Speaking as someone who has written several dozen scientific papers and has gone through this process many times, the journal system has become something of a racket.
In an age before computers, they used to have to type set your submitted articles. This involved often retyping the manuscript and physical cutting the text to fit within the scope as needed. This was time consuming and the cost of the journal was real. (this was before my time admittedly.) Since no digital data bases existed, there was also a cost in publishing indexes so that work could be found. Another real cost
Then, computers were invented and soon after sophisticated word processors. The type setting duty fell increasingly to the author, with some modern journals even having you produce the PDF with figures imbedded. The editors of most journals are not paid, but it is run on a sort of mandatory volunteerism. If you want funding, you BETTER be severing on journal and grant committees. Peer review is the same. The editor sends these out to people, who BETTER do the editing and commenting, or more issues with funding etc.
The funny thing is, despite having the cost decrease, most journals have not had their price decrease. In fact, many of the famous journals have a publication fee as well as a subscription fee. Oh, I forgot to mention that of course they are not sponsoring the work, that is also free to the journal.
Unlike many professions, the author receives no compensation. So, if you are fascinated in one of my desulfurization papers and yield to the paywall to get it, I receive nothing. I am actually ok with the idea my science is open for society, but someone else should not gain economic benefit from it if I do not.
So, when you get down to it. There really should not be a paywall in modern times, or it should be much lower. The difference between the prestigious journals and the the low end is not how much care they put into their manuscript preparation or any such thing. It is merely from their reputation of the quality of work published. In principal, this means they could be all PDF download with zero cost. This is not done because some people are making a nice little living out of paywalling something that is pretty much free to produce.
If I mischaracterized your view, for this I am sorry.
Essentially, we agree on most points. Both things can be true at the same time. It is not good of the government to leak the information, and it should not be excused. It is also true it was not a malicious hunt to destroy people.
Your point on if this should be ignored is interesting. I guess the next question would be what would you suggest doing? Ignoring it and pretending it did not happen seems silly. I guess I would say note it happened, fix the link, and possibly fire the guy who screwed up. I would also say that drumbeat of hysteria to demonize Trump is not terribly productive or even honest. I am actually interested. What do you think should be done?
The other problem is how would you fix the election fraud problems? These problems do exist. To me, anyone interested in a fair election would want to make sure the system was not rigged. I am very suspicious toward those who oppose every measure to ensure honesty, while offering no solutions of their own. This seems to smell of people gaming the system protecting what benefits them.
For example, I live in Texas. There is a problem with illegal alien voting. Even if you feel that they live here and should have a vote, the current law says otherwise. There was also some evidence of people voting under other people's identity. To correct this, a law was passed requiring an ID to vote. Please keep in mind that you need an ID to by alcohol, open a bank account, get cable tv, whatever. To function at all in society, you have to have a driver's license/ID. Yet, this was opposed by the local democrat party-- even after a provision was made to pay for an ID for the very poor who could not afford one. This is not a perfect fix, but it would clean up the voter rolls some. There really is no reason to block this save.....you are benefiting from dirty voter rolls.
I tell you that long boring story to say this. I suspect that we would both agree that giving the government too much information and power is not a brilliant idea. However, rejecting all solutions to this problem is not acceptable either.
There it is. We follow this long path to find, as expected, it ends in a basement blog. Information Clearing house is not exactly what many call a credible source. IN fact, Harvard goes out of its way to list it as an unreliable new source.
So, understandably you have the opinions you do because of your sources. They are both limited and conspiratorial.
The memo is interesting. Maybe it's real, maybe its not. Sourcing does matter, and with Bush era stuff, it is especially hard since there was so much character assassination going on. Bush was by no means a great president, but he was also not the cartoon villain that the popular media painted him to be. Much like Obama was not the anti-christ that some right wing sources claimed, but his administration was very far from the saintly image the leftish press portrayed. In both cases and i would argue today as well, blatant mischaracterizations diluted honest policy discussions. The losers of this whole thing are the average people.
If the memo is real, this is what makes the study of the pathway to war interesting. As you look into it more, there were many viewpoints and forces advocating many things. By all accounts, Rumsfeld was a warhawk. So, this fits within the narrative. However, not everyone inside the administration was. Like most of life, it is pretty nuanced.
When you look at many sources, the bulk of administration started toward peace and a more isolationist stance. After September 11th, the pro-war end of the administration won out. This is what makes the various conspiracy theories about 9/11 so intriguing. Without the twin towers falling, it was going to be a much more peaceful world.
What is really interesting to ask is, as President, what would you have done? Keep in mind that the arguments (not necessarily the conclusions) of the Rumsfeld memo you linked are essentially true. The policies dealing with Iraq in the Clinton era were not working terribly well either, so the status quo was not a real solution.
Well, I explained things pretty clearly. I can't help if you have below average intelligence and fail to understand things.
I understand you are fairly stupid and all, but I really can't fathom why you are still having this discussion about internet anonymity. I never mentioned this topic. You have having an imaginary argument with me. I am honestly touched that I am so important in your life you are having imaginary arguments with me. Still, that wasn't me.
Child, you need to take a breath, go back and read. You mixed me up with someone else, and are still trying to fight about something I never said. The funny thing is that are you that special combination of childish and stupid, you will continue to throw your little tantrum and not take the time to see your error. Pathetic.
Your logic still fails. I responded to your self modding untruth. Perhaps the sarcasm confused you. To put it plainly, no one goes through and mods old threads, unless they have a specific reason. Your post was not interesting. It was not profound. It was not even clever. It was also several weeks old. It does not matter if you modded it yourself, or you have a friend doing it for you. It is a matter of semantics and it is still unworthy and pathetic....much like you seem to be in real life. Is that clear enough for you?
As for this:
"It's something I do not do, if only because I'm against the idea of internet anonymity. You should stand behind your words or STFU. All the excuses given so far are lame. Especially the one about "people need to post anonymously to protect themselves from persecution." Better to draw attention to any problem by being persecuted and standing up to the persecutor than by slacktivist anonymous posts."
I am not sure where you got that from, but it was not me. I suspect that you are having an argument with someone else on something else, and are sooooooo very stupid, it got all twisted around in your head. Sad.
In the end, you are truly what is wrong with the world. Smug in your attitude, low in your learning. You rage and fight just to rage and fight. You do not investigate your "causes" deeply. You do not really check if they are right, or if they even make sense. You make up imaginary boogey men then set up straw men to rage against so you can feel good while achieving nothing for nothing. You think you are fighting the power and are too stupid to understand that you are part of the power. Most of the wrong stems directly from you.
You won't understand much of what I wrote. It is ok. You are stupid, spoiled, and have never, ever been challenged on anything of substance. Maybe some day you will grow up. Read more. Think more. Shout less.
Oh, one more thing. There is a beautiful irony in you so sarcastically making your point by saying you put something in bold, but failing to put in the correct/code or failing to bother to read what you wrote to see like yourself in life, total fuck up.
The question comes down to this. Do you think democrats are all purely good people who never do wrong or are they like most human things, flawed in several ways?
You seem very rational and methodical in your thinking. If you stop to analyze it some, you will catch that you probably have been showing some internal bias where you do not seek out wrong for one party, while assuming the other party is always wrong. Start asking yourself about the sources that you read and how trustable are they. Do you think a source made up of 90% or more from one party will give you a balanced view? If so, you do not believe in the fundamental idea of diversity and why it is important. Groups are very bad at being self analytical.
The republican party is not terribly good. However, neither is the democrat party. The only way they improve is when people inside them realize this and try to change it.
Lately, zealousness has infected the democrat party. Members are willing to forgive all sorts of wrong doing on their side, just to get the other side. Ask yourself, why does the democrat party oppose any attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest? Ask yourself that deeply, if you can.
The publishing of the voter information was not good. However, were you so up in arms calling the Obama administration did similar things when setting up the data base for the people using the affordable care act? Did you call him incompetent? If not, your rage is false. You just want to hunt the other guy, not fix the system.
Why, you must be right. I was wrong to think that slashdotters famously have a low attention span, often can't be bothered to read the article, post comments backed by no facts, or seldom link supporting information. You have enlightened me to see that they actually go back and read old posts, sifting for nuggets that they can mod up and down, and avoid using mod points on something no one else may ever see, instead of the issue of the moment. Yes, that makes a great deal of sense.
BTW, having a friend follow you around and throw roses at your feet is no better. If you were remotely logical, you would understand that this is uncommon behavior for an old discussion. If it was current, it would make sense. As it is, you really are the one using shitty logic.
Btw, disagreeing with you is not shitty logic. In fact, I use real examples often backed up with sources that are not at the basement blog level. Sorry that you do, and you find disagreement with your vitriol posing as a discussion to be so disturbing. Perhaps if you read more, read challenging sources, and tried to understand perspectives you would understand the world more....or at least grow up a little. See, only children have unwavering dedication to a simple idea and have no understanding from where it comes and if it is true. Like you....
You are being disingenuous. While no trial has gone to completion, Google has had to settle out of court in several major countries. In the process of doing so, they also had to admit their guilt. Google actually has admitted to avoiding taxes.
Since google actively advocates for social programs, the second part of your argument does not hold either. Google seems to think that this is a good way to help people. Therein lies the problem. On one hand they are asking for more money to be spent by the government, and on the other hand they are doing everything possible not to give their share of money.
Remind me. What is the word for people who say YOU should do one thing and THEY do the opposite?
Again, you are giving your opinion, colored by the bubble you live in after the fact. You still have not gone back and read more about the matter, which shows that you are both ignorant and lazy. This is a sad combination in a human being.
I offered sources for you to read that are well researched to clarify the matter. You are offering only your opinion, not well researched or thought out. This makes me ask. Are you a millennial?
The broader comment is all that information is out there, has been out there, and was also abused heavily during the Obama era. Maybe you are different, but for many on these forums they uttered not a peep then, because their team was in power. Now that another team is in power, they are acting like the end of the world.
Credibility comes from consistency in positions. There is not a lot of that in slashdot anymore. I wonder if you have been consistent...
Also, government listing information on purpose is not something to be stood for. Government screwing up (as it actually said in the article if you bothered to read) and posting information, is not good, but it is not the end of things either.
So, I have to ask, when a similar screw-up occurred with the medical data bases with the affordable care act, did you come out strongly about that too? Or are so lost as a human being you actually think one side is all good and the other is all evil? If so, there is no hope left for you....
Btw Nazi,
This is a very old thread that no one else is reading. It is so pathetic that you are self modding yourself up. But then again, Nazi are pretty insecure.
1. Releasing details was not actually a Trump policy, but a mistake made by the government. You did actually read the article didn't you? Ha ha, we both know you are a terrible person, and not that smart. Lets face it.
2. By gutting the EPA, what exactly did her remove, in this so called gutting? Without having read any of the recent EPA documents and seeing how it overstepped its mission in the last several years, I suspect you do not know why it needs to be paired back some. Again, terrible people like yourself are not so smart, do not read beyond the blog level, and rational thought is beyond you.
3. What bad practices did he enable? I am sure you mean he undid some Obama era rule by fiat restricting its mining. Now, terrible people like you do not understand it is minded in other places with dirtier forms of coal, and used without pollution removal in China. But, if its not made here, its green right? You believe this because you are a terrible person.
4. Want to know the terrible truth? Let me see, there is only one person in this conversation who supports violence for those who disagree with them. This person also believes in statist control of industry, omni-powerful government, and the use of any means necessary to get policy in place. There was another group of people who believed all these things. We call them Nazis. I would say go read about it, but lets face it, you are not very smart and a terrible person. This is how Nazis come to be. They believe in something and do not question it. Then, they believe any who disagree are an evil to be removed. So you sir are Nazi in the truest sense of the word. The world would be better without you in it.
5. "The rest of the garbage"--translation, my small, limited brain can't counter the arguments, so I will pretend I am above it. Yes, you are rich. No, you don't think that you are. No, you don't want your own ideology applied to you. Nazi.
Suffice it to say, you have nothing. You demonstrated nothing. You are nothing.
Interesting comments, but modding yourself up is really trashy. No one else is reading an old thread.
1. It is not obvious he wanted to invade Iraq before the war. I do not think there is much evidence before that, except for some very ignorant people saying he was a son trying to finish daddies work.
2.Your recollection of what happened in the Afghanistan war is amazingly faulty. It was a stunning success by all accounts. The country had proven a quagmire of the Soviets, and had fallen with days. You really need to read more and widely. Try not to stay always on anti-bush/conservative web sites.
3. What you call poor diplomacy did not happen until the Iraq ware. You are getting things confused again. It was positive for the first war.
4. Again, you have so many things and timelines wrong in your head. You really need to take a deep breath, forget what you think you know, and go back and read. At least, look at the Woodward book. Until then, you are really not worth talking too. You have too great of ignorance of events mixed with such a narrow minded hatred. You are unable to see the nuances of the world. In order to truly understand things, you need to be able to appreciate the complexity of events. Something you will not get by examining only narrow sources and perspectives.
Retribution for what exactly? Are you saying all rich people took money from others and should be killed or have their property damaged? Do you truly believe that or are you so sick in the head that you do not know how evil you are being.
Might I ask how much you make? Since you are on these forums, the average is pretty well to do. So, you think it is ok if someone from the inner city comes and hurts you and your family and torches your house, because you have more. Funny, people who say stupid things like this never regard themselves as the rich, even though they are.
Lastly, you do not know Trumps motivations or anyone else's. You are so vile in your mind that you completely think it is justifiable to demonize someone because they disagree with you. It does not matter than many Trump workers have nice things to say about their boss. It does not matter how much he gave to charity....especially compared to some you probably idolize. All that matters is that someone told you that he is the enemy and deserves to be killed, and you are such an embarrassment to humanity that you believed it. You are devoid of rational thought, making you the true subhuman.
Phantom, glad to see that you are following me! I must be having a good impact on your life.
Since you do not read a good deal, let me help put your post in the correct context. You are missing key insights into the situation that can only be gained by gathering information from a wide range of sources and taking the time to understand things.
When Bush entered office, he had a policy of reducing U.S. disengagement. In his first year or so as president, he has begun to pull back from external nations and reduce what he deemed the excessive use of force used by the previous administration. He was very much opposed to nation building. Tragically, history altered his thinking to make him one of the greatest nation building presidents.
On September 11th, a great tragedy occurred. Thousands of people lost their lives and even first responders were targeted while trying to save them. The nation was in shock, and it was pissed. They wanted blood. They wanted revenge. There were calls to nuke the Muslims back into the stone age. It would have been very easy to give it. It would have been the popular thing to do.
Then, a remarkable thing happened. The dogs of war were chained by Bush. Instead of plunging us into a war of extermination, he did the unpopular thing and held off until all the forensic evidence was gathered. Instead of broadly targeting Muslims, he tried to find out the exact offshoots that were responsible and targeted them. This took 30 days. To you, it may seem meaningless, but the in the mood of the country at the time, this was nearly unforgivable.
When operation enduring freedom started, it was swift, surgical and brutally effective. Bush has taken time to try to separate out those who wanted us dead and those of a different fate. He began a program to feed and educate poor Aghanies at the same time the attacks were taking place. He wanted to show that America was a place where we would meet our foes with justice, but show compassion to the downtrodden. It was one of the greatest moments of restraint in history. He turned a bloodbath into a surgical strike of hopeful liberation. I would argue for this, he should have gotten a Nobel Peace prize. Instead, the next president, who gave the world widespread assassination by robot drone, got one for being black. The world has no lack of irony. I digress.
You may not believe all this, but it was well documented in a book. The book was not written by some right when demagogue as you fear, but by the left leaning Bob Woodward. Woodward was one of journalists who found the corruption in the Nixon whitehouse and bravely pursued it, ultimately bringing down a president. Before 9/11, he was doing a piece to try to understand this presidency better after a bitter campaign that was still contested in many people's mind. After the dark day, he was given near full access to the west wing, so that he could chronicle the decisions and thoughts that went into the response. Bush believed that it was important in a democracy for people to understand why their leaders did what they did, so he offered transparency. Again, it would have been easy to go the other way.
If you can get the time and tear yourself away from youtube long enough, it is an excellent read. It is not always flattering to the Bush administration. It shows good points and bad.
I understand you were also including the Iraq war in your "pithy" comment. But to understand the full tragedy of that war, you have to take the time to understand the events leading up to it, and the decision making processes of those involved. Until you do, you opinions on the matter are likely corrupted by childish blog posts and hit pieces designed to denigrate a president of the opposition party. Read the book, and I would love to discuss with you more. The question is, can you leave your bubble?
As an old saying goes, fish do not know that they are wet. If you do not see the left bias in slashdot and on your campus, then you may be more left than you think. I do not mean this to imply any malice towards you. It is just that sometimes when you are so far in something, it is hard to know where you really are. You are the opposite of a troll and that should be commended.
However, if you want to see what I am talking about, then please take the challenge that I mentioned earlier. You can start of slashdot. Make a second account if needed. Start posting from a conservative bias. Make your arguments thoughtful as you like. You can include logic and defend your arguments with links. Then, see what happens. You will quickly find you will be modded down. You will find people name calling you will be modded up. You will see that very seldom will anyone take the time to engage you in discussion, but posts with one liners saying you are wrong will be modded up.
Please try this. You might be surprised and also find out how wet is in here.
What exactly did he do that you think was bad? Not your imagination. Facts please.
You do understand that merely disagreeing with you is not fact. What was the policy he made that you disagree with and what was the outcome that was negative. For example, you would not accept an argument where I say you are completely wrong, just because I said so.
Try to grow up some and look at the world analytically instead of the childish mindset everything donkey good everything elephant bad.
Funny, you took the time to call names, but not defend your argument. The facts say that is has been in office for about half a year and has had several policy successes. His failures have include:
Having an immigration policy stopped by a Hawaii judge who did not ground his ruling in the constitution. We know this to be the case because the supreme court overturned it unanimously.
Being embroiled in an investigation for collusion with Russia. Most of the charges have been disproven, and there are several stories indicating this. There are also tapes of various DNC operatives admitting in what they thought were undocumented comments, that they are doing this for ratings and to discredit. They admit, there is nothing there. The new story of Trumps son meeting with the Russians looking for dirt is true. However, there is no evidence of quid pro quo. However, as the issues are being looked into, it does turn out that the Clinton campaign also used foreign sources, at times WITH quid pro quo. I will go out on a limb that you either do not know this or are so addled in your thinking that you fail to see your personal bias leading to ignorance.
So, there really is not a dumpster fire say as you say. You could not rationally make the argument because in reality it is not true, outside your imagination and that of other people who have gone insane with hatred. Be better.
So Again, why is this modded up?
Hear that? That was the sound of your ass being kicked.
Perhaps you do understand what the word dumb means. To conclude liberal leanings from someone who defends liberal sources while discounting all conservative ones and who defends liberal thought logically follows.
If I had to guess, I would say that you think that you are libertarian, even though you really don't know what that means.
Since you probably not have grown as a person and read any opposing viewpoint news, here is another one for you from today. It was oddly absent from the NY times.
There are many others like it. If you read more, you might understand why so many were not in favor of Mrs. Clinton. My second guess is that while I am aware of Trumps many, annoying flaws, you are mostly unaware of the negative aspects of Clinton. If you are aware of all those and think she would make a good leader, then you truly are stupid.
Nice post thanks! This is what slashdot should be in the ideal. The forums should not ask to agree with every viewpoint being laid out. However, they should demand that things that are being modded up be like the above post: thoughtful, detailed, and minimized name calling. I would argue for highest ratings, a link or two for fact checking an argument would be great.
With this type of post one could have an honest discussion and learn something, which is what a real Nerd would do.
The above post would actually warrant insightful if it either stopped before personal name calling, or at least defended it. If you feel he is an imbecile, then explain it in detail. Many of us are not form Australia and have no idea about him. Some more information would be useful.
Somehow, he got elected PM of your country. So, many people don't find him to be a moron. This leaves me to wonder, does Australia just like morons or does he merely happen to disagree with you and you are name calling. If the later, the imbecile in the conversation may not be who you think...
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as someone who has written several dozen scientific papers and has gone through this process many times, the journal system has become something of a racket.
In an age before computers, they used to have to type set your submitted articles. This involved often retyping the manuscript and physical cutting the text to fit within the scope as needed. This was time consuming and the cost of the journal was real. (this was before my time admittedly.) Since no digital data bases existed, there was also a cost in publishing indexes so that work could be found. Another real cost
Then, computers were invented and soon after sophisticated word processors. The type setting duty fell increasingly to the author, with some modern journals even having you produce the PDF with figures imbedded. The editors of most journals are not paid, but it is run on a sort of mandatory volunteerism. If you want funding, you BETTER be severing on journal and grant committees. Peer review is the same. The editor sends these out to people, who BETTER do the editing and commenting, or more issues with funding etc.
The funny thing is, despite having the cost decrease, most journals have not had their price decrease. In fact, many of the famous journals have a publication fee as well as a subscription fee. Oh, I forgot to mention that of course they are not sponsoring the work, that is also free to the journal.
Unlike many professions, the author receives no compensation. So, if you are fascinated in one of my desulfurization papers and yield to the paywall to get it, I receive nothing. I am actually ok with the idea my science is open for society, but someone else should not gain economic benefit from it if I do not.
So, when you get down to it. There really should not be a paywall in modern times, or it should be much lower. The difference between the prestigious journals and the the low end is not how much care they put into their manuscript preparation or any such thing. It is merely from their reputation of the quality of work published. In principal, this means they could be all PDF download with zero cost. This is not done because some people are making a nice little living out of paywalling something that is pretty much free to produce.
Hope this helps.
If I mischaracterized your view, for this I am sorry.
Essentially, we agree on most points. Both things can be true at the same time. It is not good of the government to leak the information, and it should not be excused. It is also true it was not a malicious hunt to destroy people.
Your point on if this should be ignored is interesting. I guess the next question would be what would you suggest doing? Ignoring it and pretending it did not happen seems silly. I guess I would say note it happened, fix the link, and possibly fire the guy who screwed up. I would also say that drumbeat of hysteria to demonize Trump is not terribly productive or even honest. I am actually interested. What do you think should be done?
The other problem is how would you fix the election fraud problems? These problems do exist. To me, anyone interested in a fair election would want to make sure the system was not rigged. I am very suspicious toward those who oppose every measure to ensure honesty, while offering no solutions of their own. This seems to smell of people gaming the system protecting what benefits them.
For example, I live in Texas. There is a problem with illegal alien voting. Even if you feel that they live here and should have a vote, the current law says otherwise. There was also some evidence of people voting under other people's identity. To correct this, a law was passed requiring an ID to vote. Please keep in mind that you need an ID to by alcohol, open a bank account, get cable tv, whatever. To function at all in society, you have to have a driver's license/ID. Yet, this was opposed by the local democrat party-- even after a provision was made to pay for an ID for the very poor who could not afford one. This is not a perfect fix, but it would clean up the voter rolls some. There really is no reason to block this save.....you are benefiting from dirty voter rolls.
I tell you that long boring story to say this. I suspect that we would both agree that giving the government too much information and power is not a brilliant idea. However, rejecting all solutions to this problem is not acceptable either.
There it is. We follow this long path to find, as expected, it ends in a basement blog. Information Clearing house is not exactly what many call a credible source. IN fact, Harvard goes out of its way to list it as an unreliable new source.
http://guides.library.harvard....
So, understandably you have the opinions you do because of your sources. They are both limited and conspiratorial.
The memo is interesting. Maybe it's real, maybe its not. Sourcing does matter, and with Bush era stuff, it is especially hard since there was so much character assassination going on. Bush was by no means a great president, but he was also not the cartoon villain that the popular media painted him to be. Much like Obama was not the anti-christ that some right wing sources claimed, but his administration was very far from the saintly image the leftish press portrayed. In both cases and i would argue today as well, blatant mischaracterizations diluted honest policy discussions. The losers of this whole thing are the average people.
If the memo is real, this is what makes the study of the pathway to war interesting. As you look into it more, there were many viewpoints and forces advocating many things. By all accounts, Rumsfeld was a warhawk. So, this fits within the narrative. However, not everyone inside the administration was. Like most of life, it is pretty nuanced.
When you look at many sources, the bulk of administration started toward peace and a more isolationist stance. After September 11th, the pro-war end of the administration won out. This is what makes the various conspiracy theories about 9/11 so intriguing. Without the twin towers falling, it was going to be a much more peaceful world.
What is really interesting to ask is, as President, what would you have done? Keep in mind that the arguments (not necessarily the conclusions) of the Rumsfeld memo you linked are essentially true. The policies dealing with Iraq in the Clinton era were not working terribly well either, so the status quo was not a real solution.
Well, I explained things pretty clearly. I can't help if you have below average intelligence and fail to understand things.
I understand you are fairly stupid and all, but I really can't fathom why you are still having this discussion about internet anonymity. I never mentioned this topic. You have having an imaginary argument with me. I am honestly touched that I am so important in your life you are having imaginary arguments with me. Still, that wasn't me.
Child, you need to take a breath, go back and read. You mixed me up with someone else, and are still trying to fight about something I never said. The funny thing is that are you that special combination of childish and stupid, you will continue to throw your little tantrum and not take the time to see your error. Pathetic.
So far, still your opinion, no facts or references. My what a small bubble you have.
I am always interested in learning something new. The reason you lean far left is because you are not.
Your logic still fails. I responded to your self modding untruth. Perhaps the sarcasm confused you. To put it plainly, no one goes through and mods old threads, unless they have a specific reason. Your post was not interesting. It was not profound. It was not even clever. It was also several weeks old. It does not matter if you modded it yourself, or you have a friend doing it for you. It is a matter of semantics and it is still unworthy and pathetic....much like you seem to be in real life. Is that clear enough for you?
/code or failing to bother to read what you wrote to see like yourself in life, total fuck up.
As for this:
"It's something I do not do, if only because I'm against the idea of internet anonymity. You should stand behind your words or STFU. All the excuses given so far are lame. Especially the one about "people need to post anonymously to protect themselves from persecution." Better to draw attention to any problem by being persecuted and standing up to the persecutor than by slacktivist anonymous posts." I am not sure where you got that from, but it was not me. I suspect that you are having an argument with someone else on something else, and are sooooooo very stupid, it got all twisted around in your head. Sad.
In the end, you are truly what is wrong with the world. Smug in your attitude, low in your learning. You rage and fight just to rage and fight. You do not investigate your "causes" deeply. You do not really check if they are right, or if they even make sense. You make up imaginary boogey men then set up straw men to rage against so you can feel good while achieving nothing for nothing. You think you are fighting the power and are too stupid to understand that you are part of the power. Most of the wrong stems directly from you.
You won't understand much of what I wrote. It is ok. You are stupid, spoiled, and have never, ever been challenged on anything of substance. Maybe some day you will grow up. Read more. Think more. Shout less.
Oh, one more thing. There is a beautiful irony in you so sarcastically making your point by saying you put something in bold, but failing to put in the correct
Here is an example of admitted voter fraud.
https://www.realclearpolitics....!
The question comes down to this. Do you think democrats are all purely good people who never do wrong or are they like most human things, flawed in several ways?
You seem very rational and methodical in your thinking. If you stop to analyze it some, you will catch that you probably have been showing some internal bias where you do not seek out wrong for one party, while assuming the other party is always wrong. Start asking yourself about the sources that you read and how trustable are they. Do you think a source made up of 90% or more from one party will give you a balanced view? If so, you do not believe in the fundamental idea of diversity and why it is important. Groups are very bad at being self analytical.
The republican party is not terribly good. However, neither is the democrat party. The only way they improve is when people inside them realize this and try to change it.
Lately, zealousness has infected the democrat party. Members are willing to forgive all sorts of wrong doing on their side, just to get the other side. Ask yourself, why does the democrat party oppose any attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest? Ask yourself that deeply, if you can.
The publishing of the voter information was not good. However, were you so up in arms calling the Obama administration did similar things when setting up the data base for the people using the affordable care act? Did you call him incompetent? If not, your rage is false. You just want to hunt the other guy, not fix the system.
Why, you must be right. I was wrong to think that slashdotters famously have a low attention span, often can't be bothered to read the article, post comments backed by no facts, or seldom link supporting information. You have enlightened me to see that they actually go back and read old posts, sifting for nuggets that they can mod up and down, and avoid using mod points on something no one else may ever see, instead of the issue of the moment. Yes, that makes a great deal of sense.
BTW, having a friend follow you around and throw roses at your feet is no better. If you were remotely logical, you would understand that this is uncommon behavior for an old discussion. If it was current, it would make sense. As it is, you really are the one using shitty logic.
Btw, disagreeing with you is not shitty logic. In fact, I use real examples often backed up with sources that are not at the basement blog level. Sorry that you do, and you find disagreement with your vitriol posing as a discussion to be so disturbing. Perhaps if you read more, read challenging sources, and tried to understand perspectives you would understand the world more....or at least grow up a little. See, only children have unwavering dedication to a simple idea and have no understanding from where it comes and if it is true. Like you....
You are being disingenuous. While no trial has gone to completion, Google has had to settle out of court in several major countries. In the process of doing so, they also had to admit their guilt. Google actually has admitted to avoiding taxes.
Since google actively advocates for social programs, the second part of your argument does not hold either. Google seems to think that this is a good way to help people. Therein lies the problem. On one hand they are asking for more money to be spent by the government, and on the other hand they are doing everything possible not to give their share of money.
Remind me. What is the word for people who say YOU should do one thing and THEY do the opposite?
Again, you are giving your opinion, colored by the bubble you live in after the fact. You still have not gone back and read more about the matter, which shows that you are both ignorant and lazy. This is a sad combination in a human being.
I offered sources for you to read that are well researched to clarify the matter. You are offering only your opinion, not well researched or thought out. This makes me ask. Are you a millennial?
Your comment makes no sense. It is at the level of grade school, but then again, what does one expect from a Nazi?
Apple pro dicks are supper. This was dick potatoes you sing Siri!
The broader comment is all that information is out there, has been out there, and was also abused heavily during the Obama era. Maybe you are different, but for many on these forums they uttered not a peep then, because their team was in power. Now that another team is in power, they are acting like the end of the world.
Credibility comes from consistency in positions. There is not a lot of that in slashdot anymore. I wonder if you have been consistent...
Also, government listing information on purpose is not something to be stood for. Government screwing up (as it actually said in the article if you bothered to read) and posting information, is not good, but it is not the end of things either.
So, I have to ask, when a similar screw-up occurred with the medical data bases with the affordable care act, did you come out strongly about that too? Or are so lost as a human being you actually think one side is all good and the other is all evil? If so, there is no hope left for you....
Yes, I am always angry at Nazis. You are the scum of the earth.
Btw Nazi, This is a very old thread that no one else is reading. It is so pathetic that you are self modding yourself up. But then again, Nazi are pretty insecure.
1. Releasing details was not actually a Trump policy, but a mistake made by the government. You did actually read the article didn't you? Ha ha, we both know you are a terrible person, and not that smart. Lets face it.
2. By gutting the EPA, what exactly did her remove, in this so called gutting? Without having read any of the recent EPA documents and seeing how it overstepped its mission in the last several years, I suspect you do not know why it needs to be paired back some. Again, terrible people like yourself are not so smart, do not read beyond the blog level, and rational thought is beyond you.
3. What bad practices did he enable? I am sure you mean he undid some Obama era rule by fiat restricting its mining. Now, terrible people like you do not understand it is minded in other places with dirtier forms of coal, and used without pollution removal in China. But, if its not made here, its green right? You believe this because you are a terrible person.
4. Want to know the terrible truth? Let me see, there is only one person in this conversation who supports violence for those who disagree with them. This person also believes in statist control of industry, omni-powerful government, and the use of any means necessary to get policy in place. There was another group of people who believed all these things. We call them Nazis. I would say go read about it, but lets face it, you are not very smart and a terrible person. This is how Nazis come to be. They believe in something and do not question it. Then, they believe any who disagree are an evil to be removed. So you sir are Nazi in the truest sense of the word. The world would be better without you in it.
5. "The rest of the garbage"--translation, my small, limited brain can't counter the arguments, so I will pretend I am above it. Yes, you are rich. No, you don't think that you are. No, you don't want your own ideology applied to you. Nazi.
Suffice it to say, you have nothing. You demonstrated nothing. You are nothing.
Nazi
Interesting comments, but modding yourself up is really trashy. No one else is reading an old thread.
1. It is not obvious he wanted to invade Iraq before the war. I do not think there is much evidence before that, except for some very ignorant people saying he was a son trying to finish daddies work.
2.Your recollection of what happened in the Afghanistan war is amazingly faulty. It was a stunning success by all accounts. The country had proven a quagmire of the Soviets, and had fallen with days. You really need to read more and widely. Try not to stay always on anti-bush/conservative web sites.
3. What you call poor diplomacy did not happen until the Iraq ware. You are getting things confused again. It was positive for the first war.
4. Again, you have so many things and timelines wrong in your head. You really need to take a deep breath, forget what you think you know, and go back and read. At least, look at the Woodward book. Until then, you are really not worth talking too. You have too great of ignorance of events mixed with such a narrow minded hatred. You are unable to see the nuances of the world. In order to truly understand things, you need to be able to appreciate the complexity of events. Something you will not get by examining only narrow sources and perspectives.
Retribution for what exactly? Are you saying all rich people took money from others and should be killed or have their property damaged? Do you truly believe that or are you so sick in the head that you do not know how evil you are being.
Might I ask how much you make? Since you are on these forums, the average is pretty well to do. So, you think it is ok if someone from the inner city comes and hurts you and your family and torches your house, because you have more. Funny, people who say stupid things like this never regard themselves as the rich, even though they are.
Lastly, you do not know Trumps motivations or anyone else's. You are so vile in your mind that you completely think it is justifiable to demonize someone because they disagree with you. It does not matter than many Trump workers have nice things to say about their boss. It does not matter how much he gave to charity....especially compared to some you probably idolize. All that matters is that someone told you that he is the enemy and deserves to be killed, and you are such an embarrassment to humanity that you believed it. You are devoid of rational thought, making you the true subhuman.
Phantom, glad to see that you are following me! I must be having a good impact on your life.
Since you do not read a good deal, let me help put your post in the correct context. You are missing key insights into the situation that can only be gained by gathering information from a wide range of sources and taking the time to understand things.
When Bush entered office, he had a policy of reducing U.S. disengagement. In his first year or so as president, he has begun to pull back from external nations and reduce what he deemed the excessive use of force used by the previous administration. He was very much opposed to nation building. Tragically, history altered his thinking to make him one of the greatest nation building presidents.
On September 11th, a great tragedy occurred. Thousands of people lost their lives and even first responders were targeted while trying to save them. The nation was in shock, and it was pissed. They wanted blood. They wanted revenge. There were calls to nuke the Muslims back into the stone age. It would have been very easy to give it. It would have been the popular thing to do.
Then, a remarkable thing happened. The dogs of war were chained by Bush. Instead of plunging us into a war of extermination, he did the unpopular thing and held off until all the forensic evidence was gathered. Instead of broadly targeting Muslims, he tried to find out the exact offshoots that were responsible and targeted them. This took 30 days. To you, it may seem meaningless, but the in the mood of the country at the time, this was nearly unforgivable.
When operation enduring freedom started, it was swift, surgical and brutally effective. Bush has taken time to try to separate out those who wanted us dead and those of a different fate. He began a program to feed and educate poor Aghanies at the same time the attacks were taking place. He wanted to show that America was a place where we would meet our foes with justice, but show compassion to the downtrodden. It was one of the greatest moments of restraint in history. He turned a bloodbath into a surgical strike of hopeful liberation. I would argue for this, he should have gotten a Nobel Peace prize. Instead, the next president, who gave the world widespread assassination by robot drone, got one for being black. The world has no lack of irony. I digress.
You may not believe all this, but it was well documented in a book. The book was not written by some right when demagogue as you fear, but by the left leaning Bob Woodward. Woodward was one of journalists who found the corruption in the Nixon whitehouse and bravely pursued it, ultimately bringing down a president. Before 9/11, he was doing a piece to try to understand this presidency better after a bitter campaign that was still contested in many people's mind. After the dark day, he was given near full access to the west wing, so that he could chronicle the decisions and thoughts that went into the response. Bush believed that it was important in a democracy for people to understand why their leaders did what they did, so he offered transparency. Again, it would have been easy to go the other way.
https://www.amazon.com/Bush-at...
If you can get the time and tear yourself away from youtube long enough, it is an excellent read. It is not always flattering to the Bush administration. It shows good points and bad.
I understand you were also including the Iraq war in your "pithy" comment. But to understand the full tragedy of that war, you have to take the time to understand the events leading up to it, and the decision making processes of those involved. Until you do, you opinions on the matter are likely corrupted by childish blog posts and hit pieces designed to denigrate a president of the opposition party. Read the book, and I would love to discuss with you more. The question is, can you leave your bubble?
As an old saying goes, fish do not know that they are wet. If you do not see the left bias in slashdot and on your campus, then you may be more left than you think. I do not mean this to imply any malice towards you. It is just that sometimes when you are so far in something, it is hard to know where you really are. You are the opposite of a troll and that should be commended.
However, if you want to see what I am talking about, then please take the challenge that I mentioned earlier. You can start of slashdot. Make a second account if needed. Start posting from a conservative bias. Make your arguments thoughtful as you like. You can include logic and defend your arguments with links. Then, see what happens. You will quickly find you will be modded down. You will find people name calling you will be modded up. You will see that very seldom will anyone take the time to engage you in discussion, but posts with one liners saying you are wrong will be modded up.
Please try this. You might be surprised and also find out how wet is in here.
What exactly did he do that you think was bad? Not your imagination. Facts please.
You do understand that merely disagreeing with you is not fact. What was the policy he made that you disagree with and what was the outcome that was negative. For example, you would not accept an argument where I say you are completely wrong, just because I said so.
Try to grow up some and look at the world analytically instead of the childish mindset everything donkey good everything elephant bad.
Funny, you took the time to call names, but not defend your argument. The facts say that is has been in office for about half a year and has had several policy successes. His failures have include:
Having an immigration policy stopped by a Hawaii judge who did not ground his ruling in the constitution. We know this to be the case because the supreme court overturned it unanimously.
Being embroiled in an investigation for collusion with Russia. Most of the charges have been disproven, and there are several stories indicating this. There are also tapes of various DNC operatives admitting in what they thought were undocumented comments, that they are doing this for ratings and to discredit. They admit, there is nothing there. The new story of Trumps son meeting with the Russians looking for dirt is true. However, there is no evidence of quid pro quo. However, as the issues are being looked into, it does turn out that the Clinton campaign also used foreign sources, at times WITH quid pro quo. I will go out on a limb that you either do not know this or are so addled in your thinking that you fail to see your personal bias leading to ignorance.
So, there really is not a dumpster fire say as you say. You could not rationally make the argument because in reality it is not true, outside your imagination and that of other people who have gone insane with hatred. Be better.
So Again, why is this modded up?
Hear that? That was the sound of your ass being kicked.
Perhaps you do understand what the word dumb means. To conclude liberal leanings from someone who defends liberal sources while discounting all conservative ones and who defends liberal thought logically follows.
If I had to guess, I would say that you think that you are libertarian, even though you really don't know what that means.
Since you probably not have grown as a person and read any opposing viewpoint news, here is another one for you from today. It was oddly absent from the NY times.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
There are many others like it. If you read more, you might understand why so many were not in favor of Mrs. Clinton. My second guess is that while I am aware of Trumps many, annoying flaws, you are mostly unaware of the negative aspects of Clinton. If you are aware of all those and think she would make a good leader, then you truly are stupid.
Nice post thanks! This is what slashdot should be in the ideal. The forums should not ask to agree with every viewpoint being laid out. However, they should demand that things that are being modded up be like the above post: thoughtful, detailed, and minimized name calling. I would argue for highest ratings, a link or two for fact checking an argument would be great.
With this type of post one could have an honest discussion and learn something, which is what a real Nerd would do.
The above post would actually warrant insightful if it either stopped before personal name calling, or at least defended it. If you feel he is an imbecile, then explain it in detail. Many of us are not form Australia and have no idea about him. Some more information would be useful.
Somehow, he got elected PM of your country. So, many people don't find him to be a moron. This leaves me to wonder, does Australia just like morons or does he merely happen to disagree with you and you are name calling. If the later, the imbecile in the conversation may not be who you think...