First, nice paraphrasing what you say are gods perfect words. He would be pissed at you fudging them to protect Donny…if he existed. You fucked up big time. These are the commandments dummy….

#1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

#2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

#3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

#4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (That day was Saturday.)

#5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

#6. Thou shalt not kill.

#7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

#8. Thou shalt not steal.

#9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

#10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Now that he’s president and has murdered thousands, which of these has Trump not broken repeatedly?

1. He has always put himself before any god.
2. He made a gold idol of himself and displayed it for you to worship.
3. He has only ever misused the name of god. He wouldn’t know how to use it in any way besides as a sword or shield.
4. He fucks porn stars on the sabbath, and cheats at golf, and business…he’s never kept anything holy in his life, especially the sabbath.
5. He’s said some terrible things about his immigrant parents and by not fighting the charges but paying millions in fines has admitted they were racist bastards.
6. He killed hundreds as collateral damage from his intended targets for murder.
7. Adultery….he’s never been with any woman he didn’t cheat on, especially all those immigrants he married.
8. Theft…Convicted repeatedly of theft by fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions.
9. Has never given honest testimony or statements in his life, he’s incapable of honesty.
10. He covets everything he sees, especially his friend’s wives that he brags about trying to sleep with and their land he tries to steal.

What was your point? That rapist DJT is really the anti-Christ? 😂

Side note, his home in Florida is seeing a number of biblical plagues…disease like malaria and leprocy are becoming rampant (thanks to anti science health policies), the seas are boiling (over 101 degrees), and a plague of semi-aquatic reptiles are decimating wildlife (pythons), rivers are turning red (https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/florida-creek-red-blood), livestock pestilence (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7140416/mad-cow-disease-florida-us-outbreak-usda/)…just need darkness (wait for the next hurricane). Sounds like any first born children should probably leave the state immediately! 😂

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

A tribute to Oscar Wilde?

Wilde had been incarcerated in Reading after being convicted of gross indecency with other men in 1895 and sentenced to two years' hard labour in prison. -wiki

HM Prison Reading was formerly known as Reading Gaol

The Ballad of Reading Gaol
BY OSCAR WILDE
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45495/the-ballad-of-reading-gaol

(Edit)
I also read somewhere Robert (Bob) Ross was a good friend of his, who he stayed with after leaving prison, and wrote "The Ballad of Reading Gaol".

Already have the highest level of incarceration in the world. How's that workin out aside from the free labour and profits for private prisons? Probably need more indentured workers in the system to compete with the Chinese using Uyghur labour?

nice, but also somewhat painful to see them using manual labour: how much better could they do, using more modern techniques to make the same soap?

your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation.

I'm afraid I've never argued that, I can lead by agreeing whole heartedly that such a contention is false.

I merely pointed out that in a video about how 'capitalism didn't create the iphone', the authors own examples of innovations that lead to the iphone are all 100% from within an economy based on capitalism. My very first post stated clearly that it's not a purely capitalist system, but that it is noteworthy that not a one of the examples chosen by the author making his point came from a socialist country.

Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer innovations
Well, I could actually. If you want to deny the fact that Russia basically halted their computer R&D multiple times in the 70s, 80s and 90s in place of just stealing American advances because they were so far behind I can cite examples for you...

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately.
1. Factually, no they are not. The fastest network gear, CPU and GPU tech are all base on American research and innovation. America is still hands down leading the field in all categories but manufacturing cost, but that isn't for reasons of technological advancement but instead a 'different approach' to environmental and labour regulations.
2. Within the 5G space you alluded to earlier, there is an additional answer. Their 5G isn't 'better' but rather 'cheaper' for reasons stated in 1. The existence of their 'own' 5G tech though isnt' because Huawei's own R&D was caught up so fast through their own innovation. Instead if you look into the history of network companies, Canadian giant Nortel was giving Cisco a solid run for it's money for a time, until they utterly collapsed because of massive corporate espionage stealing almost all of their tech and under cutting them on price. China's just using the same playbook as Russia to catch up.

Russia beat America into space

Well, if you want to go down that road the conclusion is that fascism is the key to technological advancement, as America and Russia were largely just pitting the scientists they each captured from the Nazis against one another.

Once again though, my point has never been that only capitalism can result in innovation. Instead, I made the vastly more modest proposal that personal profit from inventions is beneficial to innovation. I further observed that the video author's own examples support that observation, and in that contradict his own conclusion.

You may have some valid academic point to be made about American problems.

That is however completely overwhelmed by your callous disregard for the suffering of people in actual slave labour camps, by likening them to American prisoners convicted by a jury of their peers to a standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt who are forced to work for their 3 square meals per day. Your not wrong to point out flaws in the American system, just incredible callous to the vastly worse suffering of others.

I would say you are morally wrong to exploit said people(and weakening concern for their suffering) to champion a separate cause that matters to you more.

It doesn't matter if it takes 10 times as long if it's 1% of the cost. This thing can work 24/7 without needing any breaks at all.

I'm in the process of designing and building a house right now (as in, I'm paying an architect and builder, not doing it myself).

If my builder came to me and said "hey, we can drop the labour cost of building by 50%, but your house will take an extra month", I'd sign that so fast his head would spin.

I don't believe for a second that this is anything other than a brilliantly calculated and utterly cynical move from Nike to co-opt Kaepernick's protest.

But I find it hilarious that people are falling for it, especially the idiots burning their shoes.

So you were fine with Nike when they were doing actual evil shit like sweatshops and child labour, but you'll burn the sneakers (that you already gave Nike the money for) over an ad?

And liberals are just as bad on this. Nike are a big corporation who give 0 fucks about BLM. If you buy their shoes, you're supporting a company with terrible labour practices.

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't buy Nike shoes. If you want some shoes and they're good shoes and you're ok with their labour practices (or you feel that you not buying one pair of shoes won't make a difference), then buy them. Or if you don't like them as a company, don't buy them.

But don't lie to yourself and pretend that buying or burning Nikes is some kind of political statement.

Earlier today, I was sent a link to an article in Bloomberg titled Why Workers Are Losing to Capitalists. Marx in Bloomberg? Impossibru!

But nevermind Marx. That opinion piece is 800 words, give or take, on labour's share of income. Yet it doesn't mention policy once. Not a single time. It's automation, it's globalisation, it's Gremlins. But not a single peep on policy.

Nothing on union busting. Nothing on taxes on capital vs taxes on labour. Nothing on minimum wages. Nothing on welfare. Nothing on the public sector.

If you read about inequality and related issues in these papers, there's rarely any agency. It's always something abstract like market forces, globalisation, innovation, etc. Nothing on decisions made by people in power, parliament first and foremost, that often had the explicit aim of reducing wages to "increase competitiveness".

Care to give the context? Because I can only read it as the "good of the bad ones that behave", but his complaint nonetheless seems to be that the prison will lose valuable labour NOT that these particular inmates release will pose a danger to the public.

The outcome was astonishing, even i couldn't believe it and i've been campaigning for it since 2015. All of this might be out of date 3 hours after i post it, because things are happening fast.

Theresa May has decided to go into government with the DUP propping her up. If you have kept up in the last 6 weeks or so with all the smears about Corbyn/IRA/Sinn Fein and terrorism, then you should understand that the DUP is basically the *other* side of the irish conflict. They are socially conservative and many of their beliefs fall in line with sharia laws; abortion illegal (including for sexual assault or incest cases), homophobia wrong and harmful to society, creationist beliefs, climate change deniers. That list might have less impact to some in the US but in British politics, it's out there on the fringe, quite extreme.

In a month from tomorrow there will be the July marches in Northern Ireland (and elsewhere in UK), and we already saw a march yesterday where unionists (~DUP supporters) trashed a nationalist pub (~Sinn Fein supporters).

So now consider. Nationalists have been dragged through the dirt by Conservative MPs and in the press; accused of being terrorists in order to smear Corbyn to stop him getting power. Whereas unionists are being courted by the Conservative government, and the press turning a blind eye to the DUP and their connections to domestic terrorism.

The northern irish peace process was a great achievement and still stands despite bad feeling on both sides. Part of the good friday agreement that ensures this peace says that the UK and Irish governments must act as neutral mediators in times of disagreement between factions in NI.

So now it becomes clear why Jeremy Corbyn refused to criticise either the unionists or the nationalists in particular - as a true leader with a fucking brain in his head, he understood that to take sides or score points would be to risk Britain's safety and the safety of communities in NI. The reason people were able to smear him as a terrorist sympathiser and danger to this country is *because* he refused to say or do anything that endangered this country.

And it becomes rather worrying that the tories have risked all of that hard work and all of our safety in order to keep power for just a little bit longer. There are already talks of a legal challenge from nationalists.

The good side to this is that it seems doomed to failure. May's credibility is broken, in the UK and in Europe. The alliance with the DUP almost certainly can't happen or last very long. The only alternative leaders to May would make the Conservatives less popular. Polls that saw this surge coming are predicting now that Labour would do even better if another election happened right now. The last time this happened was Ted Heath, whose minority government did not last long, and Labour took over after a few days, and won an election a few months later.

Austerity is well and truly broken as an ideology.

Oh, and all the talk of "the death of social democracy" in europe was actually the death of triangulating centrists who have become completely alienated from ordinary people. Socialism lives.

hmmm; doesn't appear you were anywhere near right on this one; or are you suggesting Labour would have had an even greater win without Bernie?

SPD (Germany): 23%
PSOE (Spain) : 22.6%
SPÖ (Austria): 26%
PS (France): 10%
PvdA (Netherlnds): 5.7%

Those are just some of the latest election/polling results of social-democratic parties in continental Europe. Corbyn's Labour came in at 40.1%. Yet somehow, Corbyn (and Sanders) is painted as the destroyer of his party's electability.

Watch all the trolls come out of the woodworks again, after claiming for months and months that Corbyn would be the ruin of Labour. And keep track of all the hacks who will still maintain that neoliberal party apparatchiks are the only option to win elections. The mental gymnastics will be hilarious, and the smear campaigns against Corbyn will be even more ferocious. They cannot let anyone challenge the neoliberal consensus and get away with it.

Edit: https://twitter.com/TKMarx/status/873157244967432192

There are some that suggest May or the tories in general are trying to lose the election so that Labour WILL take the backlash. Ultimately no way to know how that will go, but right now there is severe backlash towards the tories and the narrative is swiftly changing towards Labour. I see an election win as the start of a very, very long conversation. Activists will have to continue the fight, press standards will have to be changed either through public pressure or through legislature. And in Britain that might happen because the press here are the most distrusted in europe (52% disapproval, or 52% considered biased/corrupt, or something).

I said in the past that the UK was ready to change. Essentially, the narrative was there to be taken right back, but I didn't know if Corbyn's team had the skill to do it. I have to say that I am blown away by Labour's campaign, it has been almost flawless. I say that because i think the narrative is there to be taken on Brexit. The tories called the referendum to hold onto power. They arrogantly called the general election to consolidate power, with Brexit talks imminent, only to whine about being too busy to do interviews because they're thinking about Brexit! They have then made a catastrophic hash of their campaign, u-turned 5 or 6 times, contradicted themselves, and generally shown themselves to be weak, without answers, and bullies. In 10 years time, who knows what we will think? But in the short term at least, this can be framed as a "they fucked it up, but we'll take over in a crisis and try to fix it."

At the end of the day, a Corbyn government has always been so out of the question that i don't know what to expect if that were to happen. Is another referendum on leaving out of the question?

At the very least, for now, i would say Brits prefer the idea of Labour sorting out Brexit than the Tories, and the average attitude towards Brexit in the country is rather one of resigned acceptance - we know it's bad, but we did it, so now we better get on with it. But we're very suspicious, and don't want to get shafted by irresponsible or reckless politicians. True for the left and right, but obviously for different reasons.