Slashdot Mirror

In "the good ole days before the internet", the MSM (Main Stream Media) controlled the news. The government needed a dozen people on their rolodex, and embarressing stories could be shut down. E.g. John F Kennedy was screwing women all over the place, and Bill Clinton would almost be a saint in comparison. But the MSM kept quiet, and it wasn't until much later that JFK's philandering became known.

Bill Clinton realized by 1995, that the internet had the potential to democratize the news and bypass the gatekeepers. "Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all," http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

In 1998, his worst fears came true. Clinton's MSM buddies at Newsweek spiked (i.e. killed) a bombshell of a story about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But a lowly store clerk with a modem (i.e. Matt Drudge) published the story on his site. Hillary was whining about there not being any "gatekeepers" on the internet http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Fast-forward to the current election campaign, and the Democrats are openly talking about shutting down the Breitbart website http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

Do you really want Hillary in charge?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

Violation of classified material handling laws.

Despite predictions that global warming would destroy the world’s coral reefs, scientists as well as divers who visit the reefs regularly have found that they are instead thriving, with almost no damage.

Libertarian, too bad you can't find a candidate that isn't a non-interventionalist. Come on, Americans love to meddle. If you can't win this election you should just give up. Disband. Whatever parties do when they are no longer relevant.

Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're purposely spreading misinformation. I have a lot of issues with Gary Johnson, but he's explicitly stated several times that he's in favor of non-intervention, and wants to cut military spending by 20%. This stance is popular with the troops, as Johnson leads both Clinton & Trump in that demographic.

Trump is actually dangerous.

Yea, somehow when Bill Clinton and others have done EXACTLY what Trump has proposed, it was great. http://dailycaller.com/2016/05...

Man, they have you snowed good. They have you believing Trump is the boogeyman. Of course, they've paid a great deal of money to make you think that.

The faux laziness of Hillary supporters who want to maintain the ability to pretend they're unaware of her and her campaign's corruption never ceases to amaze. I know, that whole google searching thing is laborious, isn't it?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...

He's probably referring to the portion of the emails exposing the intent to reward donors with specific positions: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07... Yes I know.. not the best source.

Geographic distribution = Transmission losses = higher prices

E=IR : not just a good idea, it's the law.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...

And even in the less than sane Deutsch Republik they are waking up that fact.

Are you proud of being a "citizen" and do you "brown bag" your lunch to avoid unhealthy fast-food joints? According to the City of Seattle, you're racist. http://dailycaller.com/2013/08...

And if your "brown bag lunch" contains a peanut-butter-sandwich, you're potentially in trouble in Portland. http://www.dailykos.com/story/... So yeah, I agree with parent post. If I wwere a white guy in the vicinity of a minority employee, I'd STFU and keep ineteraction to a minimum to minimize my risk of being hauled before some "Civil Rights Tribunal" for an off-the-cuff remark.

While you are completely correct, it is also worth mentioning that more recently they failed to predict Trump's victory. Here is his apology after that happened. So he's demonstrably been unable to understand the Trump trend in the past.

My point isn't that he's bad, he's really good. It's that you shouldn't blindly follow what he says: do your own analysis.

http://mediatrackers.org/wisco...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...
http://www.campusreform.org/?I...
http://www.mediaite.com/online...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
http://freebeacon.com/issues/s...
http://overlawyered.com/2015/0...
http://legalinsurrection.com/2...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...

Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence office with Top Secret clearance and had served in the war zone. She used the infomation (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)

As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.

Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.

Here Are The 23 Classified Memos Sidney Blumenthal Sent To Hillary Clinton

Hmm, I'm oddly being dragged into defending something I have no interest being involved in, but... I thought Blumenthal sent her emails with information that was subsequently classified; see: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03...

That's not a citation that's "the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action" making the same claim without providing a citation.

One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

Is unsourced and unnamed making it rather difficult to confirm.

Some digging (which shouldn't be necessary since providing a citation is trivial) turns up http://dailycaller.com/2013/10... which in turn makes the claim:

Patrick O’Carroll, a CDC official involved in the “research,” wrote in the February 3, 1989, Journal of the American Medical Association: “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.”

However the Feb 3 1989 issue of JAMA does not have an article in it authored by Patrick O'Carroll.

Yet more digging (which again should be unnecessary) shows that issue does have an article: Marsha F. Goldsmith, "Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation," Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=376136) - note citations are really easy to do. That article apparently quotes O'Carroll, however that itself it uncited so we have hearsay.

And then we do actually have something in writing from O'Carroll in JAMA, in July 1989. A letter to the editor claiming that he was misrepresented in the article above and didn't say any such thing: Patrick O'Carroll, "CDC's Approach to Firearm Injuries," Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 262 no. 3, July 21, 1989, pp.348-349.

So do you have an actual citation? Note they are easy to give, see the two I gave above.

She'll likely win it, but not because she's liked. The only reason why she'll win is that the R side is just so horribly /bad/. Indeed the justification by a lot of Clintonistas is that they hold up the spectre of a "Trump Presidency."

Yep. It's getting harder and harder to beat voters with the LOTE crowbar, though, when their candidates are actually the Greater Evil in many respects. Trump, for example, would have to overthrow two democracies and start two regional wars, just to catch up to Hillary.

I love this term. Consider it stolen.

Just don't tell Jayne Cullen that I stole it from one of her Salon comments. :)

"But that's negative ads" and he pledged to not do negative ads. All the while she's killing him in the media with rumors and nonsense.

The part that drove me nuts was how her supporters were dragging out the fainting couches when ever Bernie would touch her with a feather....while at the same time HRC was rhetorically exhuming the bodies of dead Sandy Hook kids to leave on Bernie's campaign doorstep. Hillbots are as obnoxious (and as right wing) as the Bushbots ever were. Anyway, I doubt Trump is going to be so kind as to not bring up HRC's hypocrisy over private email servers, or mention the fact that at least Brian Williams heard actual gunfire.

Also, your premise is flawed. More guns = more murder. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Have you actually read the paper in your first link? Here's data from their Table 2:

Gun ownership 1.009 (1.004, 1.014) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%
Percentage Black 1.052 (1.037, 1.068) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%
Gini coefficient 1.046 (1.003, 1.092) .037 For each 0.01 increase in Gini coefficient, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.6%
Violent crime rate 1.048 (1.010, 1.087) .013 For each increase of 1/1000 in violent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.8%
Nonviolent crime rate 1.008 (1.003, 1.013) .002 For each increase of 1/1000 in nonviolent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.8%

Well, the proportion of households with firearms has been debated ( http://dailycaller.com/2015/03... ). That article suggests that the proportion of firearms owners has been either constant or increased. Which, according to the study you linked, SHOULD increase firearms deaths, all other things being equal. Of course, things are not equal. But consider the changes in America over the past ~10 years:

-reduced economic security
-persistent high unemployment
-amplified racial tensions
-increased use/abuse of prescription drugs
All of these should ALSO contribute to higher firearms deaths. And yet the numbers have declined. How to do you reconcile this?

Some studies suggest that ownership rates are declining, yet firearms continue to sell because existing owners are stockpiling. ( http://www.independent.co.uk/n... ) A doubling of firearms from 4 to 8 is a huge proportional increase, but we haven't seen a commensurate rise in violent deaths within this gun-owning demographic, which is disproportionately rural, middle-class, white men. ( http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... ) How do you explain this, given your assertion that more guns = more murder?

Let's concede that in an absolutely literal sense, firearms and deaths are positively correlated....in the way that 0.00001 is technically a positive non-zero number.

From the table above, income inequality has 5x as much of an impact on violent deaths as firearms proliferation. Same for the pre-existing violent crime rate.

Taking steps to fix society's other ills will do more to reduce the violent death rate than purely controlling the number of firearms. Given that time and labor are limited resources, allocating them efficiently to solve problems is paramount. If the weapons proliferation alone is a small fraction of the cause of deaths in America as I've demonstrated above, then focusing our efforts here is a misallocation of our energy.

And this doesn't even touch on the logistical difficulty/inefficiency of trying to collect 300 million+ weapons from a country the size of a continent. If the US's War on Drugs is anything to go by, expect an abject failure in a weapons crackdown.

So with your EBT card you have to buy fast food and not good, nutritious staples at the grocery store? You don't get subsidized or free healthcare? There are not scholarships exclusively for low income families that will pay towards top-notch schools? Social environment is the issue and would address influence and connections - but that's not really bettered by giving people money and encouraging them to continue reliance on others, is it?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

If she thinks an FBI investigation is enough to remove people's rights, perhaps she should lose the right to run for president while she is under investigation.

I get to choose between a Crazy Bastard and a Crooked Bitch.

I'm pretty sure that "Crazy Crooked Bastard" applies in this case:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/3...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

"Crooked Crazy Bastard" is also appropriate. I'm not sure why you'd think this indicates someone who would shake up the corrupt system.

http://img2.timeinc.net/people...

none of it was per se illegal

Copy-pasted from here:

Title 18 of the U.S. Code of the Espionage Act in sections 793, 798 and 1001

Section 793 applies to anyone who has been “entrusted” with information relating to the national defense. The law applies to a federal official who “through gross negligence permits” information “to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.”

Section 798 applies to any government official who “knowingly and willfully communicates” information “to an unauthorized person.” Section 1001 addresses giving “false statements.”

Clinton and her aides also could be charged under section 1924, which is a misdemeanor. This was the April, 2015, charge former CIA Director David Petraeus negotiated with prosecutors for sharing classified information with a mistress who also served as his biographer.

Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:

killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"

(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)

FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.

At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...

I know, this stuff is crazy.

The good news is that there’s 50 less pedophiles in this world, because, you know, these homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles.

[...]

But these people all should have been killed, anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in they should have been executed by a righteous government that would have tried them, convicted them, and saw them executed.

[...]

That’s what the Bible says, plain and simple.

Oh wait, wrong religion.

Because the crazy imam calling for the killing of gays is totally representative of Islam.

But the crazy pastor calling for the killing of gays is just some nut who has nothing to do with Christianity.

Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:

killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"

(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)

FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.

At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...

Sites are starting to use EME or big Flash/HTML5 blobs with the ads built in them.

I've even seen pages that use the data URI scheme for ad images (try the Daily Caller as an example). This enables them to evade most ad blockers. If they were injected server-side, they would be practically unblockable; you'd need a block rule for each one, and I could see the server-side code tacking on some random garbage at the end to effectively make each image unique.. So far, however, they're still using client-side JavaScript to inject them, so you can use something like uMatrix or NoScript to block them.

is quite unbelievable that Hill was not trained on this practice since she was an originator of restricted information.

She was, once.

Somehow she went without retraining/reminding for the final 3 years of her tenure.

No that just says she signed a statement that she did, they might have gotten real fancy and had her sign a back-dated attendance roster too.

is quite unbelievable that Hill was not trained on this practice since she was an originator of restricted information.

She was, once.

Somehow she went without retraining/reminding for the final 3 years of her tenure.

...I'll throw another $168 their way.

You may wish to rethink your offer — you and I have already sunk much more into this failed enterprise. The submitter's write-up and TFA both concentrate on Google's puny $168 (million), for which Google would've gotten a solid return, had the project worked, while strangely omitting the $1,600 million, which Obama's DOE gave them in loan-guarantees without any hope of earning a profit.

Think of what useful things could've been funded with the money, had it been done the fair — Capitalist — way. You know, when the people making investments a) dispense their own monies, rather than those of captive taxpayers; b) face personal losses from failures and rewards from successes...

For centuries unscrupulous businessmen and employees have used the cover of a "devastating fire" for to cover up failures of owners/managers and to mask theft by the employees.

The Ivanpah solar plant was backed not just by Google's ($168 million), but by Obama's Department of Energy ($1600 million — strangely omitted from the write-up) as well. And it proved to be a major failure long ago. Just two months ago it was reported on the very edge of closing down for not producing enough energy:

The plant only generated 45 percent of expected power in 2014 and only 68 percent in 2015, according to government data.

And what it did produce, cost $200 per megawatt hour — nearly six times the cost of electricity from natural gas-fired power plants. Worse! It actually used the evil natural gas to supplement the solar-cells' output... (Remember this the next time someone tells you, how we could "power the planet" with only a fraction of the land covered by solar cells — if only the evil oil/nuclear/whatever weren't sabotaging the efforts.)

This fire may really have been an accident. But a suspicion, that it was deliberate is certainly no less credible, than the FUD-spreading accusation, some German nuclear plant deliberately released nuclear waste in the air 30 years ago.

Many? Try 2 so far. That would be diacetyl and a related flavoring. Both are butter flavoring (not popcorn). Most vendors (read, not Chinese) got rid of it fast or sharply reduced the amount used. Years before OSHA reacted BTW. Note that one consumer was affected due to his extreme love of microwave popcorn (another case where it is heated to the point that it vaporizes). I haven't heard of any vapers affected.

The part that wasn't blared over the media in 40 foot tall letters is that cigarettes give you 18 times the amount found in the most risky ecig flavors, so it still represents a substantially reduced risk vs. cigarettes. Cigarettes contain 600 times the amount found in the most risky flavors after the warning went out. All of those are lower level exposures compared to what the popcorn workers got.

It does go to show that nothing is absolutely without risk. It was a surprise to everyone involved including the regulators. However, the e-cig industry was the fastest responder to the bad news even though it was entirely unregulated. The next fastest was a food flavorings manufacturer's association.

You may find these references interesting: Popcorn Lung Coming to Your Kitchen? The FDA Doesn’t Want to Know, New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking, Media Bias Exposed: ‘Popcorn Lung’ Chemical 750 Times Greater In Tobacco Vs. E-Cigarettes

Let's just see when this happens, Just like Al Gore's prediction.. http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

Well it sure isn't helping that Obama is trying to bankrupt US coal producers whose financial health directly impacts US steel production. In the place of a real presidential cabinet where things are weighed with all factors and research is done before taking a position... we have had the Department Of CO2 Is Evil And Fuck Everything Else calling the shots. I would go so far as to assume these 'save de planet coal haters' did not even know that coal is a critical precursor to steel production, which is a keystone of domestic manufacture. It was probably on page 3 of the memo.

And Hillary also thinks that intermittent energy can replace constant coal in electricity production.
March of the stupids.
We have met the enemy and he (and she!) is within U.S.

The hardcore feminists would actually like that, considering NARAL had issues with a Doritos commercial during the Super Bowl.

I was all set to be stoked about Solar City until I found out they were buying panels from someone who uses slave labor to manufacture them (Suniva) ... more like conniva. Is that better or worse than buying them from China? Still can't decide.

Attack Watch from the Obama campaign?

The Administration may have failed to bring America's gasoline prices to the European levels. But the promise to bankrupt the coal-industry is coming fulfilled.

Maybe, he sincerely believes, coal is a poison and should go away. But it is far more likely, that he — or some of his more pragmatic allies in the party — are simply scheming to buy the companies for pennies on the dollar and then politically rehabilitate the fuel with the help of politicians grateful for their donations. And even ask taxpayers for assistance. Seriously, wouldn't Department of Energy be happy to issue grants and low-interest loans to something with "Green Coal" or "Clear Coal" on the first page of their brochure?

the Obama administration's environmental regulations raised operational costs

As the old adage goes:

1. If it moves, tax it.
2. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
3. When it stops moving, subsidize it.

The little scheme involves immense PROFIT to the well-connected cronies, who snatch the struggling businesses between the 2nd and the 3rd step.

The research funding dictated who had a voice.

And those with the voice, can get more research funding. Is not it nice, when the government is picking winners?

Climate science has a harder problem to address, but is as rigorous as is reasonable in the circumstances.

I wonder, what you mean by "rigorous" here. Lysenko, for example, rigorously persecuted adherents of the reactionary Mendelian genetics. And, when their activities endangered the favor he held with the government, denounced them as "enemies of the people".

Something that could never happen in a free country. Right?

Is it really a reliable scientific theory, if police are called on to silence its opponents?

Yes, that is established fact. It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods. She specifically instructed one of her staff members to remove the classification markings and send the material to her in an unsecured method.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

Apparently “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” translates as "Make a version without the sensitive information and send that over unsecured communications" and is a common and accepted practice.

Yes, that is established fact. It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods. She specifically instructed one of her staff members to remove the classification markings and send the material to her in an unsecured method.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

The argument is not much of a straw man when when it already happens.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02...

Actually he called for stopping them from entering until the government âoefigure out what is going onâ (his words) about one of the terrorist attacks.
Didn't he disavow the support from the KKK and return money they had sent him, so far the person who has not done that is Hillary. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03...

Yet, every slow news day we hear of someone (the boogyman?) claiming that there has been another small step in the path that eventually leads to an indictment. If they have the evidence, and it is court-worthy (as opposed to National Enquirer-worthy) and indictment would be trivially easy. The lack of indicting her seems to indicate that such evidence is lacking.

No, it indicates that the politically elite are treated differently than peons.

So far the closest thing we have is that someone claims to have been told to remove secret markings on documents to send to the Secretary of State on a non-secure channel during a critical time period in the Benghazi attacks. We have no evidence that such a thing was done, nor do we know if such a thing was requested. We have no idea of the witness is credible, or if the witness has an agenda.

Do you just make this shit up as you go along? It was uncovered in Hillary's email:

"Hillary Clinton, who has been hounded by questions about her use of a private email account while heading the State Department, instructed a staffer in 2011 to send her a talking points memo by a nonsecure system after it could not be sent by secure fax.

Clinton also expressed surprise in another 2011 email that a State Department staffer would use a private email account for work, according to the latest batch of Clinton emails released by the State Department under a schedule ordered by a federal judge.

[..]

But the latest batch of emails sheds light on her sometimes contradictory attitudes about email security.

In June 2011, after an aide said staffers were having trouble sending her talking points by secure fax, Clinton advised: 'If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.' "

And the context appears to be a sensitive issue that was going on in Sudan: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

I'm not even going to get to the rest of your post. Too much bullshit already.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

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

Next challenge?

Hillary the soon to be indicted felon? Mishandling classified information is no laughing matter. Ordering underlings to strip classification markings to send information via unsecure email is even more serious.

(note that the third sentence is completely made up, probably by yourself)

Nope.

Senator: Newly released Clinton email 'disturbing'

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a scathing statement Friday, calling on Hillary Clinton to "come clean" after the State Department released an email in which she asked an aide to send information on a non-secure system after attempts to send the document securely failed.

Sen. Chuck Grassley said the email, released at about 1:30 am Friday morning along with about 3,000 other emails from Clinton's State Department tenure, is "disturbing," and "appears to show the former Secretary of State instructing a subordinate to remove the headings from a classified document and send it to her in an unsecure manner."

And now a special request . . .

The year was 1993 and the Clintons were in the White House, and there we got a glimpse into the character of Hillary Clinton. . .

Travelgate Inquiry Suggests Signs of Lies by First Lady
How Hillary Clinton sicced the FBI on the White House travel office

You talk a good talk - link to your assertion above?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11...

That doesn't support your assertion that whites feel oppressed by brown skinned people. You don't have a link, do you?

Link?

http://www.avoiceformen.com/fe...

That also doesn't support your assertion that claims of college feminists are oppressing others. I did only quickly skim it, true, but I found the main point to be that women on the whole are better off than men. In western societies this is true by most objective measures anyway so I'm not sure why anyone would bother writing a blog post asserting it.

You set 'em up, goose, and I'll knock 'em down.

I'd be impressed if you did.

-goose, too lazy to log in.

You talk a good talk - link to your assertion above?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11...

Link?

http://www.avoiceformen.com/fe...

You set 'em up, goose, and I'll knock 'em down.

Primatives?! ..and how are you determining that people trying to escape a shitty system/situation are "primatives" (as if you are somehow enlightened)

Open your eyes. "Germany shocked by Cologne New Year gang assaults on women"

They wouldn't be "shocked" if they were paying attention. Sweden opened their door to Muslim immigration and is now the rape capital of the Western world.

Look at what happened in the UK in Rotherham, where they covered up what was happening because they didn't want to be "racist".

Look what happened in Egypt.

Oh, no, but we don't want to be "xenophobes"! We must open our doors and welfare systems to all comers. Anybody who speaks out against it is guilty of hate speech!

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ge...
http://nypost.com/2016/02/09/e...
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-s...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.thelocal.dk/2016012...
http://www.politico.eu/article...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

If Cruz or Trump wins and Hillary is the nominee. You will see Republican-leaning voters and blue dog democrats coming out of the wood work to support the Republican over Hillary. Cruz is not controlled by Wall Street and Trump is openly running a pro-common man, fuck the special interests campaign and he can pull it off because he's so rich he could moon Wall Street in public and not miss a single dollar from them.

Clinton, on the other hand, is married into Wall Street. She's pro-amnesty, pro-every Chamber of Commerce fuck the little guy interest out there.

And to add to the problem for Clinton, she consistently loses millennial female support every time the issue of her and Bill's behavior toward women comes up. Bill makes Trump look like Billy Graham in his treatment of women. Hillary has a proven legacy of keeping women from getting their due in court, including laughing at a 12 year old rape victim.

Sanders is the only electable candidate they have unless it's a Kasich-Bush ticket.

"San Bernardino jihadi Syed Rizwan Farook inspected more than 40 elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools in his job as a county health inspector, records show." ref

Most other violent socialist factions "just" slaughter people who disagree with the new government.

There are three informative works that are worth looking into, or at least to be aware of.

The first is the documentary The Soviet Story. (on demand) Its creation was supported by a committee of the European Parliament, among others. Review is below, and here is a trailer. I suggest watching the entire documentary some time.

Telling the Soviet story - A new film about Nazi-Soviet links

The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. Though it starts by telling the story of the murder of 7m Ukrainians in 1933, it is no mere catalogue of atrocities. The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems.

As Françoise Thom (one of many anti-communist luminaries appearing in the film) puts it: “Nazism was based on false biology; Marxism was based on false sociology”. The Marxist dream of the “new man”, for example, mirrored the Nazi idea of racial superiority. The Nazis murdered chiefly on racial grounds, while the Soviets concentrated on class. But mass murder is mass murder

Those who keep a soft spot for Marxism may flinch to hear that the sage of Highgate referred to backward societies as Völkerabfälle (racial trash) who must “perish in the revolutionary holocaust”. Or that the Nazi party in its early days idolised Lenin (Josef Goebbels said he was second only to Adolf Hitler in greatness).

Perhaps the best sequence in the film shows pairs of posters using almost identical designs: muscular workers strike heroic attitudes in support of the party and the state, blonde little girls beam, fists smash enemies, hammers break chains. Without the swastika and hammer and sickle as clues, it would be hard to know which is which.

The illustration of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is compelling: Soviet radio transmitters guided German bombers in their attacks on Poland. A Soviet naval base near Murmansk helped the Nazi attack on Norway. The Soviet secret police helped train the Gestapo and discussed how to deal with the “Jewish question” in occupied Poland. . . . Read the whole thing

The second work is, The Black Book of Communism
There are multiple reviews at the link for the book, but this is also informative: So, how many did Communism kill?

The third work is this book: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change

We find in it a great deal of history that people would like us to forget, including how fascism was admired by many, how progressives influenced and were influenced by fascist movements in Europe, and how common threads of ideas and values continue to influence events today.

And since we have a self-described socialist running for office:

Communist Party USA Chairman Vows Cooperation With Democratic Party

I actually had vomit come up my throat when I read this. The amount of complete untruth and ignorance was bad...even for the current slashdot.

To say that Sotomayer is not but arch-liberal is beyond dishonest. Kagan actually published work that was pro-socialism http://dailycaller.com/wp-cont.... To call these two moderates is like calling the HULK mildly temperamental.



It's exactly this limited, short sighted, team-sport type thinking that is making the US and the world the mess it is in. People have ideology so far up their ass, that they can't judge or think straight. It doesn't matter if someone is unqualified or incorrect. For this sort of human filth, they will go to any length to make excuses and twisting reality to fight whatever petty agenda of the moment that they have. They just want their team to win. It is sickening.

Btw, Reagan appointed O'conner. He wanted a conservative. In practice, she was a moderate, conservative. To replace her with a conservative justice is not incongruent.