Slashdot Mirror

Nobody calls moderates Nazis or anything else - we call Nazis Nazis - and we will run them into the ground.

Two weeks ago, William Shatner was compared to a Nazi and called "alt-right".

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/william-shatner-attacks-snowflakes-social-justice-warr-1797386393

And recall that last year, the former president of Mexico compared Donald Trump to Hitler.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-donald-trump-felipe-calderon-mexico-wall-20160228-story.html

Neither William Shatner nor Donald Trump are Nazis.

You mean like the con artist did because his Chicago tower was failing as miserably as his casinos, or that con artist-in-law also came hat-in-hand to Soros for money?

"Denton filed an emergency motion seeking to stay enforcement of the verdict against him pending appeal, but the judge in the Florida case on July 29 refused." -- Chicago Tribune

Gawker never got to appeal the decision, the bankruptcy was caused by being forced to pay the penalty which crushed them and their legal efforts to stage an appeal.

Numerous states have lost in court over their abusive voter actions: Florida, Texas, Kansas, North Carolina. What do these states have in common? Is it also that they've been subjected to Republican misrule, often due to gerrymandering? It would seem, therefore, if Republicans were really interested in fair and honest elections, they would remedy the faults in their actions that lead to unlawful purges, and discriminatory ID claims, so their actions would be fair and above reproach. Yet the opposite happens...Why is that?

Oh, and it turns out that Virginia had problems with its attempted purge. And that report you cherish is questionable.

Sorry, LynnwoodRooster, but your command of statistics remains faulty, same as when you're being a racist bigot about homicides.

GE did a story on it that they posted to youtube years ago.

Probably my favorite part of this story hitting the news is that the spokesperson for this treatment is the girl from the above video. She's 12 now and still completely cancer free. I'm very glad to see she's doing well.

Perhaps Chicago would be better to put these resources towards making sure all of its children survive to graduation before spending more money the city doesn't have forcing them to make plans for what comes next.

Cutting taxes is not giving.

It is, when those taxes were paying for services received, and instead of paying for them through taxes, you issue bonds which those wealthy snap up.

They double-dip, you know.

And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.

You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)

So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.

Or we could do this.

You're just being stupid, raising a pointless strawman argument that does not resolve differences or explain anything, but merely makes you look irate.

Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?

Have you read what's happening in Kansas? They followed the plan of handouts to the rich. How's that worked out for them?

Sorry, but you can believe the lie brigade about CT if you want, KS is still a failure. It's a logjam due to partisan politics.

it was a joke

I am an Aspie. I am immune to jokes.

If only they pass laws to label where software comes from like regular products so I can avoid all the "Made in India" software companies

Nope. Instead they passed laws that say that they don't have to label where meat comes from, by repealing COOL. You are not permitted to know, comrade.

When President Obama ordered a hamburger with dijon mustard it was a headline in right-wing media showing how elitist he was.

... [Comey] said the cost of the phone hacking tool was "more than I will make in the remainder of this job, which is seven years and four months, for sure.''

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-james-comey-fired-20170509-story.html

Not as many as people think they might. When John Deere opened a new factory, they had 10,000 applications for 800 positions.

The problem such as it is, is that some of the powers that be are living in 1950. Automation is ascendant now, and the idea that we are going to somehow employ more people is unrealistic.

Its really quite simple in Q&A format

Q. Why did manufacturing jobs leave the US in the first place?

A. Because the manufacturer could make more money using less expensive labor

Q. Since China is losing jobs to automation, http://www.chicagotribune.com/... will the same people who exported jobs to China reinstall the same conditions that caused them to export them?

A. Oh, you guys crack me up. Sorry, but no.

When the country you exported jobs to eliminates the jobs you exported for robots, you ain't bringing them back. That's not how Capitalism works. The jobs are gone from here, and soon gone from China.

If you are a school faced with all these costs and are no longer financially secure, any revenue source must be looked at regardless whether you like the strings attached or not. Directly answering your question, no but when you add in the other federally mandated expenditures for financially struggling schools it becomes more and more like it.

The states themselves are being sued.

Instead of homicide, you just have to deal with ridiculous amounts of homeless people that make Hawaii resemble a third world country, sleeping on sidewalks, defecating and peeing everywhere.

I've been to Hawaii a number of times and not in the tourist trap parts either. Doesn't remotely fit my anecdotal observations. There are more homeless people in Chicago than in Hawaii.

death by homicide

The reality is that Chicago is, by and large, a safe city for most of its residents. The worst violence is highly concentrated in rather small areas. You can see this for yourself by looking at a map of where the incidents occur.

What the media often avoids covering, however, is the demographic side of this issue. Nearly all of this violence happens in neighborhoods with large black, and to a lesser extent Hispanic/Latino, populations.

Most of the killings are blacks killing other blacks, often with gangs being involved in some way. It's not the police killing these people. It's not non-blacks killing these people. It's black-on-black violence.

Some people will try to blame this on "poverty", but I don't think that's the case. We don't see anywhere near as much violence in the areas of the city that are poor, but predominantly non-black, for example. Some of these areas with poor non-black residents are actually worse off, from a financial and support standpoint, as they don't have access to the many social programs and the social assistance offered in many of the predominantly-black neighborhoods.

This probably all comes down to culture. Too many black Americans have chosen to adopt a culture that glorifies gangs, violence, shootings, killing, drug abuse, and other crimes. Of course having this mindset will result in a violent and awful situation in which to live!

Thankfully, there are some blacks to see through this nonsense. They realize that they can do better, and so they avoid the so-called "gangsta culture" that's so prevalent within their communities. But these people are marginalized and silenced by the various leftist groups, such as Black Lives Matter types of groups, that try to distract from the real problems affecting these communities.

It isn't the police and it isn't non-blacks who are responsible for this black-on-black violence. The black community itself needs to work to put an end to this violence. It can't be something imposed on them from the outside. They'll need to work on this themselves. They need to get away from the violent culture they've adopted over the past 40 years. They need to get away from the leftism that places the blame everywhere but where the actual problem is.

So back when the US Postal Service decided to retire the postal jeep in favor of the Grumman LLV, rather than offer them for sale they decided to have them crushed. They played both sides of the argument. When asked why they were being retired they said because they were no longer good for delivery, and when they were asked why they were being crushed instead of sold they said that they didn't want the competition buying and using them. So they were too good to sell, and too bad to leave intact?

Where did you hear that? I'm guessing some anti-government rant. They were sold at public auction.

As for the Jeeps, they will be disposed of as they always have been, at auction. Rural carriers, many of whom use their own cars as they make deliveries, have first crack at buying the Jeeps, for between $400 and $1,000. Then they will be offered at public auction.

United Airlines Flight 3411 is NOT a United Airlines flight. The U.S. government allows mis-labeling. Flight 3411 is a CommutAir flight.

United's CEO Oscar Munoz made the situation FAR worse by the pretend caring in what he said: United is investigating why authorities dragged a passenger off a flight -- here's what it found.

Quotes from the CEO:

"... we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding..."
It was not "apologetic". The passenger was already boarded. There was no "we".

"Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers..."
They could have tried asking someone else, and increased the price they would pay.

To employees: "I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right."
That badly worded sentence also shows a lack of social ability.

The incident was like a billion-dollar advertisement saying, "Don't fly United Airlines." A New York Times story, United Airlines Passenger Is Dragged From an Overbooked Flight, now has 4983 comments! (07:48 am PDT)

The issue was not connected with anything United Airlines did. The result, however, is that the United Airlines CEO demonstrated that he isn't a good choice to lead a company. In my opinion, the United Airlines Board of Directors should consider getting a new CEO.

Background information: When airlines overbook a flight, these federal rules apply.

The only way "Hacking" affected the election was that things Hillary and the DNC said in private became public.

Well, no. "Somebody" hacked all the voter registration info from 20 states needed for targeted disinformation campaigns.

http://archives.chicagotribune...

Interesting idea, but it means only one end of each runway is usable. The reason they build paralell runways is so both ends of the runway and different runways simultaneously can be used with wake turbulence being a major issue.

You could extend that design to surround the airport with runways in a hexagonal or pentagonal configuration, It will give more runway options but be less efficient. Modern airports that deal with a large variety of wake turbulence categories tend to have a smaller runway for lighter passenger jets like 717's and bombardier CRJ's away from runways that handle heavy and super heavy categories.

With the Aerospace industry being notoriously cautious and conservative, I don't think we're going to see a change any time soon as parallel runways seem to be the most efficient design.

Telaction Cable Shopping - JC Penney sears has part of it as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://articles.chicagotribune...

http://archives.chicagotribune...

You're right and wrong. To be clear, the Concorde was profitable on a day-to-day basis, enough to sustain it for for 27 years.

However, the expense for R&D was not recovered, true, and there just weren't enough of them, nor enough profits, to sustain an industry through Airbus or whoever to manufacture spare parts and replacement Concordes. So, they aged out. Had the problems of ozone depletion and sonic booms been addressed without being sensationalized (e.g., the Anti-Concorde Project), resulting in bans in most major airports, there may have been enough business to justify Airbus or Boeing tooling up to make replacement parts and even new SST's. Instead, the Concorde was orphaned, and doomed to die out when the supply of cannibalized parts from the few spare planes ran dry.

With modern materials, manufacturing, and avionics, there's no reason not to try again, and arrive at a much, much better result. Besides, there's more places to go. Right now, it takes more than 12 hours to fly from NY to Dubai, more than 14 to New Delhi or Seoul. Reducing that down to 6 would be well worth it to some folks with very deep pockets, deep enough perhaps to lobby away some antiquated restrictions, and justify a sustainable fleet of aircraft.

I don't care how much it will cost at first. The road to Ford's cheap, mass manufactured Model T was paved by a lot of unaffordable vehicles. If it gets built and it works, SST will become more affordable, and maybe stop the current race-to-the-bottom for current air travel.

I think /. url mangled my link.

http://www.albion.com/netiquet...

Try that link.

If we are going to give a reference, we should at least link to an authoritative source. In this case it would be Miss Manners, to whom I defer in all such things.
http://articles.chicagotribune...

Exactly. It is well documented Chicago shaved the yellow light times to increase red light violations.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

And it caused an increase in accident rates once people found out and more people started slamming their brakes to stop the moment it turned yellow, leading to an increase in rear-end collisions at traffic lights.

Exactly. It is well documented Chicago shaved the yellow light times to increase red light violations.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Source?

Here ya go. As you can see, at least one business, at the time of the writing, has already lost a customer because of Trump's weekly visits and others are losing money because they can't do business while he's in town.

As to the cost of Trump's flight down and everything involved, roughly $3 million each time. But since this is Trump, who whined about how many times Obama went golfing and the cost to the taxpayers, I'm sure this won't mean anything. I've seen on several pro-Trump sites and sites where people are favorable to Trump defending these costs because they're nothing but "liberal" hysterics, then turning around and saying if Obama did then Trump can do it despite these same people whining about it when Obama did it.

So yeah, hypocrisy at its finest.

The stated purpose of gun control laws today is to reduce homicide. (The actual purpose is to take power away from the citizens and give the guns and the power to the state). The facts indicate that strict gun laws or confiscation dramatically increase crime rates. Homicide (all homicide, not just looking at gun homicide) jumps up dramatically when guns are banned (the UK saw an increase in homicides and a 100% increase in violent crime after they banned guns). This is also borne out in Australia after their gun ban and other countries. Gun homicide drops, because they are not as readily available, but if you are a citizen, you don't really care if you get murdered by a gun or a machete, either way you are having a really shitty day that you probably could have prevented with a concealed carry weapon (which happens dozens of times per day by the way).

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/...

Now look at the liberal progressive paradise of Chicago with 4367 shootings last year and one of the strictest gun bans in the country. The simple concept that liberals intentionally to fail to grasp is that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. If they are going to murder someone, they are going to chose the best tool that is available, and the laws be damned...

http://crime.chicagotribune.co...

Uh, the post is made up by somebody trying to be funny by echoing the Rolling Stone story.

Yeah, ask the poor fucks at Disney what they think about the idea that H1B's don't replace American workers.

Don't take his word for it, fact check. What actually happened, is that in response to an actual real case where a settled refugee from Iraq was linked to IEDs back in Iraq, Obama ordered the screening for Iraqi refugees to be tightened up, and 58,000 refugees that had already been approved for resettlement to be re-screened. This caused an estimated 6 month backlog in visa approvals for Iraqis, but there was no order saying that anyone should be denied entry.

And don't call it torture. It's enhanced interrogation.

http://articles.chicagotribune...

There are to many people who just go for the piece of paper and others who work in fields where it's an trade where 2-4 years pure class room is overkill.

Going by your reasoning, then democrats and people who support them are pedophiles right? After all, there are so many of them that have deep links to people like Epstein. And there's just so many articles on leftwing media sources, sites and so on in the defense of pedophiles, child porn, and so on. See how easy that works? Haven't learned a single fucking thing.

I'm sure somewhere in your brain, this random gabble makes sense. It doesn't. Try to see that. Show you've learned something. You're just some random tortuously convoluted argument without realizing it has no meaning.

Really, if you want to talk about a pedophile in government, try this guy.

Repeatedly saying that, doesn't make it true. Then again, your definition of "racist and bigots" seems to be anybody who refuses to agree with your political ideology. Which is why the left is right there, screaming no platform.

You know who keeps repeatedly saying something? You, by continuing to incessantly declare that the only reason somebody is a "racist and bigot" is because of their refusal to agree with political ideology. That's a common practice on the right, they make themselves out to be the victim, and they've been doing it since the American Civil War. You can't face up to the actual racism and bigotry of Trump, so you make it the LEFT's fault for pointing it out.

Some of us remember his birtherism, his pattern of conduct, and his general attitude when it comes to racial issues. Notice how you avoid talking about it.

Or attacking, assaulting, or violently assaulting people for having a different point of view.

Oh now you're concerned about violence in politics? That's the hallmark of a bully like yourself, you make yourself out to be forced to do it, because everybody else is hurting you!

Notice how you never say anything about the right-wing doing that. You can't even chide Trump's name-calling.

It's why they're organized into groups, it's why those big "left wing" groups keep doing it too.

Oh goodness, now you are upset that people have learned that 20 sticks is stronger than 1 stick alone.

Why?

Let's look at that "j20" or whatever it's called and what do we see? Yep, the left has an extremism problem. You know what we call that kiddies? That's right, that would be a fascist ideology.

Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.

Exactly what do you say about any of this? Huh. Nothing. Why do you never look at yourself Mashiki?

The mistake was promoting that ideology and view in the first place. The second mistake is people jumping on board to support it.

Yes, but it's too late to deal with the racist and bigoted ideology and view of the right as if it didn't exist. It does, and needs to be combated.

The third was then implementing fascist ideas that openly supported it and claiming it was liberating. You've suddenly discovered that the rest of society really doesn't support any of the bullshit you've been peddling -- rather they simply tolerated it.

FTFY. But oh no, society really likes that bullshit. In the Middle East. In Asia. In Europe. In the US South. All sorts of places. It's very popular.

Though not enough to get the most votes.

Then you decided to double down, and people started going "wait, didn't they argue against this." An

Stating a fact is not a strawman argument. Trump did petition to have a sea wall installed and in his petition it is specifically stated it is because of the possibility of rising sea levels due to climate change. The exact words:

"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland."

Further, he sent out flyers to the local populace in regards to this proposal in which it states:

"Predicted sea level rise and more frequent storm events will increase the rate of erosion throughout the 21st century."

So Trump being Trump, he says one thing but does another. Like his golf course in Connecticut which he has repeatedly bragged is worth $50 million but wanted to claim on his taxes was only worth $1.5 million.

Then again, the con artist has done the same thing around the country with his golf courses, bragging about being worth X millions but claiming for tax purposes significantly lower values.

Perhaps they can re-purpose it for the new #CookedCabinet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/moscow-had-contacts-with-trump-team-during-campaign-russian-diplomat-says/2016/11/10/28fb82fa-a73d-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Russian government officials had contacts with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, in a report that could reopen scrutiny over the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton. ...

"Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Rybakov said. “ I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives.”

I'll repeat for emphasis: staying in touch with most of his entourage during the campaign. And what did they have to talk about?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-applauds-trump-win-and-hails-new-era-of-positive-ties-with-us?CMP=share_btn_tw

Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.”

The Obama administration accused Russian authorities of hacking Democratic party emails that were leaked to WikiLeaks. Putin has previously dismissed as “nonsense” claims of Russian interference.

Whether or not you choose to believe that Putin and his party are responsible for his win, they think that they are.

As for the other stuff, I'm not sure what you're questioning - that's just history; pick up a history textbook.

Ha, you must be a time-traveler from the pre-SJW leftist era. These days the apeshit coming from the SJW left makes the old A.M. radio batshit coming from the right look positively sane.

It's a pretty bizarro world where liberals are now the ones screaming for banning free speech and bullying their opponents into silence. They've even managed to one-up conservatives on their conspiracy theories. I remember laughing after Obama's election when pawn shops were reporting a run on gun-buying from gun nuts convinced that Obama was coming for their guns. The I read a story recently about how there has been a run on birth control from crazy lefties convinced that Donald trump is coming for their birth control. Lol, same crazy, different day.

"You're very good at only picking and choosing articles that back up your prejudices."

Way to provide a list of actual violence against others for their beliefs. Oh wait. You provided a single link that includes just one physical attack. The rest talk about burning Obama in effigy -- something that protesters have been doing in the US since before we were the US.

Come back and try again when you have a bakers dozen. I only listed the highlights.

How about the crazy Colorado guy who shot up a theater? He was a nut but the left had a crazy hissy fit about this Colorado right-wing gun freak..
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/...
Oh wait... he wasn't from CO -- he was from Berkeley. Yes, he was a nut, but the left wanted to paint him as a right wing gun nut rather than from one of the most liberal locations in the US.

Or how about those silly republicans who slashed the tires of helpless democrats?
http://articles.chicagotribune...
Oh wait... it was DEMOCRATS slashing the tires of republicans to prevent them getting to the polls!

Want some more?

I beg to differ with your "ignorant" statement. Trump is much smarter than people believed

If he were smart, he would have been much more careful with what he said while wearing a mic.

Yeah, because smart people never do that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...

U.S. agencies say they are "confident" that Moscow orchestrated the attacks.

Nope, no US agency has said anything of the kind. Your article quotes unnamed "former security officials" saying that Russia stole files from the DNC. One is actually named, retired CIA director Hayden, who has been out of government for 7 years, and has no idea what was in the security briefing.

It's interesting to note that this is the same Hayden Hayden referred to people who believed that enhanced interrogation techniques used against CIA detainees have never yielded useful intelligence, as "interrogation deniers". He currently works for the Chertoff group. Conflict of interest? Yes. Credible? No.

U.S. agencies say they are "confident" that Moscow orchestrated the attacks.

Because we've yet to be shown a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.

Perhaps you might tell us why this is the case? Seriously - you figeu=re intel is going to give us IP addresses, phone numbers and all? Or are you an alt.right person who wouldn't believe any evidence anyhow.

Here's your cohort where I confirm your alt.right street cred. http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

You might try for a position on old pussy grabber's staff, after he is elected.

> They built none of the infrastructure they profit from.
> They're rent seeking parasites.

Some of the cable companies are ASSHOLES. No doubt about that. Personally I've had pretty good experiences with them, but I'm Texas, where there's competition. I know that people on the coasts particularly often continue to live with the cable monopolies their government created years ago, and those monopoly providers sometimes suck, particularly, their customer service sucks and Comcast has questionable billing practices.

To be honest, however, those assholes DO each spend over a billion dollars every year upgrading their networks. Here's $300 million / year just in Chicago alone, for example:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Verizon has spent $15 billion on FIOS. Goldman calculated that for Google to become a national ISP, it would cost them $140 billion.

It is honest and right to criticize their customer service, and to point out Comcast's illegal billing. It is false, and makes one appear rather uninformed, to claim that they don't invest HUGE amounts of money in building and constantly upgrading the infrastructure. When you make a claim like that which is so easily shown to be absolutely false, you appear to be either clueless or disingenuous, at which point people stop listening to you and don't hear your legitimate complaints about customer service or other real issues.

"If I sold you a car and did not mention that when I had the head off the other weekend I noticed the block was cracked that would be fraud. On the other hand if I fail to mention its due of an oil change nobody is going to come after me for violating a lemon law let alone fraud."

Look into the exceptions available to real estate agents regarding reporting on the fitness of a property for sale. Somehow they can get out of telling you that there are problems with the property.

By your definition this is fraud. Why aren't all the realtors in gaol? Think how much better society could be if they were?

Another fact is that, after a couple of decades of dropping, violence is increasing. More than 50 people were shot in Chicago in just one weekend this year..

On April 20, Chicago reached 1,000 shooting victims for the year, six to nine weeks earlier than in the previous four years, according to data compiled by the Tribune. That grim milestone, for instance, wasn't reached until June 4 last year.

Perhaps even more troubling, this marks the third consecutive year in which Chicago has seen double-digit increases in shootings.

Not surprisingly, homicides are also soaring in Chicago. Through Sunday, 196 people have been killed, a 55 percent increase over the 126 victims a year earlier, official Police Department figures show.

Going up, up, up.

Blacks are fleeing Chicago because of the increased violence, so forget about blaming them either.

The 2010 census reported a 17 percent drop in the city's black population over the previous decade. That number declined another an additional 4 percent through 2014, to 852,756.

Is it lead? No, because rates were going down, and now they're going up. No sudden increase in lead exposure to account for it.

Another fact is that, after a couple of decades of dropping, violence is increasing. More than 50 people were shot in Chicago in just one weekend this year..

On April 20, Chicago reached 1,000 shooting victims for the year, six to nine weeks earlier than in the previous four years, according to data compiled by the Tribune. That grim milestone, for instance, wasn't reached until June 4 last year.

Perhaps even more troubling, this marks the third consecutive year in which Chicago has seen double-digit increases in shootings.

Not surprisingly, homicides are also soaring in Chicago. Through Sunday, 196 people have been killed, a 55 percent increase over the 126 victims a year earlier, official Police Department figures show.

Going up, up, up.

Blacks are fleeing Chicago because of the increased violence, so forget about blaming them either.

The 2010 census reported a 17 percent drop in the city's black population over the previous decade. That number declined another an additional 4 percent through 2014, to 852,756.

Is it lead? No, because rates were going down, and now they're going up. No sudden increase in lead exposure to account for it.

We have fewer Americans in the workforce that we did a decade ago and that continues to decline.

This one is due in huge part to the baby boom and all of them retiring. Between that and a decline in birth rates, you're going to have a smaller workforce.

Not true according to Bloomberg : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

The decrease in the labor force last month also probably didn’t reflect the retirement of more baby boomers. The participation rate among those 65 years old and older rose to 18.9 percent in April from 18.5 percent the prior month.

Not entirely true, according to US News : http://www.usnews.com/news/the...

In a nutshell, the baby boomers have aged and are now finally retiring en masse. After bulging into the workplace in the 1970s, women are no longer the force in the labor market they once were. Younger people are opting to educate themselves rather than work. And a less-than-friendly tone toward immigrants is shrinking the supply for some high-skilled jobs.

Not according to MSNBC : http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/fe...

In other words, a remarkable number of Americans are not only unemployed, but are also declining to seek new employment. That includes a striking number of 18-24 year olds, according to a new report from Demos called “Stuck: Young America’s Persistent Jobs Crisis.” According to the report, Americans in that age group had lower participation rates than 25-34 year olds or 35-64 year olds across the educational spectrum.

Thats just the first few articles on a google search of "fewer americans in the workforce", and no one would claim that those sources are slanted Republican or Conservative. They are from 2012, 2013 and 2015, and the trend continues thru today. But just to make sure, here's that same search limited to the last year.

According to the Chicago Tribune : http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent. A new analysis from the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, slated for release Monday, found that the United States now has the third-lowest participation rate for "prime-age men" among the world's developed countries.

And from CNN Money : http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/0...

1. Fewer adults are working
Only 62.7% of adult Americans are working. The so-called Labor Force Participation rate hasn't been this low since the late 1970s. The rate measures how many people over age 16 are working or actively seeking work. Back in the '70s, it was low because fewer women worked outside the home. That's not the story today. Now, three factors are driving the decrease in workers. The first is that a huge part of the adult population, Baby Boomers, are retiring. That's expected and healthy. It explains about half of the decline in the workforce.

The second is more young people are going to college and graduate school. They are studying more, which should be a positive for the nation. But the third one is alarming: some people have just given up on finding work. It's hard to qu

almost always from eggs or people with white AVI's

I have no idea what that means.

Asserting something doesn't make it true, even if you do it angrily.

Your response to that assertion is to simply claim it isn't true? How about this picture and the story behind it?

I don't want to have an argument where I try to find examples of things Bernie has done his "entire career" and have to try and back up the specific words I wrote until you're satisfied. Instead, I'll just say that Bernie's policies are unaffected by the color of the people that he represents, whereas Clinton is on record calling young black men super-predators and touting her husband's crime bill that saw so many of them locked up. To imagine that Hillary has done, or even more to the point, will do in the future, more for the benefit of black people (and indeed all people) than Sanders is, I believe, incredibly naive. If you look at Clinton's behavior and track record and conclude anything other than that she is in the pocket of Wall Street and other special interests, and is in this election to serve her own interests, then you have well and truly bought into her stock and we both know I'm not going to convince you otherwise. A show of hands, how many people think that Clinton will refuse to sign the TPP? I know, someone ask Terry McAuliffe what he thinks. He knows the game that she's playing.

I admit that I have no idea where Clinton's wide support from black people comes from, and maybe that's the piece of the picture that I'm missing. I honestly don't know what they see in her that is so appealing. I don't understand the logic. I'm willing to admit that.

We had his whole campaign to watch. It was pretty obvious.

The enormous crowds and unprecedented funding effort illustrates to you that he wasn't trying? What else do you think he should have done? Should he have pushed for more debates with Clinton? Because he did that. I'm not sure where you think the effort was lacking. The message that he was promoting had nothing to do with race, why does he need to treat black people with the special gloves if his entire platform is based on more equal treatment of everyone who is currently getting screwed by the system regardless of the color of their skin?

They knew what Bernie was going to say, and knew it would not be taken well at all by TWiB or its audience.

Well don't leave me in suspense, what exactly was he going to say that was so offensive? Hopefully that isn't all just hearsay.

So what does his own high-level former staff (who know the campaign better than you or I) say happened [motherjones.com]?

I don't believe that any election in any state was rigged. That's not what I think happened. I think that the DNC tilted the playing field so that Clinton would cruise to a relatively easy victory. That explains the shift from 26 debates to 6. I don't think the election was stolen or rigged, I think that the DNC simply pushed the narrative from the start (with the help of the media, you can see the close relationship in the emails) that Clinton was going to be the nominee, as if it was a foregone conclusion, it was already decided, Sanders was just some fringe kook to be ignored and ridiculed, and I think the rules that they set up were created with that in mind. If they had a more transparent and unbiased system with 20 or more debates I think that we would be having a different discussion right now. I'd like to see some exit poll numbers concerning people who voted for Clinton who knew next to nothing about Sanders, but we aren't going to see those numbers (not because of some conspiracy, but we're just not). I think Clinton got rammed down people's throats and the Democrat

The Stessmen v. American Black Hawk decision was from the Supreme Court of Iowa, so it has, um, limited applicability in California. But you're right that video recording public events is pretty much fair game.

In California, it is fair game to record a conversation held in public -- the state's wiretapping law only covers "confidential communication[s]", which specifically excludes conversations in public gatherings, proceedings of the government that are open to the public, and "any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded".

And since you asked, Illinois's Supreme Court decided that the state's wiretapping law was unconstitutional because it banned recording even overt conversations. Many courts have held that wiretapping laws do not protect police from being recorded while they are performing their duties -- including at least one in California.

Apparently he only paid himself about $4.3M last year for his part in the continued destruction of Sears and KMart, I would have figured he would have screamed his way to higher compensation.