Slashdot Mirror

There are over a billion Muslims. Mostly in India and Indonesia. If you don't think that the ones committing all the violence are a fringe group, then you are vastly underestimating the damage a billion people could do, if they really wanted to.

Based on polls, it isn't fringe group of muslims who support violence. By definition, fringe group would constitute a fraction of a percentage of the people. Here's just a sampling of the opinion polls:

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
http://cnsnews.com/node/53865 (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)

Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam (Wikileaks cable)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/...

NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

NOP Research: Hardcore Islamists comprise 9% of Britain's Muslim population;
Another 29% would "aggressively defend" Islam;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/0...

All executive departments except State need to move HQs to other parts of the county. The reasons are obvious. Continuity of government, distribution of overpaid bureaucratic jobs and moving closer to the the places being managed.

This is clearly evidence of government interference causing poor outcomes

Exactly the point I was making, thank you!

The Nation does pretty well respected journalism, I know you don't like that

They are Communists, I know you like that.

The vast majority of kids go to public schools and get a great education

The vast majority — 65% — of kids aren't proficient in reading by age 15, despite per-pupil spending increasing four-fold since 1960ies. Not in "troubled districts" — the 65% is a national average.

There is no way to put a good spin on this colossal failure of government — which is why those "journalists" you respect so much have never pointed it out to you — and you blundered into this debate not knowing the facts. Disarmed by actual facts and logic, you've been reduced to attacking the opponent's person — a sure sign of an argument lost...

[...] reduced funding and social ills that fall heavily on the community

Which part of four-fold increase are you calling reduced funding?

You attempted to explain this away by pointing out — without evidence — that "charter schools" are worse. Clearly unaware, that "charter schools" are also government-controlled.

that article has clear citations, not anecdotes

That article cites anecdotes — about "charter" schools, which are also government-controlled.

There is no way anyone — even you — would willingly agree to pay 4 times more for the bad service. The only way this situation can persist is because government forces us (at the implicit gun-point of the tax-collector) to keep paying for it.

Of course, you — a Statist — love this and want the same to spread into other aspects of life, such as Internet-service provision. It is both Illiberal and counter-productive — I know you like it, but the rest of us do not.

Do you really need evidence, that government-provided "services" cost too much and are of poor quality?

Yes. If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up. Even if it's clear and evident, or if you think it should be. For the longest time we thought it should go without saying that heavier things fall faster. Guess what, they don't.

Let's start with public schools, for example. Per-pupil costs have quadrupled since the 1960ies (inflation-adjusted), while 2/3rds of 8th graders still aren't be considered proficient in reading .

This is interesting. Why is that the case? How do private schools in the US fare? How do schools outside the US compare, especially in countries that also have a public school system?

What you have shown is that the cost of education is rising and that pupils of public schools fare poorly in academics. The latter is easy to explain, everyone who can at least remotely afford it will try to get their kids into a private school. What's left is the, how to put it nicely, less qualified student material of parents that don't give a shit. That has less to do with private vs. public but more with a perceived (or even real) quality of education of different school systems. You will experience the same even in school systems that offer public education in varying schools at high-school levels, as is the case in many European countries, where you have schools for vocational training (which are generally regarded as inferior) and schools that prepare for university studies (which everyone who gives a shit about their kids try to cram their kids into).

Where do you think you'll find the "bad" students who slack, don't show up and generally don't care about their academic progress? A school where you have kids of parents that don't give a shit about their kids or a school where helicopter parents stuff their offspring?

I now expect you to apologize for the condescending tone and, as a penance, challenge dgatwood below for evidence of his claims...

When you managed to convince me, you'll receive an apology. Until then, I expect you to provide more than single-point statistics that can be interpreted away by a statistics student in the first semester.

You certainly have some sort of evidence to back that up, right?

Do you really need evidence, that government-provided "services" cost too much and are of poor quality?

Let's start with public schools, for example. Per-pupil costs have quadrupled since the 1960ies (inflation-adjusted), while 2/3rds of 8th graders still aren't be considered proficient in reading .

I now expect you to apologize for the condescending tone and, as a penance, challenge dgatwood below for evidence of his claims...

A list of losses in the midterms shows that the 40 lost in 2018 would be in 7th place, with Presidents Obama, Truman, and Clinton leading the list at 63, 55, and 54 respectively.

Well, then yes they can. There's nothing wrong with being in debt, as long as you can afford to pay it back, but I'm guessing that you don't think that's the case.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/a...

Household income, even adjusted for inflation, has been rising ever since 2011 (median since 2010, with a dip in 2016), to a record $62,175.
https://seekingalpha.com/artic...

Obviously, I'm not claiming everything is all rosy. We clearly need to do something about college costs as well as the exorbitant cost of healthcare.

I thought that was one of the selling points of Obama care. Didn't Pelosi make some bs comments about how now that people had guaranteed healthcare they didn't need to worry about full time jobs and could pursue art and other crap?

Found the quote:

March 8th, 2012

“As you hear from these stories, this is a liberation,” Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday.

“This is what our founders had in mind--ever expanding opportunity for people.

“You want to be a photographer or a writer or a musician, whatever -- an artist, you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, you want to change jobs, you no longer are prohibited from doing that because you can’t have access to health care, especially because you do not want to put your family at risk,” she said.

The House Democratic Leader appeared alongisde House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), to celebrate the health care law that was passed two years ago Friday.

How do you want me to quantify that?

Should I start that even on the low end of 500,000 (to as much as 3 million) instances of defensive gun use dramatically outnumber the 30,000 gun deaths.
2/3 of all gun deaths are from suicide. US is average for suicide so reducing guns does not affect suicide rates.
Reducing guns does not reduce violence as seen in many instances of the US and around the world.
Guns ownership has increased or been steady in the US yet violent crime has fallen.
That doesn't even mention the inalienable right of self defense and the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment supported by historical precedent.

You have an uphill battle to say that gun ownership is in any way shape or form, bad. If you get rid of guns that doesn't end the problems of gang violence or suicide. Yes, getting in an airplane makes you many times more likely to die in a plane crash. Are you going to stop flying now?

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/a...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://crimeresearch.org/2013...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.

Yes, but not for the reason that you think - this has very little to do with people commenting on porno, and everything to do with a content-discriminatory tax on pornography.

You can try to dress it up any way that you like, but content-based taxes are unconstitutional. This way, > that way, and especially when adding mandatory filters.

But it's not as if politicians have sworn to uphold the constitution or anything...

Obama DOJ Wouldn’t Have Sought FISA Warrant on Trump Advisor Without Clinton-Campaign-Funded Dossier

Then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in December that the Obama Administration Justice Department would not have sought a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to put surveillance on volunteer Trump campaign advisor Carter Page without a dossier that had been funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to a memorandum released by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The application for the FISA warrant did not inform the FISA court that approved the warrant that the DNC and Clinton campaign had been involved in financing the dossier that provided information used in the application.

Your statement is in direct contradiction to what I just did above which was to post the misleading news and then post the actual data.

I also recommend watching and listening to a wide range of media. However, Fox has basically descended to a propaganda arm.. Frequently, when the entire world is presenting a news story, they completely ignore it (suppress it really) so people who rely on Fox only are not even aware the event occured.

Wapo, The Economist, and the NY times are better sources than CNN and MSNBC. MSNBC actually has a fairly pro-wealthy bias. They'll talk about how you can't raise taxes on the "job creators" (in the face of evidence that the "job creators" mostly invest in China- and any investment in the west is mostly in government bonds).

Two of the major creators of fake news said liberals don't bite and conservative/mr. trump fans do. One made thousands of dollars a month based on that observation. You can't ignore that fact.

I used to be a conservative. Their hypocrisy and lying drove me from the republican party halfway thru my voting life.

The so-called "fiscal conservatives" are already on target to add 7.8 trillion dollars to the debt. If this goes on, we are on track for them to add 32 trillion dollars to the debt.

(and fact checking that- it looks like it's exploded since I read the prior article. Now it's 8.7 to 10 trillion dollars in new debt (just over 1 year into the Trump presidency).

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/a...

https://www.brookings.edu/opin...

That would be true if the share of the cost and the amount of military resources provided were equal. Which is not the case.

The US pays the largest part of the NATO budget (source: CNSNEWS) and supplies the largest amount of troops, tanks, planes, etc. (source: wikipedia).

So yes Norway's defense is basically externalized.

Black Unemployment Rate Lowest in 17 Years

I wish out here in California (State Motto: we haven't taxed enough until everyone is on the public teat), we're spending hundreds of billions on high speed rail with no plan for a route, ensuring that people here illegally get better benefits than legal State residents, and for every dollar you spend on roads we spend $4.70. Even though our gas tax is supposed to be used exclusively for roads, much of it is spent on non-transportation issues. So we also raised our gas taxes but I fear we'll see most of that go to the general fund and not to what it's supposed to support...

... not all Muslims, so far as I'm aware, throw homosexuals off of buildings.

True, it is mainly the ones that are in Islamic countries under Sharia law. Of course even Turkey isn't completely receptive at present either.

Turkish riot police crack down on banned Pride parade

Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK

Half of the Countries Where Same-Sex Acts Are Prohibited Are Islamic; Death Penalty in 13

What can you say about this?

Not that devout Muslims clearly don't have issues with homosexuals, but then again, I can go to a conservative Catholic forum and see the same anti-gay vitriol.

I doubt that you do, and to the extent that you could in a Catholic forum it wouldn't be consistent with church dogma which I expect will be more along the lines of homosexuality is an error, and disordered - hate the sin but love the sinner.

Y2K38 bug already leaked over into politics:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

“I asked CBO to run the model going out and they told me that their **computer simulation crashes** in 2037 because CBO can’t conceive of any way in which the economy can continue past the year 2037 because of debt burdens,” said Ryan."

So the CBO's forecase software could get *up* to 2037, but not past it, i.e. it couldn't compute figures for 2038. What's the more logical explanation, a "does not compute" error, or that they were using Unix 32 bit time?

Coal jobs: http://www.mining.com/new-met-...

US Mining sees first profits in years: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

Geez, here

The US, with 350m people and 99% economic engagement

That sounds like a made-up number. The most recent figure I saw was a 62.7% labor force participation rate, which is approximately as bad as it was 38 years, ago, when Jimmy Carter was proclaiming an economic "malaise."

So, 37.3% of Americans are not in the labor force. They are being provided for by some combination of the following: (a) family members who are in the labor force, (b) living off savings, or (c) government entitlement programs.

The unemployment rate reported by the media (the U-3 rate) is not 37.3%, because it uses a very narrow definition of "unemployed": those who have applied for a job in the past four weeks. It excludes those who have become too discouraged to look for work. A large pool of discouraged workers is certainly bad sign, so the U-3 rate (which buries its head in the sand when it comes to discouraged workers) is a very poor way to measure unemployment.

she likely lost a large number of voters with security clearances

This.

Not being allowed to bring your phone into a SCIF is a pain in the ass, but we respect that rule. Hillary obviously felt above that rule.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

1) Retail is dead. Probably has more to do with Amazon than anything else. I can go to Amazon, pay less, have it delivered than get it locally at the neighborhood store. Hell, I'm buying more and more stuff via Amazon simply to save money.

2) is a repeat of #1

3) is a repeat of #1

4) Atlanta FED is only one, and may be "regional". Since you didn't post a source, I don't know.

5) In my area, restaurants are booming business. I suspect that will change when Min Wage get raised and Robots take over. Any job that can be replaced by a robot probably should be.

6) Factory Orders are up, not down. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/04... "Excluding aircrafts, nondefense orders were up 0.5 percent, the sixth straight month of positive growth. " - http://www.econotimes.com/US-f... Of course, I can cherry pick numbers that describe exact opposite of your un-documented cherry picked numbers.

7) Labor Participation rates are the lowest in 40 years. This one is on Obama, the Democrats and Republicans for not addressing during the last 8 years. Must be GWB's fault.

8) Tax reciepts are at record levels ... - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

9) We've been saying for some time that sales have plateaued at a high level, - http://www.businessinsider.com...

10) Have no idea where you get these facts.

11) "The US Economy is NOT ok " Yup, pretty much what a lot of people have been saying for the last 15 years or so. I personally blame both the D and R parties for not caring enough about the economy, and more concerned with Men peeing in the Girls Bathroom and who can marry who, and "hands up don't shoot", and just about everything else, but the economy.

IMHO, the Government should get the fuck out of the way of people who want to be productive, and work. Stop punishing success, and rewarding failure. Stop the ever increasing tax burden on middle class, and focus on actually making EVERYONE's lives better.

I suspect this is the driving factor.

That was self evident to me. They're not loyal to their employers because their employers are great and worthy of their time. They don't have options, so they cling to what they can get. In two other millennial stories appearing today and not being featured on Slashdot; millennials can't afford the world their parents have made for themselves, so they're still mostly at home, wondering who pulled up the ladder. As such, their prolonged childhood continues.

And if your knee jerks up and smacks into your chin with a "uneducated plebs and their sense of entitlement" view, you should think about who we have for a president now and how well your indifference is working out for you. You can't actually shit on a whole class of voters forever without consequence until you take away their vote.

The DNC, an hour before the March job numbers were out put out this press release:

An hour before the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the March jobs numbers, the Democrat National Committee issued a news release saying, “Today, the U.S. economy is expected to continue the longest streak of private sector job growth on record, one of President Barack Obama’s most important accomplishments.

Source: CNS

From the same article:

The number of employed Americans increased 472,000 to 153,000,000 in March, setting a second straight monthly record; and the number of unemployed persons dropped by 326,000 to 7.2 million.

Oddly, the Slashdot article insists the results were less than impressive...

Who do you think should be punished?

I, actually, didn't say, somebody should be. What I said was, since no one was, there is nothing to hold the EPA in check...

The scientists? They were saying at the beginning of the War on Fat that the science was inconclusive.

Not according to Guardian:

Ancel Keys was brilliant, charismatic, and combative. A friendly colleague at the University of Minnesota described him as, “direct to the point of bluntness, critical to the point of skewering”; others were less charitable. He exuded conviction at a time when confidence was most welcome. The president, the physician and the scientist formed a reassuring chain of male authority, and the notion that fatty foods were unhealthy started to take hold with doctors, and the public. (Eisenhower himself cut saturated fats and cholesterol from his diet altogether, right up until his death, in 1969, from heart disease.)

But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda

Stipulating for a second, the scientists were innocent and it were all the politicians at fault at the FDA, how is the EPA different? That is, what did happen at the FDA, that does not and will not happen at the EPA?

It was the politicians pushing the agenda, and the sugar industry funding it

Wrong. First of all, your link describes (with the weaselese "may have" rather than firm "has") such efforts, which ended in 1967 — USDA's "dietary guidelines" denouncing fat were published only in 1980ies. And second, the "sugar industry", according to your link, didn't lobby the politicians — instead, they paid scientists. And it was hardly a massive bribe — the three scientists from Harvard were paid an equivalent of today's $50,000 to publish a paper, which the believed to be valid.

In other words, the smart assholes at NYTimes realized what massive egg is on the Big Government's face and wanted to create some smokescreen for it to shift the blame towards the Greedy KKKapitali$t$, but failed. Well, almost failed — you fell for it...

In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research

You aren't citing any sources and I call bullshit. Why would industry lobby — heavily! — for a major overhaul of its production lines? The "fat free" stuff is not any cheaper, the margins on it aren't specifically higher, while developing it requires work and brings about uncertainty. No. Once the demand was there, the industry responded to satisfy it — praise be to Capitalism — but it made no sense for anyone to lobby for it...

the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. [...] a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society

My argument is, the EPA does not "benefit society". If only for this reason — they can ban and banish anything they please willy-nilly... We already have toilets, that don't flush (even the EPA themselves admit such problems "in earlier models") and dishwashing machines, that do not wash dishes. In a rush for "renewable energy", we

From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%.

Gosh, you mean that Nixon's initial EPA budget isn't enough to pay for all this country's environmental protection needs almost 40 years later?

Funding for the EPA is up 51% during just the Obama administration.

From the EPA:
(Funding and Employees)
FY 2016 $8,139,887,000 15,376 FY 2015 $8,139,887,000 14,725 FY 2014 $8,200,000,000 15,408 FY 2013 $7,901,104,000 15,913
FY 2012 $8,449,385,000 17,106 FY 2011 $8,682,117,000 17,359 FY 2010 $10,297,864,000 17,278 FY 2009 $7,643,674,000 17,049
FY 2008 $7,472,324,000 16,916 FY 2007 $7,725,130,000 17,072 FY 2006 $7,617,416,000 17,355 FY 2005 $8,023,483,000 17,495
FY 2004 $8,365,420,000 17,611 FY 2003 $8,078,703,000 17,741 FY 2002 $8,078,813,000 17,590 FY 2001 $7,832,211,000 17,558
FY 2000 $7,562,811,000 17,726 FY 1999 $7,590,352,000 18,110 FY 1998 $7,363,046,000 17,739 FY 1997 $6,799,393,000 17,152
FY 1996 $6,522,953,000 17,082 FY 1995 $7,240,887,000 17,508 FY 1994 $6,658,927,000 17,106 FY 1993 $6,892,424,000 17,280
FY 1992 $6,668,853,000 17,010 FY 1991 $6,094,287,000 16,415 FY 1990 $5,461,808,000 16,318 FY 1989 $5,155,125,000 14,370
FY 1988 $5,027,442,000 14,442 FY 1987 $5,364,092,000 13,442 FY 1986 $3,663,841,000 12,892 FY 1985 $4,353,655,000 12,410
FY 1984 $4,067,000,000 11,420 FY 1983 $3,688,688,000 10,832 FY 1982 $3,676,013,000 11,402 FY 1981 $3,030,669,000 12,667
FY 1980 $4,669,415,000 13,078 FY 1979 $5,402,561,000 12,160 FY 1978 $5,498,635,000 11,986 FY 1977 $2,763,745,000 11,315
FY 1976 $771,695,000 9,481 FY 1975 $698,835,000 10,438 FY 1974 $518,348,000 9,743 FY 1973 $2,377,226,000 9,077
FY 1972 $2,447,565,000 8,358 FY 1971 $1,288,784,000 5,744 FY 1970 $1,003,984,000 4,084

Gosh, with all that money, why haven't they fixed the environment completely? Shouldn't we all be living in some sort of weather-controlled paradise?

Where are our flying cars?

But no, your claim doesn't add up. Sorry. Even the largest year increase was only temporary, and that was the ARRA which was short-lived.

The total number of employees "reduced" over the last 40 years is almost all in military service personal cuts.

Gosh, I wonder why the Military got cut. Whatcould have been behind that. What indeed. (Oh and side note, Trump has called for more cuts in that area, hasn't he? Huh.)

Every other agency has grown, as have their budgets.

Yeah, terrible thing, population has grown, inflation, more tasks, it's like we're expecting them to not shrink, and do more with less. What a terrible world it is, isn't it?

The EPA, as an easy target, has projects and funding for things like "clean energy" redundant with at least a dozen other agencies. That is just one area of dozens of redundant projects and redundant bureaucrats handing out tax payer money to pet projects.

Oh, but Trump is cutting those clean energy programs, in fact, he appointed a guy who declared he was going to cut the Department of Energy to run the Department of Energy. Brilliant.

Citation and first interesting quote. "From 1972 until 2011, the number of EPA employees increased by 107 percent while the n

From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%. Funding for the EPA is up 51% during just the Obama administration. The total number of employees "reduced" over the last 40 years is almost all in military service personal cuts. Every other agency has grown, as have their budgets. The EPA, as an easy target, has projects and funding for things like "clean energy" redundant with at least a dozen other agencies. That is just one area of dozens of redundant projects and redundant bureaucrats handing out tax payer money to pet projects.

Citation and first interesting quote. "From 1972 until 2011, the number of EPA employees increased by 107 percent while the number of total federal personnel decreased by 15 percent," he said on March 25 during testimony before the House Budget Committee. Today that office is at an estimated 18,500 employees.

The only staffing reductions in Washington over the last 40 years happens to be the dwindling Military. The second quote is only covering up until 2011, and since then there has been growth in every single agency in Washington. "Executive branch civilian employees numbered 2.82 million in 1972 and 2.76 million in 2011, a drop of 2.1 percent. Meanwhile, uniformed military personnel numbered 2.36 million in 1972 and 1.58 million in 2011, a decrease of 33.1 percent. So the reduction in federal employees has more to do with a smaller fighting force than with a shrinking bureaucracy.

I think an important point here is that the President's budget matches exactly what he said during the campaign. A whole lot of people are in shock that a President is doing what he claimed he would during the campaign. That really has to blow people's minds after nearly three decades of years of "read my lips, no new taxes" (Bush SR.), "we will increase transparency" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will fix immigration" (Sr. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will balance the budget and work on the deficit" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), and since we isolated the first Republican I'll close with "Hope and Change" (Obama).

Nope, not tired of winning

Nope, not tired of winning

Gore's speech was referencing a 2007 paper by Wieslaw Maslowski which gave a time frame of "only 9 more years or until 2016 plus or minus 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer." So, your stellar math skills aside, this was his frame of reference. Strangely, by September 2013 (the end of the first Summer at the lower end of Maslowski's time frame) the polar icecap was at its highest level for that time of year since 2006 ( http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar... ). Try again, sport.

Was that bill(s) (there were more than one) signed into law? Why would you argue that kind of semantic? Obama signed off on those provisions that were expanded with "countries of concern". He signed it and just like the ACA bears responsibility, for the most part (yes Congress is responsible too but it is the POTUS signature that turns a bill to law. )

You are being very pedantic and disingenuous if you think that is a "lie" because it was a law signed by Obama. i.e. his approval, support, and his execution of the law by his administration.

The fact that ISIS is operating in those countries makes things pretty dire for people, leading to refugees. They need to be extensively vetted before coming to the US, and they are. We're not talking about additional vetting, which we probably don't need, but a block on people we're already pretty darn sure are harmless.

Yes, it sucks for those people. Yes, there is vetting. Has that vetting kept up with the times? If so, why would the FBI acknowledge there is no basis to vet some Syrian refugees? The ban is temporary... What is wrong with taking stock into the process to ensure it has kept up with the times and methods used by nefarious individuals? Instead of acting like Germany I have no problem with the government reassessing our immigration processes.

There were mistakes but no government is perfect and they have started to rectify those mistakes by letting in green card holders and the like. What I have heard is that refugees directly affected by this have to go through some additional interviews and questions before immigrating... So what? An inconvenience to be sure but it sure as hell beats where they came from. It's also temporary for most of the countries save Syria which has no records, barely functioning government and civilian militants... We are at war there and there is a hostile government... I am sorry for those people but the world is a crappy place. There is nothing wrong with reassessing various processes that could vector extremism to the US.

Let's see... An organization's management wishes for the lower-level employees of the organization to seek the management's approval before publishing the organization's documents outside of the organization... Yes, outrageous... Impeach now!

Science. Allow me to repeat that - Science. You are apparently celebrating that when Science is not in lockstep with Policy, it must be suppressed.

There was nothing in the memo about "science" — nor about "suppression", actually. It is all your and your team's fear-mongering.

You and your team are rapidly becoming the policy equivalent of 1930's Bolsheviks [...] See Lysenkoism

Wait a minute. It is You and your team, that sought civil and even criminal prosecution of people disagreeing with the modern-day Lysenkos. For treason and crimes against humanity, no less. And you are telling me about Bolsheviks? See Projection.

Smells like more of what I am starting to refer to as 'Trumped up news'.

Not that I support the man (or in fact could really care less directly about US politics), however it seems very important to quite a group of people to
make it look like the sky is falling right now. It is quite sad to see the side that believes they stand for fairness, doing the right thing, caring of others, etc
having to throw so much dirt so bitterly. Its like watching monkeys at the zoo fighting over scraps.

No it's not. It raising the alarm over alarming actions. It's the same thing thing that happened to some other guy. It's the same thing that yet some other guy did many many times.

when you think the press is critical of you, and not the other guy, you're just biased. when you complain and criticize almost non-stop, then call it unfair when other people criticize and complain about you, you're just a fucking cry-baby.

I listened and looked. Trouble is, I don't think you do. The second one with the news reporter is just damning if you bothered to watch it. So I'm disappointed, however not surprised.

Let's look at your link to hurricanes. To preface it, have you ever read the book "how to lie with statistics." I still own the copy I bought when I was in college in the 1980s. Lend it out from time to time, however I see it's online as a PDF now. You should read it. You really should read it so you know when you're being lied to. So what does the article say? Really not a whole lot, it also begins in the 1970s. Ok, this is your first major indication you're being lied to. Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 1890. Yes, 1890. I can cite plenty of other storms past that. So no, they are not stronger and they are not more frequent, and they know it. If they really were, oh boy - you'd really hear about it I'm sure. They would be in our face.

Your first citation about rising global temperatures. Here's a spot that I think you don't realize or understand. Things are warming up. We're not denying that. In fact, if you go back to Venice, you'll see water was rising up in the 1300s when they were trying to keep the Adriatic out way back then. Then we hit a little ice age - which we're coming out of right now. We are in fact going back to where we used to be before the little ice age. Please consider this article - http://www.livescience.com/143... . So this is showing you that Greenland was MUCH warmer than it is right now, and not that long ago (geologically speaking). At this point you should understand that this Man Man GW is almost certainly just a scam.

As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt? Those guys will make a bunch of money either way. It's a red herring argument to fool people. What I can show you is Al Gore makes a boatload http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... . I think it's been well documented on /. that in "science" you want to show MMGW - lots of funds. Want to show MMGW is a scam - you'd get tarred and feathered. You won't get a dime. It clearly isn't what a Democratic administration wants. It's all about control and money.

However plenty of real scientists throughout the world are speaking up. That's why they are having such a hard time. There just is no legitimate science behind it. Again, my citations and you can look up what they're saying like I did.

So just because I showed you in an easy to understand video you don't believe it? ok.
1) Algore was a D student in science at Harvard - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...
2) Teacher was Roger Reville, who told him he was wrong - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Yea, I know, a youtube video, it's actually a transcript from a chemical film based motion picture back in 1980. The citation also goes into Mr. Armstrong, and so on.

There are plenty of other citations about the same thing if for some reason you don't like cnsnews or the youtube transcript.

Could go on. However one thing is very clear to me - if Prof Reville where here today, he's say it's not a factor. That's what the real numbers show. The numbers before they are "adjusted". That other citation I gave you shows that graphically.

So where am I wrong? Algore didn't really have Reville for a professor at Harvard? He didn't really get a D? He hasn't systematically set up condi

because it demonstrates a significant lack of appreciation for the text, spirit, or values enshrined in the Constitution

Overall, I find the lack of appreciation for same by the other party to be far more discontenting. It is the Democrats, who wish to:

• Illegalize "hate speech", contrary to the First Amendment;
• Illegalize weapons — from knives and brass knuckles to firearms, contrary to the Second Amendment;
• promote Affirmative Action — contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment;
• abolish Electoral College and otherwise diminish the role of the member-States in the Union;

But those threats to the Constitution do not worry you, only Christianity does?..

the survey you cited includes no evidence that American Muslims agree with Sharia Law

Seriously? Are you that dense? The article I linked to is called (emphasis mine) "Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world". What does it tell you, that, while it has Sharia-support figures for about 20 other countries — and even a graphic showing same — the figures for the US are omitted? Ok, maybe, my growing up in the USSR gave me the ability to read between the lines, that the blissfully naive Americans do not possess. Fine. Let's look for other sources:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

and:

nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Now, these results are politically inconvenient to the still-prevailing dogma, so, as could be expected, the study is denounced (such as here) as "deeply flawed". But what better rebuttal could there be, than offering results of your own study contradicting those of the "flawed" one? And yet, none of the critics could cite their own numbers. Does that not tell you something?

a completely made up story

Once again, it is not "made up" at all — and certainly not completely made up. It is a real problem, and not just in the US (for which we, curiously, do not establishment-blessed figures at all), but also in Canada, UK, and Norway...

Quit denying it — makes you look stupid. You'll get better mileage out of arguing, "it is nothing to worry about" instead.

This. The CIA is not "refusing" to brief Congress. They're just not ready to do so right now.

This is just posturing on the part of GOP congresscritters.

Them and the news media to boost ratings - after all they will have a Trump Administration they need to play homage to if they ever want access (other than twitter). But yes, they have already stated see this article they are completing the review that President Obama has ordered before briefing.

I for one support them actually completing their work, instead of the BS that Comey pulled...

And just like that, you have no rights online. Facebook and friends become the surveillance arm of the government without warrant or due process. Buried under technological obfuscation any dissenting opinions can be quietly lost from searches, look-ups, black-lists extended, and screening algorithms improved by this new arm of the government.

They are a private company after all and they can give the government all of your data if they so want and do so in secret in exchange for protectionism.

But collusion has never happened.

Not sure if you are trolling, but OK I will assume that was an honest question:

Total crime and mass shootings by crazy people are not the same thing. Fully 50% of all mass murders committed in the US were done by mentally ill in 2013, despite being only 11% of the population (excluding depression). The US rates of involuntary commitment for mentally ill people is far below that of other modern nations i.e. EU etc.

https://www.hsaj.org/articles/...

Total crime is down because of 3 strikes laws, lifetime incarceration of habitual criminals, record high gun ownership, castle doctrine laws, etc. Dead or incarcerated criminals do not commit crimes. Most crime is still committed by people because they chose to, for a myriad of reasons, not because of mental health issues.

http://www.cnsnews.com/comment...

Without our brain and muscle not a single wheel will turn!

Really? Outside of government (public sector) union membership has dwindled to less than 7% of the workforce. Even counting public sector it's less than 12%.

Let's just say the whole Birther thing is a bit of a tell

No, it was not. Not unless you share the misconception, that any questioning of a Black President is racist — the notion I ridicule at the top of this sub-thread. And, of course, Trump didn't invent it. Clinton's campaign, apparently, didn't either, but they did carry the torch before Trump picked it up.

then the not renting to black folks in NYC is kind of a give-away as well

That was his father's... If you looked carefully at Hillary's father, you'd find her being drastically different from him.

And whereas you need to go all the way back to when Confederate flag was cool and God hated fags to smear Trump, Hillary's campaign proved themselves racist in 2016.

That's more or less the amount of CO2 - one of the key "greenhouse gases" blamed for global warming - produced by the average American in a full year, according to World Bank data.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike

(CNSNews.com) â" Today marks the completion of a record-breaking 11 years without a major hurricane striking the U.S. mainland, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ...
The current 11-year stretch with no major hurricane striking the United States is the longest since record-keeping began, according to NOAA data going back to 1851.

Meanwhile
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

11 years without a major hurricane strike. I was pretty sure the east coast and at least NYC were supposed to be under water by now

http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2...

Oops

Under the right conditions, a "major hurricane" isn't required. Have we already forgotten Hurricane Sandy, the disaster which led a respected Republican to embrace a Kenyan?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
Hurricane strikes are largely luck or the lack of it.

Also, try not to be US-centric - it's called GLOBAL warming; there has been some impressive typhoons in the past few years, including one that was 1/2 the size of India - or 2.5 times the size of Texas. That was Haiyan aka Super Typhoon Yolanda which killed 10,000 Filipinos.

There's also some dispute as to whether or not we'll see more superstorms as wind shear may be exacerbated by a warming world and that should reduce the number of hurricanes.

Meanwhile http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

I did not read your link, but when the headline is a fucking lie , there's no need to.

Meanwhile
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

11 years without a major hurricane strike. I was pretty sure the east coast and at least NYC were supposed to be under water by now

http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2...

Oops

There is no third option for encryption right now, but that does not mean there can never be one. You argue that there are only two solutions, either good encryption or weak security, and while that may be true right now, and may even always be true from a technical standpoint, there may be other creative options available over time. Maybe it boils down to as you said pulling the phone memory physically and then cloning it and running every possible password until it works. As long as there is a way to get at the info on the phone for sufficiently important situations. OTOH, I do kinda wonder if this is all a kabuik theater where the feds have figured out an easy crack (or Apple handed it to them under the table) and they are doing this to try and shift all the Islamic terrorists to use Apple products.

If we had a single, mentally deranged individual I would tend to agree with you that once he is dead, the rest is a non-issue. The problem arises when it is neither an isolated individual nor an isolated incident. What you have with radical Islam is essentially a fragmented conspiracy around a certain set of ideas. These guys are usually killed, but it is a 50% chance that he was not alone and he either had money or other forms of assistance/encouragement to do what he did.

Islam has ~1 billion active followers globally and around 3.3 million in the US. 25% of US muslims think violent jihad is OK against their fellow Americans, at the very least should be doing our best to gather information on any and all who back or support violence against us.

http://www.breitbart.com/natio...

And before anyone complains about Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslims, that is a canard. We are all adults here and fully capable of discerning the difference between normal, peaceful fellow citizens who also happen to be Muslims and those radicals who want to do us harm. That is probably why Muslims only accounted for 16% of US hate crimes, vs 57% against Jews.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mi...

Free market typically pushes for cheaper first, then good enough and finally fast enough and no further. This makes perfect sense, I think.

NASA does not have an unlimited budget. They have been pushing for cheap, good, fast missions for years, and been very successful lately with New Horizon for instance. They have been saying that manned missions cost too much. Last I heard Elon Musk is the one wanting to go to Mars.

This is not to say that pork barrel projects don't exist at NASA, but note that Congress had people like Tom Coburn, who were very good at exposing them. Note also that public spending is supposed to be fully accountable.

As of last year, Democrats have suspended the debt ceiling Through the end of Obama's second term (March, 2017, aprox.), effectively removing the credit limit on our 'Bank of China Credit Card' as then-Senator Obama said when campaigning for President in 2008...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

That article seems to give a detailed accounting of the numbers and what they mean. Yes it includes retired, but also it is higher than it has been in a very long time, so what does it matter? The number of retirees hasn't exploded enough to explain the rise of non participating people, it is however an indicator for the people who were cut out of the unemployment numbers because they still haven't found jobs. This article also has the numbers of people working part time who want full time jobs, which is a very disappointing number as well.

So now Johns Hopkins is gun-shy.

From something that occurred 20 years ago, in what is now an age of "srs is perfectly healthy" is the common refrain? I don't think so. I think this is more likely:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”

“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.

Johns Hopkins is renowned for being at the leading edge of psychology and neurology, so I find it unlikely that Dr. Paul R. McHugh would say all of these things without Johns Hopkins distancing itself if the organization fundamentally disagreed. I fully expect an incoming "well he's catholic so his very extensive background in psychology doesn't count" argument but you should actually try reading the points he makes.

I also can't help but notice the big "oops" that should be apparent in those cases where puberty is delayed for eventual SRS. 70 to 80 percent. Think about that. And on the subject of thinking, you presume to tell others that I only think with my dick, (a comment that older males typically make towards younger ones, I might add.) But hey, we're both probably thinking with our dicks here, except you removed yours so that kind of narrows down which one of us is actually doing any thinking at all and which one isn't, doesn't it? (Hey, it was you who started the personal attacks.)