Slashdot Mirror

You mean teaching a dog to do a stupid trick to make fun of Nazis? Yup, because offensive humor is in the eye of the beholder and I don't want some Big Brother telling me what is and is not funny.

And BTW thx for proving my point, when we have people being dragged into court and convicted for a stupid dog trick while the left doesn't say a thing about Muslims forcing pro-LGBT lessons to shut down or Twitter CEO admitting banning a feminist who refused to call a trans by the their chosen pronouns just shows how sadly free speech on the left has become "only that which fits my narrative".

Funny though that all this hate speech protected spaces bullshit is doing is causing a hell of a hard right shift as many from feminists (hell they had lesbians giving a talk at the Heritage Foundation and if you would have told me 10 years ago that would happen I would have said you were insane) to old school liberals simply walk away from the left because they have become so authoritarian and frankly racist and sexist nobody other than college indoctrinated millennials will buy it. I personally voted straight left for 30 years straight, I even voted for Dukakis against the first Shrub and Kerry against the second, but even though I cannot stand most if not all of what the right stands for I will vote straight R in 2020 simply because the regessives and the racist sexist garbage they stand for is about as appealing to me as anal cancer.

And say what you will about the right but you can go to any right wing website and be as leftist as you want, they will make fun of you or respond with memes but they won't ban you or try to silence you, try the same thing at HuffyPo or Mary Sue and see how quickly they erase you, no thoughtcrime accepted on the left anymore, only bubbles of groupthink allowed.

A breakdown of the media ignoring the senate and house intelligence committees finding no collusion between trump campaign and Russia.

The Nation of Islam published a book about the Jewish role in the African slave trade. This is no secret, they're very open about this and wish everyone to read it. In his own autobiography, Barack Obama admitted to being an avid reader of the Nation of Islam's Final Call newspaper, this did not seem to impede his eventual path to two presidential terms.

So let's review: Obama's mentor and fundraiser Tony Rezko was also the Nation of Islam's business manager. Obama read Farrakhan's newspaper regularly, posed for a photo with him that borders on the bromantic, and yet the press refuses to condemn him. Donald Trump said he didn't know David Duke and openly disavowed him, yet the press has nailed Trump and Duke together on the same cross.

Yet the country's self-described "journalists" still wonder why people don't trust them.

The blacklist lists a 2-year suspension, with an update wayyyyy down the page indicating that the suspension was reduced, as noted in the OP. And you really have to read into the text to find this out.

This comment stood out in the legal proceedings:

"The Central Disciplinary Court has declared a number of complaints components to be (partially) unfounded and has imposed on the plastic surgeon the lower measure of conditional suspension for a period of 4 months with a probationary period of 2 years."

So it seems that some of the original 9 complaints are unfounded, and this is a case of he said/she said, with a dispute of what actually happened.

If we are really serious about combating fake news, then why shouldn't Google have to delist the biased and misleading blacklist, in favor of other more accurate reviews?

I note that Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) complained that doing an image search of him came up with a photoshopped image of his head on a Nazi uniform in the top row. (source) Scott complained to Google and got no response, and only after asking his followers complain did the image get *somewhat* downranked. It's still there in the first page of image results.

He points out that the image came from a twitter account with 15 followers:

“Now, these are real pictures that people have ‘memed up’ on Twitter and somewhere else, but here’s the thing, if you click through to those pictures they are the least, smallest, most minor mention of me compared to everything I’ve been doing for years. So, I’m asking myself, and I’m gonna ask you as well, do you think given that – so one of these clicks through, one of the pictures of me wearing a photoshopped Nazi uniform, if you click through it goes to a fake Twitter account that’s pretending to be me that has only 15 followers.”

Adams asked: “Do you think that a fake Twitter account that has only 15 followers would have enough followers that Google’s algorithm would pick that? Of all the pictures there are of me, there are a lot of pictures of me in the public domain, in articles. I was probably in 25 major articles last year alone, and this one little 15 user fake Twitter account is the fourth image that comes up?”

It seems perfectly reasonable that people should start pushing back against Google's search manipulation, and the "right to be forgotten" seems to be a good first step.

How exactly is the OP a racist liar?

He is a White calling a Colored a liar. As we've learned during Obama's Presidency, this — or any other criticism — makes the White a racist. Case closed...

What I'm getting from this is that you're a racist and lack basic reasoning skills. Kind of fits with your comments, I guess.

How exactly is the OP a racist liar?

He is a White calling a Colored a liar. As we've learned during Obama's Presidency, this — or any other criticism — makes the White a racist. Case closed...

You already knew that it would not be accepted because Breitbart is not news. Breitbart is propoganda - the word that we used before alternative facts.

Breitbart is news. If it isn't, then point out what that story got factually wrong. There's no such thing as non-propaganda outlets any more, if there ever was. They all have a bias and an agenda. They report on some stories and not others. They leave out some facts and not others. And sometimes they just outright make shit up.

Remember how all those "trusted" media outlets kept on insisting that censorship of the right on social media was a "conspiracy theory"?

Except it wasn't -- Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted to shadowbanning 600,000 accounts (note link to "real news" Engadget, but submission was also removed from the votable feed within hours) . Breitbart foreshadowed that story, which I also submitted, and which was also removed within hours.

But hey, just pretend you can ignore alternative news sites, because the other sites are "real news".

Human right to free speech [...]

But not CNN's right to talk about prostitutes peeing on Trump?..

You can't pick and choose. The links I cited claim, that the First Amendment protects everybody's right to publish whatever they feel like publishing. To wit:

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments

The only possible exception to the above are things, one explicitly promised (such by signing an NDA, or giving an oath) not to publish... Which Facebook did not.

About the closest thing to a fact checking site I've seen is NewsBusters, but they seem more like an opinion site that a fact checker.

> In October a Washington post article showed that while it was originally funded in 2015 by Republican donors, the Clinton campaign began funding the research in 2016 as opposition research.

Odd, I'm not seeing updates on Snopes Can you point me to the article I might have missed? Also, that AP report saying it was originally funded by the Washington Free Beacon was later *retracted* from what I saw, though it was widely passed around. You can see here for further information on that topic. Feel free to check their sources, as well.

So you might need even more fact checking, no? Feel free to do the same to me! I'm sure there are things I don't know and I look forward to any evidence you have which I have not seen.

It is the burden of proof on the journalist to provide sources, and I am baffled you aren't aware of this. They can't just make up news that makes them feel good or that fills their emotional and political needs - but that is exactly what they are doing, sadly.

ABC News increases orange saturation when filming Trump. Despite two hours of available air time, ABC's Good Morning America on Wednesday skipped a damning New York Times story with a bombshell claim: Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 presidential campaign, was told that Harvey Weinstein was a rapist, but still took his donations and raised money off him.

Anybody - ANYBODY - who still thinks after all this that they can rely on mainstream media like ABC for useful information on the news of the day - presented fairly, offering coverage of all viewpoints, untainted by a concealed agenda - is nothing but a damned fool. Period fucking dot.

Why is it your only counter argument is to bring up two news sources that are not at all relevant and unmentioned? You're not disproving the point, which is that our credible, mainstream media staffed by highly educated, erudite journalists, regularly produces fake news. It's a simple matter of psychology: post misleading news, wait for people to react, it's something known as "impression formation". Once an impression has been formed, it sticks. This is how they psyop the masses. This is how they persuade people. A lot of these people will never check the news, they'll never check the sources, they'll never look for the original video, and they'll never see the truth.

Despite two hours of available air time, ABC's Good Morning America skipped a damning New York Times story with a bombshell claim: Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 presidential campaign, was told that Harvey Weinstein was a rapist, but still took his donations and raised money off him.

Four viral claims spread by journalists last month that are false.

New York Times prejudiced against India. ""Of all places" is a very patronising way to describe India, which is one of the leading manufacturers in automobile industry with various auto giants having its manufacturing facilities in India. This is not the first time NYTimes has shown its prejudice against India. Earlier, they had published an op-ed about India that was centered around the CBI raids at the residences of Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy, the founder promoters of NDTV. The editorial was titled 'India's Battered Free Press' which read like a textbook case of how it has been distorting the truth. NYTimes' former Delhi bureau chief Ellen Barry had also indulged in white-washing the 2002 Godhra carnage where as many as 59 people were burnt alive in a train. She had also spread lies to insult the victims of Godhra carnage in her report on Gulbarg Society verdict. NYTimes also encourages troll-like behaviour while reporting on democratically elected public representatives where being 'liberal' is associated with smoking, drinking and Hindu woman having Muslim friends and boyfriend."

Media shows why it's so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding 'story'

The greatest danger to our nation comes from a free press that chooses sides in the political process. And that has openly and unapologetically taken place.

You can put that "New York Times was not reporting false news or outright lies" idea to bed because they absolutely do. Why don't you hear about this all the time? It's huge news when they do it, and they do it often.

They lied about Tesla car. "When the facts didn't suit his opinion, he simply changed the facts," Musk wrote. A Times spokeswoman reiterated that its story was "fair and accurate."

Last year, 35% of colleges saw international student numbers go up, 26% saw no change, and 39% saw them go down. New York Times publishes this with the headline "Amid Trump Effect Fear, 40% of Colleges See Dip in Foreign Applicants"

Glenn Thrush, the former senior staff writer at Politico who found himself in hot water when a WikiLeaks dump in October revealed that he ran an article by Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta prior to publishing, thought the Georgia results were lackluster. Thrush is now a political correspondent for The New York Times.

"We don't want to hear anything - we've long said this about this about the Right - but I think the Left, we don't - I'm not 'we,' I'm a journalist - but the Left as a rule does not want to hear thoughtful disagreement."
http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...

New York Times says Trump's tweets incite violence, yet published an image of Stephen Miller's severed head on a pike.

The same people criticizing Trump for his WWE tweet had no problem with the New York Times sponsoring a play that depicted Trump's assassination.

New York Times lies about Trump's almost 40% figure

New York Times quotes a fake twitter account, publishes fake news.

The New York Times Misquoted Trump's Charlottesville Remarks In Five Different Reports

A New York Times reporter called Melania a hooker and they wouldn't even release the name of the reporter that said it, let alone fire her.

"Without your help," a beaming Fidel Castro said while nodding at Herbert Matthews during a visit to The New York Times's offices in April 1959, almost exactly a year after he'd visited Marquez-Sterling, "and without the help of the New York Times, the revolution in Cuba would never have been."

"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is."
--Source: New York Times

You can put that "New York Times was not reporting false news or outright lies" idea to bed because they absolutely do. Why don't you hear about this all the time? It's huge news when they do it, and they do it often.

They lied about Tesla car. "When the facts didn't suit his opinion, he simply changed the facts," Musk wrote. A Times spokeswoman reiterated that its story was "fair and accurate."

Last year, 35% of colleges saw international student numbers go up, 26% saw no change, and 39% saw them go down. New York Times publishes this with the headline "Amid Trump Effect Fear, 40% of Colleges See Dip in Foreign Applicants"

Glenn Thrush, the former senior staff writer at Politico who found himself in hot water when a WikiLeaks dump in October revealed that he ran an article by Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta prior to publishing, thought the Georgia results were lackluster. Thrush is now a political correspondent for The New York Times.

"We don't want to hear anything - we've long said this about this about the Right - but I think the Left, we don't - I'm not 'we,' I'm a journalist - but the Left as a rule does not want to hear thoughtful disagreement."
http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...

New York Times says Trump's tweets incite violence, yet published an image of Stephen Miller's severed head on a pike.

The same people criticizing Trump for his WWE tweet had no problem with the New York Times sponsoring a play that depicted Trump's assassination.

New York Times lies about Trump's almost 40% figure

New York Times quotes a fake twitter account, publishes fake news.

The New York Times Misquoted Trump's Charlottesville Remarks In Five Different Reports

A New York Times reporter called Melania a hooker and they wouldn't even release the name of the reporter that said it, let alone fire her.

"Without your help," a beaming Fidel Castro said while nodding at Herbert Matthews during a visit to The New York Times's offices in April 1959, almost exactly a year after he'd visited Marquez-Sterling, "and without the help of the New York Times, the revolution in Cuba would never have been."

"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is."
--Source: New York Times

Irena Sendler was nominated same year as Gore. Look up what she ACTUALLY did besides make a lot of money off a movie.

Gandhi, also never was awarded one, but Arafat was.

Peace Prize = You are probably shit and progressives like you. I expect Hillary Clinton to get one any year now.

Blame Trump — if it weren't for his reversing of Obama's hurricane-ban...

But let's not jump to conclusions — most hurricanes, earthquakes, and other so called "disasters" are entirely peaceful and we should not judge all of them by the effects of the few.

Bias against trump because he's a dickweed isn't racist merely because he's right

I was referring to bias for Obama — the phenomenon known as bigotry of lower expectations. Whether such racism really did motivate the newspapers or not is neither known, nor even knowable. But it certainly is a no less well-supported accusation, than the summary dismissals of Obama's critics as "racist" were.

And your sig is still idiotic because I remember people criticising bush before Obama being called unpatriotic.

And you are an idiot, because this observation does not contradict my signature in any way.

You mean like when ABC predicted, in 2008, that New York City would be underwater in 2015 ?? Or that a carton of milk would be US$12.99, and a gallon of gas over US$9.00 ??

Is the holster joke the only bad thing about Colbert's monologue? How about the the overall contempt and personal attacks? Here are a few:

You’re not the POTUS; you’re the ‘BLOTUS.’

You’re the glutton with the button.

You’re a regular ‘Gorge Washington.’

You talk like a sign-language gorilla that got hit in the head.

In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c*ck holster.

The only thing smaller than your hands are your tax returns and you can take that any way you want.

And Colbert treated Stephen Miller even worse - he made "jokes" about Miller being killed. In a video clip that contains superimposed heads of Miller,

he [Miller] is electrocuted, bashed in the head with a baseball bat, and decapitated. One of the scenes Miller is added to is from the HBO series Game of Thrones, and mirrors a controversial scene where the show’s creators placed former President George W. Bush’s head on a spike.

Can you imagine anyone making "jokes" like that about any other president or his advisors? I didn't like Obama's actions in his second term, but if anyone had made "jokes" like that against Obama or his advisors personally, I would have told him they weren't funny.

If Colbert doesn't like Trump's policies and actions, fine. I don't like some of them either. Colbert should make jokes that criticize Trump's policies. Maybe joke about the Obamacare replacement bill. Attack his policies, not the man personally.

As the RollingStone article says, after the backlash against Colbert's homo joke, Colbert talked about love: "... life is short, and anyone who expresses their love for another person, in their own way, is to me, an American hero." That sounds good. Let's see more brotherly love or kindness in Colbert's monologues in the future.

many predictive failures - yes.

The last few years have shown the weakness in the predictive power of polls. (Brexit and the like: http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...)

Polling has turned in to a partisan activity in an apparent attempt to sway the outcome of the very thing being polled.

It is completely unlike predicting the weather.

Like the Tea Party was/is reasonable, clear, concise. The reason they didn't physically riot was only due to physical restrictions due to their average advanced age.

The Tea Party was and is. That's why they got their candidates elected, fun reminder that when conservatives say that the "media has a democrat bias" they weren't lying(95% of the reporters in the beltway are registered democrats, and vote democrat). The media went out of their way to paint them as extremists, just the same way that the media and left wing groups went out of their way to say that Trump is a sexist/racist/homophobe/xenophobe/etc. Because consensual stuff is rape, enforcing laws is racist, and wanting to actually vet immigrants is xenophobic. But hey, just remember what happened to Dan Rather? Where he invented news, was outed as a fraud. Then tried to play the "but it was true, I was trying to start a conversation" bullshit too. Considering that the media instead of learning from any of this, continues to double down. Has a 6% trust rating(lower than congress or even lawyers), I'll give it...2-3 years before we see the "big" media crying that they need government funding.

If after this last election you can't see that, then either you just woke up from a coma or you just got internet access. In which case, I'm sorry you lost a decade or more of your life and welcome to 2016, at least you don't have to worry about dial-up.

Twitter and Youtube are rather lousy in this regard too...

I think there is a difference between supporting a candidate and turning over a multi-billion dollar enterprise over to that candidate to get their message out or suppress the message of the opposing candidate. While there was no mention specifically about using Google technology or resources, there has been plenty of suspicious activity in the Google realm related to auto completion, site rankings, and even quasi censorship on Youtube,

When a business the size and reach of Google favors you, then you are bound to end up benefiting in ways that you are probably not entitled to benefit from.

I thought about leaving when they started running near daily stories about Clinton's emails, but said nothing about Trump's admissions of sexual assault. Perhaps I should give /. a break until the 9th.

Trump's sexual assaults have nothing to do with technology. Besides, you can go to any other news source for that info.

Not exactly an unbiased source itself. It's run by a newspaper; which way do most newspapers lean?

One sample:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...

This is a total troll article and complete flamebait. But what else do you expect? When the Left does not in the least believe that fairness should apply to the enemy side? When the media is marching in lockstep, taking its marching orders from the government, what are We The People supposed to do? This is not journalism, it is storytelling designed to advance a left-wing agenda packaged as facts but is nothing but politics. It's sad that the critical thinking skills of educated people can't decode a simple situation like this, but that's where we are today.

What denialists like myself go after is demonstrably false predictions by 'scientists' in the past that were disproved long ago. When they said there'd be no snow last year 2000 they were simply wrong. There is no misunderstanding of the concept of science when you make a false prediction. If it is wrong it is wrong and it doesn't matter what kind of scientist they are if they make a wrong prediction . The science isn't wrong but they are which means they're probably wrong about other things as well.

Every single computer model they had was also wrong. Insulting the people who point this out will not make false predictions true. It's also not science.

They said back in 2007 that by the Year 2015 New York City would be under water. That is obviously false and yet not a single warmista anywhere asks themselves why are they wrong all the time?

"They said back in 2007 that by the Year 2015 New York City would be under water." No, "They" said (in 2008) "that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly,", while ABC "visual shows New York City being engulfed by water" http://www.newsbusters.org/blo.... Nobody "said... that by the Year 2015 New York City would be under water." Your beef is with ABC News. But for a denialist, that's another scientific prediction that was wrong, thus disproving AGW!
"Every single computer model they had was also wrong."
"All models are wrong but some are useful". -George Box
Perhaps you could show us a model of climate without an AGW term which is anywhere near as correct as any with an AGW term, or of any use whatsoever?

Well, ABC did...

The breitbart blog just links this blog: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...
That blog has a transcript. The transcript gives the source of the predictions:

We are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.
...So the producers actually work with those people that send in their ideas into the website. And then we're just hoping that the goal is ultimately get these ideas very soon.

That's it: the "predictions" are whatever some random visitor to the "interactive web game" decides to write about the year 2015.

That's not what I'd call "experts".

Lately I've started looking at Kasich as a reasonable alternative

Well, Kasich is a Democrat, and has admitted as such. So I guess if you're looking for an alternative between Establishment Hillary and Socialist Sanders, he's a good choice. But since he's vying for the wrong nomination, that just means you'll end up with Hillary or Sanders.

I'm still confused by the waffling of the Democratic voters. I can't figure out why any of them are supporting Hillary over Sanders, other than they think she has a better chance of winning. That strike me as being okay with Lucifer winning the election, because he's in the Correct Party.

Here
you
go.

Enjoy the indefinite detention as you're held as a terrorist for failing to decrypt. A little "parallel construction"/perjury to trump up some charges if you don't play along.

See, non-compliant citizens will be presumed guilty and treated as a security risk. Just to be safe you understand.

Fortunately, the next elections aren't very far and we have a chance to elect somebody, who, for once, gets the modern-day issues and uses mobile devices and e-mail himself — not some dinosaur, who can't even type.

We've saved even more money by having wildly inaccurate and dire predictions that didn't pan out. Think of all the money we saved by not having increased hurricanes, $12.99 gallon milk, $9/gallon gas, and New York City flooding... The real miracle would be to find a circa 2000 prediction of global warming that was even moderately accurate.

These fake scientists continue to produce these warnings. This summer of 2015 was set to have NYC under water, prediction made in 2008. Enjoy: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...

It's because if scientists make predictions that don't come to pass it makes us question their science: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...

I cite that just because its funny and underscores what is going on.

You have some people saying reasonable things and talking about the science. And then you have dumb journalists running around like chickens with their heads cut off... collecting the most extreme quotes they possibly can to get the most insane headlines.

I'm not interested in the alarmism and I'm not alone. Millions are just tuning it out. I think that political tactic and media tactic has reached the point of diminishing returns.

Moving forward, I'd just like the science... with full acknowledgment of the uncertainties and no attempt to advocate for any given solution.

Just give me the information. Bias the results to try and get a panic reaction out of me and there's a good chance I'll spot it and then rather than convince me, I'll just distrust your paper.

I'm not anti environmental improvement. However, I'd like that improvement to be more than a ploy. There are a lot of alterior motives in this issue at this point.

1. The politicians can use it as a weapon. Al Gore didn't get into this for nothing.

2. The corporations love it because they get massive pork spending for green projects. The money going to GE etc for this stuff was unheard of before the AGW issue.

3. The Universities get too much grant money to not want to keep the fire burning on this issue. The issue cools and the grant money falls off with it.

4. The UN sees the issue as a means to political relevance outside the security council.

5. Various little countries can use the issue to justify demands for aid. The "help us because of colonialism" etc has sort of worn off. Help us because AGW is relevant.

6. The AGW issue can be used to justify protectionist policies against East Asian economies in China and India.

It goes on and on and on and on and on. So... I just want the science without the politics and the advocacy and the lobbying and the gaslighting and the endless fucking pathos.

No he isn't, because if you think a group so fucking hate filled that you can play Stormfront or SJW and have a seriously hard time telling an SJW post from the Neo-Nazi thinks they are "doing good" instead of just picking a group to hate? Well then I have a bridge you might be interested in. I used to think the stereotype of SJWs being self hating beta CIS males was likewise bullshit until we had article after article like this one where a white male liberal professor calls for the extermination of all white males. BTW notice how he doesn't say white females, that is because to bigoted fucks like him white females are to be given as prizes to black males for "historical oppression". He even says "At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He's good for nothing. "
So...yeah, sometimes stereotypes are true and SJWs being whipped, self hating, prideless, spineless little bigots as pointed out by many gamergate supporters? Kinda on the nose.

As for TFA? No wonder this company didn't survive, not when the women were writing ads like "Altair and Imsai mothers deserve beautiful 8K babies" and picking caps based on whether or not they would clash with the board...DaFuq? Its a 1970s chipboard going in a big fugly white box, why not tell me what its gonna do for my system instead of me thinking about babies for no damned reason, and why would I give a wet fart about whether the caps clash or not when its going in a big fugly box with no windows? From the sounds of it they were trying for a "form over function" a good 25 years before PCs would have glass sides so anybody would care about that shit. Hell look at their "PC" design, green or orange with a fricking racing stripe and only a power and reset at a time when nearly everything was done with dip switches....why would somebody in the late 70s want to severely limit their inputs (and from the looks of the prices pay a good 20%+ extra) just to get a system with a racing stripe and color coordinated motherboards? Remember at the time the PC buyers were tinkerers with soldering irons, personal computers weren't even in your average office at that time.

If I took anything away from TFA its not that IBM killed 'em, it was that they were trying to be hipster a good 30 years before that was a thing and without Steve Jobs ability to get people pumped about buying extremely limited systems compared to the competition. And before any Apple fans breakout the pitchforks? Woz has written several times about how many times he was frustrated over hardware design choices being made NOT for what would be the best choice for the user but by Jobs pursuit of style, the most memorable was the Apple you had to drop on the table to reseat the chips because Jobs didn't like fans. of course Jobs had his incredible salesmanship to keep him going until tech caught up with his taste in design, this bunch had "8K babies"...groan.

Weird, I read the same article and what I saw was the same mistakes other companies at the time made. Didn't get in bed with IBM.

Your view seems to be colored by your hatred of women.

I used to think the stereotype of SJWs being self hating beta CIS males was likewise bullshit until we had article after article like this one where a white male liberal professor calls for the extermination of all white males. BTW notice how he doesn't say white females, that is because to bigoted fucks like him white females are to be given as prizes to black males for "historical oppression". He even says "At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He's good for nothing. " So...yeah, sometimes stereotypes are true . . .

Did you miss the caveat the journalist added at the bottom of the story, noting that he picked the story up from a satirical news blog?

No he isn't, because if you think a group so fucking hate filled that you can play Stormfront or SJW and have a seriously hard time telling an SJW post from the Neo-Nazi thinks they are "doing good" instead of just picking a group to hate? Well then I have a bridge you might be interested in. I used to think the stereotype of SJWs being self hating beta CIS males was likewise bullshit until we had article after article like this one where a white male liberal professor calls for the extermination of all white males. BTW notice how he doesn't say white females, that is because to bigoted fucks like him white females are to be given as prizes to black males for "historical oppression". He even says "At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He's good for nothing. " So...yeah, sometimes stereotypes are true and SJWs being whipped, self hating, prideless, spineless little bigots as pointed out by many gamergate supporters? Kinda on the nose.

As for TFA? No wonder this company didn't survive, not when the women were writing ads like "Altair and Imsai mothers deserve beautiful 8K babies" and picking caps based on whether or not they would clash with the board...DaFuq? Its a 1970s chipboard going in a big fugly white box, why not tell me what its gonna do for my system instead of me thinking about babies for no damned reason, and why would I give a wet fart about whether the caps clash or not when its going in a big fugly box with no windows? From the sounds of it they were trying for a "form over function" a good 25 years before PCs would have glass sides so anybody would care about that shit. Hell look at their "PC" design, green or orange with a fricking racing stripe and only a power and reset at a time when nearly everything was done with dip switches....why would somebody in the late 70s want to severely limit their inputs (and from the looks of the prices pay a good 20%+ extra) just to get a system with a racing stripe and color coordinated motherboards? Remember at the time the PC buyers were tinkerers with soldering irons, personal computers weren't even in your average office at that time.

If I took anything away from TFA its not that IBM killed 'em, it was that they were trying to be hipster a good 30 years before that was a thing and without Steve Jobs ability to get people pumped about buying extremely limited systems compared to the competition. And before any Apple fans breakout the pitchforks? Woz has written several times about how many times he was frustrated over hardware design choices being made NOT for what would be the best choice for the user but by Jobs pursuit of style, the most memorable was the Apple you had to drop on the table to reseat the chips because Jobs didn't like fans. of course Jobs had his incredible salesmanship to keep him going until tech caught up with his taste in design, this bunch had "8K babies"...groan.

If I recall, the scientists said there was a 38% chance it was the hottest year ever.

The text is essentially a hunk of code describing how to execute the law.

The controversial section is a bug.

Do you think the courts should faithfully execute the buggy code, crashing part of the country in the process, or do you think they should fix or ignore the bug and allow the law to execute successfully?

Well, according to one of the law's architects, it was a Feature, not a Bug: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U&feature=youtu.be

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. (via NB

So to answer your question: Yes.

Unless the guy you quoted wasn't actually an architect of the law, but just some fairly low-level advisor, in which case the answer is: No.

The text is essentially a hunk of code describing how to execute the law.

The controversial section is a bug.

Do you think the courts should faithfully execute the buggy code, crashing part of the country in the process, or do you think they should fix or ignore the bug and allow the law to execute successfully?

Well, according to one of the law's architects, it was a Feature, not a Bug: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U&feature=youtu.be

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. (via NB

So to answer your question: Yes.

As opposed to everyone else, drafters and non-drafters, who for several years thought the law did what the government was doing and the court prescribed?

Gruber was important, but he didn't single handedly determine the intent for the law, he might not have even been involved with writing that specific section. It could just be he noticed the wording at some later date and attached what he thought to be a politically convenient interpretation and backstory. If anyone determined the intent it would be the POTUS and Congress and they were never ambiguous about its intent.

The text is essentially a hunk of code describing how to execute the law.

The controversial section is a bug.

Do you think the courts should faithfully execute the buggy code, crashing part of the country in the process, or do you think they should fix or ignore the bug and allow the law to execute successfully?

Well, according to one of the law's architects, it was a Feature, not a Bug: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U&feature=youtu.be

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. (via NB

So to answer your question: Yes.

The Video in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Jail for deniers:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...

Murder:
Comment by Bluecloud
https://twitter.com/RichardTol...
There are many more... some directly from Greenpeace. But I'll let you do your own research.

Death penalty:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.co...

How about a non-Islam run country? The United States doesn't exactly have clean hands in this regard.

Reagan's response to KAL 007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VA4W1wDMAk

Obama's response to MH 17:

Obama goes AWOL again with just 40-second mention of Malaysian plane crash

Hell, even Chris Matthews ripped Obama a new one by comparing Obama's pathetic response to Reagan's

Any wonder why Dems are getting their asses kicked today in mid-term elections?

Obama's fumbled every damn thing he's touched - relations with Russia ("Fuck the EU...), Obamacare, ISIS, Ebola (just watch the CDC go back and forth about how Ebola can/can't be spread by sneeze droplets...), the whole damn Middle East, European relations (think the Poles are happy about Obama pulling missile defense from them? Guess who called Obama "the real chickenshit" just a few days ago...)

Personally I have never noticed much difference in the nature of the scandals based on party. I just picked an article comparing 8 Rep. & 8 Dem. scandals that were selected for a different criteria. These are scandals you've probably heard of before.

6 Rep. scandals were drugs / sex
2 Dem. scandals were drugs / sex

Only 1 of the 16 was declared more or less as innocent (overzealous prosecution). It was Ted Stevens (R) -- a non drugs/sex scandal.

There may be a bias for scandal selection in that some Dem. don't considered family values important whereas some Rep. are preachy on same, so a Rep. sharing quality personal time with an aide or smoking some dope is inherently more scandalous than a Dem. doing the same because hypocrisy sells news.

But I have noticed a big difference in the reporting of the scandals. If the bum is Republican, the new story will almost certainly mention this, if the bum is a Democrat they news story usually does not consider party affiliation worth mentioning. In fact, this bias was why I selected the article that considered the coverage of the 16 scandals and the coverage in the press. This articles was the only article on the first page of Google results for "difference between republican and democratic scandals" that obviously related to news reporting. News busters is hardly top-notch unbiased journalism, but I expected that they handled basic facts correctly -- In an article like theirs, they probably did not care about the sex v. money difference in the scandals.

I've played this games for years, see a scandal, no party affiliation mentioned. Bet Democrat. Look up the answer and collect on the bet. It's even more reliable than betting against the Cubs.

Lol, naivete can be funny.

Sure, they can't outright deny you coverage, but what stops them from making your coverage so expensive you can't afford the deductibles? The answer is, "not a damn thing."

Which is why it's so great that the ACA has rate controls to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and mandates that everybody get insurance, so the many low-risk insured create a pool which makes it possible to cover the high-risk population in an affordable way.

You don't really believe that, do you? There are already tons of reports rolling in of people being denied treatments, being told that the cost of a procedure wouldn't go towards their deductible, and finding out that their $150/mo insurance program has a $25,000 deductible attached to it.

Some examples:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/g...

A pastor in Iowa, who is covered under ObamaCare, decried “there’s no compassion in the Affordable Care Act,” after he was told just minutes before receiving life-saving chemo that his treatments would not be covered. The pastor’s family has since emptied their savings account and are now $50,000 in debt.

A February 4 Los Angeles Times article detailed the story of California resident Danielle Nelson who was promised by Anthem Blue cross that her oncologists would be covered in her new policy. Diagnosed with non-Hogkins lymphoma last year, a lump was found near her jaw in January. But when she went to her oncologist’s office, the Times reported she “promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted.” Nelson told the Times: “I’m a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night, I can’t imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ob...

The Affordable Care Act is turning out to be less than affordable for some consumers.

That’s because many of the plans carry huge deductibles, creating potential financial problems for middle-class consumers. Some “bronze”-level plans, the lowest level of coverage, carry deductibles as high as $12,700 per year for a family of four... The average individual deductible for a bronze plan is a whopping $5,081 per year, according to research provided to CBS MoneyWatch from HealthPocket, a technology company that ranks health care plans.

What’s worse, that represents an increase of 40 percent from the average deductible for an individually purchased plan before the federal health care overhaul, according to The Wall Street Journal.

... and these are just the tip of the iceberg. Things will get worse as the delayed provisions start to kick in.

That said, I don't think the concept of single-payer healthcare is a bad one; however I do not believe the current implementation is an effective system that's not designed to bilk average Americans out of money for the benefit of insurance execs and the Congresscritters who love them.

Mainstream media in the US don't report how after the MH17 crash Obama is busy attending fundraisers. Even the Boston Globe ignores their own reporter's tweet about Obama's reaction to the incident
But it's funny how you mention Putin returning from the 6th BRICS Summit in Brazil. The US media parrots Obama's "isolation" plan of Russia,
but in Brazil Putin was meeting with the leaders of China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela. The BRICS and affiliated countries constitute half the world's population. Russia isn't "isolated", that's just more media propaganda, like Obama's "Hope and Change" propaganda.

Actually, it was a response to a reporter who asked what insights she can gain from being so close to Russia in connection with NATIONAL SECURITY not foreign policy, here answer was "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska":
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics...

It was in response to a series of questioning about Russia invading another of it's neighbors Georgia. She also warns about Russia and the Ukraine in this same interview which she was laughed at. I would think in context, her comment on this was very rational where as yours is still completely ignorant of the facts.

I think you have Tina Fey and Sarah Palin confused.

Unless you are thinking about the short run hit "Who's Nailin' Paylin?".