirely to a growing number of people and businesses out there. Things are getting polarized. Working and living in the DC area showed me exactly how polarized they are even 3-4 years ago.
Federal Reserve Act + 16th Amendment + Declaration of War, 6 April 1917 + Selective Service Act.
Between 1911 and 1917, the entire system was mechanically produced. All that remained was incremental turning of the gears.
The term "Christian" means so many different things to so many different people that it doesn't have much meaning at all any more.
There, that is your arrogance, right there. It has TREMENDOUS meaning for those who identify themselves as Christians. This is true even if it does not serve your purposes of taxonomy. The taxonomist is the most onerous of oppressors, along with the statistician.
"If I were to walk into Wal-Mart and start shouting out racist epithets or other inflammatory language, I can expect them to throw me out of their store. They have that right as the owners of private property, just as I could throw someone out of my own home if they said such a thing or otherwise offended me."
Sure, if you are shouting and creating a disturbance that would make sense, regardless of what exactly you were shouting. And if you were in MY store being aggressive/insulting to other customers or employees you would certainly be asked to desist and then quickly after to leave, if you did not.
But I dont believe that is the sort of situation we have here. Was he assaulting anyone? Or was he just rambling on about what he believes? It was my impression it's the latter. And it was on a show that normally spends a lot of time with him rambling about whatever comes to mind, was my impression, is that not correct?
" One could make an argument that the notion of
You dont know who to educate, or just who to avoid.
Will just bring people to suspect gulags, re-education camps, and the like."
Huh? Sorry I do not follow you at all here. I was just saying I would rather the racists have and exercise their first amendment rights, let them speak, and rebut them, than to have them driven underground and have no idea who around me is in that group. And if you have the empathy to imagine yourself as a racist for a moment, consider this as well. If the views you hold, for whatever reason, are forbidden from expression, then you will never see those views laid out and analyzed and rebutted clearly. There is a natural assumption that if the other side of the argument will not even debate the issue, their position is weak and likely wrong. This will make you much less likely to ever change your mind on the subject.
But if you are free to argue your views and people, instead of screaming you down, calling you names, calling the cops, getting you fired from your job, etc... if people instead of doing that simply pointed out, calmly and politely, the reasons they disagree, your chances of re-examining the subject and changing your mind will be much higher.
And I think it's really, really key here to focus on eliminating rac*ism* rather than rac*ists*. We dont want to get rid of the people. We just want them to learn better, right?
That's where borders on the kingdom come in handy.
"However, being as there is "Duck Dynasty" merchandise being sold everywhere now, and plenty of like-minded people who support his homophobic stance, there is a fair chance that this will produce more, not less, revenue for the family."
There is also the Streisand affect, as well as the natural resistance to being told what to think and what thoughts you are allowed to say or not.
I think this is a real danger with all political correctness, whether private or public. And I am afraid I cannot agree that A&E is a fully private entity. Unfortunately we live in a world where my pocket is constantly being picked in order to broadcast 'public service announcements' to preach stuff at me that I disagree with and find offensive. A world where television broadcasters are certainly regulated, directly and indirectly, by the government. It's by no means obvious whether or not A&E would have taken the same step, were it a fully private entity acting in a free market.
I agree that the comments quoted here are ignorant and wrong, by the way. But I do not think that pillorying people for making such statements is helpful. What do you accomplish? You build up walls, you make people afraid to *speak* such things perhaps, but they continue to think them. So now you dont know who it is thinking these thoughts, since their expression is forbidden. You dont know who to educate, or just who to avoid. And they (rightly) resent the coercion and will look for chances to strike back. It's a completely counterproductive way to deal with it, it weakens and divides civil society.
The cure for bad speech is more speech, not less.
I think wrestling is perfectly cromulent for the Syfylis channel.