Even hard-core Libertarians believe that protection of private property, in that thieves are punished, is a legitimate role of government. Anarchists are about the only people who don't.
Or the fact checkers are either biased or in on it.
We live in a "post-truth" society now. I've seen both sides blatantly trumpeting easily-checked lies, then attacking the fact checkers for not being on their side.
...Americans didn't hate each other as much during the Civil War as they do now.
I think this is demonstrably not true.
The question of whether or not states -can- secede was settled by the Civil War. That route is not open anymore. Doesn't mean we're not as divided now as we were then. Not that I really believe that the nation IS as divided, but 150 years later there are more measures to bind the nation together, and the federal government is far stronger now than it was then.
it's because constant testing has proven the models to an effectiveness percentage that 98% of the people can use them without having to retest the science and get consistent results
It's because constant testing has not proven the models WRONG. That's how the science works, most theories cannot be proven correct, but they can be proven incorrect. You would have to prove that the climate models are wrong.
Why the hell do you think that? Are you completely incapable of doing anything on your own without a big nanny-state overlord telling you how to do it?
George W. Bush refused to enter the US into the Kyoto Accords because it placed the burden for "cleaning the earth" upon wealthy countries. Specifically, first-world countries like the US were required to greatly reduce emissions while few or no limits were put on most of the countries in the world -- and China and India in particular.
If we're serious about reducing climate change, it has to be a global effort, otherwise it's like having a "no-peeing" corner in a swimming pool. As long as doing nothing has a financial benefit, most folks will do nothing and the decision makers in most societies trend older, meaning they don't have to reap the consequences of having the next generation fix the problem.
That is a max of 1.5 meters - over a 100 year span! Do you seriously think coastal areas will not be able to deal with that incredibly slow rise?
That's a good question! Will we get to send the bill to Coal Country, or is this an example of private industry reaping the benefits while forcing the costs onto the taxpayer?
Do you not seriously think warming will be greatly abated as inevitable update of technologies like solar and nuclear power slows down warming, even over the next 50 years???
That's really the only hope for the future. The future will really suck for those of us still alive in 50 years, and it will suck for our children, and our childrens' children, but hey, maybe our great-grandchildren won't be cursing our names so much.
He does not own the United States or Federal Government. He is temporary management hired by the voters
The CEO of a publically-traded company (usually) isn't the owner of the company either, but he is the employer, and is quite capable of making hiring and firing decisions.
Uhm, *Lincoln* "made the Civil War inevitable" and nobody else. *HE* and *only* he initiated a war by invading a sovereign country.
The US Constitution had no provision for allowing southern states to set up their own country. They were in open rebellion by the time Lincoln entered office.
He committed treason in the process and any number of other despicable acts, but Lincoln and only Lincoln are to blame for the Civil War.
It's great to be able to sit safe behind a keyboard saying things that would get you beaten up in a bar, isn't it? Long live the Internet! Truly we live in a paradise of enlightened discussion!
So, the solution when you get abused is to make sure everyone else is, also?
The idea is that these are things that cost a lot of money. Where is the money supposed to come from? The pension system disappeared from the private sector because it was completely unsustainable. But it stayed in the public sector because you can just raise taxes, and the government never goes bankrupt. There has to be some sort of counter to that. Same with things like 'early retirement.' The answer should not just be "well the taxpayer can pay for all of that."
He didn't dodge the question. He referred to federal departments, you asked him why he wants to shut down state and local government services, and he said he didn't say that.
It isn't personal. There are plenty of people who wield it because that was a real thing that happened. There were over 6 million of those hammer forged. They will not lay and rust.
Wanting a list of people to fire because you think they're bad at their job is in no ways analogous to the Holocaust.
I know it's unpopular, but the Electoral College is an important FEATURE of our representative democracy, and should not be thrown aside just because it looks like it may be used to make Trump the next POTUS. The Electoral College is a safety valve against popularity, foreign interests, and other manipulations of the electorate.
That's great if the Electoral College did that, but that's not what they do. We get the downside of non-proportional electoral college votes, but none of the upside. We have a pretty clear indication of foreign interests manipulating the electorate, but the Electoral College is going to vote for Trump anyway. They wouldn't dare do differently, and if they did, they probably suspect they would spark a revolution. And anyway, for generations now the idea that an electoral voter would not follow the decision of state voters ("faithless voters") has been drummed out of the electorate.
There's no safety system here. We get all the downsides of the EC, none of the accountability that makes it worth it.
Sorry, but that number of popular votes thing...you don't want to be flogging that. We all know for a fact that those votes came basically from California...where they let and encouraged Illegal Aliens to vote.
You can provide proof or STFU. A fake news story that you parrot is not proof.
Regardless, the people in the effected areas saw their livelihoods taken away by the feds, and there are many examples of this beyond just the coal industry.
If their livelihoods negatively impact everyone in the country, should those livelihoods be propped up "because jobs?" Or because they don't know how to do anything else? That's a horrific example of government intervention.
You can ignore reality, but you can not ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Snowflakes like you will learn this soon. Trump will teach you.
I know, you want a dictator. I understand the appeal -- when your guy is awesome, you just want him to be able to sweep all opposition aside. But the President of the United States does not have the powers to be a dictator. He needs, flat-out, the support of Congress. And if he wants to break the law to force out people he doesn't like, then the court system will have to weigh in as to whether his actions are legal, and don't think that just because there are Republican judges that they'll roll over.
Because hackers inside of extremely sensitive infrastructure always leave lots of "Haha, we got you!" messages?
Lack of evidence is not evidence. I'm sorry, but you have to provide evidence that the servers were hacked before we just assume they were hacked. The only thing we know is that the emails from that server were not leaked to the public.
Lawyers. If you are paid to obfuscate, it eventually becomes second nature, and you fail to communicate clearly even to your friends and family.
Lawyers are mostly paid to be -specific-. Specific about every single case and situation, not leaving anything to intuition, which usually means it takes a few paragraphs to say something that most people would use a single sentence for.
Slashdot Mirror
Even hard-core Libertarians believe that protection of private property, in that thieves are punished, is a legitimate role of government. Anarchists are about the only people who don't.
Or the fact checkers are either biased or in on it.
We live in a "post-truth" society now. I've seen both sides blatantly trumpeting easily-checked lies, then attacking the fact checkers for not being on their side.
"Vast Right wing conspiracy" (monica)
Well. There was a vast right wing conspiracy. That at least was true. But they were pretty open about it, which doesn't make it much of a conspiracy.
But Marvel went ahead with Captain America: Civil War!
...Americans didn't hate each other as much during the Civil War as they do now.
I think this is demonstrably not true.
The question of whether or not states -can- secede was settled by the Civil War. That route is not open anymore.
Doesn't mean we're not as divided now as we were then.
Not that I really believe that the nation IS as divided, but 150 years later there are more measures to bind the nation together, and the federal government is far stronger now than it was then.
it's because constant testing has proven the models to an effectiveness percentage that 98% of the people can use them without having to retest the science and get consistent results
It's because constant testing has not proven the models WRONG. That's how the science works, most theories cannot be proven correct, but they can be proven incorrect. You would have to prove that the climate models are wrong.
Why the hell do you think that? Are you completely incapable of doing anything on your own without a big nanny-state overlord telling you how to do it?
George W. Bush refused to enter the US into the Kyoto Accords because it placed the burden for "cleaning the earth" upon wealthy countries. Specifically, first-world countries like the US were required to greatly reduce emissions while few or no limits were put on most of the countries in the world -- and China and India in particular.
If we're serious about reducing climate change, it has to be a global effort, otherwise it's like having a "no-peeing" corner in a swimming pool. As long as doing nothing has a financial benefit, most folks will do nothing and the decision makers in most societies trend older, meaning they don't have to reap the consequences of having the next generation fix the problem.
That is a max of 1.5 meters - over a 100 year span! Do you seriously think coastal areas will not be able to deal with that incredibly slow rise?
That's a good question! Will we get to send the bill to Coal Country, or is this an example of private industry reaping the benefits while forcing the costs onto the taxpayer?
Do you not seriously think warming will be greatly abated as inevitable update of technologies like solar and nuclear power slows down warming, even over the next 50 years???
That's really the only hope for the future. The future will really suck for those of us still alive in 50 years, and it will suck for our children, and our childrens' children, but hey, maybe our great-grandchildren won't be cursing our names so much.
Have you ever read Ecotopia before?
Note, that's just rhetorical question. The book is fucking awful, a ridiculous fantasy top-to-bottom.
He does not own the United States or Federal Government. He is temporary management hired by the voters
The CEO of a publically-traded company (usually) isn't the owner of the company either, but he is the employer, and is quite capable of making hiring and firing decisions.
Uhm, *Lincoln* "made the Civil War inevitable" and nobody else. *HE* and *only* he initiated a war by invading a sovereign country.
The US Constitution had no provision for allowing southern states to set up their own country. They were in open rebellion by the time Lincoln entered office.
He committed treason in the process and any number of other despicable acts, but Lincoln and only Lincoln are to blame for the Civil War.
It's great to be able to sit safe behind a keyboard saying things that would get you beaten up in a bar, isn't it? Long live the Internet! Truly we live in a paradise of enlightened discussion!
So, the solution when you get abused is to make sure everyone else is, also?
The idea is that these are things that cost a lot of money. Where is the money supposed to come from?
The pension system disappeared from the private sector because it was completely unsustainable. But it stayed in the public sector because you can just raise taxes, and the government never goes bankrupt. There has to be some sort of counter to that. Same with things like 'early retirement.' The answer should not just be "well the taxpayer can pay for all of that."
Why do you dodge the question? No good answer?
He didn't dodge the question. He referred to federal departments, you asked him why he wants to shut down state and local government services, and he said he didn't say that.
It isn't personal. There are plenty of people who wield it because that was a real thing that happened. There were over 6 million of those hammer forged. They will not lay and rust.
Wanting a list of people to fire because you think they're bad at their job is in no ways analogous to the Holocaust.
I know it's unpopular, but the Electoral College is an important FEATURE of our representative democracy, and should not be thrown aside just because it looks like it may be used to make Trump the next POTUS. The Electoral College is a safety valve against popularity, foreign interests, and other manipulations of the electorate.
That's great if the Electoral College did that, but that's not what they do. We get the downside of non-proportional electoral college votes, but none of the upside.
We have a pretty clear indication of foreign interests manipulating the electorate, but the Electoral College is going to vote for Trump anyway. They wouldn't dare do differently, and if they did, they probably suspect they would spark a revolution. And anyway, for generations now the idea that an electoral voter would not follow the decision of state voters ("faithless voters") has been drummed out of the electorate.
There's no safety system here. We get all the downsides of the EC, none of the accountability that makes it worth it.
Sorry, but that number of popular votes thing...you don't want to be flogging that. We all know for a fact that those votes came basically from California...where they let and encouraged Illegal Aliens to vote.
You can provide proof or STFU. A fake news story that you parrot is not proof.
Regardless, the people in the effected areas saw their livelihoods taken away by the feds, and there are many examples of this beyond just the coal industry.
If their livelihoods negatively impact everyone in the country, should those livelihoods be propped up "because jobs?" Or because they don't know how to do anything else? That's a horrific example of government intervention.
Being gay is no more a 'good thing' than being white is. But it's certainly not a bad thing.
You can ignore reality, but you can not ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Snowflakes like you will learn this soon. Trump will teach you.
I know, you want a dictator. I understand the appeal -- when your guy is awesome, you just want him to be able to sweep all opposition aside. But the President of the United States does not have the powers to be a dictator. He needs, flat-out, the support of Congress. And if he wants to break the law to force out people he doesn't like, then the court system will have to weigh in as to whether his actions are legal, and don't think that just because there are Republican judges that they'll roll over.
Who uses the word "illegitimate" to describe a phishing email?
I would. I think most other IT guys could do that too. Why does it seem so weird?
No, Hillary sometimes does the actual executions herself.
Video Footage
Because hackers inside of extremely sensitive infrastructure always leave lots of "Haha, we got you!" messages?
Lack of evidence is not evidence. I'm sorry, but you have to provide evidence that the servers were hacked before we just assume they were hacked.
The only thing we know is that the emails from that server were not leaked to the public.
Who talks like that anyway?
Lawyers. If you are paid to obfuscate, it eventually becomes second nature, and you fail to communicate clearly even to your friends and family.
Lawyers are mostly paid to be -specific-. Specific about every single case and situation, not leaving anything to intuition, which usually means it takes a few paragraphs to say something that most people would use a single sentence for.
Of course the other big woosh in this is the excuse. We have all made mistakes but I never remember adding extras letters and reversing the definition
Then you are a god among men. I see people making this mistake innocuously all the time.