Slashdot Mirror

Actually, the "Born in Kenya" is because the dust-jacket biography for his first book said so.

In the same vein, a majority of Democrats believe Russia actually modified vote totals during the 2016 election, despite there being zero evidence for that - even less evidence than the Birthers ever had.

Basically, extreme political polarization has led idiots (which form the majority base of both major political parties) to believe stupid things. Stupid people gonna stupid.

Thing is, there is no such list

Because you say so? "Thing is", if you want to correct a news report you need to cite your sources or nobody will believe you.

and no one ever said any terms were banned

According to the Washington Post, Alison Kelly did. That she did has not been denied by anybody. I checked snopes and all I found was a very generic official denial that leaves a lot of wiggle room. The CDC director even confirmed that the staff meeting took place and that "confusion arose" from it. This sounds more like a confirmation of the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune reports.

The Portugal MEO example, to which all of these links refer, is false

You're probably confused by the fact that many ignorant people today use the term socialist to describe a capitalist welfare state

No, i'm not confused by social democracies, i'm confused by how someone can elect to be as stupid as whoever wrote your post. What doesn't surprise me is you had to post it anonymously so people wouldn't know which stupid person to mock.

https://www.indy100.com/articl...

https://www.snopes.com/2017/09...

http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-...

...or you can check out pretty much any site that isn't run by partisan hacks for the right-wingers lying through their teeth (i'm sure not all are lying, some might simply be too fucking stupid). Better yet, we can do an experiment... you go down to one of these alt-right neo-nazi group meetings, and you yell out at all these guys that they're nothing but a bunch of left wing socialists.... and we'll see how that goes for you. And do remember when they're curbstomping what's left of your skull into the concrete.. if you'd filled your head with something other than lies and bullshit, you wouldn't be getting that shit kicked out of you.

https://www.snopes.com/643000-...
Based on finding before ACA was implemented, and it's not entirely clear how accurate the number is but it is based off a real study.

"Prescription" in this context means the optical characteristics of the lenses needed to correct your vision. Not a doctor's authorization to purchase, like a drug prescription.

If you don't have your latest prescription from your eye doctor, most eyeglass shops will be happy to measure your current glasses to determine your old prescription, then grind duplicate lenses.

The bigger issue IMHO is Luxottica. Ever wonder why a few pieces of plastic and metal you place on your face cost $200+ before you even buy lenses for them? And why those Taiwanese mail-order glasses places can sell you frames for only $15? It's because one company owns or has controlling interest in most of the popular eyeglass brands and a large fraction of stores worldwide, and they rig the prices.

Snopes provides a more critical take on that article: https://www.snopes.com/history...

'“Very interesting, educational, historical, completely true, and hysterical”? One out of five, maybe.'

Hell Donna Brazille was caught giving the Clinton camp debate questions before the debate from CNN. You get that? They all colluded.

It's interesting you mention that specific example. Clinton did get debate questions in advance but in the debate in question she wasn't debating against Trump - she was debating against Bernie Sanders and other candidates for the Democratic nomination. Trump then turned this into fake news and falsely claimed that Clinton had gotten the questions to the Clinton vs Trump debate in advance.

If $125k worth of ads on FaceBook really had such a massive impact (and please cite any reputable source that shows facts on that happening), then perhaps it is time to introduce an idiocy test before being allowed to vote. If you get all your news from FaceBook or spend more than 15 hours a week on FaceBook/SnapChat/Twitter then perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Or if you can't spot at least 50% of which articles are fake in a pool of say 12 articles then you don't get to vote.

Or better yet, if your annual tax filings are 0 or negative (yes some people get more money back than they pay in) then perhaps you also shouldn't be allowed to vote since you have no actual skin in the game. As soon as the tipping point is reached (which isn't too far away) that more than 50% of the voters are those who always vote a socialist agenda to take away from one group to give to another, then the nation is headed for collapse. As Margaret Thatcher put it:

SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS TRADITIONALLY DO MAKE A FINANCIAL MESS. THEY ALWAYS RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

And you get socialist governments by having an il-informed electorate who are easily manipulated into voting one in by constantly saying things like "how is the government going to pay for that tax cut?" - how about maybe STOP SPENDING SO MUCH? - or "that will only benefit the rich". Of course it benefits the rich because 45% of Americans pay no federal income tax so a cut from 0 is 0.

In contrast however the other half pay 97.3% of all taxes with the top 5% of earners carrying a whopping 59.97% of the tax burden but only controlling 35% of the income. So of course a tax cut benefits the wealthy because they're the ones actually PAYING TAXES. But you ask any of these idiots who were supposedly swayed by Russian ads about these facts and they'll spew the Democrat/US Media propaganda about how the rich "don't pay their fair share". I haven't heard that those lies were part of any Russian ads, so who really is interfering in US elections by spreading fake ads and news stories?

Hell, if that minuscule amount of spending by the evil Russians had such a great impact that it overpowered almost a billion dollars in spending and full cooperation from 90% of all media outlets, then the Russians should start a 5th Avenue Advertising firm and they'd end up controlling the entire world without firing a shot. After all their mere $120k+ investment apparently completely changed the outcome of an election in the United States whereas Obama's $350k interference had no impact on the Israeli election.

Maybe that is why there is so much supposed anger over the Russians involvement because they apparently showed how incompetent Obama was (again) by spending less than half what he did.

Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?

The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than almost any other nation. Yes, the US government, excluding the private sector.

Per capita what? Per population? Per taxpayer? But what about in terms of healthcare received, or in terms of assessing the costs of healthcare?

Think about the difference. Then cite your sources. I'm sure you realize that hand-waved declarations of vague assertions are not especially persuasive when we know how easy it is to lie with statistics.

The problem with the US healthcare system isn't excessive stinginess by the government, it is excessive costs and excessive prices.

Indeed, among other things, it's lack of coverage. And bankruptcies.

Which isn't caused by the government being stingy, it's because the government isn't being thrifty enough by operating its own healthcare facilities. Oh wait, that's because the government is being made to be stingy under the false pretense of not providing its own healthcare facilities!

And the ACA did nothing to address excessive costs and prices (because drug companies, lawyers, and doctors tend to be big donors), instead it simply tried to force Americans to pay those excessive prices in perpetuity, which ensures that this will never get fixed.

Yes, it didn't have a public health insurance provision, let alone a healthcare provision, but we knew this at the time.

Do you not have any actual recall of the situation?

However, you forget the specific subsidies that did reduce the costs for the poor.

That some of us would have preferred hiring more doctors and providing better medical care directly, well, we didn't get a vote on that, now did we?

So if the money allocated to the border wall is unused, it does not go to healthcare

And by "healthcare", you mean the yachts and estates of wealthy doctors, insurance company executives, and pharmaceutical companies.

Now now, we're told "trickledown> " is essential by the GOP. It's their tax-plan now.

Sorry man, you've got less than you think.

But hey, at least you can get your pills.

Look, you know what's happening is due to the GOP, they're the party that's responsible now. And they're going to do their best job...of filling their own pockets. And baking

The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than almost any other nation. Yes, the US government, excluding the private sector.

Per capita what? Per population? Per taxpayer? But what about in terms of healthcare received, or in terms of assessing the costs of healthcare?

Think about the difference. Then cite your sources. I'm sure you realize that hand-waved declarations of vague assertions are not especially persuasive when we know how easy it is to lie with statistics.

The problem with the US healthcare system isn't excessive stinginess by the government, it is excessive costs and excessive prices.

Indeed, among other things, it's lack of coverage. And bankruptcies.

Which isn't caused by the government being stingy, it's because the government isn't being thrifty enough by operating its own healthcare facilities. Oh wait, that's because the government is being made to be stingy under the false pretense of not providing its own healthcare facilities!

And the ACA did nothing to address excessive costs and prices (because drug companies, lawyers, and doctors tend to be big donors), instead it simply tried to force Americans to pay those excessive prices in perpetuity, which ensures that this will never get fixed.

Yes, it didn't have a public health insurance provision, let alone a healthcare provision, but we knew this at the time.

Do you not have any actual recall of the situation?

However, you forget the specific subsidies that did reduce the costs for the poor.

That some of us would have preferred hiring more doctors and providing better medical care directly, well, we didn't get a vote on that, now did we?

So if the money allocated to the border wall is unused, it does not go to healthcare

And by "healthcare", you mean the yachts and estates of wealthy doctors, insurance company executives, and pharmaceutical companies.

Now now, we're told "trickledown> " is essential by the GOP. It's their tax-plan now.

Sorry man, you've got less than you think.

But hey, at least you can get your pills.

Look, you know what's happening is due to the GOP, they're the party that's responsible now. And they're going to do their best job...of filling their own pockets. And baking

You said "What is coming next: you will only be allowed to connect to the Internet by rented "approved" devices provided by a handful of companies"

Did that happen before Net Neutrality to a greater extent than it does now?

The US does have a problem with competition - but that's because companies like Comcast are given a regional monopoly of high speed internet access. Net Neutrality won't fix that. It won't even stop 'zero rating', which is the thing companies like Google are worried about.

T-Mobile Binge On doesnâ(TM)t violate Net neutrality rules, says FCC chairman

Zero rating is what that Portuguese mobile operator Meo did, and that also didn't violate EU net neutrality laws

https://truthonthemarket.com/2...

This tempest in the teacup is about mobile data plans, specifically the ability of mobile subscribers to supplement their data plan (typically ranging from 200 MB to 3 GB per month) with additional 10 GB data packages containing specific bundles of apps - messaging apps, social apps, video apps, music apps, and email and cloud apps. Each additional 10 GB data package costs EUR 6.99 per month and Meo (the mobile operator) also offers its own zero rated apps. Similar plans have been offered in Portugal since at least 2012.

These data packages are a clear win for mobile subscribers, especially pre-paid subscribers who tend to be at a lower income level than post-paid subscribers. They allow consumers to customize their plan beyond their mobile broadband subscription, enabling them to consume data in ways that are better attuned to their preferences. Without access to these data packages, consuming an additional 10 GB of data would cost each user an additional EUR 26 per month and require her to enter into a two year contract.

Even the reliably left wing Snopes pointed out that comparing Meo's Smart Net to cable where you need to choose a subset of channels is bullshit

https://www.snopes.com/portuga...

Except Portugal does practice net neutrality, and the graphic doesn't accurately depict what Portugal's internet looks like overall.

The European Union's Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply.

The service promoted in the MEO graphic, "Smart Net," is essentially a menu of add-ons to the company's standard mobile data service plan. Contrary to the way it's been presented, it doesn't limit users' access to particular apps or sites. Rather, it lays out prepackaged options via which MEO customers can add extra gigabytes of data usage to their mobile phone plans (similar to Vodafone's "Passes" offerings).

And of course there are other plans than Smart Net and other telcos than Meo in Portugal, just like when T Mobile launched Binge On, you had other choices of telco. And other plans.

Actually in most places other than the US you've typically got a choice of ISPs for your fixed internet connection. E.g. you can choose between multiple DSL providers in the UK. And, if you live in a city probably cable and fibre ones too.

US regulations stifle competition, and those are the regulations you should worry about. Not that your mobile company offers you a deal where it costs EUR 6.99 to get 10GB to a subset of websites instead of EUR 26 for a neutral 10 GB.

All it means is that if you spend all your time on Facebook and Youtube, you can get 10GB of data to those for EUR 6.99 instead of having to pay EUR 26.

Of course Google and Facebook hate this because they think the ISPs will charge them to be zero rated. But who cares? Google and Facebook suck just as ba

The Democrats sold our strategic uranium supplies to Russia. The last Democrat president bowed to foreign kings. President Trump is renogiating trade terms with China, for the benefit of the US. And somehow it's the GOP that is wrong? Who's the fucking shill now?

...which he will later claim to be considering adding solar panels after a reporter covers how his personal carbon footprint is hundreds of times greater than the average person.

To be fair it was _only_ 21.35 times greater than the average person.

Soros is Jewish. He went to live with a non Jewish family and posed as a non Jew. And while he was doing that he worked collecting money from Jews. And even years later he doesn't seem to see anything wrong with what he did - see the 60 minutes interview I posted. It's really bizarre.

http://message.snopes.com/show...

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's -- that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not -- not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -- you don't see the connection. But it was -- it created no -- no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

It's hard to imagine Karl Popper - who coined the term 'Open Society' which Soros named his Open Society Foundations after - having a similarly disconnected view of morality where it doesn't matter if you collaborate with evil because if you didn't do it someone else would.

The reason for the 'whataboutism' during Obama's tenure related directly to the whiners who were accusing Obama of this and that while completely ignoring Bush had done the exact same thing and didn't say one word.

It was a perfectly legitimate argument to use. If one didn't complain when Bush did it, one cannot complain when Obama did it.

Remember all those "illegal" executive orders Obama signed? Too bad Bush had more and both were outclassed by Reagan. And after whining about those "illegal" executive orders, what does the con artist do? Start signing more "illegal" executive orders on his first day in office.

But Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time.

Totally agree about the hate though -- controversy, conflict and violence sure are profitable though and as long as our media systems makes money by keeping everyone continuously angry and offended -- it's not going to change. When TV news wasn't supposed to be profitable, journalism provided more light than heat.

> So what? The original remark was is pretty much what the voters expect so disputing that necessarily refers to the popular vote as done by the voters.

So the uneducated voters think that the popular vote decides who is president?

Well, no, it's Mr. Trump who thinks something about the electoral college, back in 2012 when he mistakenly perceived that Obama had lost the popular vote yet won the electoral college. He made numerous vituperative denunciations on that.

Now of course, he suddenly can't say that, though he's still compelled to fabricate an unsupported fairy tale about illegal voters in order to justify his ego-base claims that he didn't lose the popular vote. He couldn't even accurately describe his victory, but ended up ignoring who outperformed him in the electoral college, and how even George W. Bush in 2004 got more voters in many states than he did.

And the liberals still want to call the Trump supporters uneducated? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black!

No, I would call Mr. Trump's supporters a rusted crucible that is slowly disintegrating into even more useless scrap.

STOP! It's fact-check time!

https://www.snopes.com/trumps-...

https://www.snopes.com/donald-...

STOP! It's fact-check time!

https://www.snopes.com/trumps-...

https://www.snopes.com/donald-...

/Oblg. X marks the spot, aka Handyman's Invoice

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

More here

They might get their eventually but they start off with english so that's why.

Here's the snopes version as it gets mangled and inflated as it passes around the internet.

https://www.snopes.com/faceboo...

" âoeAgents will drift off understandable language and invent codewords for themselves,â says Batra, speaking to a now-predictable phenomenon thatâ(TM)s been observed again, and again, and again. âoeLike if I say âtheâ(TM) five times, you interpret that to mean I want five copies of this item. This isnâ(TM)t so different from the way communities of humans create shorthands.â

The article notes that the researchers chose not to let the bots continue developing a private language in favor of programming them to stick to plain English, given that the whole point of the research is to improve AI-to-human communication."

Snopes and some other "experts" say it's not about the black death. I just learned this earlier today... man the matrix i mean internet is weird like that.

https://www.snopes.com/languag...

Devin Nunes Op-Ed?
Try again chimp
Seriously chumps, every time you post a right wing screed you look MORE stupid

Ugh, stop perpetuating this lie.

Yes, enlightenment is good. Single-payer in CA isn't dead; it's tabled until it's done correctly - http://www.latimes.com/politic...

Judicial Watch, Inc. appears to be rather biased, as evidenced by the below:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
http://www.snopes.com/dhs-quie...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
I'd take their filings with a grain of salt...or two or three.

Someone isn't being above board here see http://www.snopes.com/politics... There is no such requirement, for 'public health reporting' or otherwise.

Snopes has a fact check of what's been sent to Puerto Rico. Trump may be an insufferable idiot but to say the Federal government is dragging it's feet is just bullshit. Must more be done? Absolutely, but the narrative that the government is doing less than they did for Texas and Florida is just wrong. Aid did get there faster but until they pave over the Caribbean that's going to continue to be a problem. The only questionable call was not suspending the Jones act so non-American flagged ships can help with supplies, but right now the infrastructure is so screwed that the military is the best one to be distributing aid. Their ships have the ability to offload without shore support, most commercial ships don't and would just be getting in the way at this point. Once they get power, diesel, etc back to the docks then yes, they could use more ships.

Project Veritas, fraudulent election videos debunked.
Enjoy

Or just simply, Snopes:

Did Puerto Rico's Teamsters Union Go on Strike During Hurricane Maria Relief Efforts?
Reports that truck drivers are on strike in Puerto Rico are false -- Teamsters have asked mainland truckers to distribute supplies in the U.S. territory. ...

The Conservative Treehouse then went on to claim, again falsely, that the cause of this shortfall in truck drivers was a deliberate, coordinated strike action by the local Teamsters union. Similar claims were also made by the Gateway Pundit and entrepreneur Kambree Kawahine Koa.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters rejected these claims entirely, telling us the reports were “fake news” and adding that the Teamsters Local 901 in Puerto Rico was “doing everything but refuse to help” in relief efforts.

In a statement, Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa called the reports “nothing but lies”: ...

Indeed, Colonel Michael Valle — one of the sources cited by the Conservative Treehouse — went on to tell the Huffington Post:

There should be zero blame on the drivers. They can’t get to work, the infrastructure is destroyed, they can’t get fuel themselves, and they can’t call us for help because there’s no communication.

...

A CNBC report cited in the Conservative Treehouse post also undermines the claim that there was a strike. As the reporter explains:

There are 3,000 cargo containers here at Crowley, one of the biggest shippers in Puerto RicoHere’s the problem – the truck drivers can’t get to the terminal to get their containers outYou’re looking at truck drivers who can’t be reached by their businesses by cell phone, they don’t have the gas to get to work, and then even when they do get to work, their semi-trucks don’t have fuel. The problem is the supply chain.

Etc, etc, etc.

Now, what you should be asking yourself right now is, "What sort of bullshit places have I been getting my information from that sold me on this story? What other bullshit have they sold me on over the years? What other bullshit do I currently believe that they sold me on?"

Yeah, project Veritas is so clean their "documentarians" were indicted for criminal forgery and are waiting civil trial for fraud and libel

Antifa are not terrorists
Take your spanking and go shut up!

Since no one has "exposed" Antifa for terrorists, given that they have never initiated violence and have never murdered anyone, (Which your friends have done)
Seriously chump, you make yourself look the liar this way.

No, they called themselves "socialist" only to trick workers.

The actions they took were not left wing.

They oppressed workers rights.
They destroyed labor unions (and killed labor union leaders).
They removed social safety nets for all non-aryans.
Hitler and other nazi officials openly attacked the left wing verbally as well.
Far from social equality, they were for social elitism of a few aryans.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/09/...

Despite using the word "socialist" in their title, the nazi's did not take "left wing" actions. They took "right wing" actions.

So toss aside the "left/right" wing title.

Are we opposed to stripping workers of protections against unpaid overtime, safety and health protections?
Are we opposed to killing and enslaving people who are not member of a particular racial group?
Are we opposed to a version of nationalism that justifies invading and conquering other nations- killing their people- stealing their resources- i.e. war?
Are we opposed to a version of racism which extended to experimenting on children until they died and included atrocities like using their skin to make lampshades?

Are you?

Except that she didn't. Stop swallowing Dotard45's jizz.

The likeliest point of origin we’ve been able to find was a post on conservative message board FreeRepublic.com dated 1 March 2008 (which, according to a report in The Telegraph, was at least a month before Clinton supporters got on the e-mail bandwagon):

Did Clinton Supporters Start the 'Birther' Movement?

The first one is an opinion piece that asks questions.

Sure. And that asking betrays the author's desire for "hate speech" being banned.

nobody who really doesn't believe in AGW would be prosecuted.

Ah, yes, yes, sure. As Snopes said:

California Senate Bill (SB) 1161 sought to make dissemination of scientifically inaccurate or misleading information by businesses and organizations an offense covered by California's unfair competition law.

Small comfort, though — because what is and what is not "scientifically inaccurate" will be up to the prosecutors (and then juries).

I'm certainly not going to want you shut down by legal means.

Most generous of you. There is, however, a sizeable minority, which sees it differently — and these Constitution-undermining proposals reach as high as pages of New York Times. And the far-Left is particularly against it — openly and unabashedly advocating violence against holders of certain opinions. Just as the subject of this thread says...

Don't take my word for it — the "classical" Liberals are appalled by these alt-Left's trends as well, even if their argument against it boils down to the self-serving "it will backfire" warnings...

> That's because intuition is, from an engineering standpoint, crap -- only to an idiot engineer.

FTFY.

Emotions are not logical either but that doesn't make them crap.

Mathematicians have been using intuition for thousands of years to solve problems.

Just because _you_ don't understand it, now how to use it reliably, doesn't make it crap. Intuition is just another tool, like Logic, to solve problems. Only a complete idiot dismisses a tool because he doesn't understand how to use it.

Maybe you should pay more attention to history (Handymanâ(TM)s Invoice, Engineer marked X)

Specifically why did Henri Poincaré publish Intuition and Logic in mathematics (page 11) as part of La valeur de la science (The Value of Science) in 1905 if intuition wasn't important???

> It's common sense to be afraid of something that moves at hundreds of mile per hour thousands of feet in the air.

Hmm, let's compare:

* 700 MPHs vs 70 MPHs -- the speed is an order of magnitude in difference, and
* traveling at a height of 30,000 feet vs surface level,

Gee, ya think there _might_ be some rational fear to flying !?

You mean something like the outrage factories called Fox News or InforWars?

Yeah, that stuff sucks. People shouldn't watch any TV news and they should be deeply skeptical of any other news reports. Especially if the stories are interesting or seem to confirm a specific belief or bias they hold.

"There are fools on the other side too" isn't really saying much, is it? Let's all stop being fools and tell our people to stop believing this garbage and letting themselves be manipulated for an agenda or for ad clicks.

Or maybe the latest claim that Jennifer Lawrence said that Trump was to blame for the hurricanes? Nevermind that she didn't say that.

I looked it up. She tied hurricanes to "voting" through climate change. Celebrities say stupid stuff like this all the time. When there's a disaster with an very obvious human toll, making political statements about it is extremely bad form. Hopefully she learned not to do that.

It's sad that Fox is taking statements out of context and trolling their viewers the same way CNN does.

PS: Snopes confirms that Casor was "among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court." Not Politifact but equivalent. And The Smithsonian states has an article titled "The Horrible Fate of John Casor, The First Black Man to be Declared Slave for Life in America". I guess Snopes and the Smithsonian can no longer be trusted?

Snopes looked at this: http://www.snopes.com/obama-mu...

The issue seems to be that because it was easy for the delivery company to accommodate the religious requirements they should have. In the case of the bakery didn't argue that the burden would be undue, merely that they didn't want to do it because of the message.

It could certainly do with some clarification, rather than two separate and seemingly (but not actually) contradictory outcomes.

When both Snopes and Politfact say that the lobster with the EBT card is true, you can be pretty sure it's true...

1. I pay with a good plan about 20 euro per month for my smart phone, and 30 euro for my land line... So explain us carefully why smart phone are money thrown out ? Keep in mind that to get a job almost certainly you will need to have some sort of phone connection, so that you get called back.

2. the puritain moral argument... The worst things ever. Program like food stamp make sure people and children get food and do not have to make choice like "phone/rent/food or medicine pick 1". Making it a PITA to get benefits never showed that people get a job quicker (there are some cheater, but they are a crushing minority). It only make people more desperate and more outcast.

Let me guess, you are a republican, and you get your news from fox news or breitbart.

And in case you bring the choomer argument that they are using EBT to get money in cash : http://www.snopes.com/politics... it is false.

When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

This is nothing new. The only difference is modern technology and connectivity makes the reach and impact greater. There have always been propaganda in the form of shortwave radio broadcasts, printed text (leaflets, magazines, books), one on one contact and even television. It's just that in the past a person had to more actively seek out these communications to be exposed to them. Now it is coming through in our more normal day-to-day lives.

The problem is that the bulk of the Western public is naive and takes too many things at face value. There's an innocence, if you will. A big part of that is not having been (too terribly) deceived by government to the point it led to things like mass imprisonment or death.

Misinformation and gullibility is rampant on social media and it needs to be addressed more fundamentally, but unfortunately social media represents one of the truest forms of democracy, and the results shed light on the fact that the "average" person is simply not very intelligent when it comes to certain matters.

For example, the people constantly sharing Facebook posts that say crap like "We ordered too many luxury RVs and they are last year's model so we have to give them away", and all the various permutations thereof ( http://www.snopes.com/luxury-r... ). It really takes a special kind of naivety to share something like that.

The one that is particularly annoying to me at this moment are people sharing pictures of this traffic jam from Rita (Texas, 2005) claiming it is from the Irma hurricane hitting Florida right now (and then it typically includes other stuff like "this is why so many people have to shelter in place and not evacuate"): http://www.hurricanescience.or... That is a much more subtle type of misinformation, but it is still "fake news".

So no, in answer to the question, we don't need government / corporations / etc trying to protect the American people from foreign propaganda. We need to educate the populace in a more general way to identify and filter out manipulative "fake news" and other garbage of the sort.

Accepting Equifax's help forfeits your right to sue;

Nope. New York's attorney general demanded they clarify the wording on this.

No, you should stop reading Breitbart news. You are wrong.

Try this article from Snopes.

Any change in definition happened under Bush, not Obama.

More explanation here. Unless you would like to claim that Obama was president in 1996?

Don't bother, the Putinbots are here. No proof will satisfy them.

Snopes of course publishes its evidence and sources on the page, for anyone to check.

> The titanic was badged as "unsinkable".

Nope.

But by all means, ponder failure modes.