Got an example, anonymous internet tough guy? Or is it a matter of people on the left blocking certain people from certain forums they control, just like people on the right do?
The rest of the world is moving on without us. That's part of the problem. The US used to be a leader among nations, with moral authority, and Trump is pissing that away.
Look, I have plenty of problems with the guy. I have very strong suspicions that he's violating the Constitution, and he certainly has no respect for it. He is doing some very bad things to the country.
So, why should I worry about his Twitter account, when there's so many more substantive things to complain about?
I can petition via public demonstration within certain practical limits. I can write letters. I can send emails. I can fill out web forms. I can buy advertising in various media. I can file a lawsuit (although this works only for certain sorts of grievances). These are all methods to petition the government for a redress of grievances that are completely allowed. I don't have the right to do whatever I want as long as I frame it in First Amendment terms.
It's always been OK for the government to make official statements to people of their choice, and that's typically been the news media. It's the job of the media to disseminate such to the extent that they need dissemination.
And when my Senators or Representative don't publish my letter to them in the Congressional Record they block my ability to communicate my thoughts to everybody that reads the CR. Just because Trump's got a bigger forum doesn't mean he has to share with anybody who asks him.
People are free to tweet in general, create their own websites, publish what they like, and use all sorts of ways to get their message out. Getting people to pay attention is their problem.
What's illegal about barring a reporter? What's supposed to happen then is that the reporter publishes his or her ban and asks why, and what the President is up to. Unfortunately, the President's supporters appear to have decided to believe only what they like from sites that give them what the want to hear to a considerably greater degree than usual, so the usual political consequences are blunted.
You appear to be claiming that I have not seriously considered the ingenuity of desperate humans. I've observed it second-hand or third-hand in various histories. People can get really ingenious, and that ingenuity has almost never worked to defeat regular troops tactically without other major advantages. Popular uprisings can't stop the military from going where they want. They can make areas temporarily ungovernable, which isn't what we'd want out of a revolution.
"Groupthink" is usually taken to be something people think because they're part of a group without adequate other support. This is not what I'm doing. It's always possible that I'm wrong (although I'm pretty darn sure of myself in this), but I arrived at my conclusions without benefit of other people telling me about it. My conclusions aren't groupthink in any reasonable sense of the word.
At least around here, it's hard to get out of jury duty, so we get all sorts of people on juries, not just losers. They're pretty flexible about when you should take it, but not about whether you do it. Things may be different elsewhere.
Destruction of evidence is, I believe, a crime in its own right. Its claimed destruction, along with evidence, can be a basis for conviction. Again, consult an actual lawyer to see how this is likely to go. I'm beyond my depth here.
What I am saying is that every other country in the world has much lower health care costs, and that many of them have better health care results. I'm also saying that the US can accomplish pretty much anything any other country can accomplish. I didn't think those things were all that controversial.
That's a Bloomberg editorial, and I haven't been impressed with them in the past. It also says it would be difficult to get lower health care costs, which is reasonable. It ignores many of the costs that other health care systems really don't have, such as immensely high prices for vital drugs and a massive insurance industry.
I'm not a Christian, I'm a history buff. It isn't my Catholic Church, but I do know that it was involved in a lot of knowledge retention and dissemination, and that we'd be a lot further behind in science without it. Fortunately, science got away from it, but it's where a lot of learning went on. There's still a lot of Catholic participation in science.
In other words, you perceive Harvard as having an ideology you dislike, and therefore any calumny about Harvard that you make has to be true? Does this work for other people? Do I get to claim anything I want about the Republicans and have it believed just because I dislike their ideology?
And your demand for a perfect government project implies rather strongly that private enterprise has some. Both have problems, and the trick is to balance them. I don't know anyone who claims government is perfect, only people who claim other people claim government is perfect, and I can't see a single reference to government in the post you were replying to.
We are *NOT* talking about the TSA, we are talking about the FAA. Different.
Unfortunate. I'd like airport security to be privatized like it used to be, with no new outrageous requirements any time someone does something stupid.
Insurance companies are in it for the profit. They'll sell insurance at a price that allows them to make money. This means that, if Airline A has more claims than Airline B, Airline A will pay more for insurance. The exact same thing applies to my auto insurance: it goes up if I get in too many crashes.
Therefore, safety pays, whether the airline buys insurance or self-insures.
Similarly, capitalists demand the output from their factories, and would say someone was taking away their something when the factory doesn't give them control over the products. Wealth is primarily produced, and we're dividing it up every day. Some people feel entitled to more than their share, because they've had more than their share before.
The main problem with Flint's water is that state-imposed government made a bad, and perhaps vindictive, choice of water supply, against the advice of the locals. Flint had a lot of other problems, of course, but they weren't responsible for the poison water.
If a trans woman goes into the ladies' room, she looks like a normal woman, does her business in a stall, and leaves. No big deal. If someone who looks like a man goes in, with the law the way you want it you can't challenge him, because he might be a trans man who's required by law to use the ladies' room. I'm not aware of significant abuse by trans women or men dressed as women.
My take on it is that Harvard establishes behavior standards for its students. I haven't seen anything that indicates that the students were rejected for having unpopular ideas, as opposed to how they expressed them.
Why don't you find some specific applicants who supported terrorism and anarchy on a Harvard-sponsored group, check what happened to their applications, and get back to us?
Slashdot Mirror
Got an example, anonymous internet tough guy? Or is it a matter of people on the left blocking certain people from certain forums they control, just like people on the right do?
The rest of the world is moving on without us. That's part of the problem. The US used to be a leader among nations, with moral authority, and Trump is pissing that away.
Look, I have plenty of problems with the guy. I have very strong suspicions that he's violating the Constitution, and he certainly has no respect for it. He is doing some very bad things to the country.
So, why should I worry about his Twitter account, when there's so many more substantive things to complain about?
I can petition via public demonstration within certain practical limits. I can write letters. I can send emails. I can fill out web forms. I can buy advertising in various media. I can file a lawsuit (although this works only for certain sorts of grievances). These are all methods to petition the government for a redress of grievances that are completely allowed. I don't have the right to do whatever I want as long as I frame it in First Amendment terms.
It's always been OK for the government to make official statements to people of their choice, and that's typically been the news media. It's the job of the media to disseminate such to the extent that they need dissemination.
And when my Senators or Representative don't publish my letter to them in the Congressional Record they block my ability to communicate my thoughts to everybody that reads the CR. Just because Trump's got a bigger forum doesn't mean he has to share with anybody who asks him.
People are free to tweet in general, create their own websites, publish what they like, and use all sorts of ways to get their message out. Getting people to pay attention is their problem.
What's illegal about barring a reporter? What's supposed to happen then is that the reporter publishes his or her ban and asks why, and what the President is up to. Unfortunately, the President's supporters appear to have decided to believe only what they like from sites that give them what the want to hear to a considerably greater degree than usual, so the usual political consequences are blunted.
A Prime Minister isn't a real good equivalent to a US President.
You appear to be claiming that I have not seriously considered the ingenuity of desperate humans. I've observed it second-hand or third-hand in various histories. People can get really ingenious, and that ingenuity has almost never worked to defeat regular troops tactically without other major advantages. Popular uprisings can't stop the military from going where they want. They can make areas temporarily ungovernable, which isn't what we'd want out of a revolution.
"Groupthink" is usually taken to be something people think because they're part of a group without adequate other support. This is not what I'm doing. It's always possible that I'm wrong (although I'm pretty darn sure of myself in this), but I arrived at my conclusions without benefit of other people telling me about it. My conclusions aren't groupthink in any reasonable sense of the word.
At least around here, it's hard to get out of jury duty, so we get all sorts of people on juries, not just losers. They're pretty flexible about when you should take it, but not about whether you do it. Things may be different elsewhere.
Destruction of evidence is, I believe, a crime in its own right. Its claimed destruction, along with evidence, can be a basis for conviction. Again, consult an actual lawyer to see how this is likely to go. I'm beyond my depth here.
What I am saying is that every other country in the world has much lower health care costs, and that many of them have better health care results. I'm also saying that the US can accomplish pretty much anything any other country can accomplish. I didn't think those things were all that controversial.
That's a Bloomberg editorial, and I haven't been impressed with them in the past. It also says it would be difficult to get lower health care costs, which is reasonable. It ignores many of the costs that other health care systems really don't have, such as immensely high prices for vital drugs and a massive insurance industry.
I'm not a Christian, I'm a history buff. It isn't my Catholic Church, but I do know that it was involved in a lot of knowledge retention and dissemination, and that we'd be a lot further behind in science without it. Fortunately, science got away from it, but it's where a lot of learning went on. There's still a lot of Catholic participation in science.
In other words, you perceive Harvard as having an ideology you dislike, and therefore any calumny about Harvard that you make has to be true? Does this work for other people? Do I get to claim anything I want about the Republicans and have it believed just because I dislike their ideology?
And your demand for a perfect government project implies rather strongly that private enterprise has some. Both have problems, and the trick is to balance them. I don't know anyone who claims government is perfect, only people who claim other people claim government is perfect, and I can't see a single reference to government in the post you were replying to.
Unfortunate. I'd like airport security to be privatized like it used to be, with no new outrageous requirements any time someone does something stupid.
Insurance companies are in it for the profit. They'll sell insurance at a price that allows them to make money. This means that, if Airline A has more claims than Airline B, Airline A will pay more for insurance. The exact same thing applies to my auto insurance: it goes up if I get in too many crashes.
Therefore, safety pays, whether the airline buys insurance or self-insures.
Similarly, capitalists demand the output from their factories, and would say someone was taking away their something when the factory doesn't give them control over the products. Wealth is primarily produced, and we're dividing it up every day. Some people feel entitled to more than their share, because they've had more than their share before.
The main problem with Flint's water is that state-imposed government made a bad, and perhaps vindictive, choice of water supply, against the advice of the locals. Flint had a lot of other problems, of course, but they weren't responsible for the poison water.
Why don't you show me a single private enterprise program which is perfect?
Plain talking normal people are disasters in politics. They may be likeable, but they're going to be ineffectual.
If they don't have to pay as much for insurance, they can lower their prices, and get more customers for the same profit margin.
The war was sold on WMDs.
If a trans woman goes into the ladies' room, she looks like a normal woman, does her business in a stall, and leaves. No big deal. If someone who looks like a man goes in, with the law the way you want it you can't challenge him, because he might be a trans man who's required by law to use the ladies' room. I'm not aware of significant abuse by trans women or men dressed as women.
My take on it is that Harvard establishes behavior standards for its students. I haven't seen anything that indicates that the students were rejected for having unpopular ideas, as opposed to how they expressed them.
Why don't you find some specific applicants who supported terrorism and anarchy on a Harvard-sponsored group, check what happened to their applications, and get back to us?