Slashdot Mirror

The ACA wasn't created by "the left", it was the centrists in the Democratic party who pushed it, wanting something they believed (because they're idiots) Conservatives would support (which is why it's based upon Mitt Romney's 2004 proposals.) The left wanted single payer, and pushed for, at the very minimum, a government run insurer ("The Public Option") and were stymied because Joe Lieberman refused to allow the ACA to pass the Senate with his vote unless it was dropped.

The ACA is also only a tweaking of the existing system, still keeping the fundamental building blocks in place, so it's hard to see how it can be responsible for "most publicly traded insurance companies (seeing) their stock prices shoot through the roof". Regardless, blaming "the left" for this when the left wanted government competition to the insurers is absurd.

The left isn't using "the social safety net" to "buy votes" either but you'll never be convinced of that despite the fact it's pretty obviously left wing ideology for the government to use taxes to provide financial support for those unable to support themselves. Also when did we have "Wall Street buddies"? What Bizarroworld are you living in? Because Hillary Clinton (hardly a left winger herself) made a few speeches to a bank or two Wall Street is left wing now?

Go check.. Not even ONE republican voted for the ACA, not in the house, not in the senate, not even ONE vote. Your often repeated trope is a lie, a really big one.

He's talking about the original plan the ACA was based upon, not the version passed in the US Congress. Mitt Romney came up with the original plan, and signed a slightly modified version of it, you fucking lying dumbass..

Or is Mitt not a fucking Republican now?

Except that extensive reviews show that her self-exaggerated ethnicity was not a factor at all in her hiring:

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

She listed herself as a minority on a legal directory reviewed by deans and hiring committees. Harvard called her their "first woman of color." At the time, Harvard was under enormous pressure to make a diversity hire.

Warren never lied about anything. ...

BULLSHIT

That lily-white millionaire falsely claimed to be a Native American many, many times in order to take advantage of preferences extended to true Native Americans.

She started doing it at least as early as 1986, and admits there are more examples out there, waiting to be found.

It wasn't false? Then why did Harvard Law School go from 1 to zero Native Americans on faculty when Warren got caught?

Yeah, that's just a co-inky-dink.

She's a fundamentally corrupt liar.

I hit send before adding links: Obama has many failures but the ones I am most against are: - National debt more than doubled (>120% increase) - Identity politics set country back decades Citation: https://www.debtconsolidation.... Fun reading: https://www.bostonglobe.com/id...

From here

Additionally, after Justina had been at Children’s for just three days, her new doctors changed course dramatically. During a tense meeting with Justina’s parents, the Children’s doctors said they believed their daughter’s problems were largely psychiatric, and they would be withdrawing several of the medications that her Tufts doctors had prescribed.

The parents — Linda in person and her husband, Lou, by phone from Connecticut — strongly objected. They complained that despite their repeated requests, Justina had still not been seen by her gastroenterologist. They became furious when the Children’s team informed the parents that they would be prohibited from seeking second opinions, including from Korson.

The next morning, Lou arrived at the hospital, still enraged. After conferring with his wife, he strode over to the ninth-floor neurology nurses’ station and introduced himself as Justina’s father.

“We have standing appointments for her at Tufts,” he said. “Enough is enough. We want her discharged.”

He assumed it was their right as Justina’s parents to remove their daughter and take her to the hospital of their choice. But behind the scenes, Children’s had contacted the state’s child protection agency to discuss filing “medical child abuse” charges, as doctors grew suspicious that the parents were harming Justina by interfering with her medical care and pushing for unnecessary treatments.

Now, as Lou scanned the neurology floor, he noticed that hospital security guards were blocking every exit, focusing their eyes on him.

You are ever bit as bad as the right-wingers you hate. You decided about this case before you ever heard the facts because of who was upset about it. Children's hospital fucked up, deal with it. They fucked up in the most serious way they could. When called on it, they doubled down on their mistakes. What would you do if the CEO of an oil company tried to pull this shit? You are a hypocrite...period

Wouldn't you at least review the various diagnoses? Wouldn't you contact the patient's doctor? I bet you would. I hope I would. I expect almost anyone would. They didn't...

You are lying again. Dr Peters reviewed her diagnostic history in detail; in fact this was part of what led him to suspect parental abuse. He noted that she had had multiple interventions with numerous specialists, and yet none of that had led to any actually unifying diagnosis.

Earlier you suggested that the hospital didn't know that the doctor who diagnosed her with myto hadn't done a muscle biopsy, but this also is a lie; Peters wrote in his initial assessment that "Metabolic workup was unremarkable" and "She has not had a muscle biopsy". He knew these things exactly because he had reviewed her history.

It's also worth noting that part of her history was the fact that doctors at Tufts - a completely seperate hospital - had also made allegations with CPS suggesting that the parents were neglecting Justina. How wide do you imagine that this grand conspiracy is?

That different judge reversed the original judge's decision when more facts came to light is seriously damning to the hospital. That's why she is back with her parents.

You are still lying. It wasn't a different judge, it was the same judge, and the reason she is back with her parents is because he decided that they had changed their behaviour enough to justify letting them have custody again. Feel free to read his words instead of making shit up:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/me...

Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton - all supported a wall back in 2006. What's changed since then? Their own political fortunes. Not a whole lot else...

She didn't lie, the results are out. Shes 1/32 to 1/512 Native American. ... Depending on how you read the results.

DNA counselors sounds like a terrible idea. I don't trust them to get it right for right reasons or wrong reasons.

Fauxcahontas speak with forked tongue:

Meanwhile, the Globe has also obtained a portion of Warren’s 1973 application to Rutgers, where she attended law school. That document specifically asks: “Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?’’ Warren answered “no.’’

In addition, a newly unearthed University of Texas personnel document shows that Warren listed herself as “white’’ when she taught at the law school there from 1981 to 1991.

Hell, The Boston Globe even admits there's no evidence that Warren is 1/32 Cherokee - like she used to claim, until it was debunked.

And is almost certainly the box Fauxcahontas checked to get listed as a "Native American" at Harvard

Note well: "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition"

Even if Fauxcahontas is 1/32 Native American, she never "maintain[ed] cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition".

No matter how you put it, she LIED to game the racial preference system.

She didn't lie, the results are out. Shes 1/32 to 1/512 Native American. ... Depending on how you read the results.

DNA counselors sounds like a terrible idea. I don't trust them to get it right for right reasons or wrong reasons.

Bullshit.

She "consultant shopped" until she found a shill willing to pimp himself out and give her the answer she wanted.

Instead of finding a recognized geneology expert, she used a non-expert who was on the Harvard faculty with her. Why not use a real genealogist?

Why did Harvard drop mention of a Native American faculty member when Fauxcahontas's lies were exposed?

Why did Fauxcahontas herself claim that she knew she was Native American only because of her "high cheekbones" if she wasn't lying to Harvard in order to get ahead?

Why won't Fauxcahontas answer questions about whether or not she's ever used other DNA services if she didn't go "DNA shopping"?

Mars colonization is many, many years away. Since we humans here on earth are belching out CO2 like it's going out of style, why don't we start doing some of that here? Let's make earth more inhabitable.

No! We must not have tech solutions. Instead, we must teach CO2 not to greenhouse!

I should expand, since due to some activity in my office this one got cut off:

Having observed the Obama years, the purchasing power of our currency fell off quite a bit. You might look along these lines:

* https://www.consumerreports.or...
* https://www.bostonglobe.com/li...
* https://montrealgazette.com/op...

It may have avoided the official indexes, but the loss of real-world value to our currency was a thing, which is about what one would expect from fast money policies.

Why is it every time the nature vs nurture argument comes up, the strongest proponents always seem to argue the two extremes. That everything is up to nature (your genes, hormones, etc), or everything is up to nurture (your character, work ethic, morals, etc)?

Can't people for a moment entertain the possibility that all of these factors contribute to individual behavior? Yes, life deals some people a better set of cards than others. But that doesn't mean you have no control. You still get to decide how well or poorly you play those cards. I was hard-wired to be extremely acrophobic. When I was a child, I couldn't even stand on a second floor balcony. But I didn't just accept that as my fate. I worked against it, exposing myself to heights and gradually acclimating myself to situations which triggered the fear. I still get anxious with heights, and avoid exposing myself to it unnecessarily. But I no longer turn into a puddle of goo just from being a couple stories up.

Obesity is a great example. No we shouldn't tease people for being overweight. But neither should we pretend that it's acceptable. It's one of if not the biggest health risk most people face today. And the campaign against fat shaming seems to have overshot its mark, and is now killing people by making it socially acceptable to be fat.

Your experience doesn't necessarily mean it's nonsense. As an invasive species it could act differently. In fact, such dramatic attacks are already a problem with native ticks, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/me...

Blue Origin isn't in just a different league, it's basically the difference between little league t-ball and the major leagues. Suborbital is something college kids and maybe even high school kids can do with the right help. https://www.bostonglobe.com/id... Putting a very heavy satellite into space is something entirely different. The Falcon 9 can put 18,300 lb into geo-stationary orbit of 55,000 lb into low earth orbit. The Falcon Heavy should be able to do 2.5x those numbers and has put a Tesla Roadster out into a heliocentric orbit past Mars. A Blue Origin rocket can't even get to orbit without a payload.

You either don't know or don't care how the FBI works, much like the Republicans who interrogated Strzok. To suggest that he paid Halper is just stupid. From Strzok's testimony.

"At every step, at every investigative decision, there were multiple layers of people above me, assistant director, deputy director, director of the F.B.I., and multiple layers of people below me, section chiefs, unit chiefs and analysts, all of whom were involved in all of these decisions," he told Mr. Gowdy after the chairman pressed him. "They would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would tolerate it in them."

Yeah, multiple layers of people who refuse to state under oath that they actually read the FISA warrants they signed to spy on the Trump campaign.

Not the greatest source it's clearly biased, but the embedded video clearly shows Rod Rosenstien - one of Strzok's "multiple layers of people above me" - refusing to state that he actually read the FISA warrants he signed.

Nevermind the fact that Strzok has no credibility at all - which is why Mueller shitcanned him in the first place.

Ask Steven Hatfill how Robert Mueller's FBI worked - he got seven million dollars from the FBI because of their fuckups.

Ask the four Boston men framed by the FBI for a murder in order to protect Whitey Bulger how "the FBI works". They got $101 million for their troubles. Guess what? Robert Mueller's fingerprints are all over the coverup of THAT....

Maybe you failed to read this is an FBI investigation somehow, you poor accused rapist?

Oh yeah, like the history of FBI investigations isn't rife with failure?

Hell, just look at Robert Mueller's history:

$4.65 million paid to Steven Hatfill over Mueller's botched anthrax investigation

Putting innocent men on death row to cover up FBI involvement with Boston mobster Whitey Bulger:

FBI Must Pay $102 Million In Mob Case

A federal judge in Boston yesterday ordered the government to pay a record nearly $102 million for the FBI's role in the 1968 wrongful murder convictions of four men, and she powerfully condemned misconduct that she said ran "all the way up to the FBI director."

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner's scathing ruling runs for more than 200 pages, calling the charges leveled against the nation's law enforcement agency "shocking" and the government's defense "absurd."

"Now is the time to say and say without equivocation: this 'cost' -- to the liberty of four men, to our system of justice -- is not remotely acceptable," Gertner wrote in explaining the award. "This case is about intentional misconduct, subornation of perjury, conspiracy, the framing of innocent men."

Gertner said the FBI knew that the star witness in a murder trial -- a "top echelon" informant in the agency's war against La Cosa Nostra, the Italian Mafia -- was lying when he identified the four wrongfully convicted men as responsible for a 1965 gangland slaying. But Gertner said agents vouched for the witness's credibility and for years covered up the lie as the men attempted to prove their innocence.

"The FBI's conduct was intentional, it was outrageous, it caused plaintiffs immeasurable and unbearable pain and the FBI must be held accountable," Gertner wrote.

Two of the men convicted, Louis Greco and Henry Tameleo, died behind bars. The others, Peter Limone, 73, and Joseph Salvati, 74, spent three decades in prison -- Limone, for a time, on death row -- before being freed when their convictions were overturned in the late 1990s. The civil lawsuit against the FBI was filed in 2002.

...

Robert Mueller was an assistant US attorney in Boston - and wrote multiple letters to the courts denying these four men parole that reiterated the known false charges against them:

One lingering question for FBI director Robert Mueller

... it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting US attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies.

Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.

And that's just one person's history - a person lauded as so fucking wonderful.

So GFY with your "this is an FBI investigation"

we all know Trump didn't *win* the Presidency; what he did was take it.

The Trump campaign ran an old-school campaign, campaigning everywhere while the HRC campaign tried to run a "smart" campaign, not wasting resources on regions where HRC's victory was "a given", until it wasn't.

If 5,919 Trump voters [switched their votes] in Michigan, 13,629 in Wisconsin, and 34,119 in Pennsylvania, Clinton would have won each of those states by the slimmest of margins (a vote or two).

Source

Trump didn't "take" the Presidency, HRC gave it to him, trying out her new, un-proven "smart" campaign that cost her MI, WI, and PA in the general election - states she should have easily won, had she even bothered to campaign there during the General Election.

Trump will die in Federal Prison a traitor. The only question that matters is will he live long enough to begin his state prison terms also?

Oh, go fuck yourself.

Ask Peter Limone what it's like to be frame by the FBI for a murder committed by someone else, and then have Robert Mueller actively cover that up every time you come up for parole.

Of course, Mueller's actions there did help cost the US over $100 million in payment to the four people frame by the FBI and convicted of murder, with three sentenced to death:

In 2001, the four men convicted of Teddy Deegan’s murder were exonerated. Turned out the FBI let them take the rap to protect one of their informants, a killer named Vincent “Jimmy’’ Flemmi, who just happened to be the brother of their other rat, Stevie Flemmi. Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.

Albano was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting US attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies.

Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.

“Before he gets that extension,’’ Mike Albano said, “somebody in the Senate or House needs to ask him why the US Attorney’s office he led let the FBI protect Whitey Bulger.’’

Robert Mueller - Whitey Bulger's protector.

But if you want to corruptly frame someone innocent, Mueller's the guy.

Ask Terry Hatfill. Got the balls to Google that name? Guess how many millions of dollars the US had to pay him because of Mueller's actions...

help Uber drivers find victims

Reading the story ... she was drunk, she made an advance on him, and he consented to sex. And he's accused of rape? Really? If the sexes were the other way around, they'd be more likely to accuse the *drunk* of rape.

You miss the point of this AI. It is to help Uber drivers find victims, not to avoid them.

"find victims", you got that part right. They'll exploit the hell out of said victims too (surge prices, high risk).

Uber has lost touch with one of the reasons people used them to begin with -- PRIVACY. Pubilc cabs around here were all required to have onboard camera and video, you know, to record you at your worst. When Uber drivers first came around here they didn't have such stupid things but now everyone has a cam, mics, some even fuckin stream live (twitch for example).

It makes no sense in Ubers case since they already have so much metadata on you.

Capatcha: Shroud (big twitch streamer / csgo player). Slashdot you creepy bastards.

You miss the point of this AI. It is to help Uber drivers find victims, not to avoid them.

Someone needs to patent an AI that can determine if your Uber driver is a murderer or rapist.

How we spent 1 billion overthrowing Libya

Obama's worst mistake The Atlantic

The us ruined Libya

If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing

Stop right there. Don't even try to forward this bogus agenda by merely positing a specious question.
If women want to be directors AND if they have any talent, they can absolutely become directors. There are many female directors including Cameron's own wife. Though I question her talent, so maybe "and talent" isn't a requirement after all. For evidence, here is a lengthy list of female directors.

The constant media and Twitter(seriously?) onslaught of 'only a minority percentage of X work in field Y and this needs to be addressed' is nauseating horseshit. There are less women in automotive mechanics, IT, movie directing, garbage collection because less women choose to apply themselves to such positions. Attempts to force some sort of affirmative action for the sake of numerical balance or the advancement of unqualified untalented individuals is asinine and in itself sexist/racist. 'Oh poor women, they can't get movie director jobs, we need to mandate half the jobs for them.'

Fuck right off!

There are lots of men out there that would be more talented directors than Cameron who will never work as directors, even when they want to, simply because you don't always get what you want out of life. Why doesn't anyone talk about affirmative action for them? Seems sexist.

Only 2.9% of dental hygienists are male. This seems pretty sexist. Why isn't anyone crying for male wannabe dental hygienists?

Only 9% of nurses are male. This seems pretty sexist. Why isn't anyone crying for male wannabe nurses?

Only 13% of paralegals are male. This seems pretty sexist. Why isn't anyone crying for male wannabe paralegals?

By the way, fun fact: The percentage or female producers and directors is 38%.

Actually, no. BU is still having fun with this still on-going after 6 years. I cannot imagine the pain MIT will go through for a Fusion Lab, with everyone hating nuclear power (of any kind) these days.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/me...

BTW, the nuclear lab was built in the 60's IIRC, back then anything went for construction.

Christpher Wray complains that there is no encryption back door, while simultaneously complaining that there are too many cyber threats.

The FBI has several fundamental problems:
1) Their leadership has no idea what they are talking about or doing.
2) They ignore actionable Humint for Sigint.
3) They are reactionary.
4) Nobody wants to work for them anymore.

The failure of every branch of the United States government to hold anyone accountable (Equifax, Russians) causes everyone to lose faith in their leadership.

I can't imagine how this makes economic sense.

Just another win for net neutrality

"Under the Massachusetts legislation, any company that violates Net neutrality would be subject to antitrust enforcement by the attorney general's office."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/op...

If they can't monetize the pipe, they give up. It's not sexy or romantic or virtuous but that's how business works. Cut your losses is the best answer to sunk cost fallacy.

Are you trying to claim Trump is more coherent than Obama? Trump loses his train of thought mid-sentence all the time when giving speeches.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/op...

https://www.theguardian.com/tv...

I love this example of a Trump speech:

“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

https://www.snopes.com/donald-...
https://www.theguardian.com/tv...

Here are some more examples:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

One of the most shocking things that we all saw - in a sea of utterly shocking behavior - was important people with advanced educational credentials utterly losing their shit in public about Trump. They just lost it in public and started frothing at the mouth.

Yes, but as Republicans they had sworn an oath to support the Party over Principal, so they were obligated in the entirety to completely praise every puerile declaration out of his mouth, even when he literally misused the term literally.

Even now, they're obligated to do so. It's compulsory. A religious commandment.

Tremendous amounts of respect lost for these people, it is likely we will never trust them again in my lifetime.

Why did you trust the GOP establishment in the first place? Not only did they get behind Trump, they also endorsed Roy Moore, Ron Paul, Louis Gohmert, Antonin Scalia, Todd Akin, Sarah Palin, Ted Nugent, Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Roney, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon, the list goes on. They'd have voted for literal Hitler if given the choice over Obama. Fortunately they haven't gotten around to passing the Schwarzenegger Amendment. Yet.

What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions?

A member of the Trump Cabinet.

Noted Nazi and anti-Semite Donald Trump announced Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Worst. Hitler. Ever!

I wasn't aware he had been deported to Israel, when was this? Really, exactly when did the President of the United States get the authority to decide ANY nation's capital?

So, it had nothing to do with his policies, how he enacted those polices, his attitude toward the opposition, his repeated mishaps (Fast and Furious as example), his moneyed ties to Wallstreet, his repeated power grabs at various government agencies, his cozy relationship with MSM, his continuation of Bush policy, or his lackluster foreign policy. No, it comes down to muh racism. Even when he was first elected 'muh racism and muh racists' was trotted out. I distinctly remember on CNN the day after in 2008 "We found out last night that there were not enough racists to beat president-elect Obama.". Because only a racist would oppose the perfect 2nd Coming of Christ Obama, amirite? ...

In reality, he was just a crappy president. His agenda being undone by the "pen and phone" is the bed he made. The only legacy he will have is the ACA and the cost he placed on poor people forcing them to buy an expensive service. Congrats to him that his presidency still needs white knight protection from muh racists.

an armed insurrection against

The violence of the revolutionaries was aimed at the king's soldiers, not the fellow civilians disagreeing.

Nope! There was much violence against the disagreeing citizenry during said conflict. Assaults on "Tories" as they were known, were quite well documented, and even occurred after the war. Not to mention the treatment of many other citizens who weren't Loyalists, but had other sentiments such as the Shays and Whiskey rebellions.

against the God-anointed King.

No, it was not against the King

Thomas Jefferson said it was:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

Actually, it doesn't matter. If you're looking or listening to your phone, you're not paying attention to the road. Looking somewhere near the road isn't good enough. http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-I... https://www.bostonglobe.com/op... and lots more articles that got pulled up when I Googled for "hands off cell phone safety"

Source https://www.bostonglobe.com/me... (paywall link) (disclaimer, I work for The Boston Globe)...

markets optimize for the desires of the customers with the money, not for overall social good

There is no difference between the two. If somebody wants to dine in a Whites-only restaurant, it is — should be — up to the owner, whether he wants the business of the racists or that of the Blacks (and those joining them in a boycott).

Merely rolling back the laws would not have affected the intent of the southern states to suppress and oppress blacks.

How do you know?

There were many others which also had to be shut down.

Nope. The official discrimination had to be abolished. Everything else amounts to prosecuting thought crimes — things made illegal by the accused's alleged thoughts. We surrendered substantial personal freedoms — such as the freedom of (not) association and even that of speech — in the hope of racial harmony. 50 years later we still have neither the freedoms nor the harmony. Do we deserve either?

It has already proven pointless and I argue, that it was not merely that, but also harmful. The recent housing crises was due to that and have the grossly unfair admission policies in various universities, which openly discriminate against Whites and Asians. Similar discrimination is encouraged in the work-place — Uber is seeking not just a good CEO, but one who'd make it less likely, the company will be prosecuted for "discrimination" of women.

It is stupid, unfair, and inefficient — just like everything a government does...

I think that Weird Al endorsed Bernie, but I'm not sure.

Well, I sure, that he voted for Hillary at the end.

Who has called Jill Stein, who almost certainly did not vote Democrat, a Nazi?

Ah, I forgot to mention this explicitly, but, of course, people calling others "Nazis" are exempt. And Ms. Stein did that arguing against "another Clinton in White House".

The perspective I'm looking at it from is that if you look at gender spread across different jobs, it's kind of obvious that men and women gravitate towards different types of work:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/me...

The #2 and #3 on that list alone pay pretty damn well, and as you can see they are overwhelmingly dominated by females. When males take the #1 job on that list, they typically get looked upon with distrust and that they don't belong simply for the fact that they're a male, but even so, I don't think that would at all be a reason that few men want that particular job, namely, most men I know have little tolerance for crying toddlers, and thus most would not like that job other than maybe a simple "it pays the bills," which is typically a reason why somebody might do substandard work.

That all said, I'm not sure the reasoning why we need to say that we must have 50% women in tech, and that anything else is one of "discrimination", "society's fault", or "men make the environment uncomfortable and/or hostile".

At least one female poster on slashdot pretty well hinted that she doesn't necessarily like the work, rather "it pays the bills":

https://slashdot.org/comments....

At what point does free speech, which is protected, become hate speech, which isn't?

At no point. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/me...

Don't you mean, the US self reports as being very generous as shown by LynnwoodRooster, who considers destabilizing, and killing 100's of thousands in the middle east to advance its interests as an act of generosity.

You seem to be terribly confused on multiple levels. Saddam's invasion of Iran and then Kuwait did plenty to destabilize the region and resulted in at least two wars. Iran's meddling has caused enormous grief in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and other places. The overthrow of the Afghan king followed by the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union helped spark and spread militant Islamic extremism. Saddam killed far more of his people than the US led coalition, and most of the people killed in Iraq during the coalition presence there were kill by Sunni and Shia Islamic extremists & terrorists, or Saddam's dead enders. The US led coalition killed relatively few itself, mainly terrorists, insurgents, and other bad actors.

The extraordinary generosity of ordinary Americans

‘The Almanac of American Philanthropy” is something new under the sun: a sweeping reference guide to one of the most remarkable institutions of American life — private charity. Published by the Philanthropy Roundtable, and running more than 1,300 pages, it is the first definitive work on the history, variety, and impact of private giving in the United States.

The scope of American philanthropy is unparalleled anywhere on Earth. In 2014, Americans gave nearly $360 billion to charity, the highest total ever recorded. Most of it didn’t come from plutocrats and vast charitable endowments. Though the good works of private foundations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or the Ford Foundation, draw plenty of notice, they account for only 14 percent of charitable giving in this country. And just 5 percent comes from corporations.

The overwhelming share of that $360 billion is donated by individuals. Not everyone gives, of course, but in this country those who don’t are decidedly in the minority. Nearly seven out of 10 American households donate to at least one charitable cause each year, at an average annual rate of about $2,600. Philanthropic giving is a quintessentially American behavior, and always has been. It is also a radiant example of American exceptionalism. The new Almanac ranks 14 leading industrial countries by the amount of charity their citizens give yearly (calculated as a percentage of GDP). Americans were by far the most charitable — roughly twice as generous as Canadians, Spaniards, and the Irish, for instance, and more than 20 times as apt to give as Germans and Italians.

A Closer Look at American Generosity

Or, you could take the word of the intelligence agencies (any, take your pick), who have concluded that nationality is not a reliable threat indicator.

Citation needed. DuckDuckGo is only giving me an article about a draft internal report by the DHS: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ne...

It wastes our country's standing and credibility.

With whom, exactly? Three of the five BRICS have their own Muslim insurgency problems, and two of those three are ruthlessly pragmatic authoritarian regimes who don't really like us anyway. Of the remaining 2 BRICS, Brazil is too occupied with Presidential corruption woes of their own and a shaky economy. Out in Asia, our friends in Korea and Japan are xenophobic assholes, and down in the Philippines Duterte is struggling with his own Muslim insurgency that is flaring up. Duterte, who is busy moving into Russia and China's sphere and has been reducing ties with the US. Yeah, we're really gonna win him over by being nice to Muslims. The Israelis and Saudis have got us by the short hairs regardless. The most populous country in Africa, Nigeria, is....also trying to put down a brutal Muslim insurgency (seeing a trend here?) So who are we losing standing with? South Africa, and the Europeans? Those brilliant folks who have opened the floodgates to their own cultural instability and possible demise? The Turks might accomplish with starving civilians (interesting how they don't seem eager to shelter their fellow Muslims) what they couldn't accomplish over hundreds of years of invasions: https://counterjihadreport.com...

7 meters? Even worse case scenarios have sea levels rising .5 meters in this century.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ne...

So he did nothing?

Read more carefully:

he has done little to nothing of what he said he was going to do, none of it in any way close to exactly how he said he was going to do it, and everything he has done, he has compulsively lied about due to his tendency for braggadocio and irresponsibility.

Pretty much says he has done things, but failed to do it as he said he would, and lied about it.

If I had wanted to say he had done nothing, I could have said that, but no, I merely stated he had done little to nothing, and none of it was exactly how he said he was going to do it, and I certainly wouldn't have said that he has lied about everything he has done if he had nothing.

Stopped chemical weapons being used in Syria

Lied about stopping Chemical weapons being used in Syria, lied about his wasteful airstrike on an airport that was back in operation almost immediately, and certainly did not fulfill his promises on it. In reality, the Syrian Civil War is still a humanitarian crisis, and the use of Chemical weapons, no matter how deplorable they are, is only a small fraction of the tragedy.

And of course, Trump claimed he would solve the problem, which he hasn't, making his failure a lie. That he had previously denounced such missile strikes as he ordered as theater only harms your defense of him.

Increased S&P 500 by 5% (Real money gained by middle class)

Not directly attributed to anything he did, so...huh Thanks for showing the braggadocio though...the trend was already up and really, trying to assert it is real money gained by middle class? Ah, lies.

Unemployment claims at a 17 year low

A fuller perspective shows the lie.

Unemployment claims have been dropping steadily. Attributing it to Trump is like claiming that he put out a fire that was already mostly extinguished. Of course, he also claimed the same employment numbers were lies before relying on them for his own benefit, so there's another broken word of his. You really can't win with this, either Trump takes responsibility and admits that the complaints he made about unemployment statistics were false, or Trump has still left 90 million Americans without a job.

Illegal immigration drop by 75-90% depending on your source

Or you could at that some more. That isn't even getting into his already demonstrated lie about a Wall, his executive order, and his false sanctuary cities claims. Not to mention the toddlers and senior citizens added to his dangerous criminal list.

His handling of that has been yet another cavalcade of deceits, failure, and incompetence.

Supreme court nomination everyone agrees is good

Well, there's a lie. Your hyperbole betrays you. All it took is one.

There are others. 45 in the Senate alone.

Thats quite a bit for 3 months.

That's quite a bit of lies for 5 Sentences. No wonder Trump is your hero

If you still claim he did nothing, then y

Refs: NY Times, Wired, Boston Globe.

So even though our systems costs significantly more. We don't have better supply or better results.

Former president of Greenpeace Canada at the Boston Globe.

The proof is the fact that the information exists.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ne...

There you go, there is the proof despite what the surveillance acts say about limiting the gathering of information about Americans, the Obama people ran around making sure it was in as many places as possible! They may have had good reasons, but the law is still the law!
   

Really asshole. http://www.bostonglobe.com/met...

"But sympathy was not on offer when Davis explained his situation to the woman who ran the company’s human resources department.

“All she did was rant at me,” Davis told me.

I guess you are really are good at jumping to conclusions. You should make your own game. Moron.

Facebook's problem isn't only with misinformation. Their filters are likely responsible for the increased partisanship in America and around the world.

I personally feel fixing the filters would do a great deal to stop the spread of fake news.

"Sixteen-year-olds are just as good at logical reasoning as older people are,"

Voting has nothing to do with logical reasoning. First, IQ and reasoning are not EXPLICITLY required. We let retards vote. Some states let people of an "unsound mind" vote. We count the votes of people with deeply below average IQ and learning disabilities the exact same as those who have received great academic achievements.

Second, IQ and reasoning are only barely involved in politics at all. Emotions are the biggest motivators. When a politician wants to convince you, he doesn't just lay his case out and connect points, he makes you feel proud of him, happy with the way things will be with his help, scared of the other guy, scared what the other guy represents, etc. Elections are entirely emotions.

If a professor is trying to allow 16 year olds to vote- people who are, by law, required to spend every day in a government institution- he probably has some other reasoning behind that.

So I googled it real fast.

Lawrence Steinburg is the professor in question. Here he is discussing the younger of the two Boston Bombers, a 19 year old:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/op...

Here's his quote from that article:

"If neurobiological immaturity makes adolescents inherently less responsible for their crimes, and if science now demonstrates that the brain is still maturing well into the early 20s, should we rethink where we draw the boundary between adolescence and adulthood under the law? The Boston Marathon bombing trial is important not only because the crime was so horrific, but because it forces us to ask hard questions about how best to judge the behavior of those who are legal adults, but in many respects neurobiological adolescents."

In this article, he is overall arguing for less culpability for a multiple murderer, based on his presumed lack of neural development. So according to this professor, a 16 year old should be able to vote, but a 19 year old should be held to a lower standard for his crimes. If you spend years arguing for the lack of developmental progression, why then suddenly pop up and claim that a 16 year old should be able to vote? The claim stands in contrast to his other positions. A reasonable argument from his positions and data seems to be raising the voting age to 25. But then we would run into issues where you would have soldiers (in some cases, theoretically draftees, as we had a draft the last time this sort of conversation happened) unable to vote on politicians who may or may not be sending them to their doom.

A 16 year old without a home is a problem for the state. A 16 year old without resources is a problem for the state. A 16 year old does not have a guaranteed right to work in all places, and may have many restrictions and benefits placed upon them by the state. A 16 year old is not liable for their crimes in the same way an 18 year old is, the details of which vary from place to place. Voting has much more to do with this than any form of cognition. If cognition were the test, then we'd literally give cognition tests. If emotional maturity were the test, then we'd give those tests. Instead, we vest citizens with the responsibility of voting at the same time we vest them with a wide array of other responsibilities and civic duties. If he were arguing for lowering the age of adulthood, I could see his point- but instead he has a set of oddly specific and contradictory statements, based on a fundamentally unsound assumption about what makes a citizen. It is responsibilities, not intellect. Half of people are stupider than average, after all, and they get the same voice politically.

Plus it just doesn't seem smart to let students be told how to vote by their high school teachers. Way too much peer pressure, you could probably get extremely high compliance rates, especially given that schools would inevitably force their students to vote there in person when possible.