FYI, Here is the actual quote from Romney. I suspect many have not seen it:
Romney told donors, "47 percent of voters would chose Obama "no matter what" because they are people "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax."
What seems lost in the world as well as shashdot these days, is that politics is not a team sport. Ideas do matter. Facts do matter. Not what you infer. Not your emotions. Self government is a rare and special thing, but it does involve rational people making rational choices. Two rational people can disagree about the course of action when dealing with a fact. Irrational conversations result when people change facts or insert their bias as fact. This is exactly what the OP and others in this thread have done.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them stupid. Human intellectual history is filled with two very smart people observing the same set of facts and disagreeing with the conclusion. Then by definition, stupidity arises from dogmatically accepting unchallenged ideas and not engaging in an intellectual debate to test these ideas. I.E., what the OP did.
The racist in this conversation is you. You are the one equating countries other than the U.S. as a prison. The rest of the world is not evil, stupid, and worthless. Your whole disgusting thought process is based in the notion that you are superior and others offer nothing. Not only is this idea absurd, it is harmful. YOU and people like you are the problem in the world.
The funny thing is, I haven't seen someone else tie this article to piracy. I have seen several articles and comments posted on slashdot swearing that somehow people downloading movies for free does not decrease theatre attendance. Am I the only one is not shocked to read the age group the pirates the most has a declining attendance?
Terms like "Social Justice" are selected because they have the ability to end arguments without ever having one. When some, like the OP, here the term justice they immediately assume that anyone agrees with the position is right, and anyone who disagrees is unjust, and wrong. Since no thought is ever given to the underlying idea, it is very easy for harmful or even evil ideas being as "Justice".
People tend to be very excited to sign on to "justice" causes, until it effects them personally. For example, a typical SJW maybe very much in favor of rules that help the poor, especially when that means someone else needs to give them money for something. After all, what kind of heartless ass does not want to help the poor? If they got it, and you don't, you should get some too..... But, if you point out the SJW that they are in fact very rich, being a member of the Western world, and they should perhaps give up 30% of their money and things to help someone in the developing world, they seldom are in favor of doing so. It does not matter if you can point out that statistically and materially the SJW who has the internet, abundant running water, and iPhone, transportation, a luxurious (by the standards of the third world) apartment etc. is as wealthy to their third world counterpart as they are compared to a "rich" person, they have no interest in hearing this. Rich is always other people. Justice is always something someone else must sacrifice for. Why? Because it is not justice in the real sense of the word.
To the credit of generation Z( or whatever you are calling them), they are starting to notice that the very narrow world view propagated by the ruling class politicians and mass media is not matching with reality. They are actually thinking, observing, and reading more sources. Trying to win arguments by mere labels or tribal grunting is wearing thin. For the first time in a while, there might be hope of having honest discussions and attempting to solve problems instead of having policy be slogan.
What you said would only work if Walmart was a significant part of the country's economy. So, your understanding of basic concepts of econ 101 is outstanding; however, your ability to apply it accurately to the real world...not so much.
Funny, many on slashdot have reflexively ridiculed Trump. Instead of listening to ideas and discussing around merit, there as been a tendency for people to fall into the Republican Bad, Democrat good mantra. So, when he runs a campaign and starts making initial policies that emphasize protecting U.S. workers and economy, the stupidly smug among us decried it as unworthy and juvenile. But, oh, the very moment when YOUR jobs are being thoughtlessly removed for short term gain by the company/University, suddenly you are crying for the very protections and actions that Trump was espousing.
Both sides have their share of good and bad ideas. Don't you think it past time to grow up get over the childish notion that politics is a team sport? You can agree with an idea, even if it is from "the other side" if it is a good one. It's ok. Honest. You can even agree with a leader sometimes, and then disagree on another issue later. If you can achieve this one simple idea, the country will improve immensely.
So, take your first bold step. So far on this thread, no one else seemed to link this issue to Trump's platform in a positive way. Yet, nearly every post has unwittingly agreed with him. Now, take a deep breath and say it.
"On this issue, Trump was right, we should find ways to work with him to protect our workers"
Say it. SAY IT SAYYYYYY ITTT!!!!!!
The thesis of your argument is that other people base their opinions on something other than fact. But if we examine what you wrote:
1. A. "This whole discussion is irrelevant. " This is purely your opinion. Other people may have read some of the honest parts of this discussion an found something new. Even if you are very smart, you simply can't determine relevancy for all people.
2. B. "They just won the White House, Congress, and the Senate in one swoop." This is just wrong on several levels.
C. In 2008, the democrats had control of all 3 parts of the U.S. government. The republicans won the house in 2010, not 2016.
D. The republicans won the senate in 2014 not 2016. This is not one swoop, but three. One could argue that an increasing number of people seem to be growing very angry at something the democrats had done. The republican presidency is clearly not a random hiccup.
E. "Facts do not matter." As it turned out, for the election, facts DID matter. Any intelligent person would acknowledge that there has been a disturbing trend of the U.S. press to hide negative facts about the democrat party. When some of these escaped via wikileaks, people's perception on Hillary and some of her policies began to chance. So, the facts really did matter. The question is, why are you so sure you have all the facts when so many indicators show that you probably do not.
F. "We can be here debating the minutiae of this data until the cows come home." In a post about people not examining facts, you make the absolutely hilarious assertion that facts should not be debated....
G. In your argument of facts should not be debated, you also make the amazing assertion that doing so would be a bad thing. In effect, you made a single emotionally charged statement that you feel all should obey. ."We need to a different way to communicate the threat" For all the reason stated above, you say the word communicate, but it seems you actually mean that other thing.
H. The use of the word THEY means that you committing the sin of tribalism, which is generally bad. This has a tendency to limit ones world view and biases their perception of all ideas. In choosing a tribe, you are setting up an us versus them mentality. Sadly, the history of the world shows us that there are no perfect human institutions or movements. When you zealously identify with a group/cause/idea you lose the ability to deal with criticism or new ideas. In fact, someone usually will come along and warp the message and use the zealots to their own end. With this one word, you are demonstrating that you guilty of exactly what you are protesting about.You may have weighed arguments and decided democrats tend to be more correct, but if you can't see any flaws in any of their ideas or candidates, then you are a zealot.
Your analysis would be beautiful, except that in reality, those who silicon valley and who claim to care the most about people, really don't. As a whole, you give very little to charity, minimize tax personal tax burden, and are very, very comfortable with the notion that your special snowflake tech jobs DESERVE 3x more pay than those who serve others. The corporations of silicon valley are notorious for talking the talk about social justice, but then surprisingly absent when it comes time to pay for it. I am looking at your Apple and Google.
So, I bet that you are very supportive about measures that address income inequality....just so long as it does not personally affect you. So, can you please cut the bullshit, SJW crap about how much you care. By all measures you don't. Having a "bad" feeling is nowhere near the same as actually doing something. Please, grow up or shut up.
Its very easy to sit in the cheap seats and parrot what this around you are saying. I guess you can feel smart and "with it" by doing so, but frankly its been wearing thin. So, I would love it if you take a moment and show off this maturity that you claim you have.
1. Trump provided position papers on immigration reform, the second amendment, supreme court nominations, veterans affairs, economics, and more. Each of these is detailed. I doubt that you read them. Perhaps take a moment to do so. Try coming to your own conclusions about where you agree and disagree before going to google to find what you are supposed to think. This is what a mature person would do.
2. When you search for similar content from the Clinton side, you will find it much more sparse and less detailed. Like many people, you probably just felt she was "right" on the issues since she was a self proclaimed liberal. Perhaps note that "right on the issues" has a chance to very from person to person. In fact, many of her campaign speeches were contradictory, as if she was pandering more than selling a vision. Do you think it is wise or mature to support a candidate who is fluid on issues? Try to find her policy papers and compare them with the Trump ones.
3. Mature people make decisions and evaluations based upon logic and fact. An immature person makes important decisions on emotion. In fact, an increasingly popular political strategy is to simply call names to make an argument instead of outlining a case. This is very effective because it almost impossible to defend against emotional contructs. For example, you can call anyone racist. Once the label sticks, it is hard to counter even if it is untrue. You seem to have a very negative view of Trump. Perhaps you should prepare a list and right out why. Then, if you are mature, cross of any comment that is emotional or name calling. You might find that you are the victim of mass media manipulation.
For example, a mature response could be "I dislike Trumps stand on illegal immigration. I believe open borders are a good thing. People, like ideas, should be able to flow freely. I see no major issues resulting from assimilating large numbers of people into a country's culture. Such ideas of nation are antiquated and not worth profiting."
An immature response would be "Trump is a racist."
See the difference? In the first case, people can have an honest discussion, trade ideas back and forth, and sharpen their understanding of the world. The racist comment leads to now growth. No ideas. No solutions. I would even argue that those who continually use such tactics have something to hide. You may want to see what it is.
Although it is popular on these forums to Trump bash, he actually is not terribly corrupt. There is a difference between disagreeing with a policy position and corruption. Making a judgement call that is different than you is not a crime. The most frightening thing of our time is that so called smart, educated people of this time do not see this.
Hillary Clinton was actually the definition of corrupt. She accepted money for favors. She used power and coercion to silence political opponents and alter election results. She and her staff actively worked to suppress the political views of Sanders supporters. Amazingly, it is all they're in the Wikki leaks and other sources, if you bother to read them. Remember, the counter arguments of these leaks is not that they were untrue, but another government may have brought them to light. Think about this. No, really, think. The. Accusations. Are. True.
The better question is why do accept an American press that was complicit in suppressing and hiding these facts?
So, Trump may be an asshole. He may be gruff and insensitive. He certinally used every loop-hole that he could find in the law to abuse the system. However, that is not a crime. These are the rules that people like Clinton and frankly nearly every congressmen (including the Republican ones) put in aid rich friends and donors. To imply the person using the system is more corrupt than the one who designed it to be corrupt is truly beyond hypocritical.
The democrats nominated a corrupt person. She was ultimately destroyed by the truth leaking out. The democrats almost nominated an honest politician. Things might have been different if they did. But please, stop this bullshit of saying everyone is equally as corrupt as Clinton was/is. It is untrue.
I really liked this thread and the above post especially. It shows that I am not alone, because that is pretty much where I am. I have had apples for a very long time. I have convinced friends and companies that I have been in to go mac. Now, I can't do so with a straight face. Deep in my soul, I know my current MacBook pro will be my last one, and it saddens mean. They were insanely great computers. Now, you are just insane to get one.
The OP has to be a freshly minted new graduate. Only they are so optimistic about the world. Any true Vet understands that your company is usually ran by moron MBAs who think no more than a quarter ahead. Since logic is not a requirement, Anyone can be outsourced.
I know in the echo chamber of slashdot the canard about no wmd is taken as gospel, but it really is not true. We know Iraq had them, so did the rest of the world since most of the major countries sold them: US, China, Germany, France, UK, and Russia. This was known at the time and why the war was not stopped. The only real criticism was if it was SMART to go to war over it and destabilize the region, not if they had them.
Now, I know urban legends die hard, and that it is fun to Bush bash, so you may not want to believe the history. So, just in case you need more. Here is a link to an article from a major news source that describes how they found the wmd. See, its not generally known because it was released with minimal fanfare, because..... well do the math.
Its funny how when it comes down to it, Apple is not very good at things like the environment, gender equality, and social responsibility when it comes to THEIR business. But, my God they sure are not shy about smugly commenting to others about how they handle issues like environment, gender equality, and social responsibility.
The main problem with our times is that so many people are willing to give a pass to those who say the "right" things instead of judging if they do them. But hey, does it really matter if they move manufacturing offshore to avoid environmental responsibility as longs they make an emoji about your favorite, pet cause?
A quick google search does not turn up a link to foxiness and HAARP, beyond the story referenced in this article.
However, left leaning NBC has a few discussing this. Also, left leaning links like the daily beast have several.
This is the general problem with the left today. It is very fast to define anything that is not agreed with as "right-wing," and this belief is very reflexive, often with little thought or any further reading. It is a very dangerous mentality, because it breeds to worst kind of colloquialism. The version of "my team is always right, because they are my team." Self criticism becomes next to impossible, because self doubt is non-existant. Since beliefs are never challenged, they quickly become stupid and ignorant...much like this.
Integrity: N. Definition: Having the quality of supporting liberal causes. Example: The liberal journalist showed great integrity by not further investigating any of the allegations that Hillary Clinton's private email server was used to cover up damning evidence that charitable donations to her foundation were given for doing favors as Secretary of State.
Example 2: Although what Snowden released was true, he showed no integrity by releasing information that showed corruption in the DNC.
According to wiki, the GPD of the U.S. and Euro zone are about the same. It is true that the EU does have many more people. However, that means that about each person in the EU produces about 1/2 the wealth. Since a high percentage of personal spending is living expenses, this means disposable income, the kind that Google/Alphabet covets is much less.
As for the comment about the U.S. breaking the back of Germany....all I can say is that your mind exists is a sad, warped place. I honestly feel sorry for you. Do you really think people in the US spend their time trying to figure out ways to impoverish other nations? Is that how you view the world? Twisted.
The story of the post WWII world has been the US helping other countries to prosper and rebuild. I know it sounds cool in college when people speak of the "powers that be" and conspiracies to keep others down by the "man." However, an honest look at history shows otherwise. Through the Marshal Plan and other programs, Europe and Japan was rebuilt. They have been allies and yes, economic competitors. Some very smart leaders in the US understood that rich nations can buy goods, poor ones do not. Any nation that has bought into this system has received fantastic wealth. All you have to do is turn your Eurocentric eye to Asia and see what is going in there.
So, can we please stop this petty anti-US shit that pervades these forums? Europe is awesome. You have much to feel proud about. You also face real threats both external and from within. It takes an incredible level of stupid to think that the US is one of the real dangers in your life. Can you please start focusing on the real threats?
Even when it is proposed that the ID be offered for free, the democratic party still opposes the idea. See, that would be political compromise between two rational groups, the way the founders intended. This has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with tampering with the election. The sad thing is, you are so busy playing team sports instead of honestly pursuing ideas for the betterment of all, that you will likely not see or understand what the modern democratic party has turned into--until it is too late.
Before reflexively lashing out like a tribal two year old, the above statement in no way forgives the republicans of their sins. Instead of merely looking for evil and being skeptical of one side, haven't current events shown that perhaps, just perhaps, you may want to be paying attention to both sides? How about demanding honesty from everyone?
In a world after the FBI ruling on Clinton, where it basically says she is guilty, but the government basically refuses to prosecute people in her pay grade, don't you think you should really start re-evaluating your world view and perspective some?
Do you honestly still think that the actions of this very same government are not suspect in other legal matters? You may want to reconsider the possibility that the throwing out of the black panther racial intimidation lawsuit had nothing to do with legal merit.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, Here is the actual quote from Romney. I suspect many have not seen it:
Romney told donors, "47 percent of voters would chose Obama "no matter what" because they are people "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax."
What seems lost in the world as well as shashdot these days, is that politics is not a team sport. Ideas do matter. Facts do matter. Not what you infer. Not your emotions. Self government is a rare and special thing, but it does involve rational people making rational choices. Two rational people can disagree about the course of action when dealing with a fact. Irrational conversations result when people change facts or insert their bias as fact. This is exactly what the OP and others in this thread have done.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them stupid. Human intellectual history is filled with two very smart people observing the same set of facts and disagreeing with the conclusion. Then by definition, stupidity arises from dogmatically accepting unchallenged ideas and not engaging in an intellectual debate to test these ideas. I.E., what the OP did.
The racist in this conversation is you. You are the one equating countries other than the U.S. as a prison. The rest of the world is not evil, stupid, and worthless. Your whole disgusting thought process is based in the notion that you are superior and others offer nothing. Not only is this idea absurd, it is harmful. YOU and people like you are the problem in the world.
The funny thing is, I haven't seen someone else tie this article to piracy. I have seen several articles and comments posted on slashdot swearing that somehow people downloading movies for free does not decrease theatre attendance. Am I the only one is not shocked to read the age group the pirates the most has a declining attendance?
Terms like "Social Justice" are selected because they have the ability to end arguments without ever having one. When some, like the OP, here the term justice they immediately assume that anyone agrees with the position is right, and anyone who disagrees is unjust, and wrong. Since no thought is ever given to the underlying idea, it is very easy for harmful or even evil ideas being as "Justice".
People tend to be very excited to sign on to "justice" causes, until it effects them personally. For example, a typical SJW maybe very much in favor of rules that help the poor, especially when that means someone else needs to give them money for something. After all, what kind of heartless ass does not want to help the poor? If they got it, and you don't, you should get some too..... But, if you point out the SJW that they are in fact very rich, being a member of the Western world, and they should perhaps give up 30% of their money and things to help someone in the developing world, they seldom are in favor of doing so. It does not matter if you can point out that statistically and materially the SJW who has the internet, abundant running water, and iPhone, transportation, a luxurious (by the standards of the third world) apartment etc. is as wealthy to their third world counterpart as they are compared to a "rich" person, they have no interest in hearing this. Rich is always other people. Justice is always something someone else must sacrifice for. Why? Because it is not justice in the real sense of the word.
To the credit of generation Z( or whatever you are calling them), they are starting to notice that the very narrow world view propagated by the ruling class politicians and mass media is not matching with reality. They are actually thinking, observing, and reading more sources. Trying to win arguments by mere labels or tribal grunting is wearing thin. For the first time in a while, there might be hope of having honest discussions and attempting to solve problems instead of having policy be slogan.
The O.P. nailed the true up(down)date. The headline should read:
"New iPad gets faster and cheaper, but it is uglier with lower quality screen."
What you said would only work if Walmart was a significant part of the country's economy. So, your understanding of basic concepts of econ 101 is outstanding; however, your ability to apply it accurately to the real world...not so much.
Funny, many on slashdot have reflexively ridiculed Trump. Instead of listening to ideas and discussing around merit, there as been a tendency for people to fall into the Republican Bad, Democrat good mantra. So, when he runs a campaign and starts making initial policies that emphasize protecting U.S. workers and economy, the stupidly smug among us decried it as unworthy and juvenile. But, oh, the very moment when YOUR jobs are being thoughtlessly removed for short term gain by the company/University, suddenly you are crying for the very protections and actions that Trump was espousing.
Both sides have their share of good and bad ideas. Don't you think it past time to grow up get over the childish notion that politics is a team sport? You can agree with an idea, even if it is from "the other side" if it is a good one. It's ok. Honest. You can even agree with a leader sometimes, and then disagree on another issue later. If you can achieve this one simple idea, the country will improve immensely.
So, take your first bold step. So far on this thread, no one else seemed to link this issue to Trump's platform in a positive way. Yet, nearly every post has unwittingly agreed with him. Now, take a deep breath and say it.
"On this issue, Trump was right, we should find ways to work with him to protect our workers"
Say it.
SAY IT
SAYYYYYY ITTT!!!!!!
I hear the U.C. University system is looking to hire some new I.T. personal. You just have to move to India first!
The thesis of your argument is that other people base their opinions on something other than fact. But if we examine what you wrote:
."We need to a different way to communicate the threat" For all the reason stated above, you say the word communicate, but it seems you actually mean that other thing.
1. A. "This whole discussion is irrelevant. " This is purely your opinion. Other people may have read some of the honest parts of this discussion an found something new. Even if you are very smart, you simply can't determine relevancy for all people.
2. B. "They just won the White House, Congress, and the Senate in one swoop." This is just wrong on several levels.
C. In 2008, the democrats had control of all 3 parts of the U.S. government. The republicans won the house in 2010, not 2016. D. The republicans won the senate in 2014 not 2016. This is not one swoop, but three. One could argue that an increasing number of people seem to be growing very angry at something the democrats had done. The republican presidency is clearly not a random hiccup. E. "Facts do not matter." As it turned out, for the election, facts DID matter. Any intelligent person would acknowledge that there has been a disturbing trend of the U.S. press to hide negative facts about the democrat party. When some of these escaped via wikileaks, people's perception on Hillary and some of her policies began to chance. So, the facts really did matter. The question is, why are you so sure you have all the facts when so many indicators show that you probably do not.
F. "We can be here debating the minutiae of this data until the cows come home." In a post about people not examining facts, you make the absolutely hilarious assertion that facts should not be debated....
G. In your argument of facts should not be debated, you also make the amazing assertion that doing so would be a bad thing. In effect, you made a single emotionally charged statement that you feel all should obey.
H. The use of the word THEY means that you committing the sin of tribalism, which is generally bad. This has a tendency to limit ones world view and biases their perception of all ideas. In choosing a tribe, you are setting up an us versus them mentality. Sadly, the history of the world shows us that there are no perfect human institutions or movements. When you zealously identify with a group/cause/idea you lose the ability to deal with criticism or new ideas. In fact, someone usually will come along and warp the message and use the zealots to their own end. With this one word, you are demonstrating that you guilty of exactly what you are protesting about.You may have weighed arguments and decided democrats tend to be more correct, but if you can't see any flaws in any of their ideas or candidates, then you are a zealot.
Your analysis would be beautiful, except that in reality, those who silicon valley and who claim to care the most about people, really don't. As a whole, you give very little to charity, minimize tax personal tax burden, and are very, very comfortable with the notion that your special snowflake tech jobs DESERVE 3x more pay than those who serve others. The corporations of silicon valley are notorious for talking the talk about social justice, but then surprisingly absent when it comes time to pay for it. I am looking at your Apple and Google.
So, I bet that you are very supportive about measures that address income inequality....just so long as it does not personally affect you. So, can you please cut the bullshit, SJW crap about how much you care. By all measures you don't. Having a "bad" feeling is nowhere near the same as actually doing something. Please, grow up or shut up.
Btw: Here is my supporting evidence.
Bay Area near bottom of nation charitable giving from SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/business...
Silicon Valley does not social give: http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2...
Lastly, there are numerous of these showing that conservatives are far more generous than liberals: https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-...
Its very easy to sit in the cheap seats and parrot what this around you are saying. I guess you can feel smart and "with it" by doing so, but frankly its been wearing thin. So, I would love it if you take a moment and show off this maturity that you claim you have.
1. Trump provided position papers on immigration reform, the second amendment, supreme court nominations, veterans affairs, economics, and more. Each of these is detailed. I doubt that you read them. Perhaps take a moment to do so. Try coming to your own conclusions about where you agree and disagree before going to google to find what you are supposed to think. This is what a mature person would do.
2. When you search for similar content from the Clinton side, you will find it much more sparse and less detailed. Like many people, you probably just felt she was "right" on the issues since she was a self proclaimed liberal. Perhaps note that "right on the issues" has a chance to very from person to person. In fact, many of her campaign speeches were contradictory, as if she was pandering more than selling a vision. Do you think it is wise or mature to support a candidate who is fluid on issues? Try to find her policy papers and compare them with the Trump ones.
3. Mature people make decisions and evaluations based upon logic and fact. An immature person makes important decisions on emotion. In fact, an increasingly popular political strategy is to simply call names to make an argument instead of outlining a case. This is very effective because it almost impossible to defend against emotional contructs. For example, you can call anyone racist. Once the label sticks, it is hard to counter even if it is untrue. You seem to have a very negative view of Trump. Perhaps you should prepare a list and right out why. Then, if you are mature, cross of any comment that is emotional or name calling. You might find that you are the victim of mass media manipulation.
For example, a mature response could be "I dislike Trumps stand on illegal immigration. I believe open borders are a good thing. People, like ideas, should be able to flow freely. I see no major issues resulting from assimilating large numbers of people into a country's culture. Such ideas of nation are antiquated and not worth profiting."
An immature response would be "Trump is a racist."
See the difference? In the first case, people can have an honest discussion, trade ideas back and forth, and sharpen their understanding of the world. The racist comment leads to now growth. No ideas. No solutions. I would even argue that those who continually use such tactics have something to hide. You may want to see what it is.
Although it is popular on these forums to Trump bash, he actually is not terribly corrupt. There is a difference between disagreeing with a policy position and corruption. Making a judgement call that is different than you is not a crime. The most frightening thing of our time is that so called smart, educated people of this time do not see this.
Hillary Clinton was actually the definition of corrupt. She accepted money for favors. She used power and coercion to silence political opponents and alter election results. She and her staff actively worked to suppress the political views of Sanders supporters. Amazingly, it is all they're in the Wikki leaks and other sources, if you bother to read them. Remember, the counter arguments of these leaks is not that they were untrue, but another government may have brought them to light. Think about this. No, really, think. The. Accusations. Are. True.
The better question is why do accept an American press that was complicit in suppressing and hiding these facts? So, Trump may be an asshole. He may be gruff and insensitive. He certinally used every loop-hole that he could find in the law to abuse the system. However, that is not a crime. These are the rules that people like Clinton and frankly nearly every congressmen (including the Republican ones) put in aid rich friends and donors. To imply the person using the system is more corrupt than the one who designed it to be corrupt is truly beyond hypocritical.
The democrats nominated a corrupt person. She was ultimately destroyed by the truth leaking out. The democrats almost nominated an honest politician. Things might have been different if they did. But please, stop this bullshit of saying everyone is equally as corrupt as Clinton was/is. It is untrue.
No matter what, the researchers keep finding that the one piece of information sent is always 42 for some reason.
Never let a good solid design get in the way of a slimness fetish, right?
I really liked this thread and the above post especially. It shows that I am not alone, because that is pretty much where I am. I have had apples for a very long time. I have convinced friends and companies that I have been in to go mac. Now, I can't do so with a straight face. Deep in my soul, I know my current MacBook pro will be my last one, and it saddens mean. They were insanely great computers. Now, you are just insane to get one.
The OP has to be a freshly minted new graduate. Only they are so optimistic about the world. Any true Vet understands that your company is usually ran by moron MBAs who think no more than a quarter ahead. Since logic is not a requirement, Anyone can be outsourced.
I know in the echo chamber of slashdot the canard about no wmd is taken as gospel, but it really is not true. We know Iraq had them, so did the rest of the world since most of the major countries sold them: US, China, Germany, France, UK, and Russia. This was known at the time and why the war was not stopped. The only real criticism was if it was SMART to go to war over it and destabilize the region, not if they had them.
..... well do the math.
Now, I know urban legends die hard, and that it is fun to Bush bash, so you may not want to believe the history. So, just in case you need more. Here is a link to an article from a major news source that describes how they found the wmd. See, its not generally known because it was released with minimal fanfare, because
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...
So, the whole thing amounts to the United States government and press is upset at a foreign nation for telling the truth?
I am not when did I fall through the rabbit hole and end up in Bizarro World?
Its funny how when it comes down to it, Apple is not very good at things like the environment, gender equality, and social responsibility when it comes to THEIR business. But, my God they sure are not shy about smugly commenting to others about how they handle issues like environment, gender equality, and social responsibility.
The main problem with our times is that so many people are willing to give a pass to those who say the "right" things instead of judging if they do them. But hey, does it really matter if they move manufacturing offshore to avoid environmental responsibility as longs they make an emoji about your favorite, pet cause?
A quick google search does not turn up a link to foxiness and HAARP, beyond the story referenced in this article.
However, left leaning NBC has a few discussing this. Also, left leaning links like the daily beast have several.
This is the general problem with the left today. It is very fast to define anything that is not agreed with as "right-wing," and this belief is very reflexive, often with little thought or any further reading. It is a very dangerous mentality, because it breeds to worst kind of colloquialism. The version of "my team is always right, because they are my team." Self criticism becomes next to impossible, because self doubt is non-existant. Since beliefs are never challenged, they quickly become stupid and ignorant...much like this.
Integrity: N. Definition: Having the quality of supporting liberal causes. Example: The liberal journalist showed great integrity by not further investigating any of the allegations that Hillary Clinton's private email server was used to cover up damning evidence that charitable donations to her foundation were given for doing favors as Secretary of State.
Example 2: Although what Snowden released was true, he showed no integrity by releasing information that showed corruption in the DNC.
According to wiki, the GPD of the U.S. and Euro zone are about the same. It is true that the EU does have many more people. However, that means that about each person in the EU produces about 1/2 the wealth. Since a high percentage of personal spending is living expenses, this means disposable income, the kind that Google/Alphabet covets is much less.
As for the comment about the U.S. breaking the back of Germany....all I can say is that your mind exists is a sad, warped place. I honestly feel sorry for you. Do you really think people in the US spend their time trying to figure out ways to impoverish other nations? Is that how you view the world? Twisted.
The story of the post WWII world has been the US helping other countries to prosper and rebuild. I know it sounds cool in college when people speak of the "powers that be" and conspiracies to keep others down by the "man." However, an honest look at history shows otherwise. Through the Marshal Plan and other programs, Europe and Japan was rebuilt. They have been allies and yes, economic competitors. Some very smart leaders in the US understood that rich nations can buy goods, poor ones do not. Any nation that has bought into this system has received fantastic wealth. All you have to do is turn your Eurocentric eye to Asia and see what is going in there.
So, can we please stop this petty anti-US shit that pervades these forums? Europe is awesome. You have much to feel proud about. You also face real threats both external and from within. It takes an incredible level of stupid to think that the US is one of the real dangers in your life. Can you please start focusing on the real threats?
Even when it is proposed that the ID be offered for free, the democratic party still opposes the idea. See, that would be political compromise between two rational groups, the way the founders intended. This has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with tampering with the election. The sad thing is, you are so busy playing team sports instead of honestly pursuing ideas for the betterment of all, that you will likely not see or understand what the modern democratic party has turned into--until it is too late.
Before reflexively lashing out like a tribal two year old, the above statement in no way forgives the republicans of their sins. Instead of merely looking for evil and being skeptical of one side, haven't current events shown that perhaps, just perhaps, you may want to be paying attention to both sides? How about demanding honesty from everyone?
In a world after the FBI ruling on Clinton, where it basically says she is guilty, but the government basically refuses to prosecute people in her pay grade, don't you think you should really start re-evaluating your world view and perspective some?
Do you honestly still think that the actions of this very same government are not suspect in other legal matters? You may want to reconsider the possibility that the throwing out of the black panther racial intimidation lawsuit had nothing to do with legal merit.