Slashdot Mirror

If this were the case, people would once again shop around for medicine and drs....like they did 40 years ago and prices would be lower.

It would be nice if this was true, but it is not.
citation: http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut... It's still in courts and depends on your district.

I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.

You are wrong.

I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).

Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.

You are wrong.

I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).

Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.

You are wrong.

I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).

Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.

You are wrong.

I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).

Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.

You are wrong.

I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).

Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.

You are wrong.

I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).

Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.

You are wrong.

I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).

Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.

You are wrong.

I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).

Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

I would add - the comments section of typical left-leaning news sites have become absolutely fanatical if even one dissenting opinion is expressed. If you agree with 90% of a topic/idea and provide criticism of the other 10%, you are dismissed as a racist nazi and shunned from the group. Try it some time as an experiment.

You are wrong.

I've expressed quite a few dissenting opinions on Slate.com (as typical a left-leaning news site as there is), mainly objecting to various criticisms of Trump. For instance on the first travel ban I said the numbers showed that you couldn't call it "targeted at Muslims" for what the phrase "targeted" usually means. There has been disagreement, sure, but I was never once dismissed as a racist or a nazi, and I wasn't shunned. Here are my posts so you can verify it yourself. (On Slate, you have to click the speech bubble to view the comments, and wait a few seconds while it loads).

Why haven't I been dismissed as a racist nazi? or shunned? I think it's because I am mostly polite, rational and fact-based in my posts, and people see this and respond positively to it. Usually not *agree* with it, but at least respect me for it. I think you generally get out what you put in.

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

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

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

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

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Burning energy to hover someone in the air against gravity...is going to be orders of magnitude more energy required than rolling them forward on wheels.

This article suggests otherwise.

True, it's comparing mass transit planes to an individual car when a bus may be more comparable, but the difference is not "orders of magnitude" even if that's taken into account.

One shouldn't have to hover much if the traffic control system gets streamlined.

Flying aside, the idea of "pod cars" seems better for commutes. You have a pod-car with a bot-removable wheel base. You drive to a tram station, bots remove the wheel base and hook you up to the pod-tram, which takes you most the distance. The reverse happens at the other end, and you drive the last couple of miles in the pod-car to work.

You never have to leave your pod: it's the best mix of private vehicles and mass transportation. And the pod-tram can still be used by those without cars.

There's a fat brown cigar, with gray tip, sticking straight out of the wall.

http://www.slate.com/content/d...

If this image were 3D, you'd see it in an instant.

Once the market refuses to pay so much to live in The Big Apple, the prices will fall.

And they are

A few years ago a local artist improved a confusing L.A. freeway sign, making an interstate number shield in the process:

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

https://www.good.is/articles/t...

http://gizmodo.com/how-one-fed...

One down, 9,999 to go...

There's a large structure that goes around a good story. Introductions, build-ups, climaxes, resolutions, plot twists. They have to move in a certain way to make a piece entertaining.

Someone designed a beat sheet to demonstrate effective emotional tone control in writing, and Hollywood took it as gospel. They have it clocked to five-minute intervals now, instead of just major structure.

Of course all stories are conflict-resolution. The problem is now all the dance steps are painted on the floor and followed to precise meter.

Did you check that against the standard beat sheet?

Now you can't unsee it.

Hire a few extra cops to patrol the sidewalks, start citing pedestrians for J walking and crossing outside a crosswalk, with an egregiously heavy fine.

Those pedestrian deaths wouldn't occur if the cars weren't there. Because of that and because cases of drivers violating the pedestrian's right of way [are] more common than pedestrians violating that of drivers, maybe the cops should do a better job of citing drivers who blast through crosswalks.

Also, did you know that some crosswalks are unmarked? So what may look like a person jaywalking is actually someone crossing perfectly legally.

Ahem, from the first line of the wiki article:

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a way to interpret the Constitution's meaning as stable from the time of enactment, and which can only be changed by the steps set out in Article Five of the Constitution.

Which negates your assertion that the philosophy of originalism is somehow against the amendment process.

I didn't make that assertion, my statement was rather different(and I will discuss it further later), and that's merely an intro to an article, which is a very shallow statement, and you have to more deeply examine the actual details of their arguments. Which would require you to read the entire page.

Or even the cited article for that very line: Originalism and the Fourteenth Amendment, Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 33, p. 909, 1998

It discusses the patters and practices of the Originalists. Familiarize yourself with them. Really, you made a very poor attempt at rejoinder, I suggest you consider its faults.

I see that they do argue against how the 14th amendment is currently applied.

Yes, that Amendment is one of the biggest troubles for the Originalists, and why they prefer to ignore it as much as possible. They can't entirely, though, so they have to work around it.

Practices matter.

Of course, to be fair to them, it IS the one most prone to being called up for litigation, as it is a more general statement of principles than others.

What they really have a problem with, however, is the final clause. See if you can figure out why.

But to say they are against amendments in general is false.

Except what I said was that originalists were a group known for relying entirely on the Founding fathers(specifically for using as their moral compass, in case that wasn't clear) to the point of indifference to anything else. They don't, as a matter of habit, look at the 17th Amendment, or the 19th, for example. Or other statements, agreements and even binding treaties. And as a matter of practice, when presented with some issue, they stop discussions, and try to end it.

That's rather different from your representation of my words. Sorry if it was my failure to express myself properly than lead you to your misapprehension.

That said, I do find them rather deficient in their support for the Amendment Process. Such as they seek to advance, tend to be across narrow agendas, rather restrictive and less informative than I would choose.

Ok, if it is a known practice, cite it.

Originalism. It's not hard to find.

Find me some supreme court decisions that disregarded amendments in favor of what the Founders thought. Or appeals court decisions. Or circuit court. Or traffic court.

Oh, you want to see it in an American legal context? Most especially you'll want to look at the criticism of the Dred Scott decision for the most infamous example.

More recently, well, there other sources of information as to the patterns and practices of your average self-proclaimed originalists.

It's a bankrupt and destitute moral philosophy.

The U.S. Is Far More Violent Than Other Rich Countries

The United States: A Most Violent Nation

People woke up from the lies a long, long time ago.

I never regarded those so much as history lessons as such, more like object lessons in what had happened in the immediate past.

There are some pretty horrifying accounts from Allied soldiers liberating the death camps.

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

Bad example. Prohibition didn't address consumption. It only made trade, and production illegal.

The Feds did address consumption. They intentionally poisoned large amounts of alcohol in an effort to deter consumption which caused thousands of deaths (estimated to be as high as 10,000 deaths) and blinded/maimed many more.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Strat

Actually, this is just a normal monthly fluctuation, and an unimpressive one at that: http://www.slate.com/content/d...

Giving Trump credit for this is ridiculous- it's like taking a dump and bragging that you lost weight.

From what I've read in the news, the wiretapping wasn't aimed at Trump but at a Russian server operating out of Trump Tower. But, yeah, let's blame Obama for that one too.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

That story is a bullshit joke. Already covered in Slashdot:
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/11/01/019251/computer-scientists-believe-a-trump-server-was-communicating-with-a-russian-bank

From what I've read in the news, the wiretapping wasn't aimed at Trump but at a Russian server operating out of Trump Tower. But, yeah, let's blame Obama for that one too.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

I'm sure you'll be more than happy to provide some data to that effect, right?

It is so obvious no rational person would need data for this, similar to needing data proving things fall when dropped. But here you go anyway.

It is nearly impossible to find out how many sexual harassment cases are unfounded, but you can get a rough idea of how many by comparing them to forcible rape statistics where there has been more investigation into false claims. According to the FBI about 8% of forcible rape cases are deemed to be unfounded. Other studies put the number closer to 2%. But even though false claims are very rare, only about half of rape cases end up in a conviction. For sexual harrassment, the plaintiff wins about 40% of the time (both this and the above 50% statistic for rape are only for ones which make it to trial).

So considering the conviction rates are similar for both sexual harassment and rape claims, it is unreasonable to assume to rates of false claims are drastically different. Whatever the rate of false sexual discrimination claims are, they are probably somewhere around 5-10%.

Compare that to the near certainty that someone blames the victims in cases of sexual misconduct or rape.

The head of the House Science Committee spends all of his time denying and attacking science. She'll fit right in:

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

Haha! You are funny! Romney and McCain are not a Conservatives, they are RINOs.

I already asked you: How many Republicans will you declare persona non grata in your refusal to admit you are repeating lies, and to be honest, declaring them to be politically incorrect in a more original [wikipedia.org] sense of the phrase?

Because it really takes some chutzpah to say that your last 3 nominees are RINOs. And their VPs.

They're just not politically correct enough for you.

Using Politifact, an extremely left wing organization, to debunk my claim is just sad.

Denying that Politifact, has shown the lack of truth in the statements of a a number of Republican leaders is pretty sad...but not uncommon, Trump actually lies about fact-checkers too.

Funny though, that the Mitch McConnell link yields mostly trues.

Oh that's even sadder. You're trying to use Politifact for a comparative analysis, which would require them to be a comprehensive examiner, a standard which would be rather hard to establish. I merely offered the evidence of untruthfulness among the right, yet refrained from what you now want to say.

Some philosopher you are.

I'd honestly have to fact check your fact checker, because as mentioned they are grossly biased and remove context to make political claims.

Oh my, the sadness continues. Not only do you not want to admit to the lies, you want to believe, desperately, that they are false in their fact-checking.

Nope, you are not paying me to be your researcher so won't happen.

You're the one who has to establish your own words, that you so pretentiously claim this excuse only makes you more laughable.

If you want to talk cash, leave contact information.

If you have to be paid to seek the truth, you will tell the truth of the highest bidder.

I don't know anyone on the Right who assumes someone is honest, even on their own team.

That would be back to the questions I asked you earlier:

How many people do you know?

How much do you read of what the right says and does?

Really, you say you don't know anyone.

We have to debate each other as much as we do the left.

Nope. Not really. You swallow all sorts of lies and deceits. You don't even like it when others point them out. Heck, you've gone so far as to disown the last 3 standard-bearers of the right.

Gowdy and Chavez question Republicans just like they do the Dems.

Nope. They have refused to have numerous investigations and inquiries, meanwhile they spend endless hours on Benghazi.

Sorry dude, you really can't keep spreading the bullshit and expecting us to believe it.

Meanwhile, the "Left" is still claiming women make 70c on the dollar.

Nope.. Nuance . exists.

You're tilting at a strawman.

I won't get into their other lies, the list is way too long and not relevant to the conversation.

Don't worry, you've made your partisan bias and hypocrisy relevant. It's really your own fault. You ego made you take a stance, and purport to superiority, but show no willingness to examine your own dirty hands.

Operation Wetback was inhumane and not even very successful on its own terms.

Even Fox News acknowledges that this view. Salon, for one, goes into much more detail.

Cattle car and slave ship conditions? Dozens of deportees dying of heat stroke? Lack of due process? No thank you.

except that she 1) did so in her CNN contributor capacity (and got fired from it over), 2) it was a blatantly obvious question that anyone should have seen coming (Debate in Flint MI, gee, think they're gonna ask about the water crisis? Duh), and 3) CLINTON FLUBBED THE QUESTION ANYWAY

So it wasn't an attempt to steer the primary because 1) she had the foresight not to send it from her DNC email account, 2) it wasn't a very good idea, and 3) it didn't work very well? Come on.

And even putting all that aside, it was a pattern, not an isolated incident.

Is there a ban on being muslim? I know of none. I suspect you are talking about the suspension of immigration from seven specific countries, using the incorrect language the mass media has attached to it.

NOPE! Comrade.
I am talking about Trump and his cohorts trying to blame Obama for their own unconstitutional actions - for which they just got their asses handed to them the federal appeals court. Sad.
CONGRATULATIONS COMRADE! TRUMP WON! ENJOY!

But do feel free to put up any strawman you like. After all... there's already a strawhead puppet put up in the White House.

Or a tu quoque fallacy.

Trump is not unique in something like this.

Which, AGAIN, manages to also be a false equivalence fallacy.
Cause not since King George the Third ruled in today's US parts have military raids been decided over a dinner, with only The Supreme Lunatic in Charge, his court astrologist, his son in law, a lunatic general and a single person from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Out of SEVEN.
Trump the situation room! Who needs them generals and admirals anyway when there are Kushner, Bannon and the Mad Dog there to give their council?

Remember when Carter took foreign policy advice from his beer swillin, public urinatin, Libyan agent brother Billy? No?
Would you like to know why you can't remember that? CAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Carter didn't order military raids on advice of his family, eschewing advice from the military chiefs, while listening to conspiracy theorists.

Here. Read up on why oranges are NOT like apples. This shit might blow your mind. Well... a man can hope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm not sure what disaster has resulted from those calls. Is either country busy importing Russian nuclear missiles to try to make us behave? Was there a plague of locusts, or what?

RIIIIIGHT! OK... So that's the new standard? Wait until they start importing Russian nuclear missiles? That's where the goalposts are nowadays?
What century do you live in kiddo? IT ain't 1960's bro. Nobody's putting up missiles. Better come back to the real world.
Maybe then you'd realize that when the President of a country makes an ass of himself in front of the foreign leaders and the whole world - it kinda matters.
And it matters A LOT when he comes off as a pathetic, babylike, tantrum-throwing demented lunatic.
Even King George got "regented" when his lunacy got THAT bad. He did manage to lose a big chunk of the empire before that happened though.

If this removal was a demand made of the last two "admin", then it surely wasn't caused by Trump. Who was giving the "option" of removing this material to the USDA? And if there was no demand, what was there to refuse -- in the name of "transparency"?

What? ANOTHER strawman?

The issue is NOT in determining the blame on who gave the Strawpuppet in Chief and his gang of incompetent lunatics the ability to order removal of the material.
IT IS ABOUT THEM LYING ABOUT WHO ORDERED THE REMOVAL OF SAID MATERIAL!!!
Get it, comrade?

In case you missed that one from your parents - LYING IS BAAAAAD!
Lying in such a STUPID way is WORSE!!! Not only are you a liar - YOU'RE A STUPID LIAR TOO!
Or a lunatic with no relation to reality.

But trump that. Trump won bro! Enjoy!

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-...

It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban, and it affects the 10% Christian populations of those countries and other religions, so it isn't a religious thing.

Section 5 (b) of the executive order:
"Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."

Considering every one of these countries are majority Muslim, this is indeed a religious thing.

Muslims in the US have come out in favor of extreme vetting

And yet, more speak out in opposition.

some Muslim *countries* have come out in favor of the ban

Oh good. The countries who actually have originated people who commit terrorist acts on US soil in the past 40 years aren't upset because they weren't on the ban list. This makes the US safer how, again?

and the president's approval rating has jumped 5 points

So polls by media outlets with a conservative lean that support your position are trustworthy, but all others are "fake news" put out by the "mainstream media". Just want to make sure I've got the logic sorted out here.

And for the record, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

"Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant's or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea

The act was invoked as a direct reaction to the civil war in Syria, the formation of ISIS, its subsequent offensive into Iraq, and the annexation of Crimea. All major regional events. The act was invoked this time to block entry by terrorists from countries with no recent major events. Technically the president has the power under the act to say, "only caucasian females with blonde hair weighing between 100 and 140 pounds may enter the US," but he still has to justify it.

Can someone explain how this is anything to get worked up over?

In the simplest terms, because executive orders that very blatantly do not help any of the things they say they are for are not a good thing.

Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

Well, that ended pretty predictably. At least the pro-Trump diehard posts are consistent in their straw man demonizing.

Considering weapons ownership, or at least firearm ownership, does statistically increase your chance of premature death, its valid.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Not as cut and dry as you purport, this article even mentions your shoddy poll. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...

A compromise with the GOP? The hell it was. Not even ONE member of the GOP in the House or Senate voted for this, not even one. This whole thing was 100% the Democrats doing. Republicans wanted NOTHING to do with this.

Except for the amendments they approved.

But hey, you know what? They had 6 years to do anything else. But all they did was scream repeal, but then what?

Remember the "You are going to have to pass it to find out what's in it" thing from Ole Nancy P at the time? Why did she say that?

Yeah, we remember the narrative, as what she was actually saying was that the GOP was lying so much about it, that the average person had no idea what was in it. Some people still confuse the ACA and Obamacare as if they were separate things.

Because the Republicans where just a few hours away from being able to actually having enough votes to stop the ACA with the election of a republican in the Special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat who was to be sworn in. There was not even time to READ the bill before everybody had to vote.

March 10was the speech, months after th Senate had passed their bill, leaving the House to confirm it in two weeks.

Democrats had to pass this sight unseen, which is what their leaders asked and what they did.

Nope. There was plenty of scrutiny and debate.

Many are no longer in office because of this.

Nope. Try gerrymandering.

I consider the ACA to be the start of the long decline of democrats power who have been losing more and more power as they tried to cling to this ACA mess... Obama killed your party, it's power, it's credibility with all this mess and until you realize it, you will be the opposing party, the party of "no" and nothing else.

Well, that's what worked for the GOP, isn't it? Except you know, losing the popular vote.

Ouchies. Three Presidential losses of the popular vote in a row, and not too well in 2010, guess you ought to reconsider which party is dying.

Smells like more of what I am starting to refer to as 'Trumped up news'.

Not that I support the man (or in fact could really care less directly about US politics), however it seems very important to quite a group of people to
make it look like the sky is falling right now. It is quite sad to see the side that believes they stand for fairness, doing the right thing, caring of others, etc
having to throw so much dirt so bitterly. Its like watching monkeys at the zoo fighting over scraps.

No it's not. It raising the alarm over alarming actions. It's the same thing thing that happened to some other guy. It's the same thing that yet some other guy did many many times.

when you think the press is critical of you, and not the other guy, you're just biased. when you complain and criticize almost non-stop, then call it unfair when other people criticize and complain about you, you're just a fucking cry-baby.

So how many Republicans in power actually said he wasn't a legitimate president?

Let's see, Try here. That's a lot of gabbling, isn't it? At best, you have them pandering to the Birthers, which is shameful on its own, perhaps more so.

That's just in Congress, doesn't count Sheriff Arpaio or Donald Trump.

You kinda lose on the Birther High Ground with Donald Trump there.

How many made it a point to boycott his inauguration?

I dunno, but at least one was asinine at a State of the Union. Plenty of incivility from the GOP at that.

And face it, Scalia had been running his mouth off for a while too. And Alito got so hysterical he totally had a bitchfest over a majority opinion that he joined a dissent just to whine.

Asians/Blacks/Whites/Purples

That's racist!!!

The high speed transfers are (planned to be) from the far ends of the commuter rail systems, far outside the heart of the city. They abandoned the plan to directly link the city centers to keep the cost under $100 Billion.

You're thinking of the Initial Operating Section, where you'll take a commuter train (Metrolink) from Union Station to Palmdale, then a bullet train to San Jose, then another commuter train (Caltrain) to the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. They just want to get something running quickly so the infrastructure doesn't sit idle.

Later, the plan for Phase 1 Blended (2029) is a one-seat ride from Union Station all the way to SF, but it will share tracks with commuter trains to Palmdale and again from San Jose to SF until they upgrade those sections in a later phase.

Because it's slower, much more expensive, and technologically backward.

Slower? Did you know that even bicycles are sometimes faster than jetliners?

More expensive? Then why has an airliner never built an airport while railroad companies have built railroads?

Technologically backward? Can you think of any mode of travel that's more fuel-efficient than electric trains (500+ passenger-MPGe)? I can, but it's a bicycle.

And airports can serve people who don't just want to go between LA and SF.

Can a single airline flight land at a couple dozen airports between LA and SF like a train can, and still be competitive on cost and time?

I think the best way to thank users for finding bugs is to send them a DMCA takedown notice and threaten them with legal action. This has been working well since the DMCA was implemented, I mean why stop the practice now?

1) 49 is a big number if you are one of them
2) Fire fighting, containment, and cleanup exposed some 500k workers to the site. And the actual death toll is probably underestimated: http://www.slate.com/articles/...

If you watch the documentary there are a number of people who worked on the project who were in bad health. Which could be radiation, heavy metal poisoning, or a host of many other nasty things found in industrial sites e.g. PCBs, Dioxin, asbestos, etc.

And then there's the parents selling their daughters to men to eventually be married to them when they are old enough. If they're below the legal age of consent even with parental consent, and there is compensation involved, it's child prostitution. This stuff might be legal and/or traditional where some of these people came from, but it's not legal here. (And it wasn't necessarily legal back home, either.) And it goes on plenty. Also, where do people think all those missing kids go? A lot of them are never even reported. Of those that are, those who are never found and for whom there is no evidence of abduction are simply written off as unexplained, but we have reason to believe that a lot of them are sold into slavery of some kind, perhaps even predominantly sexual slavery and with nothing to look forward to but a bad end.

I think I see the disconnect. I'm assuming the reset process provided in the manual would work for someone who didn't modify their TV. You are assuming that the process in the manual wouldn't work on ANY TV, virus laden or not. If your assumption is correct, then yeah, LG is a dick and should try a little harder to fix it. If my assumption is correct I have zero sympathy for the guy.

Did a quick google, Slate has a little more detail. It appears the dude got them to provide the info on an alternate factory reset. Still doesn't say if it worked or not though.

http://www.slate.com/content/d...

School vouchers used to promote competition improved education for Sweden.

It is a bit of a stretch to consider Sweden's voucher program a success. Your link is paywalled so I don't know anything about it's findings but another decade of data (your report is from 2005) has been less than kind to Sweden's voucher program.

That illustrates one big problem with some of these privatization efforts. For any new program it is often easy to show immediate benefits by focusing on low hanging fruit, so it usually takes decades to understand the real impact of these changes. Luckily we now have examples in Sweden and South Korea to show the dangers of mixing a profit motive with education.

I like how you've smoothly changed requiring consent into needing written permission as an attempt to discredit it.

What is "consent"? If it is anything less than a written (signed and solemnly notarized) note, how do we know, Trump didn't have it?

When Trump makes a statement without bountiful evidence to back it up, he is denounced as a liar — because absence of proof is, conveniently ("smoothly" you would say), is changed into proof of absence. For example:

So, if Trump's statements are lies unless proven (#PresumptionOfGuilt), how could he possibly prove having obtain consent from those women years ago? Only by getting it in writing... Which he failed to do and is, by the special rules created for Republican politicians, guilty.

I saw something (could be wrong) that said most of her popular votes excess came from 3 precincts in CA.
  I think she lost 200 counties/precincts? that President Obama won twice in fly over country.
Maybe if she connected better with everyday middle class voters and those votes were spread out. She would be taking office Jan 20th.

This kind of talking point is more common of late. The theory on the right is that voters in low population density states have more of a right to choose a president than voters in high population density states. In fact that is all the EC does. (The bit where the electors actually could try to stop bad candidates was proven absolutely useless today, since they are all partisan hacks.)

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this and I never will. If you extend this argument, if someone managed to buy out an entire state they would get what 3 electoral votes all by themselves. It doesn't make sense. If you look at the top ten states that actually contribute to the federal government, guess what, they are all blue states. The top ten takers, if you will, guess what, they are red states.link

I just don't see any logic in giving more say in federal elections to those who contribute less. It does not make sense.

One person, one vote. Anything else is just nonsense. The usual response is that only the big cities will matter. That is simply not true. The EC vote was not that far from the popular vote. Clearly it is anything but an insurmountable barrier and it is not as if you have to campaign in every small town to be heard. We've had television for quite some time. Now we might need better news services, but that is another matter. You could with today's technology give every major party their own tv channel with no great effort.