Give me a break, is that what Obama did then corrupt the court to be his rubber stamp. Anyway it does seem the courts have far too much power than they should, how about a convention of states.
I heard a great point anyone might give some thought to. A paraphrase- "We can't control the weather, but we believe we can control the entire planet?" Consider the difference in scales that must exist between factors both known and unknown when comparing local/regonal events and a global system.
So you are equating the President pointing out the bias in new organizations with internet giants filtering out that which they deem untrue, not even close; the latter is merely and idea in the market place of ideas, the latter is censorship (not government censorship but censorship non the less).
I cannot help but notice that since the US President was elected with zero endorsements from "papers of record" or "mainstream media outlets" that there has been an all out assault on the freedom of speech that was once a hallmark of the internet, furthermore that assault has had a hard leftward bend. I would bet money that "Spying on Trump campaign" or "FBI Political Bias" would have all been filtered out as conspiracy theories by "Authoritative Sources" and yet they have been proven true with nothing left but to argue over the motivation. People must be allowed to come to their own conclusions; you only increase mistrust by filtering away counter perspectives and ideas. Let people argue thoughts in the battle field of ideas instead of trying to control the narrative, maybe then you can avoid an actual war.
Give me a break, this is news; that an analytics company many not have abide by Facebook's rules. Isn't this politics? Here's a hot tip - If it's not illegal the it's legal, Facebook doesn't make the law just yet their candidate didn't win enough electoral votes.
The US can make its own policy. Also the Paris Accord was signed by Obama and never ratified, so we weren't obligated to follow it anyway. I don't like the US following global agendas.
I definitely don't support terrorist/extremist videos that show murder, violence, terrorism, etc, but this says "hateful" content, that's such a loaded word. As a religious person I worry about the time Google and their employees decide that the very words or ideas from my religious text are "hateful". Not good not good at all.
It's already out of hand when one country's government believes the only way to solve its problems is to depend on another country's government; it's totally bonkers to think China and India will be environmental leaders, have you ever been to either China? There wasn't a single place that we went where the locals drank tap water and the air is terrible, except in rain forest areas (the people and food were great, I'd go back to visit). The Paris accord has no teeth anyway so why should a country hamstring themselves- maybe, just maybe, each country can follow environmental policies that balance their own climate concerns and economic well being instead of blindly following activist theology.
Maybe considered sci-fi/fantasy but hands down my favorite movie ever. I prefer the director's cut since it excludes some of the hand-holding voice-overs. The story is great, it was shot "film noir" style, has great sound track and an excellent cast. I think "Richard O'Brien" played a perfectly creepy stranger. I like how they cast Jennifer Connelly as the caring wife of her homely husband (Rufus Sewell). William Hurt played a great contemplative Det. Bumstead. I could go on.
Stole a seat? I don't think so. Ex-president Obama nominated Garland on March 16th in the middle of a presidential election; some 40 primaries had already been held by the time the nomination was made. In 2007 Shumer himself argued that should Bush have a chance to nominate a supreme justice the Senate should take no action because it would imbalance the court. Well sir that's probably exactly how the Republican's felt when the "most constitutional judge" on the court died and needed to be replaced. Regardless the Senate was Republican controlled and Garland would have been voted down. Furthermore the Democrats already demonstrated a willingness "to go nuclear" when they eliminated the 60 vote rule for all other federal nominees; a decision liberal commentators like Maddow, Sharpton, etc praised. Surely the Republicans could not allow the Democrat party a say in the seating of this supreme court justice since any attempts by a theoretical Republican minority of the future would be met by the very same rule change.
Slashdot Mirror
Give me a break, is that what Obama did then corrupt the court to be his rubber stamp. Anyway it does seem the courts have far too much power than they should, how about a convention of states.
I heard a great point anyone might give some thought to. A paraphrase- "We can't control the weather, but we believe we can control the entire planet?" Consider the difference in scales that must exist between factors both known and unknown when comparing local/regonal events and a global system.
So you are equating the President pointing out the bias in new organizations with internet giants filtering out that which they deem untrue, not even close; the latter is merely and idea in the market place of ideas, the latter is censorship (not government censorship but censorship non the less).
I cannot help but notice that since the US President was elected with zero endorsements from "papers of record" or "mainstream media outlets" that there has been an all out assault on the freedom of speech that was once a hallmark of the internet, furthermore that assault has had a hard leftward bend. I would bet money that "Spying on Trump campaign" or "FBI Political Bias" would have all been filtered out as conspiracy theories by "Authoritative Sources" and yet they have been proven true with nothing left but to argue over the motivation. People must be allowed to come to their own conclusions; you only increase mistrust by filtering away counter perspectives and ideas. Let people argue thoughts in the battle field of ideas instead of trying to control the narrative, maybe then you can avoid an actual war.
Maybe they fundamentally disagree with abortion or perhaps something else.. you know things you use your brain to think about.
Give me a break, this is news; that an analytics company many not have abide by Facebook's rules. Isn't this politics? Here's a hot tip - If it's not illegal the it's legal, Facebook doesn't make the law just yet their candidate didn't win enough electoral votes.
Who runs this company the DNC? I guess they don't care about selling to half the country. They should change their name, "Cards against conservatism".
The US can make its own policy. Also the Paris Accord was signed by Obama and never ratified, so we weren't obligated to follow it anyway. I don't like the US following global agendas.
It's his money, they worked for him, half the sentiment here is n that he must continue to spend it because he is rich... socialism much?
I agree. I wish people wouldn't immediately jump to classist arguments.
I definitely don't support terrorist/extremist videos that show murder, violence, terrorism, etc, but this says "hateful" content, that's such a loaded word. As a religious person I worry about the time Google and their employees decide that the very words or ideas from my religious text are "hateful". Not good not good at all.
It's already out of hand when one country's government believes the only way to solve its problems is to depend on another country's government; it's totally bonkers to think China and India will be environmental leaders, have you ever been to either China? There wasn't a single place that we went where the locals drank tap water and the air is terrible, except in rain forest areas (the people and food were great, I'd go back to visit). The Paris accord has no teeth anyway so why should a country hamstring themselves- maybe, just maybe, each country can follow environmental policies that balance their own climate concerns and economic well being instead of blindly following activist theology.
very good
Maybe considered sci-fi/fantasy but hands down my favorite movie ever. I prefer the director's cut since it excludes some of the hand-holding voice-overs. The story is great, it was shot "film noir" style, has great sound track and an excellent cast. I think "Richard O'Brien" played a perfectly creepy stranger. I like how they cast Jennifer Connelly as the caring wife of her homely husband (Rufus Sewell). William Hurt played a great contemplative Det. Bumstead. I could go on.
Stole a seat? I don't think so. Ex-president Obama nominated Garland on March 16th in the middle of a presidential election; some 40 primaries had already been held by the time the nomination was made. In 2007 Shumer himself argued that should Bush have a chance to nominate a supreme justice the Senate should take no action because it would imbalance the court. Well sir that's probably exactly how the Republican's felt when the "most constitutional judge" on the court died and needed to be replaced. Regardless the Senate was Republican controlled and Garland would have been voted down. Furthermore the Democrats already demonstrated a willingness "to go nuclear" when they eliminated the 60 vote rule for all other federal nominees; a decision liberal commentators like Maddow, Sharpton, etc praised. Surely the Republicans could not allow the Democrat party a say in the seating of this supreme court justice since any attempts by a theoretical Republican minority of the future would be met by the very same rule change.