Slashdot Mirror

If you are unable to deploy because of a medical issue, then you have no business being in the Military.

The US military spends $84M/year on ED meds ($46M/y on Viagara alone) so it sounds like a LOT of people in the military are "unable to deploy" due to a medical issue.

That's 10x the cost of all the estimated trans surgeries, so if Trump *really* wants to save some $$$ ...

A direct result of this failed bill to forbid money from being spent by the military’s health care system for medical treatment related to gender transition.

You do know that Foxconn made a similar announcement in 2013 during the Obama Administration tregarding a plant in Pennsylvania.
https://www.cnet.com/news/foxc...

So yeah I think that could have easily happened since it fucking did.

If you want to know how this will probably end:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Now admit you were wrong.

This is a common tactic for industries and big businesses -- claiming anyone that has any contact with their product in any capacity other than as a simple consumer has a job "created" by them. The American Petroleum Institute claims that oil companies employ 9.5 million people but everyone in any retail business that has a gas pump or sells oil off the shelf is one of those people. By the same token the farm lobby counts anyone who deals with any agricultural product is employed by "farming". So if you work in a 7-11 you are employed both by the petroleum industry and the farm industry (since both types of products are sold), and if they add Apple iPhone cables to their inventory, they would be employed by Apple too!

No, the government regularly engages in grand theft.

People have withdrawn their names after Trump nominated them.

Accepting a Trump position could turn out to be a career-ending move. Rejecting one could be seen as a positive.

Well, we don't know if there's evidence of rampant voter fraud.

We know there isn't evidence of rampant voter fraud. If there was evidence, you'd be able to produce it. Instead, states like North Carolina find...almost no voter fraud.

But hey, you may never know that Trump didn't win the Popular vote either, which makes you a double-sore loser.

Mainly democrat states are blocking the government from trying to determine how much fraud there actually is.

Nope. It's actually mainly Republicans like Kris Kobach miseleading the courts.

But let's go with the extrapolated report from earlier in the year. Which figures that somewhere between 4m and 6m people voted illegally. That includes everything from voting twice, to non-citizens.

Hmm, you want to cite a bogus report with no basis in reality? Hurts your own credibility, as bad as believing a James O'Keefe video.

Of course, if you do insist it's genuine that the elections are so compromised, then absolutely no elected official is legitimate, and they must all be removed, and their official acts rescinded.

The real reason behind voter ID laws is for Republicans to make it harder for people who tend to vote Democratic to vote at all.

So let's run with that. The reason democrats are for amnesty of illegals, is to make sure they always win by subverting democracy.

Sure man, we've been hearing that since the Naturalization Act of 1798.

You keep trying, but for some reason, people ain't buying.

Almost as bad as the whole Trumpcare business.

Yeah. No mass sexual assault in Germany

Leaked document says 2,000 men allegedly assaulted 1,200 German ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com......
Jul 11, 2016 - Germany approves new sexual assault law after mass New Year's Eve ... outcry over mass attacks on women in Cologne on New Year's Eve.

No acid attacks in London.
Acid attacks in the UK - how many have there been in London and ...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/...
2 days ago - IN LONDON alone the number of acid attacks shot up by 65 per cent last year to 431 – or one every 20 hours – as a growing number of victims ...
Why are you so certain that these things are not happening?

How about Canada, the UK, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand? They all have [taxfoundation.org] a lower tax burden on workers

Be honest. That is not what the data in your link shows. It shows the tax burden on the *average* worker. Countries with progressive taxation have higher taxes on wealthier citizens so that *average* workers pay less. Canada, the UK, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand do NOT have lower overall government spending (as the link I previously provided shows), they just shift the tax burden differently than the US (which is what your tax foundation link shows).

Meaning taxes are up about 2.5 times per capita, versus the 50s. Is our quality of life that much better?

That is an unequivocal YES LIFE IS BETTER NOW. Life expectancy is higher. Educational attainment is higher. Workplaces are safer. The environment is cleaner. Food is cheaper. Travel is cheaper.

our labor force participation rate is low, poverty is up, and crime is much higher

Are you allergic to citing sources? Because none of that is true. labor force participation rate is higher now than in the 1950s https://data.bls.gov/timeserie... Poverty rates plummeted from 1959 to 1973 https://www.washingtonpost.com... Crime rate is trending down. Its still higher than 1960, but not much. Murder rate, in particular, is the roughly the same as 1960. Certainly, no correlation with government spending : http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...

You mean the thing that is actually a discriminatory burden?

These court cases are crap and I'm sick of this argument that people are just incapable of getting an ID somehow. Everyone should have an ID. Here's a list of reasons why, provided by the NYC government:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/id/htm...

People object no matter how easy the local government makes it. People objected even when they were sending mobile voter ID vans into neighborhoods to make it easy. If those vans were giving out free phones people would have waited on lines for hours.

Voters are supposed to be adults. Treat them accordingly.

forever avoiding the 'common defense' part

About one-sixth of federal spending goes to national defense. The US accounts for around 1/3 of all military spending on planet earth, and more than the next 7-8 countries combined, depending on how you count.

I'd love to avoid some of that. Then maybe there would be something in the budget for infrastructure and health care. Instead of spending money on things that build the economy (healthy workers; roads, bridges, bike lanes and fibre broadband to the home for them to get to work or transport the result of work), we build up and arm enemies and build weapons with which to blow them up.

Is that Voter ID really free of charge or is it free after you pay a fee to get a certified copy of your birth certificate which is required in order to get your free ID?

You mean the part where you don't pay a fee and even with the existing ID that's available so you can get your free ID?

You mean the thing that is actually a discriminatory burden?

You can find lots of democrat and progressive talking points against free ID, using existing forms of ID which you're already required to use for everything from voting in your local primary(including entrance), to buying a pack of smokes, booze, or any type of government benefits for.

You mean the arguments that actually persuade a court of law, that the point out the discriminatory intent that is quite apparent from the actual statements of the legislators who enacted the law with the specific desire to disenfranchise voters? From legislators, who if your contentions are correct, were not lawfully elected in the first place, thus rendering their position suspect.

Can you make any valid argument where not having voter ID enhances and benefits democracy, democratic votes in any way shape or form?

Yes, I can. You forgot to ask it to be done though.

Can you make any valid argument as to how with such a huge problem with illegals, that not having voter ID benefits the state?

Yes, I can also do this. Of course, since you neglected to ask for any argument to be actually presented, so I don't feel any obligation to do so, and I won't until you address the question of what to do when the state legislature is found to have engaged in discriminatory intent in its passage of the laws. You instead resist any addressing of that concern at all, revealing at best, your own complicity in it.

Really, I don't know why you are so stupid that you go out of your way to dismiss the complaints, if you wanted to actually show your integrity, you'd condemn them even more soundly, and demand that the state ID its residents properly, rather than fail in their duty as has been consistently demonstrated.

It's kinda telling that you are though. It's like you don't know a little contrition would go a long way.

Maybe he dosent want to kill innocent bystanders or steal thier money with asset forfeiture.

With Sessions at the helm, asset forfeiture is going to get even worse. Sessions said "we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures". If you think the american public is being robbed now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

You are parroting and perpetuating misinformation.

Well you are probably a perjuring prevaricator, Pashenka.

Really, you do yourself a grave injustice and insult the intelligence of slashdot readers by driveling opinions without a basis of fact.

Eg, you claim there is "zero evidence" to support "Moscow's efforts to meddle in the 2016 American election." Lol, just lol. You made your point without any evidence either, but I'll ignore that (this one time) and respond anyway: http://www.businessinsider.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

At this point, there's just a huge mountain of evidence. To make a claim like "there's no evidence" is obviously a troll/shill, but I just had to respond because your alliteration made me laugh, you sounded so serious, heh, I'm still chuckling.

$1 Trillion a year on welfare. Actually the WaPo says we don't spend close to that much, but let's assume they are wrong and it is $1 Trillion.

Lets just use 300 million US citizens, its more but perhaps we don't count children or something. Lets split it up and see what we get...
$1 Trillion / 300 million people = $3,000 per person.
There will STILL be overhead and other costs, plus you will have to give more to disabled more needy and such.

So you are completely lying. I suspect you know you are lying.

Congratulations, you just got called out for it.

Life is sacred, yes. But thinking consenting adults are fully capable of flushing it all down the toilet to the point where they, and not anyone else, sign their own death warrant. The unborn are not capable of such things.

"Thinking, consenting adults" including the mentally ill? From the April 2017 article, Does the death penalty target people who are mentally ill? We checked. (and others):

People who are executed have a far higher rate of mental illness than does the general public.

When John H. Blume studied death row volunteers from 1976 through 2003, he found that 88 percent had a mental illness or substance abuse disorder. Our numbers were slightly lower, but similar.

Graph showing percent of population w/mental illness (broken down and total, total below):

• xxxx - 4% general population w/serious
• xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - 18% general population w/any
• xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - 43% executed.

Life is sacred, yes. But thinking consenting adults are fully capable of flushing it all down the toilet to the point where they, and not anyone else, sign their own death warrant. The unborn are not capable of such things.

"Thinking, consenting adults" including the mentally ill? From the April 2017 article, Does the death penalty target people who are mentally ill? We checked. (and others):

People who are executed have a far higher rate of mental illness than does the general public.

When John H. Blume studied death row volunteers from 1976 through 2003, he found that 88 percent had a mental illness or substance abuse disorder. Our numbers were slightly lower, but similar.

Graph showing percent of population w/mental illness (broken down and total, total below):

• xxxx - 4% general population w/serious
• xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - 18% general population w/any
• xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - 43% executed.

Except, of course, that Liberty University has a long history of having leading figures on the left come and speak to its student body. Ted Kennedy was a frequent speaker, and last year, students were required to go to a Bernie Sanders speech.

The students were respectful and listened, even though they disagreed with Sanders on most points.

I wouldn't go to or send my child to Liberty U, but the differences between a Liberty University and a Berkeley or Evergreen or Yale or Middlebury are pretty stark. Liberty U expects a respectful audience and gets one, the others have let the inmates run the asylum.

Except, of course, that Liberty University has a long history of having leading figures on the left come and speak to its student body. Ted Kennedy was a frequent speaker, and last year, students were required to go to a Bernie Sanders speech.

The students were respectful and listened, even though they disagreed with Sanders on most points.

I wouldn't go to or send my child to Liberty U, but the differences between a Liberty University and a Berkeley or Evergreen or Yale or Middlebury are pretty stark. Liberty U expects a respectful audience and gets one, the others have let the inmates run the asylum.

Another Trump basher! Please!

Trump is no slacker. Between 1991 and 2009 he filed for bankruptcy six times.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times

How do you come off comparing hime to some poor slob who took 50 years to file only five times.

Couldn't you come up with a story about how you did that instead?

I know this is shocking... sometimes the whole world doesn't revolve me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/07/30/parcel-post-paying-the-freight-for-alaskans/467be7cf-8962-41b2-804a-6e31c5e14d34/

First your stat is wrong - according to a WaPo story (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/12/whats-in-your-wallet-probably-not-cash/), 20% of people carry nominal amounts of cash, with 7% carrying >=$100.

Perhaps my estimate was slightly off. But as statistics look into the future, many are predicting a migration to a cashless society, and the death of the ATM, with even the smallest transactions being paid for by a debit/credit card. NFC readers embedded in POS devices also enable a smartphone to be your wallet.

And how does the average percentage of people who carry cash have any relevance to how untraceable and thus dangerous it is to carry?

Cash has always been untraceable, although with the amount of surveillance in our society today, I would challenge that notion now. Why exactly is carrying cash dangerous today? With fewer and fewer people carrying around cash, a thief is less likely to actually obtain a financial reward for committing the crime of armed robbery, and more likely to get caught in the surveillance state we now live in. Increased risk of getting caught and decreased chance of reward somehow equates to a larger chance of it happening? And crime statistics across the last two decades reflect an ongoing decline in robbery?

Nothing about this cash-is-dangerous argument makes sense when you break it down. In fact, the only danger I see is a society who fears untraceable currency. THAT is the true danger, for removing all anonymous transactions from society would be the ultimate goal of the Orwellian world that has been forced upon us. Cash is untraceable, and therefore dangerous? It's as if the brainwashing is working.

And if people think it's dangerous to carry around cash because they might lose it, well that argument also tends to fall flat when they carry a $200 smartphone at all times that holds their entire digital life on it. If you want to watch a person actually panic today, take their smartphone. Everything else becomes damn near irrelevant in a microsecond, including the $20 they might have had in their wallet.

TL; DR - Cash is not dangerous. The mentality that it is dangerous because it is untraceable is the true danger in society today.

Aside from my earlier post about GMO actually being able to increase biodiversity, Greenpeace, who is behind every talking point you've ever made on this topic, has blatantly lied to you, multiple times.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Greenpeace also likes to hold two opposing arguments at the same time about GMO Bt, depending on which side best fits their pre-conceived narrative (without doing any actual research) on that particular day:

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

Further reading where Greenpeace holds double standards:

https://geneticliteracyproject...
https://geneticliteracyproject...

Drop the anti-GMO crusade. It's pure post-truth populism and anti-science bullshit. To date there is not a single good argument against GMO. And if that's not enough, the most of the anti-GMO scientific papers about health impact were authored by a guy who has an established history of manipulating his data in order to fit his activist narrative:

http://retractionwatch.com/201...

He's currently under investigation by the Italian senate for scientific fraud. And by the way, GMO has been saving the lives of diabetics allergic to cow and pig insulin since 1982.

First your stat is wrong - according to a WaPo story (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/12/whats-in-your-wallet-probably-not-cash/), 20% of people carry nominal amounts of cash, with 7% carrying >=$100.

And how does the average percentage of people who carry cash have any relevance to how untraceable and thus dangerous it is to carry?

The data is incomplete. AI, like humans, makes mistakes like "correlation = causation". The problem is, like some humans, AI doesn't understand this and can't ask for additional information or self-correct.

Very much this. Reading the ProPublica article (the Axios one in the summary doesn't have anything useful except a couple of links - this being one), it's easy to see that the real complaint is that the sentencing algorithm appears to have problems with accuracy when its predictions are compared to what really happens.

Interestingly, if this article is correct, race is not one of the inputs into the system in question (Northpointe's Compas system).

Reading the field guide for the system here I was impressed by the depth of coverage of various facets of criminality the system attempts to analyze in section 4.2, but I can see how whoever came up with those facets could have put a statistical bias into the system if they simply looked at data points of past studies as future predictors. My suspicion is that the underlying problem is that there are dimensions that we either don't understand correctly/are applying inappropriately or that the system was built to use past statistics as future predictors and that races can tend to have those input data points in common.

You're jumping to the end too quickly.

Blacks are convicted of crimes more often, certainly. Does that mean they're more violent, or that they get caught more? Or that they live in worse situations than whites? Are Asians particularly good at math, or do Asian parents favour certain qualities that lead to more favourable math outcomes? Are they in more stable communities so their kids have a better opportunity to study math? Is it cultural or innate? Are women actually bad at navigating, or is it that we're less likely to take little girls out to go camping and get experience at navigating? Is that your own bias, since I've always heard that women are better at navigating?

We actually have statistics that white people just aren't convicted as often for drug offences despite having similar or higher rates of use and dealing. Based on conviction data, a machine learning system would internalise the bias that blacks are more likely to have an involvement with drugs, despite that not being true. Garbage in, garbage out, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/e...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/...

(Notice that those articles are from 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2014—this is not new data.)

So generalities are not necessarily based in reality. Indeed, your claim that 'Asians are good at math' is particularly bad since Asia is HUGE and there's no way everyone from that area of the world is good at math. And as a half-Chinese guy that's okay at math but much worse than my white partner, and who knows plenty of Chinese people that have no affinity for math at all, I feel like a lot of these generalities are based on folklore and a few selective tests that aren't really representative of ability.

The USA and Canada are not the bastions of equal opportunity that they purport to be, not for everyone. First Nations people in Canada and black people in the USA are consistently disadvantaged through broad government policy.

So all this to say that getting good, clean data for machine learning systems that remove human bias is incredibly difficult, since most humans are unwilling to admit their biases don't necessarily have a basis in reality, or are the wrong conclusions drawn from incomplete knowledge of data.

This fits in with the recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences:
Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Humans will be part of this sixth mass extinction. (At least some of them.)

News report here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The Pee Memos and the Russian Attorney are linked to the same Democratic Party black ops company, FusionGPS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Not only that, but HRC campaign colluded with Ukrainian Government against Trump

A veteran DNC operative who previously worked in the Clinton White House, Alexandra Chalupa, worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists from both Ukraine and America to dig up Russia-related opposition research on Trump and Manafort. She also shared her anti-Trump research with both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to the Politico report.

Both R and D are doing whatever it takes to win an election. No story here, unless you're equally outraged at "collusion" between Hillary and Ukraine, this is a nothing story.

The problem is, both sides are in deep, but we only hear about Trump.
 

Really, Troll+Flamebait? More like uncomfortable truth. Here's a good writeup from a liberal source no less: Clinton has now made Democrats the anti-Russia party, and that was 30 seconds of Google searching. Anyone who actually watched her speeches would tell you the same. Judging by an AC comment shortly after a downmod you're one of the Hillary shills trying their hand at revisionist history. It is a relevant comment because the main parties barfed up two terrible choices. Hillary's anti-Russia rhetoric combined with the fact that she is competent made her a much more dangerous choice than Trump. If Hillary set her mind on something truly dangerous she could pull it off. Trump wouldn't get past first base (proof: so far on most of his initiatives, he's been striking out more often than not).

For the record I voted third party. We had a 75% chance of intentional war and a 50/50 chance of stumbling into one, neither looked good. Both third parties would have had no chance of getting us into a war.

First and foremost they are in favor of Rule of Law.

More the pity to them then, the devotion to the Rule of Law is the most abusable sentiment there is.

A man who stands by the judgment of what he finds to be of sound moral rectitude is one who stands for the weight of his own conscience. A man who stands by the proclamation of law, who speaks not against it, but adheres to it, is one who has subsumed his own will to that of another.

Unconstitutional things remain unconstitutional regardless of how you feel about it.

Nope. Even the US Constitution exists on the weight of people FEELING they needed to do something different.

Did you not study history? Did nobody tell you how the United States Constitution was adopted? Not to mention that whole Revolution, perhaps you missed the Declaration of Independence?

In fact, the Washington State Constitution expressly provides for the following:

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights./

SECTION 32 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government.

That's right, right triumphs over law in that state. The people are supreme, not the laws.

On the left tho.... that whole Rule of Law thing just gets in the way.

Really? Then good for them, that is the morally sound position, and it isn't even hypocritical, unlike the right-wing that insists on their slavish devotion to the law except when they find it inconvenient or when they simply want to fondle their precious firearms. Then, of course, they suddenly forget about it, or rather, don't admit they are doing what they wanted to do, not what the law provided.

That's the right's greatest failing, a sublime lack of integrity, though they don't let that get in their way. They change their tunes as whim and convenience suit them, and pretend they never did, that they were always at war with EastAsia.

I would respect them much more if they simply admitted to their own behavior in an honest fashion, but of course, being right-wing, they can't, as lying and deceit is deep in them to their core, due to their level of personal shame.

Actual foreign aid. Israel gets military assistance only, and it is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend for NATO.

Um.. ok. I haven't advocated against abortion rights, nor using protection. Lay off the feminist kool-aid powder, will ya?

Buillshit. Here's exactly what you said:

I was suggesting a system that gives him a post conception choice as well so that neither can take advantage of the other... AFTER the mistake/accident happens. It would separate the choice of having children from the act of sex for men (like women already have)

Men have already taken women to court to have a say in whether they can get an abortion. So yes, your proposal has already been used against abortion rights, and continues to do so. And people are trying to make it into law:

A bill advancing in Oklahoma would require a woman to get the written consent of the fetus’s father before obtaining an abortion.

The bill, which passed out of a House committee Tuesday, would also require a woman “to provide, in writing, the identity of the father of the fetus to the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion,” according to the bill’s language. “If the person identified as the father of the fetus challenges the fact that he is the father, such individual may demand that a paternity test be performed.”

The bill’s author, Rep. Justin Humphrey (R), could not be reached for comment Tuesday. But in an interview with The Intercept earlier this month, Humphrey said that men should be able to have a say over the fate of a fetus, and suggested that a woman has greater responsibility in a relationship for preventing pregnancy because she would be the “host.”

So cut the lying. Just grow up and accept that you need to behave more responsibly if you don't want kids. It is entirely within your control to prevent yourself becoming a father. The act of sex is already separate from having children for men. Use a condom or get a vasectomy. We don't need you breeding any more people incapable of logical thought and responsible behaviour.

In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race). More whites are shot and killed by police than blacks.

Here is an excerpt from the opinion and a bit of legal analysis. What it basically boils down to is that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote public discourse and make possible the ability to observe and criticize the government. The trial court had said that it wasn't clear that her purpose was expressive at the time of recording but that's stupid because how to do you go back in time and record something once you realize should have been recording. People need to be able to record police at all times according to the reversal because "the value of the recordings may not be immediately obvious, and only after review of them does their worth become apparent."

Simple--freedom of the press is also covered by the First.

If that's your argument, that mere plans to publish a recording later protect any activity making it, you need to answer my follow-up questions for it to make sense:

• Leaking State Secrets (to the press)
• Entering Federal property "under false pretenses"?
• Or even murder — as long as it is done on video for future or even immediate publication?

Prostitution, as in having sex for money, is illegal in most places. But being paid to do it on video is perfectly fine — because pornography is protected by the First Amendment.

Yes, but we couldn't stand to see that happening, so we force-segregated populations when we invaded Iraq.

If by "we" you mean americans under Bush, no.

That is precisely what I mean, and we are definitely feeling the effects today.

Selling fresh air is already commercially viable in some parts of the world. I'll include a link here to an old article, I couldn't find the more recent one I read before. The newer article I had read said they were selling more than a thousand bottles a month now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Successful voter fraud isn't detected.

That's a brilliant self-perpetuating delusion, worthy of the best conspiracy theorists. If a voter-fraud study turns up no evidence, it's not because there's no voter fraud, it's because the fraudsters are too good at it! And there are millions of them! Millions, I say!

You can't state that it's rare or a "minuscule" problem without at least a basic investigation into the votes cast and counted.

Well, you have a point there. Oh wait, you don't:

https://www.brennancenter.org/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.politifact.com/flor...
http://www.scholarsstrategynet...
http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/...
http://www.projectvote.org/blo...

[Ignoring the remainder of your speculative, strawman-filled, fact-challenged rant.]

At least two documented (looking through the the first letters of States) cases where elections were overturned because of fraud.

Not one single case where you have documented any of the fraud was related to your only offered solution, of voter ID, in fact, you have been remarkably imprecise and inexact about the specific details of those elections.

I wonder why you are so evasive.

How many more do we need?

I would start with documenting one, where your only solution, will work.

What is the downside of stronger screening for voting?

The disenfranchisement of citizens through improper screening, whether accidental or intentional, and unfortunately, as you well know, the intentional has been quite well documented.

You know, this, of course, because you've been told it before.

Really, LynnwoodRooster, you don't accomplish anything with your own willful obtuseness. Like your tendency to lie and prevaricate, it harms you by showing a severe lack of credibility.

And why is that different from 2A rights?

I'd start with the basic fact that the state isn't obligated to provide you with a firearm.

Feel free to advocate for that, of course. You won't win a lawsuit, but you can pursue a law requiring the state to provide citizens with firearms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blog...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

I refuse to work for a manager that can't use Google, keep your fat fucking job.

That's a terrible plan. Fortunately it's probably not true either.

First, TFA is just a shell that is repeating the original WaPo source with a right-wing spin on it. I suggest reading that link instead.

Second, all it appears to be is that they need a "plan". No requirements for what that plan will be, how realistic it is etc. So to get out of it, just write "I'm going to become an astronaut" on the form and you are good to graduate. Really, the bar seems to be so incredibly low that the only rational conclusion is that it isn't a bar at all, at least not for the students, it's just to make the schools dedicate some resources to helping the students decide what to do.

I guess this conviction was a mistake?

That's harassment. The right to speech is trumped by the right to not hear that speech.

And, these

Darwin awards for everyone who listened to him. Good riddance.

kinds of people should be protected?

Have you tried not throwing him in prison before putting him on the atomic project? I hear wrongfully imprisoning people makes them not like you as much. Some might even want to take revenge!

I guess this conviction was a mistake? And, these kinds of people should be protected? What an unfortunate world you want to live in.

Does CNN not realize that there is a Constitutional right to troll without facing any consequences? It's right there in Article XII of the Constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

It was an encyclopedia.

sounds like another company called Hanergy

I know a guy named Jim Chanos, he's been saying China's gonna crash for the past 5 years. People mock him because it didn't happen. I think it will though, eventually.

Well it looks like he just published a new book! Can't wait for the next one! :)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

especially when schools also avoid teaching critical thinking

Gee, I wonder why they don't teach critical thinking?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Did you know that 40% of people in Ontario who required medical care have gone to the US for treatment?

Can you cite where that came from? I'm trying to look and the closest I found was that back in 2008, a survey found 43% of Ontarians would *consider* traveling for faster care for "certain services" (though I can't find what services exactly)

https://www.thestar.com/life/h...

Next, I'm not saying I believe every word, but it's easy to find a WaPo article trying to debunk Trump's remarks on how poor the Canadian system is. One part of the article also took shots at a study by the Fraser Institute that they estimate about 50k Canadians travel abroad for care, noting that 50k isn't a lot out of a population of 35 million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Of course, if we take the Fraser report at face value, there could be even more Canadians than the 50k number going south (since the Fraser study could only investigate patients who sought care through their doctors, not those who arranged it privately themselves)

But digging further, I found another article posted on AARP.org, some non-partisan organization.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-s...

Some of the talking points in this last article I recall are featured on the Healthcare Triage youtube channel. Not working for that channel, but I like their videos.

Take the blue pill - move onto another response. For God's sake don't look any further at this article. Especially if you're a snowflake.
Take the Red pill - read on for some reality.

Let's discuss these.
Hit second tier due to ACA and other lies we were told and many still believe.

Larges airplane is a European A380 - Nope. Of course not. The A380 is just a modernized C-5 that America had back in the 1970s. Just look at the dimensions, they are all like 6" from each other. No achievement, just building on US technology, old technology at that. So they're just catching up. It's also not the largest airplane. An American airplane is of course - http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/... . So Europe is still decades behind the US, and they know it. Even so, the A380 has had a lot of problems with cracking and such. I wouldn't be surprised if they start coming apart in the air soon. The C-5's keep on going of course.

No new sky scrapers in NYC? How about the one that just replaced the twin towers? They also have newer ones going up, so you're wrong on that too. I see construction cranes in many places as I fly over the city.

Socialized medicine? England has that type of medicine and they'd rather allow their kids to die than send them to the US to save them - https://www.washingtonpost.com... . What a slap in the face to socialized medicine everywhere. They have to admit they aren't up to US standards and we see that all the time as we have Canadians coming into the US to get treatment that they can't get in Canada. At least no time soon. i wouldn't even think of going to Canada, Great Britain or France for surgery, or Korea. My chances are a lot better at my local county hospital.

Socialized medicine in Korea? Looked it up. They have significant deficits and they don't even have illegal aliens and other free loaders like we have in the US to deal with. So why do we want socialized medicine again? If you want medical care, buy it. Not hard people.

As for your society vs economy remark, you realize societies don't exist without an economy - right? Capitalism took the US to the moon, a fact that socialists can't dispute and they've never been able to do. We're coming up on 50 years now and they're still behind. I mention this because you can't dispute it, there is no getting around it, you have to admit it's true no matter how much you don't like it. Modern space programs from Japan, China and Europe that have been to the moon have found the landing sites and the foot steps are still there, so it did happen. Capitalism makes it so ANYONE can become rich. In socialism, only those in power can do that and they keep everyone else out. Often at gunpoint. They are not free.

You want a capitalist society unless you're just useless. Go live in a socialist country for a year. Even a month. You'll quickly understand just how well you have it in the US. Things can be worse, a WHOLE lot worse.