No, people are saying that people should not be able to band together to create and distribute a movie critical of Hillary Clinton because THAT is what the CItizens Untied case was about.
A corporation is hardly "people banding together." That's a big miss. You think if people put it to a vote that they would pass the hat to pony up $300m for Hillary's SuperPAC? Bullshit. Corporations are power structures with a very uneven power distribution. The vast majority of corporate employees have little knowledge and no say in how much money the corporation donates. And that doesn't get into non-employees, like shareholders, most of whom have no idea they even own stock in the company.
The candidate who accepted $400k speaking fees from big banks?
I'm trying to figure out what it is about this that is supposed to be so negative. Why does it matter if she accepted $400k in speaking fees from banks? Do you think that somehow makes her beholden to them? That they might agree with everything she says? That she aligns perfectly with their wants? She's a person of influence, they definitely are interested in her regardless. If they offered me $400k I'd speak to them too. That doesn't mean I'd pass the "let's give banks all the money act of 2017" either.
No, Obamacare was for the middle. Single payer like the rest of the civilized world is for their base. "Lets make the US an actual fucking democracy where 1 citizen = 1 vote instead of 1 redneck vote = 100 city votes" is for their base.
Hey, having a small geographic section of the country control policy for another larger section of the country isn't cool either. Fortunately, it's a balance. The whole point of that is because the USA was founded on the principle that power should be shifted to local control -- IE, communities rule themselves, they should not be 'ruled' by people who live hundreds or thousands of miles away. For that reason, people who live outside the major population centers get more of a voice, because it's their land that others are making choices about.
It's not necessarily that the investment banks themselves were too big to fail, it's that so many assets from common citizens were tied up in them, such that the collapse of the banks would have destroyed the retirements of many many average Americans.
If these companies stop providing product that people want, they'll be gone tomorrow.
Not always, not if they force out the competition through their monopoly power or the high barriers to entry.
Utilities for example have high barriers to entry because companies should not be able to tear up existing infrastructure. Yahoo is a decent example in that the barriers to entry for competition aren't too high. For the most part, I don't have a problem with Amazon despite their questionable practices and purchasing power, because anyone can set up a store to "sell stuff on the Internet." But ISPs have extremely high barriers to entry, at least when it comes to real high-speed Internet (which rules out microwave, satellite, wireless, etc), barriers that keep competition low or nonexistent.
The drive to do better has very little to do with what other people have.
That's a sentiment that comes from actually having wealth. When you're destitute, the drive comes when you can't afford to eat well, when your can't afford to fix your car that you need because you can't afford to live close to your job. Unfortunately for many, the bar for just surviving and raising a family is high enough that they can't afford to think of tomorrow either -- just getting through today is a struggle.
I haven't seen any evidence of a direct attack on voting databases or voting booths outside of raw unfiltered information of Clinton and the DNC.
If an electorate is split pretty close to 50/50, you don't need a direct attack on voting databases. All you need is to weaken one side while leaving the other alone. Both sides have their secrets, and when you give one side a pass while exposing all the secrets of the other, you're going to throw off the balance. Donald Fucking Trump should have been easy prey for any appealing candidate, that Hillary barely lost a tie just proves my point that we had the two worst candidates I've ever seen in a Presidential election.
What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy?
Because it's still mostly a zero-sum game, unlike what economists with a stake in the current system like to tell you. The people at the top control the wages of the lower and middle, and what we've seen in the last forty years is the top wealth earners using their economic power to squeeze the money out of the middle class. The rich grow much richer, and everyone else grows much much poorer. We were told that by allowing the wealthy to do this, their wealth would "trickle down" to everyone else, but while we've gotten pretty good at allowing the former, the whole trickle down part turned out to be bullshit.
Yeah, but with the possible exception of that latest movie by Mel Gibson ( full of Australian actors pretending to be American ) there hasn't been any decent WW2 movies that weren't full of BS Hollywood propoganda. Fury was shit....Saving Private Ryan was shit, Pearl Harbour was shit...etc etc.
I fucking hope Dunkirk doesn't have Americans in it.......
Yeah, yeah, I get it. You hate Americans. Be honest about it.
Ok, what news source did you read this? Considering there's been nothing about what you speak of in the news (and let's be honest: if there was any kernel of truth to this, it would be all over considering how Russia is the hot topic lately), I think you either made that up or read some sensational story someone else made up.
The usual claims seems to be about Hillary giving a huge chunk of Uranium in exchange for Clinton Foundation donations. That theory falls apart when you realize Hillary did not have veto power over the decision (only Obama did), nor was she a participant in the decision. Second, the uranium was not (and cannot be) transported out of the US. It remains under control of the US subsidiaries.
That and the donations people were up in arms about occurred when GWB was president, and it came from the non-Russian founder of the company. The closest we can get to malfeasance here is that the Clinton Foundation did not properly disclose the much smaller donations that happened later
When the entire Democrat party and its sponsors fight everything Trump does, anything Trump does becomes a controversy. It is like the party only has one purpose nowadays. Such a waste. I can see no reason to vote for them next election if this is all they can do.
Everything Trump does? You can't be serious. The Democrats are pussies, way too much to play by the Total Obstruction playbook that the Republicans used with Obama. The Democrats will do what they always do: wring their hands, talk about how mean the other side is, and roll over / compromise.
The US War on Terrorism, is really the war against Saudi funded Wahabi Sunni Aggression.
Yeah, but the US also claims Iran funds international terrorism, and the non-Sunni Iran is even more on the USA's shit-list than the Wahabbi's are.. for some reason.
Half the people we're talking about entered legally. It proves the lie.
If you enter legally, and don't leave when the term of entrance is up, then it's the same damned thing. If you are a naturalized citizen of the United States, you have a right to be in the US. No one else has any sort of 'right' to be here, and whether you overstay a visa or sneak over the border, you stay here illegally.
That is a GREAT Madison quote! I like this one, too!
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
But what did Madison know about the Constitution, he only wrote the thing...
Strangely, the anti-government folks who fall into the "starve the beast" camp also tend to have the same attitude about their state governments.
You can stay fit in other ways and your cheapness is risking your life (and others) on a daily basis. The world has moved to large, metal objects that crush bicycles. Good luck.
The world has been changing more than you think, too. Are you seriously trying to make an argument that riding your bike instead of in a car is IMMORAL? Good lord.
Well, I'm not convinced. Maybe these things make sense for somebody who is into competitive cycling, but most of us aren't, I think - most people simply use a bike as a practical means of transport, which is perfectly sensible; it is a lot healthier, for one thing, and you get to breeze through rush hour.
It's not just competitive cycling. I bike commute as well, and I got sick of arriving at work hot and sweaty and with stinky clothes because regular clothes don't handle exercise conditions very well. So I wear a bike jersey that keeps me cool and change once I get to the office. If you're riding on the weekend through the backtrails, of course you're going to need a good bike bottle. If you're doing it for fitness, you're probably riding long enough that you're going to want electrolytes in addition to water. Yes, the high-end cyclists are going to get all sorts of crazy stuff in addition to the carbon-fiber bike frame, and you'll have plenty of folks just ambling on the bike to the corner store, but there are a ton of people in between those extremes, and they like being comfortable while they ride so they can ride faster and longer and they like not having their good pants flapping against a greasy chain.
Belief should be a banned word when discussing science. Anyone who ever uses "Believe" when talking science either doesn't understand it or is being intellectually lazy.
Unless you're running all the researchers' experiments yourself, you're having to put some amount of "belief" in several parts of the process.
Their methodology in determining the speed of a (assumed healthy) T-Rex (assumed to be) walking at it's best speed contains too many assumptions that _cannot_ be proven to be reliable.
I have to disagree with your assessment of the assumptions. The assumptions cannot be proven at this time. Or ever. However, it's another things to say that they are unreliable. The conclusion could be completely wrong but the assumptions given the circumstances are necessary.
They should be considered unreliable for a number of reasons, one of which is that it doesn't pass the sniff test. If you come to the conclusion that, were a T-Rex to try to run full-speed that its legs would just shatter, it may be that you're missing the forest for the trees, getting caught up enough in what-ifs that you don't realize the conclusion you're coming to is absolutely ridiculous on its face. A conclusion so ridiculous that you ought to have extraordinary, undeniable proof, or that it's a sign you need to go back to the drawing board rather than publish. But perhaps the researchers are under a mandate to publish -- that's sometimes a fact of life in academia and science: you have to publish something, even if it's crap.
Slashdot Mirror
The Supreme Court nomination alone is a triumph. 30 years of liberal ideology lies in ruins.
Yeah, thank God we replaced that liberal parasite Scalia with a conservative!
If exposing dirty laundry is enough to "weaken the other side" to the point of losing, you are not on strong grounds to begin with
No one in politics is on strong grounds.
No, people are saying that people should not be able to band together to create and distribute a movie critical of Hillary Clinton because THAT is what the CItizens Untied case was about.
A corporation is hardly "people banding together." That's a big miss. You think if people put it to a vote that they would pass the hat to pony up $300m for Hillary's SuperPAC? Bullshit. Corporations are power structures with a very uneven power distribution. The vast majority of corporate employees have little knowledge and no say in how much money the corporation donates. And that doesn't get into non-employees, like shareholders, most of whom have no idea they even own stock in the company.
The candidate who accepted $400k speaking fees from big banks?
I'm trying to figure out what it is about this that is supposed to be so negative. Why does it matter if she accepted $400k in speaking fees from banks? Do you think that somehow makes her beholden to them? That they might agree with everything she says? That she aligns perfectly with their wants? She's a person of influence, they definitely are interested in her regardless. If they offered me $400k I'd speak to them too. That doesn't mean I'd pass the "let's give banks all the money act of 2017" either.
No, Obamacare was for the middle. Single payer like the rest of the civilized world is for their base. "Lets make the US an actual fucking democracy where 1 citizen = 1 vote instead of 1 redneck vote = 100 city votes" is for their base.
Hey, having a small geographic section of the country control policy for another larger section of the country isn't cool either. Fortunately, it's a balance. The whole point of that is because the USA was founded on the principle that power should be shifted to local control -- IE, communities rule themselves, they should not be 'ruled' by people who live hundreds or thousands of miles away. For that reason, people who live outside the major population centers get more of a voice, because it's their land that others are making choices about.
It's not necessarily that the investment banks themselves were too big to fail, it's that so many assets from common citizens were tied up in them, such that the collapse of the banks would have destroyed the retirements of many many average Americans.
If these companies stop providing product that people want, they'll be gone tomorrow.
Not always, not if they force out the competition through their monopoly power or the high barriers to entry.
Utilities for example have high barriers to entry because companies should not be able to tear up existing infrastructure. Yahoo is a decent example in that the barriers to entry for competition aren't too high. For the most part, I don't have a problem with Amazon despite their questionable practices and purchasing power, because anyone can set up a store to "sell stuff on the Internet." But ISPs have extremely high barriers to entry, at least when it comes to real high-speed Internet (which rules out microwave, satellite, wireless, etc), barriers that keep competition low or nonexistent.
The drive to do better has very little to do with what other people have.
That's a sentiment that comes from actually having wealth. When you're destitute, the drive comes when you can't afford to eat well, when your can't afford to fix your car that you need because you can't afford to live close to your job. Unfortunately for many, the bar for just surviving and raising a family is high enough that they can't afford to think of tomorrow either -- just getting through today is a struggle.
I haven't seen any evidence of a direct attack on voting databases or voting booths outside of raw unfiltered information of Clinton and the DNC.
If an electorate is split pretty close to 50/50, you don't need a direct attack on voting databases. All you need is to weaken one side while leaving the other alone. Both sides have their secrets, and when you give one side a pass while exposing all the secrets of the other, you're going to throw off the balance. Donald Fucking Trump should have been easy prey for any appealing candidate, that Hillary barely lost a tie just proves my point that we had the two worst candidates I've ever seen in a Presidential election.
What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy?
Because it's still mostly a zero-sum game, unlike what economists with a stake in the current system like to tell you. The people at the top control the wages of the lower and middle, and what we've seen in the last forty years is the top wealth earners using their economic power to squeeze the money out of the middle class. The rich grow much richer, and everyone else grows much much poorer. We were told that by allowing the wealthy to do this, their wealth would "trickle down" to everyone else, but while we've gotten pretty good at allowing the former, the whole trickle down part turned out to be bullshit.
I assume the poster wanted to be funny, right ?
Or is it one of those "black is white", "up is down" orwellian thing ?
Living in interesting times....
It was a dickweed editor trying to be snarky in a article title.
His question was "why is systemd doing that instead of something else?"
Yeah, but with the possible exception of that latest movie by Mel Gibson ( full of Australian actors pretending to be American ) there hasn't been any decent WW2 movies that weren't full of BS Hollywood propoganda. Fury was shit....Saving Private Ryan was shit, Pearl Harbour was shit...etc etc.
I fucking hope Dunkirk doesn't have Americans in it.......
Yeah, yeah, I get it. You hate Americans. Be honest about it.
Ok, what news source did you read this? Considering there's been nothing about what you speak of in the news (and let's be honest: if there was any kernel of truth to this, it would be all over considering how Russia is the hot topic lately), I think you either made that up or read some sensational story someone else made up.
The usual claims seems to be about Hillary giving a huge chunk of Uranium in exchange for Clinton Foundation donations. That theory falls apart when you realize Hillary did not have veto power over the decision (only Obama did), nor was she a participant in the decision. Second, the uranium was not (and cannot be) transported out of the US. It remains under control of the US subsidiaries.
That and the donations people were up in arms about occurred when GWB was president, and it came from the non-Russian founder of the company. The closest we can get to malfeasance here is that the Clinton Foundation did not properly disclose the much smaller donations that happened later
When the entire Democrat party and its sponsors fight everything Trump does, anything Trump does becomes a controversy. It is like the party only has one purpose nowadays. Such a waste. I can see no reason to vote for them next election if this is all they can do.
Everything Trump does? You can't be serious. The Democrats are pussies, way too much to play by the Total Obstruction playbook that the Republicans used with Obama. The Democrats will do what they always do: wring their hands, talk about how mean the other side is, and roll over / compromise.
The US War on Terrorism, is really the war against Saudi funded Wahabi Sunni Aggression.
Yeah, but the US also claims Iran funds international terrorism, and the non-Sunni Iran is even more on the USA's shit-list than the Wahabbi's are.. for some reason.
You're a liar.
Half the people we're talking about entered legally. It proves the lie.
If you enter legally, and don't leave when the term of entrance is up, then it's the same damned thing.
If you are a naturalized citizen of the United States, you have a right to be in the US. No one else has any sort of 'right' to be here, and whether you overstay a visa or sneak over the border, you stay here illegally.
Americans are, right now, calling for the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants whose only crime was trying to start a better life.
The crime is entering the country. One of the few inalienable rights of a country is to decide who is allowed to enter and when.
That is a GREAT Madison quote! I like this one, too!
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
But what did Madison know about the Constitution, he only wrote the thing...
Strangely, the anti-government folks who fall into the "starve the beast" camp also tend to have the same attitude about their state governments.
You can stay fit in other ways and your cheapness is risking your life (and others) on a daily basis. The world has moved to large, metal objects that crush bicycles. Good luck.
The world has been changing more than you think, too. Are you seriously trying to make an argument that riding your bike instead of in a car is IMMORAL? Good lord.
Well, I'm not convinced. Maybe these things make sense for somebody who is into competitive cycling, but most of us aren't, I think - most people simply use a bike as a practical means of transport, which is perfectly sensible; it is a lot healthier, for one thing, and you get to breeze through rush hour.
It's not just competitive cycling. I bike commute as well, and I got sick of arriving at work hot and sweaty and with stinky clothes because regular clothes don't handle exercise conditions very well. So I wear a bike jersey that keeps me cool and change once I get to the office. If you're riding on the weekend through the backtrails, of course you're going to need a good bike bottle. If you're doing it for fitness, you're probably riding long enough that you're going to want electrolytes in addition to water. Yes, the high-end cyclists are going to get all sorts of crazy stuff in addition to the carbon-fiber bike frame, and you'll have plenty of folks just ambling on the bike to the corner store, but there are a ton of people in between those extremes, and they like being comfortable while they ride so they can ride faster and longer and they like not having their good pants flapping against a greasy chain.
Belief should be a banned word when discussing science. Anyone who ever uses "Believe" when talking science either doesn't understand it or is being intellectually lazy.
Unless you're running all the researchers' experiments yourself, you're having to put some amount of "belief" in several parts of the process.
Their methodology in determining the speed of a (assumed healthy) T-Rex (assumed to be) walking at it's best speed contains too many assumptions that _cannot_ be proven to be reliable.
I have to disagree with your assessment of the assumptions. The assumptions cannot be proven at this time. Or ever. However, it's another things to say that they are unreliable. The conclusion could be completely wrong but the assumptions given the circumstances are necessary.
They should be considered unreliable for a number of reasons, one of which is that it doesn't pass the sniff test. If you come to the conclusion that, were a T-Rex to try to run full-speed that its legs would just shatter, it may be that you're missing the forest for the trees, getting caught up enough in what-ifs that you don't realize the conclusion you're coming to is absolutely ridiculous on its face. A conclusion so ridiculous that you ought to have extraordinary, undeniable proof, or that it's a sign you need to go back to the drawing board rather than publish. But perhaps the researchers are under a mandate to publish -- that's sometimes a fact of life in academia and science: you have to publish something, even if it's crap.
My guess is it'd be pretty close to the San Diego scene in Jurassic Park 2, replete with running Japanese businessmen.
...and promptly crashes into a tree which, according to your assertion, he cannot see.
He can see the tree, he's just not distinguishing the frozen prey from the other background.