In fairness to the Mormons, they'd been on the receiving end of a lot of violence in their earliest days; before they became somewhat militarized out west. After been run out of multiple original settlements its somewhat understandable they would choose to arm themselves and deal with likely malevolent outsiders and people encroaching on their territory violently. It might also be argued the polygamy, which was also not present in the beginnings of the movement was a borne out of need to rapidly increase their numbers, so they could ward off attacks.
The best you can say about the Mormon situation is that atrocities were committed by both sides, neither was blameless and neither was purely defensive. I like the Mormons these days though. They value family and work ethic and are generally helpful people.
A couple of points. First off the government doesn't really like us using cash as they want to monitor every single thing we do. Thus they prefer us using credit cards with all records being available to them. Second, banksters run the country and make ~2.5% per transaction this way so of course it will be preferred over cash.
Both parties are working to aid their people. Democrats are promoting NN (for the poor people) and Republicans are promoting No Limits Capitalism (for the rich people).
Meanwhile the middle class continues to fade away. Neither party helps the middle class, both parties see the middle class as something to be milked and woo'd.
Police camera video should be viewable by the public or the cameras should be removed. The public should have exactly the same access as the police to this video.
Then crime might actually get solved. Or vigilante violence could solve it. I'm always amused at certain groups that go to great lengths to mark themselves. If the general population ever really wants to solve MS13 as an example just send a mob door to door. Have the gang tatoos and you get shot. It's admittedly extreme but it would fix the problem in a single day.
It sounds like a particular model camera the city was using had an exploit. But...
Why did they bother? I can't think of what they had to gain unless they were setting up a blanket for some other activity that would be caught by those cameras. But that didn't happen but they are going to pay a pretty heavy price for it.
So was it just for the lulz? (I know that is a dated term but I can't think of a better word right now.)
If they catch pics of various congress people with other women / men that could be valuable. Blanket surveillance would nab lots of interesting finds for such an unethical group.
They want to let all the migrants in and then raise our taxes to pay for their benefits.
In truth wealthy donors to both D and R like cheap labor and thus we allow in millions of immigrants. Compounded by the Democrats lusting over poor immigrants who tend to vote Democrat. Thus both parties are fine letting in literally millions of immigrants and their families (and extended families) for various reasons. The fact that it hurts average citizens by way of lowering wages, increasing housing and traffic issues, crowding schools, and bringing in crime and gangs are all overlooked by the wealthy ruling class and their benefactors. After all their kids attend private schools and they live in safe gated communities. If you disagree you will be called a racist as a way of shutting you up.
If you reject religion you should also reject theists like Newton and LeMaitre and start from scratch.
Only theists think this way. Once you classify someone as a heathen, you must automatically reject anything they've ever done or said. Rational people do not think that way. I am perfectly fine with accepting Newtons contributions to mathematics and physics without also having to accept his musings on alchemy and religion. I don't subscribe to your absurd absolutism.
Unfortunately the trend for topics in general, especially for the perpetually offended class, is that if a person commits a single faux pas then they should be banned for life from everything. It's a dumb approach I agree, and I push against it as much as possible.
You are wrong, but it is what I expect from a Republican.
Stereotype much?
At least in California you have been made irrelevant.
You take great pride in making others who disagree with you irrelevant. What happens when a group is pushed too far to the margins? They push back in other ways. Besides, California is declining along just about any quality of life indicator you want to use (housing, commute / traffic, education, taxes) so I wouldn't be too smug about how it's going. The only thing glorious about California is the climate, and that wasn't made by a political party.
The Clintons have never been given a free pass, that's brainwashed nonsense.
I've known several people who had various levels of security clearance. Not a single one of them thinks that they wouldn't have been fired with clearance revoked (best case) to being behind bars (worst cast) for passing Top Secret type documents through regular channels and running their own server. Are you suggesting a peon could do the same thing and not get prosecuted? Here's a citation from a peon who did something *far* less and he got the book thrown at him:
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
There's also the bot net deployed to make certain opinions look vastly more popular than they were.
Ahh, so that's the rage. The Russians were filling the role normally reserved for SJWs - trying to make certain opinions look vastly more popular than they were.
The party was in a financial mess, and Team Hillary essentially bought the debt and the right to have significant control of the party with it. Not illegal in the slightest, 'just' slightly unethical in that it was not traditionally how things were done.
Hillary bought the Democrats. Interesting to see you openly admit that. I wonder if in the future we can expect more people to just buy parties that openly. Imagine the rage if Trump had bought the R party just as casually as you admit that Hillary bought the D party. I think US 2.0 (ie after the crash and reboot) is closer than I had thought.
This is the problem by giving the Clinton's a free pass. It hurts your ability to look impartial in the future. So what's a Red state person to see - that Clinton skates free from *many* violations while R's get punished. Looks uneven and partisan. It stokes notions of the Deep State. It would be much cleaner to prosecute all who break the law, no exceptions. This is the reason why people distrust government.
It takes time to forge evidence. You'll get it eventually, in redacted and suspicious looking form. Right now it looks like Trump got a bunch of hacked emails that nobody has questioned as false. That seems pretty minor as everything in the emails was undoctored and Clinton set herself up for it by trying to run her own server.
Even if people don't admit that they were duped, just knowing that will make them more careful next time
uhm, have you ever BEEN to the deep south and spoken with our, uhm, fellow americans?
they are beyond hope. nothing will convert them. look at alabama. half of the fucking state STILL thought the child molester was better than having a clean guy with a D next to his name.
no, just under half of this country is beyond hope. no way to change their minds. this election was proof of that, if you ever needed any.
reason and logic and the R party? are you fucking kidding me??
I do live in California, where they would gladly do the same if you switch the R for D. Partisanship is not restricted to just one side or just one region of the country. I would apply your statement "reason and logic and the D party? Are you fucking kidding me??" to what we see here - the Sanctuary State.
You know, people say Obama was a great president (well... probably not a lot of Republicans), but I think Obama's ultimate legacy will be that on his way out he goaded Trump into running for president so he could destroy everything Obama did.I also think history may just decide that enough Americans weren't ready for a black man in the Oval Office that it provided support for an unfit racist white guy to move into it next.
The Liberal types who treated any criticism of Obama as proof of racism will probably follow your thinking. Obama was inept, useless, and a complete stooge in the Mideast. Much like his predecessor. However as the first "black president" he will get undeserved accolades and protection rather than an honest look. Indeed, his presidency started off with a completely undeserved Nobel Peace prize.
You're probably right. And he'd likely be out in 2020 anyway. Of course it'll take a decade at least to repair all the damage done thusfar regardless.
Probably more than a decade. Consider that we've had *many* years of poor leadership. Trump is off to a poor start. Obama was a divisive joke. Bush was pathetic too. You have to go back to Bill Clinton to get anything halfway decent. I think you have to go back as far as Eisenhower to get something really good.
If we have someone if office that broke the law, we shouldn't leave them in out of fear that their successor's policies are worse. That makes it even more political. If they did something wrong, they did something wrong, that's it. Not "it's illegal, but we'll selectively not enforce the law because..."
This is akin to how most voting is less about being for something good and mostly about how bad the other person is. A "None of the above" option would fix this but so far nobody has tried it. It's pretty simple, if "None of the above" wins (or if you really want a good system gets in the top 2) then the existing candidates are barred from re-running for that office and a new election is held in the near future. "None of the Above" would have easily beaten both Hillary and Trump in 2016.
Why did California scrap their proposed single-payer plan a few months ago? Because it would have bankrupted the state. California!
Knowing California Democrats it's because they couldn't make the math work in such a way that illegals got full coverage at no charge while the US citizens paid for it all. Currently several million illegal immigrants live in CA and if you count the anchor babies the number more than doubles. Hard to make the math work with so many extra to carry.
Because America pays for their defense, and they are free to put the vast savings into a welfare state. Europe flat out refuses to pay their minimum share of NATO, 2%, because this would bankrupt them and their people would revolt. It's easy to pay for nice things when you don't have to find a hugely expensive military to defend the borders of other nations while neglecting your own borders.
Which is exactly why the US should pull back. Focus on solving our own problems. Like Switzerland but without the shady tax haven / banker angle.
Single-payer would bankrupt the country. There will never be enough of anything to satisfy demand completely.
The solution is to relax regulations, not increase them. Remove the artificial limits placed on the number of doctors by the AMA, relax the burdens on licensing, etc. Cap malpractice payouts through tort reform.
That depends on many factors. Are we talking about health care for US citizens or for illegals also? Are we talking about paying the highest cost in the world for the same medications or do we get prices on par with Canada? If we restrict the conversation to US citizens and we treat it as an engineering problem and intelligently attack it I'm confident it could be solved. If instead we get distracted by politics and political correctness (ie is the diversity enough, lobbyist companies get higher no bid pricing, etc) then it is bound to fail.
My "takeaway" from the article is the opposite: The energy used by internet porn is completely negligible. They used scary analogies like "11,000 light bulbs", but since this is something used regularly by BILLIONS of people, that is an astonishingly small amount of energy.
If these people stopped watching porn, and instead increased their social interaction, and maybe even went on a date using a gasoline powered car, the environmental consequences would be far, far worse.
Just imagine how floored the author of the article will be when he looks into the energy cost of bitcoin.
Slashdot Mirror
In fairness to the Mormons, they'd been on the receiving end of a lot of violence in their earliest days; before they became somewhat militarized out west. After been run out of multiple original settlements its somewhat understandable they would choose to arm themselves and deal with likely malevolent outsiders and people encroaching on their territory violently. It might also be argued the polygamy, which was also not present in the beginnings of the movement was a borne out of need to rapidly increase their numbers, so they could ward off attacks.
The best you can say about the Mormon situation is that atrocities were committed by both sides, neither was blameless and neither was purely defensive. I like the Mormons these days though. They value family and work ethic and are generally helpful people.
Citation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A couple of points. First off the government doesn't really like us using cash as they want to monitor every single thing we do. Thus they prefer us using credit cards with all records being available to them. Second, banksters run the country and make ~2.5% per transaction this way so of course it will be preferred over cash.
Both parties are working to aid their people. Democrats are promoting NN (for the poor people) and Republicans are promoting No Limits Capitalism (for the rich people).
Meanwhile the middle class continues to fade away. Neither party helps the middle class, both parties see the middle class as something to be milked and woo'd.
Police camera video should be viewable by the public or the cameras should be removed. The public should have exactly the same access as the police to this video.
Then crime might actually get solved. Or vigilante violence could solve it. I'm always amused at certain groups that go to great lengths to mark themselves. If the general population ever really wants to solve MS13 as an example just send a mob door to door. Have the gang tatoos and you get shot. It's admittedly extreme but it would fix the problem in a single day.
It sounds like a particular model camera the city was using had an exploit. But...
Why did they bother? I can't think of what they had to gain unless they were setting up a blanket for some other activity that would be caught by those cameras. But that didn't happen but they are going to pay a pretty heavy price for it.
So was it just for the lulz? (I know that is a dated term but I can't think of a better word right now.)
If they catch pics of various congress people with other women / men that could be valuable. Blanket surveillance would nab lots of interesting finds for such an unethical group.
They want to let all the migrants in and then raise our taxes to pay for their benefits.
In truth wealthy donors to both D and R like cheap labor and thus we allow in millions of immigrants. Compounded by the Democrats lusting over poor immigrants who tend to vote Democrat. Thus both parties are fine letting in literally millions of immigrants and their families (and extended families) for various reasons. The fact that it hurts average citizens by way of lowering wages, increasing housing and traffic issues, crowding schools, and bringing in crime and gangs are all overlooked by the wealthy ruling class and their benefactors. After all their kids attend private schools and they live in safe gated communities. If you disagree you will be called a racist as a way of shutting you up.
If you reject religion you should also reject theists like Newton and LeMaitre and start from scratch.
Only theists think this way. Once you classify someone as a heathen, you must automatically reject anything they've ever done or said. Rational people do not think that way. I am perfectly fine with accepting Newtons contributions to mathematics and physics without also having to accept his musings on alchemy and religion. I don't subscribe to your absurd absolutism.
Unfortunately the trend for topics in general, especially for the perpetually offended class, is that if a person commits a single faux pas then they should be banned for life from everything. It's a dumb approach I agree, and I push against it as much as possible.
Citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...
You are wrong, but it is what I expect from a Republican.
Stereotype much?
At least in California you have been made irrelevant.
You take great pride in making others who disagree with you irrelevant. What happens when a group is pushed too far to the margins? They push back in other ways. Besides, California is declining along just about any quality of life indicator you want to use (housing, commute / traffic, education, taxes) so I wouldn't be too smug about how it's going. The only thing glorious about California is the climate, and that wasn't made by a political party.
The Clintons have never been given a free pass, that's brainwashed nonsense.
I've known several people who had various levels of security clearance. Not a single one of them thinks that they wouldn't have been fired with clearance revoked (best case) to being behind bars (worst cast) for passing Top Secret type documents through regular channels and running their own server. Are you suggesting a peon could do the same thing and not get prosecuted? Here's a citation from a peon who did something *far* less and he got the book thrown at him: https://www.theguardian.com/us...
There's also the bot net deployed to make certain opinions look vastly more popular than they were.
Ahh, so that's the rage. The Russians were filling the role normally reserved for SJWs - trying to make certain opinions look vastly more popular than they were.
The party was in a financial mess, and Team Hillary essentially bought the debt and the right to have significant control of the party with it. Not illegal in the slightest, 'just' slightly unethical in that it was not traditionally how things were done.
Hillary bought the Democrats. Interesting to see you openly admit that. I wonder if in the future we can expect more people to just buy parties that openly. Imagine the rage if Trump had bought the R party just as casually as you admit that Hillary bought the D party. I think US 2.0 (ie after the crash and reboot) is closer than I had thought.
This is the problem by giving the Clinton's a free pass. It hurts your ability to look impartial in the future. So what's a Red state person to see - that Clinton skates free from *many* violations while R's get punished. Looks uneven and partisan. It stokes notions of the Deep State. It would be much cleaner to prosecute all who break the law, no exceptions. This is the reason why people distrust government.
It takes time to forge evidence. You'll get it eventually, in redacted and suspicious looking form. Right now it looks like Trump got a bunch of hacked emails that nobody has questioned as false. That seems pretty minor as everything in the emails was undoctored and Clinton set herself up for it by trying to run her own server.
Even if people don't admit that they were duped, just knowing that will make them more careful next time
uhm, have you ever BEEN to the deep south and spoken with our, uhm, fellow americans?
they are beyond hope. nothing will convert them. look at alabama. half of the fucking state STILL thought the child molester was better than having a clean guy with a D next to his name.
no, just under half of this country is beyond hope. no way to change their minds. this election was proof of that, if you ever needed any.
reason and logic and the R party? are you fucking kidding me??
I do live in California, where they would gladly do the same if you switch the R for D. Partisanship is not restricted to just one side or just one region of the country. I would apply your statement "reason and logic and the D party? Are you fucking kidding me??" to what we see here - the Sanctuary State.
You know, people say Obama was a great president (well... probably not a lot of Republicans), but I think Obama's ultimate legacy will be that on his way out he goaded Trump into running for president so he could destroy everything Obama did.I also think history may just decide that enough Americans weren't ready for a black man in the Oval Office that it provided support for an unfit racist white guy to move into it next.
The Liberal types who treated any criticism of Obama as proof of racism will probably follow your thinking. Obama was inept, useless, and a complete stooge in the Mideast. Much like his predecessor. However as the first "black president" he will get undeserved accolades and protection rather than an honest look. Indeed, his presidency started off with a completely undeserved Nobel Peace prize.
You're probably right. And he'd likely be out in 2020 anyway. Of course it'll take a decade at least to repair all the damage done thusfar regardless.
Probably more than a decade. Consider that we've had *many* years of poor leadership. Trump is off to a poor start. Obama was a divisive joke. Bush was pathetic too. You have to go back to Bill Clinton to get anything halfway decent. I think you have to go back as far as Eisenhower to get something really good.
If we have someone if office that broke the law, we shouldn't leave them in out of fear that their successor's policies are worse. That makes it even more political. If they did something wrong, they did something wrong, that's it. Not "it's illegal, but we'll selectively not enforce the law because..."
This is akin to how most voting is less about being for something good and mostly about how bad the other person is. A "None of the above" option would fix this but so far nobody has tried it. It's pretty simple, if "None of the above" wins (or if you really want a good system gets in the top 2) then the existing candidates are barred from re-running for that office and a new election is held in the near future. "None of the Above" would have easily beaten both Hillary and Trump in 2016.
Sound like some Millennial at Slate decided to write a blog post out of complete ignorance for any of the science involved.
If we ruled that out there wouldn't be much left of Slate. Slate exists only to make HuffPost look good by comparison.
citation:
http://www.yourweightmatters.o...
Why did California scrap their proposed single-payer plan a few months ago? Because it would have bankrupted the state. California!
Knowing California Democrats it's because they couldn't make the math work in such a way that illegals got full coverage at no charge while the US citizens paid for it all. Currently several million illegal immigrants live in CA and if you count the anchor babies the number more than doubles. Hard to make the math work with so many extra to carry.
Citations:
http://www.dailynews.com/2017/... http://www.ppic.org/publicatio...
Because America pays for their defense, and they are free to put the vast savings into a welfare state. Europe flat out refuses to pay their minimum share of NATO, 2%, because this would bankrupt them and their people would revolt. It's easy to pay for nice things when you don't have to find a hugely expensive military to defend the borders of other nations while neglecting your own borders.
Which is exactly why the US should pull back. Focus on solving our own problems. Like Switzerland but without the shady tax haven / banker angle.
In the USA you just show up at ER and don't pay if you don't have a med plan and they can't turn you away.
I believe that's called the illegal alien plan. It passes the costs onto the rest of us who actually do pay.
Single-payer would bankrupt the country. There will never be enough of anything to satisfy demand completely.
The solution is to relax regulations, not increase them. Remove the artificial limits placed on the number of doctors by the AMA, relax the burdens on licensing, etc. Cap malpractice payouts through tort reform.
That depends on many factors. Are we talking about health care for US citizens or for illegals also? Are we talking about paying the highest cost in the world for the same medications or do we get prices on par with Canada? If we restrict the conversation to US citizens and we treat it as an engineering problem and intelligently attack it I'm confident it could be solved. If instead we get distracted by politics and political correctness (ie is the diversity enough, lobbyist companies get higher no bid pricing, etc) then it is bound to fail.
My "takeaway" from the article is the opposite: The energy used by internet porn is completely negligible. They used scary analogies like "11,000 light bulbs", but since this is something used regularly by BILLIONS of people, that is an astonishingly small amount of energy.
If these people stopped watching porn, and instead increased their social interaction, and maybe even went on a date using a gasoline powered car, the environmental consequences would be far, far worse.
Just imagine how floored the author of the article will be when he looks into the energy cost of bitcoin.