1) Because they didn't succeed in a vacuum, they benefit from civilization, so are obligated to support it to at least the same extent if not more because they are able while others aren't.

2) swap dumb with rich and Trump is the bazillionaire he claims to be. You can't just swap dissimilar unrelated concepts and say "see, proved it" without looking like a braying moron.

3) Yes it should without question, our best and brightest don't come from the privileged class as a higher percentage. Actually the opposite because they don't have to do their best to survive, poorer people do, and drive matters immensely. If we want to compete internationally, we must educate the uneducated and undereducated, even those who can't afford $500000 to fake a crew history or SAT score. That education needs to be better than the countries we compete with, and it is all too often simply not.
That is a conservative stance, not a liberal one.

4) equating wealth to gpa, like this moronic video does, means Trump, like everyone else, should start at 0 and not get a bonus from daddy. If that happened, he would be zero. He is not self made, he did not only get a small $14 million unrepaid interest free loan. He did squander the money, failing at venture after venture until only Russian gangsters will loan him money, loans he needs because he squandered the money....then he repeatedly lied about it immorally squandering billions from hundreds of duped investors too...THAT is evil, yes.

5) We make $30000 for two people and don't take a dime, even overpaid my taxes...not everyone has my opportunities, privileges, and abilities. You are just spouting nonsense straw man arguments. In a perfect world, we could all be self sustaining with equal opportunity to succeed, we don't live in that communist/socialist utopia.....no one ever has.
I believe we are better off when the least privileged don't have to resort to violent or immoral crime to survive. I believe we are better off as a nation when our best people have the opportunities to succeed that our worst but most privileged are afforded. I believe we are better off being protected from the irresponsibility of purely profit driven commerce that, by design, must walk the razors edge of acceptability to maximize profit and minimize obligations by any means necessary, usually leaving them for socialist programs to clean up/repair. I believe we do more good ensuring the starving among us are fed food humans would willingly eat before ensuring some unrepentant apocalyptic bankers get their multi million dollar bonuses and a free pass on their crimes, and before those making multi millions a year get to hoard more and pay even less of their share.

6) What you are spouting is bat shit insane, not even AOC advocates pure socialism....not even Russia had pure socialism. Your ilk, however, calls any government program that doesn't directly benefit them or their Trumpian masters "socialist"....education, infrastructure, all regulatory agencies, social security, even the fbi have been labeled socialist by Trumpists in the zeal to discredit the report they assumed would expose criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States (ps, it found exactly that dozens of times over), while military welfare programs for equipment we don't want and won't use, bailouts for banks and agribusiness, public funds for private ventures like golf courses and troll roads, (edit:Freudian slip?) and don't forget the unmentioned elephant, the military itself...all that socialism is fine, you think it's not even socialism. *facepalm

I'll say it again.

Asinine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

This attitude is prevalent in Nordic countries. As the article states, there has been some slight movement away from Janteloven, but not very much. It is precisely this attitude that allows for people to accept drastically higher taxes, not just for the 1%, but across the board. The social culture is dramatically different in the USA, possibly to our detriment.

Per capita means nothing. All NATO states are supposed to be spending at least 2% of their GDP towards defense. As I said, Norway spends around 1.2% of their GDP, if the USA did the same, we would have a massive amount of money for social programs. Again, I must stress that I am not slamming Norway or other Nordic countries for not reaching the 2%, I am simply pointing out additional reasons why they have more money available for social programs than we do.

I don't see what developmental aid has to do with anything. I am sure Norway spends money in other places as well. I am pointing out why socialism works in Nordic countries and why it would be a hard sell in the USA.

I understand that you are happy with your situation. In a perfect world, we could all follow a similar rule. Unfortunately to fit into that type of situation you need a population that is of relatively the same mind. In most larger nations that is impossible, there are too many different groups that have competing ideals.

In a perfect world, yes, but in reality, no.
Police do not have to tell the truth, and if a lie gets them the upper hand, they'll often lie. Asking them to explain your rights, especially after annoying them by being obstinate and repeating to them that you know your rights, is just dumb imo. They have no obligation to teach you or to be honest about them and every incentive not to.....although it would be nice if they did.

Edit: asking for a lengthy explanation after being told 'any answer besides"yes" is considered refusal' is a point where you will be penalized for asking what your rights are....white, black, or purple.

Explain how it's ok to administer a test at any time but this time is harassment because he failed them, please, because that's contradictory.

He parked on the freeway causing suspicion,
admitted to drinking and driving requiring a field test,
didn't follow directions so failed the field test,
then obstinately repeated that with the breathalyzer by not answering yes and taking it. (After being told anything but yes legally means no).
Please, what's harassment there?....because there's definitely something more imo.

Remove race from the equation, and it's a good arrest. Adding race in does nothing to negate that imo.


Edit: I was a white punk with a long Mohawk. I got harassed far worse than this repeatedly, including being thrown to the ground at gunpoint because an officer read my plate wrong and accused me of being a car thief. Attitude usually has far more to do with the outcome than anything else in my experience. When I was polite and followed instructions I almost always walked, even when in the wrong. When I argued, I got slapped hard, like a vandalism charge for a 4" chalk line on a sidewalk or 2 hours of having my car searched in front of my friends house.

If I'm misunderstanding and you aren't claiming this was a dwb arrest, apologies. That's the part I'm debating, because it seems wrong.

This video still doesn't apply to the 'kids' tag. That tag is for stuff that children might find enjoyable.

As far as the campaign of terror, I agree that it sucks and they shouldn't be subjected to it in a perfect world.

This isn't that world. Sadly, from a legal standpoint, any action taken against the people exercising their first amendment rights would likely result in lawsuits. I can't speak to whether the school, law enforcement, or the mayor issued statements denouncing this because I couldn't find if they did. They should have and would have been legally within their rights to do so, but beyond that they CAN DO NOTHING.

Democrats worry about policy over posture... and that is why they lose. Look, of COURSE in a perfect world with a savvy voting populace, the best policy dossier would win, but the other side keeps proving that is not the world we live in... over and over.

This lady has the right posture. 'Merica Fuck yeah.

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

I'm really only regurgetating what people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have said in their books and podcasts. So I'll direct you there, as they articulate it way better than me.
There is also http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/muslims-and-islam/ which the statistics are quite alarming, and the left choose to ignore many of these. They assume that everyone in the world is a good person, and that they would do good if they had the same opportunities. It's simply not the case.
All religions are not equal either (and I'm a staunch atheist), and neither are all cultures.

We might not have a perfect world, but it's dishonest to try to claim that everything and everyone is the same. It's dishonest to ignore that the majority of the world has decided to stop stoning gays, crucifying human rights protesters, and treating women worse than dogs. Just to name a few things.

I would have totally thumped on the ass beef who yelled "jump, you coward".

In a perfect world, I would have thrown him over, but we live in this imperfect one where ignorant gimps are protected by laws. Such a shame.

Here is the problem, Mr. Schlosser is a journalist, not a Nuclear Scientist. He does not understand, or has chosen to ignore for propaganda reasons, that an unarmed warhead is EXTREMELY unlikely to perform the exact sequence of events that need to take place to have a nuclear reaction happen.

Yes, he is fully correct in that we have had numerous 'butt-clenching' moments in which we could have started WW3 due to a malfunction or human error. But in the other cases he mentions, such as the bombs that landed on Spain, the lightning bolt on the tower, and the wrench on the rocket, the chance of the warhead going up while being unarmed is infinitesimal. They simply don't go 'boom' because of a collision or explosion. Now you could have a 'dirty bomb' type incident where the radioactive materials could be spread and come into contact with humans, but that is about it.

The cases that have been officially listed as Broken Arrows were because they involved an active bomb, like the one in Florida. Everything else he mentions in this video is his 'belief' and is conjecture.

Now, before I get unloaded on, I wish we didn't have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with Trump that we should renew the arms race, I think he is nuts since we have more than enough weapons to blanket the cities of the world more than a couple of times. If you add all the nukes from the Big 3 (USA/Russia/France...yes, France) there are enough to cover every single inch of the world.

The problem is, who bells the cat? If we give up all of our weapons, we are at risk. I wish we weren't, but we would be. If we bring down our numbers gradually, there are still other countries that may not, like North Korea. How do we trust the other country is actually following through? In a perfect world, we would all lay down our weapons and sing kumbaya, but as Heinlein wrote: "...Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

PS...Yes, I know Starship Troopers is a controversial novel with overtones of Militarism and Fascism. However, there are quotes that ring true no matter what 'ism' people attach to the overall story. If you doubt that, look at the utter disbelief and depression that overcame liberals when Trump won. "He simply was supposed to, it was impossible, not like this, we have no hope, etc" were the feelings of the people who gave him no hope of winning. I, having lived and read enough to get a fair picture of how fucked up we are as a species, had little doubt he could pull it off. We elected a former Wrestler as governor, a former actor as governor, and a former actor as President. We overlook mass genocide in other countries. We ignore climate change. We spend hundreds of billions on defense and less than 10 on space exploration, all the while living on a planet that is already critically overpopulated (and is growing almost exponentially).

I agree with just about everything you said. Except...

This isn't a perfect world. You described this imperfect world. This guy should wait until all the corrections are made? Or does it make more sense to seethe silently and await for the humiliation to end NOW?

The situation with police departments getting training (and support for mentally ill people BEFORE they flip out) does need to be fixed.

Until it is, play meek. Unless you want to be arrested. Hit in the eye. Humiliated on your front lawn. What do you gain from fighting a losing battle IN THIS MOMENT?

Yes, but that service was over. She was continuing to sit in his car, but was not going to pay more money for his time she was using. Even if he wasn't at her destination, once he said 'get out', it's over, she's trespassing, service or no. She has every right to complain, but not to remain.

Really? Someone needs mind control to get you irate? I guess we aren't being serious anymore.

If a customer is rude and abusing the service, and refuses a calm request to leave, things are going to escalate. She should be glad they didn't escalate physically, because while that would certainly be wrong of him, it would not be totally unexpected. Her demeanor was designed to provoke....I know it well, it was my mother's MO in any argument. Get you flustered, then poke you in a calm, soothing voice.

I agree, in a perfect world, people never piss other people off to that extent where they completely lose their shit like he did. This is FAR from a perfect world, and some people see it as their reason for existence, and a form of entertainment, to drive people over the edge. Others do it, then turn on their camera to film the results and claim they're the victim. I think that's more than likely the case here.

I've also dealt with people acting worse than he was (we have no idea how bad she was before she started filming his reaction and she started being oddly calm) and not lost it....and I've dealt with people acting as aggravatingly as possible, but calmly, and completely blown a fuse, like when my neighbor calmly climbed over my fence and cut my trees down.

Yes, calling the cops is the right idea, but not necessarily useful. In many places, they would never respond to that call and would tell him so....then what?

I would bet $5 that the video starting 5 minutes earlier WOULD excuse his behavior. I might lose that bet, but it only makes sense to me. He wouldn't be an Uber driver long if he acted that way normally....and he's probably not one now.

Yes, but that service was over. She was continuing to sit in his car, but was not going to pay more money for his time she was using. Even if he wasn't at her destination, once he said 'get out', it's over, she's trespassing, service or no. She has every right to complain, but not to remain.

Really? Someone needs mind control to get you irate? I guess we aren't being serious anymore.

If a customer is rude and abusing the service, and refuses a calm request to leave, things are going to escalate. She should be glad they didn't escalate physically, because while that would certainly be wrong of him, it would not be totally unexpected. Her demeanor was designed to provoke....I know it well, it was my mother's MO in any argument. Get you flustered, then poke you in a calm, soothing voice.

I agree, in a perfect world, people never piss other people off to that extent where they completely lose their shit like he did. This is FAR from a perfect world, and some people see it as their reason for existence, and a form of entertainment, to drive people over the edge. Others do it, then turn on their camera to film the results and claim they're the victim. I think that's more than likely the case here.

I've also dealt with people acting worse than he was (we have no idea how bad she was before she started filming his reaction and she started being oddly calm) and not lost it....and I've dealt with people acting as aggravatingly as possible, but calmly, and completely blown a fuse, like when my neighbor calmly climbed over my fence and cut my trees down.

Yes, calling the cops is the right idea, but not necessarily useful. In many places, they would never respond to that call and would tell him so....then what?

I would bet $5 that the video starting 5 minutes earlier WOULD excuse his behavior. I might lose that bet, but it only makes sense to me. He wouldn't be an Uber driver long if he acted that way normally....and he's probably not one now.

In a perfect world, or if average people were reasonable, yes, I would make it OK to decide for themselves. Sadly they aren't, so we've legislated what's unacceptable to discriminate over.
I do support the legal protections based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and/or religion (or lack thereof)...but I don't think there's protection against refusal of service based on one's political affiliation (maybe I'm wrong). I think it's stupid to do that....it harms the business and is not conducive to civilized behavior, but yes, I think business owners that don't contract with the government in any way, never take public money, and pay all their taxes should be able to refuse service for legitimate personal reasons that don't violate those protections.
Yes, I understand there would be abuses. That's part of the price of living in a "free" society.

EDIT: The alternative is, when a NAMBLA member comes to the shop and orders 100 shirts advocating adults having sex with children, they would have to make them because ADVOCATING for child sex is not illegal, just incredibly distasteful, right?

In normal circumstances, I would agree. These were/are not normal circumstances.
He sought out a store that would be the most hostile to his request intentionally with the hope that they would do something like this, no question about that.
In a more perfect world, I would mostly agree (except it literally IS their business). This is far from a perfect world.

It's a trap, because most liberals are against allowing businesses to deny service to those they dislike for religious/political reasons, even though they would really like to mimic them. That means that denying him service plays into their hands even more than making a snide subliminal addition to the interior of the shirt. This is the catch 22 they have put themselves in, where there's no good option.
I think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason....but those they refuse are allowed to make a public stink about it and 'boycott' (like this guy would have had they refused to make a shirt).

As a small sidenote, I think it's slightly risky to indicate, even tongue in cheek, that any of us were involved at the start of a movement that began in the 1800s... even if you're kidding, people might get the wrong idea. Third wave feminism, which coincidentally I think you're more opposed to than the first two waves, did begin (I think?) in the US in the 1980's or 90's, but the overall movement was a well-established global phenomenon at that point. None of us were close to being involved in starting it.

As far as your main point goes, I think it's partly a question of whether you define your own vision by the end goal you want to achieve, or the first problem you want to solve. "Black Lives Matter" is not the end goal, it's the first problem we need to solve on the way to a state free of police murder. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, can be the end goal. It doesn't tell me which problem areas you want to address though.

For some feminists, feminism is the end goal - a woman-centric world would be better, more sane, and more sustainable in their view than any other world. For other feminists, feminism is the first problem area to address, ie that we are literally living in a culture of undeniable male supremacy.

The problem with only defining your end goal is that it can become a little unclear what, if any, action you want to take. "You matter" is certainly fine, but I have no idea what you want to change in society, or if you want to change anything. I matter, you matter, and the Koch brothers matter - but we still have very different ideas about what society should be. In a perfect world I might want to join up under the egalitarian banner, but in the current mess we're in, I tend more towards environmentalism, socialism and feminism - because those are the problem areas I want us to address first.