But how come no story on Susan Rice having unmasked multiple people in the Trump camp. It should be noted that she stated "she didn't do it, and had no knowledge of it." And of course that was proven untrue. And now we're seeing the claims making the rounds of "It wasn't political" but why wasn't the FBI involved then? Why did she do something that was outside of the preview of her job(advise the President and consume intelligence summaries)? Why does this appear to have been a case of her setting a new precedent(the unmasking). Why were they unmasked by her, when all 3 letter agencies could do this on their own if they're conducting an investigation.
And of course, why are so many of the media silent on this. When they were all over other major events similar to this and licking their chops like a dog seeing a steak. Well you can all have fun now.
Oh that's a good one. So which is it? She didn't know that she turned around and did it(after she claimed she didn't do it). Or that it was perfectly fine(but outside of the scope of her job)? Or should we move onto the part where these were conversations that had nothing to do with Russia. Or the part where you seem to have a serious race and agism problem?
While they do have some influence on the climate (as documented by the experts), they aren't nearly as big as the warming caused by CO2. And actually the Sun has been cooling a little bit since the 1980's.
Sorry. That can't be true. Allthosearticles which use sources, and are the basis of AGW talking points say that your view is untrue. Hate to be the bearer of bad news and tell you that you're still a climate denier.
It's brilliant, really. Economies allow your government to enslave you (via debt and consumerist treadmills of dopamine loops). Crash it, and you become free.
Well that's one way to look at it if you're a malthusian, or have a pro-antipopulation agenda or something. Or just want people to die because they can no longer afford anything.
You seem to have problems understanding the difference of "decades" vs "millions of years".
Strange, you seem to have a problem understanding that these claims of the sun having no impact are based around the idea of it being "short term" and "long term." Yes, quite the problem, perhaps you should go enjoy some book burning with the democrats.
You don't need it. I don't need it. We're also the extreme minority who don't need it. We're getting this because everyone else can't troubleshoot their own PC/device.
Impossible. The AGW experts(and media, and talking heads) have been telling us for decades, that the sun(aka solar changes) have no impact. None. That they're fully completely and absolutely unproven. Enjoying the "denier" camp yet? Don't question the orthodoxy citizen. And remember: If you're not having a book burning, you're not a true believer.(Courtesy of the House Democrats) Strange, I thought it was Republicans and conservatives who were the "anti-science" and "anti-free speech" party.
Do you people actually believe this shit, or are you being paid by Shareblue?
They probably get paid for it. They have to find some way to distract from the fact that Susan Rice has likely committed multiple felonies and mass constitutional violations.
Hey now, let's be fair. These same flappy heads were claiming that Manhattan Island and Florida would be under water by 2000(when I was a kid in the 1980's), and again by 2010, then 2012, and the latest ones screaming it'll be by 2025, and then there's the ones saying 2060 and then there's the others saying by 2100 too. You also can't forget the other alarmist stuff, like acid rain will destroy all the trees by 1995. The ozone hole will make it so you can't go outside except at night. The world will run out of oil by 1985. And my personal favorite? The world will starve by 1976.
I don't even get your point. Because there are "liberal" college students acting like 'tards... what? We have to vote Trump, call all media fake, embrace alternative facts, and drop our liberal values?
And how are you enjoying that moral outrage when it turns around and actually impacts your life? You think it doesn't also hurt companies when they jump into politics too? Ask Kelloggs.
The fact that those kids are idiots doesn't do anything to shake my values.
See that sentence? Now, go look at the latest "insert moral outrage" that just got your favorite thing pulled. Because they are doing things that shake your values, you just aren't paying attention.
As much I disliked what happened in Berkeley with the protests the most annoying part of them for me is now we have idiots like you creating massive generalizations based off a single event.
Single event? You're either naive or an idiot, I'm not sure which. Multiple cases of this not only in the US, but in Canada, and in EU countries with self-identifying leftists being violent. Violently attacking people for not having the "right kind of opinions" and so on.
If the entire Left is now against free speech because of this where does that put the right with all those photos of racist anti Obama banners from tea party rallies? There's photos from hundreds of rallies featuring these things. Is the Right a movement entirely composed of racists because of those?
No, it means that the right is more tolerant of views that other people express and are unwilling to suppress them because the suppression of speech hurts everyone. That, and the vast majority of people on the right or lean-right, haven't drank the kool-aid of collectivism. Which is what you're expressing right now, by trying to "lump some people, with everyone else."
Since you're a twit I'll answer for you, it puts the Right no where because holding an entire political ideology responsible for the actions of a few is something only stupid people do.
Thanks for showing everyone what a collectivist looks like, and when you're so invested in identity politics that even other people on the left are saying "the left has an extremism problem" that you attack those sane voices, which of course pushes them to the right. You figure out why the DNC is spiraling down the drain right now? No? I'll give you a hint, it's because they just voted another person in who supports that same type of garbage.
Thanks for showing you have no idea on the "level required for a search" in Canada. A smell is not enough unless there's an obvious view that the person is under the influence in Canada.
It's not legal in Canada, small amounts are "decriminalized" still illegal, but you won't go to jail -- if you're charged you'll be fined. Canada only has one set of laws regarding federal crimes, which is what drug laws fall into. We don't have the patchwork system where states(provinces), have their own felonies(indictable offences). Provinces have either summery conviction(misdemeanors) or standard infractions. If you go from Ontario to British Columbia, the crime of possession is the same in both provinces. The law is the same, the time you might serve may be lower in BC then Ontario however. In the US, one state could be a fine and in another state it could be jail.
I've gotten northern living allowance, it isn't anything like $1000/mo. It was a couple Grand extra on my taxes at the end of the year, if I travelled and had receipts.
If you're getting it on your taxes, it's not northern living allowance. That's the northern living offset. Northern living allowances are a stipend to offset remote communities and costs.
This isn't really a big thing. Legalized marijuana isn't likely going to happen, and that's the realm of federal government. And the Trudeau government keeps pushing it back, then changing their mind, then walking away from it and so on. Likely nothing will happen despite I believe the 4th or 5th time in the last year and half they've promised something on it.
The UBI test program is the realm of the province of Ontario, and is only being tested in one area. That one area is in the asshole of nowhere, that already gets a "northern living allowance($1k/mo)" on top of the UBI(in Canada, living in the "far north" you get suplemented income because it costs $8/gal of milk, $5/loaf of the $1.29 bread in the south, $25 for a 12 pack of pop and so on). The area also has high unemployment, though not as high as some other parts of southern ontario that haven't recovered from this current government driving businesses out of the province. Especially with the belief that "Ontario doesn't need industry" "extremely high energy prices are a-okay." Because right now, people are already making the "roof over head, food, or electricity" choice and the costs haven't even really hit. And now it's a case of how the fuck are we gonna pay for this. Unless the provincial liberals scrap all the other programs, UBI won't survive. Meaning, unemployment, workmans comp-basic coverage, welfare and so on will all have to go away.
Keep in mind that this is also likely an attempt to bolster their voting power, because they're in such poor shape that if an election was held today in Ontario, the Liberal Party would lose official party status and the Progressive Conservative Party(PC's) with any leader--anyone at all would gain super-majority status. People like to pretend that "green energy" is the salve that will fix all ills, and make cheap, limitless energy and so on. In Ontario? That's not the case. Energy is expensive, people who are middle class are struggling to make ends meet. The poor who were hard pressed before that? They're not making ends meet. The waiting list for subsidized housing is between 4-6 years in most of Ontario. Food banks run dry all the time now, charities that help the poor for fuel/electricity/NG(for heating), run out of funds before 1/3 of the winter season is over.
If Trudeau's carbon plan goes through? I won't be surprised if you see riots over energy costs start up here, people can't afford it.
You mean where the Obama administration actually did? Or the part where "suing" and "threaten to jail them" for breaking actual laws? Take your pick, because as usual you have no grasp on what you're talking about.
nd the fact that a very, very small subset of (loud) college "kids" do things in the name of liberalism isn't a reflection on classic liberal values.
Except that those "loud kids" are making these things happen. In fact, it's bad enough that those kids successfully caused such a large drop in new enrollments at several universities(like Mizzou), that those universities had to cut back on programs and had a budget shortfall of $25m+. Hate to break it to you, but if that small group is having that large of an impact? There's something fundamentally wrong. Especially when universities have to come out and state that "they exist to challenge ideas" and then are attacked by the media, members of government, and professors. Because they see that "challenging ideas" is the equivalent of extremism.
You want to see how the end of the road looks? Take a look in the UK. Where universities ban gays, feminists and conservatives from speaking on campus because they don't hold the right opinions these days.
Sure: half of it's sideways, it's compressed all to fuck, the aspect ratio on the left half has been mangled and the composition on the right panel sucks. Visually it's a total disaster.
You should probably tell the ones protesting free speech then to figure out how to hold a camera then. That is if they don't beat you, smash your camera, and you spend a day or two in hospital recovering from your "run-in" with them.
If you want to see what a real press ban looks like, you'd better start here. Because the Obama administration actually *did* ban the press on multiple occasions. In fact it was so bad at one point that multiple press agencies and reporters published a letter over it.
You should keep looking, you glossed over most of what it's saying. In particular with polling of non-disclosed political affiliation in media trust. Including things likethis. While gallup and journalism's numbers are interesting, it also makes my point correct. Perhaps you should also ask why the trust in the media is in decline...everywhere.
if i may: what are you referring to? i genuinely have no idea what you're talking about, but if there is something going on, i would like to be aware of it
... trying to delegitimize every news source to his left counts as trying to shut down speech.
Really? So you're saying that his opinions of something are trying to shut them down. Or that he's right when you can find the media is vastly left-wing, votes democrat, reporters are democrats(around 90%) and 95-97% of them in the beltway donate to democrats or are democrats. Or that 90% of what they report is all negative, even when the subject is positive.
It's not like the MSM haven't spent decades delegitimizing themselves to well...everyone. Which is why the trust of the press in most of the west is between 8% and 15% or anything. No, you want to see what trying to shut down speech looks like? Go pay attention to what's happening to youtube right now, and sites like the WSJ, gizmodo, et.al., directly attacking the source of revenue for people because they don't "conform" to their ideology. That's what an attack on free speech looks like.
Slashdot Mirror
But how come no story on Susan Rice having unmasked multiple people in the Trump camp. It should be noted that she stated "she didn't do it, and had no knowledge of it." And of course that was proven untrue. And now we're seeing the claims making the rounds of "It wasn't political" but why wasn't the FBI involved then? Why did she do something that was outside of the preview of her job(advise the President and consume intelligence summaries)? Why does this appear to have been a case of her setting a new precedent(the unmasking). Why were they unmasked by her, when all 3 letter agencies could do this on their own if they're conducting an investigation.
And of course, why are so many of the media silent on this. When they were all over other major events similar to this and licking their chops like a dog seeing a steak. Well you can all have fun now.
Oh that's a good one. So which is it? She didn't know that she turned around and did it(after she claimed she didn't do it). Or that it was perfectly fine(but outside of the scope of her job)? Or should we move onto the part where these were conversations that had nothing to do with Russia. Or the part where you seem to have a serious race and agism problem?
While they do have some influence on the climate (as documented by the experts), they aren't nearly as big as the warming caused by CO2. And actually the Sun has been cooling a little bit since the 1980's.
Sorry. That can't be true. All those articles which use sources, and are the basis of AGW talking points say that your view is untrue. Hate to be the bearer of bad news and tell you that you're still a climate denier.
It's brilliant, really. Economies allow your government to enslave you (via debt and consumerist treadmills of dopamine loops). Crash it, and you become free.
Well that's one way to look at it if you're a malthusian, or have a pro-antipopulation agenda or something. Or just want people to die because they can no longer afford anything.
You seem to have problems understanding the difference of "decades" vs "millions of years".
Strange, you seem to have a problem understanding that these claims of the sun having no impact are based around the idea of it being "short term" and "long term." Yes, quite the problem, perhaps you should go enjoy some book burning with the democrats.
Good. Some businesses shouldn't survive at all.
Well you're american. I'm sure you could handle having 40m people flooding in from Canada looking to survive right?
You don't need it. I don't need it. We're also the extreme minority who don't need it. We're getting this because everyone else can't troubleshoot their own PC/device.
Impossible. The AGW experts(and media, and talking heads) have been telling us for decades, that the sun(aka solar changes) have no impact. None. That they're fully completely and absolutely unproven. Enjoying the "denier" camp yet? Don't question the orthodoxy citizen. And remember: If you're not having a book burning, you're not a true believer. (Courtesy of the House Democrats) Strange, I thought it was Republicans and conservatives who were the "anti-science" and "anti-free speech" party.
No business can survive a tax of $300/tonne. Which is what Trudeau wants to push here in Canada, it would crash our economy overnight.
Do you people actually believe this shit, or are you being paid by Shareblue?
They probably get paid for it. They have to find some way to distract from the fact that Susan Rice has likely committed multiple felonies and mass constitutional violations.
Hey now, let's be fair. These same flappy heads were claiming that Manhattan Island and Florida would be under water by 2000(when I was a kid in the 1980's), and again by 2010, then 2012, and the latest ones screaming it'll be by 2025, and then there's the ones saying 2060 and then there's the others saying by 2100 too. You also can't forget the other alarmist stuff, like acid rain will destroy all the trees by 1995. The ozone hole will make it so you can't go outside except at night. The world will run out of oil by 1985. And my personal favorite? The world will starve by 1976.
I don't even get your point. Because there are "liberal" college students acting like 'tards ... what? We have to vote Trump, call all media fake, embrace alternative facts, and drop our liberal values?
And how are you enjoying that moral outrage when it turns around and actually impacts your life? You think it doesn't also hurt companies when they jump into politics too? Ask Kelloggs.
The fact that those kids are idiots doesn't do anything to shake my values.
See that sentence? Now, go look at the latest "insert moral outrage" that just got your favorite thing pulled. Because they are doing things that shake your values, you just aren't paying attention.
As much I disliked what happened in Berkeley with the protests the most annoying part of them for me is now we have idiots like you creating massive generalizations based off a single event.
Single event? You're either naive or an idiot, I'm not sure which. Multiple cases of this not only in the US, but in Canada, and in EU countries with self-identifying leftists being violent. Violently attacking people for not having the "right kind of opinions" and so on.
If the entire Left is now against free speech because of this where does that put the right with all those photos of racist anti Obama banners from tea party rallies? There's photos from hundreds of rallies featuring these things. Is the Right a movement entirely composed of racists because of those?
No, it means that the right is more tolerant of views that other people express and are unwilling to suppress them because the suppression of speech hurts everyone. That, and the vast majority of people on the right or lean-right, haven't drank the kool-aid of collectivism. Which is what you're expressing right now, by trying to "lump some people, with everyone else."
Since you're a twit I'll answer for you, it puts the Right no where because holding an entire political ideology responsible for the actions of a few is something only stupid people do.
Thanks for showing everyone what a collectivist looks like, and when you're so invested in identity politics that even other people on the left are saying "the left has an extremism problem" that you attack those sane voices, which of course pushes them to the right. You figure out why the DNC is spiraling down the drain right now? No? I'll give you a hint, it's because they just voted another person in who supports that same type of garbage.
Thanks for showing you have no idea on the "level required for a search" in Canada. A smell is not enough unless there's an obvious view that the person is under the influence in Canada.
It's not legal in Canada, small amounts are "decriminalized" still illegal, but you won't go to jail -- if you're charged you'll be fined. Canada only has one set of laws regarding federal crimes, which is what drug laws fall into. We don't have the patchwork system where states(provinces), have their own felonies(indictable offences). Provinces have either summery conviction(misdemeanors) or standard infractions. If you go from Ontario to British Columbia, the crime of possession is the same in both provinces. The law is the same, the time you might serve may be lower in BC then Ontario however. In the US, one state could be a fine and in another state it could be jail.
I've gotten northern living allowance, it isn't anything like $1000/mo. It was a couple Grand extra on my taxes at the end of the year, if I travelled and had receipts.
If you're getting it on your taxes, it's not northern living allowance. That's the northern living offset. Northern living allowances are a stipend to offset remote communities and costs.
So yeah, good job on me getting it right.
This isn't really a big thing. Legalized marijuana isn't likely going to happen, and that's the realm of federal government. And the Trudeau government keeps pushing it back, then changing their mind, then walking away from it and so on. Likely nothing will happen despite I believe the 4th or 5th time in the last year and half they've promised something on it.
The UBI test program is the realm of the province of Ontario, and is only being tested in one area. That one area is in the asshole of nowhere, that already gets a "northern living allowance($1k/mo)" on top of the UBI(in Canada, living in the "far north" you get suplemented income because it costs $8/gal of milk, $5/loaf of the $1.29 bread in the south, $25 for a 12 pack of pop and so on). The area also has high unemployment, though not as high as some other parts of southern ontario that haven't recovered from this current government driving businesses out of the province. Especially with the belief that "Ontario doesn't need industry" "extremely high energy prices are a-okay." Because right now, people are already making the "roof over head, food, or electricity" choice and the costs haven't even really hit. And now it's a case of how the fuck are we gonna pay for this. Unless the provincial liberals scrap all the other programs, UBI won't survive. Meaning, unemployment, workmans comp-basic coverage, welfare and so on will all have to go away.
Keep in mind that this is also likely an attempt to bolster their voting power, because they're in such poor shape that if an election was held today in Ontario, the Liberal Party would lose official party status and the Progressive Conservative Party(PC's) with any leader--anyone at all would gain super-majority status. People like to pretend that "green energy" is the salve that will fix all ills, and make cheap, limitless energy and so on. In Ontario? That's not the case. Energy is expensive, people who are middle class are struggling to make ends meet. The poor who were hard pressed before that? They're not making ends meet. The waiting list for subsidized housing is between 4-6 years in most of Ontario. Food banks run dry all the time now, charities that help the poor for fuel/electricity/NG(for heating), run out of funds before 1/3 of the winter season is over.
If Trudeau's carbon plan goes through? I won't be surprised if you see riots over energy costs start up here, people can't afford it.
You mean where the Obama administration actually did? Or the part where "suing" and "threaten to jail them" for breaking actual laws? Take your pick, because as usual you have no grasp on what you're talking about.
nd the fact that a very, very small subset of (loud) college "kids" do things in the name of liberalism isn't a reflection on classic liberal values.
Except that those "loud kids" are making these things happen. In fact, it's bad enough that those kids successfully caused such a large drop in new enrollments at several universities(like Mizzou), that those universities had to cut back on programs and had a budget shortfall of $25m+. Hate to break it to you, but if that small group is having that large of an impact? There's something fundamentally wrong. Especially when universities have to come out and state that "they exist to challenge ideas" and then are attacked by the media, members of government, and professors. Because they see that "challenging ideas" is the equivalent of extremism.
You want to see how the end of the road looks? Take a look in the UK. Where universities ban gays, feminists and conservatives from speaking on campus because they don't hold the right opinions these days.
Sure: half of it's sideways, it's compressed all to fuck, the aspect ratio on the left half has been mangled and the composition on the right panel sucks. Visually it's a total disaster.
You should probably tell the ones protesting free speech then to figure out how to hold a camera then. That is if they don't beat you, smash your camera, and you spend a day or two in hospital recovering from your "run-in" with them.
If you want to see what a real press ban looks like, you'd better start here. Because the Obama administration actually *did* ban the press on multiple occasions. In fact it was so bad at one point that multiple press agencies and reporters published a letter over it.
You should keep looking, you glossed over most of what it's saying. In particular with polling of non-disclosed political affiliation in media trust. Including things like this. While gallup and journalism's numbers are interesting, it also makes my point correct. Perhaps you should also ask why the trust in the media is in decline...everywhere.
if i may: what are you referring to? i genuinely have no idea what you're talking about, but if there is something going on, i would like to be aware of it
This should bring you up to speed.
Oh boy. Look the guy who can't dispute anything, stomps his feet and throws a temper tantrum.
... trying to delegitimize every news source to his left counts as trying to shut down speech.
Really? So you're saying that his opinions of something are trying to shut them down. Or that he's right when you can find the media is vastly left-wing, votes democrat, reporters are democrats(around 90%) and 95-97% of them in the beltway donate to democrats or are democrats. Or that 90% of what they report is all negative, even when the subject is positive.
It's not like the MSM haven't spent decades delegitimizing themselves to well...everyone. Which is why the trust of the press in most of the west is between 8% and 15% or anything. No, you want to see what trying to shut down speech looks like? Go pay attention to what's happening to youtube right now, and sites like the WSJ, gizmodo, et.al., directly attacking the source of revenue for people because they don't "conform" to their ideology. That's what an attack on free speech looks like.