Slashdot Mirror

This issue has been put to bed. ...

BULLSHIT

As long as Crooked Liar Hillary! is paying shills like you (your not THAT FUCKING STUPID, are you?!?!?) because she's still a public figure, it'll never be put to bed.

when we tally up all lie and half truths of our major candidates - Trump and Clinton - Trump loses.

WHAT FUCKING PLANET ARE YOU ON?!?!?!

Because your sky sure as shit ain't blue.

Crooked Liar Hillary! lied about her fucking NAME

Yep - Crooked Liar Hillary! said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Except that Crooked Liar Hillary! was born SIX FUCKING YEARS BEFORE Sir Edmund became famous for climbing Everest.

And who can forget this lie from Crooked Liar Hillary!:

Recalling Hillary Clinton’s claim of ‘landing under sniper fire’ in Bosnia

Shall I continue?

Nothing is a hate symbol. People can be hateful with anything.

Name a single christian country that executes gays as a matter of law.

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

It doesn't have to statutorily punishable by death for it to be unofficially punishable by death. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/... http://www.thedailybeast.com/a... . Uganda is 85% christian.

Nothing is a hate symbol. People can be hateful with anything.

Name a single christian country that executes gays as a matter of law.

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

Homegrown christian crazies are crazy. Islamic countries under sharia are scary.

They may not have tried yet, but when both Obama and Clinton reference Australia as a model to look at for ideas, it's not a far-fetched conclusion to make. A large-scale confiscation of guns (practically every semi-automatic rifle or shotgun) is precisely what Australia is famous for in the gun control department.

If they were to cite, say, Czech Republic instead - which does have shall-issue concealed carry, doesn't have assault weapon ban, but doesn't have shooting sprees, so arguably it's a better model if you want to solve this problem in a politically viable manner - that would have been a different story.

That's a scary thought.

You have many scary thoughts, most of them dreamed up in your fantasy land...

You're an idiot, but that's ok, Clinton loves idiots, so you'll do well with her... Or not actually, but you won't figure that out either...

Once again, FlyHelicopters doesn't actually respond to any of the substantial content of a post. Calls someone else an idiot.

And we're supposed to do what? Not realize that you've got nothing. I, on the other hand, can point to atranscript where Trump says:

"Or, as I've been saying for a long time, and I think you'll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil -- and we should have taken the oil."

Which means what exactly, FlyHelicopters? What does it mean? How am I supposed to take it as anything other than America ACTUALLY pillaging another country for its natural resources?

Figure it out for me. Explain it. Trump didn't limit his words to "We should have kept the oil in Iraq secure" or "We should have insisted on having defenses in place to prevent their oil from being taken" but instead, and this has been over the course of months, he has continually reiterated that WE should have taken THEIR oil.

What does that sound like to you? Be honest. Don't give us another blowhard fit of pique. Go for a serious and honest reply.

You don't even have to respond to the rest of my post, which you ignored. Respond to that bit. Tell us what Trump means.

Or just fume and present us with another display of your own temperament. Honestly, I wish Hillary Clinton had called Trump out on his words directly, but since I can't expect to get an answer from him, I guess you'll do.

What's your answer?

We are... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Note that not just conservatives are guilty of contrarianism. You see similar views among antivaxxers, who are often liberal or left-leaning.

Actually, According to Kahan's study from 2014, there is no significant political correlation with antivaxxers - it is not a primarily left-wing viewpoint. In fact, the more right-wing a person is, the more likely they are to be vaccine skeptics, though this correlation is slight.

Godwin's law doesn't indicate that the reference to Hilter and Nazism is always out of place though. Just that it tends to occur.

In this case we're talking about a politician attempting to gain power by scapegoating minorities and immigrants, and the comparison is for once, apt.

Here is Mr. Godwin himself on Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

How about a little bit of intellectual honesty...

The truth is, that those who politicized Global Warming are the #1 reason it is questions.

1. Scientific Consensus - dumbest claim, there has been a consensus about nearly every wrong belief in science. Until it was disproved. A claim of consensus is NOT a scientific argument.

2. Scientific studies - the track record of many, if not most, scientific studies is very poor.

> The amount of financially influenced studies.
> Incorrect studies.
> Out-and-out fraudulent studies

All lead to skepticism. Remember, this is the generation in which every dietary instruction of the 80's all derived from so-called scientific studies, have no essentially been disproven.

Furthermore, the science of studying studies has some interesting results. The fact that bad studies often are more influencing. The fact that most studies, even those purported to use proper techniques, cannot be reproduced. And it's not just limited to psychology studies.

http://www.economist.com/news/...

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

https://www.jove.com/blog/2012...

3. Bad and untrustworthy science. The big problem that GW has is that they burned a lot of credibility. They did this by seeking a desired result and bending data to their expectations - that's bad science.

a. Most of the climate science involved taking multiple divergent data sets (satellite records, mercury records, tree ring records, ice records, etc) and merge them into one large pan-historic set. The problem is, there really is NO WAY to truly do that. And a certain part of that requires guesswork.

Rather than be honest about the guess work, they erred by choosing what best fit their goals. When you're debating an increase in a degree or two, yet are dealing with that much variability. The guesswork often exceeds the statistical data.

b) There has been criticism of the "recording centers" and strong, scientific based observation that many of those record keeping centers have been compromised.

c) Statements made directly contradicted with historical evidence. While they later made adjustments to correct, it wasn't until they were pressed hard publicly and politically.

d) Scientific models used for predictions, but fail to correlate. When ALL the models used fail to properly predict, it is clear that the models are not accurate. I believe the Russian model which was far less extreme was the only one that came close to being on track.

e) Media claims. Weather NOT Climate. Dumb BS. How many times have I been told weather isn't climate. And I am told this, in debates discussing weather being used to claim climatic warming. *facepalm*

Recently, there was a report that a spring was hottest on record. I laughed, because we had one of the coldest springs and I joked that the media would still claim it was the hottest on record. I said that as a joke, not expecting it to be true. Okay, so it was....and my thought was regional vs continental vs global. I expected the data to show that my region was cooler than average, but that the continent overall was warmer, and so was the globe. But then I looked at the temperature index maps. And my region was listed as above average temps for the spring. Okay, gotta call BS....when we're having one of the coldest springs, everyone is wondering if summer is even going to come, and I've lost a ton of crops due to extremely late frosts. And you are trying to tell me that I had an above average temperature spring. Bullshit. And that is the crap pe

I was just about to post that we need Brian Krebs back, and I saw that Krebs' website is back!
For those of you who do not remember, Brian's journalism was responsible for nuking more than half the spam on the internet in 2008.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Wikipedia says:

A February 2011 investigative report by WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee found evidence of widespread grade inflation at the school's Milwaukee area location in Greenfield..

Yet, score inflation is common all over the academic spectrum. SAT scores have seen several rounds of inflation over time. My own university's tests are far easier at the same level in 2016 than they were in 1975. Even at the high school level score inflation is rampant.

We have decided that having students feel good about themselves is more important than maintaining academic excellence. ITT is just playing along with the cultural direction, perhaps taking it a little further than most. That just makes them ahead of their time.

Er, "Americans turning inward..."? According to The Washington Post two weeks ago, “While Americans savored the last moments of summer this Labor Day weekend, the U.S. military was busy overseas as warplanes conducted strikes in six countries in a flurry of attacks". https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Many people around the world devoutly wish that Americans would "turn inward" and occupy themselves with their own business, instead of killing foreigners for their own good.

...than the ACTUAL sitting US president bargaining away missile defense?

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

So... because she's no longer SoS... the donations and apparent quid-pro-quos while she was in office don't matter any longer?

Sorry, plenty of foreign money came in WHILE she was SoS: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Why the fuck is this modded insightful. Trump has incited his followers to violence, appeals to neonazis and white supremacists, and has caused holocaust survivors to say "he seems familiar".

Trump and his supporters are a poison in this country, and suggesting Hillary Clinton even comes close to being as evil is delusional.

Wikipedia page for the F35 says: "In 2012, the total life-cycle cost for the entire U.S. fleet was estimated at US$1.51 trillion"

"Afghanistan costs 124 million a year"? Did you actually type "cost of war in afghanistan" into Google?

Some estimates put the at 14 million per hour:

http://www.ibtimes.com/14-mill...

Of course that's a junk new site so that figure is wrong. More reliable site put it two or three times higher than that:

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

This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started, the gaslighting asshole.

Clinton did start it. Even far-left magazines and newspapers who aren't in the tank for Clinton can trace how Clinton ops in 2008, told investigative reporters that they should look into it. And many actually did, going as far as sending investigative teams to look into it. It was one of her campaign strategies.

None of these links say anything about Clinton starting anything of the sort.

This is getting as bad as the birthers. Which Trump says Clinton started, the gaslighting asshole.

Clinton did start it. Even far-left magazines and newspapers who aren't in the tank for Clinton can trace how Clinton ops in 2008, told investigative reporters that they should look into it. And many actually did, going as far as sending investigative teams to look into it. It was one of her campaign strategies.

Trump properties discriminated against black renters.

Oops, I guess he did act in a racist fashion over a long period of time.

Ted Cruz is wrong about how free speech is censored on the Internet

--some non-American who wouldn't know what he was talking about.

Just what benefits do you think will derive from that ?

You're going to just make innocent people that actually obey the laws lives more difficult.

Even if you get people to go along with it all you would wind up with is a situation like Germany's

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

Where you have 10's of millions of illegal weapons float around the country and false positives will wind up putting innocent people in prison.

They were ALL being racist.

So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?

Trump lied through his teeth about Duke.

Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.

Show me proof that he's biased against other races.

Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.

The Middle East has nearly 400 million muslims spread apart in the various countries in the area.

Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...

He could have easily said "I condemned him 15 years ago, and I am again today."

If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?

Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite. And Seddique Mateen — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter. and Lezley McSpadden, whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...

If all of your citations come from sites like brietbart, theamericanfreedomparty.us, or other OBVIOUS biased, partisan sources, you have no foundation for a legitimate argument.

They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.

And today you have unprecedented dieback of essential coral heads and reefs, whales washing up on shore in record numbers, seals and walrus having significant difficulties with their habitats, massive reductions in polar ice, the near complete disappearance of the glacier at glacier national park, severe population reductions of oceanic tuna, and a whole host of other things.

More fear mongering my good sir?

Trump may be slime, but at the moment I don't think there is any sort of definitive proof he's broken the law

...you mean aside from having to pay a fine to the IRS for breaking the law in what was probably an attempt to bribe an attorney general?

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

And oh look, while trying to find details of that i found a whole list of other illegal things he's done/proposed doing:

http://www.pajiba.com/politics...

If there were it almost certainly would have come out by now and be front page headlines for every news organization in the US

These things do float to the top of the headlines every so often, but generally they're quickly forgotten about. I'm not sure why that is exactly. Because Trump's supporters don't care when he does something illegal or immoral? Because he does so many of them that nobody can stay focused on just one long enough for it to become a real issue? I have no idea.

Proven crimes are petty. And Trump isn't corrupt? Haha. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Spent years suggesting that a black president wasn't born in the US, despite a ton of excellent evidence to the contrary.

How is that racism?

It's an example extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is black. One only needs see the relative disinterest with which the birthers treated the fact that the exact scenario they were speculating about applied directly to Cruz.

Said a judge of Mexican heritage wasn't fit to judge him due to his heritage.

I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase... What are you trying to slip here, uhm?

Nothing, I just don't want to waste time.

What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest.

Which was dumb, despite the fact they kept confusing different "La Raza"s. But more to the point lots of white judges are members of ethnic professional groups, no one accuses them of being racist, so only making it an issue when it's a Mexican judge in a group for Mexican judges is racist.

If it is Ok to suspect, that an All-white jury may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?

Judges, unlike juries, have specific training on how to deal with biases. And there's no reason to think that a Mexican would have a negative stereotype about a German.

Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).

Not racism. Stick to the topic.

Muslim and Arab are highly correlated, particularly in the minds of Islamaphobes.

Regularly stereotypes blacks "you've got nothing to lose", suggesting that they're one monolithic underclass.

Never heard of it. Actual quotes, please.

Meh, why not.

Notice the stream of negative stereotypes and a false claim of 58% black youth unemployment.

He's not even talking to a black crowd, he's making his "outreach" to a white crowd.

Why is every Republican supposed to "disavow" Duke — except to play into the opponents trap of accepting some guilt (sort of like disavowing beating of one's wife)?

If you're explicitly asked about it? Yes.

If David Duke and other white supremacists have repeatedly and enthusiastically endorsed you unlike anyone else in decades? Definitely yes.

There's a reason Duke and the other white supremacists continue to support Trump so much, he refuses to convincingly say they're wrong.

Would Bernie Sanders disavow Lenin?

Not sure, there's a reason I didn't support Sanders.

Has Hillary Clinton disavowed Al Sharpton, who, unlike Duke, actually encouraged racial violence

It was a lot more BLM than anti-Semitism, the anger was the perception that the life of a black child was treated as secondary to the life of the white (and Jewish) driver who had killed him.

Spent years suggesting that a black president wasn't born in the US, despite a ton of excellent evidence to the contrary.

How is that racism?

It's an example extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is black. One only needs see the relative disinterest with which the birthers treated the fact that the exact scenario they were speculating about applied directly to Cruz.

Said a judge of Mexican heritage wasn't fit to judge him due to his heritage.

I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase... What are you trying to slip here, uhm?

Nothing, I just don't want to waste time.

What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest.

Which was dumb, despite the fact they kept confusing different "La Raza"s. But more to the point lots of white judges are members of ethnic professional groups, no one accuses them of being racist, so only making it an issue when it's a Mexican judge in a group for Mexican judges is racist.

If it is Ok to suspect, that an All-white jury may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?

Judges, unlike juries, have specific training on how to deal with biases. And there's no reason to think that a Mexican would have a negative stereotype about a German.

Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).

Not racism. Stick to the topic.

Muslim and Arab are highly correlated, particularly in the minds of Islamaphobes.

Regularly stereotypes blacks "you've got nothing to lose", suggesting that they're one monolithic underclass.

Never heard of it. Actual quotes, please.

Meh, why not.

Notice the stream of negative stereotypes and a false claim of 58% black youth unemployment.

He's not even talking to a black crowd, he's making his "outreach" to a white crowd.

Why is every Republican supposed to "disavow" Duke — except to play into the opponents trap of accepting some guilt (sort of like disavowing beating of one's wife)?

If you're explicitly asked about it? Yes.

If David Duke and other white supremacists have repeatedly and enthusiastically endorsed you unlike anyone else in decades? Definitely yes.

There's a reason Duke and the other white supremacists continue to support Trump so much, he refuses to convincingly say they're wrong.

Would Bernie Sanders disavow Lenin?

Not sure, there's a reason I didn't support Sanders.

Has Hillary Clinton disavowed Al Sharpton, who, unlike Duke, actually encouraged racial violence

It was a lot more BLM than anti-Semitism, the anger was the perception that the life of a black child was treated as secondary to the life of the white (and Jewish) driver who had killed him.

Spent years suggesting that a black president wasn't born in the US, despite a ton of excellent evidence to the contrary.

How is that racism?

Said a judge of Mexican heritage wasn't fit to judge him due to his heritage.

I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase... What are you trying to slip here, uhm?

What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest. If it is Ok to suspect, that an All-white jury may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?

Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).

Not racism. Stick to the topic.

Regularly stereotypes blacks "you've got nothing to lose", suggesting that they're one monolithic underclass.

Never heard of it. Actual quotes, please.

Extreme reluctance to reject or disavow David Duke or other white supremacists

Why is every Republican supposed to "disavow" Duke — except to play into the opponents trap of accepting some guilt (sort of like disavowing beating of one's wife)?

Would Bernie Sanders disavow Lenin? Has Hillary Clinton disavowed Al Sharpton, who, unlike Duke, actually encouraged racial violence and is responsible for at least one Jew getting killed by a Black mob? No, she not only didn't disavow the asshole, she actively sought his endorsement and attended a rally at his organization.

but many of the things he says and does are quite racist.

So far, the number of actual racist quotes is a perfect zero... Keep trying...

Just a quick list of scandals from which she has recovered (source: http://www.redstate.com/califo...):

• Watergate - Hillary was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1974 by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, because she was a liar. Hillary "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
• Hillary’s ‘missing’ law firm billing records during the Watergate scandal. When the records mysteriously turned up in the White House in 1996, they showed Hillary met repeatedly with key figures in the scandal.”
• Whitewater.
• Travelgate - Hillary allegedly fired seven employees and gave the positions to her Arkansas friends in a scheme to award a White House airline contract to a Clinton friend.
• Filegate - The Clintons illegally obtained FBI files on political adversaries.
• Selling access to the Lincoln Bedroom -- a fundraising scandal, which NBC's Jim Miklaszewski described as the most expensive bed and breakfast in North America. Some of the 958 visitors who slept at the White House during Clinton's first term. Steve Jobs paid $150,000, and Steven Spielberg paid $200,000.
• Cattle Futures Scandal.
• The Clintons' speaking fees.
• Benghazi
• Emailgate
• Selling Access to the Secretary of State -- the Clinton Foundation's pay for scandal.
• Faintgate

Just a quick list of scandals from which she has recovered (source: http://www.redstate.com/califo...):

• Watergate - Hillary was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1974 by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, because she was a liar. Hillary "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
• Hillary’s ‘missing’ law firm billing records during the Watergate scandal. When the records mysteriously turned up in the White House in 1996, they showed Hillary met repeatedly with key figures in the scandal.”
• Whitewater.
• Travelgate - Hillary allegedly fired seven employees and gave the positions to her Arkansas friends in a scheme to award a White House airline contract to a Clinton friend.
• Filegate - The Clintons illegally obtained FBI files on political adversaries.
• Selling access to the Lincoln Bedroom -- a fundraising scandal, which NBC's Jim Miklaszewski described as the most expensive bed and breakfast in North America. Some of the 958 visitors who slept at the White House during Clinton's first term. Steve Jobs paid $150,000, and Steven Spielberg paid $200,000.
• Cattle Futures Scandal.
• The Clintons' speaking fees.
• Benghazi
• Emailgate
• Selling Access to the Secretary of State -- the Clinton Foundation's pay for scandal.
• Faintgate

Just a quick list of scandals from which she has recovered (source: http://www.redstate.com/califo...):

• Watergate - Hillary was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1974 by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, because she was a liar. Hillary "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
• Hillary’s ‘missing’ law firm billing records during the Watergate scandal. When the records mysteriously turned up in the White House in 1996, they showed Hillary met repeatedly with key figures in the scandal.”
• Whitewater.
• Travelgate - Hillary allegedly fired seven employees and gave the positions to her Arkansas friends in a scheme to award a White House airline contract to a Clinton friend.
• Filegate - The Clintons illegally obtained FBI files on political adversaries.
• Selling access to the Lincoln Bedroom -- a fundraising scandal, which NBC's Jim Miklaszewski described as the most expensive bed and breakfast in North America. Some of the 958 visitors who slept at the White House during Clinton's first term. Steve Jobs paid $150,000, and Steven Spielberg paid $200,000.
• Cattle Futures Scandal.
• The Clintons' speaking fees.
• Benghazi
• Emailgate
• Selling Access to the Secretary of State -- the Clinton Foundation's pay for scandal.
• Faintgate

It is hard to compromise with someone who refuses to even come to the table to discuss anything:

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

Every time the republicans try to make a stand it is the same thing from Obama, he won't negotiate anything, he wants exactly what he wants and no less. Can you blame congress for saying no?

WW2 was also beneficial to financial elites.

See for example: Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration
and IBM and the Holocaust

What I wonder after reading this sorry story is: was Holmes aware that she was selling snake oil all along, or did she start out with the genuinely belief that her company could make the technology work? I'm willing to believe the latter: they did try, but the longer their breakthrough failed to materialize, the more they had to shift their efforts towards keeping up appearances, or "controlling the narrative" as it's called.

Holmes new the technology cannot possibly work. According to the articles I have read on the topic (including the one in Vanity Fair) she was told so directly by her professors at Stanford when she approached them with the startup idea. Her chief scientist was telling her that the thing is not working. What did she do? She stuffed her board with people who new nothing about biology, chemistry or engineering. The job of her second in command at the company was exclusively to suppress information leaking out. So yes, she new what she was doing: scamming people out of their money.

The VF article also tells a disturbing story how friends and political connections of her father basically propped up the company, gave it legitimacy and suppressed inquiry through legal threats (David Boies) and by using their commanding position in the military (Gen. James Mattis).

What's with rich people any more? They're all giving hundreds of millions to each others' charities and patting themselves on the back. At least Donald Trump has the right idea. You get people to donate to your foundation, put most of it right in your pocket, give your wife and kids a little taste, bribe some state attorneys general to not prosecute you for fraud, and then use the rest to buy a six-foot oil painting of your self. That's the kind of avarice I can relate to as a patriotic American.

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

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

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

What's with rich people any more? They're all giving hundreds of millions to each others' charities and patting themselves on the back. At least Donald Trump has the right idea. You get people to donate to your foundation, put most of it right in your pocket, give your wife and kids a little taste, bribe some state attorneys general to not prosecute you for fraud, and then use the rest to buy a six-foot oil painting of your self. That's the kind of avarice I can relate to as a patriotic American.

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

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

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

And how many times did Republicans filibuster again?

You are probably just as mistaken as Obama, since you all get your info from the save hive-mind of lies.

Maybe depriving adversaries of the ability to watch you makes good sense, but what if your adversary is law enforcement? You mighty have a reasonable expectation of privacy but that right is not absolute when law enforcement has probable cause to believe that your camera might provide evidence of a crime.

I think the American people need to have an adult conversation with Comey, about his criminal-aiding advice and whether or not cameras (including Comey's own camera) should be allowed to "go dark."

Another fact: Big animals were disproportionately exterminated in all mass extinctions.

Another fact: you're completely wrong!

"The researchers conducted the work through a statistical analysis of a 2,497 different marine animal groups at one taxonomic level higher than the level of species -- called "genera." And they found that increases in an organism's body size were strongly linked to an increased risk of extinction in the present period -- but that this was not the case in the Earth's distant past.

Indeed, during the past 66 million years, there was actually a small link between smaller body sizes and going extinct, marking the present as a strong reversal. "The extreme bias against large-bodied animals distinguishes the modern diversity crisis from all potential deep-time analogs," the researchers write."

I've provided a citation for my fact, now feel free to do so for yours, rather than declaring it one by fiat.

Also, let's face it, voter ID laws only stop one amazingly rare type of voter fraud - in person voter fraud. How rare? Try 31 documented cases out of 1 billion votes cast.

But we _have_ to have those voter ID laws to stop that sort of thing. Because... you know, fraud. Evil, evil fraud. Evil, so damned rare as to be non-existant fraud.

Shh. Don't tell the partisan hacks that. They'll get upset when you show that only 7% of the US media identifies as republican. And nearly 30% identify as democrats, which is less then 1992 when nearly 45% of the media self-identified as democrats. Or that democrats get more positive press. Or that90% of reporters in the DC area AKA beltway reporters either are declared democrats or vote democrat.

So far UL's record is solid, and they've been around over 100 years. Their safety standards are reviewed and approved by the government, if you think there needs to a government aspect to it. Although I will admit that UL's for-profit status is likely a cause for some to question their ethical obligations.

Questions have been around for quite a while. A few decades anyway.

But no, there's a key government aspect you're missing to it. Liability. Unless you're planning on reforming the civil tort system, that's going to involve the government, and as such, well...

Don't think for one second that governments are somehow immune to the same sort of corruption you imply. Both private corporations and public bureaucracies can be influenced by money and political pressure.

Huh? I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I stated the opposite, that the only real solution is for government to remain accountable in itself. This is not immunity, this is examination. Did you misunderstand? Should I have expanded a bit, and added the line "Constant Vigilance" ? to make it clearer to you?
I don't know, you seem to have taken my last sentence exactly the opposite way from how it was meant.

Haven't been keeping up with current events, have you? YouTube is demonitizing (thus killing) channels that don't meet their vague as all hell "guidelines" that include "political or controversial content". Wanna guess what is happening?

Well those "#killallmen" "DieCISScum" and "lets kill whitie" channels? They are all fine, none of them are being affected no matter how racist and sexist they are, but any that call them out on their bullshit or point out SJW insanity like Trigglypuff? Well I hope you didn't need that channel for anything,they have even shut down a channel multiple times that does nothing but host news broadcasts of crimes from around the USA because it makes the BLM movement look like shit by showing who they are protesting for.

Considering the fact that the head of Google is the CTO of the Clinton campaign should not make this surprising to anyone, but between this and Google manipulating search results to aid Clinton they are about as fair and balanced as Jezebel or Twitter.

I don't really care about more surveillance if it means people's lives will be saved. I've concluded the people who have the most to lose from increased surveillance are drug users, pedophiles and those paranoid of the government. I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.

Yeah, I get the typical standard response of wrapping oneself in the 13-starred early American flag wearing a 3 pointed hat, and shouting, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety!" I'm not giving up any freedom. I'm still covered by the Constitution.

If there is a compelling national security interest to tap my phone or monitor my communications - I won't like it (obviously) but I'm okay with it. But there isn't so I feel comfortable communicating embarrassing information and even communicating thoughtcrime from time to time. But if someone did get on the government's national security radar, I'd want the government to be able to surveil them in the hope that it might save lives. And in saying I'm okay with it for another means I must accept that risk/inconvenience for myself. Because, like I said, I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.

Having said all that, I do respect Edward Snowden for his courage and for bringing this out into the light, and not letting the program run away. I wouldn't want to see NSA employees using the infrastructure to gather LOVEINT, i.e. stalk ex-girlfriends, or politicians using the infrastructure to gather opposition research and the like. On the other hand I personally wouldn't hire Snowden because I get the impression if he saw something that went against his grain, he'd divulge company secrets in a heartbeat.

But Cook appears to be pushing for permanently lower corporate taxes.

Even Obama wants to do that. In fact, so do both parties.

You can foam at the mouth about how unfair the real world is all you want, imposing increasingly higher taxes on corporations or individuals will cause them to adopt "tax avoidance strategies". If you make the taxes high enough, they'll simply stop operating/working altogether. It's as unavoidable as gravity.

I've noticed that Hillary has a pattern of using the "most minimal" excuse that will get her by.

She was in great health until she had a 4 minute 22 second coughing fit, then it's "I have been talking non-stop for weeks, but I'm OK now."

She was fine until she had to leave the 9/11 memorial, then it's "I was feeling a little overheated, but I'm all right now".

That worked until the video of her collapsing as she's put into a van, then it's "I have pneumonia, but it's all right".

This tracks with other investigation into her actions, including the E-mail scandal:

• . She didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.”
• . She didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.
• . She turned over all of her work-related e-mails.
• . Her use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation.
• . All of her e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.
• . There were numerous safeguards against security breaches and “no evidence” of hacking.
• . She was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.

...all of which she has said, occasionally under oath.

If the past is any prediction of the future, we'll have to wait a couple of months to find out if she was really sick or not.

Who stores passwords in clear these days ?

You've apparently never worked on a project for a government agency.

They're typically a combination of right-up-to-date (on things which you can just spend money on and it shows up, like a brand new laptop and monitor every year) and 20-30+ years behind (on things which require actual policy/best practices/technology knowledge).

It doesn't shock me at all that the FBI help desk is as described. I'm a little more familiar with the IRS. In 1991 they were spending $8 Billion to modernize from their 1950s/60s system. By 1997 the IRS was already on their second or third failed "modernization" project, that one failed to the tune of $4 Billion. As recently as 2013 they were still failing to migrate from "1960s" technology to a relational database system.

Multiply that by all the other government agencies

Quote:

Of 3,555 federal IT projects that cost at least $10 million, only 6 percent were a success, according to a study by the Standish Group. In addition, 52 percent of large projects were deemed "challenged," meaning they didn't meet user expectations, went over budget, or ran late. All of the remaining projects - 42 percent - were outright failures.

And that's just quick news stories/studies from 5 minutes of Google search reading.

Consider that AFAIK, (this being 9/11 today, its pertinent) since we reported it to them 15+ years ago, none of the Air Traffic Control radar installations have any physical security and they're still running an OS from 20+ years ago that anyone can walk up to and make modifications to. At one point, the Dept. of Agriculture turned off all their firewalls to rely on IDS only because it was too inconvenient to have to keep punching holes for more ports through them.... the stories go on and on!

remember when it was evil for those 1%er nazis to illegally influence elections with their dirty evil money? Well, it's officially OK now that the money is going to Hillary.

Fact checking you. You fail.

The limit on campaign spending was overturned by a republican-dominated supreme court with all five conservative republican appointees affirming the decision and all four democrat appointees opposing. Or more simply: republicans made this bed, now they must lie in it.

They have, but it doesn't get much attention.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I guess a part of the problem is that it's been common knowledge among informed people for years that Trump is a fraud, so yet more evidence of it doesn't seem very interesting. Clinton seems to get held to a much higher standard since people actually expect competence from her.

concrete structures survived well.

Before, after.