Slashdot Mirror

No, that's just your imagination.

No imagination there, you just validated my statements, the problem is that you won't look, so you claim not to see it. Hence the impasse.

This is all you wrote: "On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places? Just look for all the hand-wringing over "BLM" and "Anti-Trump" riots, against "Planned Parenthood", all the "Birther" claims, and you''ll find it."

That's not a citation of the right trying to get BLM get kicked off of YouTube or stopped from speaking at colleges. Learn what a citation is. Link to something concrete.

So your complaint is what? NewsCorp, Breibart, Twitter, 4chan aren't concrete? I will grant that "all sorts of places" is, but not the other four, and I only included the last to emphasize that I wasn't trying to be comprehensive. I thought that was clear.

You can go to any of those places and find it. But you won't. You could look in other hang-outs of the violent right-wing, but pardon me for not exploring their depths enough to name them further.

Heck, you might even contact your local paper and ask to see the letters they won't print. Might open your eyes.

Here's an example of a citation where the authoritarian left shut down the free speech of a speaker on the right.

Did you forget that Milo is on the conservative black list now? But in case you didn't get it the first time, I'm not terribly impressed that Milo can hire agent provocateurs to create a disruption, but he's on the outs anyway.

And you're still an idiot. I was responding directly to articles you referenced, said I looked, and condemned the violence. If you want to pretend I wasn't talking about right-wing violence then that's on you.

If you want to pretend that you were able to make a courageous statement about how you denounced right-wing violence, well, that's a lie I don't have to countenance. You actually didn't respond directly to any of the articles' information, or show any effort to do anything except twist their content for your own purposes. Even now, you're still more insistent on attacking me for holding your inability to directly and forthrightly condemn right-wing violence against you.

It's revealing something about you, the same as Trump's handling of David Duke told us about him. Or his wiretap claim. Or his inauguration claim. Or his healthcare defeat. Or his NATO stunt with Angela Merkel. Or his calls to murder the Central Park 5. Or his executive order.

So what we know about you, is that you're angry and resentful that you have to make the effort to condemn right-wing violence, which you would much rather pretend doesn't exist, and sweep under the rug. You just want to be left to rail against the left in peace. How dare anybody point out to you that you are wallowing in an iron cauldron yourself.

Because my point was that the original comparison was deliberately chosen after 9/11. And even then the numbers are still comparable, despite that Muslims are only about 1% of the American population.

So your point is that you really want to avoid the decades of history of right-wing violence? Doesn't help you much, the violence is still there, even if you ignore the Whiskey Rebellion and the American Civil War. But I'll let you ignore Charles Guiteau and Leon Czolgosz, as long as you don't try to pull an Anne Coulter about them.

That Islam is a hateful ideology is a matter of record, based on the scriptures, preaching, history, and practices shown throughout the world today.

Yes, yes you keep repeating your own litany of hate towards Islam, but it doesn't make it any m

I did. You denied seeing it.

No, that's just your imagination. This is all you wrote: "On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places? Just look for all the hand-wringing over "BLM" and "Anti-Trump" riots, against "Planned Parenthood", all the "Birther" claims, and you''ll find it."

That's not a citation of the right trying to get BLM get kicked off of YouTube or stopped from speaking at colleges. Learn what a citation is. Link to something concrete. Here's an example of a citation where the authoritarian left shut down the free speech of a speaker on the right.

I noted that you initially said nothing to specifically identify, acknowledge, and condemn right-wing violence

And you're still an idiot. I was responding directly to articles you referenced, said I looked, and condemned the violence. If you want to pretend I wasn't talking about right-wing violence then that's on you.

Oh? You were trying to make it a comparative, rather than asking for observations about it chronologically? Why?

Because my point was that the original comparison was deliberately chosen after 9/11. And even then the numbers are still comparable, despite that Muslims are only about 1% of the American population.

That's what you tell yourself. Unfortunately for you, the writers of the Constitution realized what harvest would come of such beliefs.

That Islam is a hateful ideology is a matter of record, based on the scriptures, preaching, history, and practices shown throughout the world today. Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens wishing to immigrate here, and legally, both in law and in precedence, we as a nation have complete discretion in this matter. It will be settled after Gorsuch is seated and the Supreme Court overrules the activist judges that stopped Trump's constitutionally legal executive actions.

the way to address a problem is not exclusion, but suasion, instead

We can "suade" them over in their own countries instead of inviting a hateful ideology into ours. It used to be that Muslims invaded to take over a country. Now we just invite them in masses as "refugees".

Neither Jesus nor Muhammed are alive today, so their immigration status is moot. You might as well be lying about Nikolaos of Myra.

Burying you head in the sand doesn't change the fundamental roots of the religion and how people act on it today. All it does is make you a useful idiot to those following in the teachings and path of Islam and its warlord prophet Muhammad.

Oh my, except...you just brought up another example of the right's attempts at censorship and violence. I'm glad they're relatively incompetent at acting on their brutality, but I won't deny it exists.

So not a single example of violence within the United States, despite Christians being 70% of the population, over a display of Christ in a jar of piss, but there was attempted murder with a gun over some drawings of Muhammad, despite Muslims being only 1% of the population.

And of course, the Piss Christ guy was lauded by the elitists left, while the defenders of free speech were villainized for daring to break a Muslim taboo. *golf clap*

Where is the right trying to "deplatform" left-wing speakers?

On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places?

Just look for all the hand-wringing over "BLM" and "Anti-Trump" riots, against "Planned Parenthood", all the "Birther" claims, and you''ll find it.

Let's see, who is committing the violence [rollingstone.com] and trying to prevent the speech of others? That would be the left.

Also, case in point, here, by a user named Raenex. Who will never look at the right's actions.

But you, you want us to be upset over Milo's hiring a bunch of guys in masks to disrupt his own rallies and get attention. But Milo is out so you didn't even get your memo about that.

Which political party responds to critiques of Islam with cries of "Islamophobia" and "racist"? Which political party is against restrictions on Muslim immigration? Which political party has apologists for Sharia law leading [breitbart.com] women marches?

The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.

Which political party denounces Islam and creates lies about Sharia law? Which political party tries to convince us that Islam is a material threat? Which political party wants to ignore the terrorists among us?

Which political party lies about Planned Parenthood? Which political party has been found in court to engage in unlawful gerrymandering? Which political party is threatening judges who dared to reject Trump's unlawful ban? Which political party attacks how women dressed? Which political party claims to be pro-life, but resents paying for maternity care?

The right is the party that loves everything about radical Islamists, except the name they operate under.

Yet when the haters on the right does the exact same thing. It is okay?

Where is the right trying to "deplatform" left-wing speakers?

Let's put it this way when Obama was putting out Obamacare did he threaten every single democrat who voted no?

What does that have to do with free speech on gigantic platforms like YouTube?

Now which side is dangerous, which side is vengeful?

Let's see, who is committing the violence and trying to prevent the speech of others? That would be the left.

Also remember every single Islamic terrorists is a conservative. They are all right wing. They all want theirs at over science. Now which American party also wants religion over science?

Which political party responds to critiques of Islam with cries of "Islamophobia" and "racist"? Which political party is against restrictions on Muslim immigration? Which political party has apologists for Sharia law leading women marches?

The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.

Concur 100%!

The OP is confusing the middleman with the content creators -- I guess they _completely_ missed the memo in back 2000 when Courtney Love called the RIAA is nothing more then a bunch of thieves

Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it.

I'm not talking about Napster-type software.

I'm talking about major label recording contracts.

She also made a letter to Recording Artists

Dear Fellow Recording Artists,

I'm writing to ask you to join the chorus of recording artists who want us all to get a fair deal from the record companies. R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, U2, Alanis Morrissette, Bush, Prince and Q-Tip have called me with their support and we need your participation as well.

There are 3 basic facts to all recording artists should know:

1. No one has ever represented the rights and interests of recording artists AS A GROUP in negotiations with record companies.

2. Recording artists don't have access to quality health care and pension plans like the ones made available to actors and athletes through their unions.

3. Recording artists are paid royalties that represent a tiny fraction of the money their work earns.

Apparently, the OP also missed the memo in 2001 when Courtney Love, Don Henly, LeAnn Rimes Testified on Artist's Rights

The RIAA is so out-of-touch with artists that they didn't realize Trent Reznor intentionally 'leaked' his Year Zero album in 2007.

The old medium is dying because the new medium has driven the cost of content creation down to almost zero. And zero fucks were given.

The consumer's "problem" is that they are drowning in mediocrity -- a first world problem -- along with MORE choices. /sarcasm Such a "problem."

The only ones complaining are those still trying to figure out how to monetize it because the internet is cutting out the price-gouging of the middleman.

--
Greed destroys every "industry."

Someone can't accept new nuclear, even to save their own life. Chances are very good that you or someone close to you will die from cancer someday, which could have been preventable if ideology didn't blind you. If the fools in government weren't more interested in weapons than energy, this technology would be saving countless lives today, and inexpensive carbon-free energy would be the norm. There is a good article detailing the specifics and history of LFTR for those with a mind open to facts.

The crusade by some to eliminate nuclear above all else will mean missing carbon targets if successful. Respected climate scientists like James Hansen agree that we can't afford to dismiss nuclear. Those working to obstruct nuclear progress also ensure that first generation reactors remain in service far longer than necessary.

He flirts and hits on 10-15 year old girls regularly (often enough that there are multiple tapes of him doing it). He liked walked in on underage teenage girls naked changing and bragged about being the only man allowed to do it on the Howard Stern show. He had his staff try to encourage the underage teenage girls that were naked to flirt with him saying they were more likely to win the contests if they did. He talked about wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show. In my opinion, that makes him a pedophile.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://people.com/politics/don...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_...

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

http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/12/...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

She didn't delete any e-mails. That's a Trump alternative fact. I already posted once in this thread about it:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

There is zero evidence that Hillary broke any laws. None of the "classified information" in the e-mails was marked "classified" which is the big difference between those that are prosecuted and those that aren't. For unmarked information, you would have to prove that she was intentionally trying to leak classified information for it to be criminal. Should she have been more careful? Yes. Did she break the law? No.

Kellyanne Conway on the other hand broke the law on national television. President Pedophile is defending her for it. You don't see Republicans making a big deal about her breaking the law or any of the laws that President Pedophile has broken and been sued for. The media barely covered that he settled the fraud case against him. The media barely covered that he regularly hits on 10-13 year old girls and even discussed wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show or that he liked to walk in on teenage girls changing and bragged about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

I have very little respect for people who vote for a pedophile for president.

I have seen people on slashdot accuse you of rape too. Does that make it a fact? Watch, I'll add another: PopeRatzo raped me. Boom! Fact.

Funny thing about the internet. You can check whether stuff has been reported before.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
http://fusion.net/story/328522...
http://gawker.com/the-time-don...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
http://www.inquisitr.com/36114...
http://time.com/4572925/megyn-...
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/1...

There. That oughtta do it.

Now, where is the evidence that PopeRatzo raped you?

No longer is the administration simply censoring scientific reports – it has moved to silence the scientists themselves. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the administration refused to allow a top federal scientist whose research links increased hurricane intensity to global warming to speak to the press. It sent out a gag order to top government polar scientists, demanding that anyone attending international scientific conventions agree not to speak to reporters about "climate change, polar bears and sea ice." And it ordered a former intern from the Bush-Cheney campaign in the NASA press office to prevent Dr. James Hansen, the godfather of global-warming science, from talking to the media.

http://www.rollingstone.com/mo...

I don't think many people seriously believed voting itself was hacked.

Actually 50% of Clinton voters believe that, or about a quarter of the US population. Of course Trump voters had their own preferred conspiracy theories as you can see from the same report. What it shows is that people believe the narrative of their preferred news sources, and that neither major party is immune.

Rolling Stone has a nice article with an overview of the whole situation and why we should be skeptical. It's nice to see that coming from them, because MSNBC won't say it (gotta support out side) and nobody is going to believe Fox saying it, and sadly the rest of the press is starting to fall in line with one side or the other.

Fine, we can call it what it really was, which was political propaganda. How else do you explain that a single laptop getting infected with malware gets elevated to the level of national news?

And no, this wasn't a simple mistake. A simple mistake is getting a name or peripheral fact incorrect, and we can forgive that so long as corrections are made, because we're all human, and all make mistakes. Rather, the entire premise to the original story was shown to be false, but the story still remains in almost its entirety. Not a single call to Burlington Electric was made prior to publishing... the simplest, most basic fact checking you'd expect of a professional journalist or organization. Quite simply, this was journalistic malpractice. Only one of two possibilities seem likely - either the WaPo organization is simply incompetent and doesn't understand how to do proper journalism, or they rushed the story out because they had their eye on a political narrative they wanted to push, and facts be damned, this couldn't wait. This is not the first time they've been caught doing this either, when they promoted an absurd "fake news blacklist" with questionable sources a bit over a month ago.

Even some thoughtful left-leaning journalists are having a hard time swallowing these latest reports about Russian hacking, as they're all too aware of how governments are perfectly willing to lie when it suits their purpose (on both sides, mind you). All I ask is that you look at these reports through the lens of a skeptic, and ask why these stories are getting pushed to the front of the newsfeed. And what has changed so that so many people are willing to believe our three letter agencies without question, when they've been caught in lie after lie after lie these past many years? Why the change in heart when it comes to these Russian hacking reports, and subsequent stories that seem to neatly dovetail into that line?

Fine, we can call it what it really was, which was political propaganda. How else do you explain that a single laptop getting infected with malware gets elevated to the level of national news?

And no, this wasn't a simple mistake. A simple mistake is getting a name or peripheral fact incorrect, and we can forgive that so long as corrections are made, because we're all human, and all make mistakes. Rather, the entire premise to the original story was shown to be false, but the story still remains in almost its entirety. Not a single call to Burlington Electric was made prior to publishing... the simplest, most basic fact checking you'd expect of a professional journalist or organization. Quite simply, this was journalistic malpractice. Only one of two possibilities seem likely - either the WaPo organization is simply incompetent and doesn't understand how to do proper journalism, or they rushed the story out because they had their eye on a political narrative they wanted to push, and facts be damned, this couldn't wait. This is not the first time they've been caught doing this either, when they promoted an absurd "fake news blacklist" with questionable sources a bit over a month ago.

Even some thoughtful left-leaning journalists are having a hard time swallowing these latest reports about Russian hacking, as they're all too aware of how governments are perfectly willing to lie when it suits their purpose (on both sides, mind you). All I ask is that you look at these reports through the lens of a skeptic, and ask why these stories are getting pushed to the front of the newsfeed. And what has changed so that so many people are willing to believe our three letter agencies without question, when they've been caught in lie after lie after lie these past many years? Why the change in heart when it comes to these Russian hacking reports, and subsequent stories that seem to neatly dovetail into that line?

Looks like others are noticing the pattern of retracting things:
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Oddly, the media seems to be inventing fake sanctions by Russia of a language school closing now, too. Once again from anonymous sources peddling BS.

This is just a way to declare Trump's win illegitimate.

Here are some other ways:

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

http://patch.com/michigan/detr...

If you would like more ways Trump's win can be declared illegitimate, I'm here to serve.

You know that - how?

From the lame stream media that gave him $2B+ in free coverage.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/03/28/Ex-Trump-Insider-Donald-Doesn-t-Want-Be-President
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michael-moore-donald-trump-never-wanted-to-be-president-w434840

He certainly ran hard and pushed hard to win the nomination.

All he did was show up, insult everyone and made promises that he can't keep.

And this is all in pursuit of something nobody needs—third-party remote driving or proprietary software driving. As Bradley Kuhn has pointed out, software freedom doesn't kill people, your security through obscurity kills people. I'm no fan of the driverless vehicle but it's worth noting how one-sided it is; the party being left out of knowing how their vehicle will behave is the vehicle's owner. This is a recipe for bad outcomes and we already have evidence of one driverless vehicle killing someone and the VW proprietary exhaust scandal adding more pollutants killing people more slowly.

Eric "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process" Holder has returned to working for Covington & Burling, whose clients include many of the banks Holder chose not to prosecute when he was Attorney General (despite considerable evidence) and as the Intercept points out, President-elect Trump has made America Goldman's again so if you voted for Trump thinking you were dodging the Goldman Sachs favoritism Hillary Clinton showed, that didn't work.

That's total bollocks.

1. Hemp competed with cotton -- by confusing the public over hemp by using a different name, marijuana, which was demonized -- hemp was outlawed.
How America Lost the War on Drugs

2. Hell, even the US Department of Agriculture in 1942 supported Hemp:
Hemp for Victory

You fucking idiot.

They endorsed Clinton.
The NYT actually RAN THEIR ARTICLES THROUGH HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN.
Even the liberal shitrag Rolling Stone called them out on their pro-Hillary propaganda bullshit.

What fucking PLANET were you on this whole fucking election? Were you attempting to be the first human to drink a full gallon of Mercury in the course of a year?

Oh my god - four cases in Colorado in the past decade. THEY'RE DESTROYING DEMOCRACY!

Meanwhile, pay not attention to Crosscheck, removing tens of thousands of voters per state that uses it from the voting rolls, most shortly before the election, based on a method that disproportionately hits african-americans, asians, and hispanics.

Oh my..
Taliban drove what out of what? You do realize Americans are still fighting that war?
Clearly, you're not even in touch with reality - let alone the tiny percent of US population ACTUALLY in the military.

Oh... and BTW... Americans only get PULLED OUT from foreign countries if and when, after they kill hundreds of thousands of locals, their own deaths and other loses become large enough to become a POLITICAL nuisance.
They don't get driven out.
If USA could just keep sending robots to kill people on the other side of the globe, most of US population would not care a fig that their "imports" from said country "may contain burned children".

Also, Americans being driven out of America has about as much sense as fish being driven out of water.
Just imagine that "driven out" argumentation where YOUR SIDE of Americans is the one being driven out.
Would Americans be driven out? You just tried to argue that even Afghan civilians could stand up to American army.
Just imagine American civilians standing up to American army. They'd be like the best civilians to ever stand up to American army, driving American army all the way back to America... wait...
And that's disregarding the fact that those Americans are also Americans... who's driving who out again and out of where?

It's a nonsensical and paradoxical idea on the rate of "unstoppable force meeting an unmovable object" - except the object and the force are one and the same.

The US Army is recruited heavily from the poor, and those guys voted for Trump

The US military is not "recruited" - they volunteer. It's a professional, career army.
Also, US military is the most subsidized, social-state, benefits boosted social class in the US.
They are not poor. They are America's middle class - plus guns, training and jobs and benefits (government-provided and otherwise) for life.
It's a socialist meritocracy within US government. Free clothes, home, food, education... plus a paycheck and benefits - as long as you are willing and able to give your life for the community and kill people when you're told.
How did it go again? To each according to what? From each according to...?

On top of that, they live such different lives... all they have in common with other US citizens are the "paper things" - birth certificates, citizenship etc.
US military is NOT "Americans" the same way every other citizen of USA is.
It's a special social class apart from everyone else in USA, created, controlled and financed by US government.
With obedience to said government drilled into them through decades of training and selection for obedience among the ranks.

When was the last time you saw military protesting anything? Going on a strike? Picketing something? How about even ranting against the government on Twitter or Facebook?
Four star generals get sacked for far less than what is everyday ranting against the government for civilians.
Which is not even remotely close to what awaits lower ranks when they get kicked out into genpop, without all that social safety netting they are used to and facing completely different rules to obey.
IF they manage to miss the military prison on their way out.
That's why they obey. And support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That imaginary army you are talking about?
That would be the domestic enemies part. Kandahar, Kentucky, Kent State... same shit. Just another place to occupy.
BTW, that last one... After National Guard shoots and kills unarmed civilians what does government do to face hundreds of thousands of civilian protesters?
It evacuates the President and garrisons the government buildings with military troops.
http

Just be sure not to play music around him.

Too late. The Rolling Stones already performed in Cuba earlier this year.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/live-reviews/rolling-stones-thrill-huge-crowd-at-historic-havana-show-20160326

"Trump may have done some sleazy things. His tax files may not have been in perfect order. But I don't recall anyone accusing him of lying in court, revealing state secrets, or falsifying evidence. In hindsight it's amazing he didn't win by a larger margin"

It's amazing that so many voted for a man who treats women as he does. And who blatantly violated the privacy of underage pageant contestants

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_...

and boasted about it on Stern's radio program - http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Or personally inspecting them in their bathing suits

"Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before" - I bet you have it all on videotape too, Mr President-elect.
The extent of his creepiness wrt to the beauty pageants is appalling. I'm surprised more of it isn't criminal
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Swap the lives, histories & actions of Trump & Obama only they still keep their names & faces - which one of them would become the nominee of either party?
I bet that version of Trump could win nomination for either while the revised Obama couldn't get elected as county ratcatcher anywhere in America

Let's face it, thanks to Newt Gingrich's Contract with America during the Republican Revolution,

s/with/on/

It turned out to be the Contract on America [1]. And it was when conservatives became neo-conservatives (which is to say they did an about face on anything actually designed to balance budgets or adhere to actual conservative values) and the Christian right-wing merged with the GOP.

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Because "alt-right" is racist, because ... democrats say so?

Because we can examine their conduct and messaging to recognize what it is? The National Review and Rolling Stone did.

But Hillary's "Super Predators" and "Bring them to heel" comments aren't. Her (and her husband's) use of Confederate Flags wasn't racist.

Oh those, were pandering to racists for sure. So was Reagan's Welfare Queens, and Bush I's Willie Horton ads. News to you, for what reason? You've never heard of Dogwhistles? Lee Atwater could tell you about them. Clinton's actions were a deliberate and calculated strategy to pander to the scared whites who thought all Democrats were nigger-lovers.

Trump? I'm not sure about the calculated part, or even the deliberate, but racist, yes.

"Make America Great Again" is racist, except when Bill used it for his campaign.

No, it's not racist, it's just patriotic hogwash, I swear, it's like you can't identify and differentiate among the problems with Trump.

Here is the problem, as I see it. The most racist thing out there, is the whole DNC platform that expects black people to continue to vote DNC candidates, without so much as even pandering, simply by tossing out the race card over every little thing.

So it's not more racist for you to assume that blacks are incapable of making informed decisions and deciding that Democrats are serving their interests better than Republicans? That the only reason is because of pandering?

(And one wonders if you can even recognize the pandering to others in this country, let alone affirmatively identify it...)

It is obvious that crying Racism is the ONLY thing left the Democrats have with respect to Hillary's campaign. And that is, by itself racist.

No, the racism concerns are about Trump's campaign. Among others, including his tendency to bombastic proclamations like shooting Iranian boats on a whim, corruption (like the Trump university business and Pam Bondi bribes), and his lack of honesty. Plenty to criticize there, it's not just racism.

PS, your pulling out the "race card" card seems to be the only thing you have.

And the black community is starting to wake up to the pure racism of low expectations that the DNC has of them.

Wait, wait, since when did you get to speak for the black community? Or do you think Trump's "Go with me, what do you have to lose" is somehow persuasive?

Well, maybe if you're dumb enough not to realize how much the conservative agenda has driven affairs in this country in the past few decades.

Can't have voter ID laws, because the DNC says Black people can't figure out how to get a free voter ID. But that isn't racist.

Way to show you can't accurately identify a problem. The Voter ID laws are an attempt by the GOP to influence the electorate in their favor, by denying Democrats their right to vote by putting up needless barriers which the Republicans constantly scream is about a phantom problem with voter fraud. That they never explain why so many of them are in office if the elections can't be trusted is one question among many. Nonetheless, it is not, strictly speaking, against the law to make laws that are biased in a partisan manner. It is, however, illegal to take actions that racially discriminate against the right to vote.

Of course, since you don't know it, I'll explain something. The ID isn't about figuring out how to get one, though the fact that many state DMVs don't even seem to know they are supposed to provide them makes you wonder. But no, it's about the burden imposed, which is akin to the old stan

> If there was a real crackdown on Gangs, crime would decrease for a while,

We actually had that once but it was too successful so it was stopped. WTF!?

Scroll down to 7. The Harvard Man of How America Lost the War on Drugs to see how the power of Name & Shame worked.

7. The Harvard Man

For the cops on the front lines of the War on Drugs, the federal government's fixation with marijuana was deeply perplexing. As they saw it, the problem wasn't pot but the drug-related violence that accompanied cocaine and other hard drugs. After the crack epidemic in the late 1980s, police commissioners around the country, like Lee Brown in Houston, began adding more officers and developing computer mapping to target neighborhoods where crime was on the rise. The crime rate dropped. But by the mid-1990s, police in some cities were beginning to realize there was a certain level that they couldn't get crime below. Mass jailings weren't doing the trick: Only fifteen percent of those convicted of federal drug crimes were actual traffickers; the rest were nothing but street-level dealers and mules, who could always be replaced.

Police in Boston, concerned about violence between youth drug gangs, turned for assistance to a group of academics. Among them was a Harvard criminologist named David Kennedy. Working together, the academics and members of the department's anti-gang unit came up with what Kennedy calls a "quirky" strategy and convinced senior police commanders to give it a try. The result, which began in 1995, was the Boston Gun Project, a collaborative effort among ministers and community leaders and the police to try to break the link between the drug trade and violent crime. First, the project tracked a particular drug-dealing gang, mapping out its membership and operations in detail. Then, in an effort called Operation Ceasefire, the dealers were called into a meeting with preachers and parents and social-service providers, and offered a deal: Stop the violence, or the police will crack down with a vengeance. "We know the seventeen guys you run with," the gangbangers were told. "If anyone in your group shoots somebody, we'll arrest every last one of you." The project also extended drug treatment and other assistance to anyone who wanted it.

The effort worked: The rates of homicide and violence among young men in Boston dropped by two-thirds. Drug dealing didn't stop -- "people continued what they were doing," Kennedy concedes, "but they put their guns down." As Kennedy reflected on the success of the Boston project, which ran for five years, he wondered if he had discovered a deeper truth about drug-related violence. If the murders weren't a necessary component of the drug trade -- if it was possible to separate the two -- perhaps cities could find a way to reduce the violence, even if they could do nothing about the drugs.

In 2001, Kennedy got a call from the mayor of San Francisco that gave him a chance to examine his theories in a new setting. The city had experienced a recent spike in its murder rate, much of it caused by an ongoing feud between two drug-dealing gangs -- Big Block and West Mob -- that had resulted in dozens of murders over the years. Could Kennedy, the mayor asked, help police figure out how to stop the killings?

Kennedy flew out to San Francisco and met with police. But as he researched the history of the violence, it seemed to confirm his findings in Boston. Though both Big Block and West Mob were involved in dealing drugs, the shootings were not really drug-related -- the two groups occupied different territories and were not battling over turf. "The feud had started over who would perform next at a neighborhood rap event," says Kennedy, now a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "They had been killing each other ever since."

Such evidence suggested that d

The FEC is not investigating the DNC for moving $61 million from local elections into the Hillary Clinton campaign, even though that would appear to directly violate FEC regulations, and possibly money laundering laws as well. (It literally rearranged the primary political landscape.)

However, the FEC did say that Bill Maher made an excessive and impermissible donation to the Bernie Sanders campaign. They're definitely on the ball and looking after our interests!

Oh, and new E-mails from the Clinton server have surfaced from a FOI request by Judicial Watch.

Remember how Hillary said she deleted *only* personal E-mails that would be of no interest to the investigation? Yup - several work-related E-mails in the new batch, which were not given over to the FBI. (Also, these were released under by the State Department under court order, which means that the State Department had them and didn't make them available to the FBI either.)

And of course, it's not about the lies and corruption that these leaks uncover... it's those evil Russians meddling in our internal political affairs. What right do they have to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?

I've gotten 'kinda jaded about whether it's "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to remove personal details from a leak and such. Go ahead and dox the lawmakers, maybe it'll get them to make better laws to protect their privacy, and by accident, protect ours as well.

Maybe I should start a petition on Change.org to get some of these problems addressed. That always works.

Not another David Brock troll. Listen ass-hole the emails clearly show the DNC worked against Bernie Sanders and conspired with the Clinton Campaign and were complicit in money laundering carried out by the Clinton's Victory Super PAC. http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Fuck off!

Wait until the RNC completely collapses after the disaster Trump has brought to the party. Now he is saying that the election is going to be rigged. This casts doubt on the entire electoral process in the US. What a scumbag. He needs to quit to save himself from further embarrassment.

I dunno, looking at the way the DNC violated FEC rules in order to beat Sanders, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they paid to rig the elections.

Remember those Trump protestors? The ones starting fights at Trump rallies? DNC paid staffers.

Remember Trump making his hats in China? Complete and total fabrication.

Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews? Mostly made up.

The Democrats are spewing a deluge of lies and misdirection at Trump, because it's all they got. Trump beats Hillary on pretty-much every political position, and the voters know it.

Keep with the insults, we need the public to get tired of this and see it for what it really is: the last ditch efforts of a morally bankrupt campaign.

(Here's a good one that was top news yesterday: Trump having a conversation with the devil. Republicans should totally start throwing insults back at Clinton, because that's what the election is all about!)

This election is rife with hilarious situations, if you know where to look.

Technically, Sanders raised more money than Clinton did in the first 3 months of this year. As an example, at the end of January Sanders raised $67 million compared to Clinton's $27 million.

The maximum one can donate to Clinton (or any one candidate) is $5400, but you can donate to other Democratic campaigns in various amounts. So the "Hillary Victory Fund" held a number of campaign contribution events supposedly for local democratic campaigns. The fund transferred the money to local committees, but then moved the money from there directly to the Clinton campaign.

From the Rolling Stone report:

As an example, take couples who paid or raised $353,400 to sit at a table with George Clooney, a sum that Clooney himself called an "obscene amount of money." The figure represented the maximum allowable donation given the structure of the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint venture between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state committees.

Donors can give a maximum of $5,400 per election cycle to Hillary's campaign, $33,400 per year to the DNC, and $10,000 per year to each of the 32 state committees in the fund.

If you assumed that the Clooney guests had already given their maximum $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, that left just over $353,000 for the DNC and the committees.

But Vogel and Arnsdorf found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund went to the state committees.

[...] The money sometimes came and went before state officials even knew it was there. Politico noted that the Victory Fund treasurer, Beth Jones, is also the COO of the Clinton campaign.

[...] Vogel-Arnsdorf also noted that of the $23.3 million spent directly by the fund, most "had gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for 'salary and overhead' and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads."

So the Democratic party took all the Bernie Sanders money and matched it with an equal amount of money drained from local democratic elections, and like matter and anti-matter both sums annihilated in a flash of political advertizing!

All that effort and money and work you Bernie Sanders advocates put in came to naught, because the Democrats simply didn't want Sanders to win.

(I don't care *who* you are, that's funny right thar :-)

And nothing will be done about it.

The Democrats probably violated FEC law, possibly violated money laundering law, and absolutely betrayed your trust in a fair and honest runoff between candidates...

All this was noticed in May , and there's been no call for investigation, no call for prosecution, nothing.

Bernie got roughly 43 percent of the popular vote.

Do you think that those extra campaign funds might have tipped the balance in favor of Hillary?

It gets better.

The polls at the time showed that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.

And by siphoning money away from local elections, the Democrats have probably thrown many local elections to the Republican side!

That's hilarious! :)

Sanders and the rest of the party are calling for *everyone* to support Hillary. They're effectively asking all the Bernie voters to "forget that we just betrayed you in the worst possible way, we have to stick together or Trump will win!". Keep party unity! Don't let the Republicans win!

And they're absolutely right! If Bernie runs as a 3rd party, Trump will win. If Bernie supporters swi

What crimes would those be? Seriously, I'm curious. What crimes have been revealed by the DNC emails that were released?

Violations of campaign finance law: http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Fact is neither Clinton nor Trump have ever declared personal bankruptcy.

Yes at least 4 businesses owned/run by Donald Trump have filed bankruptcy, and likely a few more.

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

But have you bothered to look up how many businesses Trump owns and/or runs? The answer is over 500. That's a whole lot of successes for relatively few failures. Even conservatively, 95% of his businesses were/are successful.

http://qz.com/461688/a-list-of...

So your choice is really; Some loud mouth bozo with a 95% success rate in running businesses of all types, or a useless puppet with not a single success in her life.

Do you not remember the moral panic in the 1980's over Dungeons and Dragons? Or the Judas Priest subliminal message trial?

All society's suffer from this sort of insanity from time to time.

"Undercover Cop Disgracefully Tricks Autistic Student into Selling Weed, Court Denies Family Justice"
  http://www.rollingstone.com/cu...

That's not sleep deprivation... not punishment

http://www.rollingstone.com/po... "There were several guards charged with what they called "Manning Watch" and whose instructions were to check on Manning every five minutes, 24 hours a day. Constant observation and frequent interruption were well-worn tactics widely used on detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at Guantanamo. "It's sleep deprivation, basically," says Brandon Neely, a former Army MP who was posted at Guantanamo. It was also broadly acknowledged, and condemned, by human rights monitors, as a form of punishment."

https://www.vice.com/read/the-... "Sometimes, said Tankersley, POI status inmates were found snoozing. "And we catch them and wake them back up," he said. "There's basically nothing to do." Any time Pfc. Manning had to be moved from his cage, the entire facility was put in lockdown."

Yes. It's sleep deprivation. To be fair, there were times where he was given a sleeping period:
"He was forced to sleep from 1 PM to 11 PM, naked, and was allowed to do so only when facing his lamp."
Ah yes, forcing someone to sleep facing a lamp--clearing a measure undertaken by those who care deeply about his health.


not torture.... not punishment

He was also detained for several hundred days without trial--a clear violation of the sixth amendment, but again, slavish defenders of government iniquity such as yourself never seem to find any problem with that part.

Solitary confinement IS torture, and it is often used as such despite any excuses of suicide watch. In this case, it seems that the decision to put Manning on suicide watch three separate timnes was entirely arbitrary, and questioned by more than one party:

http://www.courthousenews.com/... "Chief Warrant Officer-4 James Averhart, the brig OIC, or Officer in Charge, put Manning on suicide risk, or SR, three times, despite the protests of his prison psychologist, Capt. William Hocter."

"In one instance, Averhart called for suicide watch shortly after having a private conversation with Manning, who he said had been "disrespectful" to him... Averhart asserted to have no detailed memory of the encounter, but remembered that Manning asked why he was yelling at him."

"... On Wednesday, the chief of corrections for the Marines, CW5 Abel Galaviz, said placing Manning on this status broke regulations established by the Secretary of the Navy, known as the SecNav instructions."


This guy put Manning back in solitary because Manning was being "disrespectful" by asking why Averhart was shouting. On top of this already being an example of torture, that detail totally blows away your claim that none of this is punishment. Again, I'm sure none of this bothers you! You'll defend all treatment of manning no matter what, because you are scripted as such. Too bad that script is now gathering cobwebs.

I suspected that Putin is funding many of the nationalist right wing groups in Europe. In other words, he likes stirring the shit. Brexit doesn't benefit the UK or Europe or even the US. It doesn't help when austerity is punishing the working class all across Europe and their voices are being ignored. It makes them easy marks for nationalist and right wing groups and con men. As the UK begins to negotiate its exit the EU will play hardball because if they make concessions, other countries might bolt too. A disunited Europe is exactly what Putin craves for. And if the US chooses the wrong president, it won't be their to help hold Europe together.

On a separate but related note: Texas secessionists are smart enough to understand what Brexit is and have been emboldened by it. Expect to hear more about Texit if Hillary becomes president.

Concerts have ambulances and crew literally standing by, as in parked righ outside the venue. Unless you have the cell number for one of the paramedics, you are wasting your time doing anything but flagging security.

Depends on the size of the venue, the state where the concert is happening, and how many people are in need of medical care simultaneously. For example, at one show, there were a whopping 36 people transported by ambulance. I guarantee that no venue has 36 ambulances waiting around just in case 36 people collapse.

So as I said, a smart person does both. In an ideal world, you would not need to, but we do not live in an ideal world.

[citation needed]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/dont-let-business-lobbyists-kill-the-post-office-20120423

No, we did not send arms to the Taliban to use in killing western aid workers or to shoot school teachers in the head.

False. That's precisely what we did, and precisely why we did it, too.

Not much you can do about native advertising. We are already doing it in video too. Services like youtube and netflix which identify the viewer make it easy enough to monetize you by showing you the version of the shows with the ads you are most susceptible to.

The best you can hope for is piracy, you'll still get ads, but only those targeted at the person who did the pirating so you won't be quite as vulnerable. Although simply being a pirate is a kind of profile too.

Which GS people committed which crimes for which they should be in prison? Please be specific.

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO. See the presentence investigative report on him and Goldman from 2010.

He traded against his clients, which is a crime. Then he lied to the FBI and Congress about doing so. That's conflict of interest, fraud and perjury.

Now it's up to you to explain why he should NOT have gone to jail for these crimes other than the fact that Goldman controls the Fed. Please be specific.

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

Blaming short sellers for crashes is like blaming storms on the weathervane.

Let's focus on the short sellers. Pay no attention to the sucking sound from Goldman Sachs in the background.

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
                ---Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Yeah, these are the "masters of the universe" that tanked our economy, was bailed out for 10s of billions of dollars after their CEO became the treasury secretary, then outsourced 1,000 American jobs and gave their execs huge raises and paid "up to" a paltry $5 billion for defrauding their own customers.

No high level execs at Goldman Sachs went to jail,and the systemic problem is worse today than before the crisis.

Why would I give even even a penny to admitted criminals with a proven record of abusing their customers and being grossly selfish and irresponsible?!

Fuck those guys. Seriously.

http://www.rollingstone.com/

http://www.rollingstone.com/mu...

http://www.rollingstone.com/mu...

http://www.rollingstone.com/

http://www.rollingstone.com/mu...

http://www.rollingstone.com/mu...

http://www.rollingstone.com/

http://www.rollingstone.com/mu...

http://www.rollingstone.com/mu...

Rolling Stone, of all places, had an excellent analysis of the rather simple and brutal math behind such a transition. Simply put, there are about thirty trillion (ie, 10^12) US Dollars worth of hydrocarbons in the ground. Those hydrocarbons count as assets on the balance sheets of the richest companies on earth. Avoiding a 2-degree C global average temperature increase requires leaving about $20T of those reserves in the ground, forever. That is, you would have to get the richest companies in the world, all together, to write off a loss five times the size of the one that triggered the subprime mortgage implosion in 2008.

The scary thing is, in the long run, that's the cheaper alternative.

Kansas is doing a lot better in terms of education than, say, California.

Kansas is in a state of total collapse, including their education system. The entire state is in a freefall into the shitter, and it's been entirely run by conservative Republicans.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

https://www.salon.com/2015/06/...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Seems like there's a lot of conflicts of interest, kinda like Eric Holder: Mary Jo White, current head of the SEC

Just because she's very good at defending financial sector firms doesn't mean she's a wise choice for regulating them. The regulatory agency heads are in federal service only briefly, taking large pay cuts to get into the position in order to make connections and understand how the government operates, before they go back to their industry.