Slashdot Mirror

Hell its because of Shillary that Trump won the GOP nomination, or did you forget her ordering her lickspittles in the MSM to push Trump in the "Pied Piper Strategy" because even she knew she was such a walking piece of offal that the only chance she had was against Trump?

Nobody forgot. Hillary was pulling a page from Rush Limbaugh's playbook:
Rush the Vote: Operation Chaos

You know, a decade ago, when Rush Limbaugh told his Republican supporters to push Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary because the Republican party knew they couldn't win against Barack Obama.

Funny enough, cheaters never prosper, because both the Republicans backing Hillary and the Democrats backing Trump ultimately failed.

Personally, I enjoy NPR from time to time, but they are pushing their bias, just like Rush Limbaugh is pushing his in another direction.

Look, NPR has a bias and a liberal lean (and I agree with you that I'm not aware of anyone who doesn't), but to compare them to Rush Limbaugh is disturbing. NPR does not run stories like The Democrats, Media and their Antifa Pit Bulls Are the Real Threat to America. There is a very important difference between not always adequately balancing your coverage of the sides of an issue and always pursuing emotive hit pieces designed to fire up your base by completely dismissing that the other side of the issue could have any valid points. That you don't see a difference is somewhat worrying.

Stop complaining about the damn paywall and pay a subscription to a couple of trusted news outlets.

I want to do just this, but have been unable to identify such outlets. Can anyone give examples?

www.rushlimbaugh.com

and to the dismay (and I'm sure, disgust) of liberals everywhere Rush Limbaugh called it once again: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da...

This whole thing was in the can for Hillary right from the get go. It just goes to show that liberals will stop at absolutely nothing in the pursuit of political power. And spare me the "sore loser" speech. It's one thing to try and screw Republicans over - they screwed Bernie and his followers. People in their own party.

The current Democrat strategy is to try and discredit Trump. There is no mention of Clinton achievements - because there are none. Everything she has touched has been a colossal fuck up. Including, but not limited to, the death of four Americans in Libya on her watch as Secretary of State. Followed by a cover up that she continues to lie about.

All the while, her and Bill are operating a sham of a "charity" that only donates 10 cents out of every dollar it takes in. Funded in large part by corrupt foreign governments that treat women and gays like shit. While maintaining, with a straight face, that they are the party that actually cares about women and gays.

I, for one, can't wait for the next round of WikiLeaks emails. You can bet there there will be plenty more evidence of lying and corruption in the Clinton camp. So keep up the Trump attack ads and various head fakes. Nobody is buying it.

Who is misinformed? GOP and Conservative is vocally against fairness doctrine, you must have missed it over on PBSRadio. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da... If the stations that carried conservatives Beck, Rush and Mark would have to offer equal time there would not be enough time in the day. It is slanted, it is biased but Conservative Talk has kept AM and FM talk stations alive in small markets across the united states.

In case you missed it, Rush Limbaugh discussed this on his program today. Perhaps you should read what he said and maybe revise your position?

You weren't listening to Limbaugh, then. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da...

Today Trump released a statement saying the Muslim database was the reporter's idea, with his camp and conservative talking heads like Rush Oxycontin Limbaugh implying that the MSNBC reporter was laying a trap for him by asking such a provocative question while Trump was rushed for time. Of course the reporter was laying a trap but since Trump can't resist running his mouth whenever a microphone is put in front of his face he obliged and walked right into it.

Here is a transcript of what the reporter and trump said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/...

And here is Rush Fathead's spin on it:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da...

My 15 year old me is kicking me for saying this, but learning how to integrate into society, listening to other people's thoughts, and learning how to agree and disagree without going all Fox News screamy-shouty goes a long way.

I agree. You should have your child(ren) listen to Rush instead.

Give it a try. He's actually much more respectful of callers who disagree with him, than most people who say "Fox News" a lot are of those who disagree with them.

My 15 year old me is kicking me for saying this, but learning how to integrate into society, listening to other people's thoughts, and learning how to agree and disagree without going all Fox News screamy-shouty goes a long way.

I agree. You should have your child(ren) listen to Rush instead.

There's still a bit less than two years left on at least one of his gloom and doom predictions.

Convenient Arctic Armageddon countdown clock

• The Evidence Proves Global Warming is a Hoax, But That Doesn't Stop the Left
• Left Creates "Polar Vortex" to Make You Think Winter is Caused by Global Warming
• Left Just Now Discovering Global Warming Hoax
• As the Nation Freezes, Google-Financed Environmentalists Burn Innocent Birds in California to Combat Global Warming
• CBS This Morning: Human Extinction Looms, Global Warming to Blame

• The Evidence Proves Global Warming is a Hoax, But That Doesn't Stop the Left
• Left Creates "Polar Vortex" to Make You Think Winter is Caused by Global Warming
• Left Just Now Discovering Global Warming Hoax
• As the Nation Freezes, Google-Financed Environmentalists Burn Innocent Birds in California to Combat Global Warming
• CBS This Morning: Human Extinction Looms, Global Warming to Blame

• The Evidence Proves Global Warming is a Hoax, But That Doesn't Stop the Left
• Left Creates "Polar Vortex" to Make You Think Winter is Caused by Global Warming
• Left Just Now Discovering Global Warming Hoax
• As the Nation Freezes, Google-Financed Environmentalists Burn Innocent Birds in California to Combat Global Warming
• CBS This Morning: Human Extinction Looms, Global Warming to Blame

• The Evidence Proves Global Warming is a Hoax, But That Doesn't Stop the Left
• Left Creates "Polar Vortex" to Make You Think Winter is Caused by Global Warming
• Left Just Now Discovering Global Warming Hoax
• As the Nation Freezes, Google-Financed Environmentalists Burn Innocent Birds in California to Combat Global Warming
• CBS This Morning: Human Extinction Looms, Global Warming to Blame

• The Evidence Proves Global Warming is a Hoax, But That Doesn't Stop the Left
• Left Creates "Polar Vortex" to Make You Think Winter is Caused by Global Warming
• Left Just Now Discovering Global Warming Hoax
• As the Nation Freezes, Google-Financed Environmentalists Burn Innocent Birds in California to Combat Global Warming
• CBS This Morning: Human Extinction Looms, Global Warming to Blame

Yes - ignore FOX. I have the real scoop from Rush:

RUSH: Folks, you can try to get to the New York Times story on the Clinton Global Initiative on the Web. I don't think you can. It's been taken down. Well, I don't know if it's been taken down or they just ended the access to it. But don't worry, I have enough of it for certain pull quotes. Oh, the whole website's inaccessible, so maybe the Times got hacked. Okay, Times got hacked. I thought just that one story pulled down. All right. It's obviously the Clinton story, the expose of the Clinton Global Initiative that's resulted in the Times website being hacked. The story is in the UK Telegraph, by Tim Stanley. "The New York Times Takes Down the Clinton Foundation. This Could Be Devastating for Bill and Hillary," is the headline. The lead is, "Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh?"

Insurance Expert explains the problem

well there's this guy

and then there's these guys

roman_mir, you should know by now to cite your sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/ http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ http://www.your.ass/ ...

Lol, that sounds like a Rush Limbaugh pitch. Enjoy your large footprint under-the-monitor desktop with the giant red rocker power switch on the side and turbo button.

Actually, Rush is apparently doing so, except that the Mac Pro has a power button on the front and no turbo button. He's also waiting for the Mac Pro to get an upgrade. :-)

(Oh, and Obama quite likely knows about Apple....)

Or instead of name-calling and "just sayin'" stuff you heard third-hand, you could read what he actually said.

tl;dr: he never said the character (created in 1992!) was made about Romney, just that the Obama camp was planning to make the connection as part of their "anything but the economy" strategy. (And from what I've been hearing about the movie, they would really have to stretch to make that comparison. Question: is Bruce Wayne a 1%'er?)

Noticed that when I was looking to see if anyone had come up with a sufficient rebuttal to this empirical link but aside from a few insane pundits, I didn't find much.

What's to rebut? The observed phenomena are easily explainable as a consequence of supply and demand, and they neither support nor contradict the "drill baby drill" crowd. Personally, I regard economics as a quasi-science, but this is one of the areas of economics which is actually quite dependable and understandable.

For example: Suppose the Ruritanian Oil Co. suddenly brings online a huge new trivially extractable supply of oil which floods the world market, bringing the price of oil from its present value of roughly $100 per barrel to $10 per barrel. In the US, domestic oil production would practically shut down overnight. If you're losing money every time you pump more oil out of the ground and sell it, then you're going to stop pumping pretty quick.

Next, suppose there is a civil war the following year in Ruritania and, for good measure, several other large oil exporting states. The price of oil shoots back up to around $100, and steadily climbs to $200 over the next few years. The obvious consequence is that the rate of domestic oil production will climb back to where it was, and grow even larger as previously unprofitable wells are brought back into operation.

In other words, when prices are high, we should expect domestic production to be high, and we should expect low production when prices are low.

The system works this way because oil is a global market, the cost of import/export is less than the costs of production, and the US production is considerably smaller than the total global production.

This does not mean that impeding domestic production won't raise prices. On the contrary, it probably will raise prices, all else being equal. However, we should expect this effect on price may be often be dominated by price fluctuations from other sources, simply because the US does not produce most of the world's oil.

Minnesota Public Radio pulls some choice quotes ...

Submitter here, my mistake on that above source. When I read this in my news feed yesterday, I didn't see the AP markings all around this story. All of it appears to be completely and solely Associated Press sourced. I apologize if that confused anyone.

Noticed that when I was looking to see if anyone had come up with a sufficient rebuttal to this empirical link but aside from a few insane pundits, I didn't find much. The remaining arguments for "drill here, drill now" probably rests on "job creation" (waiting on that fact check) and, according to Thomas McClanahan from the Kansas City Star, it "means fewer dollars going to nasty, unstable regimes and more revenue for the Treasury, especially if the drilling is on public lands." He might be right about lowering the trade deficit but I think there are other things we could stop doing to prevent unstable regimes.

There is at least one notorious outlier.

Maybe not: http://pssht.com/biography/rush_limbaugh.html

There is at least one notorious outlier.

The shit isn't magical, it's the same hardware for more money, with an artsy UI, and an instant "in" with the liberals.

Yeah, I'm sure this guy's Mac use will win big points with liberals....

Isn't it a little early to call something like this "the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing"?

I agree. I have no idea why this is on Slashdot. It's not technology news. It's not even news at all.

Back in 2008, Rush Limbaugh tried something similar he called "Operation Chaos", where he encouraged his listeners to switch parties and vote in the Democratic Primary to get Hillary Clinton to win and later to keep her in to lengthen the Primary. The idea was that whoever eventually won would emerge weaker and would lose to McCain. Also, Republicans believed that there were more registered Democrats because of Operation Chaos, and when the election actually happened, they would be revealed as actually Republicans and McCain would win.

As we all know, it didn't work. Obama beat McCain handily. So if Rush Limbaugh, who has millions of listeners couldn't pull this off, how can an unknown website do this?

Moreover, I think it's misleading to suggest that "Democrats" are doing this. I expected to see a link to Democrats.org or to at least a high traffic Democratic Party website, such as dailykos.com. But no, this site has so little traffic that it doesn't even have an Alexa ranking In fact, searching for sites that link to this domain reveal not even Democratic sources, but Republicans (freerepublic.com is the #2 domain in results), so clearly this isn't catching on with Democrats. Whois is masked, so we don't know who actually owns the domain, but it's just as likely to be a Republican astroturfing organization.

So, how did this end up on Slashdot? Was this some sort of paid placement situation or attempt by the domain owner to drive more traffic to the site? Some lame idea of saying that "both sides 'do it' and engage in these types of silly games? Somebody has compromising photos of CmdrTaco? I guess we'll never know.

A bunch of blah blah blah and then "...I'm glad to have you on our side, 'cause I agree with you. Leave your game alone. The people that put together these video games are artists in their own right. If you're gonna start saying that video games are raunchy, then how the hell do you leave cable television alone?"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102910/content/01125113.guest.html http://kotaku.com/5677274/rush-limbaugh-defends-video-games-free-speech-says-this-is-where-the-battle-is

While I agree when it comes to just speech, I don't agree with him when it comes to actions. By his logic, it should be fine for companies to dump tons of pollution into rivers with no legal consequence, because then the market will take care of it, right? Except that that river really only matters to the people who depend on it, and even if every one of them boycotted that company, they could still do just fine selling to the rest of the country and the world. It also implies that there's a way for people to get accurate and timely information about what companies are polluting, and that doesn't happen. Then multiply this by the number of other possible transgressions a company can make, and it quickly becomes obvious that the market will not be able to handle it, because there's too much information and no good way to get it to the people who need it in a way they can easily understand. Which is why we need agencies specifically tasked with monitoring and handling these issues. Even then they have a hard time keeping up, but at least something gets done most of the time. We just need to make sure these agencies do their job and don't get overzealous and overstep their bounds, and that they don't get co-opted by those who they're overseeing, a-la the Minerals Management Service.

A bunch of blah blah blah and then "...I'm glad to have you on our side, 'cause I agree with you. Leave your game alone. The people that put together these video games are artists in their own right. If you're gonna start saying that video games are raunchy, then how the hell do you leave cable television alone?"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102910/content/01125113.guest.html
http://kotaku.com/5677274/rush-limbaugh-defends-video-games-free-speech-says-this-is-where-the-battle-is

Yes, oil is natural; it's naturally underground. Perhaps you also subscribe to Rush Limbaugh's theory that since it's natural, it'll go away without us doing anything.

Hey, it could still happen. The judge in the case, Stephen Limbaugh, Jr, is Rush's cousin.

Yes, you would be correct. The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition. In fact, it was only a few days ago that the House of Reps had formally banned what could and could not be said in the chambers.

http://santabarbara.craigslist.org/rnr/1379492505.html

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091609/content/01125108.member.html

The real problem is that people have lost their heads in the United States. The return of evangelicals has led to an atmosphere that is literally opposed to science. So, you get exactly what you expect. Opinions that are based on anecdote and wish thinking instead of data. The reason science works is because you start with the assumption that you don't know something until you can prove that you probably know it, with repeatable, verifiable results. When you start trusting the word of pill junkies and homophobic college dropouts versus the entire scientific community and their reams of data, get ready for some wide-reaching and catastrophic fuckups.

Canada kept the rules. The Canadian banking system is still the most sound. Every time we take cops off the financial beat, we end up with a banking crisis. These realities can be arrived at by simply reading about the last 30 years of panics, and the hundred years of bank panics that existed before the FDIC and sensible Great Depression legislation.

But leave it to the same fuckers from Harvard, who apparently can't even manage a college trust without running it into the ground.

The pro-market propaganda will continue, and probably destroy our economy beyond repair. And then some wise ass will say that it shows that the market does work, by wiping itself out.

Your source thinks evolution is science and gives interviews to Rush Limbaugh. He also participated in a movie that:

• Misrepresents the views of interviewed scientists.
• Claims that anthropogenic global warming is a giant conspiracy to oppress Africa.
• Relies heavily on the well-debunked theory that solar activity can account for present-day warming and blatantly misrepresents data to support that view.
• Mislabels the axis of a graph, presenting data up to the early 80s as data up to 2000, because showing the actual data going that far would contradict its claims.
• Says that volcanoes produce more CO2 than man.
• Parrots the oft-repeated claim that scientists are just in it for the money. All of them, every single one. It's a giant conspiracy and nobody involved has come out and said anything.
• Is made by an immature, childish asshole.

And is in general laden with half-truths and outright lies.

Forgive me if I'm a tad bit skeptical.

Your source thinks evolution is science and gives interviews to Rush Limbaugh. He also participated in a movie that:

• Misrepresents the views of interviewed scientists.
• Claims that anthropogenic global warming is a giant conspiracy to oppress Africa.
• Relies heavily on the well-debunked theory that solar activity can account for present-day warming and blatantly misrepresents data to support that view.
• Mislabels the axis of a graph, presenting data up to the early 80s as data up to 2000, because showing the actual data going that far would contradict its claims.
• Says that volcanoes produce more CO2 than man.
• Parrots the oft-repeated claim that scientists are just in it for the money. All of them, every single one. It's a giant conspiracy and nobody involved has come out and said anything.
• Is made by an immature, childish asshole.

And is in general laden with half-truths and outright lies.

Forgive me if I'm a tad bit skeptical.

The fact that Wikipedia gives references places Wikipedia ahead of the vast majority of sources out there (including virtually all of the media).

Heh. I find it vastly amusing that one of those media sites does include sources for everything - http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
(And I trust Rush a lot more than I trust Wikipedia, even if I'm not on the Neocon bandwagon).

If that's the fringe, then so are these.

White paint CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING by reflecting light into the atmosphere! http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032609/content/01125110.guest.html

You can't take a single sound byte of Rush and be able to interpret his meaning from it, but that's what people like to do. They'll take a single statement, ignore the rest of his monologue which either leads up to or follows up on that statement and blow it out of context. Rush's transcripts are available on his website WITHOUT a membership. Go look them up.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

Are you smoking crack? I have never seen a stat to suggest more is contributed by the lower half as you suggest.

To quote, "This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity."

You also seem to be unaware that the internet has sources for every piece of idiocy

No, I am well aware of that

providing sources doesn't settle anything

I disagree with that statement. If the original poster were to actually respond with sources (though I'm not holding my breath), it would show the source of their opinion. Often just seeing the domain of their sources tells a lot; if they cited these idiots or these other idiots as sources then we know they aren't thinking much about the actual science. On the other hand if they cited an academic or scientific source to support their claims, then there would be reason to believe the poster actually does think before spouting off rhetoric.

As it is, the poster is essentially just gossipping. They have provided nothing but noise, and I am asking them to support their statements (if they can).

BALLERINA!!! ROFLMAO!!! He shall evermore be known as Tinkerbell!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030409/content/01125106.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg

Here you go

There's nothing wrong and I'm pissed!

Rush Limbaugh apparently uses a Mac.

I think this is a new record!

No, the record was when Rush Limbaugh christened the Obama recession two days after Obama was ELECTED.

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Why is it that people keep naively quoting Hanlon's Razor as if it *isn't* just a codification of the kind of foolish trust that is eminently vulnerable to Hanlon's Bane?

"Never *admit* to malice which can be explained as stupidity.'

This being the main reason malice 'data points' are harder to come by.

You make an excellent point. One must also remember that malice and stupidity are not mutually exclusive. See, e.g., Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. But I think that here on Slashdot, we have an established record of simple ignorance.

Free-flowing credit fueled the dot com bubble. The government controls the credit.

But if the Clinton administration is placing all these terrible controls on the market, why would credit be so "free-flowing"? Isn't that counter to the evil socialist aims of the Democratic party? Don't they seek to add additional controls to everything? Why would credit be so free-flowing under tight controls?

Damn, Democrats know how to rewrite history.

Its a good thing that the GOP has such a profound moral high-ground to stand on with this issue. Because of course its not like the conservative has a massive media presence or anything. And they've never wanted us to forget about things they've done or anything.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113007/content/01125114.guest.html

When the basis of the refute is that you can't test a belief yet you can't verify the non existant evidence either, then you have come full circle and said nothing but an opinion. In fact, 90% or better of the atheist who attempt to claim science is better or a substitute for religion, make the same leaps of faith. They haven't reviewed or verified any of the science they claim to be true, yet they believe that the people telling them it is true were truthful and accurate. They use the same defense, "well, if it wasn't accurate, someone would have said something by now".

Look at the global warming problem, lots of people are saying something and they are being dismissed because they aren't the right people or because some non-believers has praised their work or because their work counters the accepted norm. In recent days, you had Dr. Roy Spencer testifying to congress that global warming was overstated and that claimed results of studies were manipulated, he provided proof and then Barbra Boxer pointed out "Rush Limbaugh referred to you as the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Excellence in Broadcasting Network". And then of course, there is the David Evens Who is claiming that Co2 plays a minor role at best in global warming and gives his reasons. Of course you can look around and find the hit pieces on him. Most attempt to use the bible of the global warming crown (real Climate.org) and use refuted information in order to refute them. I remember a while back being pointed to an article on real climate that attempted to refute a statement about certain claims not being valid and it used those invalid claims to do so.

In all, there is no difference between any of them, theist or atheist, Scientific or other. People believe things for various reasons and defend those beliefs. I could say your foundations are a fucking hoax too but it add nothing informative nor constructive to the conversation. In fact, you have really presented no evidence that anything is wrong with the beliefs in question other then someone doesn't want to waste the time studying the root of it. And as I pointed out, that is common with almost everything.