Slashdot Mirror

Of course it's safe, there's no doubt about that -- provided of course people believe in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ujRE2IkEIo

This was my thought... a photon is a particle, that travels in a wave.

Stop right there. Your understanding of particle wave duality is incomplete. Go back and study before you continue. MinutePhysics has some excellent videos on the topic.

This was my thought... a photon is a particle, that travels in a wave.

Stop right there. Your understanding of particle wave duality is incomplete. Go back and study before you continue. MinutePhysics has some excellent videos on the topic.

I never said anything of the sort. What is true is that while the US has stooped pretty low in history, it's never quite plumbed the same depths as Russia or the former USSR. The US isn't persecuting gays, nor is it imprisoning political dissidents. Its worst prisons are nowhere close to as awful as the camps you imprison women who dare speak out against powerful Russian authority figures. No American President was ever as bad as Stalin, and until Trump we never had one close to as bad as Putin. And we all know why Trump was "elected".

Seeing as I can see it'll annoy you, have a Pussy Riot video.

I recall hearing a calculation on the radio: if we keep expanding our energy use at the present rate, in 2000 years, we will need more energy than all the stars in our galaxy produce.

True, but we won't be around to see it, because of the black hole that will be created by the mass of all of the disco records we'll have produced by then.

Thanks for repeating the Marxist talking points that are now prevalent throughout the West. Yes, the US has acted roughly to counter the Soviet actions. But no, Ernesto "Che" Guevara did not fight to end poverty, he fought because he was a psychopath who loved torture and murder. Fidel Castro was a fraud whose sex-drive was so strong it made him seek power so he could get all the women he wanted (women respond to fame and power). Everything else is a cover story for gullible fools who don't know the truth.

Fidel Castro had his own private island, a luxury yacht, $88 million stolen from the Cuban people, and a harem of mistresses. But he told you that he lived on $25 dollars a day and you believed him:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Che Guevara had his office sited so he could watch executions because he was a psychopath. He didn't join the Communist Socialists to advance the 'Revolution', he joined as it gave him a license to murder the people he was claiming to be helping.
The Truth about Che Guevara
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Truth about Fidel Castro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Does it never occur to you that perhaps it is you who doesn't know the TRUE history of these evil people? that perhaps you only know the widely-disseminated disinformation and propaganda of the Marxist-sympathizing mainstream media and actually believe the Marxist's false narratives - which fools you into advancing their evil agenda, which is not about helping people, it is about CONTROL by the 'elites' (sociopathic Collectivist leadership).

I hope you take time to learn the truth. That way you can start to see through the lies you've been told your whole life.

Thanks for repeating the Marxist talking points that are now prevalent throughout the West. Yes, the US has acted roughly to counter the Soviet actions. But no, Ernesto "Che" Guevara did not fight to end poverty, he fought because he was a psychopath who loved torture and murder. Fidel Castro was a fraud whose sex-drive was so strong it made him seek power so he could get all the women he wanted (women respond to fame and power). Everything else is a cover story for gullible fools who don't know the truth.

Fidel Castro had his own private island, a luxury yacht, $88 million stolen from the Cuban people, and a harem of mistresses. But he told you that he lived on $25 dollars a day and you believed him:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Che Guevara had his office sited so he could watch executions because he was a psychopath. He didn't join the Communist Socialists to advance the 'Revolution', he joined as it gave him a license to murder the people he was claiming to be helping.
The Truth about Che Guevara
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Truth about Fidel Castro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Does it never occur to you that perhaps it is you who doesn't know the TRUE history of these evil people? that perhaps you only know the widely-disseminated disinformation and propaganda of the Marxist-sympathizing mainstream media and actually believe the Marxist's false narratives - which fools you into advancing their evil agenda, which is not about helping people, it is about CONTROL by the 'elites' (sociopathic Collectivist leadership).

I hope you take time to learn the truth. That way you can start to see through the lies you've been told your whole life.

Cheech and Chong noticed this years ago....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's not OK to be racist against white people. Thankfully it's also relatively rare (at least compared to racism against non-whites).

That's a strange claim. I've seen a guy call for killing "cracker" babies, but I've never seen anyone call for killing black babies. (Directly, that is. Millions of them have been killed before birth; Dr. Martin Luther King's niece correctly pointed out that "The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.")

This is your brain on religion.

Don't use it. People's eyes glaze over as soon as they see the first slide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Makes sense. A presenter generally boils down what they want to convey to four or five bullet points to make a slide. That slide get displayed, the audience reads it, and then the presenter reads it and talks for five minutes. Most of the time the audience got the message from the bullet points. Now they're slipping into a coma, waiting for the presenter to move on.

A good presenter can still use this, by engaging via interesting, useful, amusing anecdotes at each point. Problem is, if the presentation is about oh... product features, or sales projections... there's nothing interesting, useful, or amusing about it. So don't try. Just show us the slide and hit "next". If the presentation in on "ways to avoid getting mugged", or "how to tell if you're a raccoon", maybe you should talk about each point. Maybe.

Don't use it. People's eyes glaze over as soon as they see the first slide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Mass mind control propaganda networks create the environment you speak of (CNN, MSNBC, Foxnews, ABC, CBS)

Not allowed to deviate from GPS?? so the uber auto drive car will just drive

Into a sand pile? http://www.news.com.au/lifesty...
drive down boat launch into lake https://youtu.be/a2QIH2uz3p8

drive into Pacific Ocean https://youtu.be/h89RT_dc-v0 http://www.redlandcitybulletin...

drivers off cliff https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

follows directions onto railroad tracks http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

follows GPS down flight of steps http://croatiantimes.com/?id=5...

directed to wrong part of Italy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

takes goat trail up mountain http://metro.co.uk/2010/09/28/...

  into Tree http://news.softpedia.com/news...

crash after GPS orders U-turn http://www.expatica.com/fr/new...

At my last place of work they used to play this over the speakers when we had layoffs https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I think I preferred their honesty to all that euphemism and bullshit

Watch Mr. Neistat discuss Trump. I get the very strong impression that were he to be in a position to do it, he would gladly shame and censor opposing views, and create propaganda.

For about two and a half minutes he talks about Trump as a "tax avoiding, lying, racist misogynist". That may all be true, but he misses the very important point. As bad as Trump is, Trump may still be the better choice. (Or alternatively, as bad as Clinton is, Clinton may still be the better choice.)

It's fine to "have a backbone" and broadcast your opinion. It's also acceptable, although controversial, as a Youtuber, to go beyond to try to influence other voices.

What's very serious, however, would be to go beyond and influence other voices as a media owner. Given his display of passion on Trump, there is every reason to believe that Mr. Niestat will do exactly that, and no matter how convinced he is of his intentions, he will create propaganda. There is no reason to trust what he produces, and yet most people, sadly, will.

At the end of the day, however, this is really about CNN. If this is the integrity they have, then the whole show is alarming and disgusting.

It kinda seems to me that it has already happened. The news anchors are such drama queens. And then they waste everybodys time by airing crazy bitches like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's a freak show already, why would I want to get cable TV again?

They invented a telescreen. Smith! Yes, you! Bend lower!

Will this help us against Ethereal mind control, Sectoid cheese, and Muton rushes? Great chips ahoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

But he had too much hair!

What about the cost of replacing their entire nuclear fleet with imported fossil fuels and new coal plants? Japan is not a resource rich nation, and abandoning nuclear is tantamount to euthanizing their economy. The tsunami was a tragic disaster which killed tens of thousands of people and leveled a large area, yet the media and "green" movement has focussed the attention Fukushima, to stoke fear and push their own agendas. The radiation released has harmed no one yet, and never will because at low exposures it is harmless.

The Fukushima "disaster" is a tragedy of another sort, almost 100% man-made by an extreme overreaction fueled by hysteria over radiation. All of the deaths in the subsequent evacuation could have been avoided, and rest squarely on the shoulders of those who have encouraged this hysteria over the decades. The cost of the "cleanup" is absurd because the land is being remediated to levels far below what is necessary to ensure the safety of the population.

Please take the time to learn more about radiation, and how fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment. For a historical perspective on the origins of our utterly absurd regulations today, see the following:

EPA has ignored science since 40 CFR 190, Jan '77
Muller influenced the BEAR to adopt the Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumption in 1956
Biologist explains why LNT is just plain wrong
Berkeley’s institutional fear of low dose radiation traced to a suffocated rat

The Russian having been pushed hard in the Ukraine retaliated by meddling in the US election by exploiting existing social fractures and feelings of disenfranchisement.

One slight difference - that's not an undisputed fact, like the U.S. spending years and billions of your taxpayer dollars to undermine another democracy. That's a conspiracy theory on the level of chem trails, Obama's birth certificates, and the CIA planting timed explosives on the WTC as there is not one shred of evidence only assertions from the same sort of people that lied to you about Saddam's WMD's and ties to Al Queda. But if there's one thing about American Exceptionalists, there's nothing more they love than to get fooled and fooled again by the MIC.

And even if you were right, that was more than made up for by the entire U.S. media establishment shitting on Trump 25/8 (yes, it was that often, with even Fox getting in on it). It does nothing to change the fact that you and your tax dollars are in the business of outright overthrowing democracies, when manipulating elections isn't enough.

you, who are blind on one eye and refuse to see the whole picture

What picture. The one where the U.S. has overthrown two democracies just in Obama's term in office? Who had a worldwide torture and kidnapping program - Putin or Bush? Is Bush blowing up kids in Costa Rica with robot planes for bullshit reasons the way Obama is in Afghanistan? Has Putin been trying to spy on the electronic communications of every single person on the planet?

Howard Zinn has a nice quote, to the effect that any dictatorship in the world would be envious of the syncophantic media. We can extend that quote to the willfully blind.

AFAIC the 'Slave States' had every right to secede from the so called 'union'. Why should the so called 'union' prevent the States from running their land as they see fit exactly? If slavery was actually unacceptable, why would the Constitution be ratified by the anti-slave states in the first place? Maybe that's because slavery was actually a *government policy*, after all the Founders were slave owners.

USA 'flying apart' is not a bug, it should be a feature, so that the Federation would actually give a shit to things that are important to people in different States.

The 'interstate commerce' law has been abused to no end to allow the federal government control over businesses and that goes beyond the powers allocated to that government. Income taxes were not instituted because nobody really had income, people owned land and people imported goods, so the taxes that were Constitutional were direct capitation taxes proportionate to the population of a State and import taxes, excise, duties.

The government, such as it is, abused its powers and imprisoned people for political reasons, people who understood USA Constitution much better than you or I ever would, people who testified in front of USA Congress on the little issue of Nixon defaulting on the gold dollar and predicting the exact outcome that followed over the 45 years since that happened.

While Hamilton did propose a Central Bank, it was not accepted because it was understood that such a bank would violate the money itself. Hamilton was a goddamn counterfeiter and Jefferson understood this well enough and so the Congress did not continue with the bank once the charger expired.

Of-course the second bank was set up and eventually Jackson killed it, but all of these bank shenanigans caused a bank run that for some fucking reason idiots today think was a result of 'free market'. All of the bank runs before and since then were caused by government regulations of the banking system, preventing free market from working.

The Federal reserve was set up in 1913 without permission of monetization of the government debt but of-course in only 4 short years after that the Congress changed the law and allowed the Federal reserve to buy USA Treasury notes, which led to the depression of 1921, which cleared out quickly since the only half decent POTUS USA had in over a century, Warren Harding, didn't interfere with the market clearing that depression, so what followed was known as the 'roaring twenties'.

Then USA government decided to use the Federal bank to buy bad UK debt from France, creating inflation (money printing), with money searching for yield and eventually driving up stock prices, causing a massive bubble that ended up bursting in 1929 and then the pieces of shit known as Hoover and later FDR intervened in a major way, creating what was known as the 'Great Depression' with all of their jobs programs, printing of the money to buy and destroy crops to prevent deflation, etc. SS was set up, minimum wage, the 'great society', pretty much some of the worst ideas in USA history took place then.

USD became the so called 'reserve currency' after the war, at the time this meant that USD was as good as gold (of-course this happened after USA government illegally confiscated gold bullion from people and from banks).

The ever growing government spending from 1950s to 1970s pushed Nixon to default on the gold dollar, when France (again France) decided to make a call on their dollars. The stagflation of 1970s is something that the idiot Keynesian charlattans could not even admit existed, the only thing that stopped that stagflation was Paul Volcker raising interest rates to over 21% in 1981.

The government couldn't stop spending of-course and eventually the interest rates came down, however government spending grew by miles, money printing led to yet another bubble and another recession once that bubble burst in 1987. Then Greenspan decided he wouldn't a

Greece was a prime example of an impossible system, with the socialists getting everything and expecting that the money just grows on trees I suppose, so exactly as we had it back in the USSR and the exact opposite of the Communist idea 'from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs', the actual formula that ends up happening is this: nobody wants to be the sucker and to work so that others would get the benefit and everybody wants everything he can get his hands on from the State.

The *spending* in Greece was outrageous, with people expecting to be retired in 20 years from the beginning of their work lives, huge pensions, various State controlled benefits, etc. So *of-course* people paid as little taxes as they possibly could (and they were absolutely correct to do so) but the problem is expecting all of this spending by the State and *not* having the tax revenues to back it up. So the difference came from borrowing, and this the exact situation that USA is in today, except that of-course Greece doesn't run the ponzi scam of being the so called 'reserve currency' (without any reserves to back it up)

IRS is completely unconstitutional, the way it collects taxes is a violation of every Constitutional principle, including the government having political prisoners like Irwin Schiff, who spent years in jail because of his fight against the government.

> Can you remind me where the definition of fascism includes "it's not fascism if someone else does it too"?

The point is that if you take some harmless trait like "fascists made the trains run on time" that might be true and yet which a lot of normal people might fit, your definition isn't very useful for the purpose of identifying them. Nor have you established that a lot of those traits that could fit anyone are even bad things in general. You're simply hiding your assumption--that such things as liking traditions (like, oh, say, Thanksgiving) somehow is a fascist trait and defending that by saying Umberto Eco said so. That aside, the "evidence" given for many of these items is so laughable that one doesn't have to disagree with the list at all.

Never mind that someone else (David Futrelle, as best I can tell) actually made a list of poorly-fitting claims matched to Eco's list, so if you want to appeal to his authority, you should at least give us a source where he says the same and actually work to establish his authority. Your post isn't a defense of the idea at all, but a mere rhetorical dodge, smuggling this all under Eco's name as you have displayed no ability to explain whatever logic is behind the ideas well enough to defend them on your own. By all means, feel free to display that in reply.

I note that you didn't address things like the fact that their idea of "permanent warfare" includes 3 AM tweets and that other bad traits like "disagreement is treason" don't account for where the actual violence is coming from, nor does any of it fit at all when you compare this to actual Nazi events like Kristallnacht. Not that I haven't seen comparisons to the Reichstag fire here on Slashdot, but the only violence we have evidence of anyone staging appears to have been by Democratic operatives and I've discussed that quite extensively in past comments here.

All you're doing in posting things like this is to help give people like the violent people in that video moral cover to attack people who have different political opinions. Which is something actual Nazis did, and is far more in keeping with the evils of fascism than any actions you can actually point to in that list. This is why I can point to a host of violent criminals and staged violence against Trump's supporters for daring to have the wrong opinions among the people on your side.

Which is, as we all know, one of the really evil parts of actual fascism. Isn't that why people hate fascists? Not because they loved silly traditions, but because they used violence to attack their political enemies?

Funny how that actual violence might weigh a bit more with most people than the "permanent warfare" somehow inherent in 3 AM tweets.

Apple HW is good stuff but the whole myth of Apple HW lasting longer than PC is just that, a myth.

My 2006 Black MacBook is strong running strong with Mint Linux. You can even run Windows 10 on it (see video link).

The 8-Bit Guy: Is it Obsolete - The Core Duo MacBook?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJw8aSxEFwQ

Except qualifications can include pay level. Importing labor when there is a shortage artificially deflates the cost of labor, keeping wages down.

Not to mention, last time I checked, Disney had a qualified IT department filled with American workers. they chose to lower costs by importing labor.

It's a scam designed to screw over workers in the country by using temporary, indentured labor.

Take a look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... for more about how the scams are run.

Qualifications do not include pay level, or else, 2 laws would contradict each other. The H1B visas require that the imported worker work at prevailing wages pegs them at a level higher than that of the people who work offshore. If a company wants to pay its workers the Indian rate, they need to have them work remotely from Bangalore/Hyderabad/Gurgaon/Pune

Allegedly

Let's just say the whole Birther thing is a bit of a tell, then the not renting to black folks in NYC is kind of a give-away as well.

Yeah, the racist bastard!. And since the NYT is completely unbiased, everything is clear now!

Yeah, that's because you were already a leftist. But seriously, how can you be a leftist and be for right-wing things like nationalism? Hillary promised us more and more and more globalism, and fuck the American worker. Her plan was to give citizenship to fuckloads of Syrians, WTF? How would that possibly help the American people?

How can you be simultaneously pro-Obama and anti-globalism? That's like being pro-Hitler and pro-Semite. They're two ideas that don't go together.

The whole "calling people racist for disagreeing with Obama's globalist vision of the future" went out of fashion the day after Election Day. Maybe you didn't get the memo?

If you want to know how we ended up like this, please watch this video: "President Trump: How & Why...". It is a must-view for people exactly like you for how the level of political discourse got so low. It's by a leftist, so you know he's telling the truth and has been fact-checked. It's really sad what he's saying and it is all 100% true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

Gee look what I found!

Why is it not racist to mock Trump on his hair, his skin color, his small hands?

Because "bad spray tan" and "ridiculous hair extensions" is not a race.

And the "small hands" thing is generally just needling him since he's bizarrely insecure about the size of his hands.

Trump, much like many other public figures with an elevated sense of self worth, tends to keep these jokes alive with his reaction to them. I bet Bill Maher never dreamt he would get the mileage he got out of that ridiculous orangutan joke. Trump's attorney even sent Maher Trump's short form birth certificate which allowed Maher to demand, oh irony of ironies, that Trump present his long form birth certificate. That joke would have flown off into the ether and been forgotten 10 seconds after it was made if Trump had not raised a stink about it.

That may be correct. The problem is widespread.

The opening titles. "Nostalgic" to the older generation. "Old folks liked bland entertainment" to the younger generation. No doubt, one of the best bass lines in a sitcom jingle.

Glad for the Slashdot story. When I learned he'd died earlier today, I immediately remembered him for Barney Miller but felt uneasy, like I was forgetting something. Firefly, facepalm.

The Judicial Branch?

True. The vast majority of counties voted red this election:
http://www.redflagnews.com/hea...
Even Illinois.

When the Framers designed the House based on popular vote they knew they had a problem. The states with the most population, i.e., the biggest cities, would control the results of each election. The states with few people wouldn't be fairly represented. So, they created a second body, the Senate, which has two members from each state, regardless of their population. By requiring a bill to be passed by both houses balance was brought to the process.

The same problem existed with regards to the presidential election based on the popular vote. The big cities would control who sets in the WhiteHouse. The EC is to the presidential election what the Senate is to legislation. It give a balance of power that would be absent if there was no EC. With no EC why would a candidate want to spend anytime in a state with a low population, like Kansas, Nebraska, North or South Dakota, etc...? The candidates would spend their time in the top metropolitan areas with a million or more residents. Each of the top five cities have more people than the entire state of Nebraska. Thirty nine percent of the total population voted this year, 125,000,000 people. The top 10 hold almost 30 million residents, which would be 24% of the total votes cast for in the presidential election this year if all of them voted. Forty eight percent, almost 112 million eligible voters didn't vote. What to doto improve the election process? Force people to vote. Have voters supply their Social Security number at the polls, which then submit the voter's name, address and SSN to the IRS on a signed form. People of voting age who don't vote get a citizenship "fee" (ACA is the precursor) added to their income tax. Make it equal to two days of their average wage. Annual income divided by 2080, the number of working hours in a year. If more than one voting form with the same SSN is submitted the a fraud investigation can ensue. Or, the same name and address on more than one form with different SSN numbers. Unassigned SSN's would trigger a fraud investigation.

What candidates do now is focus on the "swing" states. States where political power is somewhat equally divided and there is a sufficient number of EC votes at stake to swing an election: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. In the current situation Michigan has already recounted and Hillary gained a little over 500 votes, but Trump still had a 10,000 vote majority, so he keeps the 16 EC votes. Wisconsin has 10 and Pennsylvania has 20 EC votes. Even if the recount flipped both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that would leave Hillary nine votes shy of 270. Hillary even made an campaign video ad pointing out Trump's response to Mike Wallace's question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

She has lost.
And, by refusing to accept the results of the election, she is guilty of what she accused Trump of doing: "Denigrating our democracy and downplaying how we've elected presidents for 240 years ... it's horrible".

By Federal law the recounts have to be completed by Dec 13th. The ONLY purpose for the recount demanded by Progressives now is as a blatant attempt to throw the election into the House, as was done in the 1824 election. The Progressives will deliberately drag their feet in the count process to ensure that. Trump will still win because the House is controlled by people he swept into power, but Progressives will use the Constitutional solution to the problem they caused to claim that Trump "stole" the election. THAT is denigrating and abusing our Constitution.

Because of Trump this election cycle revealed several previously denied or hidden things. First, the media is entirely controlled by Progressives, as is the entertainment and ed

The problem here is authoritarianism, not partisan name calling. If the federal government couldn't run your life for you, you wouldn't have to worry about that in the first place. But let's look at the list in detail, shall we? I'll come back to it at the end, but this is a good summary about why this is 'crying wolf' that sums up a lot of what I'm trying to point out here.

> The cult of tradition

It's not clear how this makes anyone bad. Is it wrong to enjoy Thanksgiving with your family? Or just because we label anything we dislike as a "cult." Usually the problem with cults is that they go out and, say, cause violence or such, which we'll discuss below.

> The rejection of modernism

Luddism is a problem, but declaring "this is new, it must be better" isn't exactly logical and is funny to contrast with "action for action's sake." If you want Luddites, just look at the email between Hillary & Colin Powell and their rejection of operational security.

> The cult of action for action’s sake

This is really weak. For one, Trump's actions were purposeful--he won by spending far less than Hillary did. For another, we're calling people fascist for what? Working too hard? It's true that Trump held a lot of political rallies and Hillary held very few, but she might not have done so badly if she hadn't assumed the "blue firewall" would magically hold and had actually cared what those people wanted.

This is also fluff. You could apply it to lots of politicians (businesses, etc.) that most people wouldn't label as "fascist."

> Disagreement is treason

Finally we get somewhere! Sure, that's bad. Two minute hates? We've seen plenty about Donald (every other Slashdot story on Trump?). So long as we declare someone the bad guy, though, it's okay, right? I mean, just look at all that violence at the rallies! Oh, wait, the Democrats staged that. Maybe the intolerance of gays? Err, wait, it's the Advocate that decided Peter Thiel wasn't really gay any more because he backed Trump. And Trump was up there holding the gay pride flag. But it was upside-down! Because the most important thing about the gay flag is its orientation, right? :)

Oh! He complained about the media too!

You know, the CNN that told us it was illegal to read wikileaks (a lie from a CNN lawyer who should know better) so we wouldn't find out that they rigged the debates as we can establish from DKIM-authenticated emails that cover the body & body hash. And we have Google's signature on it as well as Hillary's email server. Or how they sold donors access to the Washington Post's party while appearing to go behind their own lawyers' backs?

So, uhh, remind me why it's fascist to complain about people rigging debates again? Or why 2 minute hates are bad... unless the press holds them? :)

> Fear of difference

That's odd to hear given how many sites like Reddit are all for censoring the opinions they don't like. It's their site, of course, but I'm allowed to criticize them for it. And I'm far more afraid of these people who would attack someone for voting the wrong way. Feel free to check that on Snopes. They'll say the truth is "mixed" because they feel it very important to know that there was a fender bender just prior to the g

The problem here is authoritarianism, not partisan name calling. If the federal government couldn't run your life for you, you wouldn't have to worry about that in the first place. But let's look at the list in detail, shall we? I'll come back to it at the end, but this is a good summary about why this is 'crying wolf' that sums up a lot of what I'm trying to point out here.

> The cult of tradition

It's not clear how this makes anyone bad. Is it wrong to enjoy Thanksgiving with your family? Or just because we label anything we dislike as a "cult." Usually the problem with cults is that they go out and, say, cause violence or such, which we'll discuss below.

> The rejection of modernism

Luddism is a problem, but declaring "this is new, it must be better" isn't exactly logical and is funny to contrast with "action for action's sake." If you want Luddites, just look at the email between Hillary & Colin Powell and their rejection of operational security.

> The cult of action for action’s sake

This is really weak. For one, Trump's actions were purposeful--he won by spending far less than Hillary did. For another, we're calling people fascist for what? Working too hard? It's true that Trump held a lot of political rallies and Hillary held very few, but she might not have done so badly if she hadn't assumed the "blue firewall" would magically hold and had actually cared what those people wanted.

This is also fluff. You could apply it to lots of politicians (businesses, etc.) that most people wouldn't label as "fascist."

> Disagreement is treason

Finally we get somewhere! Sure, that's bad. Two minute hates? We've seen plenty about Donald (every other Slashdot story on Trump?). So long as we declare someone the bad guy, though, it's okay, right? I mean, just look at all that violence at the rallies! Oh, wait, the Democrats staged that. Maybe the intolerance of gays? Err, wait, it's the Advocate that decided Peter Thiel wasn't really gay any more because he backed Trump. And Trump was up there holding the gay pride flag. But it was upside-down! Because the most important thing about the gay flag is its orientation, right? :)

Oh! He complained about the media too!

You know, the CNN that told us it was illegal to read wikileaks (a lie from a CNN lawyer who should know better) so we wouldn't find out that they rigged the debates as we can establish from DKIM-authenticated emails that cover the body & body hash. And we have Google's signature on it as well as Hillary's email server. Or how they sold donors access to the Washington Post's party while appearing to go behind their own lawyers' backs?

So, uhh, remind me why it's fascist to complain about people rigging debates again? Or why 2 minute hates are bad... unless the press holds them? :)

> Fear of difference

That's odd to hear given how many sites like Reddit are all for censoring the opinions they don't like. It's their site, of course, but I'm allowed to criticize them for it. And I'm far more afraid of these people who would attack someone for voting the wrong way. Feel free to check that on Snopes. They'll say the truth is "mixed" because they feel it very important to know that there was a fender bender just prior to the g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Except that you can win the EC by only winning eleven states:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The EC doesn't do much to protect smaller states because the large states with the most EC votes can overwhelm a collection of smaller states.

And what are the odds that no candidate is ever going to ignore the flyover states again after the amazing turnaround this election had in the final hours?

***Cue Hall of the Mountain King *** :D

To paraphrase NDT, the great thing about facts is they remain true, whether or not American Exceptionalists believe in them.

It's a fact that the assistant SoS, Victoria Nuland, is on video bragging about spending billions to "bring Ukraine the future it deserves." In front of a big Chevron banner - and then you AE's whine and project about Russia trying to influence the presidential election.

It's a fact that the impeachment vote didn't have the number of votes required to remove Yanukovych from office under their constitution. A vote that was pushed through despite Yanukovych agreeing to early elections. Which also means that it was a coup of cowards, if they didn't believe they could beat him at the ballot box.

Neat thing is that you can throw this inconvenient fact in the face of Western Exceptionalists, no matter if your hack lapel pin has an elephant or a donkey on it. The two parties have traded control of Congress and the White House, so each of the last five presidents have ended their terms in office with the opposite party in charge of the House and the Senate. Now imagine that it's May 2016 (or May 2008, 2000, 1992, 1988) and the party in Congress doesn't think it can win that year's presidential election. So they impeach the president with a majority vote, but fall short of the 67 required by the Constitution to remove Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama from office. The opposition DGAF, and have armed mobs of supporters attack government buildings and force R/B/C/B/O to flee or risk getting the Gaddafi treatment. Now, also imagine that Russia immediately recognizes that the junta as the legitimate government - after they've spent billions supporting the opposition party, in front of banners for Russian energy companies.

Would you call that a coup? Of course you would. So maybe you need to check your narratives, American Exceptionalist.

To paraphrase NDT, the great thing about facts is they remain true, whether or not American Exceptionalists believe in them.

It's a fact that the assistant SoS, Victoria Nuland, is on video bragging about spending billions to "bring Ukraine the future it deserves." In front of a big Chevron banner - and then you AE's whine and project about Russia trying to influence the presidential election.

It's a fact that the impeachment vote didn't have the number of votes required to remove Yanukovych from office under their constitution. A vote that was pushed through despite Yanukovych agreeing to early elections. Which also means that it was a coup of cowards, if they didn't believe they could beat him at the ballot box.

Neat thing is that you can throw this inconvenient fact in the face of Western Exceptionalists, no matter if your hack lapel pin has an elephant or a donkey on it. The two parties have traded control of Congress and the White House, so each of the last five presidents have ended their terms in office with the opposite party in charge of the House and the Senate. Now imagine that it's May 2016 (or May 2008, 2000, 1992, 1988) and the party in Congress doesn't think it can win that year's presidential election. So they impeach the president with a majority vote, but fall short of the 67 required by the Constitution to remove Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama from office. The opposition DGAF, and have armed mobs of supporters attack government buildings and force R/B/C/B/O to flee or risk getting the Gaddafi treatment. Now, also imagine that Russia immediately recognizes that the junta as the legitimate government - after they've spent billions supporting the opposition party, in front of banners for Russian energy companies.

Would you call that a coup? Of course you would. So maybe you need to check your narratives, American Exceptionalist.

If Clinton had won the Electoral College but Trump had won the popular vote, would you have taken the time to write up an op-ed outlining the flaws of the Electoral College, would you have protested in the streets, would you be demanding Trump be made President? If not, then you are simply being partisan, and your support for this is out of self-interest rather than truly wishing to improve the system.

If Trump had not won the Electoral College, but had won the popular vote, would any of his supporters taken the time to defend the electoral college, or would they be protesting in the streets, demanding to have Trump as president? Remember, he has already made his position clear, in 2012 he called for revolution, and even this year, he insisted on his right to contest the election.

Solandri, the problem with these calls against hypocrisy is that you're expecting us to ignore it from the other side, Aren't you smarter than that? Don't you realize that the sword cuts both ways?

Someone truly wishing to reform the Electoral College would be for such reform regardless of who won. If you truly believe a change is for the better, you support it even when it works against your own self interests.

Don't worry, there is plenty of pre-existing support for Electoral College reform. You can see it in the congressional record. Unlike Jon Kyl, they didn't have it expunged.

I think Merkley made a mistake dismantling one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the system to prevent a simple majority from having too much power, but I respect him for not changing his position even though he now finds himself on the disadvantaged side of his rule change.

Bzzt! Wrong! Well, not about Merkley. You're wrong about the filibuster being put into the system by the Founding Fathers. It wasn't. History shows they made no formal arrangement, and the practices as arisen came up much later.

You've watched the movies, rather than learn the truth. It's ok, it happens.

(And if you're one of the people who believe Merkley's rule change was necessary because the Republicans were stonewalling in the Senate, the Washington Post keeps a database of how often each Senator votes with his/her party. Here are the stats for the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, and 113th Senates, spanning 2002-2015 with Senate control by both parties, covering both a Republican President and Democrat President. Click on the Party column to sort it by Senators most likely to vote for their party. You'll see it's actually the Democrats who most frequently vote as a block, and the Republicans who are more willing to cross the party line. The meme that Republicans refused to compromise was fake news spread by the mainstream media without any statistical evidence to back it up.)

And here we learn that you can lie by statistics. None of your numbers indicate to us what problems exist with actual stonewalling, nor the character and intent of the conduct. They don't show refusals to allow votes, withholding of blue slips, or anything else. You are just using your misleading evidence to dismiss the media.

You could look at the statements by party leaders such as Mitch McConnell, and others. Of course, you'd have to know when they were making shit up like the Biden rule, or the objections they had to the Affordable Care Act. But you know, that would actually require you to investigate the circumstances rather than blindly follow and defend your partisan bias.

Yeah, that did turn against you. You expected other people to be ignorant and your deceits to go unchallenged. Didn't work out that way.

https://www.youtube.com/playli...
https://www.youtube.com/playli...

If these masses of mental midgets get to make decisions for the rest of us there WILL be war.

https://www.youtube.com/playli...
https://www.youtube.com/playli...

If these masses of mental midgets get to make decisions for the rest of us there WILL be war.

I look forward to the day that AI can lip-read as well as humans...

I look forward to the day that AI can lip-read as well as humans...

I look forward to the day that AI can lip-read as well as humans...

I look forward to the day that AI can lip-read as well as humans...