...because they're not trying to ban porn. They're trying to ban child porn, and they're trying to restrict access to all the rest to those old enough to view it. How do they think they'll pull this off? That's anyone's guess. It'll probably even be impossible to achieve. However there's nothing wrong with the goals. We don't let minors buy porn mags, why would we let them surf porn on the internet?
...because they're not trying to ban porn. They're trying to ban child porn,
Yes they are. They were initially explicitly an anti-pornography organization and added anti-child-porn to their platform later. They supported (and still support) raiding magazine stands, anti-porn education in schools, and were heavy lobbiers for the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. They criticized the.xxx domain, because they didn't think that adult sites on the Internet should ever be legitimized. They absolutely hate "regular pornography," and they're using an age-old tactic that often works: combine two issues, and count an attack on one to be an attack on the other. They know that just attacking regular pornography is not an issue that that many people care about. But people are scared to be thought of as condoning child molestation or child pornography.. so you combine the two. "Oh, you don't want to sign our pledge to investigate the harm of internet porn and prosecute pedophiles? Why, do you support child pornography?"
And what do you mean "they want to ban child porn?" Child Porn is already illegal in the US, it's one of the most underground of illegal online activities.
[quote]Clinton won because far more people voted for her than voted for Bernie. That's also a fact.[/quote]
That fact is in dispute and many people from all political stripes believe Bernie would have won the primary if all the votes were counted and the primary was free from fraud.
You people live in your own little reality where facts that disagree with your narrative are dismissed. Did you know that Hillary apparently won the 2008 primary in Harlem with Obama receiving zero (yes zero) votes in 80 locations? You think these are conspiracy theories? Then what about this Trump & Russia stuff? Do you Hillary people also believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that they put fluouride in the water to mind-control the population?
First, I'm not a 'Hillary person.' I have a strong dislike for her and don't plan on voting for her.
Second, those vote tallies form Harlem were UNOFFICIAL. Those were never the official votes. They had Hillary beating Obama 141 to 0, but they were election-night reports which are always unofficial. The official vote tally from elections in the 2008 primary had Hillary beating Obama, 261 to 136. The only weirdness is in what screwups caused Obama's vote totals to be under-reported in the unofficial election-night reports.
Third, no, I don't believe in bullshit conspiracy theories.
California had several lawsuits being filed for voter fraud, with poll workers instructed to give Bernie voters invalid ballots among other allegations.
Sure, we'll see where that goes, especially given how hard to swallow some of those claims are. How would they even know who a Bernie voter was? They can't ask. They can't require. These are bizarre claims from Bernie or Bust supporters, and those claims don't seem very credible until we get some real, hard proof. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
What is pretty credible is the actual class-action lawsuit against the DNC, putting forth six claims that all boil down to one point -- that the DNC violated its rules of neutrality.
If the field was never level, the only person allowed to run against her was an open Socialist, and we have proof of corruption and collaboration within the party to stack the deck, you must be completely batshit crazy to believe that she won more votes.
The Democratic Party's biggest problem (ugh, one of its many big problems, I suppose) is that it doesn't have a group of credible challengers. Joe Biden could have challenged Hillary, Elizabeth Warren could have challenged Hillary... who else did they have? Who else is a nationally-known figure who could credibly mount a full presidential claim? I can't blame everyone, including the media, who thought a year or two ago that it was 'her time' and had a smooth shot to the nomination, as almost everyone else thought they would have a better shot later. It's like not mounting much of a challenge to Obama in 2012, or to GWB in 2004; if you think you're going to get crushed, why waste money on a challenge when you have a better shot later?
The actual issue is that unwanted robocalls are already handled by the national do-not-call registry, but the politicians have exempted themselves from the relevant laws meaning they do not have to respect the do-not-call registry.
Political speech has always been treated differently, from day 1. Unlike commercial speech, political speech is granted specific leeway in the US Constitution.
By the judge's logic if I can rent a robot to follow and berate you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that is perfectly acceptable as long as it is for political speech and not for commerce.
If someone followed you with a robot 24/7, that would eventually become "harassment." A single robocall from a candidate does not fall under the banner of harassment.
The Republican candidate did not win by coin toss, they won by popular vote
Sure, but let's not pretend that Trump was the friend of the Republican establishment and that they didn't want him taken down.
The Democratic candidate won by coin toss, drawing cards, collusion within the Democratic party and it's insiders, and collusion with media.
Clinton won because far more people voted for her than voted for Bernie. That's also a fact. I have grave doubts that the DNC really managed to do much of anything -- certainly nothing on the level of Ron Paul getting screwed in 2012. The fact is that Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Sorry, "Democratic Socialist," and more Democrats are more interested in a "mainstream" candidate than a socialist. Bernie Sanders had an extremely hard road uphill, and once Clinton got to the South (where few people like Bernie), it was over.
You realize we sent Stalin a massive infusion of arms and armaments to help him keep fighting Hitler, and supported him despite his evil, right through V-E day? That we really preferred having Russian soldiers dying to having Americans dying, so we gave him all the help we could?
Yes, there was a strong feeling in certain circles that when the eastern front met the western front, the fighting would continue and we'd wind up in a war with the Russians. But still, we absolutely supported evil when it was fighting another evil.
I think it's generally considered good foreign politics two encourage two mortal enemies in their fight against each other. But the US also sent a lot of aid to Britain when they were fighting the Nazis and they were certainly not enemies.
Given the current state of dissatisfaction with the current duopoly, I'm amazed that folks aren't moving to 3rd parties more often these days. I mean, seriously, if there were ever a time when it could really make a difference...
Not sure who I would go for in that case. Somehow, most third parties are even worse.
I'm not looking for something to the left of the Democratic Party, so the Greens are out. I'm not looking for something to the right of the Republican Party, so the Libertarians are out, as is the Constitutional Party.
Most other third parties seem to be single-issue parties, organized in support of or opposition to one stake. I normally look through the independent candidate, find one whose views I like, and vote that way.
Because the story is not that exciting? Ooooo, people in the DNC didn't like Bernie, what a surprise! I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people in the RNC who loathe Trump. Probably a lot more. I swear, deluded Bernie supporters are acting as if this somehow threw the election to Clinton.
Sea levels rose at around 0.0 to 0.2mm per year for the last two thousand years. They rose a total of 6 cm during the 19th century, and 19cm in the 20th century.
Most climate scientists will also warn you against taking of one temperature sample and claiming it's because of climate change. That's not how it works. And they should doubly know because the anti-climate-change crowd takes individual weather events all the time and try to claim it's evidence against climate change.
All I'm saying is Donald is a member of the ultra-rich, and he HAD to be ultra-rich to have been able to get where he was. Joe Pleb wouldn't have been able to get all that media coverage, and he was constantly reminding us of his self-funding campaign which he kept talking up even after his campaign was no longer self-funding. Donald's managed to pull the wool over the eyes of a lot of people who think that somehow he's one of the common men, and that theirs are the interests he'll be working for. At least his trade rhetoric is a change that the rest of the super-rich won't like. So there's that.
Sure, both are terrible candidates, but for the record, many in the RNC publicly worked against Trump, while the DNC was busy working against Bernie to benefit Hillary.
That puts the RNC slightly ahead of the DNC in my book.
That we know of.
That's one of the wonderful benefits of seeing your opposition's secrets exposed while yours remain hidden. The opposition can only look worse in comparison.
Indeed. If the truth hurts you, the problem isn't with who reveals it, the problem is with you.
Is it really? I mean, are you proud of everything you've ever done? Would you be happy with standing by all the statements you've made privately that you were sure no one else would ever hear? Do you have a problem with other people hearing the truth about you? And most of all, would you be ok with having the truth about you revealed, but the truth about those who have to gain from this remains hidden?
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you unaware the system was rigged long ago? Between the DNC's internal schemes to anoint Hillary and whole idea of "superdelegates," you don't have much in the way of say-so about who gets the DNC nomination.
Were you supposed to? The DNC is a private organization, who they send to the general election in November is their business and no one else's. They give lip service to democratic process, but they don't need to.
Slashdot Mirror
...because they're not trying to ban porn. They're trying to ban child porn, and they're trying to restrict access to all the rest to those old enough to view it. How do they think they'll pull this off? That's anyone's guess. It'll probably even be impossible to achieve. However there's nothing wrong with the goals. We don't let minors buy porn mags, why would we let them surf porn on the internet?
...because they're not trying to ban porn. They're trying to ban child porn,
Yes they are. They were initially explicitly an anti-pornography organization and added anti-child-porn to their platform later. They supported (and still support) raiding magazine stands, anti-porn education in schools, and were heavy lobbiers for the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. They criticized the .xxx domain, because they didn't think that adult sites on the Internet should ever be legitimized. They absolutely hate "regular pornography," and they're using an age-old tactic that often works: combine two issues, and count an attack on one to be an attack on the other. They know that just attacking regular pornography is not an issue that that many people care about. But people are scared to be thought of as condoning child molestation or child pornography.. so you combine the two. "Oh, you don't want to sign our pledge to investigate the harm of internet porn and prosecute pedophiles? Why, do you support child pornography?"
And what do you mean "they want to ban child porn?" Child Porn is already illegal in the US, it's one of the most underground of illegal online activities.
One involves running and hitting things, while the other involves clicking?
Maybe, but a Starcraft tournament with skilled players is a hell of a lot more interesting than soccer/football or golf.
Person always sounded a little awkward. "No One's Sky" sounds a lot better. Just do as Star Trek did, change "no man" to "no one," and you're done.
[quote]Clinton won because far more people voted for her than voted for Bernie. That's also a fact.[/quote]
That fact is in dispute and many people from all political stripes believe Bernie would have won the primary if all the votes were counted and the primary was free from fraud.
You people live in your own little reality where facts that disagree with your narrative are dismissed. Did you know that Hillary apparently won the 2008 primary in Harlem with Obama receiving zero (yes zero) votes in 80 locations? You think these are conspiracy theories? Then what about this Trump & Russia stuff? Do you Hillary people also believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that they put fluouride in the water to mind-control the population?
First, I'm not a 'Hillary person.' I have a strong dislike for her and don't plan on voting for her.
Second, those vote tallies form Harlem were UNOFFICIAL. Those were never the official votes. They had Hillary beating Obama 141 to 0, but they were election-night reports which are always unofficial. The official vote tally from elections in the 2008 primary had Hillary beating Obama, 261 to 136. The only weirdness is in what screwups caused Obama's vote totals to be under-reported in the unofficial election-night reports.
Third, no, I don't believe in bullshit conspiracy theories.
California had several lawsuits being filed for voter fraud, with poll workers instructed to give Bernie voters invalid ballots among other allegations.
Sure, we'll see where that goes, especially given how hard to swallow some of those claims are. How would they even know who a Bernie voter was? They can't ask. They can't require. These are bizarre claims from Bernie or Bust supporters, and those claims don't seem very credible until we get some real, hard proof. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
What is pretty credible is the actual class-action lawsuit against the DNC, putting forth six claims that all boil down to one point -- that the DNC violated its rules of neutrality.
If the field was never level, the only person allowed to run against her was an open Socialist, and we have proof of corruption and collaboration within the party to stack the deck, you must be completely batshit crazy to believe that she won more votes.
The Democratic Party's biggest problem (ugh, one of its many big problems, I suppose) is that it doesn't have a group of credible challengers. Joe Biden could have challenged Hillary, Elizabeth Warren could have challenged Hillary... who else did they have? Who else is a nationally-known figure who could credibly mount a full presidential claim? I can't blame everyone, including the media, who thought a year or two ago that it was 'her time' and had a smooth shot to the nomination, as almost everyone else thought they would have a better shot later. It's like not mounting much of a challenge to Obama in 2012, or to GWB in 2004; if you think you're going to get crushed, why waste money on a challenge when you have a better shot later?
The actual issue is that unwanted robocalls are already handled by the national do-not-call registry, but the politicians have exempted themselves from the relevant laws meaning they do not have to respect the do-not-call registry.
Political speech has always been treated differently, from day 1. Unlike commercial speech, political speech is granted specific leeway in the US Constitution.
By the judge's logic if I can rent a robot to follow and berate you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that is perfectly acceptable as long as it is for political speech and not for commerce.
If someone followed you with a robot 24/7, that would eventually become "harassment." A single robocall from a candidate does not fall under the banner of harassment.
The Republican candidate did not win by coin toss, they won by popular vote
Sure, but let's not pretend that Trump was the friend of the Republican establishment and that they didn't want him taken down.
The Democratic candidate won by coin toss, drawing cards, collusion within the Democratic party and it's insiders, and collusion with media.
Clinton won because far more people voted for her than voted for Bernie. That's also a fact. I have grave doubts that the DNC really managed to do much of anything -- certainly nothing on the level of Ron Paul getting screwed in 2012. The fact is that Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Sorry, "Democratic Socialist," and more Democrats are more interested in a "mainstream" candidate than a socialist. Bernie Sanders had an extremely hard road uphill, and once Clinton got to the South (where few people like Bernie), it was over.
Huh? Does he really think that if Saudi Arabia stood entirely independently, it would be gone in two weeks?
You realize we sent Stalin a massive infusion of arms and armaments to help him keep fighting Hitler, and supported him despite his evil, right through V-E day? That we really preferred having Russian soldiers dying to having Americans dying, so we gave him all the help we could?
Yes, there was a strong feeling in certain circles that when the eastern front met the western front, the fighting would continue and we'd wind up in a war with the Russians. But still, we absolutely supported evil when it was fighting another evil.
I think it's generally considered good foreign politics two encourage two mortal enemies in their fight against each other.
But the US also sent a lot of aid to Britain when they were fighting the Nazis and they were certainly not enemies.
Given the current state of dissatisfaction with the current duopoly, I'm amazed that folks aren't moving to 3rd parties more often these days. I mean, seriously, if there were ever a time when it could really make a difference...
Not sure who I would go for in that case.
Somehow, most third parties are even worse.
I'm not looking for something to the left of the Democratic Party, so the Greens are out.
I'm not looking for something to the right of the Republican Party, so the Libertarians are out, as is the Constitutional Party.
Most other third parties seem to be single-issue parties, organized in support of or opposition to one stake.
I normally look through the independent candidate, find one whose views I like, and vote that way.
Because the story is not that exciting? Ooooo, people in the DNC didn't like Bernie, what a surprise! I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people in the RNC who loathe Trump. Probably a lot more.
I swear, deluded Bernie supporters are acting as if this somehow threw the election to Clinton.
Sea levels rose at around 0.0 to 0.2mm per year for the last two thousand years. They rose a total of 6 cm during the 19th century, and 19cm in the 20th century.
Here's another story from the non-mainstream-media underground reporting outfit, the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...
That's 129.2F if you're interested.
Slashdot is so high on CIA cock they forgot that maybe somebody in the US would read this. Thanks. I was about to post the same thing.
Is the CIA responsible for the metric system too? So hard to remember with this cock in my mouth.
Most climate scientists will also warn you against taking of one temperature sample and claiming it's because of climate change. That's not how it works.
And they should doubly know because the anti-climate-change crowd takes individual weather events all the time and try to claim it's evidence against climate change.
You realize that it's not Euro-centrism, but it's "EVERYONE except for the US, Ghana, and Liberia"-centrism?
All I'm saying is Donald is a member of the ultra-rich, and he HAD to be ultra-rich to have been able to get where he was. Joe Pleb wouldn't have been able to get all that media coverage, and he was constantly reminding us of his self-funding campaign which he kept talking up even after his campaign was no longer self-funding. Donald's managed to pull the wool over the eyes of a lot of people who think that somehow he's one of the common men, and that theirs are the interests he'll be working for. At least his trade rhetoric is a change that the rest of the super-rich won't like. So there's that.
Sure, both are terrible candidates, but for the record, many in the RNC publicly worked against Trump, while the DNC was busy working against Bernie to benefit Hillary.
That puts the RNC slightly ahead of the DNC in my book.
That we know of.
That's one of the wonderful benefits of seeing your opposition's secrets exposed while yours remain hidden. The opposition can only look worse in comparison.
Yes, pretty much.
Also, Trump tells you how it is, good and bad.
Trump is one of the most dishonest political candidates I've EVER seen, and my bar and expectations these days are very low.
Indeed. If the truth hurts you, the problem isn't with who reveals it, the problem is with you.
Is it really? I mean, are you proud of everything you've ever done? Would you be happy with standing by all the statements you've made privately that you were sure no one else would ever hear? Do you have a problem with other people hearing the truth about you? And most of all, would you be ok with having the truth about you revealed, but the truth about those who have to gain from this remains hidden?
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you unaware the system was rigged long ago? Between the DNC's internal schemes to anoint Hillary and whole idea of "superdelegates," you don't have much in the way of say-so about who gets the DNC nomination.
Were you supposed to? The DNC is a private organization, who they send to the general election in November is their business and no one else's. They give lip service to democratic process, but they don't need to.
Sorry to sound confrontational, but that's bullshit. It just is. And ironically Donald Trump is the one that proves it.
No it doesn't. It just means the ultra-rich do not march in lock-step.
Congress doesn't have to write the spending bill, they just have to pass it. The bill could come from anywhere, and often does.