Slashdot Mirror

well it looks like about 200 in the last year and a half killed on duty.

But, since you don't acknowledge it, it must not be happening. It must be nice to be able to go around attacking/killing people and then screaming that others need to shut up because you think they might SAY something you don't like.

I'm saying if you find a fire burning the forest, you can't assume that it was man made. I don't exclude the possibility, but the AGW "climate scientists" have yet to show anyone real proof that the 0.1C rise in the last 17 years was man caused or indicative of a coming apocalypse. If it wasn't, we are pissing away $7,000,000,000 a year in the US alone that could be better spent on health care for the poor, job training for the unemployed (literally just about anything). And that doesn't even consider all of the private sector spending that could be better spent elsewhere...

AGW crowd: "CO2 levels are increasing" Nope, they lied and the cat is out of the bag. They cherry picked the scientific measurements made pre-industrial revolution to fit their narraive instead of including all the data, which agrees well with what we see today regarding CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...

AGW crowd: "CO2 blocks IR from escaping, more is bad!" Nope, CO2 in the atmosphere already blocks 100% of the IR in the bands that it reflects IR and the 100% reflection happens well below 100PPM (current levels are maybe 440PPM with historic SCIENTIFIC pre-industrial measurements between 250-550PPM)...

AGW crowd: "All scientists believe in AGW!" Nope, that lie was based on a survey of 160 climate scientists, of which 77 responded. That is hardly all scientists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...

AGW crowd: "You are evil and you want everyone to drown from sea level rise!" Nope, sea levels are projected to rise between 0.5 feet and 6 feet. It is trivial for us to build 20 ft sea walls, and they could already be built around all endangered, inhabited coastline for what we have spent on AGW research and development in the last 5 years in the US alone ($35,000,000,000). If global warming really will continue as AGW nuts project and they really were concerned, then they should encourage the redirection of their funding to start building the sea walls.... but it is not real, it is just a cash cow for the AGW green industries and research grant industry.

AGW crowd: "But, but, it feel AGW is real, and I'm terrified!" The rest of society: STFU already http://insider.foxnews.com/201...

Pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels measured by real scientists. http://drtimball.com/wp-conten... The circles are the values cherry picked by "climate scientists" to support their AGW farce.

You are factually incorrect that CO2 levels are higher today than they were pre-industrial revolution. The ONLY reason that CO2 levels fit nicely into the predicted and observed temperature changes is because the data has been cherry picked to support the hypothesis, which is flat out bad science. I failed more than one student for cherry picking data like this. I am sorry, but you have been mislead. It might be worth you while to listen to a real scientist and update your knowledge and undo some of the brainwashing.

CO2 is plant food. Many scientists, myself included, believe there is strong evidence that plant growth is limited by CO2 levels, and CO2 levels are limited by plant growth (mostly plants in the ocean, but on land as well to a lesser degree) in a self balancing relationship (living and dead organic mater captures something like 99% of carbon on the planet). CO2 is a critical component for life on earth.

AGW nuts point to Venus as a cautionary tale of greenhouse effects, but FFS Venus atmosphere is like 90% CO2. CO2 in earths atmosphere is around 400PPM or 0.04% or 1/2,500 the concentration on Venus (not to mention the higher radiative intensity of the sun on Venus due to being closer. Try asking a climate "scientist" what the temperature of the planet should be right now without their supposed AGW and watch them flop around with no evidence or science. http://insider.foxnews.com/201... How can you say AGW is a real thing if you don't know where the baseline should be?

The greenhouse effect is basic science, but only one small part of the radiation equation, which is the basic physics that drives the radiative losses of the planet into space. CO2 already blocks 100% of the IR bands where it comes into play, so adding more CO2 has no demonstrable effect on global warming. Additionally CO2 only blocks small bands of IR, not the entire spectrum and blocks less radiation losses than cloud cover (FYI).

You give a bunch of people with no background in hard science a 5th grade level explanation of greenhouse gasses and suddenly they think they have all the answers. You mix in some good old fashioned virtue signaling and anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil...

This report wasn't leaked, it is a near verbatim copy of a DRAFT report put out for public comment in Dec. 2016 and pulled from the site at the end of the review period, as is normal. We know this because several of the authors of the report said so on Twitter after the 'explosive leak of this blockbuster report.'

See, this is fake news, taking something no one noticed, and then pretending like it never happened before.

The NYT didn't bother to do a basic fact-check before publishing it's 'leaked' gov't report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

Is that why Chris Mathews had a thrill run up his leg during the Obama inauguration? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Obama had the friendliest media coverage in the last 30 plus years. George W. Bush was treated so unfairly by the establishment media that it literally launched Fox news as one of the largest cable news outlets because people (especially conservatives) were so sick of the rampant left wing bias. By any meaningful statistic George W Bush and Trump have both been treated horribly by the press, and Obama had a continuous love fest with the exception of Fox News (who he tried to kick out of the WH news pool and lied to a fedeal judge so he could spy on their reporters like James Rosen). With the exception of Rush Limbaugh and a few other COMMENTATORS with relatively small audiences (not the national news outlets) Bill Clinton got very favorable coverage until he was caught sexually harassing an intern in the white house (and there he earned what he got). Hillary Clinton was caught during the campaign getting questions passed to her ahead of the debate from Donna Brazile of CNN, a clear violation of debate standards, and an unfair advantage for which Brazile was fired. http://www.washingtonexaminer....

http://www.washingtontimes.com...
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

"President Trump handles criticism very differently than earlier presidents. For one, reporters who interview him say that he speaks a little too casually, and often is the leak, which does him no favors. The other is that he "hits back" when criticized, even over trivial things."

I agree that Trump hits back every time, no mater how trivial, but I think that is due in large part to what happened with George W. Bush. Bush chose to be classy and didn't "stoop to their level" with the openly hostile media and that ended up with him essentially being constantly pounded by the press who saw it as weakness. Bush was certainly not the best public speaker, but he was also not a blithering idiot, anyone who thinks he was is an idiot and ignorant of historical facts.

"Most kids who survived an American high school know that fighting back against a crowd that's teasing you will only make matters worse."

Apparently Trump learned the same lesson that I did in high school. If you have a crowd that is teasing you, single out the most obnoxious one and beat the piss out of him. I only had to do that one time and I never go teased again. I tried ignoring them for a year beforehand (like George Bush taking the high ground) and that was definitely not the solution.

"The President of the United States has been the nation's punching bag for a very long time; there's just nothing new about scathing presidential criticism."

By commentators and comedians maybe, but hard news people are supposed to be sticking to facts, and so far with Trump that is clearly not the case. They are actively participating in an attempt to steal the election from Trump because they personally hate the man, and if/when Trump is cleared of any wrong doing (which he almost certainly will, after 8 months of investigation, all the facts so far do not indicate any criminal activity), I hope Trump sues each and every news outlet who reported falsely on the Russia "scandal". If CNN and a few other major outlets go the way of Gawker, the shit heads running the other outlets will get their minions under control for fear of losing t

It wasn't the FBI is was the city police. I'm not sure what you class as a reputable source but here's a spectrum of biased ones:

https://www.usnews.com/news/na...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoeti...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
https://www.acludc.org/sites/d...

The anarchists rioted at trumps inaguratio just as they rioted at obama's inaguration. The local police finally had enough, and most likely went too far (as police tend to do).

Really? It's a direct quote by Sessions but since it's from the evil "liberal media" you immediately dismiss it? Fine, here's the same fucking story from Fox News, so that partisan shitheads like you can believe it. It's people like you, who only believe facts if they are reported by their "team" that make shit like asset forfeiture (and "economic policies, a congress too willing to tax-and-spend-like-the-world's-gonna-end, and special legislative 'regulations' that really do more to protect a single corporate interest") possible. Try actually analyzing the issues yourself instead of just parroting what the party puppetmasters distribute as their "talking points" and you'll be a lot better off, and so will the country.

"Fake accounts created for the expressed purpose of harassing another user qualifies as a TOS violation."

So stop blabbing about your "DMCA takedown fired across their bow", which you then say they won't confirm.

And the idea of YOU writing about a female lead character is so demented it beggars belief, askance.

Yes, I've read enough of your shit to know exactly how awful it is, as well as all your various grammar foibles and incoherences.

One thing I do admire about you, is your immense self-confidence. I'm a thousand times the man you are, yet I don't have even a shred of your chutzpah. I guess humility is another of those words you have no idea what to do with. It's mind-boggling that someone with so little can make so much noise about it. But I've noticed that's usually how life works, the least qualified make the most noise.

The most qualified simply produce results. You, will end up as a wiki page, maybe.

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

Your various creimes against literature wouldn't even get a failing grade in high school, I'd toss them straight in the bin. No effort, sub-mediocre offenses to the printed word.

PS: You sure you don't have ancestors in Spain?

Perhaps you do understand what the word dumb means. To conclude liberal leanings from someone who defends liberal sources while discounting all conservative ones and who defends liberal thought logically follows.

If I had to guess, I would say that you think that you are libertarian, even though you really don't know what that means.

Since you probably not have grown as a person and read any opposing viewpoint news, here is another one for you from today. It was oddly absent from the NY times.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

There are many others like it. If you read more, you might understand why so many were not in favor of Mrs. Clinton. My second guess is that while I am aware of Trumps many, annoying flaws, you are mostly unaware of the negative aspects of Clinton. If you are aware of all those and think she would make a good leader, then you truly are stupid.

There is this.

And of course There is this. And this.

Here's a real assault on a journalist: http://www.foxnews.com/politic... Leftist media? Wishful thinking.

1. The military is not a handout job. Ask anyone who has enlisted, it is a ton of work. Welfare (ignoring the law requiring welfare to work), medicaid, food stamps, and SSD for back pain are handouts (and I suspect at some point these people will be shifted off the rolls which are currently unsustainable). There is zero reason why you can't do a desk job or phone support with a back injury. There is zero reason why you can't flip burgers for $9/h while you are receiving welfare (or go to a trade school/ JC to learn a valuable skill).

2. Those people left the job pool under the Obama administration's joke of a recovery, and some of them are starting to re-enter the work force (one of the reasons that the unemployment number went up slightly even though we added even more jobs than expected.).

Casual observers have a negative view of trump because 80% of the media reporting on Trump is negative, http://www.foxnews.com/politic... but give it a couple of years. When REAL unemployment drops to 6%, GDP is growing at a record rate, and we haven't had any more terrorist attacks at home while foreign threats like ISIS, Iran and N Korea are put in their place, opinions will change.

Well, lets see, on the Creationist side, we have:

- The fact that spontaneous generation was disproven scientifically several hundred years ago.
- The fact that many structures in human and animal physiology contain irreduceable complexity, where you need 10, 20 or even more different structures to come into being all at once to have a functional system. This also holds true for many symbiotic reationships between animals, plants bacteria, etc.
- The fact that evolution has never been observed or replicated in a lab (life from non life)
- The fact that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it specifically applies to chemistry and biology

I could go on, but you get the gist.

There are actually 66 books of the Bible. Some are historical, some are poetry, some are laws, some are letters to others. There were, however, thousands to millions of witnesses to many of the events in the Bible. Those same witneses were willing to die rather than recant the events that they witnessed. That is a pretty solid testimony of the veracity contained in the Bible. The books of the Bible were not secret history, but rather the commonly known history of millions of people. Furthermore, we have archaeological evidence to support many of the stories as well:

- Hundreds of global flood legends, over 60 of which describe a boat with a single family of survivors supports the global flood.
- Literally the entire planet covered in fossils and sedimentary rock, including fossilized shells at the top of Mt. Everest. Flash frozen mammoths and palm trees buried in ice in Antarctica and Siberia, respectively, also supporting the global flood.
- The discovery of Sodom, where all life in the city was destroyed for 700 years around 2000BC http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015...
- Thousands of fossilized chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea to support the parting of the Red Sea story.
- The city of Jericho, with it's walls collapsed outward (unique in all of archaeology, besieged cities walls are collapsed inward when they are assaulted).

How much evidence staring you in the face do you need before you accept the truth?

Regarding pornography in the Bible, please cite examples. The Song of Solomon is the closest you will get, and it is a collection of love poems from husband to wife that are the opposite of explicit. Outside of that book, the Bible is pretty straight forward about sex and child birth, which happens to be a biological and historical fact. It does not go into lurid details which is the hallmark of pornography. I am afraid you are misinformed.

You will be on a flight like this one day.

Then male snowflakes can run to their lawyers to claim harassment:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017...

The difference: CNN writers apologise, and even resign. But when Fox is forced to retract a conspiracy theory they had zero evidence for, does Hannity apologise or resign? No, he does not - instead he doubles down and "retracts nothing". Classy as always.

But you have to move to Syria, Iraq, Libya, or Ukraine and learn how to shoot a rifle and make bomb vests and pretend to pray to a different (but not too dissimilar) dog. By Indian standards the pay is pretty good despite the cuts made last year.

Funny because I have an extensive black family that doesn't have that problem.

I get the feeling that you've never bothered to ask them. When even a republican senator gets pulled over seven times in one year something is wrong.

I'm white and I've been pulled over many times,

Its pretty telling that you think these stories of you being legitimately pulled over as a white guy are at all relevant. I've noticed this style of rhetoric from people defending an indefensible position - they talk about examples that superficially sound related to the topic but are fundamentally red herrings.

Since it probably isn't clear to you, I'll be specific why its irrelevant: (1) a white experience says nothing about the black experience and (2) legitimately being pulled over says nothing about cases of illegitimately being pulled over. You have no idea how many times you weren't pulled over despite there being a legitimate reason. If you've been pulled over a few times for broken lights, that means you were driving around for weeks, probably months, with broken lights and most of the time the cops ignored you.

Omg, the troll factor in this thread. Yes, the Maya did science. And even Fox news admits civil war was a cause of the collapse. Most of the story came from a well-researched book depicting the leading theory a few years ago. But what's the counterpoint? You want people to ignore the real scientists (I am admittedly not one) and do nothing, plan nothing? Where's the proof that climate change doesn't exist, and it won't affect anyone, and even if it did, people would adjust without any trouble at all? Where's your citations?

I should quit asking, you all seem to have none.

pretty much the only thing he actually delivered was to start deporting illegal immigrants.

And he's failing at that as well. He promised that in the first hour of him assuming power, he would deport millions of illegals.

Did you hear anything about that happening? No? Huh. How about that. He lied about that as well.

These are fantasy numbers and a project this scale would have $10 trillion in hidden costs and risks.

The bar is set rather low, however. After the most tech-savvy President ever effed-up his own promise to revamp the government, if Trump achieves something — anything — he'll still have done better than the predecessor. Not that you'd know about any such success — unless you are paying really close attention — from the established reporters.

Well, since you mentioned it ... Bundy ranch wasn't a riot. It was the Government vs Ranchers (regardless of your view of the subject). wasn't particularly violent.

I called it violence, whatever you call it, you ignored it.

Because they're your sort of people, and you don't mind what they do.

Same with the militia violence.

And in that case, you missed Branch Davidian Compound that actually was.

Did you think my list was meant to be exhaustive? Hardly. I didn't mention the attacks by such fine entities as the Old Order, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph or the Huttaree.

Malheur standoff (fixed spelling) was violent, but the only violence was caused by the government in an ambush.

Sure man, they weren't threatening violence and trespassing.

What else you going to say? They was good boys, never meaning no harm? But they keep showing their hands, and not their face on TV?

Good Example.

Driving away from police and waving a gun? Yeah, I'll call that violent.

Dylan Roof was a punk kid with a troubled background with mental illness who became (or always was) a racist prick. I didn't forget him, it was an odd case all the way around.

Racist gets a gun. Decides to shoot people. You blame his troubled background and dismiss it as an odd case. And no, I didn't say you forgot him. I said you ignored him. Ignoring and forgetting are two different things.

Benjamin McDowell didn't though.

You might as well pointed out the Dallas shooting then too.

Or the Houston one. No wait, that's police brutality. Another serious problem that you don't want to admit exists.

You want to ignore it, and frenetically rage at your preferred target, BLM. You love that form of identity politics, don't you?

Robert Doggart wasn't violent, because unlike San Bernadino, people reported him and he was arrested before he could do anything because he was suspicious.

Plots violence. Is on tape actually plotting violence. Archangel Michael claims he wasn't violent.

You should probably tell the judge who sentenced him to 20 years.

I say unlike, because people in SB saw suspicious activity and failed to report it for fearing to be "Islamophobic".

Pfft. Enrique Marquez Jr. was not going to report them, nor the other participants in that sham marriage. Nothing to do with fears about being Islamophobic at all. You might as well claim that Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez's family didn't report him because they didn't want to be thought Islamophobic.

Las Vegas Strip Shooting, a hispanic man shot two killing one. No motive had been determined for the shooting, although authorities ruled out any link to terrorism.

Nope, Jerad and Amanda Miller were not Hispanic(not even White Hispanic), and they killed 3 other people. And their motives were quite clearly demonstrated, what with their conduct, if the use of the Gadsen Flag wasn't enough for you.

Sorry, but they're right-wing through and through. And you identify with them. You just won't admit to it.

So, of the five events you listed, two or three are possibly "ri

That is the exact opposite of healthy advice in Germany where the police aren't actually out to get you on minor details to raise money or to put you away in prison to appease the prison industry complex.

I don't know the ratio of good/bad US police, but here are some examples of good US police:

Big-hearted cop hailed for buying homeless man a new pair of boots - TODAY.com

Caught on Camera/ CHP Officer Had This Stranded Pleasanton Motorist's Back - Pleasanton, CA Patch

Homeless Man in Florida Discovers Forgotten Bank Account Collecting Pension With Cop's Help

Ohio cop praised for restraint, refusing to shoot suspect

Ohio cop takes homeless family to Walmart, books them in hotel - TODAY.com

Police officer beats teen in dance off, does the "Nae Nae" - CBS News (with video)

Police Officer Caught in Random Act of Kindness, Internet Falls in Love - Temecula, CA Patch

Police Officer Has 'Tea Party' With Toddler Whose Life He Saved - ABC News

Police officer helps woman who couldn't afford a birthday cake for her son - TODAY.com

Police officer shares meal with homeless man/ 'Nobody wants to eat alone' - TODAY.com

Police Sergeant Buys Clothes for Third Grade Bicyclist Struck by Car - San Leandro, CA Patch

Strangers Join Police Officers to Buy 95-Year-old New Air Conditioner - Good News Network

Sweet photo of police officer comforting lost boy goes viral - TODAY.com

Video Captures Police Officer Buying New Shoes For Barefoot Man | HuffPost

Citation? Date range?

Politifact claims it's the 6th, 11th, then 9th.
Findlaw also says it's the 6th.
In 2015 it looks like it was the 11th, and in 2014 it looks like the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 11th came ahead of the 9th in reversals.

But Fox news agrees with you, even though the year they select, 2012, it was not the most overturned, with the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 11th having more (the 9th was tied with the 5th).

I'm not sure how this counts as tap dancing...

The Post said Kushner suggested the use of Russian diplomatic facilities as a way to shield pre-inauguration discussions with Kislyak from monitoring. Kislyak allegedly then relayed the suggestion to his superiors in Moscow. The idea was supposedly broached during a meeting between Kushner and Kislyak during an early December meeting at Trump Tower.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/26/jared-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-russia-new-report-alleges.html

Jeff Sessions rolled back the Obama-era drug sentencing guidelines, resulting in the harshest possible sentences for drug offenders... which went almost unnoticed by the MSM.

Yep, almost no media outlet noticed.

Jeff Sessions rolled back the Obama-era drug sentencing guidelines, resulting in the harshest possible sentences for drug offenders... which went almost unnoticed by the MSM.

Yep, almost no media outlet noticed.

I no longer plan to donate to the project. (this reminds me of the Wounded Warriors fiasco )

Maybe you're wrong about this. I'm on the Internet since the mid 90s and joined /. for the first time in 1998

Yep, longer than you it is. Had I registered immediately, I'd have a three digit UID.

But this alone does not explain the (measurable) posting anomalies and the extreme spikes in posting frequency here and on many other forums.

Come on, what do you expect in topics that are explicitely about Russia? Russian diaspora is quite large, it is no surprise they would react to a topic about their former home.

There were even posts like "I like Putin, because he's a strong leader" in the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, before they realized that this may be too obvious for German readers

My best guess is, they are simply Russlanddeutsche, and Putin is actually quite popular amongst them - they are far enough away so they don't feel the bad things the current Russian government does. And even the majority of people who do feel the every day corruption still support Putin, if only because he is not Yeltsin. Seriously, he has more than enough honest-to-god fanbois. The PR trolls post on Russian language sites, citizens of Russia are their target group and there is no reason for them whatsoever to write on Slashdot or on any other foreign website. This is why I've called you paranoid.

Besides, that Russia employs paid trolls is also hardly a secret, in fact there are credible and well-researched documentaries about the infamous St Petersburg 'troll fabric' which even include interviews with former employees.

Every large government pays for PR. Or if you want something in English, even Faux News writes about that:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

And this, boys and girls, is what you get when you don't have a constitution that guarantees free speech. The lefties in the US are trying for the same thing by equating speech they don't like to assault and then rioting http://www.foxnews.com/politic... and beating people in the head with bike locks to shut down speech they disagree with. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n... Every fascist leftie, piss ant bureaucrat and judge becomes their own little dictator who can shit on you from on high. The only thing stopping this crap in the US is our constitution and enforcement of the rule of law (which apparently doesn't happen in Berkeley, CA...

It's very difficult to make an actual cost comparison because we do not actually ever clean up our messes from coal or nuclear.

We've put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting ready for nuclear waste. So far, we're not making much much use of what we've built. There's some contention over plans to move forward. Agreed - We're not doing enough for a closed-loop cost comparison.

"Cleaning up the mess" from coal is an entirely different animal.

Maybe he lives in DC
Or California

and can have the government give it to him free.

TRUMP is more than likely SEQUESTERING this money to feed to the Russians via illegal drug trafficing. Use Jeff Sessions to make it look like the administration is actually doing something about drugs and while the people are distracted, funnel money over to Putin for helping him to steal the election. Sadly, Obama was also involved in this con game

The DNC never claimed the emails were false,

They did claim the emails were false, in a smarmy walk-backable way.

Their claim was refuted simply, by DKIM.

Can politicians be legally held accountable for actually lying about climate issues?
Al Gore supported corn subsidies in the name of AGW in order to get votes from corn states, admits it was a lie for political reasons.

How about that?

Alternative Facts maybe? http://www.foxnews.com/politic... http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/... https://www.usnews.com/news/ar... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Those tests aren't that conclusive because it was A) never nationally implemented (one city isn't equivalent to a nation) and B) known by the participants that the test would end. It is an untestable system unless you jump in with both feet.

B) I can guaranteed people desire things, and as long as that is the case they will keep working.

They why do lots of people stay on welfare even though they are able to work? At the very least it undermines the assumption you are making. People may desire things, sure but that doesn't equate to people working if they don't have to.

Also, from what I understand it is as much as congress as it is the executive as to why he doesn't have a full cabinet.

Nope. Trump has to nominate someone before congress can obstruct their appointment. As of a week ago the White House had yet to even name candidates for 468 of the 554 key positions that require Senate confirmation.

If you recently upgraded your TV, that could be why. Seems that dogs couldn't really perceive motion on older TVs because the framerate and resolution were too low. Modern TV's with higher refresh rates and resolution makes it much easier for dogs to perceive it as real, and so they're paying more attention to TV on the whole. There's even a new TV channel FOR dogs.
http://www.foxnews.com/science...

Diet Linked to Heart Disease.

If coal is so irrelevant, how come China is increasing purchases of U.S. coal??

Coal use is slowly declining but that does NOT mean you cannot improve the U.S. coal industry and bring back jobs. Trump understands this, coal miners understand this, why can't you?

Lena Dunham Posts Video Celebrating 'the Extinction of White Men'. And this is a person who appeared with Hillary Clinton at campaign stops. This sort of thing is common. You can find videos on YouTube of BLM marchers screaming about dead cops. This sort of thing is common, and both Hillary and Bernie endorsed BLM.

This is the difference. You will never see "friend of the show Richard Spencer" invited onto Sean Hannity. You will never see Laura Ingraham cite "the scholarly research of Dr. David Duke." The extremists and the nutjobs on the right are disavowed and swept under the rug. The nutjobs on the left are defended, encouraged and celebrated. Hell, the vice chair of the DNC thinks Jews did 9/11. That is David Duke tier nuttery, but there ya go.

The left has rioters and nutjobs and violent mobs on college campuses and illegal immigrants setting police cars on fire while waving Mexican flags and prominent people acknowledged by the political establishment pouring hatred on whites and men and that's not even the problem. Yes, there are always going to be nutjobs. The problem, pnutjam, is you. You will respond to this post and defend those people (or deny they exist). You'll make up some bullshit about how they're "punching up" or "making reasonable points about power imbalances in society" or "expressing heartfelt anger over injustice" or whatever.

But as the target of all that hatred, I hear it. And I hear you're fine with it. This is not going to end well. And there's nothing I can do about it, because none of those people are going to listen to me. I'm already the enemy. Me chastising them doesn't do anything.

Meanwhile: http://thehill.com/homenews/ne... And: http://www.foxnews.com/food-dr... But, I guess that's ok because #hypocrisy

There is a difference between fantasy and real life. Accept that.

Careful. The legal world has refused to accept that. Fantasizing about kiddie porn is illegal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2...

There are retracted news articles all the time, you should be able to do better.

1) This appears to be referring to this article:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Here is the Fox (Faux) News article you are probably basing your statement on:

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...

Politico seems to have gotten the basic facts correct in this case and Competitive Enterprise Institute seems to have gotten it wrong. The mistake Politico had made in the original article was stating that OneWest had done the foreclosure when it had been CIT who had merged with OneWest. The mistake was using the old company name instead of the new company name. Mnuchin was on the board of CIT when the second foreclosure took place.

"CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT."

Other fact checkers have confirmed that Fox is wrong and the foreclosure did take place. You can even see the court case yourself:
https://pro.polkcountyclerk.ne...
Search for: "CIT BANK, N.A. vs. LOFTON OSSIE".

Score: Politico: 1, Faux News: 0.

That said, I'm not really a fan of Politico atm. They just posted a totally garbage anti-Semitic article claiming that Trump is linked to Putin because Putin met with a Chabad Rabbi who had once met a rabbi who did a bris that Ivanka Trump went to and thus there is some Jewish conspiracy linking the two men... The way the article is written is a total conspiracy theory. That would be a much better example of fake news. I'm not a fan of Trump, but you don't need to come up with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to link Trump and Putin.

2) As others pointed out in this thread, it was actually Nancy Sinatra who seemed to change her tune and claim the negative Trump comment she had tweeted earlier was a "joke." Although to be fair, it might have been meant as a joke but there was no way for CNN to know that. I wouldn't call that fake news.

3) If you read the article, there doesn't seem to be anything fake about it. They even mention that it was probably part of the plan to shift to a different site.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

http://www.snopes.com/white-ho...

What you are leaving out is that it has been several months and Trump still doesn't have anything up on whitehouse.gov about these issues from what I can tell. How is the New York times article "fake news"?

4) As someone else pointed out, they reported on people who objected to the content of the speech not that he gave one there. Here is the article you are claiming is fake news. What exactly is fake? Did the people who Washington Post said objected to the speech not really object?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

5) It sounds like Spicer is lying (nothing new), not CBS. Although CBS seems to be a little misleading as there were some CIA staff who seemed to support Trump, but the facts about Trump bringing people to cheer him on seem to be correct.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/...

Newsweek de

But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...

I'm with you so far.

Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake.

Umm, maybe. Who do you think should be punished? The scientists? They were saying at the beginning of the War on Fat that the science was inconclusive. It was the politicians who said, "We don't have time to wait for facts. We need to act."

Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?

I see how you can get there. But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda, and the sugar industry funding it.

The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.

And that's where you go off the rails. In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research. We now know that it wasn't just unsupported; it was wrong.

In the case of environmental regulations, the industry money is all lining up to say we don't need to reduce fossil fuel use. And the vast majority of scientists are saying that the science is settled, and it goes against what industry is pushing.

But my biggest gripe with your solution is the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. That's a common solution for certain advocacy groups (and political parties) who know that it's a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society than it is to build them.

All research affected by HIPAA would be banned by this bill.

No. If it is not personally identifiable, you can publish it. EPA could still use a paper, that says, for example, "Of the 5000 people exposed to such-and-such-sulfate, 537 developed such-and-such-iasis." As long as it does not identify the patients.

Indeed, if doing research in the first place and making it available to the EPA was not in violation of HIPAA (or, rather, HITECH) privacy rules, the EPA can publish it further.

To pretend, this is about "privacy" is a gimmick — a spin, employed by people afraid of the sunlight shining on the darker corner of the government.

This is not a fault of people not caring whether or not research is reproducible, but simply of errors

One is still at fault even if his was an honest mistake...

Whether Global Warming is, indeed, a (grave) threat to humanity remains to be seen. But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...

Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake. Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?

The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.

I mean, how can you take any politician seriously when they openly advocate to let their own constituents die to save money?

What, you mean this guy that listens to (supposedly) regular joes? You wouldn't know that watching CNN because they mysteriously lost their connection the moment people started discussing their personal problems that came about because of the ACA.

Soon after Nancy Pelosi tweeted asking for people to share their Obamacare stories and the replies were mostly negative. Just because it improved things for some people doesn't mean it's a good thing if it's at the cost of the majority.

President Trump's claims of the imminent collapse of Obamacare might not be so far fetched when leaked documents claim that the Obama administration seized the profits of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, with the alleged intention of using it to fund Obamacare at the cost of fewer Americans becoming home owners.

Not only that. We have a political appointee from the Obama-era Department of Defense who pretty much admitted on MSNBC that surveillance on "team Trump" was true.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

No tinfoil hat required.