Slashdot Mirror

So myopic of you, ignore the message because you don't like the messenger! The JCPOA was never signed and Kerry's State Department confirmed this fact in their own letter to Mike Pompeo. The fact you aren't aware of this - but sources you shame as untrustworthy are - should give any thinking person pause about their own beliefs in the quality of sources. Stick with your own slanted coverage, and fail to learn what is really happening in the world...

I don't recall a lot of people being okay with Obama's drone policy.

Of course, you don't — passive acquiescence is not memorable. So, please, cite anything by NYTimes or Washington Post denouncing Obama for the far graver offense of killing suspects, that's more passionate than this, or this, or this...

Heck, not only was he not denounced, his side praised him for killing Osama bin Laden, instead of arresting him... Online and IRL, Left were taunting "RethugliKKKans" with: "who is tougher on terrorism now?"

The only guy objecting was this maverick. Every single other "progressive" is a hypocrite...

I don't recall a lot of people being okay with Obama's drone policy.

Of course, you don't — passive acquiescence is not memorable. So, please, cite anything by NYTimes or Washington Post denouncing Obama for the far graver offense of killing suspects, that's more passionate than this, or this, or this...

Heck, not only was he not denounced, his side praised him for killing Osama bin Laden, instead of arresting him... Online and IRL, Left were taunting "RethugliKKKans" with: "who is tougher on terrorism now?"

The only guy objecting was this maverick. Every single other "progressive" is a hypocrite...

Good ol' Eric Holder obtained the records for more than 20 telephone lines of [the AP's] offices and journalists, including their home phones and cellphones. It said the records were seized without notice sometime this year. And this issue is hardly new.

My mistake, 1, 2

Spin THIS

Speaking of revisionism, the Republicans came up with the ideas that lead to the ACA over twenty years ago. They only became opponents when Democrats implemented it.

They probably never expected the Dems to actually implement it to be honest.

Speaking of revisionism, the Republicans came up with the ideas that lead to the ACA over twenty years ago. They only became opponents when Democrats implemented it.

cross burner? yawn. ad hom attacks. but if you want facts - https://www.nytimes.com/2006/1...

You got your parties mixed up: the party of the KKK is the Democrats. Hillary was best buddies with a former KKK member.

Oh ooloorie, you expect us not to remember that former means no-longer, and in this case, repentant?

Or do you think we forgot how Republican Senate leaders praised Strom Thurmond's racist Dixiecraft campaign?

Sorry, but claiming you don't know who David Duke is won't work either.

1) Yeah, America keeps starting all those wars in the middle east. Lets see. We are responsible for invasion of Iraq. That is true.

However, it was Europe that pushed the invasion of Libya, which is where most of the european refugees come from.

From that, ISIS came about, and then Europe pushed America to solve that issue.

Basically, the ONLY 2 that America deserves responsibility for is Iraq and Afghanistan. And Afghanistan invaded America first.

2) USA leads all nations in reducing carbon emissions. And there are a bunch more articles on it.

The pretty little graphs show that only in recent years has Europe not been equal or exceeded America. And what was really missing from that, is recent time, when EU has flatlined on their emissions, while America continues to drop.

And 2-3 x EU's emssions? Not even close.

3) yeah, that copyright shit really pisses me off. Sorry about that. However, it is not just American businesses pushing that. It is also European.

National polling is meaningless for Congressional races.

True, given gerrymandering which has distorted the picture bigly..

Most Democrats live in concentrated areas geographically, generally known as the 80/20 Rule; i.e. 80% of registered Democrats live in 20% of the country.

Nope. The 80-20 rule is something different. Of course, the fact is, 80% of Republicans also live in 20% of the country. Just check it out. Thanks to burgeoning urbanization, 80% of the country lives in mega-clusters of population.

So basically, you're confusing statistics with reality. A common problem among Trump supporters. Remember, they couldn't even figure out they didn't win a landslide.

If a national poll is split 50-50 on a generic candidate that means Republicans have a sizeable lead in total congressional races.

Nope. A national poll with that kind of spread means that Republicans are desperately lying when they claim to have widespread support and praying that Anthony Kennedy's inevitable ruling on their gerrymandering doesn't hurt them too much.

Really, instead of utterly devastating, they praying for only hugely discomforting.

But many of them are already getting out now.

I'm not so sure about that. Certainly back when I went, if you didn't apply in your senior year of high school you missed out on certain opportunities. Even one year off unless you were in community college put you in the "non-traditional" crowd and effectively limited your choices of schools that would accept you.

It doesn't surprise me that schools would attempt to push people towards a path that results in the most money for the school even if it is a disservice to the individuals involved.

In a perfect world where everyone knew what they wanted to do with their life at 18 and was mature enough to take advantage of all of the opportunities they have with regards to education, I'd agree with you completely. However, we know that isn't the case from the data: Only 19% graduate on time.. Worse still 30% will not finish at all essentially dropping or failing out. That is not good and we as a society need to be aware that what we might want and what happens in the real world are two very different things. Kicking and screaming at reality are unlikely to yield different results.

Moreover, how is this different than buying an ad in Teen Vogue? Or on Reddit? AARP magazine? Ebony? Cosmo? Any of those magazines has a massively skewed age/race/gender balance. A natural reading of the claim would mean that advertising in any of those would (quoting the pleading [documentcloud.org], section 21): "unlawfully exclude [some protected class] of workers from receiving job ads and other recruitment information". Heck, by this logic, even posting a (paper) job offer on the (physical) bulletin board at a university is discriminatory, since it's overwhelmingly likely to be seen by 18-22 year olds and hence "excludes older workers".

As a stupid question...

When you buy an ad in Teen Vogue, Reddit, AARP, Ebony, or Cosmo, you are buying an ad that is served to every reader of those magazines. The advertiser, the publisher, and the reader take the magazines demographics as it is.

When you buy an ad on Facebook, you down-select from Facebook's demographics based upon categories that are both ordinary and potentially problematic.

And that ca be a no-no. Because failing to serve an ad based on a discriminatory down-selection can be a violation of civil rights laws.

Well I suppose you responded to a lot of my observations/opinions with ones of your own. Lots of "no it's not, it's this way instead."

I imagine the body of research on men's sexual aggression and societal conditioning is rubbish. And all the work in the feminist movement on changing perceptions on women's right to enjoy or initiate sex is just superfluous and aimed at selling books.

But from reading your post it sounds like you genuinely believe that society really doesn't have a patriarchal leaning that encourages young men, if not by direct messaging then certainly by example, to be sexually aggressive. If that's how you genuinely feel, I don't have the time or energy to try and pull up enough literature and readings to try and change your mind. Frankly, the statements you've made about how men are doormats to women in order to get sex and how women lord their sexual power over men makes you sound like quite the MRA (men as a "disposable resource", women leveraging sex, men are taught to be doormats, boys "forced to be quiet", women "tricking" men into fathering kids, and the idea what you don't know anyone who has committed sexual assault where statistically speaking you almost certainly do). Maybe I'm off point.

I did though find it hilarious that you said "Unless America is so fucking far diverged from Europe that it's an entirely different culture." Really? You don't think that America is a different culture from Europe? Hell, we're a different culture from Canada and Mexico too...why would you possibly think that we're "the same" as Europe?

If the only reason that men were more prone to sexual assault was testosterone, it seems unlikely there would be such a vast quantity of social and psychiatric literature on the topic. We'd just say "gosh, it's the testosterone."

Here's some tidbits though:
When men are taught to be dominant and aggressive, this often leads to hyper-masculinity, male peer support for sexual aggression, development of rape myths, and adversarial sexual beliefs (Kilmartin, 2000; Rozee & Koss, 2001). In his classic study of college date rapists, Kanin’s sample (Kanin, 1985) were significantly more sexually active, but also more sexually frustrated than controls, and believed that rape could be justified under certain conditions.

Few men acknowledged using physical force to obtain sex, whereas more men acknowledged some form of sexual coercion. This included pressuring women and saying things they did not mean to obtain sex, using alcohol to obtain sex, and having sex with a woman even when she wanted to stop. A few men reported some likelihood of raping if they could be sure of not getting caught. (Carr and Van Deusen, 2004).

Although the association between rape and pornography remains controversial, a number of studies have linked violent pornography and sexual arousal to rape depictions, violent sexual fantasies, rape callousness, and woman abuse (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Malamuth, 1984; Malamuth & Check, 1983). *this isn't meant to throw porn under the bus, but you asked "where are men learning this?" as if you're naive to the presence of messaging to men that sexual violence is on some level acceptable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/gore-went-to-bat-for-al-jazeera-and-himself

Why deny something that was in the media and easy to prove?

I don't wanna sound racist or anything, but unfortunately I think China will have a very long way 'till it gets even close to western countries on this matter, which is still not ideal.
Setting US aside, let's consider some european countries and whatnot. There are very few countries that are really getting there, but still not quite.

Currently, China as a society has evolved at unprecedented speeds in comparison to the history of evolution of other societies.

I still remember a time when China was mostly rural, exporting mostly primary resources, and didn't have much in the way of technology to talk about. This was the case not that long ago. If you are too young to remember this, probably your parents will know.
Over just a few decades, less than a lifetime, China went rushing through industrial revolution, raising extremely modern metropolis in cities formerly pretty run down and primitive, and now the country is activelly participating at the forefront of technology and research in some areas.

Some people might not realize this, but it's because lots of people don't really know China. There are cities there that are basically on par with Japan in terms of technology, public transportation, technology in common spaces and whatnot. There are research areas like biomedicine and genetics that China is arguably ahead. Read some of the recent news... China just launched a communication probe in space to aid a mission that will be launched still this year to explore the dark side of the moon.

It's crazy how fast it has evolved. It almost doesn't make sense when you think about the comparison on how technology evolves versus societies.

But all that has a huge side effect. China did not evolve uniformly, these transformations had and still has huge costs, and of course things are not that simple.
It became a country of enormous contrasts. You have cities that look like Tokyo or modern european capitals, while you have towns in the countryside with people starving and living a life of subsistence. You have billionaires and huge investment groups that are among the richest in the world while you have multitude of workers slaving away to a state they prefer suicide instead of living like that. Most of western societies also have huge wage gaps and inequalities, but it kinda pales in comparison to China when looking at extremes.

Sexism can't be seen and treated in isolation, and people should not have some fantasy that it's gonna be solved anytime soon there because there are major shifts yet to happen before it even starts being addressed.

Remember people, China is a country where not that long ago, baby boys were hugely favored over baby girls. And this is a cultural phenomena that endured over decades.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/0...
This is a huge problem that cannot be solved in few years time, and it has massive cultural effects. Because it effectively created an artificial distortion... there are way more men than women in China when compared to proportions of other countries.
It's not only China too, it's just something that happens a lot in poor countries or developing countries all over the world.
https://www.npr.org/sections/g...
http://www.ibtimes.com/deadly-...
Even though some of these countries don't necessarily have a majority of people of faith in patriarcal religions and systems, it's just a matter of favoring boys because of base manual labor necessities and a prejudiced view that comes with it. The concept also became ingrained in culture, so up to this decade the tendency still remains.

Th

If some group is disproportionately likely to commit certain crimes, and those criminals are disproportionately likely to donate to your political party, there's always the option of making it not a crime any more.

Actually, the US found more than 500 tons of uranium yellowcake, which was given to Canada.
Also, the US found thousands of chemical weapons and millions of liters of dual-use chemicals - so many that the New York Times castigated the government for failing to protect US troops from those 'non-existent' chemical weapons.

Violent crime is way lower than it was during the Reagan administration.

While that particular fact is true there has been sharp increase in 2017-2018. Here is the evidence. I don't attribute that to Trump taking presidency. I attribute that to an exhausted American population that has been weathering enormous stress and anxiety to the The Great Recession and getting fed up with it. That's also why a populist president was elected. There is a populism backlash not just in the United States but in Western Europe in response to Globalization and the loss of jobs/good jobs. Harvard University has lectures on youtube about this. Check your facts. Further evidence exists at Gallup. Check Congress's approval ratings for the past 10 years and also check the top issues. Economy is usually #1 or #2. That means America is dissatisfied with the way the Federal Government is handling economic issues.

Density is part of it, but in the US, we have things like this:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/201...

That’s a special example, but smaller versions of that are everywhere.

Graft and corruption and bureaucratic incompetence add up when it’s pervasive and continues on for 50 years.

What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?

Who we charge for giving them false information.

Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.

Provably false claim on your part.

In the first link, the officers weren't charged for assaulting a defenseless man laying on the ground.

Your words were, and I quote, "Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community." without such specification.

They got a 15 day suspension, not a criminal charge.

Again, you said never. Never is absolute. And all I need is them being charged which I can provide.

In the second link, the officer wasn't charged for "being a danger to her community".

You were seeking that particular charge, when we were previously discussing charges for giving false information without such requirements?

You really should have specified. It is so easy to disprove you though, it is what happens when you are a shoddy troll.

She falsified paperwork. She was charged for it though.

Exactly what we were talking about. Creating a danger to the community by giving false information.

Paperwork means more to these guys than wanton violence against defenseless citizens.

Yes, I see you're familiar with your history then, your personal history, that is.

I mean really, you do care more about the paperwork than the actual reality of your affairs. If it's not triple-stamped and cross-documented, you don't care.

What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?

Who we charge for giving them false information.

Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.

Provably false claim on your part.

In the first link, the officers weren't charged for assaulting a defenseless man laying on the ground. They got a 15 day suspension, not a criminal charge.

In the second link, the officer wasn't charged for "being a danger to her community". She falsified paperwork. She was charged for it though.

Paperwork means more to these guys than wanton violence against defenseless citizens.

What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?

Who we charge for giving them false information.

Contribute to a crime, do the time. You know this Kohath, it's your own argument, you made it Tuesday before last.

Now it's coming back to bite you, since it's criminalizing trolling, your favorite activity.

Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.

Provably false claim on your part.

Of course, last week you were outside protesting the indignity of arresting cops like common criminals, and demanding that they be given medals instead.

Why do you troll so badly? Did you not pass your class in troll school?

>Remember Fen Phen and Redux?

Yes, they were effective weight-loss drugs approved by the FDA in 1996. They were hardly "snake oil" peddled by salemen.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/23/science/how-fen-phen-a-diet-miracle-rose-and-fell.html

The F.D.A.'s committee of experts met in September 1995 to consider data from studies, lasting a year, that dexfenfluramine was safe and effective for weight loss. The drug was thought to increase the risk of an untreatable and often fatal heart condition, pulmonary hypertension, by about 23- to 46-fold. But because only about one person in a million ordinarily develops pulmonary hypertension, this still was not a huge risk. In addition, animal studies of high doses of the drug indicated that it could damage nerve cells of the brain, but there was no evidence that similar damage occurred in humans.

The group voted. Five opposed approval; three favored it. But then, said Dr. Robert Sherwin, a committee member who is a professor of medicine at Yale University, one of the drug's supporters on the committee, Dr. Nemat Borhani, a professor emeritus at the University of California at Davis who has since died, made an impassioned plea, arguing that the drug did help people lose weight and that obesity was an enormous public health problem. Several members changed their minds. The group reconvened on Nov. 7, this time recommending approval by a vote of six to five.

The problem at that time was the clinical trial testing for these diet drugs only lasted a year when the complications arising from the drugs appeared after more than a year of taking them.

Let's just go to the bottom of your comment first, so we can see just how nuts you are:

We're currently enjoying peace and prosperity, for the first time in decades.
Is there any point or purpose in making shit up about the administration?

No. So why are you doing it? This is not a moment of peace (In fact, America has been involved in military action continuously since WWII) and it is also not a moment of prosperity (see PR's sibling comment, also, the unemployment rates are a disgusting lie as always.)

I realize being a liberal comes with a big dose of cognitive dissonance, but the "he's literally Hitler" thing was dropped months ago.

It really wasn't, since he keeps saying things that hitler literally would have said.

Anyway, back to the top of your comment, now...

the current administration's descent into kleptocracy

WTF?

Trump is in debt, which is why he won't show his tax returns, and is staying at Mar-a-Lago every weekend. He charges us (The People) for this privilege, so that's one way he's stealing our money directly. No big surprise: All Trump profits are based on theft, and of course, impersonated a person who does not exist in order to create his initial reputation. Many of his various appointees are in trouble for various types of misuse or misappropriation of funds. So yes, theft.

we can literally shoot them in the middle of the street and face no legal consequences as there's absolutely zero authority of law and justice anymore.

WTF?

I'm with you on this one, anyway. That's not how force works.

Remember, Trump himself has personally declared that government by brute force is his preferred means of action, that he endorses terrorism and coercion,

WTF?

Trump has repeatedly encouraged and condoned violence. His picks for secretary of state and head of the CIA support the rest of the statement perfectly.

TL;DR: When you cry about other people's logic while you abandon it entirely, HAHAHAHAHAHA

Facial recognition software is most likely to identify a person:

When the person in the photo is a white man, the software is right 99 percent of the time.

Extrapolating this level of accuracy to Asian and African citizens, since world citizens of European descent have slipped below 10% of the total, would seemingly be in the interest of the Chinese.

Spy Handler stated, in part:

China has been the #2 source of illegal immigrants to the US for a long long time, at least two decades. .... but it used to be very common to see headlines like,

"Cargo container seized at port of Long Beach found with fifty Chinese migrants living inside while being unloaded from cargo ship."

(Quote above edited to remove gratuitous xenophobia.)

The "#2" claim is bullshit - but the People's Republic is, in fact, a non-trivial source of unauthorized immigrants to the USA. According to the New York Times, there are currently 268,000 of them here.

That number is dwarfed by the number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico and Central and South America, but it's still more than the population of Newark, NJ (at least, as of the 2010 census). And China refuses to accept deportees, so we're basically stuck with them, even if the current administration manages to locate them all - which it won't, because it's focused exclusively on Hispanics.

It's also worth noting that Chinese immigrants, both authorized and unauthorized, tend to be younger, and have skills that are better-suited to the American job market, than the average Hispanic immigrant. They also tend not to arrive in shipping containers. Most of them arrive legally, on tourist visas - which they blithely overstay, because there's nowhere near the level of effort expended on tracking them down as there is on tracking down Hispanics.

In my experience (and I know several such Chinese), they tend to be highly entrepreneurial. The ones I know are engaged in smuggling consumer goods - not from China to the USA, but from the USA to China. (Levis 501's are hugely popular - and extremely costly - in China, for instance.) In a twisted way, you could say they're actually contributing to this country's economy, and doing a tiny bit to redress our trade imbalance with China.

In another way, you could say they're probably laundering money for the Chinese mob - and I'd bet a shiny, new, Ohio quarter you'd be right ...

I tend to think of it as a goal collision between multiple different interests of the union:

-- Ensuring that existing employees get better wages, benefits & working conditions
-- Increasing the number of employees represented, thus increasing dues collected and clout

The union is supposed to advocate for the former. Indeed they should be happy if automation kills 1/3rd of the jobs but leaves the remaining workers better off in terms of pay & conditions -- that's surely in the interest of the workers to get more money after all.

Unfortunately, their incentives are aligned towards the latter because 1/3rd fewer jobs means 1/3rd fewer dues to the union and correspondingly less clout. That's why you hear about construction unions mandating ridiculous minimum staffing levels -- sometimes 2-4 times as much as super-socialist European countries!

This isn't really about poor morals per-se (although it's at least amoral), it's just a quirk in the incentive structure. And I don't really have a solution for it -- certainly weaker unions is not in the worker's (or country's) interest either.

So, as far as the US is concerned, there is no significant problem.

Unless, of course, you actually check the details.

The fact that South America, China, and Africa are destroying their environments, destroying their farms, and experiencing overpopulation isn't our fault or our problem; those countries have chosen to become socialist shitholes and they will have to deal with that themselves or deal with the consequences themselves.

Actually, it has nothing to do with socialism, it's your corporations behind it. And churches.

Other countries do, but that's something "we" have no influence over.

Except for your massive efforts to destabilize local cultures, seize properties, and crush all opposition to your rule.

You've been doing that for over a century. Did you think nobody noticed?

There ya go...
All you had to do was click on the link... right there... in that original washingtonmonthly.com article.
It's like... the first link in the article. Really weird how you missed it.

Disclaimer: I hereby declare that I am not responsible for any incels rage-killing people on account of not getting any pussy or, following Peterson's ideas stated below, deciding to practice some of ye old traditional forced monogamy through the ye old traditional practice of ye old kidnapping of "brides".

From TFA:

Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van.
Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured.
Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels. The term is short for "involuntary celibates," though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people - some celibate, some not - who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights.
Some believe in forced "sexual redistribution," in which a governing body would intervene in women's lives to force them into sexual relationships.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges."

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution.
Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn't make either gender happy in the end.

"Half the men fail," he says, meaning that they don't procreate. "And no one cares about the men who fail."
I laugh, because it is absurd.

"You're laughing about them," he says, giving me a disappointed look. "That's because you're female."

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls "equality of outcomes," or efforts to equalize society.
He usually calls them pathological or evil.

He agrees that this is inconsistent.
But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society.
Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

In situations where there is too much mate choice, "a small percentage of the guys have hyper-access to women, and so they don't form relationships with women," he said.
"And the women hate that."

And that's just one part of the interview.
You should read the part where he confuses Jungian bullshit, fairy tales, metaphors and reality when he starts talking about dragons, swamps and witches.
And here I thought he was illiterate only when it comes to statistics. Turns out he's illiterate even in his own supposed field of expertise.
Probably why he now lives off of what he can beg for through his Youtube channel from clueless gullible idiots who buy into his bullshit.

I'm sorry... Did I say clueless gullible idiots? I meant "divine loci of consciousness".

What you read
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

Few months later
https://unearthed.greenpeace.o...
http://www.dw.com/en/china-ind...

The spin (no really it is OK they are adding them)
https://www.americanprogress.o...

They are building them. Maybe not in China but all over the place. Their labor pool price is rising. So they are building them in Africa and India now.

If you cleaned up 10 rivers in the world most of the plastic pollution in the ocean would stop. Those rivers are not in the Americas or Europe.

They will be forced to clean up their act. But not by sanctions placed upon ourselves but by their own populace.

Say what you will about Trump. He laundered money for the Russian mob. He pays for sex with adult film stars. He pays for abortions. He's not really a billionaire. He's racist. He likes his steak well done with ketchup. He only eats fast food because otherwise he'd never have a meal that hadn't been spit in.

But he's never kidnapped a director to from a foreign country to force them to make a monster movie.

Damn. You confused Trump with Bill Clinton.

Of course, Trump paid Stormy Daniels what? $165,000? For what? Sex? Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000. Adjusting for inflation, that's gotta be close to $2 million today.

So yeah, not surprising Trump is doing a better job negotiating with North Korea than Bill Clinton ever did.

Not surprising at all - Trump's at least an order of magnitude better at negotiating than Bill Clinton. :-D

And I somehow doubt you were so outraged about Bill Clinton's storied history of sexual harassment up to and including actual rape, and payoffs - payoffs that dwarf Trump's for consensual activities.

You're just a partisan hack - at best.

How about the fact that Russia was using Kaspersky software to scour the world for US secrets??
This is either through negligence or malice, either way it shouldn't matter to any other nation state, especially the US.

Also, only a few lines of the subway was deluged, and those are being repaired over the next few years. The changes discussed in TFA are separate.

France has fought a hell of a lot more wars than America and they didn't hang back in either WW1 or WW2.

Apparently you've never heard of the Phoney War, so I'll tell you how it all went down:

Germany invades Poland and conquers it in 5 weeks. France and England largely stood by and did nothing, except for a small operation called the Saar Offensive, which officially began the Phoney War. This offensive was so light that it didn't even tickle Germany. The USSR (on friendly terms with Germany at this point) invaded Finland, and then Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. This caused France to get cold feet, so they picked up what meager forces they sent and ran home.

That is a very brief summary of what happened, and you'll find it to be accurate if you research it. Granted, I've omitted many details, obviously, because of how short I wrote it, but it's hard to overstate how little of an effort that France and England made to stop Germany for TEN MONTHS after the invasion of Poland began. Anyways, immediately after France withdrew, they assumed their WWI playbook and hunkered down in the trenches in the Maginot line. It didn't work though: France didn't bother to fortify the region near Belgium's border thinking Germany wouldn't go there, but neutral Belgium and Holland seemed ok with allowing Germany's forces to quickly shift to the west and bypass the Maginot line entirely. In spite of France having a large and well armed and prepared Army (which they never tried to use to break Polish invasion,) they surrendered in 6 weeks.

So in other words, Europe as a whole sat on its ass (except for Germany, Austria, and their allies) for TEN FREAKING MONTHS! It's one thing for a country separated by an entire ocean, but good fuckin lord, practically the only reason a European country would take action during this period was after they were already invaded.

It was only after the fall of France that a serious allied war effort actually began. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor about 14 months after that. The US was isolationist at the time because we wanted nothing to do with your kings, queens, kaisers, and fuhrers because they looked all the same to us, and still do: But the lesson we took from Pearl Harbor is that even if you don't want a war, you're going to get one anyways. This meant we had to, among other things, assist the fucking USSR that we had to go to proxy wars with while we funded Europe's reconstruction with the Marshall plan, even though it wasn't our fault that they decided to blow themselves up. Here we are, 80 years later, and one third of Europe wants to be fascist again. And that is NOT an exaggeration:

https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

Now that Europeans aren't allowed to see what today's fascists actually say because it's censored, then all they see is the mild stuff that they sympathize with, and then they start liking them. What the fuck did you think was going to happen when you banned hate speech? Just because you don't see or hear the fascists doesn't mean they aren't there (for the most part, the only fascists you actually see in Europe call themselves antifa.) Some things never change...

I don't hate Europe or Europeans by the way, just the stupid ones who think tossing dog feces under the rug makes it go away, and then proceed to tell you that their house doesn't actually smell like shit.

Also, unlike in 'Murika, Icelanders are know quite well not to piss off the elves.

Chemical weapons. Sorry you bought the myth that we didn't.

Current WH staff setting up their own private accounts after the election to use for White House business was not a notable issue. It went away in a few days.
https://www.politico.com/story...

The Bush WH staff using a private server for WH communications during the sell-job for the Iraq War in 2002-2003, and then wiping the server, deleting 22 million emails rather than hand any over to the government records office, was not an issue. It went away in a few days at the time, and again in a few days during the 2016 election when Newsweek magazine attempted to revive the story:

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/0...

No, I am not waving my arms around crying conspiracy. The press really did harp on the HRC email story, some 30X as much coverage as "issues" got; but the thing is, people kept clicking on the stories; and not changing channels; and the press responds to that.

I really don't understand it and don't have a theory for why Americans are so fascinated with the slightest wrongs done by Democrats (I mean, FIVE investigations of Clinton firings in the WH travel office??) and so uninterested in the most jaw-dropping things done by the right, but they just are. I think Al Franken had it right, that the only press bias is a "sell eyeballs to advertisers" bias and the unfairness of it all must be laid at the feet of The People themselves. Truly, Americans have the government they deserve.

Here's my two "greatest hits" on that score:
1) Nixon's collusion with a foreign power (S. Vietnam) to ruin the 1968 Peace Talks to deny Democrats a win during the election campaign was called treason by some who became aware of his calls to them via CIA wiretaps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... ...20,000 Americans died in the ensuing four years. (NB: Might have happened either way; but Nixon's *intent* was to extend the war.)

2) Eight news organizations paid to have the Florida ballots carefully and repeatedly recounted and found that Gore won no matter how you counted hanging chads and dimples and all that:

https://www.consortiumnews.com... ...the Washington Post put that story on page a10 and it was gone in a few days. I was actually unaware of it, and I'm a news junkie.

So that's what will happen to this story too. I don't know why it works this way with American news, but it does.

Both those links come from Jon Schwarz' eye-opening history in The Intercept last December:
https://theintercept.com/2017/... ...where Schwarz dryly notes that:
"For their part, the elite print and broadcast media accepted the right’s critique that they were – as huge profit-driven corporations naturally tend to be – horribly liberal. " ...and I'm sure that's part of it. But the news media can't control stories all THAT well. People really do just look away after a few days, from Republican malfeasance, all the way up to torture. Heck, Democrats look away from it, including Obama looking the other way on torture.

So this is nothing, and will be gone in a few days. QED. I'm willing to lay money on it if anybody is skeptical.

Where you have been? Bush email controversy It wasn't just Bush but it was his administration including Karl Rove and Colin Powell. In all 22 million emails are "missing". As for the current administration they also have been using private emails. That doesn't include GOP members like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio etc. Seriously you can google and find many GOP members caught using their own private unsecured email.

He apparently has ended a 70 year war in Korea by mocking the fat, ugly imbecilic dictator on the other side over the internet.

If only! He did indeed have the opportunity to end the war fall into his lap like manna from heaven, yes, because North Korea's nuclear research complex was destroyed in a semi-natural disaster. Then with John "War Fetish" Bolton's help, the fat ugly imbecilic wannabe-dictator snatched crushing defeat from the jaws of free glorious victory by reminding North Korea what happened to Libya (and Gaddafi) along with demonstrating that the USA's word isn't worth jack shit, and now it's all going to fall through. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.

The economy is doing ell and employment is about the highest it's ever been. He's another Bill Clinton - horrible person, fine President.

The economy is doing well, yes, but as in the Reagan years, the massive and permanent wealth transfer to the 1% will come back to haunt future generations. He's cooked another goose that lays the golden eggs, and again the conservatives are saying "Mmm mmm tasty goose! Such a great decision!"

He will almost certainly go down in history as the worst US president ever on all fronts.

Was expecting 0 hard evidence or actual citations, and was not disappointed. I know facts and reality are the archenemies of Republicans, but here is some actual you know, evidence, showing that your guy is full of shit. https://krugman.blogs.nytimes....

https://slate.com/news-and-pol...

https://whyy.org/segments/blac...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

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

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

https://www.bitchmedia.org/art...



and on and on and on, just from the first page of my links search. I'll leave finding the hundreds of stories about white people stopped in black "drug areas" as an exercise, it's not much harder to find as many as you want to know it's a problem too.

Methane gets destroyed relatively quickly.
More cows only mean a higher level, not an constantly increasing amount.

If you get "farts" from beans, the beans are prepared badly.

Usually you put them over night into a pot of water, pour out the water in the morning and put fresh water in, pour that out before cooking and you are fine. https://cooking.nytimes.com/gu... Ah, they call it "soaking" :D

Let me help you out with a piece of advice: google is fucking easy to use.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

http://observer.com/2018/04/tr...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

https://angrybearblog.com/2018...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://fortune.com/2018/03/29/...

IMHO, if it's any spacecraft or probe it's Voyager not Apollo. Apollo had humans on board who could take over and manually control things if they had to. They did that on Apollo 13. Here's an interesting read about the Voyagers

They have to patch that stuff with light-hours of delay, and no humans on board. It's been running for decades. That's certainly some of the most *robust* code, if not the most sophisticated.

he had to dispose of multiple chemical weapons, which went unreported by the media.

Bullshit. The finds were reported and the reason was those weapons were from the 80's, not something which had been produced recently. Which was the whole point of Bush's lie. He said Iraq had an active wmd program, that he was producing chemical and biological weapons.

If those weapons you claim had been found, don't you think the Bush administration would have been crowing from the highest lightpost about being right? If those weapons had been found, why did Dick Cheney say he knew where those weapons were every time he was asked about not finding wmds rather than saying they had found them and here's the proof?

the current lack of ethics in journalism in order to push an agenda.

You mean not pushing lies like finding wmds when they weren't? You mean like reporting the facts of a situation rather than what the sprayed orange con artist says? You mean like not being a mouthpiece for said same person and abandoning any pretense of being fair and balanced?

Speaking of pushing an agenda. . .

So making $1M+ as an AI researcher is old hat now?

The only way you would've heard "yanny" is if you have no idea what shitty audio compression sounds like. You can use this thing and slide it all the way over to "yanny" and if you're familiar with this sort of thing it still sounds like "laurel" with awful compression.

There's this. That doesn't seem very fair to me. Every bit of data fed into that algorithm was a fact though. Now, if some of those facts were choose... shall we say "selectively", well, that's fair. It's a free country right? Right?