Slashdot Mirror

Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor, who is now in jail. He has said what he has done is now completely legal in NY and no one has disputed his claim.

Definition of late term abortion is up for debate, but 3rd trimester is usually agreed by all. Kermit would perform 3rd trimester abortions by inducing the mother to give birth. She would give birth to a fully alive baby and he would then cut its spinal cord with a pair of scissors. He did this hundreds (maybe thousands) of times. This is pregnancies in their 8-9 month he did this with, the born babies would easily have survived and were not "part of the mother".

This is why your left wing sites won't deny it. It has happened, it does happen, and they made it legal. If they intended this not to happen they would support the right to life bill where a live born baby could not legally be killed. Again why they won't deny it. A mother saying she is too stressed is good enough reason for 9th month abortion in NY. Again why they won't deny it.

This happens, they don't want it discussed because it is an indefensible position. They are evil.

Corruption, pure and simple. When was the last time a high-ranking government official was fired or jailed for their malfeasance?
https://www.stripes.com/some-v...

And what about the IRS scandal? The taxpayers are on the hook for the payouts but Lois Lerner retired with her pension.
https://www.dailysignal.com/20...

Add to this that government employees can leave office and then work for the same businesses they regulated the week before.

You mean like this study which says they reduce accidents and fatalities? http://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Late...

Or maybe the one that specifically looked at Arizona and found no difference in number of collisions (though didn't look at injuries) and certainly didn't find a negative impact? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Maybe you want a wide spread study of some 550 speed cameras which showed a reduction in accidents and fatalities and at the same time directly looked at the very speed cameras that the Daily Mail and some other worthless rags claimed (incorrectly) increased accidents? https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

Or this one from America that said also accidents are reduced and overall driver behaviour in the area improves: https://www.dailysignal.com/20...

I would give you result number 5 from my Google search but it's the same study as result number 2 and I don't want to waste your time.

Cutting our military budget by 90% would put us down near Ghana and Nigeria. U.S. military spending is huge simply because the U.S. economy is huge.

Calls to slash military spending made sense in the 1950s and 1960s. But currently it's just slightly above the world average. If you account for Japan and NATO (whom we're obligated to defend by treaty), it's pretty much at the world average.

BTW, the biggest budget items are Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. They're the programs whose growth is bursting our budget, and what we need to get under control if you want to pay for everyone to go to college. Even if you completely eliminated 100% of military spending, entitlement growth in the next 20 years or so would eat up all that savings. Like it has already eaten up the savings from cutting the military budget from the 1950s/1960s.

I highly recommend you read the CBO long-term budget projections to understand what exactly is causing excessive growth in government spending.

The state is going after that bakery again.

https://www.dailysignal.com/20...

This time people wanted to force them to make a gender transition celebration cake.

There is clearly a portion of the LGBT community out to destroy this bakery with the states full backing.

The so called, "Gun Show loop hole" is a myth. The legal requirements on sellers and buyers are the same as they would be at other times and places.

The 2nd, like the 1st and other Amendments to the US Constitution protects RIGHTs, not suggestions. And I think it is HILARIOUS that you reference " Bureaucracy®" as if it doesn't exist, or that it can't act in ways contrary to the law, regulation, or rights of citizens. (Do the recent years of abuses by the IRS ring a bell? How about #Resist?)

Do you have anything to back up that "claim" regarding "it's just a big 'ole loop hole to let anyone have a gun or a concealed carry permit"?

The So-Called Gun Show Loophole: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
7 Gun Control Myths That Just Won’t Die

Millennia of human experience, not to mention science, tells us that some patterns of human behavior turn out better over the long term than others. You seem to disregard that.

New Report: Majority of U.S. Teens Don’t Live in Intact Families

You're right that marriage protects kids. But "Marriage after conception" . . . better than not at all, but both backwards and suboptimal for producing good marriages that last.

Related: How shacking up leads to divorce

Maybe you know things that aren't true.

Racism! Racism! Racism! So that is the explanation? Sounds pretty simple, and no doubt there are all sorts of training, education, consciousness raising, rules, regulations, reports, graphs, ratios, inspections and oversight that you might suggest to address it.. (Along with many ardent comrades to perform the work!) Reminds me of something H L Menken said: "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. "

The problem is that assigning all of the problem to "racism" is that you are going to be missing a huge problem that is out there, one that is very old, and whose effects are well know through the ages. And the worst part from a Progressive perspective? It is color blind. Nonetheless, you should consider the following, including the quote from former president Barack Obama.

New Report: Majority of U.S. Teens Don’t Live in Intact Families

. . . Overall, teenagers in intact families are more likely to be emotionally healthy, have higher self-esteem, and progress further in education. Boys who have grown up with their married biological parents are particularly less likely to have behavioral problems, such as heightened aggression or substance abuse. Teenage pregnancy rates are seven to eight times higher for girls whose fathers are absent. As President Obama clearly stated in 2008, the absence of a father is significant:

We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

. . . In fact, children who do not have intact families are disproportionately concentrated in the lower third of the income scale. The FRC report reveals harsh realities for children from low-income communities. In Chicago, 86 percent of African American children don’t live with both of their married parents. Many poor neighborhoods across the U.S. show similar realities: 85 percent of children in Detroit and 64.5 percent of children in Richmond, Virginia, were born to single mothers.

How do you turn this around? The good news is that there are some amazing nonprofits whose goal is to help restore strong marriage. One example is First Things First in Richmond, which provides education programs that encourage active fatherhood and strengthen marriage in Richmond’s low-income communities. They teach adolescents and young adults the three keys to avoiding poverty: (1) graduate high school, (2) get married, and then (3) have kids. The order is important. Their results are real: More children are protected from the pain of broken families and the risks of poverty.

The advantage of working to build and sustain healthy families is that it pays dividends in many respects. The problems are not particularly nebulous and there are clear things to be done. Unfortunately, from some perspectives, the prospects for virtue signaling and outrage are not as good, hence indifference. Well, maybe not indifference.

Shapiro on why the Left loves broken families

The family is a bulwark against the State, so obviously if you are a Leftist who loves the big State you cannot stand strong, independent families.

Facebook needs to do far more than just curtail fake news. It tries to curtail "hate speech", however does not have a clear policy on what exactly constitutes "hate speech". As a result, Facebook moderators routinely curtails the free expression of conservative ideas. Just because a person disagrees with you does not make it "hate speech". Just because you do not like what a person has posted does not make it "hate speech". In truth, very little of what gets labeled as "hate speech" is truly "hate speech". Facebook should remember that it MUST embrace the concept of ideological neutrality or it will be working hand in hand with those that produce fake news.

There is little if any connection between the wealth of any particular wealthy person and the daily struggle of the typical poor person or family. Sudden wealth bestowed on poor people doesn't tend to make their problems go away for very long. The typical lottery winner is poor again within a few years.

Why do 70 percent of lottery winners end up bankrupt?
Government programs are not a panaceas, they can make problems worse:

President Obama Admits Welfare Encourages Dependency

As far as I have seen there are very few people that have complaints about the simple existence of aid programs. There are many complaints about badly structured one, unsustainable ones, ones that are subject to waste, fraud, or abuse, or that create perverse incentives that ultimately harm the participants.

As far as job creation goes, your thinking doesn't really account for many types of startup companies. They are developing a product and have nothing to sell. There is no direct income to be gained by adding employees as there is in an established company that is expanding. The only way many startup companies get the product created is to hire staff and do the development work. Then, maybe a couple of years later they may make big money based on their product. Now if the people that signed on to that company become rich, how is that stealing from someone that was a high school dropout that is sweeping floors in the school across town?

Job creating entrepreneurs aren't a myth, you just don't like the idea. I don't think it sits well with your socio-economic views and the role of the state. On the other hand I know several people that have created a number of companies that grew to employ hundreds of people.

The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07... [dailysignal.com]

If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07... [dailysignal.com]

If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07... [dailysignal.com]

If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07... [dailysignal.com]

If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07...

If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

1. Declare the sky is falling due to (something you can blame on humans)
2. Get someone to fund your long-range study.
3. ....
4. Profit! (Or at least have permanent employment and probably tenure.)

Unfortunately, most of them have already been picked:
http://dailysignal.com/2009/11...

Although there is a strong second-order field opening up, like "how the ocean ate my global warming expectations" or better, "attribution science" where your entire existence is about proving how weather = climate, as long as it's bad, of course.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/t...

(braces self for predictable -infinity, Troll moderation)

If they really are capitalists, they can make money like the rest of us by earning it.

Oh geesh, I thought the sarcasm was obvious.

If I drop the sarcasm, the people who are claiming that "their" mountain is sacred are just a bunch of racists and grifters, and not only do not want a facility there, they do not want Americans or Asians there, and want to revert to the pre-Hook Hawaii of several hundred years ago. But if they can milk some money out of the "ferners", they'll be happy to do so. https://www.splcenter.org/figh...

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/b...

They even have a "Kill Haole Day" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Here's a great example - http://dailysignal.com/2015/11... A special election in which Registration to vote was restricted to “Native Hawaiians,” who are defined as only those whose ancestors lived on the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778.

So no Virginia, Racism and ethnic purity are not concepts only of "white people" These racist mutherfucks are even discriminating against Micronesians. Which is pretty nasty but they demand some sort of date based racial purity that even excludes their own.

So complely dropping the thin veneer of even sarcasm, these people are racists and grifting assholes, and frankly, I would be more than willing to have a military action taken against them. They are evil. Sorry, but the evilz racists 'Murricans were in a Revolutionary war when you decided who "true Hawaiians are, and even more sorry, we don't have to give you back "your" place any more than we have to graft ourselves on to great Britain. Don't like it? well, you know the secession drill.

Now see, wasn't that much nicer when I was just being sarcastic?

Nope, just corrupt and unrepresentative.

Political parties have a right to set their own standards. But both parties have a flawed primary system, and so does the presidential election itself. Not to mention the various legislative seats, which are grossly imbalanced.

I'm coming to the realization that the Democrats are actually corrupt(*).

I was reading about the DOJ slush fund(**) and it struck me just how deep and insidious the corruption has been in this country.

This is paired with the IRS selecting conservative charities for intense scrutiny, 11 California counties have more registered voters than adults, all the leaks and outright disobeying of executive orders from the WH.

And let us not forget after the election, leftists pleaded with the EC delegates to be faithless, then pleaded with the supreme court to invalidate the results, then pleaded with the U.S. military to step in and prevent the inauguration (wtf?), leaked secret and sensitive information - not to expose crimes, but for political slander, and rioted for weeks. They thought all this was OK, if it somehow got them to their goals. For example, Hillary made no statements condemning the riots, and most of the left blamed the rioting on Trump.

All this *in addition* to the Sanders thing, and getting special treatment in the press and for the debates, blocking reasonable voter registration, and suppressing the military vote.

There's a sub-conversation on the net that holds that the Democratic party *won't survive* once all the corruption has been rooted out. The Democratic ideals are so far from what people want that they require all the extra boost they get from a tilted playing field.

I'm not sure I believe that bit about the Democratic party not surviving, but after reading about the DOJ thing, and knowing the level of effort we're putting into the Russia probe while ignoring some seemingly obvious evidence on the Democratic side, it makes me wonder...

(*) Whether the Republicans are also corrupt, or have a different level of corruption, is still an open question.

(**) DOJ plea-bargains where the offending company pays its fine to charity, but the DOJ only chooses charities that promote left-wing causes.

http://www.latimes.com/busines...

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

Case closed.

It's all BS. The military isn't about PC or social bullshit experiments. They are here to protect the country. The military is all about following orders and objectives. If someone wants to change their gender, do it on their own dime first. The military isn't there for that. If they get a sex change and come out ok and want to serve, then serve. They may have no interest in it afterwards. This wasn't even an issue until last year. Nobody ran on this, not even Obummer was on it until the last year he was in office. It's a total bullshit issue by the left.

Even honest to goodness trannies agree -
http://dailysignal.com/2017/07...

If you have a lot of cash, that's "evidence" of drug crimes, even absent drugs, and the cops will take your money, put it on trial (cash is bad at defending itself and does not get an attorney), and buy boats, pinball machines and hookers with your money.

^ None of that is an exaggeration.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10...

Try moving to a less corrupt country... like Thailand.

If you have a lot of cash, that's "evidence" of drug crimes, even absent drugs, and the cops will take your money, put it on trial (cash is bad at defending itself and does not get an attorney), and buy boats, pinball machines and hookers with your money.

^ None of that is an exaggeration.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10...

Though I agree with the court, that recording anything one can legally observe should itself be legal, I do not understand, what the First Amendment has to do with this right. What is the connection between such recording — which can (and often is) done silently — and Free Speech?

If it is the plans to later publish the recordings, that place their preparation legal, then a lot of other activity may fall under the Amendment's protection — such as leaking state secrets or "entering federal property under false pretenses.

Also, are the First Amendment protections lost if the person recording never ends up publishing anything within "reasonable" time — can he then be charged under lesser local laws for things like "intimidation" or "refusing police orders"?

Meanwhile, the Second Amendment gets trampled every day — forget "assault" weapons, mere knives are illegal in many places and in New Jersey you can be arrested for possession of a slingshot "without explainable legal purpose"...

Yes, we see that in the fact that for the US "in only three states has marriage been redefined by popular vote". It's been redefined overwhelmingly by Courts and legislation, not the people. So when it's been up for vote - at least in the US - it's failed miserably. It was judical/Governmental fiat that made it law.

Either you're a liar or an idiot. I'm not sure which, but there's a reason why The FIRE exists and there have been multiple court cases on this across the US. Here's an example from my own back yard. And the "micro aggression" crowd going after people for "cultural appropriation" and yoga mats. Now we can get into the UK the US, and some more of the US. And one can really keep going. FYI west coast universities, and universities in Southern Ontario are the worst in North America right now for this garbage.

Bonus article, about students in favor of banning free speech in the UK to protect feelings.

Requiring that a private security company carry appropriate licenses

What "appropriate licenses"?. For those posing under the "SLOW CHILDREN" sign. The very fact, that activities like surveillance and research of online posts by others require a license is an outrage.

These weren't uniformed guards — armed or not — who may be mistaken for official law-enforcement and for that reason can be subjected to licensing requirements. They served no warrants or documents — it was research and connecting the dots. This should not require a license.

Any attempts to limit research of anything online would be for EFF's to fight. The rest — for ACLU, if the two organizations really stood for liberty, rather than Left "progressivism".

not a violation of the Constitution, so the ACLU doesn't care

ACLU are full of shit — if they cared about the Constitution, they would've fought anti-weapon laws nation-wide. Forget "assault weapons" — you can't even possess a knife or a slingshot in some parts of the country. Pompous hypocritical assholes...

Not at all, because the wealthy will simply leave their wealth in the corporations. The corporation will own the luxury holiday villa, the corporation will own their huge yacht, the corporation will pay expenses, etc etc etc.

This will only ensure that the 1% will pay even less while placing greater burdens on the lower income brackets

Bearing in mind, of course, that the top 10% earn 15% of all income and pay 24% of all federal taxes. But I digress...

I'm not sure leaving wealth in corporations is necessarily bad. That means the owners of the company, not the employees (including the executives) have it. Since many people are upset that execs get oversized salaries, is that bad?

Anyway, the way we deal with that today is the fat cat gets taxed on the fair market value of the fringe benefit. If you get a company car, you get taxed on the value of a lease on that car. Same for the ski chalet in the Alps. I'm pretty sure this is not that much of a problem. As many people have pointed out, there's only so much a rich person can consume so this sorta naturally limits their compensation.

And how does a small store owner compete, we already see how Amazon has driven most bookshops out of business. The corporations will soon be able to own everything.

I'm not sure they do. Or maybe they're the next SnapChat and make a zillion dollars, God only knows why.

And who owns the corporation? The investors. Who are they? Well, they could be anyone with a 401k or a pension. Or an employee. Or an executive. Or a C-level officer. Or a venture capitalist.

Tell me, what is the difference between the 1% being royalty , with them owning the land, the businesses, the wealth, and a corporation doing the same. You can't vote either of them out. The end results are the same.

One big difference is the 1% can lose their wealth (are we talking wealth or income here?). Just ask anyone who invested in Kodak, Borders, or Sears. And while the 1% can try to get laws passed, we've seen money doesn't necessarily equal electoral victory.

Gone are the days of:

sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me

The Illiberal Left's War on Speech continues and we've almost lost it... Major positions have been surrendered without or with little fight:

• "Safe spaces" on campuses have been weaponized and are used to suppress opinions, that make others "uncomfortable";
• The nonsense of "gender-neutral pronouns" and "transgenderism" in general came out of nowhere — a pregnant woman coming to a hospital to give birth claims to be a man, and is offended, when referred to as "mommy" by the nurses.
• Though one can not (yet!) be arrested for making others "uncomfortable" with one's opinion, one may already be fired for same.
• "Hate speech" is already illegal in many Western countries — with movement afoot to bring the same oppression into the US.
• Though the Bill of Rights is still, supposedly, the law of the land, its treatment has changed:

  “This isn’t really the ’60s anymore [...] people can’t really protest like that anymore.”

• The "right to be forgotten", having never existed before, is suddenly "a thing". Can't wait to discuss the court-ordered memory-erasures on SlashDot...

The NEA is legendary for not giving a damn about the well-being of students. Al Shanker put it best:

“When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”

Now that "fake news" has become a well-known term, it is already being used by people in an attempt to discredit opinions they disagree with.

Here's one of the articles criticizing Musk, Tesla and Solar City. Where it quotes facts, the facts are true. However, it also includes a great deal of opinion, mainly that the government subsidies Musk's companies receive are excessive, and a prime example of cronyism.

The facts are quite clear: Tesla and Solar City only exist because of the massive subsidies they have received. Are those subsidies justified? Should they continue? Some people apparently do not want to have this discussion.

Like you I've never seen any of this "fake" news anywhere I frequent. So I followed the links to one of these "fake" stories. Here is what I found:

From the Slashdot summary you click the link and end up at a news site called Quartz. Wikipedia characterizes Quartz as a site that "targets high-earning readers who traditionally read other left-leaning publications," a bit of the left wing echo chamber, in other words. In the Quartz story you find one link to what is described as a fake news story at a site called The Daily Signal. The Daily Single is a Heritage Foundation deal; a piece of the right wing echo chamber. The story itself is categorized by The Daily Signal as "Energy / Commentary," and — indeed — it reads like commentary, making no pretense at being news. The last paragraph:

It’s past time for the American people to stand up to Musk and demand that our legislators and other elected officials bring him back to earth before spending one more dollar of our money. He’s wasted enough of it already.

Pure commentary.

I conclude that this Slashdot story is fake; the one "fake news" story being cited by Slashdot via Quartz isn't a news story at all; it's political commentary, labeled as commentary and reads like any other piece of commentary. If this is what the left is hanging its hat on I say go for it; your delusions aren't helping you at all and I hope you continue to indulge them.

GM bailout was given to keep the Unions solvent and their members employed.

And, in any case, there being more than one company receiving tax-payer cash does not make Fascism and Crony Capitalism any more acceptable. Your kind were screaming bloody murder, when Haliburton was getting government's orders. But now even bona-fide subsidies are Ok?

That SolarCity in particular was owned by Elon Musk's cousins is not mentioned in TFA either — do you think, such tidbit would not ha've been considered newsworthy, had the companies involved were military contractors, coal miners, or oil pumpers?

And again, you're spewing lies that have been proven to be lies over and over again. Many studies have shown that there's very little to no election fraud that could be "fixed" by voter ID laws. There's real, actual election manipulation by people (Republicans) trying to prevent people from voting legally.

Rubbish. Election fraud is an ongoing problem.

A SAMPLING OF ELECTION FRAUD CASES FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY (pdf - open in new window)

Americans had Obamacare inflicted on them as due to election fraud resulting in the "election" of Senator Al Franken:

Rampant Voter Fraud Alleged In Minnesota

This fact is particularly explosive:

MVA found 941 ineligible felons who were allowed to vote in 2008 alone, exceeding the 312 vote margin separating DFL candidate Al Franken and GOP Sen. Norm Coleman after a grueling recount.

This is stunning. It was Franken’s razor-thin “victory” over incumbent Senator Norm Coleman that allowed the Democrats to ram Obamacare down the throats of the American people. If we assume that 80% of the 941 ineligible felons voted for Al Franken–a conservative assumption, as nearly all convicted felons are Democrats–then Franken’s victory is attributable to voter fraud. And the 941 ineligible votes are just a fraction of those that could have been identified if the Democratic Secretary of State had not stonewalled, refusing to turn over the full list of ineligible voters.

Poor and Disadvantaged are Most Likely to Have Their Vote Stolen

Someone ought to write a book. Oh, hey! Look at that! -- Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy

Amid Voter ID Battles, Here Are 7 Things the Government Requires IDs For

As federal courts wrestle with voter ID laws in several states just months before a national election, there is considerably less attention being brought to other constitutional rights that require ID.

Do you not care about citizens being able to exercise their rights other than voting?

I like the roof idea.

And yet, it is all vaporware.

The company receives billions of taxpayers' money and donates millions to the "pro-solar" politicians — to keep the subsidies coming in.

With such an arrangement, why bother with any product at all? Solarcity is yet to show profit. What makes it "attractive" to Tesla is that it is run by cousins of Elon Musk. I don't blame him for wanting to get in on the racket.

Why don't they try giving America a sane alternative?

They did, at the time - no one cared to report on it.

The CBO analyzed the GOP alternative to H.R. 3962 (PPACA, AKA "Obamacare") and concluded:

In contrast to H.R. 3962, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that the Substitute would reduce average health insurance premiums ( by 7 to 10 percent in the small group market and 5 to 8 percent in the individual market) and would reduce the federal deficit by $68 billion over ten years.

OMG! That's simply not true! Horses!? WTF? You're either lying or willfully ignorant. Here are just a handful of citations that support my statement:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11...

http://www.history.com/topics/...

http://www.historycentral.com/...

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

Show me what you got that supports your Horseback premise. Take your time...

It's not true that the Trump voter was the only credible account.

Jagadish Shukla and about 19 others; and of course there is always AGs United for Clean Power a coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.

Not exactly. Trade is a technical improvement as well.

Let's first talk about technological improvement, which you seem to understand. I just want to create the frame so we don't encounter an unpredicted communications issue.

Say you make 40 chairs in 40 hours. To buy a chair requires the payment of 1 hour's wage. Simple.

You find a new way to make chairs--maybe even just a new order of doing things with the same tools. That's technical progress (the economic term for development of new technology). You now make 40 chairs in 20 hours. To buy a chair requires the payment of 1/2 hour's wage.

So you still work 40 hours, you make 80 chairs. People don't need all these damned chairs. Using your technology, chair manufacture is revolutionized; 50% of all chairmakers become unemployed. (It's okay: they make up 0.1% of the workforce.)

Over time, the price of chairs falls. What I described above happens at different rates for different things; inflation makes it impossible to keep all costs relatively the same; and competition (not just chairs-against-chairs, but trying to sell things to a market with a limited amount of income from which to spend money--you're competing with *everything*, including the behavior of saving) drives prices down.

At this point, chairs are actually priced at half as much. Consumers have money left over to spend.

As it turns out, we can also make 40 cushions in 20 hours. Consumers have that 1/2 hour of wage left to spend. As a result, 40 hours now makes 40 chairs WITH CUSHIONS.

So that's technology: some people lost their job, costs came down, prices eventually followed, consumer buying power went up, bought more shit.

What about trade?

Let's say you can make 40 chairs in 40 hours; but China can make 40 chairs in 20 hours.

You can make 40 cushions in 20 hours; China can make 40 cushions in 40 hours.

So, you and China, each, can make 40 chairs with cushions in 60 hours.

You outsource all your chair manufacture to China; and China buys all their cushions from you. Now, together, you spend 40 hours making 40 chairs and 40 cushions. You just found a way to reduce the labor making 40 chairs with cushions from 60 hours to 40 hours.

That's technical progress. That's new technology.

While China is building all our shit, we're graduating doctors and IT professionals. We consume a lot, and have a lot of retail centers; and clothing, food, and the like cost a smaller proportion of our income. We're buying more and better products and services, including better healthcare.

The buying power per capita in the United States has increased thanks to shifting work into the hands of economies who have greater expertise and capability to do the work, and instead doing work at which we're more-efficient. That's new technology.

It looks different because you shifted 100 hours of work in the house doing everything yourself first to 80 hours of work spread across people in your local community, then to 60 hours of work spread across the region, then to 40 hours of work spread across the state, and now to even less spread around the world. A lot of it has moved out of sight.

The United States has a higher labor force participation rate than it did before 1970--and higher than other developed countries--and still has around 5% unemployment. We've had unemployment ups and downs constantly, even as far back as the 1890s. Between the 60s and 70s, we outsourced a lot to Japan; then Korea; about 20% of our outsource is to China now.

Sometimes, people try to compare unemployment to imports, to show one correlation or the other--for example, that unemployment falls as imports rise

Particularly when judges rule that private citizens can be served summons via Facebook

1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)
2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.
3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

Really? Just going to say it, people who are against voter ID are insane, in the worst case I'd call you anti-democratic. Even us people in "liberal Canada" and those "ultra liberal" people in Norway, Germany and Denmark have mandatory requirements for voter ID. FYI, voter ID doesn't mean picture ID either. So stop pulling bullshit out of your ass. Seriously, get your fucking shit in order and stop blocking it. If you don't even have two items listed in the accepted section that we use in Canada, you don't fucking exist, and know zero people. Since you can file for an affirmation under oath from a friend. Voter ID isn't racist, it's fundamental to a secure democracy. Hell you can't get really can't government benefits of in the US without some form of ID.

You're basically pro-voter fraud as long as you keep pushing this BS. There are multiple cases of it happening.

We already have to register to vote in the U.S.

1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)
2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.
3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

Really? Just going to say it, people who are against voter ID are insane, in the worst case I'd call you anti-democratic. Even us people in "liberal Canada" and those "ultra liberal" people in Norway, Germany and Denmark have mandatory requirements for voter ID. FYI, voter ID doesn't mean picture ID either. So stop pulling bullshit out of your ass. Seriously, get your fucking shit in order and stop blocking it. If you don't even have two items listed in the accepted section that we use in Canada, you don't fucking exist, and know zero people. Since you can file for an affirmation under oath from a friend. Voter ID isn't racist, it's fundamental to a secure democracy. Hell you can't get really can't government benefits of in the US without some form of ID.

You're basically pro-voter fraud as long as you keep pushing this BS. There are multiple cases of it happening.

Some of it is that some people's incomes aren't in fact above the poverty line. There are reports of hardship for residents of U.S. states that successfully sued to opt out of Obamacaid. They don't qualify for a Marketplace subsidy because they don't make more than the poverty level, and they don't qualify for original Medicaid.

And some of it is that the federal poverty level is uniform throughout the lower 48 states, even though some areas have a far higher apartment rent level than others.

It's not a binary question though - we're not forced to choose between "All regulation is good" or "All regulation is bad."

Unfortunately, with the Democrats — the Party of Government — the regulations are your only choice. Thousands new ones are added every year.

Maybe, Hillary will add fewer than Obama's record-setting 21,000, but her numbers will, no doubt, be comparable.

For instance, Net Neutrality isn't telling them in exacting detail how to manage their network

I said nothing about "exacting detail". But vagueness is often worse than that...

you can't abuse that by charging extra or degrading service based on whose traffic it is

How is that different, in principle, from telling you, you can not block certain callers (such as those exercising their First Amendment rights to pitch their services to you) on your telephone? How is it different from prohibiting you to install AdBlock on your dad's computer? It also blocks data based on whose it is — and that phone/computer is yours is, according to you, no defense...

What's good for the goose, is good for chicken — always test whatever regulation you'd like imposed on others on yourself first...

we could certainly do with removing regulations that serve solely as a barrier to competition or entry, such as those in the ISP market

Translation: such as those you are aware of. What makes you think, the ISP market is somehow unique in its amount of suspect regulations?

-we have more allies than just Israel. and most of them were alienated by bush the lesser, and those relationships repaired by Obama.

W put together a coalition of 48 countries for the Iraq war. Most of those contributed little but they were signed on.

I'm really interested to hear which countries were alienated by W and when the alienation occurred. I Googled for "George W Bush alienated" and found this, which is an article saying that President Obama's administration is doing such a horrible job that it makes the W administration look good.

-our military is in NO WAY in shambles

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-navy-doesnt-have-enough-ships-send-marines-crisis-zones-may-borrow-foreign-vessels-1990659

https://news.usni.org/2015/11/04/navy-half-the-carrier-fleet-tied-up-in-maintenance-other-5-strained-to-meet-demands

https://news.usni.org/2015/11/19/report-navy-and-marine-corps-strained-to-breaking-point-second-forward-carrier-in-the-pacific-could-help

https://military.id.me/aircraft/marines-forced-raid-military-museum-aircraft-parts/

"The U.S. Air Force is now short 4,000 airmen to maintain its fleet, short 700 pilots to fly them and short vital spare parts necessary to keep their jets in the air. The shortage is so dire that some have even been forced to scrounge for parts in a remote desert scrapheap known as 'The Boneyard.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/14/wiped-out-air-force-losing-pilots-and-planes-to-cuts-scrounging-for-spare-parts.html

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/04/is-the-obama-administration-trying-to-wreck-the-military/

-labor participation is dropping regardless of anything any one does. it has to do with the boomers retiring, not the economy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louisefron/2014/08/20/tackling-the-real-unemployment-rate-12-6/

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-but-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-9-8-not-5/

-inequality is horrible, but its not thanks to the current occupant, but rather the past several decades of structural issues in the economy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html

-maybe you forgot, but the economy crashed a few years ago. of course stamps are up, and will remain up until people get back to where they were. that's what they are for

As a candidate, and then as President, Mr. Obama was quite willing to blame W for the economy. Mr. Obama didn't cut W any slack on the economy; why should I be more forgiving toward Mr. Obama than he was toward his predecessor?

And a robust economy helps people... "a rising tide lifts all boats." The Obama recovery is the worst economy recorded in modern times. It's nearly flatline.

Yeah, it looks like at least some states are working to solve/reduce this problem.

For an example of this behavior, check out this story about the family bakery that the IRS seems to want to destroy.

I hear this doesn't happen in a free country. Are there any left?

gun deaths (probably because of suicides)

I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with record levels of gun violence in the inner cities, right?

If you have a panic attack whenever you see a cop, that would seem to warrant an examination of your own life. Don't ride dirty. Don't have guns, drugs or drug paraphernalia on you or in your car.

I don't have a panic attack when I see a cop, but I *am* acutely aware that the cops are not my friend. I don't really know what constitutes 'riding dirty'. I don't have guns, drugs, or drug paraphernalia in my car. But if a cop has a notion to fuck up my day and my car because I'm driving through his shitty little town and they make their revenues by making bullshit traffic stops and ginning up cause to search my car and stealing any cash I have through civil forfeiture, there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. I'm completely powerless in that situation, and a lot of the creepy fucks who are attracted to police work get their jollies by taking advantage of that power imbalance. Or maybe they're just corrupt and greedy. Their motivation doesn't matter that much.

There are plenty of examples of this behavior in news reports. There is no reason to believe it can't happen to me. I mean, here's one from just a few days ago, where the only reason the victims had their money (~$50,000) returned is that they were a Christian band who had raised the money for an orphanage, and that kind of thing makes bad headlines. http://dailysignal.com/2016/04...?