Slashdot Mirror

Although not understood well in the U.S., the U.S. news model (prior to Mr. Murdoch coming here) involved trying report the news as objectively and free of a political angle as possible (most U.S. newspapers still do this) - but the editorial section could be as politically slanted as the editors / owners desired. The Wall Street Journal used this model before.

However Mr. Murdoch has a different model and has the political slant as part of the news reporting itself (essentially making the news political propaganda since its not told objectively...MSNBC sort of fills the other side of that although either is like reading a light version of Pravda from back in the day with a political view controling what "news" you see and how its presented). Although pledging to keep the Journal's objectivity in news coverage and keeping the then editor on for 3 years - he left after 4 months.

The Journal still does some good reporting but is a shell of its former self from a impartial news outlet point of view: http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Agree that the LRA is way under-reported, but

there is no doubt the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Christian

Uh. Citation needed. Every time there's a terrorist incident in the west, we all politely wait to find out the ideology behind it, and it almost invariably turns out to be jihadism.

Sorry, no, you're observing bias in data taking. Every time there's a violent incident in the west, we all wait to find the ideology behind it, and if it's Islam, it's labelled "terrorism" and if it's not, it's labelled "a nut job."

I'm British. This shit seems to happen every other week now, and it's never Christian extremism that motivates it

A statement that you contradict in your very next sentence.

The closest we've seen is https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/finsbury-park-mosque-attack-two-victims-in-critical-care a Muslim-hating nutter, but as far as we know he wasn't motivated by his own religion (if he even had one), but by a mad hatred of all muslims.

There's a perfect example of biased data taking right there. When it's a Christian attacking, you move to "as far as we know he wasn't motivated by his own religion." Do you take the same attitude of examining the details of their religion and saying it's not terrorism when it is an attack by a Muslim motivated by "a mad hatred of all Christians"?

(And, you apparently only know of one attack on Muslims? That's another example of biased data taking-- so, apparently, wherever you live, attacks on Muslims aren't news, while attacks by Muslims are.)

Here in the US, the data seems to show that no, the majority of terror attacks are not by Muslims: http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Interesting, sounds like he's gotten pretty attuned to some of those specific words and phrases. Like I said, I had a cat, so I don't have any first-hand experience with a dog's capacity to understand speech. You'll forgive my initial skepticism though, I hope, as I've noticed that people tend to anthropomorphize their pets to a pretty significant degree, but obviously you see his responses every day and know him best.

I did a quick search on the subject, and found this article you might find interesting: http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Basically, the gist is that dogs process speech in very much the same way humans do, according to some new(ish) research that used brain-scanning techniques while talking to dogs using a variety of techniques. From the article:

“So dogs not only tell apart what we say and how we say it, but they can also combine the two, for a correct interpretation of what those words really meant. ... This appears to contradict the idea that dogs only understand tone of voice and do not have an idea of the words actual meaning. While they might respond tentatively to a praising tone using words they do not understand – or even insults – they are only genuinely happy when they understand the praise they are receiving.

Probably seems pretty obvious to you though, I guess. ;-)

Actually the US actions against VW were between them and VW, the EU had nothing whatsoever to do with it. If VW breaks USA regulations in the USA, it's a matter for USA regulators and courts to take action against that company, no other government is involved.

And even within the EU, while the EU sets minimum emissions standards for its member states, it's down to individual member states to monitor and enforce their standards, and take action if the standards are not met. The EU only gets involved it it feels that member states are failing to effectively enforce the minimum standards. This is actually happening, as the EU is taking legal action against a number of member states for failing to properly deal with the VW emissions cheating incident. Contrary to your implication, the EU is taking that action because it wants to see member states take harsher action against VW, and feels that certain countries have not done enough.

So your claim that the EU is against taking harsh action against VW is, I'mafraid, completely bogus.

Every year or two there's a story that comes out about some Christian group - admittedly usually more wacky than the Catholic Church - calling for a ban on the grounds its a rival religion, but it's pretty much always a bunch of nutcases, rather than mainstream Christian. That said, once in a while it's more mainstream.

You're both essentially wrong, the GP is technically correct (the best kind! Hahahahaohgod) in the sense that yes, some Christians do it. But he's misleading in the sense that he suggests this is mainstream, which it isn't.

Ummm..there is a LOT of misinformation. Problem is a lot of people are drinking the Kool-Aid. Trump is know for the very things he accuses anyone who speaks ill against him. It's true that we have a lot of misinformation or incomplete information but if you look CAREFULLY (like Fox News who constantly has to correct their headlines and are used by intelligent comedians for material), is the media with misinformation is often corrupted/coerced/bought out by the very people who accuse the media .Trump has been shown praising Fox news. Because they are basically mouthpieces of Republican party. Their official excuse is as a "balancing force" for the pro-Democrat news media outlets. All of that is basically government propaganda no better than the mainstream in China or Russia. So using Trump as an example of media abuse is a contradiction in terms (sorry but there is proven evidence). To be clear, I don't trust EITHER party (both have been shown corrupt at high levels) and I think we need a fresh 3rd party to keep them honest. But there ARE independent journalists and they are the ones primarily attacked. I'll give a few sources for you to examine:

https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/
http://theintercept.com/
http://www.theguardian.com/
http://independent.co.uk/

Hopefully there will be more. Folks, please feel free to add to this list. Of course these people need donations to pay for their work. BTW, The Guardian and The Intercept worked together to expose the unconstitutional behavior of the NSA provided by Snowden. Pretty ballsy. If we want "real news" we need to find it and support it. otherwise the media companies and/or political parties will mute anything we truly need to know to have a real democracy.

i'm only 30 but I didn't get a mobile until i was 16, and that was a 3310. But if I was born later I would use a smart phone as a Kid. Sounds like this "father" needs to visit /r/Phonesarebad. Meanwhile scientists recommend iPads from birth.

There's no insight, no tech content, no explanation - just a childish swipe at the elected president

Shouldn't have to explain this, but contaminated baby food is precisely one of those situations where the government should step in and "interfere" with capitalism. In case you haven't been paying attention, the Obama administration is over and while you're free to blame whatever you want on him, work towards resolving issues has to be performed by the *current* administration.

The Trump administration could actually be considered pro-contamination, without much of a stretch. It's reasonable to assume they won't consider leaded baby food to be anything worth dealing with, so it will be at least 3.5 to 7.5 years before there's a potential for progress to be made on this issue.

Also, how fucked up do you have to be to defend lead in baby food? It's as twisted as watching Republicans come up with excuses for why healthcare shouldn't be a basic human right. Some people just shouldn't be healthy because they don't make enough money? If only there was a religion which believed you honored their deity by treating the poor with dignity... Nah, that'd never catch on.

It's funny how no intelligence tests makes falsifiable predictions about who shows the signs of genius yet so many people assume they're scientific. http://www.independent.co.uk/n... According to you and sjbe, this child is more of a genius than Einstein. I bet none of you would actually call this child a genius until she does something that you would recognize as genius.

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

How many of these people would you or sjbe actually admit are/were geniuses?

Andorra is in Europa, but not in European Union.
same for Switzerland.

these roaming agreements are not applicable.

The continent is Europe, while Europa is a moon of Jupiter, though you are right when you say Andorra is not part of the EU.

There is an article 'The Independent' indicates, though the article describes some more of the 'gotchas':

The three non-EU countries in the European Economic Area — Iceland, Norway and plucky Liechtenstein — will introduce Roam Like at Home “shortly after 15 June”, according to Brussels.

Other key exclusions include Switzerland, Andorra, Serbia and Albania, as well as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Some operators are applying the same basic European rules to those destinations, others are not; when travelling anywhere outside the EEA, you should check exactly what your operator plans to charge you.

The best solution is really to check with your operator and get things in writing.

NeoCons (ex Socialists who became Conservative in the 1970s - and their intellectual descendants) who, as we all know, are big interventionists.

George W Bush and Dick Chaney are ex-Socialists? Never heard that one before!

Trump is for security against Islamofascism.

Lets not forget as well as hating privacy he also hates freedom of speech -

"I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

I hope he's not into nation building and other such things (so far no indication of that).

Indeed, in fact he's very into nation destroying right now.

Trump is for the US following existing law regarding immigration.

What I'm talking about affects American Citizens, not immigrants.

He's not an ideologue for either free trade

He refused to label China a currency manipulator, refused to withdraw from NAFTA, hasn't reviewed "foreign trade practices that hurt American workers", so his anti-globalization stance has been luke-warm at best.

or interventionism

Stepping up bombing campaigns counts as intervention.

You mock him with the Bill Gates quote. I hope you, like me, equally mock AntiFa and SJW

They're not the president, they don't control the house, they don't control the senate. Trump and the Republicans do, so when they say they want to do something that attacks freedom of speech, privacy or liberty, you should actually take notice because they have the actual political power to enact it.

I think China is a hundred times more of a threat than Russia.

You may be right.

https://www.independent.co.uk/...

http://fortune.com/2017/04/12/...

That's not remotely true. At the extremes you've got hard Brexit and increased integration with Europe. There's a vast swathe of middle ground, including a soft Brexit and the position taken by most Remain campaigners (remaining in, but fighting tightening integration and securing opt-outs).

Not really. Soft Brexit doesn't really exist. It's a term for the mistaken belief that the UK can have its cake and eat it too with the EU. It's paradoxical to the EU's rules. So the only option meaningfully different from "hard Brexit" involves remaining in the EU.

So, all the examples I gave are not examples because reasons. Ok. The NY Times was one example and they have, more than once, have a title and a narrative of Russian collusion yet in one sentence hidden in the article say there is no evidence. That is disingenuous to me and the article that was discussed by Comey and Risch are of a similar narrative crafting. One sentence is contradicting 90% of the article is not honest journalism. CNN has been caught lying through omission and potentially other narrative crafting measures, yet you still trust them. Ethics and standards for journalism has been left behind such as the Goldwater rule. It isn't hard to find examples of a lack in ethics for journalists if you spend a few minutes looking. https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
character assassination from the WSJ is a thing beyond Trump. https://www.wsj.com/articles/d...

What about anonymous unverifiable sources, how much should we rely on them for the truth?

Sure, they are not perfect but I also understand that it is standard practice to not let emotions get in the way of honest reporting (one reason why you don't interview a loved one), Yet, for Trump that is different because hatred doesn't cloud the judgement or reporting, apparently. There are too many examples I could list. You may disagree with them but it is not a delusion to see the media failing at their job. Everyone understands that except you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and chastise me because I am not.

Honestly, If you don't see the crap that MSM have been doing then I don't know what to make of you other than you agree with their bias and lack of ethics and standards.

http://www.independent.co.uk/v...

You don't have to reduce the budget to run it down. The point is they are privatising it by the back door, therefore any user fees added are part of a long term political policy and not directly to do with budgets. Really the issue is talking about the NHS as something to help the needy - it is not medicaid or whatever programs they have in the US to help the needy. It is how we run our health care, for everyone, needy or not (and Conservative policy not withstanding). Comparing it with programs for the needy is comparing apples and oranges.

If you look at the 7/7 bombers, or the Manchester bomber, they were heavily invested in British culture and most of our values.

I'm calling bullshit on this. The Manchester bomber - Salman Abedi - is the one with which I'm familiar. He was from a traditional, "super religious" family, according to his neighbours. Even leaving aside the matter of which religion it was, being devoutly religious is already antithetical to mainstream British culture - and the fact that the family kept up a traditional Libyan lifestyle after immigrating suggests that they didn't really take on British culture, except for a few of the more superficial ones, like football and console games.

Unfortunately, the aspect of modern British culture that he did take on was social-justice activism: he lodged a complaint about Islamophobia on the part of a teacher who expressed disapproval of suicide bombings. There seems to be a worrying, and increasing, alliance between radical social-justice activists and Islamist terrorists.

Sources: A, B.

the majority of murderers and terrorists in the west are... Westerners. [...] Look at that Ander Breivik guy. Killed nearly 100 people

Anders Breivik's shooting spree in Oslo was, in fact, the third-largest attack in Western Europe since 2001 (source). Of the top ten attacks in this era by death toll, seven have been ideologically motivated by Islam, one (Anders) was extremist right-wing, and the other two were unaffiliated or unclear.

So the majority of terrorists in Europe come from the 10%-or-so of the population that are Muslim. And within that, the evidence suggests (see Salman Abedi), the terrorists come from the small subset who are devoutly religious, never really integrate into their host communities, and react negatively to any criticism of Islam, or even of violence done in the name of Islam.

Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.

Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.

You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed

In the report, there is this gem:

The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change

The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.

Looks like wealth redistribution to me.

Unless you're making almost $500K/year, your own wealth is getting redistributed, to the top 1% and even more to .1%.

So while you may feel like you're doing well, making money, you're really just getting just enough scraps to convince you that you too can make it and anybody not doing as well as you are is lazy and/or stupid. You're not part of a trickle down economy, you're part of a downwards force multiplier orchestrated from the top down to make themselves even richer and more powerful.

Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.

Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.

You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed

In the report, there is this gem:

The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change

The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.

Looks like wealth redistribution to me.

The first line of the news article:
A global carbon tax that would raise trillions of dollars if applied across the world should be introduced if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change

further in the article, quoting from the report.

“The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change,” they said.

From the preamble of the executive summary in the report, just to emphasize the absurdity of you citing a report that explicitly says it ignores climate impacts!!

This report does not focus on the estimation and evaluation of the climate change impacts that would be avoided by reducing carbon emissions.

And the second point of the executive summary where the report still talks briefly about the impacts you claim it didn't:

Carbon prices are intended to incentivize the changes needed in investment, production, and consumption patterns, and to induce the kind of technological progress that can bring down future abatement costs.

They sure don't make denialists like they used to, you can't even cherry pick evidence right!!

Netflix appears to have removed a segment from a 1996 episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy that attributes biological sex to chromosomes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/a...

Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.

Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.

You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed

In the report, there is this gem:

The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change

The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.

Looks like wealth redistribution to me.

Actually, tax money gets spent and goes back into the economy to pay somebody else's salary, who then spends money.--quite the opposite of sucking money out of the economy.

Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.

Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.

You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed

In the report, there is this gem:

The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change

The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.

Looks like wealth redistribution to me.

Tillerson and his cronies are already sucking trillions out of the economy. Who exactly is getting the benefits from the economic gains since Furor Reagan? It certainly isn't the working stiffs like us; it's the billionaires and millionaires.

And almost 40 years later people are still believing the fairy tail of "Trickle Down Economics", most amazing bit of propaganda ever.

Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.

Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.

You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed

In the report, there is this gem:

The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change

The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.

Looks like wealth redistribution to me.

Except that you're wrong because the American tourism industry has already taken a divebomb, and is sure to continue even further if you can't take your laptop on a flight.
https://www.independent.co.uk/...

Forget about tourism... This move will affect business travellers who are the bread and butter for airlines because the business traveller cant choose when and where they go, so they can be forced to pay higher prices. Airlines can survive a slump in tourist numbers, but a slump in business travel will kill them.

Of course countries simply respond by censoring ALL of Wikipedia.

from Eurasia: http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

No security checks, beautiful nature, arriving into a city center, no baggage limit, free WiFi, etc.

Except that you're wrong because the American tourism industry has already taken a divebomb, and is sure to continue even further if you can't take your laptop on a flight.
https://www.independent.co.uk/...

Constant and increasingly frequent stories about deplorables like these certainly don't help

And if you're going to argue racism isn't deplorable, you might be a redneck^W part of the problem.

We're used to being shafted by the free market. That won't change.

It sounds like you're about to be shafted by your government, not the free market, .

"The article describes a Russian soldier in the Ukraine pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife".

Blown right away. There are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

Kadyrov, is that you?

Oh, wait, maybe you're Mahmoud, I guess since you've been barred from running again, now you're ./ing from your Mom's basement :P

Guess what? If she produced a viable egg

Guess what? She didn't. Furthermore, menopause is reversible:

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

And a year later, a postmenopausal birth has occurred using the woman's own eggs:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

So go fuck yourself, Nazi asshole. Oh...my bad...you don't have genitals...Well, put a twig in your butt then.

Video of Farage giving the line.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

What did the bus say then?

https://www.google.co.uk/searc...

I would rather they cut corporate welfare. I would rather they didn't spend boat loads subsidising supposedly private companies. I would rather they didn't spend billions on trident. I would rather a lot of things really.

As you bring up the Army though did you catch Fallon straight up lying on TV the other day when denying they had broken their manifesto pledge of not cutting the armed forces to less than 82,000 and it now being 79,000? (http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-tory-defence-minister-michael.html) Wouldn't suprise me if you did as basically no one picked it up.

Forget squaring the books, it can't be done. Literally can't be. You want policies that put money into public hands, so it can be spent, and taxed and then put back out and so on and the economy grows as the money circulates. Instead they take money out, so spending drops, tax revenue drops and the economy shrinks or stagnates. Inflation keeps going but pay gets frozen (not mp's pay though naturally), sound familiar? They heap money onto private companies to they can fudge numbers and say look it's getting better when it's really not.

Why is it seem you think Armed Forces, Education and NHS should be cut to ribbons just to square the books?

An embarrassing law, yes. Doesn't get enforced. You forgot to link that the case was quickly dropped. I'll link it for you.

It was dropped six days ago because nobody gave a fuck.

Glad I could help you out there.

What? That bastion of free speech, the Republic of Ireland?

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

The problem is that "hate speech" is it's defined by idiots. A muslim saying that atheists should be killed is seen as an expression of faith. Someone saying that Islam is backwards and violent for sentencing atheists to death is hate speech

I say Austria trying to censor Facebook is hate speech and Facebook should censor Austria.

The problem is that "hate speech" is it's defined by idiots. A muslim saying that atheists should be killed is seen as an expression of faith. Someone saying that Islam is backwards and violent for sentencing atheists to death is hate speech

And what I'm seeing is millions and millions of dollars being funneled into the Democrat's coffers from outside the district.

And millions and millions of dollars being funneled into the Republican's coffers from outside the district, so...

Speaking of outside the district, he does not live int he district and so he's not eligible to vote in the district in which he is running.

Strange how you don't mention how he was born and raised in Northlake, Georgia, raised there, and he currently lives near Emory University (just a few minutes outside the district) because his...girlfriend is attending medical school there. What a carpet-bagger.

Especially compared to Karen Handel, who has been bouncing around the country and world, doing wonderful things like cutting off breast cancer funding because she hated Planned Parenthood. That all the investigations she cited came up bupkus, well...

Some 95% of his campaign funding is coming from outside of Georgia, mostly New York and California. He outspent his opponents by multiple millions in the jungle primary (most of them had campaign spending of about $400K, he spent $8M+).

Money talks, and you know it. The GOP is only jealous they didn't have a standard-bearer.

Almost all of his commercials and mailings fail to mention the word "Democrat", in a concerted effort to try to convince voters he is something other than a hand-picked minion of the Party.

Oh no, he's not mentioning the word "Democrat" as if that were a meaningful argument.

He inflates his resume to make it seem like he is a national security expert (he was an intern still in college for much of the time-span claimed) and anti-corruption (but he is supported by Nancy Pelosi).

ah, still upset over Nancy Pelosi? The GOP's hate-on for her is so legendary, they use her to attack anyone, even DONALD TRUMP, who has been photographed with her on multiple suspicious occasions.

It's why they misquoted her for so long. Meanwhile they actually did pass a bill they admitted they didn't read.

If he wins, it will certainly be an example of a seat being bought by outside funding throwing piles of money into the campaign--ironically funded largely by people who despise Citizen's United ruling. Money can certainly make a difference.

Individuals can hate Citizen's United, while still loving their impact.

The main reason he may actually win, though, is that his Republican opponent is Hillary-esque in her own negatives and there is about zero enthusiasm to get her elected.

And Trump. Trump's wonderful support.

I don't consider it tinfoil hattery when people in a western country can still be brought on charges for something as dumb as "blasphemy."

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Or, should regulatory authorities in various more infamous countries decide that they can track any "objectionable" content they might take offense over, say pictures of Mohamed the prophet with a bomb shaped hat, or satire of the king of Thailand.

THIS is the stage to object to it at-- NOT when they have already decided that it is a perfectly normal (and essential) business tool.

The end justifies the means is a rather dangerous attitude.

Especially since it isn't clear that the means leads to the end. The presumption is that viewing child porn leads to violence against children. There is very little evidence to support that hypothesis, and quite a bit more that contradicts it. Over the last 20 years, access to porn has skyrocketed because of the Internet, but sexual violence has gone down by 55%. Perhaps mastrubating to porn functions as an alternative to "real" sex.

The argument that child porn hurts children during its creation is bogus. This is true because of the illegality. If it was legal, and regulated, it could be created with EFX that avoided the use of actual children, so the harm would go down.

Other countries have taken a more enlightened approach. In Japan, pedophiles can buy child sex dolls that appear to reduce harm. Yet those dolls are illegal in most other countries, including the US and Canada. It is hard to justify that by claiming that it "helps children".

No.
Marine Le Pen insists Russian annexation of Crimea is totally legitimate

There is absolutely NO reason for you regular crooks to take that stance.
It is also not part of the nationalist agenda.

There is only one possible explanation for a stance like that and that is that Le Pen is taking Russian money.
The alt-right doesn't care about Ukraine and they aren't bright enough to realize how much giving up eastern Europe to Russia will harm France in the long run.

Well, the devil is in the details.
Russia is pushing money into pretty much every alt-right party in Europe.
It isn't just random local politics. It is a very specific strategy with a clear agenda.
Le Pen racist agenda is just there to get cheap votes, but then you get bullshit like Marine Le Pen backs Vladimir Putin and denies invasion of Crimea
There is no reason for a traditional alt-right party to do statements like that. It is pretty clear who is pulling the strings.

You will see similar statements from other alt-right parties in Europe, not just that they think that Russia invading Ukraine is a non-issue but also where they vote against defending their own borders, wants to leave NATO and disband EU.
Russia don't want to have to deal with them all at once. It's much easier to pick off countries one at a time while promising to not go further. (Until they have secured the area they are currently invading.)

Of course, they do — financed by Russia Le Pen wants to lift sanctions against Kremlin and endorsed Crimea "occupendum" as a legitimate transfer of Ukraine's land to Russia.

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

I think Trump has given the poster plenty of grounds. Trump is unequivocally in favour of increasing coal production, through many statements over a long period of time. It's one of the few things he hasn't recanted. Google's first hit:

"“I made them this promise,” Trump said, “we will put our miners back to work.”"

Here's the original article that this is all based on.

Apparently you don't know what the fuck you're talking about since that's not remotely close to being true.

Please educate yourself. You're embarrassing all the other asshats on Slashdot.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-majority-countries-donald-trump-travel-ban-immigration-entry-visa-three-main-countries-exempt-a7552526.html

Uh, yeah. You're the embarrassment who needs to educate yourself. The executive order is based on a law passed in 2015 and signed by Obama - and the seven countries are listed there. Even the loons at Politifact know this:

http://www.politifact.com/wisc...

Apparently you don't know what the fuck you're talking about since that's not remotely close to being true.

Please educate yourself. You're embarrassing all the other asshats on Slashdot.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-majority-countries-donald-trump-travel-ban-immigration-entry-visa-three-main-countries-exempt-a7552526.html

A better reply would be "I'm sorry , I don't understand the question."

Why would Google beg to get sued by Apple for copying Siri?

As opposed to getting sued by the Trump administration for acting like they understood the question and then making some racist comment taken straight from Breitbart?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-barack-obama-coup-google-home-assistant-question-fake-news-a7614421.html

Nope, the other AC has it right. I saw it live on TV on CNN. They were claiming she was upset because they used the song, and were trying to stir up some ballyhoo about it. THEN she came out with the "Why do you lie, CNN?" tweet.

.

CNN's interpretation is hardly a lie, the tweet was real. Let's see, asking people to remember the first line of the song, does indeed come across as a sardonic remark to me, and fits well enough with CNN's interpretation of unhappiness. To me, it's Nancy Sinatra whose accusation was off-base. Probably why she deleted it.

Sorry, but if this is the kind of thing produced, it's going to be unpersuasive in terms of skewering CNN. Rather the opposite effect.

The first gas attack in Ghouta in 2013 was confirmed by the UN to be initiated by the (US backed) rebels.

Incorrect. The UN report only confirms that chemical weapons had been used, but said nothing about responsibility. This is the conclusion from the UN report on Ghouta:

108. The United Nations Mission concludes that chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic.
Ghouta, 21 August 2013
109. The United Nations Mission collected clear and convincing evidence that chemical weapons were used also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August 2013.
110. This conclusion was based on the following:
(a) Impacted and exploded surface-to-surface rockets, capable to carry a chemical payload, were found to contain Sarin;
(b) Close to the rocket impact sites, in the area where patients were affected, the environment was found to be contaminated by Sarin;
(c) The epidemiology of over 50 interviews given by survivors and health-care workers provided ample corroboration of the medical and scientific results;
(d) A number of patients/survivors were clearly diagnosed as intoxicated by an organophosphorous compound;
(e) Blood and urine samples from the same patients were found positive for Sarin and Sarin signatures.

The US, UK, France and Human Rights Watch blame Assad based on the trajectory of the rockets and type of rocket used (see Appendix 5 of the report). The Russians claim the Syrian government handed them material proof that the rebels carried out the attacks, but to my knowledge neither Russia or Syria ever made that evidence publicly available.
You're free to believe what you like, but don't misrepresent what's in the actual report. We're Slashdot and we're better than that.

Remember when Twitter shut down access to 3rd party access?
http://www.digitaltrends.com/m...
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2...
http://news.softpedia.com/news...
http://www.eweek.com/developme...