Slashdot Mirror

Seems the statute in the "hacking" expired as well:

According to the indictment, Assange and Manning (then known as Bradley, now as Chelsea) conspired in 2010. Manning was prosecuted by the armed forces. The Justice Department’s indictment against Assange was not returned until 2018 — eight years later.

The five-year statute of limitations that applies to most federal crimes is prescribed for both conspiracy and computer fraud.

So how is the Justice Department able to prosecute Assange on an indictment filed 3 years after the prescribed limitations period.

It appears that the Justice Department is relying on an exception, in Section 2332b of the penal code, that extends the statute of limitations to eight years for “acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.”

Now, conspiracy to commit computer fraud is a very serious offense, and Assange’s is at the top of the seriousness range because it involved publication of defense secrets that endangered lives, including the lives of our troops. And there’s no doubt that the conspiracy transcended national boundaries — Assange was outside the U.S. when he collaborated with Manning. But is it really an act of terrorism?

Seems the technological issue "is hacking terrorism?" is lost on the "tech" community here on /.

I think your premise would have likely been the case in the early days of the Internet. When I first started working with the Internet you didn't have very many people online who were over 40. I certainly remember old people who were proud of their lack of technical skills.

That being said, in the years since most of the US adult population has joined the Internet with 89% of adults in the US using it.

https://www.statista.com/stati...

In the old days algorithms were indeed influenced by the data that they received. This certainly resulted in comical results as well as politically incorrect results. The problem is that algorithms are being trained to produce certain results.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...
http://www.canirank.com/blog/a...
https://www.nationalreview.com...

Fair points. I should have said Trump was left unscathed by William Barr. And yes, we most definitely do need to see the report to get the full picture. I predict it will contain stuff that both sides will try to weaponize.

As for how/why Barr got the AG job, I'm not the only one who thinks he basically auditioned for it.

obstruction, which, by the way, REQUIRES that there be an actual crime for which the investigation was obstructed...

Well hold on. That's just AG William Barr's view. And he has even more generous views on whether the POTUS can obstruct justice at all. Which is to say, he think the POTUS can't. And to that point, he wrote what was practically an audition letter to be AG.

As for whether there has to be an underlying crime for there to be obstruction ... I give you Martha Stweart.

LA Times isn't news?

Given the LA Times has over years refused to air video of Obama at a meeting with a bunch of known racists and terrorists, they are actually the opposite of news.

As the twitter saying goes, the role of modern journalism is to cover important stories - with a pillow, until they stop moving.

That's not a good use of the budget.

I don't think the government knows what that sentence means judging by a ton of studies they funded in the past.

These were just the first results of a google search:
https://www.businessinsider.com
https://www.nationalreview.com

Nope, not a problem at all

"At least 3.5 million more people are on U.S. election rolls than are eligible to vote."

It wasn't general outrage.

It wasn't democracy.

It was the same arrogant, ignorant loudmouths who think they know better, doing their normal crap of forcing people to do "what's best for themselves":

POLL: Majority of New Yorkers Supported Amazon Moving to NYC

...

A significant majority (56 percent) of all New Yorkers approved of the plan while 36 percent disapproved. Among New York City residents support was slightly stronger at 58 percent.

Support was most pronounced among minorities: 70 percent of black voters approved while just 25 percent disapproved, and 81 percent of Latinos approved compared to 17 percent who disapproved.

...

So a bunch of white entitled suburban "progressives" thought they knew what's best for actual working-class blacks and Latinos.

And they fucked it up.

Imagine that.

There is also the human cost to consider.

Rep. Brooks outlines the cost of not having a wall:

“With the southern border, we have the loss of at least 15,000 Americans a year. You have 2,000 that are homicides by illegal aliens, according to federal government data. You’ve got another 15,000, 16,000 that die each year from heroin overdoses, 90 percent of which comes across our porous southern border. That’s not counting the 55,000 additional deaths that are caused by overdoses, a significant amount of which comes across the southern border,” Brooks stated."

I've looked into this, and the numbers are accurate. The GAO estimates for 2009 show that Arizona had 240 illegal immigrant inmates incarcerated in federal prison for homicide related charges. California had 2430, Florida had 480, New York had 1350, and Texas had 900.

"Taking the data only from these five states, and assuming that each person incarcerated for a homicide-related offense is responsible for only one death, yields 5,400 people killed by illegal aliens."

For comparison, automobile deaths in the US is around 35,000 annually.

Total non-medical deaths in the US is about 161,000 annually. Deaths due to illegals is more than 2% of that, possibly as much as 10%, depending on where you put the blame for overdosing.

All of this is fact, and should be the basis for any political arguments about the wall.

The human cost of not having a wall is very high.

The wall will NOT stop any of that. Zero. Nada.
NONE of it. Do you understand that we have THOUSANDS of miles of coastline that is barely guarded?
Do you understand that most of those drugs come in from regular checkpoints?
And let's deal with the REASONS why there are so many drugs coming into the country - THERE IS A DEMAND FOR THEM! Let's deal with that!

The wall is NOTHING but a distraction issue that will solve NOTHING.
And WHY are there so many migrants? Let's look at America's policies shall we?! We CAUSED the immigrant problem!

So let's take some responsibility for OUR actions on the World stage!

Jesus Fucking Christ! How the fuck did Americans get so stupid!! Oh wait! Newt Gingrich and Fox News......

GO ahead, get your fucking wall and "win". Go right ahead!

I am so disgusted now ... Trump is a total moron and yet, my fellow Americans STILL support him?! They'd sooner drop their football team for being less of a loser.
This is unbelievable. The Founding Fathers were morons for not giving us a Parliamentary system. This two-party system is broken and from what I see, it's the Republicans who have jumped the rails into retard land first.
It's a good thing that most of them are old and about to die. The sooner the better and let's fix this country when the Fox News audience is dead.

There is also the human cost to consider.

Rep. Brooks outlines the cost of not having a wall:

“With the southern border, we have the loss of at least 15,000 Americans a year. You have 2,000 that are homicides by illegal aliens, according to federal government data. You’ve got another 15,000, 16,000 that die each year from heroin overdoses, 90 percent of which comes across our porous southern border. That’s not counting the 55,000 additional deaths that are caused by overdoses, a significant amount of which comes across the southern border,” Brooks stated."

I've looked into this, and the numbers are accurate.

And completely irrelevant to a wall. Do you really think people are carrying bags of heroin on their backs through the desert? The heroin comes through ports of entry, hidden in trucks or ships.

Rep Mo Brooks is lying to you.

The GAO estimates for 2009 show that Arizona had 240 illegal immigrant inmates incarcerated in federal prison for homicide related charges. California had 2430, Florida had 480, New York had 1350, and Texas had 900.

"Taking the data only from these five states, and assuming that each person incarcerated for a homicide-related offense is responsible for only one death, yields 5,400 people killed by illegal aliens."

For comparison, automobile deaths in the US is around 35,000 annually.

Total non-medical deaths in the US is about 161,000 annually. Deaths due to illegals is more than 2% of that

Wow that article is hilarious.

"DACA is bad because a much larger group of which DACA is a very unique subset committed bad crimes!! And I'm skeptical of studies that completely contradict my thesis but won't actually say why!!!!"

depending on where you put the blame for overdosing.

All of this is fact, and should be the basis for any political arguments about the wall.

The human cost of not having a wall is very high.

Even assuming illegal immigration was as terrible as you say did you notice last year when Democrats and Trump agreed to a deal for $25 billion in wall funding, but then immigration hardliners came in and blew it up?

There's a reason they did that, a wall is a giant waste of cash and not that useful for stopping illegal immigration.

But if President Crybaby really wants a wall he can do the thing Presidents are supposed to do when they want a policy and needs the other party's support. Negotiate and find something of value they'll take in exchange.

The US system does not give Trump the right to build a wall without congressional support.

There is also the human cost to consider.

Rep. Brooks outlines the cost of not having a wall:

“With the southern border, we have the loss of at least 15,000 Americans a year. You have 2,000 that are homicides by illegal aliens, according to federal government data. You’ve got another 15,000, 16,000 that die each year from heroin overdoses, 90 percent of which comes across our porous southern border. That’s not counting the 55,000 additional deaths that are caused by overdoses, a significant amount of which comes across the southern border,” Brooks stated."

I've looked into this, and the numbers are accurate. The GAO estimates for 2009 show that Arizona had 240 illegal immigrant inmates incarcerated in federal prison for homicide related charges. California had 2430, Florida had 480, New York had 1350, and Texas had 900.

"Taking the data only from these five states, and assuming that each person incarcerated for a homicide-related offense is responsible for only one death, yields 5,400 people killed by illegal aliens."

For comparison, automobile deaths in the US is around 35,000 annually.

Total non-medical deaths in the US is about 161,000 annually. Deaths due to illegals is more than 2% of that, possibly as much as 10%, depending on where you put the blame for overdosing.

All of this is fact, and should be the basis for any political arguments about the wall.

The human cost of not having a wall is very high.

The country is run by a bunch of old rich people who see their own health as being fine and therefore don't understand the problem.

Everyone, with the exception of the rare misanthrope, wants to make the social safety net more robust and reduce the number of people who are exposed to potentially bankrupting medical bills. But there is a whole spectrum of ways to attempt to do that, and some of those ways do more harm than good. Government is not the only way to make the social safety net more robust. Arguably, it is not a way at all, because absolute poverty would have been eliminated decades ago if unnecessarily burdensome governments hadn't made economic growth much less exponential than it otherwise would have been.

In 1900, approximately 0% of Americans had health insurance. By the time Obama was elected, the figure had grown to about 83%. Going from 0% to 83% is a huge improvement in the robustness of the social safety net, and it did not happen because of any freedom-sapping mandates. It happened organically: economic growth gave most people the means to buy health insurance (or, it made their labor valuable enough that their employer willingly provided health insurance to the employee's entire family).

That progressive upward trend, borne by economic growth alone, would have continued if it hadn't been tampered with. For those who are unable to obtain insurance, there is private charity (which already funds a surprisingly large fraction of the U.S. social safety net, and always grows faster than GDP, for reasons I won't get into now), and Medicaid. That is why there are exactly zero headlines in the U.S. that read, "Joe Smith died of cancer because he couldn't afford chemo."

Any honest person who doesn't have a totalitarianism fetish, and gives thought to the matter, would agree that if you can make the social safety net more robust, and at the same time increase the fraction that is funded by voluntary charitable contributions, and decrease the fraction that is funded by the coercive takings of the Internal Revenue Service, that's a good thing.

But the unthinking nanny-state types (funded by old rich people like George Soros, and led by an objectively uber-arrogant technocrat) didn't see the steady progress (going from 0 to 83% insured); they only saw 17% uninsured, and wrung their hands in anguish until they came up with what they thought would be a quick fix: Obamacare. It's neither sustainable nor organic -- which is ironic because the left repeats those two buzzwords ad nauseam when it comes to environmental practices.

Also -- unless the "clever" Judge O'Conner gets overruled by a higher court -- it is unconstitutional.

Not only did you pen one of the most opinionated pieces of "journalism" ever,

"National Review was founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley Jr. as a magazine of conservative opinion."

but you used a filler-word, um, in a formal written document.

I think it's lazy, but it's typical conversational style.

With all due respect

People who use this phrase never show any, nor are worthy of any.

With all due respect, you're not Slashdot's arbiter of what is worthy of respect.

[from tfa]

Why give captive schoolchildren more tech crack inside the classroom? And what is this âoepersonalized learningâ mumbo jumbo?

mumbo jumbo

What are all these wires? What the hell's a mouse? How do I windows?

Mumbo jumbo is meaningless or confusing language, with the possible connotation that it is deliberate. "The use of the term "personalized learning" dates back to at least the early 1960s, but there is no widespread agreement on the definition and components of a personal learning environment." It's a meaningless phrase used by con men who are trying to sell equipment to educators. Hence, mumbo jumbo. It's a perfectly cromulent use of the word.

Parents from all parts of the political spectrum understand that âoepersonalized learningâ is Silicon Valley propaganda

So much bias it's like all I have is a right speaker.

I refer you back to the top of this comment.

In short, go back to journalism school.

With all due respect, you are fractally incorrect. The closer one looks at your arguments, the more ways in which they are irrelevant and/or incorrect become apparent.

In long, how about you title opinion pieces accordingly and not pretend they are in any way news.

Again, I refer you back to the top of this comment. The site's FAQ tells you that it is an opinion publication. The opinion pieces were collected together for your convenience, but with all due respect, you failed to internet correctly.

Also, go back to any school you attended and demand a refund, then learn how to write a formal document

This is not an invitation to a recital. This is an opinion piece, and it was written as such. Hope this helps, have a nice day!

The same author behind such enlightening articles as:
* The Authoritarianism of Silicon Valley’s Tech Titans ("Silicon Valley is imposing its own form of sharia.")
* Say No to Nanny Bloomberg ("Michael Bloomberg, the soda-taxing, gun-grabbing, snack-attacking control freak, should keep his nose out of our lives and out of the 2020 presidential race.")
* Look Who’s Back: Obama Crashes the Midterms ("Thanks, Obama, for reminding America of your miserable legacy.")
* How Google Co-opts Our Schools to Collect Kids’ Data ("Local school administrators have sold out vulnerable children to Silicon Valley.")

Not that I expected much from the National Review...

https://www.theatlantic.com/id...

When someone stands accused of sexual assault in criminal court, does the ACLU believe in the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard merely because that is what the Constitution requires, or because it is better to leave some guilty people unpunished than to punish many innocents? “The old-school ACLU knew there was no contradiction between defending due process and ‘supporting survivors,’” David French writes. “Indeed, it was through healthy processes that we not only determined whether a person had been victimized, but also prevented the accused from becoming a ‘survivor’ of a profound injustice.”

Says the criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield:

The ACLU cannot love constitutional rights only when it serves to further a cause on behalf of their favored marginalized group, then hate it when it doesn’t, and still be given credit as a voice for civil liberties Remember, due process “inappropriately favors the accused.”

Those four words are the ACLU’s epitaph.

But calling the Women's March bigoted and hateful

From the beginning it was bigoted and hateful but it was accepted, kept secret, and lied about because the left is generally blind to leftist bigotry and hatred. See reporting of antifa as another example.

https://www.nationalreview.com...
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewi...

Did the events described in the opinion piece not happen?

Sure. Smear campaigns and lies are best told with truth.

It makes leaps, implies intention, and conflates various internet cultures and people with "alt-right". Things are presented in isolation (How was the video recommended to him, does he normally watch anime review, was that video recommended by YT algorithm? How many other videos did he watch of the channel in question?). A few racial slurs does not a racist make. Racism requires intent. Are they said in jest or endearment (rap) or are they said with malice (actual racism). Calling Jordan Peterson a "right-wing personality and alt-right hero" is very disingenuous. "Dropping redpills" as in, "the wage gap is a myth". Yea, shame on him for attacking our ideological litmus test that is a complete lie based in faulty statistics and ideological propaganda.

Making nazi jokes does not make you racist or alt right ( I can't believe I have to even say this). Following people who have ideas that contradict left ideology does not make you "alt right".

Meanwhile, Google's mass surveillance of western society continues unabated.

Seriously, in 2018 does anyone still fall for this crap?

I don't know, but people keep thinking that trickle-down economics exists, so I'm hardly surprised.

Wow...way to not know fucking history, kudos! Just FYI political correctness was a term originally from communist Russia to describe what life was like under Stalin, who in case you didn't know didn't give a fuck if something was true or not, just that it followed the party line or GO TO GULAG!

But this really isn't surprising as the new regessive movement (which has run off the liberals to replace them with SJWs just as the moral majority ran off the conservatives and replaced them with neocons) seems to really like the idea of gulags for those that engage in wrongthink.

Yes, Farrakhan has said some crazy, stupid, hateful things, but that's about where the equivalence ends.

Yes, Farrakhan has, like "white people deserve to die". He also interfered into the investigation of a murdered policeman, threatening riots.

But hey, it's totally fine that the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama sought his endorsements. Because "the Klan".

The KKK, an organization to which David Duke belongs, has a very long history of systemic violence, lynching, and intimidation.

Duke doesn't belong to the Klan. He left it a long time ago. Furthermore, did he ever advocate for violence while at the Klan? This is what Wikipedia has to say about him during his time there:

"In 1974, Duke founded the Louisiana-based Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKKK), shortly after graduating from LSU.[98] He became Grand Wizard of the KKKK. A follower of Duke, Thomas Robb, changed the title of Grand Wizard to National Director, and replaced the Klan's white robes with business suits.[99] Duke first received broad public attention during this time, as he endeavored to market himself in the mid-1970s as a new brand of Klansman: well-groomed, engaged, and professional. Duke also reformed the organization, promoting nonviolence and legality, and, for the first time in the Klan's history, women were accepted as equal members and Catholics were encouraged to apply for membership.[100] Duke would repeatedly insist that the Klan was "not anti-black" but rather "pro-white" and "pro-Christian." Duke told The Daily Telegraph that he left the Klan in 1980 because he disliked its associations with violence and could not stop the members of other Klan chapters from doing "stupid or violent things."[101]"

I don't know the veracity of this, but even the SPLC doesn't accuse him of violence during his time there. And they're not exactly shameful about lying or distorting the truth.

By the way, Robert Byrd was lifelong Democrat senator, and he was also a member of the Klan, but he was allowed to escape his past, even though he filibustered the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

I've not seen any evidence that the right wing is for low wages.

The right is rabidly anti-union. Unions raise wages for both union members and non-union workers.

They're are also against immigration, which if actually implemented would push wages up.

Only if the economy is zero sum. But a bedrock principle of conservative economics is that healthy economies are not zero sum. Also there has only been one study to find that immigration lowered wages for any class of workers - it found that only those who dropped out of high-school were harmed, everybody else's wages went up. And even that study turned out to be nothing more than cherry-picking from a larger trend-line that was independent from immigration.

Income tax cuts are also effectively increasing wages

Only in isolation. Cutting income taxes also cuts social services that then must be paid for out of pocket on an individual basis in which negotiating leverage is reduced to one person at a time so total costs go up.

And lets not forget the moronic fallacy of trickle-down & supply-side economics.

Here's the thing - you might argue that any one policy plank of the right supports higher wages if you look at it from a certain perspective. But when you aggregate all of their policies together a very clear pattern emerges of fucking the working man. It should be no surprise that the majority of trump voters were affluent, not working-class they know which side their bread is buttered on.

Is anyone here old enough to remember Trump's big "voter fraud" commission?

Yes, I remember how the lack of cooperation for requested information doomed it from the start. Of course, that doesn't mean voter fraud doesn't exist. We know it does:

"In 2015, one Kansas county began offering voter registration at naturalization ceremonies, as Hans A. von Spakovsky and I reported in January at Fox News. Election officials soon discovered about a dozen new Americans who were already registered â" and who had voted as non-citizens in multiple elections."

Haven't you heard? Words are now considered violence.

https://www.nationalreview.com...

But trade deficits aren't inherently bad. It's not like the US is paying China a bunch of money out of its tax coffers. The trade deficit merely represents the money flowing between people and companies located in different countries. Seriously, just google 'understanding trade deficit', and nearly every single article is about how trade deficits aren't a good indicator of economic performance in and of themselves, they're just a metric of trade. And I'm not talking about left-leaning publications, I'm talking about everyone. Forbes, investment news, economists—virtually everyone agrees that a trade deficit in the right circumstances can be very good.

https://www.nationalreview.com...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/d...

Really, the only person that doesn't get that is Trump.

Antifa has a long history of using violence to achieve their goals.

here ya go, which about 5 seconds of Google use showed: https://www.nationalreview.com...

Wrong. https://www.nationalreview.com...

Are you saying that Republicans commit fraud in Georgia but evidence of it was destroyed? Cite some sources please?

I'm first to believe that there is fraud in elections like when some counties show over 100% voting but anytime I've seen someone try to point out that it is an interesting coincidence that Hillary supposedly had 3m more popular vote and a report show 3.5 million more people on US election rolls than eligible to vote or that Al Franken won by 372 votes and after the election there were over 200 convictions for voter fraud by at least 170 felons and others who voted twice, anytime those are brought up the left attacks mercilessly declaring all the so-called studies that show no evidence of fraud or the Kobach trial where judge declared it never happened.

So now when it is liberal Democrat going to lose because she's another poor candidate, now we have either voter fraud or Russia.

Sorry, but most cuban health care facilities don't even have working toilets. Patients are instructed to bring their own supplies from home.

They have a little bit of decent health care, but it's reserved for Communist Party elites and foreign visitors who can pay. Everyone else in the country gets lousy health care where after waiting forever to see someone, they have to hope they washed their hands by bringing in their own soap and water and didn't go near the atrocious conditions of the rooms.

See also:
http://blog.acton.org/archives...
https://www.therealcuba.com/?p...
https://www.nationalreview.com...
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
and many, many others with photos and videos documenting the real care there.

I can't say I have looked into the specifics, but 3.5% profit over a period of ~7 years (as per the numbers in the CNN-article) isn't great. If you take inflation into account, it's even a net loss.

Getting a much, much better (direct) ROI on that money (just repaying debt would do the trick) would be easy. Don't get me wrong, though: I'm not saying the bailouts weren't necessary, but they definitely weren't great investments regardless of the financial crisis. They were great investments only because of it.

See also here: https://www.nationalreview.com...
(not my favorite source of news, but it's about the points made)

Thanks for the article. Unfortunately it's a gross oversimplification.

The comment I was replying to was about bank bailouts. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is poorly understood, or just intentionally misrepresented. TARP was a plan for the government to buy from the banks the "troubled assets" (mortgage backed securities) that were killing their balance sheets due to mark-to-market reporting rules. But it never happened, for a couple of reasons. (1) it was impossible to price the assets and come up with a fair price to pay for them, and (2) Warren Buffet invested $5 billion into Goldman Sachs in exchange for perpetual preferred fixed dividend stocks and stock warrants. Britain had a similar approach.

The Treasury followed Buffet's lead and morphed TARP into the "Capital Injection Program" (CIP). All the bank deals were structured to make a profit, very similarly to Buffet's, except the dividend paid would grow over time as an incentive to pay back early. A total of $245 billion was invested in banks, of which most was paid back with interest in under two years. The Treasury made $1.4 billion in a year on Goldman Sachs alone. Besides the sliding dividend scale the banks were in a rush to pay it back because Congress started adding new conditions after the fact. Never do business with the mob or the government.

Other TARP funds were hijacked for other purposes, such as propping up GM, Those deals were not structured to make a profit, and they have lost money.

See this for a breakdown of disbursements and repayments:
https://www.treasury.gov/initi...

See this for a good explanation of the program, how banks were forced to be part of it, and how the terms changed after the fact
http://archive.fortune.com/200...

I can't say I have looked into the specifics, but 3.5% profit over a period of ~7 years (as per the numbers in the CNN-article) isn't great. If you take inflation into account, it's even a net loss.

Getting a much, much better (direct) ROI on that money (just repaying debt would do the trick) would be easy. Don't get me wrong, though: I'm not saying the bailouts weren't necessary, but they definitely weren't great investments regardless of the financial crisis. They were great investments only because of it.

See also here: https://www.nationalreview.com...
(not my favorite source of news, but it's about the points made)

A federal court has issued a prior restraint on speech (it’s attempting to block the spread of information; it is not blocking the lawful home manufacture of firearms) that is already thoroughly and completely moot. The files are out. They’re all over the internet. They’ve been copied and reproduced. The judge’s order can’t change that fact.

Moreover, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation are hardly the only sources for online files or blueprints that enable a home manufacturer with a 3D printer to make a gun. I’m honestly unclear what the court is trying to accomplish here, aside from targeting the Trump administration and/or targeting a disfavored private company.

https://www.nationalreview.com...

NB: Any gun that would be undetectable by a metal detector would be illegal under the aptly named Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.

The questions are simple enough. Can't you answer them without the ad hominem? Even I were a troll, would not an informative post answering the questions I posed be of some educational value for other genuine skeptics?

You're coming off as this guy

You said "Its long been a tactic of the right to equate anyone who expresses disagreement with their extremism as extremists themselves", which was clearly the portion of the comment I was replying to

So, if that is the part you were taking issue with, then what non-extremism on the right do you think I was equating to extremism of the left? Do you think labeling liberals as fascists is not extremist?

Meanwhile, lets continue to examine how extremism has become mainstream in the right. For example, birtherism. They elected the guy who made his entry into the party by pushing birtherism. Not enough? Lets look at a "well respected" journal of mainstream conservatism - the National Review. Dinesh D'Souza, pardoned felon, and ridiculously over the top troll, is on the masthead. And the magazine's senior editor is the author of the book "liberal fascism."

But there's undeniably a tendency of the modern Left to misuse the label for dramatic effect.

No. You are just ignorant of history. People just like you were saying the same shit about germany in 1934. Its not like the nazis appeared fully-formed and gassing jews out of nowhere. We have been here before. The NYT even ran an op-ed rationalizing nazis as just having "economic anxiety."

We are stealing brown babies from aslyum seekers and then shipping the parents back to their countries without their kids. And in response trump's approval rating with republicans has soared. How much more nazi do we have to get for you?

You said "Its long been a tactic of the right to equate anyone who expresses disagreement with their extremism as extremists themselves", which was clearly the portion of the comment I was replying to

So, if that is the part you were taking issue with, then what non-extremism on the right do you think I was equating to extremism of the left? Do you think labeling liberals as fascists is not extremist?

Meanwhile, lets continue to examine how extremism has become mainstream in the right. For example, birtherism. They elected the guy who made his entry into the party by pushing birtherism. Not enough? Lets look at a "well respected" journal of mainstream conservatism - the National Review. Dinesh D'Souza, pardoned felon, and ridiculously over the top troll, is on the masthead. And the magazine's senior editor is the author of the book "liberal fascism."

But there's undeniably a tendency of the modern Left to misuse the label for dramatic effect.

No. You are just ignorant of history. People just like you were saying the same shit about germany in 1934. Its not like the nazis appeared fully-formed and gassing jews out of nowhere. We have been here before. The NYT even ran an op-ed rationalizing nazis as just having "economic anxiety."

We are stealing brown babies from aslyum seekers and then shipping the parents back to their countries without their kids. And in response trump's approval rating with republicans has soared. How much more nazi do we have to get for you?

Again, you make the mistake of not considering the base rate to begin with.

What does that even mean? The article was quite clear, the guy got in to medical school, with lower grades than his Asian American friend who was denied entry, because he pretended to be African American. What does "base rate" have to do with this?

You rant against "minority quota", but how many straight white males also should have flunked out but stayed in?

Listen, facts don't care about your feelings. If you have data that straight white males have been allowed to stay in college even after failing to meet requirements then I'd like to see it.

It's been widely reported that medical schools have been discriminating on race for a long time now. Here's a few articles on it that I found with Google.
https://www.nationalreview.com...
http://www.aei.org/publication...
http://www.aei.org/publication...
http://www.savvypremed.com/sav...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Kind of stupid of you to assume that everything was all hunky-dory until the minorities got in.

It's kind of stupid to assume everything is "hunky dory" now by letting in students based on race rather than their test scores and other measures of academic achievement. Racial discrimination is illegal in the USA, even if it's to the benefit of minorities. Maybe this tactic of having racial quotas was necessary at some point but it's not helpful any more.

If minorities want to be respected in their fields then their peers need to know that they met the same level of rigor to get where they are as anyone else.

What is horrifying is that this racist tactic of having differing levels on admittance to medical schools is that these people are treating patients when there were others more qualified for the job. This means more mistakes, and it means more people die. I like the idea of computerized diagnostics, but for it to work it takes people with proper knowledge of medicine to enter the right data, interpret the recommendations, and know when the computer is making a mistake. We see this with airline pilots leaning on the automatic pilot too much, they don't realize when the computer has screwed up and/or don't know how to fly the plane when the computer fails. This means people die.

This tactic of taking race of university applicants into account to determine fitness for entry is, by definition, racism. I thought we were trying to do away with racism in America.

a fun and successful company was built by masculine white males and it was doing great until "the adults" came in and now everything has gone to shit.

War is legal execution.

Which is completely irrelevant to this discussion which was about what defines a government in the normal case. War is an extreme exception to the normal, peaceful operation of a government.

The only way I guess your view could be so skewed that you think war is normal is if you live in a country which has been participating in wars almost every single year since 1950, has a massively oversized military (around 4% of the world's population but has around 35% of the world's military spending (used to be around 40%)), and aggressively market itself as "the good guys" (more below) .

Many countries involved in WW2 teach a "war is bad, look at all the bad things that happened" philosophy to children born after WW2 (although Japan is shamefully largly avoiding admitting its own mistakes and take more a "war is bad, (only) look at what happened to us during the war" approach). In USA this is considered problematic since its oversized military is based on voluntary participation, and with an honest "war is bad" teaching that would severely negatively impact enrolment. So instead they take a "well, we do not have to be that honest about war is bad" approach and instead endorse military worshipping, completely ignoring president Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning that

... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

That's odd, because 40 years ago the aclu fought for the rights of nazis to match in skoki.

Seems pretty tolerant of abbhorent political views to me.

What's more they don't do that anymore

https://www.nationalreview.com...

How very U.S. centric of this article.

According to Carbon Brief, which is tracking all the Paris pledges, the U.S., made a pledge, but unlike most countries, never legally ratified their pledge. Also, unlike the U.S., the vast majority of those countries haven't decreased their carbon output as much as the U.S. in the years since.

So the Paris Accords are useless for anything but virtue signaling and political posturing. Of course, that was predicted at the time they were negotiated, so not a surprise.

Glad the judge had enough sense to throw this case out.

Want to get public action on climate change? Convince people and win elections. Using the courts to forward your agenda can and will backfire.

I seem to remember a particular article written about a party using the courts to forward their agenda is bad.

I guess 4th grade was too hard for your tiny, tiny brain. Every time you post your mindless dribble it lowers the I.Q. of the entire Internet.

You got modded down, but your comment is spot on.

The left has been just relentlessly awful the past couple of weeks, and the bad part is that it'll only get worse as the midterms get closer.

Trump's son posts a picture enjoying father's day with his kid, and gets a torrent of insults. Trump's daughter shares a picture cuddling her infant son and triggers a tidal wave of hatred.

To believe some celebrities, the US is torturing children at the border right now! It's exactly the same as nazi concentration camps, young children are ripped (note: actual word used) from their mothers and held in cages by the hundreds!

If we could find a way to harness hatred we could run the entire country off of leftist ideals.

Recent FBI report and admission that Trump's campaign was being monitored. https://www.nationalreview.com...

Here is the email where HRC tells a staffer to delete markings and send classified material to her private email.

I want to work 35-40 hour weeks at a semi-governmental job, get my 4-5 weeks off mandated by law, spend time with family, live a bit. I don't want my work to be the focus of my entire life.

And you think that you, an inexperienced and unambitious American, are just going to stroll into Europe and get yourself a low cost education and then such a cozy little job while many millions of educated European youths are out of work?

Even if you could land such a job, Europe is a ticking demographic time bomb and migrants aren't going to solve the problem, so there is no money to finance those nice traditional benefits And Europe already has shifted massively to the right and towards a dismantling of its social welfare states over the last decade because Europeans have no choice.

Good luck!

Donald Trump is letting a Chinese company sell hacked phones used as surveillance department for the Chinese government.

The only explanation is that this is part of Trump's surrender to North Korea and China.

Is this a troll as some mod thinks (possibly Russian) or is it the simple truth? Everybody remembers that Drump got paid off promptly in the form of $500 million real estate "investment" right?

You are correct, I didn't point that out. Here's a few links to put the waste problems of solar and wind power into perspective.

https://instituteforenergyrese...
https://www.nationalreview.com...
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07...
https://thoughtscapism.com/201...

Wind and solar have far greater waste problems than nuclear. Can we reduce the waste from wind and solar? Sure, just as we can learn to reduce the waste produced from nuclear energy. Can we improve the methods of recycling and disposing of waste produced from wind and solar? I imagine we can, just as we can with waste from nuclear power.

Solar power is not only an environmental disaster it is an economical disaster. Perhaps in the future solar power can improve beyond what nuclear offers now but that's assuming nuclear does not also improve. Solar is trying to hit a moving target and falling behind every year. I'm generally okay with wind, it's not all that reliable but it also is not that expensive, does not produce terrible amounts of toxic waste, and allows for use of the land below for farming and ranching. Wind does kill birds but birds are jerks, I say let them die.

Nuclear power is safer than wind and solar. Nuclear power is less expensive than wind and solar, with some exceptions in a few locations. Nuclear power produces less CO2 per energy produced, with perhaps hydro being better in a few locations. Nuclear power produces less waste than wind and solar. Nuclear power is the best source of energy we have right now and we'd be fools to not expand our fleet of nuclear power plants.

The "why" is the obesity epidemic. Basically, we reached the point where the country is so wealthy that even poor people are morbidly obese (and, in fact, more likely to be so) which leads to earlier death.

As has been pointed out time and time again, the US also counts every single live birth toward its statistics of life expectancy. Other countries have different standards, and newborns who don't live for at least a few days might not be counted. Adding in what is essentially "0" to your average tends to pull it down. This also is the cause the the high infant mortality rate in the US:

https://www.nationalreview.com...

You mean the Obama you personally claimed was Muslim and you insisted was Hitler?

And you pretend you aren't doing damage to whatever rational cause that you by chance might endorse despite your own rampant insanity in favor of Buzz Windrip?

Sorry, but you shouldn't live in a glass house and throw stones. You break it, you bought it.

provided any proof that Obama couldn't make the deal,

Proof? Like Iran not signing on the deal because "not a treaty"? I am sorry but this doesn't make any sense. Sure, Obama can promise things that Obama can fulfill like "political commitments" but when it comes to promises of the United States the Senate must approve precisely because of shit like this. Obama set the Iran deal up for failure by ignoring the Congress. That is not how the US operates and Obama should have known better instead of trying to create a legacy built on lies and executive overreach.

What really makes Trump make US look like shit is how it's going against it's allies on these deals.

Because our Allies were fed the same bullshit lies that Obama could keep his political commitments after his term ended. Absolutely it causes problems and it makes our government look retarded. Because the United States did not agree to anything and this is exactly why the Senate must approve deals and treaties and that they have the same effect as law when approved properly. You want a treaty to be taken seriously in the US and not subject to the whims of the president? Follow that damn law and have the Senate approve. Obama was a damned fool and his "legacy" will be one of overreach, failure, and lies.