Using solely this 'it's on TV, therefore not opinion' logic, I'm pretty sure we can take down at least 80% of Fox News' content. You sure that's the metric you want to use for determining if something is news or opinion?
Still, that's my opinion. And I didn't get it from television, so far as you know anyway.;)
Again, the problem isn't about what term you use. The problem is lumping people together. In general terms, making policy for everyone who practices a religion is a bad idea. So you need nuance. Slapping a label on Islam and making people believe everyone who follows it is the problem sure isn't working either.
So what you're proposing is to wait until they're tied in this metric? "Oh, they're not that bad... yet. We should wait until they are!"
Following this line of logic is rather difficult, so please help me out here. I don't typically root for the thought police approach to handling crime, but I don't think you're advocating for that. So I looked back earlier to the talk about labeling Antifa a hate group. Debating that point aside, I'm unsure what your intentions are by backing that. We don't, but let's say we agree there - what will that accomplish exactly? What should we be doing about hate groups? Perhaps more related to the topic at hand, why does a private company, let's say Twitter, need to accommodate them?
(Note: Personally I don't care about Twitter all that much - I struggle to figure out why others do or what blocking achieves)
I think you need the term "radical" defined.
My personal favorite. We're going to to co-opt the term radical to point to terrorism. Why not just call it terrorism, or... something more focused? I'm not a fan of any religion, but I'm also not naive enough to point to any of them and put them all in the same bucket. I think we've all had our share of people perceiving themselves as being persecuted for their religious beliefs.
As such, when a non-violent person who believes in peace is lumped together with 'radicals', or whatever term you feel compelled to use, of a religion, remember how much a lot of Christians feel in this country when that happens. Is there a stronger correlation of violence in some religions? Sure, but lumping people together doesn't resolve anything. I only mention this because that's what your commentary appears to be circling around, rather than attempting to drive toward any coherent point.
Look, I'll defend a lot of what Sanders did and that's great, as well as that Hillary is, for the most part, incapable of being genuine with people on a campaign. However, don't go arguing Trump wasn't showing off his ego with that announcement. He was even trying to conduct the music for god's sake. It was a show for him, and him alone.
Also, the need to go overboard attacking people you don't like isn't helping general discourse. Not knowing how to talk to the 'unwashed masses', as you state, is not even close to disliking them. I'll never defend Trump, but I'm never going to say more than he doesn't care about them. Hillary, if you ask me, is trying to help them the same way she wants to try to help others - but because she's a politician I don't think she knows how help outside of traditional political thinking. I don't know how much she actually cares, but at least I get a sense she's trying to do something to help them (flawed as the thinking is).
Sending anything to Congress is killing it, and we all know it. Congress has been inept and unable/unwilling to pass much of anything for quite a while now.
Besides, this setup is perfect for the m.o. of our President. He gets to 'let someone else fix it', when the two outcomes are:
1) either it gets fixed, and then he gets to take credit for someone else fixing it
or, way more likely,
2) Congress can't pass anything (because they're all more interesting in party goals than making the country better), and he gets to blame someone else.
That's quite a lot of unproven conjecture. If the CDC, or any federal agency with resources, were allowed an attempt to study those things we'd be able to turn some of that conjecture into discernible fact. That would at least allow the discussion to move forward instead of in a circle.
A lot of people still insist the moon landing was fake. Do you want to be in charge of converting the non-believers? I prefer to deal with reality, where it is easier to admit that forcing people to believe anything, including basic fact, is sometimes impossible.
We're all waiting to see whether there was collusion. We don't know, and that's kind of the point, otherwise Mueller wouldn't need to be summoned. There definitely was contact, and as days go by and more stupid things happen (Russians being given back seized compounds we've known they've run spying operations from for no reason) the more confusing things get. I'm not going to assume anything until the investigation is complete, but so far there's a slight stench.
This mindless parroting needs to be put on ice. Trump's team has been under a counterintelligence investigation, but not Trump himself. That's what his comment was about.
There is also, now, the collusion investigation, which Mueller has taken over. That is what Trump is being investigated for. Believe it or not, our intelligence community can handle more than one investigation at once. And I wouldn't expect any of them to tell the subject of their investigation that they're under investigation.
All that said, when people talk about what they're investigation and it's in a public forum, don't expect know everything. I never make this assumption, and none of us should either imho - we don't have security clearance. Still, if you want to cling to that line about 'Comey told Trump 3 times', well, go ahead - it doesn't mean anything and Beetlejuice ain't comin' either.
This type of logic reminds me of some of those really strange DirecTV ads. Is the Paris Agreement going to lead us into a roadside ditch somewhere because we were on hold trying to cancel the agreement? I was trying to get angr... eh, lost the train of thought.
I've been thinking this for years - lock people in a room and they can't come out until they come to an agreement on something. Children indeed.
There should be an incentive for working together. It used to be something akin to "we are making this country better" or, cynically, "the more big legislation I get passed, the more likely I'll remain in office or become President". Maybe it needs to be "reach across the aisle twice a year or you're fired". I don't know, but you nailed it - the whole thing's broken down.
Comey said Trump and Lynch both asked him to back away from investigations ("I hope you can let this go" vs "the investigation should be called a 'matter'"). Sure, they used different words, so only one should be regarded as interference, right? Reliable political rosetta stones are so hard to come by these days.
Nice dig on Obama, btw. It totally adds relevant context to the conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not yet at the Hillary is a has-been phase yet? Is there a countdown timer somewhere that can help out?
If everyone had several ISPs to choose from, would you trust the free market (rather than a regulatory bureaucracy) to prevent such shenanigans?
Not that I trust any large entity to do anything, but, what's the plan then to get people choice in ISP within.... 10 years?
Yet another example of the benefits of the separation of church and state!
Using solely this 'it's on TV, therefore not opinion' logic, I'm pretty sure we can take down at least 80% of Fox News' content. You sure that's the metric you want to use for determining if something is news or opinion?
Still, that's my opinion. And I didn't get it from television, so far as you know anyway. ;)
Again, the problem isn't about what term you use. The problem is lumping people together. In general terms, making policy for everyone who practices a religion is a bad idea. So you need nuance. Slapping a label on Islam and making people believe everyone who follows it is the problem sure isn't working either.
So what you're proposing is to wait until they're tied in this metric? "Oh, they're not that bad... yet. We should wait until they are!"
Following this line of logic is rather difficult, so please help me out here. I don't typically root for the thought police approach to handling crime, but I don't think you're advocating for that. So I looked back earlier to the talk about labeling Antifa a hate group. Debating that point aside, I'm unsure what your intentions are by backing that. We don't, but let's say we agree there - what will that accomplish exactly? What should we be doing about hate groups? Perhaps more related to the topic at hand, why does a private company, let's say Twitter, need to accommodate them?
(Note: Personally I don't care about Twitter all that much - I struggle to figure out why others do or what blocking achieves)
I think you need the term "radical" defined.
My personal favorite. We're going to to co-opt the term radical to point to terrorism. Why not just call it terrorism, or... something more focused? I'm not a fan of any religion, but I'm also not naive enough to point to any of them and put them all in the same bucket. I think we've all had our share of people perceiving themselves as being persecuted for their religious beliefs.
As such, when a non-violent person who believes in peace is lumped together with 'radicals', or whatever term you feel compelled to use, of a religion, remember how much a lot of Christians feel in this country when that happens. Is there a stronger correlation of violence in some religions? Sure, but lumping people together doesn't resolve anything. I only mention this because that's what your commentary appears to be circling around, rather than attempting to drive toward any coherent point.
What if the governments are/become the criminals? It's not exactly unheard of.
If?
Right, good thing that loan was only paid back almost 5 years ago...
Look, I'll defend a lot of what Sanders did and that's great, as well as that Hillary is, for the most part, incapable of being genuine with people on a campaign. However, don't go arguing Trump wasn't showing off his ego with that announcement. He was even trying to conduct the music for god's sake. It was a show for him, and him alone.
Also, the need to go overboard attacking people you don't like isn't helping general discourse. Not knowing how to talk to the 'unwashed masses', as you state, is not even close to disliking them. I'll never defend Trump, but I'm never going to say more than he doesn't care about them. Hillary, if you ask me, is trying to help them the same way she wants to try to help others - but because she's a politician I don't think she knows how help outside of traditional political thinking. I don't know how much she actually cares, but at least I get a sense she's trying to do something to help them (flawed as the thinking is).
Given how her primary counterpart announced their candidacy, I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here.
Sending anything to Congress is killing it, and we all know it. Congress has been inept and unable/unwilling to pass much of anything for quite a while now.
Besides, this setup is perfect for the m.o. of our President. He gets to 'let someone else fix it', when the two outcomes are:
1) either it gets fixed, and then he gets to take credit for someone else fixing it
or, way more likely,
2) Congress can't pass anything (because they're all more interesting in party goals than making the country better), and he gets to blame someone else.
One of the more interesting comments I've read on this story in ages. I wish I had mod points today.
That's quite a lot of unproven conjecture. If the CDC, or any federal agency with resources, were allowed an attempt to study those things we'd be able to turn some of that conjecture into discernible fact. That would at least allow the discussion to move forward instead of in a circle.
...even if it seems weirdly different at first glance.
I see what you did there.
The "alt-right" is simply a term invented by leftists...
Wrong.
A lot of people still insist the moon landing was fake. Do you want to be in charge of converting the non-believers? I prefer to deal with reality, where it is easier to admit that forcing people to believe anything, including basic fact, is sometimes impossible.
When did Angela Merkel get involved in this discussion? :)
Well what would you have us do about it? Ask them nicely to stop? Go to war? How are you going to stop them?
This beyond pathetic. You're argument is, it's a hard problem, so don't bother trying?
We're all waiting to see whether there was collusion. We don't know, and that's kind of the point, otherwise Mueller wouldn't need to be summoned. There definitely was contact, and as days go by and more stupid things happen (Russians being given back seized compounds we've known they've run spying operations from for no reason) the more confusing things get. I'm not going to assume anything until the investigation is complete, but so far there's a slight stench.
As for your list of other stuff, I stopped after the first line item as the Uranium deal has been debunked for a while now, not that I expect that to change your opinion.
This mindless parroting needs to be put on ice. Trump's team has been under a counterintelligence investigation, but not Trump himself. That's what his comment was about.
There is also, now, the collusion investigation, which Mueller has taken over. That is what Trump is being investigated for. Believe it or not, our intelligence community can handle more than one investigation at once. And I wouldn't expect any of them to tell the subject of their investigation that they're under investigation.
All that said, when people talk about what they're investigation and it's in a public forum, don't expect know everything. I never make this assumption, and none of us should either imho - we don't have security clearance. Still, if you want to cling to that line about 'Comey told Trump 3 times', well, go ahead - it doesn't mean anything and Beetlejuice ain't comin' either.
This type of logic reminds me of some of those really strange DirecTV ads. Is the Paris Agreement going to lead us into a roadside ditch somewhere because we were on hold trying to cancel the agreement? I was trying to get angr... eh, lost the train of thought.
I've been thinking this for years - lock people in a room and they can't come out until they come to an agreement on something. Children indeed.
There should be an incentive for working together. It used to be something akin to "we are making this country better" or, cynically, "the more big legislation I get passed, the more likely I'll remain in office or become President". Maybe it needs to be "reach across the aisle twice a year or you're fired". I don't know, but you nailed it - the whole thing's broken down.
Literate people also know the difference between its and it's.
Comey said Trump and Lynch both asked him to back away from investigations ("I hope you can let this go" vs "the investigation should be called a 'matter'"). Sure, they used different words, so only one should be regarded as interference, right? Reliable political rosetta stones are so hard to come by these days.
Nice dig on Obama, btw. It totally adds relevant context to the conversation.
What's scary is that this sentiment holds true for a few people involved on the wrong side of this investigation.