Slashdot Mirror

So would you say that denying entry to people based on their religion is in line with American ideals?

I would say, it depends on the religion. One of the major aspects of Islam is Sharia and the (world-wide) Theocracy. Both directly contradict the US Constitution — holding any religion with such tenets is valid grounds for suspicion and extra scrutiny.

If people believed that then I would wonder why they would voluntarily move to a country that is not a Theocracy.

For its higher level of living — "it is the economy, stupid".

The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%. The number for Canada is 60%, the U.K. — 40%. The problem is real...

If anyone expressing a sincere religious belief were denied entry, I think that our country would be better for it

Then you are a fool. Sadly, an alternative to religion is not the cheerful agnosticism, or the sophisticated atheism. Absent a coherent religion of some kind, the void is filled by dark superstitions (think "bad omens", witch-burning, and black cat-chasing), that are worse than even Islam.

People want to share personal information with other human beings without sharing it with the rest of the world.

This is hardly a new problem — we've had it for thousands of years.

Your secret becomes less and less secret the more you share it with others. There is no "right to be forgotten" — and there never was. The prospect of it ever becoming mandatory to submit oneself to a memory-erasing procedure — such as to satisfy a court's order in a divorce case — scares me more than anybody watching me having sex...

I think they missed a golden opportunity:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Why they didn't concoct some really misleading information and send that out I don't understand...

They could have had a field day!
-nb

It would probably be considered an act of piracy in international legal terms.

Pirates were, customarily, hung by the neck until dead. Can't do that in zero-gravity...

Throwing one out of an airlock is rather cruel — and unusual too. Wasting your own crew's sole means of evacuation on transferring the captured pirates to Earth is not only wasteful, but may well condemn the said crew to death.

Keeping the detained pirates up there — and feeding them food at $17,000-20,000 per kilogram? Talk about waste of taxpayers' money!

Letting them "go", as we now do in our vegetarian times with most maritime pirates, is not going to be an option either — where are they going to go and what'll keep them from coming right back to your space-station after you leave?

Quite a dilemma, actually... Unless you handle it the Russian way — "release" the bastards, but make sure, they die before reaching the shore.

... George Washington fought for my right ...

Boo-hoo. Italians have a court-mandated entitlement to masturbate in front of women.

I blame people. Facebook and Twitter wouldn't have so much power today if everyone hadn't collectively decided to sign over their online lives to them. Time was when there were separate and popular services for photosharing, blogging, email and chat. Now nobody uses anything but Facebook, and Whatsapp and FB messenger, so good luck trying to find others to use encrypted apps like Signal unless you hang out with security experts.
The new norm is also that everyone should post online using their real identities, hence we have cases like the atheist bloggers being murdered in Bangladesh, or when companies fish around for information on Facebook for screening new hires.

Funny thing about that ....

Birther row began with Hillary Clinton - 27 Apr 2011

The lie that Barack Obama was not born in the US has been fuelled by fringe Republicans — but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.

Reminds me of that AI that Microsoft put on Twitter a few months back that got turned into a Nazi within about 24 hours due to people messing with it. Unless you have a really intelligent algorithm, it won't take too long before a person figures out how to manipulate it. Some do so for their own profit like all the SEO stuff targeted at Google's algorithms and others just do it for their own twisted amusement.

Cheating is pretty visible.. Indian students who feel they have a right to cheat.

"It is our democratic right!" a thin, addled-looking man named Pratap Singh once said to me as he stood, chai in hand, outside his university in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. "Cheating is our birthright."

Corruption in the university exam system is common in this part of India. The rich can bribe their way to examination success. There's even a whole subset of the youth population who are brokers between desperate students and avaricious administrators.

Then there's another class of student altogether, who are so well known locally - so renowned for their political links - invigilators dare not touch them. I've heard that these local thugs sometimes leave daggers on their desk in the exam hall. It's a sign to invigilators: "Leave me alone... or else."

Everything I wrote is borne out by a quick search. You can get a degree in India without attending class or knowing shit.

The question is, what's the solution? When pro-cheating rallies were held in Uttar Pradesh in the early 1990s, the state's chief minister gave in to demands and repealed an anti-copying act - he actually allowed students to cheat.

Institutionalized cheating ... and look what happens when they try to stop it

More than 3000 students of 20 law colleges in the eastern Indian state of Orissa have boycotted their final university examination and demonstrated in protest against a ban on copying.

The students turned against teachers when they were stopped from copying inside examination halls this week.

Authorities called in police for help.

"On frisking in the presence of the police, we found almost all students carrying books and photocopied notes hidden on their body," education official Radhanath Mishra, said from the state capital of Bhubaneswar.

"We asked them to hand over all the illegally smuggled study materials. But they did not listen to us."

When authorities seized the smuggled notes and books with the help of police, the students turned violent and left the examination halls in protest.

According to reports, students of almost all law colleges ready to take the same examination around the state protested in a similar way demanding they be allowed to "resort to cheating" during the examination.

Students of the University Law College of Bhubaneswar and Madhusudan Law College of Cuttack blocked the Calcutta-Madras national highway for more than three hours and burnt tyres protesting against the authority's decision to be "strict" during law exams this year.

Blocking traffic by burning tires for the "right to cheat" - only students who can't pass the exams (which is the vast majority of them) have to resort to cheating. And the "best" students are the ones most likely to have cheated or used intimidation, because it's easier to get a perfect score that way.

You've read some of the claims about dear leader, right?

I mean, the man wrote 1,500 books in three years while at a University. He picked up a golf club in 1984 and hit a 38 with no fewer than 11 holes in one. They couldn't possibly be crazy liars, could they?

> As an example, you say that this study from a Canadian university is racist and has been debunked extensively, which is clearly total bullshit.

The study was published in "Intelligence", which is a journal for the "International Society for Intelligence Research."

A quick google for "International Society for Intelligence Research racist" shows that recipients of it's "lifetime achievement award" and board members are widely criticized as promoting junk science, white supremacy, and furthering nazi concepts on race.

Let's take a look at some examples.

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

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

According to sociocultural anthropologist Francisco Gil-White, in publishing studies financed by the Pioneer Fund, Linda Gottfredson is part of a concerted effort to legitimize racist ideology through pseudo-science, together with an assortment of other people with inadequate or completely missing scientific qualifications for studying human intelligence"

Rushton has been discredited for over thirty years and he's viewed as nothing more than pseudo-science fuel for white supremacists like you.

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

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

And his co-author on that paper? An idiot who thinks racists like him are "the next galileos." https://www.google.com/search?...

He's so desperate to spread his bullshit that he paid to have a booklet about his work mailed to professors around the country

My thoughts exactly. I've been able to get my bank to refund as little as $200 before due to identity theft using my debit card, and that was when an item was purchased, so someone had to actually eat the charges. In this case, it seems like they see where the money went.

There was no recovery of your money. Someone ate the cost of the loss: either your bank or the merchant.

Maybe since it has to do with international borders, it'll just take a little more time.

No, it's gone. The money will have flowed through a jurisdiction where the banks will not cooperate in recovery.

On a smaller scale, a similar scam is happening with house purchases in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere)

Many other posters have already pointed out this failed in the past, and God bless the magnicent AC who pointed out Google should be charging the flagging publications for driving traffic to their sites in the first place. On this occasion, I'm on Google's side

Now as for EU Commissioner Oettinger check out his Wikipedia page. Typical fucking EU bureaucract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

He's was also responsible for the EU ban on kettles which was one big factor in driving the tea loving brits out of the EU: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Let me put in in terms an American would understand: It'd be like trying to ban coffee in America.

Who robs banks anymore? The take is comparatively low, the risk of capture extremely high and prison sentences lengthy.

It's a crime that is rapidly dying out,

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

https://www.theguardian.com/ed...

Without government subsidy, they are unaffordable. With governments facing financial troubles, the subsidies are unaffordable. It was a nice dream, a very expensive dream, but it didnâ(TM)t work.

You are wrong. It worked. The subsidies have brought down the costs of installing wind power to the point that it is becoming competitive with (and perhaps cheaper than) other forms of generation.

These 6MW turbines are actually small. 8MW turbines are being installed now. The effective cost will be higher because only a small number of turbines are being installed.

This is a recent article from someone who has been very skeptical about alternative energy

Not everyone failed. I know for a fact CNN had multiple stories on the shady information Bush was using, poking holes in his lies.

But since people consider CNN left leaning they ignored the reports, caught up in the RA! RA! of invading someone.

Even when the lies of how the Iraqis would welcome us, how they would pay for everything through their oil profits, were shown to devoid of reality, people kept calling CNN liars and anti-American for pointing out the ugly truths.

If Trump had been president he probably would have sued them for libel, as he has said he might do to anyone who puts out unfavorable coverage.

Even the guy who took a sledgehammer to Saddam's statue now vociferously regrets the invasion.

"I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."

Wait, what? Is this knife regulation gone to far, or is a plastic fork now some drug paraphernalia?

knife regulation gone to far...
Sorry it's a Torygraph link..
and I quote
'..But Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice David Steel, disagreed. He said: "I would accept that a sharp or pointed blade was the paradigm case - however the words of the statute are unqualified and refer to any article that has a blade."'

For your amusement..UK Government - Buying and carrying knives: the law
and I quote
'..A court will decide if you’ve got a good reason to carry a knife if you’re charged with carrying it illegally.'

Have a good look at some of the UK's offensive weapons legislation sometime if you're bored, it all started with banning flick and gravity knives back in the 50's (probably something to do with those damn'd Teddy Boys and these menaces to decent society) and has gotten progressively weirder..e.g using the precedent created by the above-mentioned Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice David Steel specifically mentioning that '..the words of the statute are unqualified..' then The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, Schedule 1.(k) prohibits peashooters...for your further amusement on that one, see here (yet they won't sell crossbows and other quite legal items)

Weasel wordcrafting lawyers who draft legislation at the behest of their police state masters....got to love them...

In the 80's, I used to travel around the UK with a 4.5" sheath knife prominently fixed to the outside of my rucksack, nowadays I make sure I've not even got a normal fixed blade screwdriver in it, just in case (no point being hung for a lamb...).

"Until now, the absurd story of Hinkley has been as vivid an example of the self-deluding power of groupthink as could be imagined. All those ministers swept along by it, such as Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, should hang their heads in shame. This culminated in that humiliating spectacle last year (as also noted by Mr Timothy in April) when David Cameron and George Osborne invited the President of China to London, to beg him to lend us billions of pounds towards buying a reactor design so flawed that it could almost certainly never be built.

Nothing should have brought this home more forcefully, as I noted last year, than the contrast between the Hinkley project and the way South Korea is building four nuclear reactors for the United Arab Emirates, to an already proven design and at only a fraction of the cost.

Although the UAE only began talks with Korea in 2009, the year we began negotiating with EDF for its two 1600 megawatt (MW) reactors at Hinkley, the four 1400MW reactors for the UAE (hence their name APR1400s) are already under construction, with the first due onstream next year and the rest to follow by 2020. For £15 billion, they will thus supply 5600MW of electricity, much more than Hinkleyâ(TM)s 3200MW, so grotesquely subsidised that even Decc admits its cost could eventually be £37 billion."

Saved in the Nick of time from the worldâ(TM)s most expensive power station

To then bet on power storage to save solar and wind (both white elephants in their own right), seems rather comical.

On a grander scale, I'd say this place may be the ultimate middle of nowhere: A supervoid

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

Well Mr. D. In this link you can find that the UK already produces 25% of it's energy with renewable sources.

And this and this article remark (unsurprisingly) that the UK has an enormous potential for wind enegy, especially off-shore.

So, limited options my ass.

Very little new renewable generation is anything but wind. And I specifically stated that offshore wind was their best option going forward. Biomass has major limits, and Hydro is basically installed, very few countries will add any any hydro generation. Like I said, options are limited.

Well Mr. D.
In this link you can find that the UK already produces 25% of it's energy with renewable sources.

And this and this article remark (unsurprisingly) that the UK has an enormous potential for wind enegy, especially off-shore.

So, limited options my ass.

I know this is a US-centric site, but the allies of the USA are also upset with the F-35 program:

UK.

Canada.

Australia.

The ads are no longer up, but:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Note those are from May. More recently:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/...

BBC are racist cunts, and the fuckwits modding me 'troll' can go chew on a brick.

They're about to change the rules to include catch up TV.

When they announced it logins was exactly the idea I thought of. It's how Netflix, Amazon etc do it so why not the BBC. All the apps it'd break would just need an update.

Speaking of that I really wish I had a list of all the people here who went around saying the U.S. would never be self sufficient in petroleum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bus...

It's a problem, due to there being absolutely no guarantee that the UK will spend the money it currently sends to the EU on all the EU supported projects - science, agrigulture, business development. It's not a guarantee, because a lot of the money will go to funding the extra costs Brexit will incur, such as outsourcing trade negotiators, border security costs (visting EU nationals), vetting of EU nationals wanting to work in the UK, amongst others.

This likely cut in funding was almost immediately obvious when areas such as Cornwal & Wales immediately realised that by voting Brexit, development funds from the EU would be likely to be stopped. Cornwall, for example is wanting assurances about how it will be funded

Alternate sources, if you're not keen on the Grauniad:
Cornwall demands £500m to replace lost EU cash
Cornwall votes decisively for Brexit - then seeks 'assurances' that it won't lose the £60million a year it gets in EU subsidies

How is it a problem when you start losing less money? Don't English scientists know math?

On the simple calculation fees - money coming then yes, we spent 100 million a week. On the other hand if you count the benefits in terms of trade, inward investment by companies wanting to do business in Europe, etc. then we almost certainly gained. The brexiter's argument (when not lying) was that they'd rather be poorer with fewer immigrants.

It's just a Russian version of security theater.

They should know.

During much of the Cold War typewriters were state of the art, so they were the focus of spooks and spies just as mobile phone networks, emails and social networks are today.
Techniques were developed to use cheap microphones to listen to key taps and decipher what was being written, spy cameras could peer over typist's shoulders and undercover agents could photograph and leak documents.
Debonair KGB agents were even tasked with seducing typists and winkling information from them.
Missile-equipped Aston Martins aside, some of what you see in James Bond films actually went on.

In 1984 the NSA became paranoid about the extent of this sort of Russian infiltration and began what it called Project Gunman, under which it replaced every piece of communications equipment at embassies in Moscow and Leningrad.
It shipped the old devices back to the US for analysis, and when they were X-rayed it was discovered that 16 IBM Selectric typewriters had been bugged.
For eight years they had sent the contents of every single document to the Kremlin, via a man crouching outside with a radio receiver.

The mentally ill convict Bradly "Chelsea" Manning is facing punishment associated with further misconduct while serving his prison sentence. Nothing much to see, this sort of thing is something that happens all the time prison.

It appears that part of the motivation for his "whistleblowing" was apparently rage over being dumped by his homosexual boyfriend. In other words, he was acting out, the same thing that has brought him to grief again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci...

In Saudi Arabia, witchcraft is still a crime and people are actually still prosecuted for it. Just look at this weird shit they do.

He is just bombing them.
Erdogan is far worse than Putin. At least Russians are still allowed to leave Russia and Putin made it perfectly clear that death penalty is unconstitutional due to the right to life.

You have to give Ataturk credit. There aren't a lot of secular rulers who have cast as long a shadow as he has.

He had some lucky breaks. When he was a young colonel, his passion for reform made some enemies ... so he was exiled to a remote outpost of no significance called "Gallipoli". In the Spring of 1915, when the Allied forces went ashore there, commanded by some of the most incompetent generals in history, they were facing a Turkish commander at the top of the cliffs, who was one of the best.

In a British poll, he was rated as one of the greatest foes of the British Empire, along with George Washington, Napoleon, and Rommel.

Yeah, that's my assessment of Boris Johnson's appointment as well. The initial reaction was "WTF!?", which is pretty much the response that dominated the global media coverage of it, especially given that Theresa May's other choices seemed fairly reasonable, but when you think it over the is really just a very well crafted stab in the back for Boris. He claims to be a BrExit supporter (yet didn't actually seem to want to change much, despite his campaigning), so despite any attempts to dodge the bullets by refusing to stand for PM, he's still going to have to either demonstrate some faith in his convictions or take the heat for breaking promises. Then there's the matter of his need to go cap in hand to the various people and cultures he's insulted over the years, and all quite likely under an intense media spotlight.

Frankly, I think this is a brilliant idea by May. She's assigned Boris a position alright, and it's "useful idiot" - someone who is going to be drawing all the media attention, while the real work goes on elsewhere (it's actually Phil Hammond, Liam Fox and David Davis that will be mostly responsible for BrExit). As you note though, despite his reputation as a buffoon, Boris is also generally regarded as someone is also fairly astute, so while this could easily be seen as giving him a rope by which to hang himself, he's also been given an opportunity to actually make it all work. Only time will tell whether this makes or breaks Boris' political career, but I don't think there's much room for middle ground.

I seem to remember, Donald Trump being called "racist" over an unsolicited endorsement from a former "KKK"-member. For a while every interviewer kept asking him to "repudiate" it...

Meanwhile the Democratic Party is getting not mere endorsements, but hefty donations from convicted criminals — without anybody asking the inconvenient questions about repudiation. Yeah, they eventually refunded the monies he got for them — but only after the man was convicted — despite "weeks of reports about Hsu's controversial history and murky business practices" and a 15 year-old outstanding warrant for him...

Imagine Trump pointing out, David Duke has never been convicted of any crime — only he did not even know, who the man was... No, he was supposed to know all about David Duke (who, it turns out, quit KKK in 1980).

(Should you choose to reply insisting, Trump really is racist, be sure, your response condemns "Black Lives Matter" as an inherently racist idea, which started with a lie.)

There is a pretty strong case that it was Richard Lepsy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

And how about this—is this ambiguous?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/con...

musk is using it wrong intentionally.

Eh... Autopilot means what I said it means and that's exactly what Musk says it means, too.

and fyi musk intends to keep calling it autopilot after it can drive itself.

This is one of those moments where you provide a link to the source. Otherwise I'm going to call bullshit on that. And no, the media calling Tesla's next-gen self-driving cars "autopilot" does not suffice; it has to be an official statement to be true.

i wouldnt be surprised if the way they marketed it would cost them the company.

You mean like this?

Some quotes from the video:

- "... keeping your hands on the wheel ..."
- "... if you wish to change lanes, check for space ..."
- "... remember that these features are meant only for highway use ..."

they did nothing to prevent drivers from taking the eyes off the road.

Should they sell a pack of glue with the car and an assistant to glue your eyes to the road?

teslas autopilot is 0% a safety feature

This is again one of those times where you provide a source. Musk has said their Autopilot is approximately twice safer than human drivers. Feel free to disprove it here.

and evidently doesnt work even as brake assist...

Obviously you don't understand even what you wrote yourself: it's brake assist.

Could their technology be better? Of course. Is it to blame for these crashes? No. Ever since the Autopilot feature was launched, Tesla has been mentioning everywhere that it's *not* a self-driving car and it's a support function for the driver to improve safety.

People have read so much about Google's self-driving cars that they think autopilot === self-driving, but obviously you can't fix stupid. And there are plenty of stupid to go around, free for everyone to parrticipate.

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

You're probably not going to retire at 60 in the future. Not if you plan to live to over 90. At least not if there isn't some major break in automation. And if there is, I suspect you'll have plenty of time for children.

I read about it in the popular media so no direct link to study: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Been done, stories in 2004 about an event in 1982:

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

http://www.zdnet.com/article/u...

and then, years later, we have the results of counter-information campaigns:

http://jeffreycarr.blogspot.co...

hard to know what's truth and what's fiction, and how much has been done but not leaked.

Oh sorry, second after "What does it mean to leave the EU." Thanks for correcting me and strengthening my argument. These people had no fucking clue what just happened the day before.

*sigh*

Here's another explanation.

But the real point is it's an irrelevant and stupid argument. I mean - even if one were to accept that X number of people googling a term a day after a particular event must carry more weight than all the people who might have googled the same term every day before that event - are you seriously trying to argue Google trends should direct how to run a country ?

That's a glib way to hand-wave away any argument.

Your argument is that you can't see any possible positive outcome, therefore it was a bad idea.

Let's start with your mention of Iceland. I live in Iceland. So let's just say that I know a little something about countries whose currencies have crashed. Yeah, it's good for the bottom lines of businesses that don't have to import anything. It's terrible for regular people and for businesses that have to buy things form overseas. Because the price of all imported goods skyrockets when your currency crashes. Which directly hits your pocketbook every time you go to the store or buy gas at the pump. It also means your savings crash. And the government funds such as retirement funds crash as well.

But hey, some fish magnate can sell their fish cheaper, so that makes everything just wonderful, right? :P

If it *were* a bad thing, then you'd be complaining about how from 2 two years ago up to the brexit, the pound lost 20% of its value

Seriously? Do you really need this explained to you? Is this how you think that investors think?

"Hey, the country is considering doing something a couple years from now that could have profoundly reduce the value of my British investments. I think I'll do absolutely nothing and just hope that it doesn't pass!"

Of course it doesn't work that way. Markets take into account the risk of adverse events happening in the future - which is why as Brexit support rose in polls, the markets fell, and as it declined the markets rose. When it passed, the sudden drop became the difference between the "possibility of brexit" and "the actuality of brexit".

This is really, really basic stuff here. People don't wait until some prospective bad event happens to price it in; they price it in relative to the risk of it actually happening.

One way that Greece could have eased their troubles was by floating their currency. They *asked* the EU for permission to do this, and were denied.

The EU made it quite clear that Greece was more than free to leave. They chose to remain. Even their populist, anti-EU government couldn't stomach the potential aftereffects of leaving.

Furthermore, the UK always has been able to float its currency. Are you not aware that the UK is on the pound, not the euro?

Companies relocating to the EU are European companies... yes? And those European companies employ mostly non-UK workers, yes? And pay taxes to their parent country, yes?

By and large, no, no, and no. 1) The biggest groups looking to relocate are British banks. 2) Most companies in the UK, whether British or not, employ British workers. 3) Non-British workers living and working in the UK pay taxes to the UK, not their home countries, and local corporate offices in the UK pay taxes to the UK.

And note that the EU growth rate [ash.tips] has been going down, overall, in the last few years (and not because of the recession either).

Yes, both were in the common market, so one expects their GDP growth to have historically tracked each other. However, the Euro has been going up majorly with respect to the pound. Currency exchange rates react to adverse news immediately. Figures like GDP growth and unemployment lag behind.

Are you saying that remaining a part of a declining or stagnant union is a *good* thing for the UK?

The EU is not stagnant. And most of its troubles of late that aren't part of global slowdowns has been due to stupid, completely avoidable nonsense like the Brexit and Grexit crises.

I'll see your few scholarly research papers, and raise you several violent protests that you have missed. Even leftists have to worry about leftists, as I stated.

Further, I can show that leftist people and groups support the protests.

Well, one way to reply to a post calling out confirmation bias ... is to double down on the confirmation bias.

You have a funny term to refer to what would properly be labeled as 'observation of leftists, on social media and in real life'.

Apparently I get to represent all liberals now

Only if you are unable to parse my phrase, "Should I follow suit, ...", which limits the following phrase to a hypothetical question. But I guess such subtlety is wasted on leftists. (See, that is using your inability to read to claim all leftists are ignorant as well.)

(or at least the ones you don't like, with that bit of no-true-scotsman mixed in under cover of "I didn't mean everybody").

I'm not allowed to clarify my point that you have such a hard time understanding? Considering my original post was simply comparing attitudes and actions of nondescript left-wingers and right-wingers in the post I replied to. Since I wasn't the one who established the general groups under discussion, I certainly feel I have the right to make that clarification. Sorry if that upsets you.

Let's get back to your original claim, which can be distilled to 'liberals conform more than conservatives'.

Oh, wait a minute. I begin to see your problem. After writing all that above, I realize upon re-reading this line, that you simply are trying to argue the wrong claim. You think it is a discussion of whether one group or the other conforms to the expected norm. But that wasn't Ungrounded Lightning's argument, nor mine. UL said that those on the left "apply social pressure to each other to conform", and in response to (I assume) your question about right-wingers, I voiced my support of UL's argument, and provided an example.

I stand by my claim that leftists do much more to force their views on society, even on other leftists, than rightists do. That has nothing to do with whether right-wingers (AKA conservatives) by their nature want to keep things the way they are (also known as 'to conserve', funny how that is implied in the label 'conservative').

You are arguing the wrong case.

1. Facebook paid no UK corporation tax in 2012. 2. Google's UK tax deal is a joke at our expense. 3. Microsoft pays no UK tax on £1.7bn of online revenues. 4. Apple pays just £12m UK tax on £2bn profit.

1. Facebook paid no UK corporation tax in 2012. 2. Google's UK tax deal is a joke at our expense. 3. Microsoft pays no UK tax on £1.7bn of online revenues. 4. Apple pays just £12m UK tax on £2bn profit.

Trump has a Jewish daughter, isn't that enough?

The fact that he refers to his Jewish son-in-law as "my Jew" does not speak in his favor.

And don't forget:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/his...

bullshit.

They KNEW what he was doing, they just turned a blind eye to it because he pulled in the viewers away from ITV.

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

In 1969, a 16-year-old girl was molested by Savile while standing next to him on a podium during the filming of Top Of The Pops. She complained to a member of staff but was "ejected from the building and left on the street". That girl was Colleen Nolan.

In 1976, Savile molested a young girl on camera while filming Top of the Pops. She complained to an employee, who told her to get out of the way, as staff were trying to move a camera.

Douglas Muggeridge, then controller of Radio 1, launched an inquiry into rumours of Savile's behaviour in 1973 and also asked a press officer to investigate whether the rumours were known on Fleet Street. But Savile denied the allegations and the inquiry was closed. Police were not informed.

When a junior female employee at Television Centre complained to her supervisor that she had been sexually assaulted by Savile, she was told "keep your mouth shut, he is a VIP".

http://order-order.com/2016/02...

They knew. They didn't want to do anything about it because he was too well connected.

Anything else I missed?

3. Russia realizes, its "spiritual legacy" lies in the North rather than (or in addition to) the South, and occipies the entire Scandinavia in a couple of months.

As long as Russia remains a mad dog, money and efforts should be spent on putting it down, unfortunately, not on the niceties, that only excite and attract it.