Slashdot Mirror

Have you been asleep? Obama just let the terrorists out of gitmo. Who needs to close a prison when you can just let the prisoners go?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Funny, I didn't realize islamic rapefugees had done such a great job of assimilating into the socialist paradise that is Europe.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Maybe you just stayed in the rich 1%er areas of the Hague :)

I recall my training on confidential information when I entered the Defense Industry nearly thirty years ago. Hell, I remember the Food Safety course I took at age 17.

It's clear Hillary has some kind of Brain Injury issue going on.

According to this article,

Mrs. Clinton told the FBI she couldn’t remember if she was ever briefed on preserving records, but said it may have happened in 2012, after she fell and suffered a concussion and had a blood clot.

“Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received,” the agents wrote in their notes.

Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009. I doubt she got her briefing on preserving records in 2012.

Claiming that she can't remember things because of her concussion helps keep her out of legal trouble. However, it doesn't help her claim that her mind is healthy enough to be president. Well, maybe she'll say that her mind was messed up then, but that it's ok now.

No one actually has to "hack" anything -- just get the thought out there. No matter who wins, stories like this will be cited by the losing side as "proof" the election was "rigged" or "hacked", and that the winner didn't win legitimately.

One side is already making this argument, and is recruiting an army of armed "observers" to stand around polling places and act menacing.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

http://www.vanityfair.com/news...

What we invested into O's solar project: http://m.washingtontimes.com/n...

Solyndra was an obvious scam and Obama should be taken to task for funding it. But the other solar investments paid out, which proves the point that solar isn't bad. Corporatism is.

What we invested into O's solar project: http://m.washingtontimes.com/n...

And the politicoes are all stumped as to why people are angry at them and screaming for real change, to the point where people will actually vote for an asshat like Trump...

Given Clinton's recent hiring practices and campaign staff, maybe we should just be happy that she hired Americans and leave it at that.

Here's the latest:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The hype in this article about how Twitter is about "free speech" is designed to distract/deflect from the obvious fact of extensive politically-based censorship on Twitter.

But there is nothing illegal about buying milk... so why does this message need to be encrypted?

Unless the government does not like that brand of milk...

You mean like this milk? http://www.washingtontimes.com...

You already *have* a bunch of supposedly superior masterminds controlling what goes on in your life, for reference: University study demonstrates that America functions as an oligarchy.

That still doesn't apply to a determined, black-market operative (read: free person)

Granted, they don't micro-manage you. They control you "from a distance," as it were, allowing you just enough freedom that you don't notice the influence they have over you. But control you they do, and control them (with your puny votes) you do not.

Voting is for slaves and fools only.

On a more related note....

The rise of technology cannot be prevented. No level of political pressure will ever stop it. Each contributing step is in-and-of-itself innocuous, and the economic incentives to take said step are overpowering. We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.

How is the love of freedom to be removed from humanity? Eugenics? I'd argue such a fundamental change to what humans are is tantamount to extinction.

Arguably, causing humanity to go extinct before the singularity would halt the "rise of technology". You can bet that if the choice is between death and slavery that more than a few people will actively seek the complete extermination of mankind.

You already *have* a bunch of supposedly superior masterminds controlling what goes on in your life, for reference: University study demonstrates that America functions as an oligarchy.

Granted, they don't micro-manage you. They control you "from a distance," as it were, allowing you just enough freedom that you don't notice the influence they have over you. But control you they do, and control them (with your puny votes) you do not.

On a more related note....

The rise of technology cannot be prevented. No level of political pressure will ever stop it. Each contributing step is in-and-of-itself innocuous, and the economic incentives to take said step are overpowering. We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.

And another example of rewarding the faithful, and the Clinton Foundation operating in concert with her government office.

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received monthly missives about the growing unrest in Libya from a longtime friend who was previously barred by the White House from working for her as a government employee, according to emails received on her personal account. The messages show the role played by Sidney Blumenthal, who was working for the Clinton family foundation and advising a group of entrepreneurs trying to win business from the Libyan transitional government. Mr. Blumenthal repeatedly wrote dispatches about the events in Libya to Mrs. Clinton, who often forwarded them to her aides at the State Department. Mrs. Clinton’s earlier efforts to hire Mr. Blumenthal, who has spent nearly two decades working for the Clinton family, as a State Department employee were rejected by Obama administration ..."
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Didn't you hear the news, man?

Republican trannies are cool, now.

A laydee

Lady news

Not forgetting the Bruce, sorry, Caitlyn.

It's now reported that the FBI warned team Hillary back in March and they refused to cooperate with the FBI.

Sorta like their earlier year-long refusal to cooperate with the feds on the investigation of her server, while she ran around telling the public she was eager and fully cooperating and that her server was approved, which her own State Department denies. There's a good reason why she has held not a single actual press conference in all of 2016 (you know, those things where politicians take questions from a hostile press corps (worse given that in her case the press is actually in the tank for her party and not even tough)).

Former CBS news journalist Sharyl Attkisson has a nice, concise timeline on the whole Hillary server flap for those interested.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The reason so many Repubplicans DESPISE Miitch McConnel, John Boehner and Paul Ryan is that they have FULLY FUNDED the Obama admin budgets for EVERYTTHING including Obamacare and Planned Parenthood!

Last year, these feckless fools surrendered to Obama completely and gave him an agreement to not limit the debt and not cut the budgets for TWO YEARS (i.e. a free pass for the rest of his presidency)

If you think any government agencies are unable to act beacuse of buget cuts, please explain this: The IRS which continually complains it cannot assist taxpayers becuase it lacks the money gives millions of dollars to its own employees as bonuses even though they are tax dodgers!

How about THIS: The GSA which has been awash in scandals about its incompetence for many years thinks nearly all its employees deserve bonuses and has been handing those bonuses out like candy.

This has been going on all over Washington DC for many years, which is a small part of why a small city that was supposed to be just place where representatives of the people periodically met to do limited government duties before returning home has instead become the hub around which most of the wealthies counties in the nation now reside.

The US government took in more tax money under Obama than under any predient in History, including the presidents who had to buy computers for their administrations back when computers were very rare and extremely expensive. When the IRS and the rest of the agencies were setup, cheap desktop computers did not exist. What's the excuse now?

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.

Not sure if BLM is a movement with leaders or something more like Anonymous. More than likely those BLM supporters who want to kill cops are the minority.

Seriously? There are founders, leaders and members of BLM that have been assaulting people and another, at least one for running a under-age prostitution ring and under-age sex trafficking, the one from Toronto has repeatedly said "they wanted to kill white people" and then at the protest in Toronto they brought out more anti-police, anti-white rhetoric.

Yeah really, these are self-professed members acting in violent, criminal and in general scum like ways. There's no real difference between them and the ye olde racists of yesteryear.

Really though, more whites are killed by police then blacks in the US by a huge number. But there's zip on the media about that. You heard about the last two blacks, how about the last two white guys who were gunned down that literally happened a few days/weeks before that.

http://mediatrackers.org/wisco...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...
http://www.campusreform.org/?I...
http://www.mediaite.com/online...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
http://freebeacon.com/issues/s...
http://overlawyered.com/2015/0...
http://legalinsurrection.com/2...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...

The Federal Government itself says it wastes over 7 TIMES as much as the entire NASA budget, every year. Medicare, Medicaid, and EITC fraud alone is $95 billion a year.

I know that as does probably just about everyone on /. but do you remember how much of a deal the news media made about the terrorists using encrypt during their coverage of the attacks. It now looks like since the initial frenzy is over with that and people have it in their mind that it was because of encryption officials were unable to stop the attacks the media come out stating that they used unencrypted communication but that gets a lot less if any air play or only a brief mention in a small article buried on the inside.

It's almost as if they were all getting their stories from the same source... ;)

I know that as does probably just about everyone on /. but do you remember how much of a deal the news media made about the terrorists using encrypt during their coverage of the attacks. It now looks like since the initial frenzy is over with that and people have it in their mind that it was because of encryption officials were unable to stop the attacks the media come out stating that they used unencrypted communication but that gets a lot less if any air play or only a brief mention in a small article buried on the inside.

I just loved all those people yelling about how republicans are racists while calling Carson an "Uncle Tom"

http://firebrandleft.com/ben-c...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Using the no-fly list to keep bad guys from guns is a terrible idea, here is why:

• 1. The government can place anyone on the no-fly list for any reason at any time. They could easily just place everyone on the no-fly list banning everyone from buying/owning guns. Only the bad guys will have guns.
• 2. You say that won't happen? Innocent people are placed on that list all the time, and you cannot be removed:
  1. Woman on no-fly list.
  2. 8 year old American on no-fly list.
  3. 6 year old Canadian on no-fly list.
  4. Others including Cat Stevens and Senator Kennedy.
• 3. I could be placed on the no-fly list for writting this, chilling free speech. You could be placed on it for having read it. Don't believe me?
  1. Reporter writing a story about Homeland Security has home raided by the Coast Guard, seizing guns and her research/work at 4:30AM in body armor, weapons drawn.
  2. CIA uses 3 degrees of separation when spying on terror suspects.
• 4. What exactly is the no-fly list for? To keep foreign bad guys out of the country, or to keep bad guys from blowing up planes? What does either of those things have anything to do with gun control? It is already against the law for non-resident aliens to possess firearms and ammunition. What does blowing up a plane have anything to do with guns? So the only reason to use the no-fly list as a means for gun control would be to keep American citizens from possessing.

  None of the shooters in any of the mass shootings were on the no-fly list.

It's just a bad idea that can and will be abused to keep law abiding citizens from possessing guns, which the federal government has no legal power to do.

If you actually want to solve the mass shooting problem, and not just use fear to remove freedoms from individuals with thunderous applause, this is what I propose:

Let guns be in schools. As part of P.E. or even on its own, students will be in a firearm safety course. They will be target practicing. They will be tearing their guns down. They will be cleaning their firearms. They will be using hand guns, and rifles, and shotguns, etc. They will be taught that they are tools just like the circular saw or the welder in shop class, or knives and scissors in art class and home economics. They will take this class every year they are old enough to hold a weapon safely.

Just like at 16, when they are given a license to operate a tool that "kills" on average 3,287 people per day, at 18 they will take a test and if passed they will get a concealed carry license issued by their state of residence. The CCL will be valid in every state and territory of this nation. All of our children will be taught to not fear guns, and if they so chose they will be armed. That way the next time someone decides to bring a semi auto rifle to a night club to kill innocent people, that person would potentially be staring down a hundred barrels of trained good guys.

There will be no fear for the government to use to tighten gun control. People will not fear guns and will know how to use them. There will not be a gun control problem. Who knows, if everyone is armed, perhaps people may be more respectful to each other.

Here are some facts about "the last say [coming] from the ballot box".

That is why I said "it is clear, just look." The facts are as plain as day and in the public view. The super-rich get their measures passed, regardless of how the majority feel about them.

There are actually quite a few layers of separation between votes and federal law. And they are all (or at least, most) a matter of public knowledge. You just haven't done your homework.

If taxes are, as you basically argue, a use tax/service fee - then let's structure it as such. The US Federal Government is spending about $4 trillion this year for the 320 million of us present. So let's go ahead and send every man, woman, and child a bill for $12,500. That's their fee for the service provided.

Many on the left want to use taxes not to pay for the goods and services received, but to redistribute wealth to "make it equal". THAT is the fundamental difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in the US: Conservatives want to see equality of opportunity - everyone starts the race at the same line. Liberalism seeks equality of results - we all cross the finish line at the same time. And for the liberal politicians, they see the tax code as a way to enforce their belief. All the while exempting themselves from such levels (for example, President Obama pays about 20% in taxes even though the typical 1%er like he is pays much more. Heck, he pays a lower rate than the top 5% even though he's towards the very top end of that group).

Just after Google is apparently skewing search results for Clinton, they suddenly come out in support of a position that she's strongly in favor for. Just coincidence right? The number of coincidences going on with tech companies these days is just pretty amazing. There of course is another story on this with google saying it's true gov' we're not skewing anything. It's almost like when twitter started suspending non-feminists for objecting to the use of #killallmen, but feminists still use it to this day without any problems.

That joke soon to be illegal California

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Those who know me have heard me say I wouldn't pay fifty cents to keep a pot head in jail or prison. I completely agree that prisons are better used for more serious things than weed. In truth, if you want to focus on the dangers of unvaccinated people I'd focus more on illegal immigration. That has been shown to have caused actual new diseases rather than hypothetical ones as shown here: http://www.washingtontimes.com...

I think that most conservatives I know are also not in favor of bailing out corporations and fear the growing corporate power as much as the left. What manages to keep them divided is mostly the lefts war on Christianity and white people in general with white Christian men at the top of the hit list. This is well enough known that it's hard to miss but here is a link anyway: http://www.washingtontimes.com... The 1% holds power by dividing us. We are the 99% was a brilliant slogan and a poignant observation. However the 99% includes the dreaded white male christian as well as every other group. We can all work towards making a better life together or we can fragment and live in squalor as inequality grows.

Hillary Clinton failed to report several hacking attempts, grew afraid of opening emails

Ah, I finally understand why the military-industrial complex has been denying climate change for so long now...

Uh, what? To be sure, there are some industries with a vested interest in denying climate change (Exxon and Koch are an example) but the military? Not so much:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.defense.gov/News-Ar...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Do you prefer this?

The Moonie Times? Nope.

Do you prefer this?

A federal court has ruled that the Obama White House was stonewalling in its refusal to turn over global warming documents requested under the Freedom of Information law

In this most recent case, the Competitive Enterprise Institute was trying to force the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to release documents backing up Director John C. Holdren’s finding that global warming was making winters colder — a claim disputed by climate scientists. Mr. Holdren’s staffers first claimed they couldn’t find many documents, then tried to hide their release, saying they were all internal or were similar to what was already public.

But each of those claims turned out not to be true. “At some point, the government’s inconsistent representations about the scope and completeness of its searches must give way to the truth-seeking function of the adversarial process, including the tools available through discovery. This case has crossed that threshold,” the judge wrote.

The judge also ruled that they will now proceed with “discovery”, in which the courts will force the administration to release documents, under penalty of contempt.

The article also notes that this is the third time the courts have been forced to go this route with the Obama administration.

if we assume that national governments are neutral in this, then they can place a proper value on that environmental cost

Wow, talk about begging the question. Are they neutral? Or will they happily (ab)use this power you propose we give them to reward supporters and punish opponents?

And even if they are free of any agenda — just how can they (or anyone) calculate these costs? The people, who can't keep almost any project within budget and on-time and are notorious for mishandling even the high-profile ones — you are going to trust them to calculate the incalculable?

BP's oil-spill was projected to cost almost $70 bln, for example — but ended up costing $20 bln. Which side would the government have erred on computing the costs of an oil-well ahead of time? And what would it do with the surplus, if the estimates turned out to be exaggerated?

If they can hand bucks to folks to generate power

Itself a shameful practice to be abolished...

why did she comply 100% with the request for a copy of all work-related email? The only things she deleted were about 30k personal emails.

She was supposed to use systems that would keep official copies of all her official emails. She used her own system, which didn't.

She was supposed to hand over all official materials she had in her possession when she stopped being Secretary of State. She had to sign a document to that effect. But she had copies of all those official emails (on the server), and her lawyer had more copies (on a USB flash drive). Who even knows how many copies there were... maybe her IT guy had some backup tapes.

A political group filing Freedom of Information Act requests eventually figured out that there was almost no FOIA-available email from her; the government just said "we got nothing" and didn't explain why. Thanks to the Guccifer hack that came to light, the existence of her personal email server also came to light. Then a court ordered her to (finally!) turn over all those emails that she was supposed to have turned over already and wasn't supposed to have any more.

Then she didn't turn them over. She instead went through her emails and picked and chose what to turn over. She says that she deleted personal emails but turned over work-related emails... next time the IRS audits you, just give them part of what they ask for, and explain that you deleted the rest because it was personal. See how that works for you. In case the analogy wasn't clear: when a court orders you to turn stuff over, you don't get to pick and choose what to turn over. Unless your name is Hillary Clinton I guess, since she got away with it so far.

Oh by the way, she (or people working under her direction, same diff) printed the emails on paper, and handed over the paper. This senseless destruction of trees was just to make things harder for the people trying to sift through her emails, but of course all it did was waste some time; the feds have document scanners and OCR, and turned the paper back into searchable data. It was just sort of a little "fuck you" from Hillary to the people filing FOIA against her.

So, the US government doesn't have a complete record of her emails, but any spy agency that figured out what she was doing could have cracked her server and downloaded everything. So odds are good that the Russians and the Chinese have full copies of everything, whereas the US government is having to work hard to try to piece it all together.

So yeah, she cooperated 100%. 110%!!

P.S. A Marine is in huge trouble for sending a classified email with a personal laptop, and having a couple of classified documents on it. His defense is that secured laptops were hard to come by in a combat area, and the email was an attempt to save lives. The Marine Corps kicked him out over this.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/1/hillary-clinton-emails-far-more-egregious-than-dat/

Do you support one standard for the little people, and a looser standard for Hillary Clinton?

Because without someone checking on the how the food is prepared and stored is a recipe for food poisoning.

Yeah, because regulated Restaurants NEVER have issues (Chipotle)

By applying for a license and submitting to inspection we dramatically minimize that risk. This is a good thing.

No you don't. You just add bureaucracy to the mess. You know what I see, I see new requirements going up all the time, now, every Food Preparation location has a sign hanging in the windows saying "A Rating", indicating that it has passed recent (depending on definition) inspection, not how the food is being prepared that day (cough cough, sneeze and ooze). And since everyone has an A rating, that means they are all equally awesome. Nobody ever posts a "C", and I doubt every establishment is equal. So the score is ... meaningless bureaucratic bullshit.

What I'm seeing in my area are bunches of food trucks (over several blocks) -- which are putting local restaurants out of business. This isn't necessarily bad as the trucks are licensed, clean and inspected. It's just a 'shift' which is to be expected when someone finds a way to do something cheaper.

Yeah, because they don't have to pay rent or clean a full restaurant, just the truck and find a nice place to park it. I am sure it costs a boat load less to do that. Tacos are cheap as it is, and this just makes it cheaper.

However, cutting out "rent" as part of one's overhead is a LOT different that cutting out proper cleaning procedures and storage procedures for perishables. The former saves a business owner money as does the latter -- but not at the expense of risking their customers health.

Yeah I know a restaurant that got A rating, still had a food poisoning outbreak (Chipotle) . Explain to me how regulations and licensing prevented that? (hint, it didn't) Further, the public backlash against them was worse than anything the government could actually do. There is always risk, and regulations do not remove it, and often cost more (collectively) than the things it supposedly prevents.

IMHO that "A" rating that everyone gets, is misleading at best. It is like all those other warning labels that nobody ever bothers reading anymore, since they are everywhere.

Here is my take (from http://www.washingtontimes.com...)

These warning labels are everywhere in California. You can’t go to a grocery store, an airport or a gas station without being warned you might get cancer. But that doesn’t mean lacing up your sneakers is going to give you cancer — it just means that the bar for earning a label is so low that the businesses selling these products have to warn you of even the tiniest theoretical risk of health problems or else they’ll be slapped with a lawsuit.

At some point, the "regulation" designed to keep you safe, actually endangers you, because you ignore or trust them too much.

... or they hate the American government (aka mainstreet)....

I must have missed the part where the American government is mainstreet. I don't think that many positions that the government takes including its stances on NSA, civil forfeiture, H1B and immigration in general, free trade, foreign aid, and a great many other topics represent main street. Indeed the US has been shown to be an oligarchy where what government does bears little resemblance to what the people want. Citations:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Most recently http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

If shooting them down is illegal then running them down with a 747 has to be illegal too.

That's only in the crazy USA. Where people that have absolutely no experience as a pilot or even aviation get to make up rules.
It is the stereotypical Federal agency. Paperwork!

Of course the person that owns the drone should be held accountable for their actions. We should be able to shoot it down on our property. I think I even have a box of "drone shot" left.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Hi. I heard there is intelligent life in /. Now I found it. I thought it was a myth.
Thanks for the response and the time you took to write it. I mean it. If you were here, I'd offer you a beer.
I know about Venus, it rains lead. I think the Russians sent a probe there. It was crushed. That's where we're headed by the way. No matter what we do, we will become Venus eventually.

I wanted to link to the actual 2013 report, however they took it down. No surprise there, they took a beating and had to do a lot of explain'. However there is a BBC story about it here - http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc... . What was indefensible was where they admit there was a pause, yet they were even more sure it was happening than before. That's a very strong indicator there's an agenda, facts be damned. That's basic statistics.. well let's call it what it is - fraud. I'm sure the IPCC has access to real statisticians and they should know the confidence must go down in that situation. Again, unless there's an agenda. Reminds me of a student that knows the outcome of an experiment and fudges numbers to get the correct result. Never mind his actual numbers. Yes, I can tell.

Jail bit - I guess you're not watching the news lately. I see the idea popping up here and there. Not just in the US, other countries like Germany.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://worldnewsdailyreport.co...
well you get the idea, just google "jail global warming deniers" Of course simply questioning if CO2 is the cause wouldn't help you. They don't want any descent or discussion.

Now for the discussion. Things were warmer, very recently in geological time. We had settlements in Greenland, that are coming back into view due to the snow melting. They date to around 1500s (http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/). Before our little ice age. If you look into Venice, you'll find that they were trying to keep out the Adriatic in the 14th century. So let's not be so quick to blame man, it was happening without him. What really gets me is when there is a period that they can't explain, they'll go to whatever they can to try to explain it. If we get an odd hurricane like Katrina or just about anything else happens (too cold, too hot, nothing happened, hurricane, etc) - it's MMGW. No, it's weather. Recently if you look at Mr. Hansen from Goddard Space Flight Center, he said in 2000 that the 1990s was the hottest decade in the 20th century. Then he had to admit it was really the 1930s. He blamed it on a y2k bug - yea, right. IMHO, it was a lie and he got caught.

So how do you explain these things? The 1930s being hotter than every other decade since up to 2000? How do you explain clear indications that prior to the 1600s it was warmer, much warmer? How do you explain with record levels of CO2, it's not a lot warmer to coincide with their predictions from the 2000 time period? You know the scientific method, I think. You come up with a hypothesis and then if something doesn't work out, you're wrong. They've been doing this for years, and there is still no indication they have it right yet. I'm starting to see where they're finally admitting other gases have a role in this. Before, nope - it's only CO2. Again, a clear indication of an agenda.

Having said that, I don't disagree that it's getting warmer. Maybe we can do something about it. Let's find what is really causing it to warm up and go from there. CO2 seems to be a good scape goat. Everyone produces it, let's tax it. As if that'll do anything more than make a few people very rich. It would go a long way towards their credibility if nobody could make money from the carbon tax. It must be spent on fixing it, not making Mr. Gore well beyond rich. It

It's working pretty well right here in America too.

Haven't you noticed?

Those overseas students now face being deported from the United States for buying visas

One would think, the government's priorities would be to block the poor foreigners entering the country illegally and most immediately becoming a public burden. Only after we stop importing poverty, would the borders-enforcers turn on to people, who express their love for the United States without asking taxpayers for financial assistance.

Surely, both groups are breaking the law and ought to be prosecuted, but, if you must exercise prosecutorial discretion, wouldn't you start with those, who cause the most damage? The current Administration's priorities are exactly the opposite, for some reason...

Which is quite surprising, because prosecuting these immigrants — who had the advantage of geography in coming over here — would not require the elaborate entrapment schemes like setting up fake universities — the Administration already knows many of them, and even argues in court, it ought to be allowed to let them partake in Social Security and other "earned benefits" programs!

It is almost as if the plan is to allow them all to stay — despite going through the glacially slow motions of "deferred actions" — and, while staying, vote for the party in power, huh?

I was about to slam the AC for this one, then Googled it myself:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Though I doubt Hillary had anything to do with this issue, it does make her look bad as the ultimate manager of the department.

As if the phone in the San Bernadino case wasn't one that was used by an actual, real, murdering person who embarked on a terrorist attack?

Correct: it wasn't the one used in planning the terrorist attack.

To remind you of the facts, this was the work phone of (one of) the persons who embarked on the terrorist attack... which they planned using burner phones that they took some pains to destroy (along with the hard disk from their computer) and succeeded in doing so in a way that the FBI could not recover information.
https://www.inverse.com/articl...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

So, the question is, would they make an effort to to destroy two phones, and not bother destroying the third phone, if the third phone actually had any information on it?

The first amendment guarentees everyone the freedom to practice their religion. It does not guarantee that you will not witness other's practicing of their religion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

I guess the example I was thinking about doesn't involve the ACLU...however, I have seen previous examples where the ACLU sought to prevent other's from exercising their religion because they didn't like it, not because somehow the state was involved.

The Republicans shut down the government rather than work with him, or did that little fact slip your memory?

Are you sure that is the way it went?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Or if you mean the budget

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

So, who was not doing their job? The Republicans tried to do exactly what has always been done on every bill, negotiate with the other side. Obama called them terrorists and refused to negotiate, so was shut out. As soon as negotiations started, the issue was resolved. You have an odd memory of these issues.

we do not really know how to defend ourselves against what is happening, not without turning into savages ourselves

Of course, we do:

• Enforce your visa laws.
• Do not provide governmental assistance and deport those, who sneak in despite your efforts

There is nothing "savage" about either of the two measures. Whoever feels sympathetic to the people displaced by war or any other kind of disaster, is welcome to help them in any way they choose directly.

The current situation makes no sense at all. Ukraine, for example — itself a European country with customs quite similar to those of EU members — has been struggling to obtain a visa-free status with EU for years. Meanwhile, folks with completely different ideas of how to live (and dress and pray) are allowed to immigrate en masse.

The US is different, but no less bizarre. For example, while the government actively prosecutes rich folks coming to US to give birth, who pay for it themselves and go back, the poor folks who can't afford healthcare themselves are effectively encouraged to come (illegally), give birth and stay . South Americans cross into the US daily while the Border Control intercepts only about 61%.

To America's credit, we seem to be better at dealing with the "wonderful tapestry of diversity", but there is nothing "savage" about wanting less of it — diversity is not strength, it is an expensive luxury.

We know how to do it and there is nothing "savage" about saying "no". But our current elites just would not do it — whether due to some misplaced compassion or desire for cheaper gardeners and cherry-pickers.

According to prosecutors, yes apparently Obama is lax on drugs. He's also interfered a lot less in state-level legalizations of certain drugs than previous administrations.