Are you one of those guys who actually thought that Sanders had any chance at all in the Democratic primary? I liked him a hell of a lot more than Hillary, but the dude had zero appeal outside of the coasts and northeast. No support among non-whites or women, and no support among folks who aren't too gleeful about the idea of Socialism. If the South didn't exist, he might have had a chance, but once the primaries started getting counted there, it was over.
Is that all you care about? You don't care about the security for our nation, or the well-being of your fellow citizen? The Lulz? We're that self-absorbed now that getting a few chuckles at some people you don't like is the highest goal you have for our country? How misanthropic.
I still have fucking morons on Facebook telling me that I actually got to keep my doctor, when in reality my insurance plan was canceled for being illegal under the ACA and I had to find a new doctor.
Maybe you should have had an actual insurance plan instead of a scam.
much of SF believes the rest of the world revolves around their epicenter. The idea that people would not know what "The mission" was probably would not even dawn on people like story author.
Maybe, but the story was written for a San Francisco publication that has a San Francisco audience. IE, the article writer's expectation that the website readers would know what "The Mission" is is not unfounded. The submitter of the Slashdot article, however, simply cut and paste the first paragraph of the article and used that as the submission. Not necessarily a bad way to share a story, but when taking a niche article and spreading it to a wider geographic audience than it was originally intended for, it helps to add a little context on top. I wouldn't blame the original publication for that.
We see this all the time on Slashdot when someone submits an article without context, assuming others have a baseline amount of knowledge about what they're talking about.
San Francisco has some good points. The Mission, however, much of it is pure squalor, and there are ambulances double-parked on the cross streets all the time because they end up getting called there so often.
I used to work in SOMA, and crossed the Mission to get there from BART. It's not a pretty area.
It's not unusual for traffic to be backed up and blocking an intersection. Ideally you don't pull forward unless it's clear, but then a bunch of people turning right on red are going to take your spot.
In some intersections in San Francisco there are so many pedestrians crossing all the time that the only way to turn right is to creep forward as far as you can, and then go for it when the lights change. Sometimes there are cycles of the light where pedestrians have their own "walk" where all crosswalks are active and no cars can move, and that does make turning during traffic cycles much easier, but too many pedestrians will still cross when there's a green car signal but red pedestrian signal.
Sugar maples are not going away. Their range will just shift northward.
The problem is that less sunlight falls on northern latitudes. While I like the idea of maple syrup from the Northwest Territories, at the southern border you'll still have about four months of the year where where you only have a couple hours of sunlight a day, and conditions are pretty arid as well. Can a sugar maple survive in that environment? Yes, 'trees' could, life certainly can, but can a specific tree make that adjustment in a 100-year period?
First rule of speaking French: get bored and trail off halfway through each word. No one says six or seven syllables. In practice, you'll get two on a regular basis and three if it's your waiter sneering at your bad accent.
In France, most waiters won't sneer at a bad accent. They'll just be thrilled or amused that someone is actually making the effort for them, as opposed to the people who just expect that you'll know their language while speaking it very loudly.
Say you take a drink and get in a car buzzed and maimed a homeless person.
Legally, we assign you full, 100% responsibility for the action there. IE, you took the risk, and you're totally at fault, barring some weird circumstance like him jumping in front of your car.
1. Human life alone is sentient, has a soul and is a gift from God. As soon as you get away from that simple fact, you are keeping company with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the other mass murdering genocidal maniacs of the last century.
You know what else Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and those other genocidal maniacs did? Poop in toilets. You don't actually poop in toilets like Hitler did, do you? What other traits do you share with crazy murderers?
Jesus never said anything about worshiping him, he didn't create any structure that put the emphasis on himself, even while he was claiming to fulfill a prophesy that can only be fulfilled by the son of God.
Sure he did, if you're willing to believe the bible being the inerrant word of God, and believe in its 'paradoxes.' IE, the Roman Catholic belief that Jesus is both Son of God, AND God explicitly (via the trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, three aspects of the same). So Jesus doesn't need to explicitly say "worship me," the Bible makes it extremely clear that God is to be worshiped. To say otherwise would cast shade on those sections of the bible that Jesus wasn't in.
Christianity and Islam both started as cults by your definition.
Correct, they absolutely did, and many of the authorities of the time of Christ (and after) certainly treated it as just another cult. That was a time when many, many claimed to be a messiah. The Christians just managed to stand the test of time, and we're well enough removed now (personally, and by time) for it to be a religion.
All of this pro-life.. ALL of it, every single bit, is founded on the concept that "human babies are special"
Of course they're special to us, because they're OURS. That's how we evolved, and that's how humans will always see ourselves -- we're more important than the others. Other species see their own babies as more "special" than those of other species, and that's how it's worked for billions of years: protect your own, and whomever can do it the best, wins. It's only recently that we've been able to civilization our way out of simple survival of the fittest, but we're still biologically hard-wired in ways we usually don't like to admit.
you would rather just see paupers begging street side, the masses of old poor dying from malnutrition and exposure, education only for those who can "afford"
No, I sincerely think the government is the biggest causer of all those problems and I want to follow the pareto principle to help those people.
I don't think the government is the biggest causer of poverty. We've had non-interventionist governments in the past, and very interventionist governments, in both the US and elsewhere, and poverty still exists regardless of government type.
adopt them into loving families, because we are not actually wild animals and have empathy, love and altruism...
I think if you actually spoke to the kids unfortunate enough to go through the adoption racket many would vehemently disagree with your assessment of human nature.
Well, the fact that you can speak to them, that they've not committed suicide speaks to their belief that it was still better to live than to not have existed at all.
Your first thought is, "I wish I wasn't living in a small 1 bedroom apartment with an average family of 3.3 people because I'm taxed to the point of near poverty, even with a full time STEM job and and an advanced degree."
You realize once you add up the taxes and insurance and other costs, that the US pays more per person for health care than the Swedes do, and receive poorer-quality care to boot? Were you trying to make an economic argument against their medical system?
Your sources are Cracked and NPR, two liberal strongholds? lol Can't take your comment serious anymore.
Can you refute what they're saying, or are you just loling because it's not coming from your fiction media?
How about The American Conservative, which cautioned conservative doners to stop donating money to Project Veritas? Or the National Review, which wrote in an editorial that James O'Keefe does a disservice to the conservative movement? Or Commentary Magazine, which said that O'Keefe is exploitative of its audience.
You know.. Your partisan perspective is just as bad as O'Keefe's.
I would consider myself center generally, even center-right on some issues. I just dislike liars. The media, including O'Keefe's org, seem into be in a race to one-up each other with how much they can bamboozle and trick the public. As long as a narrative is crafted for 'your side,' it's a-ok to be dishonest! Everyone goes in to these stories with their conclusions already drawn, and then try to craft a narrative to validates that conclusion, however you can do it.
Yes, O'Keefe posts raw video of many interviews, but most people don't watch them -- they watch the edited video and that's what most people make their conclusions on. Especially in the early days, the raw video could only be analyzed after the media brouhaha over the edited video and story was generated. This gives Veritas a clever shield -- deceive, while claiming openness since the original video, which often counteracts the narrative Veritas is pushing, is available. Like I said before, they're Michael Moore imitators, and that's not a compliment.
I thought the person who misedited the George Zimmerman tape should have been fired, or at least suspended. And yes, I heard about it, it was top news the whole week when it happened. I seethed when Farenheit 9/11, a pure propaganda film, won a documentary Oscar. And I disliked the same tricks that O'Keefe pulled in his ACORN video, like how he's presented as visiting the office and talking to employees in a pimp outfit, with the implication be "this is something these idiots do all the time -- help pimps with child prostitution. They're even falling for his flamboyant disguise." But the pimp outfit came later -- all the interviews he did earlier, wearing a simple business suit. And the ACORN folks answered his questions, and then reported the entire encounter to the police, something O'Keefe usually doesn't talk about, possibly because he lost a court case brought by the employee who contacted the police, yet was fired for the narrative presented in the video.
As far as I can tell, O'Keefe's first recordings, of Planned Parenthood volunteers offering to help an underage girl avoid having to notify police about her pregnancy, are the most damaging he's released, ones showing actual wrong-doing. Hooray for him! I just wish his followup efforts were better. He hit an incredible low a few months ago with his failed sting of the Washington Post, something that ended up turning most conservative media against Project Veritas.
What we have here is a PR war with Veritas, which generally doesn't work out well for Veritas' targets.
It doesn't? Project Veritas's reputation has been shredded long before now. It's the Michael Moore of the alt-right: if you see a project veritas video, chances are it's been edited to distort the events that took place to drive a political narrative. They fucked up with the ACORN videos, fucked up again with the Planned Parenthood videos, fucked up again with the NPR video, and their Washington Post sting operation blew up completely in their face. Why would anyone, left, center, or right, listen to O'Keefe anymore?
Slashdot Mirror
If they had let Sanders keep the nomination,
Are you one of those guys who actually thought that Sanders had any chance at all in the Democratic primary? I liked him a hell of a lot more than Hillary, but the dude had zero appeal outside of the coasts and northeast. No support among non-whites or women, and no support among folks who aren't too gleeful about the idea of Socialism. If the South didn't exist, he might have had a chance, but once the primaries started getting counted there, it was over.
"I did it for the lulz."
Is that all you care about? You don't care about the security for our nation, or the well-being of your fellow citizen? The Lulz? We're that self-absorbed now that getting a few chuckles at some people you don't like is the highest goal you have for our country? How misanthropic.
I still have fucking morons on Facebook telling me that I actually got to keep my doctor, when in reality my insurance plan was canceled for being illegal under the ACA and I had to find a new doctor.
Maybe you should have had an actual insurance plan instead of a scam.
Yup, the old auto accident insurance scam.
This one is probably my favorite.
This one is great too.
much of SF believes the rest of the world revolves around their epicenter. The idea that people would not know what "The mission" was probably would not even dawn on people like story author.
Maybe, but the story was written for a San Francisco publication that has a San Francisco audience. IE, the article writer's expectation that the website readers would know what "The Mission" is is not unfounded. The submitter of the Slashdot article, however, simply cut and paste the first paragraph of the article and used that as the submission. Not necessarily a bad way to share a story, but when taking a niche article and spreading it to a wider geographic audience than it was originally intended for, it helps to add a little context on top. I wouldn't blame the original publication for that.
We see this all the time on Slashdot when someone submits an article without context, assuming others have a baseline amount of knowledge about what they're talking about.
San Francisco has some good points.
The Mission, however, much of it is pure squalor, and there are ambulances double-parked on the cross streets all the time because they end up getting called there so often.
I used to work in SOMA, and crossed the Mission to get there from BART. It's not a pretty area.
It's not unusual for traffic to be backed up and blocking an intersection. Ideally you don't pull forward unless it's clear, but then a bunch of people turning right on red are going to take your spot.
In some intersections in San Francisco there are so many pedestrians crossing all the time that the only way to turn right is to creep forward as far as you can, and then go for it when the lights change. Sometimes there are cycles of the light where pedestrians have their own "walk" where all crosswalks are active and no cars can move, and that does make turning during traffic cycles much easier, but too many pedestrians will still cross when there's a green car signal but red pedestrian signal.
I was unaware that the NSA are the ones selling Google Home. I thought that was a Google product.
Sugar maples are not going away. Their range will just shift northward.
The problem is that less sunlight falls on northern latitudes. While I like the idea of maple syrup from the Northwest Territories, at the southern border you'll still have about four months of the year where where you only have a couple hours of sunlight a day, and conditions are pretty arid as well. Can a sugar maple survive in that environment? Yes, 'trees' could, life certainly can, but can a specific tree make that adjustment in a 100-year period?
First rule of speaking French: get bored and trail off halfway through each word. No one says six or seven syllables. In practice, you'll get two on a regular basis and three if it's your waiter sneering at your bad accent.
In France, most waiters won't sneer at a bad accent. They'll just be thrilled or amused that someone is actually making the effort for them, as opposed to the people who just expect that you'll know their language while speaking it very loudly.
Carnivore did exactly what they said it was supposed to do.
Say you take a drink and get in a car buzzed and maimed a homeless person.
Legally, we assign you full, 100% responsibility for the action there. IE, you took the risk, and you're totally at fault, barring some weird circumstance like him jumping in front of your car.
1. Human life alone is sentient, has a soul and is a gift from God. As soon as you get away from that simple fact, you are keeping company with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the other mass murdering genocidal maniacs of the last century.
You know what else Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and those other genocidal maniacs did? Poop in toilets.
You don't actually poop in toilets like Hitler did, do you? What other traits do you share with crazy murderers?
I don't know about the movie Alive.
But I guess it is about the plane crash in the Andes?
Yeah, it's the in-flight movie for every cross-continent flight I take.
Alive, Flight, Con-Air, Die Hard 2... great airline movies.
Jesus never said anything about worshiping him, he didn't create any structure that put the emphasis on himself, even while he was claiming to fulfill a prophesy that can only be fulfilled by the son of God.
Sure he did, if you're willing to believe the bible being the inerrant word of God, and believe in its 'paradoxes.' IE, the Roman Catholic belief that Jesus is both Son of God, AND God explicitly (via the trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, three aspects of the same). So Jesus doesn't need to explicitly say "worship me," the Bible makes it extremely clear that God is to be worshiped. To say otherwise would cast shade on those sections of the bible that Jesus wasn't in.
Christianity and Islam both started as cults by your definition.
Correct, they absolutely did, and many of the authorities of the time of Christ (and after) certainly treated it as just another cult. That was a time when many, many claimed to be a messiah. The Christians just managed to stand the test of time, and we're well enough removed now (personally, and by time) for it to be a religion.
All of this pro-life.. ALL of it, every single bit, is founded on the concept that "human babies are special"
Of course they're special to us, because they're OURS. That's how we evolved, and that's how humans will always see ourselves -- we're more important than the others. Other species see their own babies as more "special" than those of other species, and that's how it's worked for billions of years: protect your own, and whomever can do it the best, wins. It's only recently that we've been able to civilization our way out of simple survival of the fittest, but we're still biologically hard-wired in ways we usually don't like to admit.
you would rather just see paupers begging street side, the masses of old poor dying from malnutrition and exposure, education only for those who can "afford"
No, I sincerely think the government is the biggest causer of all those problems and I want to follow the pareto principle to help those people.
I don't think the government is the biggest causer of poverty. We've had non-interventionist governments in the past, and very interventionist governments, in both the US and elsewhere, and poverty still exists regardless of government type.
adopt them into loving families, because we are not actually wild animals and have empathy, love and altruism...
I think if you actually spoke to the kids unfortunate enough to go through the adoption racket many would vehemently disagree with your assessment of human nature.
Well, the fact that you can speak to them, that they've not committed suicide speaks to their belief that it was still better to live than to not have existed at all.
Your first thought is, "I wish I wasn't living in a small 1 bedroom apartment with an average family of 3.3 people because I'm taxed to the point of near poverty, even with a full time STEM job and and an advanced degree."
You realize once you add up the taxes and insurance and other costs, that the US pays more per person for health care than the Swedes do, and receive poorer-quality care to boot? Were you trying to make an economic argument against their medical system?
Yes, raw two-hour video that contradicted his "selective edits." The cut-down video ignores important context, as if context doesn't actually matter.
Your sources are Cracked and NPR, two liberal strongholds? lol Can't take your comment serious anymore.
Can you refute what they're saying, or are you just loling because it's not coming from your fiction media?
How about The American Conservative, which cautioned conservative doners to stop donating money to Project Veritas?
Or the National Review, which wrote in an editorial that James O'Keefe does a disservice to the conservative movement?
Or Commentary Magazine, which said that O'Keefe is exploitative of its audience.
You know.. Your partisan perspective is just as bad as O'Keefe's.
I would consider myself center generally, even center-right on some issues. I just dislike liars. The media, including O'Keefe's org, seem into be in a race to one-up each other with how much they can bamboozle and trick the public. As long as a narrative is crafted for 'your side,' it's a-ok to be dishonest! Everyone goes in to these stories with their conclusions already drawn, and then try to craft a narrative to validates that conclusion, however you can do it.
Yes, O'Keefe posts raw video of many interviews, but most people don't watch them -- they watch the edited video and that's what most people make their conclusions on. Especially in the early days, the raw video could only be analyzed after the media brouhaha over the edited video and story was generated. This gives Veritas a clever shield -- deceive, while claiming openness since the original video, which often counteracts the narrative Veritas is pushing, is available. Like I said before, they're Michael Moore imitators, and that's not a compliment.
I thought the person who misedited the George Zimmerman tape should have been fired, or at least suspended. And yes, I heard about it, it was top news the whole week when it happened. I seethed when Farenheit 9/11, a pure propaganda film, won a documentary Oscar. And I disliked the same tricks that O'Keefe pulled in his ACORN video, like how he's presented as visiting the office and talking to employees in a pimp outfit, with the implication be "this is something these idiots do all the time -- help pimps with child prostitution. They're even falling for his flamboyant disguise." But the pimp outfit came later -- all the interviews he did earlier, wearing a simple business suit. And the ACORN folks answered his questions, and then reported the entire encounter to the police, something O'Keefe usually doesn't talk about, possibly because he lost a court case brought by the employee who contacted the police, yet was fired for the narrative presented in the video.
As far as I can tell, O'Keefe's first recordings, of Planned Parenthood volunteers offering to help an underage girl avoid having to notify police about her pregnancy, are the most damaging he's released, ones showing actual wrong-doing. Hooray for him! I just wish his followup efforts were better. He hit an incredible low a few months ago with his failed sting of the Washington Post, something that ended up turning most conservative media against Project Veritas.
You can't prove a negative.
What we have here is a PR war with Veritas, which generally doesn't work out well for Veritas' targets.
It doesn't? Project Veritas's reputation has been shredded long before now. It's the Michael Moore of the alt-right: if you see a project veritas video, chances are it's been edited to distort the events that took place to drive a political narrative. They fucked up with the ACORN videos, fucked up again with the Planned Parenthood videos, fucked up again with the NPR video, and their Washington Post sting operation blew up completely in their face. Why would anyone, left, center, or right, listen to O'Keefe anymore?