Ben Carson Gum is a Holocaust of flavor in my mouth!



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    Self-defense wasn't even on the table when the amendment was debated

    It was debated because it was just assumed.

    Anyone with a gun was already defending their home.

    The militia was an extension of that assumed self-defense for the larger scale, not the other way around.

    It could easily read as

    "As one expects to defend their own home, a militia is necessary for the state to defend its home."



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    Iran

    To be fair, Iran had a Manchurian leader that advocated created chaos to bring about the 12th Imam.

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Al-Qaeda

    Was lead by a guy that wanted political power under the guise of religious aims.

    It's quite easy to see, especially when cell members are caught in strip joints, that it was all rhetoric.

    However, ISXX is quite serious in their desire to rebuild the Islamic world.

    They put a big X through Greece and France (or was it Spain.... don't remember) where they want to reestablish the Ottoman empire.


  • BINNED

    @dkf said:

    It might take some of those ugly things like shooting them as well. A good strategy does not rely on only one style of attack on their position

    In dealing with Daesh, yes, it is now an open wound attracting germs and scum from all over the world

    @dkf said:

    I don't know the solution, but I do know that neither just shooting them nor just ridiculing them will be enough.

    The policy should have a plan to uproot fundamentalism everywhere, otherwise you end up in an eternal game of whack-a-mole (there is no single head to crush).
    Pakistan should find another Binazir Butto, it could be Malala in making. Saudi Arabia is the worst place for women, but that needs to change because it is the real evil with lots of cash and in spite of being a US ally :wtf:. Iraq has progressive Kurdish regions, they could be helped to succeed in some national election. Iran has a high female education rate; a woman president in Iran could be as good as having another Binazir Butto in Pakistan. Egypt and Syria are now a mess, and I do not know enough about them I hope the policy makers do.
    Considering that Islamic fundamentalism started with Islamic revolution in Iran, I think the the best policy should be towards establishing a democracy there. Iran should be once again the closest ally of US and Israel in the region.



  • @dse said:

    lots of cash and in spite of being a US ally :wtf:

    Because US isn't interested in exporting freedom, but in keeping that part of the world stable.

    And by stable, they mean

    1. not leaking their ideology into new territories.
    2. maintaining an open market with the US.

    Because despite what one thinks, a nation is an animal, that needs resources to survive, and we're still very much survival of the fittest.


    Ideas unite and divide, and those divisions become entities that fight for survival, or for mutually beneficial agreements, preferring the second option when available.

    But if the ideas are too far apart, they compete for resources.

    Thus, a theocratic nation is never going to cooperate with western secular freedom.


  • BINNED

    @xaade said:

    Because US isn't interested in exporting freedom, but in keeping that part of the world stable.

    It makes sense, why not? But it is not working it seems. The snake is biting back you see. From supporting Al-Qada to ISIS, and Taliban, and ... they do not spend all that cash buying airplanes and useless junk. It is in the best interest of US to consider long-time gain too. The stakes are much higher now because of shit like Nuclear weapons.

    @xaade said:

    Thus, a theocratic nation is never going to cooperate with western secular freedom

    They also have national interests, US should cash in the fact that they are allies. I am not suggesting breaking the relations, that would be another Iran or North Korea (that nothing can be improved when there are no relations). Having relations however does not mean to be their bitch. When was the last time US objected to human rights violations in UAE? US should work on energy independence to make that clear and have the stronger hand, it means investing on both nuclear and green power.



  • @dse said:

    But it is not working it seems

    Mostly because we fail hard at understanding their culture.

    Most people are unaware that several of the "nations" are barely that, and most of what goes down is sectarian warlord type warfare.

    And it seems that the government politician types aren't quite aware of how much information travels, even classified information (if there is such a thing anymore). Which is why the Benghazi thing was exposed so much.

    It's only a matter of time before someone realizes that email communication exists on both servers, and eventually hunts down a stray email somewhere.

    It's no coincidence that the government is interested in regulating the internet.

    @dse said:

    When was the last time US objected to human rights violations in UAE?

    And yet our current President feels inclined to object to the far lesser degree of them in China.

    Chinese Communism is weakening fast, and their government is aware of it. Hopefully it's only a matter of time before they peacefully evolve into a true Republic.

    But our relations in China is threatened by Russia whispering sweetness to them. In fact, China is poising itself to overtake the dollar, and they may just make it happen. If not, they'll at least create a East-West monetary dichotomy.

    @dse said:

    it means investing on both nuclear and green power.

    Sustainable green energy doesn't have political investors though. That's part of the problem.

    The liberals don't understand energy economy and backed unsustainable options, and the conservatives aren't encouraging energy companies to research sustainable options enough.

    Sorry, but the energy problem is not going to be solved by a bunch of nutjob startups that think solar is the energy hammer.

    And people are still too afraid of nuclear energy despite it being much safer than ever, and the fact that we aren't screwed for land like Japan is. We don't have to build next to a sea or on a fault.



  • @xaade said:

    Sorry, but the energy problem is not going to be solved by a bunch of nutjob startups that think solar is the energy hammer.

    Agreed. While I see solar (possibly including SPSes, if we can get up the funding and political will to build one or more of them, something that is highly unlikey to occur) as having a place in a sustainable power strategy, it would never be the centerpiece of it. At this stage, photovoltaic cells still use more power to build than they would generate over their operational lifespan, and solar-thermal stations require a funding outlay nearly as large as a nuclear plant. Both of those are improving as we develop them, but they simply won't be enough unless some massive catastrophe wipes out large swaths of the population without also destroying the infrastructure and/or throwing the society into a terminal downwards spiral.

    @xaade said:

    And people are still too afraid of nuclear energy despite it being much safer than ever, and the fact that we aren't screwed for land like Japan is. We don't have to build next to a sea or on a fault.

    Yes and no. There are - and have been for quite some time - much safer options for nuclear reactor design, ones which don't involve nearly as much excess reactivity to be effective, and where a fault is negative feedback (that is, it stops running if the system fails, rather than becoming unstable as many current designs do). Unfortunately, most of these designs haven't been tested on more than an experimental scale, and no one knows what problems may arise in scalling up to even a pilot plant size.

    More importantly, neither those designs nor the current ones are economically viable, even with the current situation regarding fossil fuels. The real dirty little secret of the nuclear industry isn't Karen Silkwood or Yucca Mountain; its that nuclear plants cost more to operate than they earn, by at least an order of magnitude. During the first part of the Cold War, when there was a massive build-up of nuclear plants in several countries, the majority of those plants were heavily subsidized both for contruction and operation, not because of energy concerns, but because of military ones. Most of the plants built prior to 1965 were either used to operate one or military installation, or were designed to be easily converted to breeder operation for the purpose of generating plutonium. However, when the public started getting nervous about nuclear power - and just as important, the military started to realize just how big a target a large nuclear plant was for both terrorists and nuclear-weapon conflicts - the political will rapidly shifted, and the companies stopped building them, not just because the public didn't trust them, but also because they simply didn't make economic sense.

    And they still don't. What they do make is geopolitical sense, and probably environmental sense too, but there would have to be much tighter control on their operations if the latter is to hold, and convincing a sceptical public of the former would be an arduous task at best, especially since many of the pro-nuclear side are betting on fusion rather than fission. Convincing people to go with existing technology rather than waiting for something promising to be a lot safer (but which may not be feasible) is harder than it sounds.


  • BINNED

    @xaade said:

    Most people are unaware that several of the "nations" are barely that, and most of what goes down is sectarian warlord type warfare.

    Cultures change with each corner stone. UAE culture is about 150 years in the past, give more freedom to women and it can get ahead at least 50 years in 1 year.

    @xaade said:

    Which is why the Benghazi thing was exposed so much ...
    email communication exists on both servers ...

    You watch too much Fox news! seriously you bring up fucking emails? it is Bush the imbecile that opened the can of worms by attacking Iraq. My first rule to elect a president is to see if they can talk like adults!

    @xaade said:

    Chinese Communism is weakening fast, and their government is aware of it. Hopefully it's only a matter of time before they peacefully evolve into a true Republic.

    Hopefully, but when I talk with any Chinese they all seem to be content, maybe it is their culture? I am afraid it will be yet another can of worms but this one large enough that I will finally have to find a way to go live on the moon.

    @xaade said:

    And people are still too afraid of nuclear energy despite it being much safer than ever, and the fact that we aren't screwed for land like Japan is. We don't have to build next to a sea or on a fault.

    I agree here



  • @dse said:

    My first rule to elect a president is to see if they can talk like adults!

    While Baby DocBush was indeed an idiot, or at the very least heavily isolated from reality by his keepers, he wasn't nearly as stupid as he sounded. All those flubs? Scripted. His accent? Totally fake; his real accent is a mix of Rhode Island and central Connecticut (think Kelsey Grammer or Jim Backus). He played people very effectively by looking like an imbecile, and both his fans and his enemies lapped it up like it was a bowl of cream.



  • @dse said:

    You watch too much Fox news! seriously you bring up fucking emails?

    I don't watch Fox news, and I'm thoroughly convinced this is the case.

    And even if it wasn't the case, something serious happened.

    One doesn't just say, "it's just protests", withhold troops, and watch citizens die, and no one knows what the hell happened or who was giving orders.

    If it wasn't to do with Hillary and emails, it was something.

    And besides, our foreign relations POI is using a private email server for political purposes. That's enough to bother me..... greatly.

    @dse said:

    Hopefully, but when I talk with any Chinese they all seem to be content, maybe it is their culture?

    From personal experience, it's partly to do with Confucius emphasis on collectivism and submissiveness to government being gravely misunderstood.

    But, one should research China's cultural revolution, if one wants to know how bad Communism was for the Chinese.

    @dse said:

    it is Bush the imbecile that opened the can of worms by attacking Iraq

    There's a lot more in our history of Middle East relations than just that. In fact, that did very little to affect our relations with the Middle East. Most on either side of the political spectrum, from moderate to extremist, didn't care much for Saddam.

    I'd say most of the screw ups were during Bush Sr. and Clinton presidencies, and what we saw beyond Iraq (Al Q, ISXX, Hamas, etc) were due to that period of time.



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    imbecile

    It was definitely poker face. You only need to compare his speeches with him post-presidency calling for charity during natural disasters (Haiti, etc).

    You can see some of it break during the 911 speech too.

    He is not stupid. Everything was intentional.

    I'm confident he wanted to hold Iraq as a strategic point and he had beef with Saddam. It just didn't pan out.



  • Exactly. He could have taught Peter Falk something about obfuscating stupidty. The truth is that Shrub and Embalmer are roughly equal in intelligence - a bit above average, but hardly geniuses - but Bush wanted to make ordinary people forget that he was an aristocrat, while Obama has to work hard at not looking like a sterotype in order to get taken seriously. Both are very good at playing to their audiences, but not much else.



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    Obama has to work hard at not looking like a sterotype in order to get taken seriously

    Maybe externally, but there's nothing about him internally that fits the stereotypes.

    Mr. Beverly "I drove through a ghetto... once."



  • Just so.



  • @xaade said:

    And by stable, they mean

    1. not leaking their ideology into new territories.
    2. maintaining an open market with the US.

    I once read about the 1990–’91 Gulf War, β€œIf the main export of Kuwait had been oranges, it’s doubtful the world would have reacted the way it did.”


  • @ScholRLEA said:

    At this stage, photovoltaic cells still use more power to build than they would generate over their operational lifespan,

    I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The energy payback time of solar cells is now ranging from 0.75 to 3.5 years, depending on which type of cell you're producing. With a lifetime of about 30 years for one cell.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032112006478



  • Ah, my information is clearly out of date. It has been quite some time since I really looked into it. Thank you for the correction.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Rhywden said:

    The energy payback time of solar cells is now ranging from 0.75 to 3.5 years, depending on which type of cell you're producing.

    Did you check where they were putting those cells? The payback time in Phoenix might be quite quick, whereas the time here would be much longer. (We're both cloudier and further north than anywhere in the continental 48 states. This is a shit part of the world for solar power other than for very low-power applications.)


  • BINNED

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/ben-carson-is-wrong-on-guns-and-the-holocaust.html

    The failure of Jews to mount an effective defense against the Waffen-SS in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 provides a good example of what happens when ordinary citizens with small arms go up against a well-equipped force.
    ...
    If the United States is going to arrive at a workable compromise solution to its gun problem, it will not be accomplished through the use of historical analogies that are false, silly and insulting. Similarly, coming to terms with a civilizational breach of the magnitude of the Holocaust requires a serious encounter with history, rather than political sloganeering that exploits history as a prop for mobilizing one’s base.


  • β™Ώ (Parody)

    Oh, well, if the New York Times says it ain't so...

    Of course, we could look at the differences between an occupying invasion force and police units operating domestically, but that sort of nuance is inconvenient.



  • True, but Carson's argument ignores the fact that there was significant armed resistance against the Nazi Party in 1933 and 1934, and that it was exactly that resistance which let the Nazis justify their subsequent power grab to the majority of Germans.


  • β™Ώ (Parody)

    If only Germany had arson control.



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    that it was exactly that resistance which let the Nazis justify their subsequent power grab to the majority of Germans.

    Rapists cause rape.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @xaade said:

    Rapists cause rape.

    But deceptive trannies don't.


  • β™Ώ (Parody)

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    @xaade said:
    Rapists cause rape.

    But deceptive trannies don't.

    What if they're also white frat boys?



  • This post is deleted!


  • Then they're appropriating female oppression, and that's offensive.



  • #IStandWithLiars


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Rhywden said:

    Sometimes a spade is a spade.

    You might want to be careful with that particular expression, in this particular instance. :P



  • I'm not saying that the resistance caused the Nazi Party, or that they wouldn't have found some other way of gaming the system if that hadn't worked, just that it is the sort of thing that can rebound on you unexpectedly. Law of unintended consequences and all that. It isn't an argument against resisting tyranny, or even against the right to bear arms, just that spin control can often counter it more effectively than counter-force will. I'm just pointing out that there is a flaw in Carson's argument as a matter of historical record.



  • Good grief. Is there any term left which is not listed in there?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    That particular racial slur pre-dates UD by...a century. So yeah, you can't really blame it on UD.



  • man - a sexist slur used to refer to a female with a noticeable amount of masculine traits.

    Hey, man, you're just like us. That's why I forget when I just joke around.



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    I'm just pointing out that there is a flaw in Carson's argument as a matter of historical record.

    Carson's argument requires re-envisioning the entire country in a way that would require years of change.

    Pointing out that one resistance that occurred after all things were already snowballing in Hitler's favor, isn't a good comparison. But to be honest, there isn't a good comparison to be made. The base concept is that if everyone had arms, then it would be harder for such a person to gain power.

    But if I envision an armed resistance force of a minority in America, the Black Panther party comes to mind, and given their current nature, I can't really compare the two.

    Katheleen Cleaver on New Black Panther Party

    KC: Are these those goddamn fools called New Black Panthers? Because they are not Black Panthers. They are posers, agents and morons, as far as I’m concerned. Most of them don’t know anything about the Black Panther Party, either.

    From what I've seen, when you have an oppressed minority that has ready access to arms, you end up with a diverse expression of how to push back against that oppression. Some forms would make the country better, some would make it worse.

    But that's central to the argument of the 2nd amendment.

    You get very good and very bad things out of weapons.

    But all of this is results-based law. And I don't agree with that manner of law-making. But that's the left's impression of good law-making, so I have to describe what I mean in those terms. And that's where my arguments fall flat.

    My arguments lie in principle. And that's where they are the strongest. A person has a right to defend themselves on equal ground. And the most equal ground in America is a single pistol or rifle.

    In the end, it's all about the hearts of people. Guns don't make or break that, they just make people more equal in their capacity for self-defense.


    I think there's a big distinction between countries in Europe and America, in that it is easier to maintain restricted access to arms in Europe. I think that's going to change as the immigration numbers increase in Europe, and as Russia pushes westward, but we'll see. History says it will, but the examples history provides have much less advanced countries. Remember that while immigration brings diversity and increases productivity, it always brings new forms of crime as well. West Europe is rather sheltered from the realities of the world around it, so I'm not sure how it will deal with these problems when they come home to roost.

    It may be that countries in West Europe, may find themselves unable to maintain a gun-free society.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    @Rhywden said:
    Sometimes a spade is a spade.

    You might want to be careful with that particular expression, in this particular instance. :P

    I thought that that was the intended purpose of using that particular expression, in this particular instance. πŸ˜›


  • Fake News

    Another excellent example of armed self-defense by minorities - aside from the Black Panthers - would be:



  • They seem to be less violent.

    BPP would often push the boundaries of ethics from an external view. But it's hard to tell where the reality lie. Because the white government controlled perception, the group could have gone either way.

    However, the New BPP is obviously violent. Standing in front of voting locations and threatening people. Statements they've made inciting violence. And if you visit their sites and read, it's clear they have an extremist slant and cooperate with extremists religious organizations (from various religions).

    It's good to see an early BPP member react to them as I quoted.

    That gives me a better indicator of the original nature of the group.



  • (It also ignores that the Nazis passed zero anti-gun laws during their rise to power.)


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @blakeyrat said:

    (It also ignores that the Nazis passed zero anti-gun laws during their rise to power.)

    πŸ‘¦ Do you have any anti-gun laws?

    πŸ™‹ "Nein, mien herr"

    πŸ‘¦ So I can just get me a gun.

    πŸ™‹ "Ja, mien herr"

    πŸ‘¦ Okay, I'll just get me some guns and some Jews and...

    πŸ‘¦ β˜€πŸ”« πŸ™‹
    {gets shot fifty times by army of Nazis on patrol and run over by tanks}



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    πŸ™‹ "Nein, mien herr"

    I will never look at that emoji the same way again.



  • You could draw certain parallels with the Palestinians defending themselves against Israeli aggression here.




  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @blakeyrat said:

    (It also ignores that the Nazis passed zero anti-gun laws during their rise to power.)

    Yeah, you're wrong there.



  • Those 1972 Nazis!!!


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @blakeyrat said:

    Those 1972 Nazis!!!

    Firearm registration, so they knew where to look when/if it came time to confiscate them:

    The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:

    Exemptions for Nazis:

    The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka the Nazi party) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]

    Jews could not purchase guns or ammunition:

    Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revision that such permits would no longer be issued to Jews or any company part-owned by Jews. Jews were consequently forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[5]

    And, more about licensing:

    Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

    More about disarming Jews:

    On November 11, 1938 (the day after Kristallnacht) the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons were promulgated by Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, effectively depriving all Jews living under the Third Reich of the right to possess any form of weapons including truncheons, knives, or firearms and ammunition.[7]

    Before that, some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'".[5]

    I was on mobile, or I would have posted all of this.

    Suck it blakeyrat.



  • I ain't reading that shit.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Well, you don't have to read it. It is enough to know that you were wrong.



  • There is knowledge, and then there is caring. I do not care. Thus I have the purity of knowledge-ness-less.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    If the Fourth Reich rises, I hope they make you develop Rails applications.


  • BINNED

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/05/ben-carson-believes-joseph-built-egypts-pyramids-to-store-grain-and-it-just-may-get-him-some-votes/

    Or when speaking about real issues is difficult, lets make up some shit and hypothetical scenarios about [baby] Hitler and Holocaust and zombies to motivate the crazy.

    Egypt to Ben Carson: no, the pyramids were not for storing grain you dumb shit.


Log in to reply