Trump:... I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.
That is not a woman "jumping on him", that is him grabbing women unsolicited and bragging about how he can get away with it. As for the "boss" thing, there have been numerous other complaints about his role as the "boss" on the Apprentice. So much so that they won't even release those for scrutiny.
The "we" in the sarcastic commentary was referring to misogynistic and abusive men.
I think far more men are guilty of using power over women to get away with sexual assault than just billionaire tv stars, yes.
We have a wealth of reports from all sorts of workplaces, schools, military, college campuses, etc. And that is despite the fact that many cases are never reported at all (often due to fear, humiliation or possible retaliation).
Trump said he did those things to women WITHOUT their permission, not that they let (your emphasis) him do it. All he said about their action was that he could get away with it (i.e. they wouldn't accuse him or call him out) because of his powerful position.
That is sexual abuse.
I think calling Bill/Hillary (a husband/wife pair) a "tag team" when it comes to extra-marital affairs shows a deep misunderstanding of marriage.
The affair with Lewinski was consensual, btw, unless you aren't believing Monica herself?
Trumps comments were crude but not even necessarily about real things.
Meanwhile Hillary laughed about a very real rapist of a 12 year old she got off scott free. Meanwhile Hillary destroyed the lives of MANY women that Bill Clinton raped, and enabled his behavior to sleep with a lot of other under-aged women.
How can you defend someone who acts so horribly against REAL women and be so adamantly against someone using just words? As a male feminist I am aghast that you can even consider it.
I'm not sure how you feel about Snopes and their research ability these days (or when they disagree with you)... But:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-...
As for Bill's transgressions, he isn't running is he? I believe you are saying she should have either 1) divorced him or 2) been sympathetic to the women he had affairs with?
No, nothing in common... I mean, Trump's daughter vacations together with Putin's girlfriend and Trump's campaign manager is deep in with Russian financeers, but no, no connection.
http://gawker.com/ivanka-trump...
No, what he said about Warren Buffett was right, nobody pays more taxes than they have to. So I agree with him that avoiding taxes is smart. Taking a $916M loss on the other hand makes him look bad, and if he hasn't paid takes since, that means he hasn't made that money back yet.
Trump is a gross person. That's why I'm voting for him. Safe spaces and social justice agendas demand that the pendulum swing back a bit.
That's one thing that cracks me up, the Progressive Liberal SJW piss and moan so much about Safe-Places and freedom from micro-aggressions, but they don't think twice about using a hot-mic conversation from the bathroom or the locker-room; as a Male WASP, the men's john is about the only safe-place left for us.
Yeah, there ought to be SOMEWHERE we can still talk about using our power to take advantage of or sexually assault women without fear of repercussions... Geez, what has the world come to???
(sigh)
If you want to send a "fuck you" to the whole system, why the he'll are you voting for anyone running with an "R" or a "D" after their name?
Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.
This reminds me of a popular anecdote at Georgia Tech. The question was "when is it ok to leave class if the professor hasn't shown up?" and the (comic) answer was "you should only leave if 15% of the class has already left." Of course, this implies that if everyone followed this rule, nobody would ever leave. Sound familiar?
I am a drooling vegetable and need help to wipe myself.
And yet here you are posting on Slashdot. I would be amazed but I have seen some posts that makes me think you may not be doing all that bad in comparison.
But does that make it a comment on himself or a comment on the state of Slashdot?
I do want an open and unrestricted flow of weapons and ammunition because I know that I have more to fear from my government than any criminal. We should be keeping track of the criminals, not the weapons. If we put the criminals away when we catch them then things like background checks and registration is pointless. But there are those in government don't want to govern, they want to rule. It's real hard to rule if the people can defend themselves against tyranny.
So you expect to be able to have nuclear weapons in your personal arsenal?
Plus, the real quote is usually translated as "You shall not murder"(hebrew "rasah") which is different from kill. If somebody is trying to kill you, the bible does not say that you cannot defend yourself, which goes well with gun rights.
Of course, if the woman is pregnant as a result of adultery or pre-marital intercourse, we should just stone her to death and "hope" the unborn child survives?
The case that is the subject of TFA is far far far from over. This was a denial of an appeal to a request for a preliminary injunction before the real case has run its course.
If you think the Second Amendment is only to ensure the public is sufficiently armed to take down the government, then you are opening up a much wider hole and a lot more potential for chaos than even the NRA.
What we need is a balance of interests. The NRA never advocates for such a balance, only the open free unrestricted flow of weapons and ammunition to anyone who wants them. They will claim publicly that they favor a balance, but that isn't what they push for in legislation.
Unfortunately there is no politician that agrees with all of my positions on all issues. But the ones I have the most disagreements with are on the Right.
I clicked on a bunch of your links (the youtube has suffered a takedown, btw) and almost all of those are re: assault weapons and high capacity weapons/magazines. I'm not surprised people get more upset about those when they really are overkill for any hunter worth their salt (and yes, I've hunted with bows and arrows as well as rifles... never saw the need for semi-automatics).
I tend to favor letting people own them, but I also favor registering them and having robust training and licensing. The NRA seems to want unlimited rights with no regulations, precautions or monitoring, apparently.
Do you REALLY want to start quoting individual members of a party and then assigning that view to the party as a whole? That knife cuts both ways.
The majority of America, in both parties, are actually quite moderate.
It is likewise foolish to absolve members of the military from their responsibility to question their orders by suggesting that blindly following them against the citizenry is "ok" or "expected".
Shit, we could be 7 weeks away from electing one of the two most unscrupulous candidates to ever run for president, and you _still_ want people to give up the only thing that denies the government absolute power.
Saying it is the "only" thing is not accurate. I actually think the "primary" thing standing in they way of a tyrannical government are the countless government employees and members of the armed forces who would refuse to follow such orders and would actively work to prevent them from being implemented. That includes the bureaucracy and military chain of command.
You are a disingenuous lying scumbag if you think the end goal of most progressive/liberal/democrats wouldn't be a ban on purchase or possession of all semi-automatic weapons.
Now now, to be fair, he'd only be a disingenuous lying scumbag if he thought they WOULD take the guns and was SAYING they wouldn't in an attempt to mislead you. If he does actually think "...the end goal... wouldn't be a ban..." then you should claim he is mistaken... or to use your vernacular "a pathetic ignorant scumbag" perhaps.
Personally, I agree with him. I'm a liberal and so are most of my friends. And none of us want to outright ban/collect legally owned guns.
Personally, I think the app should be fully disabled while moving fast passenger or not.
Would you kindly submit a list of which apps should be disabled and which apps should be allowed to function while moving at a certain speed? Do you believe that behavior should be forced by the app or the OS? Who makes these decisions? Should it vary by jurisdiction? What about in a taxi cab, on a train or a bus?
Should we have a different standard or even law for all these scenarios?
Or we could, you know, have a trial and determine if the driver was criminally negligent regardless of what activity he/she was engaged in?
I disagree entirely. Ingress is much BETTER than Pokemon Go in this respect. In Ingress, things don't move or disappear. If you see something on your scanner, you can pull off the road, park, deal with it, etc. If you miss it you can turn around and drive back and it will still be there. Pokemon, on the other hand, appear and disappear in completely random places with no predictability. This leads to much more sudden actions by the player and pressure to respond. This makes it much MORE dangerous, IMHO.
No. We might as well not even look. Obviously the astronomers that are working on this don't know as much as our AC here and have neglected to ask the most basic questions of the planet.
Maybe the planet was built to give us The Question.
You know, these sorts of men (and they are always men) are young nerdy men who have been totally fucked over by society. With every breath, with every word, including your comment, society rejects them harshly. And they know it. Boy, do they get the message loud and clear. It's blatantly clear that they are worthless and might as well commit suicide.
Ya think that might have something to do with the way they turned out? If society hates you, you might as well hate back, right? I mean, it's the argument you're using and you're taking the moral high ground.
Read your comment again and tell me about sociopathy?
Wait, what??? If only "young nerdy men" had some sort of positive role models... examples of success by other young nerdy men in society... If only "nerd" could carry a more positive connotation than it has in the past...
Are we back in the 90's?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? Read the transcript.
... I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Trump:
Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.
That is not a woman "jumping on him", that is him grabbing women unsolicited and bragging about how he can get away with it. As for the "boss" thing, there have been numerous other complaints about his role as the "boss" on the Apprentice. So much so that they won't even release those for scrutiny.
http://www.latimes.com/politic...
The "we" in the sarcastic commentary was referring to misogynistic and abusive men.
I think far more men are guilty of using power over women to get away with sexual assault than just billionaire tv stars, yes.
We have a wealth of reports from all sorts of workplaces, schools, military, college campuses, etc. And that is despite the fact that many cases are never reported at all (often due to fear, humiliation or possible retaliation).
Trump said he did those things to women WITHOUT their permission, not that they let (your emphasis) him do it. All he said about their action was that he could get away with it (i.e. they wouldn't accuse him or call him out) because of his powerful position.
That is sexual abuse.
I think calling Bill/Hillary (a husband/wife pair) a "tag team" when it comes to extra-marital affairs shows a deep misunderstanding of marriage.
The affair with Lewinski was consensual, btw, unless you aren't believing Monica herself?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news...
No, really... I had professors that didn't show up. It was more than a thought experiment.
How can you defined the monster?
Trumps comments were crude but not even necessarily about real things.
Meanwhile Hillary laughed about a very real rapist of a 12 year old she got off scott free. Meanwhile Hillary destroyed the lives of MANY women that Bill Clinton raped, and enabled his behavior to sleep with a lot of other under-aged women.
How can you defend someone who acts so horribly against REAL women and be so adamantly against someone using just words? As a male feminist I am aghast that you can even consider it.
I'm not sure how you feel about Snopes and their research ability these days (or when they disagree with you)... But: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... As for Bill's transgressions, he isn't running is he? I believe you are saying she should have either 1) divorced him or 2) been sympathetic to the women he had affairs with?
No, nothing in common... I mean, Trump's daughter vacations together with Putin's girlfriend and Trump's campaign manager is deep in with Russian financeers, but no, no connection. http://gawker.com/ivanka-trump...
No, what he said about Warren Buffett was right, nobody pays more taxes than they have to. So I agree with him that avoiding taxes is smart. Taking a $916M loss on the other hand makes him look bad, and if he hasn't paid takes since, that means he hasn't made that money back yet.
Warren Buffet (and his tax returns) would disagree with you: http://www.reuters.com/article...
Trump is a gross person. That's why I'm voting for him. Safe spaces and social justice agendas demand that the pendulum swing back a bit.
That's one thing that cracks me up, the Progressive Liberal SJW piss and moan so much about Safe-Places and freedom from micro-aggressions, but they don't think twice about using a hot-mic conversation from the bathroom or the locker-room; as a Male WASP, the men's john is about the only safe-place left for us.
Yeah, there ought to be SOMEWHERE we can still talk about using our power to take advantage of or sexually assault women without fear of repercussions... Geez, what has the world come to??? (sigh)
If you want to send a "fuck you" to the whole system, why the he'll are you voting for anyone running with an "R" or a "D" after their name?
Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.
This reminds me of a popular anecdote at Georgia Tech. The question was "when is it ok to leave class if the professor hasn't shown up?" and the (comic) answer was "you should only leave if 15% of the class has already left." Of course, this implies that if everyone followed this rule, nobody would ever leave. Sound familiar?
I am a drooling vegetable and need help to wipe myself.
And yet here you are posting on Slashdot. I would be amazed but I have seen some posts that makes me think you may not be doing all that bad in comparison.
But does that make it a comment on himself or a comment on the state of Slashdot?
I do want an open and unrestricted flow of weapons and ammunition because I know that I have more to fear from my government than any criminal. We should be keeping track of the criminals, not the weapons. If we put the criminals away when we catch them then things like background checks and registration is pointless. But there are those in government don't want to govern, they want to rule. It's real hard to rule if the people can defend themselves against tyranny.
So you expect to be able to have nuclear weapons in your personal arsenal?
Those two are kind of the same thing...
Plus, the real quote is usually translated as "You shall not murder"(hebrew "rasah") which is different from kill. If somebody is trying to kill you, the bible does not say that you cannot defend yourself, which goes well with gun rights.
Of course, if the woman is pregnant as a result of adultery or pre-marital intercourse, we should just stone her to death and "hope" the unborn child survives?
The case that is the subject of TFA is far far far from over. This was a denial of an appeal to a request for a preliminary injunction before the real case has run its course.
If you think the Second Amendment is only to ensure the public is sufficiently armed to take down the government, then you are opening up a much wider hole and a lot more potential for chaos than even the NRA.
What we need is a balance of interests. The NRA never advocates for such a balance, only the open free unrestricted flow of weapons and ammunition to anyone who wants them. They will claim publicly that they favor a balance, but that isn't what they push for in legislation.
Unfortunately there is no politician that agrees with all of my positions on all issues. But the ones I have the most disagreements with are on the Right.
I clicked on a bunch of your links (the youtube has suffered a takedown, btw) and almost all of those are re: assault weapons and high capacity weapons/magazines. I'm not surprised people get more upset about those when they really are overkill for any hunter worth their salt (and yes, I've hunted with bows and arrows as well as rifles... never saw the need for semi-automatics).
I tend to favor letting people own them, but I also favor registering them and having robust training and licensing. The NRA seems to want unlimited rights with no regulations, precautions or monitoring, apparently.
Do you REALLY want to start quoting individual members of a party and then assigning that view to the party as a whole? That knife cuts both ways. The majority of America, in both parties, are actually quite moderate.
It is likewise foolish to absolve members of the military from their responsibility to question their orders by suggesting that blindly following them against the citizenry is "ok" or "expected".
Shit, we could be 7 weeks away from electing one of the two most unscrupulous candidates to ever run for president, and you _still_ want people to give up the only thing that denies the government absolute power.
Saying it is the "only" thing is not accurate. I actually think the "primary" thing standing in they way of a tyrannical government are the countless government employees and members of the armed forces who would refuse to follow such orders and would actively work to prevent them from being implemented. That includes the bureaucracy and military chain of command.
Didn't some asshole in France just prove that you don't need a gun to cause bloody mayhem anywhere you have a truck and a bunch of people?
I wonder how long it will be until we get autonomous terrorist vehicle rampages?
You are a disingenuous lying scumbag if you think the end goal of most progressive/liberal/democrats wouldn't be a ban on purchase or possession of all semi-automatic weapons.
Now now, to be fair, he'd only be a disingenuous lying scumbag if he thought they WOULD take the guns and was SAYING they wouldn't in an attempt to mislead you. If he does actually think "...the end goal... wouldn't be a ban..." then you should claim he is mistaken... or to use your vernacular "a pathetic ignorant scumbag" perhaps.
Personally, I agree with him. I'm a liberal and so are most of my friends. And none of us want to outright ban/collect legally owned guns.
into some high-value target in the US.
Thats going to be damn difficult, there isn't much left in this country that doesn't deserve active bombardment, much less saving.
Your lack of patriotism is noted. Maybe you should move?
Personally, I think the app should be fully disabled while moving fast passenger or not.
Would you kindly submit a list of which apps should be disabled and which apps should be allowed to function while moving at a certain speed? Do you believe that behavior should be forced by the app or the OS? Who makes these decisions? Should it vary by jurisdiction? What about in a taxi cab, on a train or a bus? Should we have a different standard or even law for all these scenarios? Or we could, you know, have a trial and determine if the driver was criminally negligent regardless of what activity he/she was engaged in?
I disagree entirely. Ingress is much BETTER than Pokemon Go in this respect. In Ingress, things don't move or disappear. If you see something on your scanner, you can pull off the road, park, deal with it, etc. If you miss it you can turn around and drive back and it will still be there. Pokemon, on the other hand, appear and disappear in completely random places with no predictability. This leads to much more sudden actions by the player and pressure to respond. This makes it much MORE dangerous, IMHO.
It's a flyby approach and the only thing that returns are communications.
Although that isn't insignificant either... the communications will also take a very long time to get back, 5 years or more?
No. We might as well not even look. Obviously the astronomers that are working on this don't know as much as our AC here and have neglected to ask the most basic questions of the planet.
Maybe the planet was built to give us The Question.
You know, these sorts of men (and they are always men) are young nerdy men who have been totally fucked over by society. With every breath, with every word, including your comment, society rejects them harshly. And they know it. Boy, do they get the message loud and clear. It's blatantly clear that they are worthless and might as well commit suicide.
Ya think that might have something to do with the way they turned out? If society hates you, you might as well hate back, right? I mean, it's the argument you're using and you're taking the moral high ground.
Read your comment again and tell me about sociopathy?
Wait, what??? If only "young nerdy men" had some sort of positive role models... examples of success by other young nerdy men in society... If only "nerd" could carry a more positive connotation than it has in the past... Are we back in the 90's?