There's a huge fat thick ocean between the US and Venezuela. The US isn't going to go down that road any time soon.
But if Trump decided to go that way, a third of Americans would march there with giant smiles on their faces and angry shouts for anyone who even implied that maybe it wasn't actually a great destination. It's the fanatical devotion to a chronic liar that has some people alarmed.
I see immigrants that come here and work to make the place just as bad as the one they left.
Hell I see people leave blue states because the taxes are killing them, and their livelihoods are under attack and then keep voting for the same people and policies that drove them out.
You do see lots of things. Your comments, however, would me more informative, if most of things you saw actually existed.
I'm pretty tired of your petty and childish attitude. It seems like you can't deal with the actual facts, so you keep trying to change the subject. Abusing children is wrong. Always. I'm done with you even if you can't acknowledge that you're supporting evil.
Yup, it's not hard to find it. Are you abusing children or aiding and abetting those who are? If so, you're evil. It's a lot like torture, there's never a good enough justification for it.
I see a large and complex issue with precious few ideal solutions, with similar policies from multiple administrations.
Spare me your lies and false equivalencies. This is a new policy of the Trump administration.
Though I suspect anything less than open borders and unchecked immigration would be call for Nuremberg trials in this case.
Spare me "the Democrats want open borders" bullshit. I don't care about you asinine whataboutisms.
Anyway, I'm reminded of how fanatics who are so self-righteous and arrogant that they are quick to point fingers with accusations of being evil or 'unclean', are also the ones quickest to start witch burnings. Take your own purity test.
Sure. Am I abusing children for political gain? No. Oh look, I passed.
Whenever the tone is this overwhelming negative, the press is going out of their way to make shit up.
You know, the other possibility is that they are reporting the actual truth and the truth is bad. Even the paper you linked says:
Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage.
But I will never believe that the guy who ordered toddlers ripped from their parents arms and locked in cages is actually a really a good guy and that it's the media who's making him look bad. If you can't acknowledge that stealing children from their parents, locking the children up for months on end and giving those children a life time of emotional and social problems is evil, then I pity you.
And that's just one of the terrible things that Trump has done.
This seems pretty simple, by taking Trump's account away, they are closing that public forum to everyone. Why can Twitter do that, it's because the first amendment can't force a private business to keep a forum open, but it can prevent the government from violating people's rights in the forum as long as it is open.
I'm from Finland. Every single media outlet reprints the spin from everything other than Fox when it comes to Trump. Every time I go to double check from the source and then compare to what actually was said/happened, I find that story printed is either a complete fabrication, a partial lie or a spin on facts. I'm yet to actually see a Trump related story that wouldn't be one of the three, which is frankly quite frightening as it tells about a massive bias in the media.
Why am I supposed to be believe that you are more competent than the reporters that you criticize?
There is a simpler and more likely answer than a vast global conspiracy by every media outlet in every country (except Russia) in the world to make Trump look bad, and that's explanation is that you really don't know how to fact check anything and instead your sources for "what really happened" are wrong. I've noticed that you didn't provide any examples of what the media said, and what you determined "really happened", or how you determined what was really "true"...
Remember: Democrat partisans are small-minded hatemongers who hold ordinary Americans in haughty contempt.
No, I'm pretty sure the OP specified that held the idiotic and evil Americans in contempt. Now there's a very visible group of them in one of your political parties, which is also clearly the one you support. Maybe you should try to support people who are less idiotic and less evil? I don't mean Democrats, I mean use the Republican primary system to select people who are a) good people and b) at least average intelligence. A good first step would be tossing anyone out who says torture is a good idea. It wouldn't hurt to stop voting for people who say the solution to terrorism is murdering the wives and children of people who might be terrorists, either.
the government's assertion that the CFAA applies only to connected machines is news to legal experts.
That's the nice way of saying "they government's position is a lie", especially since the CFAA was passed in 1986. It would be really, really surprising for a law to limit it's applicability to computers connected to the Internet almost a decade before the Internet became a mainstream phenomenon.
I got that and I agree with you, I was adding a note of "don't believe everything you read"... Even when well intentioned and trying to be factual, it's possible to get things wrong. Instances of errors in the news, just means the news media is fallible, like everything else. It doesn't mean they're corrupt or untrustworthy like some people seem to think. No one is correct 100% of the time.
Actually, your link says that 66% of millennials have always thought the Earth was round. Only 4% of millenials have always thought the earth was flat, the other 30% are apparently unsure. Those are not great numbers, but the questions in the survey aren't great either. There is a trend that older people are more sure that the earth is round, but I do wonder if millenials, being younger, might be actually considering what they believed when they were very young children.
I'd want to see some corroboration and a more in depth look into why the answers differ according to age and income, before drawing any real conclusions from that survey.
Yes, and for good reason. Most people agree that you should be able to control who enters your house, establish behaviour rules, and to retract your welcome when someone breaks the rules. That's Google's level of control. Comcast, on the other hand, wants to limit who you're allowed to visit, limit what you can do, and limit how fast you can go based on where you are going. For instance, they want to be able to block you from going to Google's house if Bing pays them to prevent you from going there.
In essence Google controls one building on the Net (it's a big and important one, but it's still just one building), Comcast on the other wants to control the entire city and wants the right to control where you can go and what you can do based on whatever is most profitable for them.
If you don't understand that there is whole magnitude of difference in the control over you between the two, then you're hopelessly deluded.
Looking at the list, the Atlantic was on it, but not one of the others you listed ("Breitbart or the Federalist, or even NRO") were even listed. Fox is listed, but it's lower than both CNN and the New York Times.
Also, I don't think the Wall Street Journal runs that many Trump articles, they're kind of concerned with Wall Street issues, not the shenanigans of the Trumpster.
Hey you're right, there's like 5 car burnings in France for every 1 mass murder victim in the U.S each year.
Now the question is, do you think that's a good exchange rate? Because a lot of those cars were pretty old, so you're probably looking at around $20,000-$40,000 of property damage for every mass murder victim. Personally, I think I'd stick with the car fires... Especially, if you figure out that for every death in a mass shooting, there are an average of 5 people injured so now you're looking at 1 person injured and 1/5 of a death per car fire... I bet those medical bills are a lot more than $4000-$8000 per person. It's the U.S. after all, so you could probably afford to replace all of those cars with brand new ones for less than the medical bills of the survivors...
In March it looked like the London rate was higher, but it seems that several of the murder investigations in London were closed with results that concluded they weren't actually murders (accidental stabbings maybe?). So the final figures for those months actually have London (47) lower than New York (54), and the first six months is even more lopsided (London: 80, New York: 141). In the end, there was a single month (February) in 2018 (so far) where there were more murders in London than New York.
That doesn't change the point that a comparison where every death is counted on one side and no deaths counted on the other side is unlikely to be useful or informative.
I think he's saying that some people count everyone who dies under a socialist systems as "victims of socialism" while counting none of the people who die under a capitalist system as "victims of capitalism". It does seem to be a little bit slanted...
Slashdot Mirror
There's a huge fat thick ocean between the US and Venezuela. The US isn't going to go down that road any time soon.
But if Trump decided to go that way, a third of Americans would march there with giant smiles on their faces and angry shouts for anyone who even implied that maybe it wasn't actually a great destination. It's the fanatical devotion to a chronic liar that has some people alarmed.
I see immigrants that come here and work to make the place just as bad as the one they left.
Hell I see people leave blue states because the taxes are killing them, and their livelihoods are under attack and then keep voting for the same people and policies that drove them out.
You do see lots of things. Your comments, however, would me more informative, if most of things you saw actually existed.
I'm pretty tired of your petty and childish attitude. It seems like you can't deal with the actual facts, so you keep trying to change the subject. Abusing children is wrong. Always. I'm done with you even if you can't acknowledge that you're supporting evil.
Oh you see evil do you?
Yup, it's not hard to find it. Are you abusing children or aiding and abetting those who are? If so, you're evil. It's a lot like torture, there's never a good enough justification for it.
I see a large and complex issue with precious few ideal solutions, with similar policies from multiple administrations.
Spare me your lies and false equivalencies. This is a new policy of the Trump administration.
Though I suspect anything less than open borders and unchecked immigration would be call for Nuremberg trials in this case.
Spare me "the Democrats want open borders" bullshit. I don't care about you asinine whataboutisms.
Anyway, I'm reminded of how fanatics who are so self-righteous and arrogant that they are quick to point fingers with accusations of being evil or 'unclean', are also the ones quickest to start witch burnings. Take your own purity test.
Sure. Am I abusing children for political gain? No. Oh look, I passed.
Oh, I'm sure there are lots of people who think endorsing child abuse for political goals isn't evil.
It's not fanatical to recognize evil when you see it.
You're just a sad pathetic excuse for a person.
Your saintly hero still ordered children locked in cages for his political benefit. He's evil and so are you.
Whenever the tone is this overwhelming negative, the press is going out of their way to make shit up.
You know, the other possibility is that they are reporting the actual truth and the truth is bad. Even the paper you linked says:
But I will never believe that the guy who ordered toddlers ripped from their parents arms and locked in cages is actually a really a good guy and that it's the media who's making him look bad. If you can't acknowledge that stealing children from their parents, locking the children up for months on end and giving those children a life time of emotional and social problems is evil, then I pity you.
And that's just one of the terrible things that Trump has done.
This seems pretty simple, by taking Trump's account away, they are closing that public forum to everyone. Why can Twitter do that, it's because the first amendment can't force a private business to keep a forum open, but it can prevent the government from violating people's rights in the forum as long as it is open.
I'm from Finland. Every single media outlet reprints the spin from everything other than Fox when it comes to Trump. Every time I go to double check from the source and then compare to what actually was said/happened, I find that story printed is either a complete fabrication, a partial lie or a spin on facts. I'm yet to actually see a Trump related story that wouldn't be one of the three, which is frankly quite frightening as it tells about a massive bias in the media.
Why am I supposed to be believe that you are more competent than the reporters that you criticize?
There is a simpler and more likely answer than a vast global conspiracy by every media outlet in every country (except Russia) in the world to make Trump look bad, and that's explanation is that you really don't know how to fact check anything and instead your sources for "what really happened" are wrong. I've noticed that you didn't provide any examples of what the media said, and what you determined "really happened", or how you determined what was really "true"...
Remember: Democrat partisans are small-minded hatemongers who hold ordinary Americans in haughty contempt.
No, I'm pretty sure the OP specified that held the idiotic and evil Americans in contempt. Now there's a very visible group of them in one of your political parties, which is also clearly the one you support. Maybe you should try to support people who are less idiotic and less evil? I don't mean Democrats, I mean use the Republican primary system to select people who are a) good people and b) at least average intelligence. A good first step would be tossing anyone out who says torture is a good idea. It wouldn't hurt to stop voting for people who say the solution to terrorism is murdering the wives and children of people who might be terrorists, either.
Do they have to say "Russia, if you're listening" before the statement to make it obvious?
It also says this in the summary:
That's the nice way of saying "they government's position is a lie", especially since the CFAA was passed in 1986. It would be really, really surprising for a law to limit it's applicability to computers connected to the Internet almost a decade before the Internet became a mainstream phenomenon.
I'm sorry, do you actually have a point?
Are you actually incapable of understanding the difference between a building and a city?
That's a moronic argument, and it's not supported by the evidence you provided, but my point was just to fact check your false claims.
I got that and I agree with you, I was adding a note of "don't believe everything you read"... Even when well intentioned and trying to be factual, it's possible to get things wrong. Instances of errors in the news, just means the news media is fallible, like everything else. It doesn't mean they're corrupt or untrustworthy like some people seem to think. No one is correct 100% of the time.
Actually, your link says that 66% of millennials have always thought the Earth was round. Only 4% of millenials have always thought the earth was flat, the other 30% are apparently unsure. Those are not great numbers, but the questions in the survey aren't great either. There is a trend that older people are more sure that the earth is round, but I do wonder if millenials, being younger, might be actually considering what they believed when they were very young children.
I'd want to see some corroboration and a more in depth look into why the answers differ according to age and income, before drawing any real conclusions from that survey.
Yes, and for good reason. Most people agree that you should be able to control who enters your house, establish behaviour rules, and to retract your welcome when someone breaks the rules. That's Google's level of control. Comcast, on the other hand, wants to limit who you're allowed to visit, limit what you can do, and limit how fast you can go based on where you are going. For instance, they want to be able to block you from going to Google's house if Bing pays them to prevent you from going there.
In essence Google controls one building on the Net (it's a big and important one, but it's still just one building), Comcast on the other wants to control the entire city and wants the right to control where you can go and what you can do based on whatever is most profitable for them.
If you don't understand that there is whole magnitude of difference in the control over you between the two, then you're hopelessly deluded.
Uhmm I did ? Dude I have been poking fingers into thermophopes eyes longer than you have been around and I haven't stopped yet.
But you probably should...
Actually, he proved you specifically wrong.
Looking at the list, the Atlantic was on it, but not one of the others you listed ("Breitbart or the Federalist, or even NRO") were even listed. Fox is listed, but it's lower than both CNN and the New York Times.
Also, I don't think the Wall Street Journal runs that many Trump articles, they're kind of concerned with Wall Street issues, not the shenanigans of the Trumpster.
Hey you're right, there's like 5 car burnings in France for every 1 mass murder victim in the U.S each year.
Now the question is, do you think that's a good exchange rate? Because a lot of those cars were pretty old, so you're probably looking at around $20,000-$40,000 of property damage for every mass murder victim. Personally, I think I'd stick with the car fires... Especially, if you figure out that for every death in a mass shooting, there are an average of 5 people injured so now you're looking at 1 person injured and 1/5 of a death per car fire... I bet those medical bills are a lot more than $4000-$8000 per person. It's the U.S. after all, so you could probably afford to replace all of those cars with brand new ones for less than the medical bills of the survivors...
Has London's murder rate overtaken New York's?
New York Murder Rate is Much Higher Than London's
In March it looked like the London rate was higher, but it seems that several of the murder investigations in London were closed with results that concluded they weren't actually murders (accidental stabbings maybe?). So the final figures for those months actually have London (47) lower than New York (54), and the first six months is even more lopsided (London: 80, New York: 141). In the end, there was a single month (February) in 2018 (so far) where there were more murders in London than New York.
Actually, he already criticized Obama for increasing the debt, but he's probably a "tax cuts increase revenue" moron.
That's right... We should all condemn John McCain for having his priorities reversed. How dare he put country ahead of party?
Wait. Something's not right here...
That doesn't change the point that a comparison where every death is counted on one side and no deaths counted on the other side is unlikely to be useful or informative.
I think he's saying that some people count everyone who dies under a socialist systems as "victims of socialism" while counting none of the people who die under a capitalist system as "victims of capitalism". It does seem to be a little bit slanted...