MigL

The universe, as a whole, is not expanding. And I clarify that by saying you cannot go to the edge and watch it 'grow' into another volume. It makes no sense to discuss an 'edge' because anything beyond that 'edge' is still part of the universe. Rather, the universe is all there is. And the separation between things ( galactic clusters ) is increasing.

Gee, I remember someone bringing this up in another thread. That although we all recognize the problem, different people may have differing solutions, and should be treated with a little more respect when they present their alternate solutions to these social problems. Instead I was accused of 'finger wagging', telling others how they should behave ( but ignoring it myself ), and of being a racist. Not conductive to civil discourse and solving social problems, is it ?

Well, since I didn't get a suspension... "White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism. It's not that all white males are evil, only that the people expressing evil ideologies right now are doing so on the basis of white supremacy." Posted by iNow ( credit where credit is due ) Now, in light of recent similar happenings in Barcelona, replace white males with Muslims and white supremacy with Islam... 'Muslims are at the heart of both ISIS and current global terror. It's not that all Muslims are evil, only that the people expressing evil and terror right now are doing so on the basis of Islam" If one can paint all white males with the white supremacist brush, how can you possibly weasel out of painting Islam with the terrorist brush ? The answer is simple, you should not do either ! Also by iNow ( I'm not picking on you, just ignoring two of your buddies )... "These people respect strength. We must push back against them with overwhelming force, overwhelming numbers, and overwhelming passion. Silence is no longer an option." If we again apply this to the situation in the Muslim world, where any slight affront to their religion results in massive demonstrations, firing of AK-47s, burning the American flag or effigies of Presiidents, and chants of 'death to America/Satan', should we then push back with overwhelming force/numbers/passion ? Better yet, if these kind of people respect strength, let's show them what our nukes are capable of. Do you really think that would be a wise course of action, or are a lot of you deliberately biased against American terrorism, but willing to turn a blind eye to Middle eastern terrorism ? Seems to me, if you want to be consistent, you should be asking the same questions about both. What is causing their disenfranchisement, that compels these atrocious acts. That's the only real way forward. But what do I know, I'm a racist for bringing this stuff up.

So now I'm a racist too, because my arguments are racist... You just proved my point, by being your usual, tolerant, progressive self. ( yes, I'm being extremely sarcastic ) Maybe I should take some time off before I really tell you ( and RangerX ) what I think.. Oh what the hell.. i'll take my suspension. You're a jackass because you make asinine comments.

No, RangerX, but she was at a protest which included violent protesters ( and on both sides, look up Redneck Revolt ). But I don't see what any of this has to do with either J Trudeau, or S Harper. ( try to keep up )

It is very difficult to have these kinds of discussions because, invariably, accusations of racism start to get tossed around. Or Nazi sympathizer/apologist. Or white privilege. One tries to make a point that initially there was violence on both sides at a protest/counter-protest ( maybe not to the same extent ) and there are thinly veiled accusations levelled that he is a Nazi sympathizer and making excuses for their vile ideas and behaviour. One tries to make a point that a small, root cause of racism in America is due to racists who once identified as democrats ( there are many root causes ), and he is labelled as a racist. Or 'political bigot', whatever that means. For all any of us know, waitforufo may be black/middle eastern/oriental/aboriginal. I think all any of us want is a solution which doesn't lead to more incidents like Charlottesville. And we all have different ideas on how that can be achieved. If we want a solution to how people can treat each other with more respect, maybe we should start, on this forum, by treating each other, and each othe's ideas with more respect.

You should have seen the picture from 1995, Stringy. Trying to hold up all those heavy Motorola brick phones...

The two examples I provided Ten oz were from the same LA Times article. So no, you didn't provide the full list. The Redneck Revolt are an extremist group that was with the anti-protesters . So yes, there were violent extremist groups on both sides. If two groups face off in a protest and there are violent elements in both groups ( even though one group has way more violatiles ), is it any wonder that trouble and tragedy result ? I am of the opinion that KKK and white supremacist Nazi groups should be allowed to protest. The 'light of day' is what kills these types of movements. If they remain hidden, they fester and grow. These groups are the "hemorrhoids' of society, and if hemorrhoids were on your face and exposed, everyone would quickly do something about them. ( sorry for the disgusting analogy )

I noticed you left out the statement made by the Redneck Revolt member, a left wing anti-fascist group that brought rifles to the park. Surely they brought the rifles just for show or other peaceful purposes, and they weren't intending to cause violence; Unlike the weapons brought by white supremacist who brought their weapons to use against the anti-protesters. And the one by Uni of Virginia student, Isabella Ciambotti, possibly the most believable account, which described violence attributed to anti-protesters. I don't wink, Ten oz, but I do squint a lot.

I point you to the article by the LA Times 'Who was responsible for the violence in Charlottesville', Ten oz. It lists numerous first hand accounts by many people, white supremacists, ant-protestors, reporters, etc. All recount the fact that there was violence on both sides, not just retaliatory, but initialized by both sides, long before the vehicular run down incident. That is what I'm opposed to. Violence designed to silence free speech and opposing opinions. And while not to the same extent, you cannot argue that some of the anti-protestors were innocent of wrong-doing. I have no love for D Trump, but his statement that there was violence/fault on both sides is fairly accurate. ( and that was the intent of my first post on the subject )

In case I haven't made my position sufficiently clear ( although I believe some people get it )... If it was up to me, I'd line up all those white supremacists and shoot them. But in the interests of political correctness ( which frowns on shooting people without a trial ), I had to propose a dissentive view ( as noted by CharonY ). Rights and free speech ( and to not be painted with the same brush as nut-jobs ) must apply to everyone ( and Ten oz and Delta made that argument in the O Kahder settlement thread ), or else they apply to no-one. The fact that their speech is vile should in no way justify violence against them. And there was ! The lone good thing about this whole thing is that even more Republicans are deserting/siding against D Trump, so an impeachment may eventually come about ( to get back on topic ). Is not 'dismissive', RangerX. ( try to keep up )

And "wow, just wow" is not ?

On a related note, and I don't recall where I read it, but apparently suicide rates amongst teens have gone up 3000% since the 50s in the US. I found that shocking. That a young person with all his/her life ahead, would choose to end it all. Why is there so much drama and angst among teens these days?

Tolerate as in it is perfectly legal for them to voice their vile, anti-social,opinion, as long as it doesn't lead to violence. Just as anyone else then, has the right to protest against them, and voice their opinion, as long as it doesn't lead to violence. And are you now arguing for the merits of pre-emptive strikes now ( in the case of WW2 ), Delta ? Any news station will tell you that there was violence on both sides. ( before the car incident ) Maybe you should inform yourself before entering a discussion, RangerX. ( and "Wow, just wow" doesn't really make a valid point ) ( how come now its merging my posts ? )

I did define it Delta... " if we don't tolerate their vile, ant-social, free speech" And still, that doesn't take away their right to protest and free speech, Ten oz. But the violence, FROM BOTH SIDES, should not be tolerated !

The allied veterans of WW2 reacted to violence initiated by A Hitler. Read some history, RangerX, and learn about Checkoslovakia and Poland. If A Hitler had just talked about invasion ( or even death camps for that matter ), without acting, war would not have been justified to the extent of over 40 Mill deaths.

Maybe this section on the protest should be spun off to a separate thread. I tried to inject some controversy, and it seems to have worked. ( thanks CharonY ) Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi sympathizer, but an interview with one person should not discredit the whole protest. That was the whole point of the comparison with Islam. The few that advocate 'death to America' should not discredit the rest of the people. And even if it did... A just society is characterized by the level of opposing views it allows, no matter how vile or anti-social. IOW, if we don't tolerate their vile, anti-social, free speech, then we are no better than them. And, in no circumstance, is violence allowed. ( by either side )

And that Delta, is an opinion. Some of those people had differing opinions, and are most certainly allowed to voice that opinion vithout the fear of violence. Violence which was apparent on both sides. Not ALL protesters were Nazis, and it is wrong to characterize them as such because of the reprehensible actions of a few. ( and I addressed that in my first post on the matter ) @ geordief It already is apparent. Unfortunately it makes YOU look bad. (no-one has had to 'rescue' my rep points )

Maybe war hero was the wrong choice of words, but he was an integral, if not major, part of US history. You can't take down a statue and 'remove' him from that history. Just like you can't ban/censor previously produced works of literature because they offend modern sensibilities. And geordief, are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with a certain ideology should have his rights removed ? How very Nazi of you. ( no, I don't downvote for opposing viewpoints, nor do I call people dumb )

He is responsible for his own actions. Send him to Guantanomo with the rest. See how he makes out.

I will only say this once ( mostly because this thread is about the impeachment of D Trump )... iNow made the point that if it was a middle Eastern type driving the car, people's perception would be vastly different. Yes it would. Most of you guys would be bending over backwards explaining that all Muslims are not like that, only a few radicalized ones, and the chances of that type of violence affecting you, personally, are very slim. How is that different from the protest ? People were protesting the removal of the Statue of a war hero. The fact that it was an unjust war, and symbolism of the statue, has no bearing. The fact that a number of protesters were Nazis also has no bearing, as some were not. You can't paint all people with the same brush, or does that only apply when you're trying to show how 'progressive' you are ? And even the Nazis, no matter how despicable their viewpoint, are allowed to protest. And be protested against. But no-one has the right to inflict violence against the other group. And there was violence on both sides ( which may be what D Trump was referring to ). In America anyway, you're not allowed to suspend/remove rights of those you don't agree with.

The 'universe is a simulation' argument is essentially the same as if there was an intelligence guiding the evolution of the universe, i.e. 'God did it'. It is an argument from ignorance which by definition, cannot be substantiated. And even though here is a possibility that either simulation or God may not be fantasy, I prefer the use of Occam's razor to keep things as simple as possible. The Holographic principle is a MODEL, as Swansont has pointed out. That means certain aspects of reality behave AS IF the universe were a projection of the lower dimensional bounding surface. And as Strange has pointed out numerous times the Holographic principle does NOT equate to simulation.

All those people in the clip now have job offers from K-J-U. To work on the North Korean missile guidance systems.

Only SR-71 Blackbirds... And they can't drop much of anything.

Agree with iNow, there won't be a war, nuclear or otherwise. The US, although D Trump is president, is too sensible and has too much to lose in terms of casualties to allies. North Korea, although at the whim of a madman, have been told by China that if they start something, they are on their own. I believe the US has made her intentions perfectly clear. We want North Korea to stop testing and developing nuclear weapons ( already too late ). They entered into treaties and contracts worth US$4 bill in aid, to stop nuclear development, all of which they subsequently ignored. ( can we get our money back ? ) It has to made clear to China that the inflammatory rhetoric coming from both sides is NOT the destabilizing factor. Rather it is K-J-U's missile and warhead testing, along with the occasional attacks on neighbors.