Slashdot Mirror

But the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei â" all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.

The department's 2011 human rights report on Saudi Arabia, the last such yearly review prepared during Mrs. Clinton's tenure, tersely faulted the kingdom for "a lack of equal rights for women and children" and said violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses, were all "common" there.

Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures. At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince.

Source: New York Times.

VOTE HILLARY 2016! A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Saudis. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She supports both of these causes, if you agree with her, then she is definitely your candidate.

Are you sure? When was the last time you saw democrats doing something like this?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...

Either way he obviously tried to alter records that we under subpoena.

When exactly were the records officially subpoenaed or at least intent to be subponaed? July 24, 2014 was when the reddit post was made. The closest that I could quickly find was that an unofficial request was made sometime in July of 2014, the State Department didn't work with Clinton until August to turn over emails, and finally a formal request in October to all previous Secretaries going back to Madeleine K. Albright for any records that hadn't been turned in to the State Department.

It's a fine line, but an unofficial request is not the same as a legal subpoena. You can't be accused of altering records under subpoena if they hadn't actually been subpoena yet.

Also, has it been demonstrated that he actually altered any records? If he didn't, then at most it's intent to be fucking corrupt or at least being fucking stupid, neither of which are actual crimes (although both probably should be, but we already have overcrowding in prison without putting EVERY fucking stupid person in there as well...)

FBI is not even interviewing the CEO of the server farm where the attacks were launched. He says he'll even provide logs, but no one is asking. I think the US govt knows it won't be good for their image.

NYT

There is something called Google where you can look stuff up. This was the second link when I typed "Clinton Uranium". Your laziness and ignorance doesn't change facts.

Another fact is that, after a couple of decades of dropping, violence is increasing. More than 50 people were shot in Chicago in just one weekend this year..

On April 20, Chicago reached 1,000 shooting victims for the year, six to nine weeks earlier than in the previous four years, according to data compiled by the Tribune. That grim milestone, for instance, wasn't reached until June 4 last year.

Perhaps even more troubling, this marks the third consecutive year in which Chicago has seen double-digit increases in shootings.

Not surprisingly, homicides are also soaring in Chicago. Through Sunday, 196 people have been killed, a 55 percent increase over the 126 victims a year earlier, official Police Department figures show.

Going up, up, up.

Blacks are fleeing Chicago because of the increased violence, so forget about blaming them either.

The 2010 census reported a 17 percent drop in the city's black population over the previous decade. That number declined another an additional 4 percent through 2014, to 852,756.

Is it lead? No, because rates were going down, and now they're going up. No sudden increase in lead exposure to account for it.

Life: Record lows in winter

e.g. If the three months of winter on average way above normal, but I can find one day over the three month period that was unusually cold, I am going to pretend the entire winter was record cold.

Actually, it's more like "if it's cold outside my door, then the whole world must be cooler than normal".

It's worth noting that the "greenhouse effect" is much less pronounced in the winter than the summer, because in the winter there's less energy to be trapped. In fact in the polar regions there's practically none. So expect winters to still be cold, in fact you may get record cold as weather patterns are disrupted (e.g., 2014) by latitude gradients in energy trapped.

In fact models have predicted a pattern of both extreme highs and lows for twentyyears now. It's only when you integrate over the entire surface of the globe that you see "global warming". Consider this quote from a 1995 New York Times article:

A four-degree warming, some scientists say, could cause ice at the poles to melt, resulting in rising sea levels. It would also shift climatic zones and make floods, droughts, storms and cold and heat waves more extreme, violent and frequent

This idea that global warming is disproved by local cold snaps is just a straw man argument.

Back in the 1960's, corporations had training programs. The bean counters in the 1980's eliminated everything that didn't add value directly to the bottom line. The cost of training people to become employees got shifted to the public school and colleges. These days you need a college degree to get hired on as a filing clerk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/college-degree-required-by-increasing-number-of-companies.html

Nope, that's the conventional wisdom and it's wrong. States spend more on education in real dollars than they did 50 years ago, students pay much more tuition, and the colleges and university spend a lot more of it. The increase in tuition has largely been paid for by the "cheap" money of student loans, which maintain their low interest rates by being non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. So the debt-servitude of the students directly pays for the much greater overhead of schools nowadays.

She took bribes from Russia for a uranium deal while Secretary of State. Her only response to it so far is the donations came in while she was not SOS, but a quick lookup shows that she lied and they did come in while she was in office.

If you are basing your argument on her claims, I'm sorry, but Clinton lies A LOT. In fact she lies just about every time she talks, and it has become a joke at this point.

If there is any, and I mean *any*, evidence that Crooked Liar Hillary!'s communications to said senior Russian officials came with a "wink and a nod", or indeed anything more specific, then there is every reason for the FBI to get involved....

FTFY

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons ...

What's that you said about "wink and a nod"?

Why does everyone keep saying Russia works with Trump? I have yet to see anything along those lines other than a couple of comments from Trump about Putin.

However...
Russia bribed Clinton while she was Secretary of State. I think there is more evidence of Russia supporting Clinton than Trump, in ways that should have her in jail.

> So Obama should have been investigated by his own FBI over this?

A sitting president telling a foreign leader that he will have more political manuevering room after an election is not even remotely like a candidate for president negotiating with a foreign leader against american interests.

You want comparisons of people who got "a pass?"
Reagan trying to delay Iran's hostage release to deny Carter the credit.
Nixon trying to delay the end of the vietnam war to deny LBJ the credit.

It is completely within the realm of the possible that Trump is conspiring with Putin to fuck over american efforts to defeat ISIS in order to deny credit to the democrats. And if he is doing that, we all deserve to know.

"ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies... to fight to the death against Hezbollah." ref

You're a dumbass.

ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq

Read that.

Look at the ISIS flag - captured in 2008 from Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Quit trying to cover up the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq rebounded from the surge because Obama cut-and-ran from Iraq - which is why Obama/Crooked Liar Hillary! have to downplay every damn thing Al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS does - OBAMA LET IT LIVE.

Sorry, Obumbles, Al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS ain't the JV. Yeah, I know you have a lot of sycophants and have fooled a whole lot of, err, fools.

No coincidence this is posted exactly the same time the New York Times puts up an article about Hillary's "Outrage Machine":

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...

Slashdot needs to kick out editors with agendas.

1. All the customers not able to get their complaints addressed, along with Jawbone saying that they're reorganizing their customer service, lends credence to them being in trouble. You don't cancel one customer service company without having another in place unless you're either stupid or broke. That's something easily independently verifiable by looking at the complaints on their Facebook page.

2. All the products being marked as out of stock on their website, with no indication of if or when there will be new stock, and them not taking orders any more, also makes it more likely that they are in serious trouble. Again, something that you can verify by clicking on the second link in the story - that will sow you 3 fitness trackers and their prices. But when you click on the "Buy" link, they're all sold out. If they thought that new stock was coming soon, they'd have taken the orders.

3. They said that they have no idea when they'll have new supplies. This is right in the summary. In other words, they aren't making alternate arrangements to ship from their manufacturer. Tends to indicate that they haven't paid the manufacturer and are now on a "cash basis only" from the manufacturer.

4. They've been burning through cash.$305 million invested in 2014. $165 million earlier this year.

5. Investors are getting antsy. Rizvi capital management reneged on their commitment to investing $250 million after having given the company an initial $50 million.

Here is a table that lists it at 78% (and claiming 73% for 2015)
BUT, that does not include the 17% extra coal that China recently admitted to burning (and that is STILL to low).
Here we see that America used 33% coal for our electricity, and it is dropping still.

Now as to how I got the less than 15% for America vs close to 50% for China, Here is NASA's OCO-2 map of Oct-Nov, 2014. That time frame was picked because Ag does not play a major part during that timeframe. This is basically a base-line of emissions. Sadly, OCO2 is not fully capable of showing TRUE amounts. The numbers indicated are rough estimates. If you look carefully at China, it has an area bigger than Europe and bigger than the entire American eastern seaboard that runs from the atlantic to past the mississippi, that is emitting at 401+ (basically, it topped the sensors) PPM. This is China's BASE from 2 years ago, and current OCO-2 data shows that it has INCREASED last year (contrary to the lies put out by gov groups). America, has that area, smaller than China, and is around 395-397 ppm. It is a great deal less CO2 being emitted. Then we have Europe. which is around 393-395. It is similar in size to America's eastern seaboard, but, it is also less.
OCO3 was supposed to come out this year, and it would tell us EXACTLY how much is being emitted. However, after O talked with China about emissions, OCO3 was delayed for 2 years. This is an item that is easy to take up to space (ride up to ISS), and then is simply plugged in on the outside of the ISS. It is TRIVIAL to set this up. So, it appears that O was talked out of adding which NASA is pretty upset about. So am I. My gut feeling is that this will show that China is at or MORE than 50% of global emissions. In addition, Europe is also likely to come up. Oddly, the most monitored nation on this planet, is America so, we are likely at what we thought.

So, out of the two of us, the only one pulling from their ass and not having a grasp of this, is you. And sadly, you are probably another far leftie idiot that runs around screaming about America emitting without giving a flying fuck about China or where all the growth is occurring.

I'll add that the Clinton campaign has been proudly touting its Twitter and social media strategy ahead of the debate. They are happy to tell you that they have their affiliated PACs and supporters coordinated in a campaign to influence debate moderators to "fact check" Trump during the debate, producing an advantage for Clinton.

They also proudly tout their strategy to have an army of supporters and astroturfers alike live-tweet the debate to create the impression that Hillary is winning the debate. They are specifically targetting the reporters and pundits who cover the event to ensure that they get the early buzz as winning the debate and have a quick declaration that "the election is over" following the debate.

This story, with labels like "Shitposting" would appear to be cover for this strategy, designed to neuter any criticism of the Clinton strategy, which has been fairly openly discussed at least since the Matt Lauer national security forum.

So we have moved into a new era of political ground game - where social media is used in increasingly sophisticated ways by the campaigns to influence the election. They both seem relatively hamfisted about it at this point, but that doesn't mean it isn't having an effect.

Normally political advertising is clearly labeled.

Is it?

Maybe, it should be — but any attempts to legally require such labeling, would violate the First Amendment.

A few years ago, there was a complete simulation of the genome and cell division of M. genitalium and that pushed the limits of what the computer could do.

"The bacterium, with its 525 genes, is far less complex than E. coli, another bacterium widely used in laboratory experiments; E. coli has 4,288 genes. The researchers said that more complex cells would present significant challenges. Currently it takes about 9 to 10 hours of computer time to simulate a single division of the smallest cell — about the same time the cell takes to divide in its natural environment."

It's not easy, quick, or cheap, but I have no doubt that we will eventually be able to tackle the complexity of living cells (possibly with AI help).

Do you really think they'd be spending all of this time investigating Clinton and preening for the cameras if she'd simply retired from public life after her term as Secretary of State?

Yes

She took upwards of $600 million in bribes while Secretary of State, including from Russia. Its no longer a question of if she took bribes, but how much and from who. The subpoenaed emails probably answer those questions, but were deleted THE DAY AFTER subpoenaed? Shows intent. She also failed to report these foreign bribes when taking them, as she promised, and failed to get waivers for them, as she promised. It was only after she left office that we were able to find all this out because the "most transparent administration ever" wasn't.

So, if a cabinet level position takes hundreds of millions in bribes to direct US foreign policy, yes they should be prosecuted after leaving office even if not running for president.

1. Slow population growth, especially in Africa. Make sure everyone that wants contraception has it.

Smarmy western elitism + eugenics, charming. Problem: your self-centered ass uses the same amount of resources as 32 of those Africans that you wish would stop breeding.

Eh, now you're trying to get into an argument over who is worse, and I don't really care about that. Again, if you personally had done a fact-checking survey, I would take that seriously because I think you would do a good job.

Also her 'friend', while a close-confidant of the Clintons, is a flattering, lying, false-friend who takes advantage of her. Here is one example, reported by the NYT: "It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton or the State Department knew of Mr. Blumenthal’s interest in pursuing business in Libya." He is the one I blame for Benghazi, because he was giving false reports in the leadup to the murder (again, as mentioned in that article I linked to).

Clinton's lousy selection of advisors and friends is the biggest worry I have of her presidency.

I'm going to have to vote "B" here, folks.

Correct answer. Energy Star certified a gasoline powered alarm clock in 2010. It's pointless pencil whipping operation; another collection of government lawyers sopping up a grand living from government teats.

Current rumours are suggesting that Apple's car plans are undergoing a shake-up. It's entirely possible they'll ditch making a whole car themselves, and work at just a few major components that others can integrate.

If that's the case, buying McLaren counterintuitively makes a lot of sense: they do serious design and component work, and having that experience would aid Apple's efforts. Apple's not planning on releasing a million+ dollar car*. Their products (first-gen Apple Watch Edition aside) are expensive but priced to be aspirational, not unattainable.

*Apple-branded, anyway. If they do buy McLaren they could still release new, hyper-expensive cars under that marque

You write good English and use American idioms. We have enough Japanese tutors and need Americans.

You will get a full scholarship. Just stay where you are, we will come and bring you to your new university.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese_citizens
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world/asia/12korea.html

was purely motivated by his mixed race.

Could you offer some proof of this — something the rest of us, who do not have your powers of telepathy, can verify on their own? Something, that makes Trump's suspecting Obama's eligibility uniquely different from Clinton suspecting same? Or suspecting that McCain or Ted Cruz may not be eligible either?

You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.

That judge has just awarded a scholarship to an illegal immigrant . Is it not fair to suspect, he may be biased against someone, who wishes to deport such illegal immigrants?

White judges are suspected of bias against Black defendants all the time (as are White juries) — why is it "racist" to suspect a Latino judge of similar bias against other races?

That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association

Distinction without difference. Any attempts to promote people based on their race automatically discriminates against other races and is thus racist — by definition.

That's pretty much racist.

"Pretty much" does not count.

directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.

The biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, which is about as far from the Middle East as is the US. Fail.

That happened in 1973. He took over his father's business in 1971.

So, he inherited a problem from his father. Big deal. Hillary Clinton's father was racist too

Except that was a lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A YouTube clip with some talking-head talking about Trump is not proof, sorry. Maybe, he really forgot, who it was. Or, maybe, he lied. But that's not racism either way.

As for "disavowing" David Duke — wake me up, when Hillary Clinton "disavows" Al Sharpton, who is no less a racist than David Duke... Except she would not do that, because, whereas Duke's endorsement of Trump was unsolicited, Hillary actively sought Sharpton's. Maybe, if Trump ever went to a Duke's rally, you'd have had a point...

Fail.

Very clever finding notorious hack Bill Saffire commenting on his own column, and painting it as some sort of third party endorsement of his original column that history has shown is a pack of fail. Lest we forget The Starr Report. Lest we forget the final Travelgate report. Lest we forget the transparently political climate.

You need to troll much harder kid. I remember this shit.

and I say that as one of her supporters.

When NY Times called her a "congenital liar" in 1996, the only question was, whether "congenital" was the right term — the "liar" was deemed quite apropos.

Fast forward 20 years to 2016, her loyal supporters — such as yourself — beg her to, please, stop lying .

So, her being a liar is well-known and perfectly established — and has been for many years. Presumably, all those lies have not been enough to dissuade her from supporting her until recently. Why are you abandoning her now, when she needs you most?

Just a quick list of scandals from which she has recovered (source: http://www.redstate.com/califo...):

• Watergate - Hillary was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1974 by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, because she was a liar. Hillary "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
• Hillary’s ‘missing’ law firm billing records during the Watergate scandal. When the records mysteriously turned up in the White House in 1996, they showed Hillary met repeatedly with key figures in the scandal.”
• Whitewater.
• Travelgate - Hillary allegedly fired seven employees and gave the positions to her Arkansas friends in a scheme to award a White House airline contract to a Clinton friend.
• Filegate - The Clintons illegally obtained FBI files on political adversaries.
• Selling access to the Lincoln Bedroom -- a fundraising scandal, which NBC's Jim Miklaszewski described as the most expensive bed and breakfast in North America. Some of the 958 visitors who slept at the White House during Clinton's first term. Steve Jobs paid $150,000, and Steven Spielberg paid $200,000.
• Cattle Futures Scandal.
• The Clintons' speaking fees.
• Benghazi
• Emailgate
• Selling Access to the Secretary of State -- the Clinton Foundation's pay for scandal.
• Faintgate

Just a quick list of scandals from which she has recovered (source: http://www.redstate.com/califo...):

• Watergate - Hillary was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1974 by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, because she was a liar. Hillary "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
• Hillary’s ‘missing’ law firm billing records during the Watergate scandal. When the records mysteriously turned up in the White House in 1996, they showed Hillary met repeatedly with key figures in the scandal.”
• Whitewater.
• Travelgate - Hillary allegedly fired seven employees and gave the positions to her Arkansas friends in a scheme to award a White House airline contract to a Clinton friend.
• Filegate - The Clintons illegally obtained FBI files on political adversaries.
• Selling access to the Lincoln Bedroom -- a fundraising scandal, which NBC's Jim Miklaszewski described as the most expensive bed and breakfast in North America. Some of the 958 visitors who slept at the White House during Clinton's first term. Steve Jobs paid $150,000, and Steven Spielberg paid $200,000.
• Cattle Futures Scandal.
• The Clintons' speaking fees.
• Benghazi
• Emailgate
• Selling Access to the Secretary of State -- the Clinton Foundation's pay for scandal.
• Faintgate

How sad to see the nice, well-groomed and jovial men operating elevators replaced with the soulless automation.

We are going to miss the nice, well-groomed and jovial cab-drivers too...

It seems every time someone discovers how to do old thing on a new medium and it makes news. Put missiles on a drone, bully someone online, use a new technology to commit a heinous crime? All of these things received widespread news coverage, when they are really nothing more than pencils with erasers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09...

In reality these are human nature stories, not technology stories. There is nothing new here, just the combination of things that have already been invented. I want to hear about innovation and invention, not pencil erasers. This is a technology site and should be better than this.

If they really wanted to help, they'd spend the money commissioning the writing of textbooks that anyone can print, copy, or download in ePub format for free. As it is, schools have two options - keep using outdated text books, or spend money on textbooks by taking it out of the budget somewhere else.

And unlike this project, free textbooks can be scaled out across the nation instead of just a few areas. And save kids the hassle and danger of spinal damage of carrying a ton of books.

News media's use of confidential sources has been tested and upheld MANY times.

It's been tested many times-- but not always upheld. Most recently, New York Times reporter James Risen faced the threat jail time for refusing to reveal his source for a story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01... https://www.thenation.com/arti...

In the words of Leanne Phillips" "Can a journalist be forced to reveal confidential sources? The answer appears to be no...as long as that journalist is willing to go to jail." https://www.legalzoom.com/arti...

some others:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17678244-journalists-watch-as-reporter-faces-jail-time-for-not-revealing-sources?lite
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/04/08/fox-news-reporter-facing-jail-for-protecting-source-mainstream-media-yawns-raising-questions-of-liberal-bias/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2005/12/lipservice_journalism.html
http://www.rcfp.org/jailed-journalists

For something more recent, was it Republicans or Democrats that were blocking Zika funding. HMM!

Looks to me like: Republicans put poison pills into the funding bill, and the Democrats therefore blocked it. So, if someone says 'here's a bill that everyone really, really need, but we're going to eviscerate these 3 other things that you like', then you should vote for it? What do you think this shows? To me it shows that the Republicans are holding the Zika funding hostage, but I'd love to hear your explanation for it.

For the first half of those eight years, Democrats controlled the house and senate and white house.

So why should I admit to something that never happened? Why would you ask that people admit to an obvious lie?

Is this total ability to believe a lie something that has infected Democrats universally? I mean you would think it would be just a handful like Hillary but as you show, it seems to be the entire party that is corrupted absolutely to where they no longer will believe anything that is not a lie...

For something more recent, was it Republicans or Democrats that were blocking Zika funding. HMM!

Surprisingly he's not dead yet

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

news report

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.c...

etc

It was a bit more than just a simple demo. I'm really surprised that no one posted this that I see yet.

Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying,

Yes, I have. They are liars and cheaters, and I don't believe anything they say, unless it is proven true. Same for Republicans.

In that case, one wonders at your ability to honestly listen to what they are saying, let alone represent it accurately.

1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)

This is fucking racist. There is absolutely no evidence that this exists.

Except, you know, the actual evidence.

And that is not the argument when "free government issued ID" is included in the Voter ID laws. There is NO ability loss just because skin color. The fact that you're making excuses as to why skin color actually matters in getting a photo ID (often Free, low cost), when so many other government services and purchasing things like alcohol, opening a bank account, getting welfare, having a job ... all requires a photo ID. You're basically saying that skin color matters in ABILITY (and without proof, I might add) .. which is patently racist at face value. You are so blinded you can't even see how your view of Race is remarkably ... sad.

Oh my, are you confused, and think that it's individual ability that matters? You should know by now that it's about the purpose of the Voter ID law. Which is to restrict voter's to those desired by Republicans.

2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.

Strawman and slippery slope fallacy. And Racist. You're making the case that Government is racist (I wouldn't disagree), is an excuse to continue racism in other forms.

Oh no, you're the one making that excuse, since you want to perpetuate these voter ID laws.

And You have no facts to actually back up this claim, because there are no Voter ID laws that are actually valid, since "black people are not capable of getting IDs to vote" (See racist point #1)

That is what this judicial ruling said. Because as already noted, it is illegal to impose a disparate burden.

3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

Bullshit. And fucking Racist. It is so easy to get Voter approved ID, that Illegal immigrants without any form of ID can get Driver's Licenses in many many states. You're saying that a Hispanic person ("undocumented worker") is more capable of getting ID than a black person, do you realize how fucking racist that is?

The fact is, you're making excuses for people based solely upon the color of their skin, and don't even realize how fucking racist that actually comes across when someone actually questions your motivations.

Oh no, you'll find that states which issue such licenses do not correlate with the Voter ID states very well. But even then, as you can see, they also require documentation. Just not for citizenship.

Yes, I believe you're unintentionally racist because you think your

We'll all look like the lazy fucks stuck on the spaceship in WALL-E.

Considering 80% of jobs are either sedentary or require light activity, it's at least likely that people would get in better shape on average if everyone becomes unemployed.

Yeah, all that fighting over the food scraps from the tables of the robot business operating money'd classes should keep them healthy.

We'll all look like the lazy fucks stuck on the spaceship in WALL-E.

Considering 80% of jobs are either sedentary or require light activity, it's at least likely that people would get in better shape on average if everyone becomes unemployed. I was in great shape when I had the time to spend 15-20 hours per week working out or playing sports, but now that I have a job with real responsibilities I've gained a lot of weight. I was unemployed for about six months during the last recession and I lost 40 pounds. It only took a couple years of working to put it back on.

Because they filter reviews and they've at best very sloppy about it. They're not just posting online content. They're selectively censoring and even when people have gone to lengths to show Yelp censored a 5-star review they shouldn't, Yelp's "customer service" DGAF and that costs the business concerned. https://www.buzzfeed.com/sandr...

Interesting this link by another poster: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01... If Google are profiting from this sort of advertizing, is Yelp?

It's become tradition for the masses to flambe any poor sap who tries on take on the system, but maybe we shouldn't be too hard on that locksmith? Maybe he has been shafted?

You may have a problem since research is getting swallowed up by private interests, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03... -- Its not likely they will value basic research, though they still like to throw around the "job creating" slogans as justification for what is today the exact opposite.

People are conditioned to worship Technology. Most "innovation" and technology that finds its way into markets and patent offices these days is someone's money-making scheme. Their shit is paraded around as revolutionary when its really just useless stuff prone to breaking, against a background of dogged incrementalism. Usually, it heavily implies the ramping up of extractive industries, and more intensive financialization of (and spying on) our day to day lives.

Maine added a work requirement for able-bodied adults with no children to get food stamps and 75% of those recipients dropped out of the program rather than do volunteer work 6 hours per week.

We're not giving them enough to get out of poverty.

The ability to get out of poverty and stay out of poverty tends to require something that can't be given to people. You can't give someone good health and you can't give them the fortitude to go to work and do a job every day.

and NBC, CNN, FOX, NY Times. This has been all over the news.

Looking at the headlines over time of Hillary leaving the 9/11 event is pretty interesting.

A couple of hours ago, it was "Hillary has pneumonia".
Then it was "doctors diagnosed Hillary with pneumonia".
Then it was "doctors diagnosed Hillary with pneumonia well before the 9/11 ceremony". (On Friday, apparently).
Now it's Hillary Clinton's Doctor Says Pneumonia Led to Abrupt Exit From 9/11 Event.

(If you've ever studied creative writing, note the slow creep away from active voice and into the passive. That last one doesn't even connect Hillary with pneumonia directly - to read the headline, you might think that she left to comfort someone *else* who has pneumonia.)

As someone who's had pneumonia, I can well believe that she might faint after standing around for 90 minutes on a hot afternoon.

As someone who tries to look beyond the headlines, it would seem that IF she was diagnosed on Friday it would have been better to announce it at that time. All this back-filling and back-pedaling after the fact makes it look like she's hiding something more serious.

Here I was ready to denounce the Hillary health rumors as being unfounded, and this turns up.

She put the issue of her health into a catapult and fired it into public view, all on her ownsome.

So far, the US government has launched a massive campaign against VW, looting billions of dollars and severely damaging the company's until recently almost spotless reputation. However, there is plenty of evidence that most other car manufacturers, including the 2.5 US domestic majors, have been pulling similar tricks for years. Except from a few stern words from the German transportation minister and a few 'voluntary' recalls, there have been exactly zero consequences. No suits, no fines, no withdrawals, no buybacks, no criminal prosecution, no exaggerated claims from government officials, no media outcry. Nothing.

The other manufacturers seem to get away with it scott-free, even though the cheating is often relatively easy to detect and the NOx emissions are in many cases several times larger than from the VW EA189. The simply continue to deny even after getting caught, or they attempt to cover it up, and government authorities let it pass, or even help covering it up. Meanwhile, they all get to steal sales from the scapegoat, the only manufacturer that actually admitted and recalled the affected vehicles (except in the US, where the authorities are dragging their feet) and, ironically, makes the cars with the lowest real-world NOx emissions.

The anti-VW campaign has nothing to do with the environment and everything with economic interests. The Americans found something and exploited it to the maximum extent in every possible way, just like they did with Toyota's 'sudden unintended acceleration'.

What's your point? That after 20 years of sustained growth and expansion the people that live on the edges of vast swaths of wilderness (Central Africa, The Amazon) are slowly eroding that wilderness?

What are they supposed to do, live in poverty, stop growing their civilizations on the edges of, say, the Amazon, because all the developed nations used up their wilderness growing their countries? We got ours, now you need to stop?

I suspect there is still plenty of wilderness - for example, The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. (That's about 1/4th of our country that is, essentially, wilderness.)

What exactly are you so scared of?

Thanks for asking.

That white people might actually retain one or two countries in the world where they're in a majority? That immigrants turned down will be sent to the gas chambers?

Let us not forget that one of Trump's major talking points is to send Syrian refugees back home. You know, to that country that is in the middle of a brutal civil war? The one where both the Assad regime and ISIS are killing just about anyone and everyone? Remember that country? To refresh your memory, it appears that just the other day the the Assad regime used chlorine gas on the people of Aleppo. It wasn't the first time Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people. Unfortunately, it probably won't be the last. So, yes, almost quite literally, Trump does appear to plan on sending people to the gas chambers.

Or that Trump will start World War 3 by declaring war with Putin?

Well, we are talking about a guy who, quite literally, can be sent on a days-long twitter rant by even the most trivial of (perceived) slights. I just shudder to think what Trump might do if he has his finger on the nuclear button.