Climate scientists are scrambling to hide,obscure,change,alter and otherwise manipulate he data to protect their lying butts.
Starting with the props used in faking the moon landing, right? Remember to wash the tin foil, after it sits on your head long enough you might get a rash if you don't.
Calling them water protectors is biased toward the protesters just as calling them dissidents or terrorists would be biased toward the pipeline supporters.
Uh, NO. They are literally trying to protect their watershed, thus making "water protectors" just as reasonable as calling the oil supporters "security contractors".
Her arm was blown off by a propane-tank IED built by the protesters.
You mean you believe any horseshit the cops will throw at you, and they've thrown a lot this year. Same sheriffs department has on its most wanted list a person who disarmed an agent provocateur, not the agent who was assaulting people (pointing his AR-15).
But that's okay, just to let you know we're all friends here, I actually own some oceanfront property near the Standing Rock reservation, which I'm willing to sell you at a cut rate....
I wonder how many of those drones were pointing weapons at the unarmed protesters. If you're going to break out the mine-resistant vehicles from the National Guard, might as well bring in your mini-Predators as well.
The employees that had been affected by Apple's original break policy could get as much as $20 each from Friday's settlement, according to reality, "but it's likely most of the money will go toward attorney fees."
FTFY
So? People are always free to hire their own lawyers, at their own risk and on their own dime, to file their own lawsuit. As opposed to having to do nothing whatsoever to gain some compensation from the company that wronged you, while punishing the guilty party.
The alternatives are:
1) Consumers and workers take it up the ass. Even if a few successfully file their own lawsuits, the pain to the company is insignificant and therefore does nothing to force a change in business practices, much less provide compensation to the many.
2) You want to quadruple the budget of every local or federal prosecutor, giving them the means and the authority to go after companies with the brass knuckles, so more money ends up back in the hands of those affected.
But the sort of people who complain about lawwwwyers making some mooooney are likely to be the sort that also complain about "big government", leaving people with the first choice. Almost like it was on purpose.
Why, any Congressional investigation that is active before the real investigators have determined what the facts of the matter are.
Annnnnd determining the facts invariably involves putting people under oath and asking them questions. The original pedant fail.
"Congressional investigations" are not investigations
Nonsense. Congress has stronger investigative powers than any police department or the DOJ, as they can directly issue subpoenas to compel documents or testimony, as opposed to having to go through a court order. They can even use inherent contempt to have the sergeant at arms drag your to the hearing, without having to ask the capital police or the DOJ to do it for them. Lying to Congress is a federal offense, though it's up to the DOJ to bring charges. No, they can't sentence you to jail, but neither can the police while performing an investigation.
The rest of parent comment are merely insults that have no value in a reasoned discussion.
So, not only are you a pedant who is wrong on the facts, you whine about non-existent insults. Because it's not an insult when it's true:
Pedant, noun 1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning. 2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details. 3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense. 4. Obsolete. a schoolmaster.
Posting a response that is a pointless nitpicking of spelling without addressing the argument being made, is pedantry, straight up.
A guy who specifically times releases of data to coincide with the US election isn't exactly what I'd call an unbiased actor
So you'd want him to hold the information until it's too goddamned late to do anything about it, like when the New York Times sat on the constitutional crisis that was domestic NSA wiretapping through the 2004 election?
and the fact that he didn't seem to be delivering any details on Trump indicates that whoever was feeding him the data had specific objects in mind.
1) Wikileaks isn't in the business of hacking themselves, they're already on the shit list of every Western Exceptionalist spy agency.
2) They can only leak what they've been given. So knock yourself out - hack the Trump Administration and send the details to Wikileaks.
3) Anonymous targeted Trump in the spring. Were you complaining about why they didn't hack Clinton for "balance"? If not, why not?
I'm so tired of hearing about the evil DNC "torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign"
Don't forget your earplugs, they'll help keep out the sand.
and such nonsense.
Nonsense? A full year before the Podesta emails were released, it was known that the DNC had rigged the primary by slashing the number of debates and front-loading the primary with conservative southern states, to give the conservative candidate an early lead. Remember your earplugs.
Why on earth was anyone surprised a political party had a candidate they favored?
It's against the DNC charter to favor one candidate over another. And did you think about this line of reasoning before positing it? If party stooges are going to put their thumbs on the scale of an election, it's going to give people less of a reason to turn out and vote. How well did that work out for President Hillary?
Furthermore, nothing the DNC did was anywhere near enough to sink Bernie.
The debate schedule alone makes that a lie.
Clinton had the big name and a loyal following and Bernie failed to appeal to enough voters
You mean the candidate with universal name recognition, who called in every favor owed to it by every party operative, had a head start over an unknown who wasn't worth a hundred million dollars? Shocking news at 11.
Bernie failed to appeal to enough voters, particularly minorities
Ratfucking, noted.
"Because members thought that their vote would determine the favored candidate."
That doesnt make sense, how does a future vote effect who the DNC favors?
Whoosh. He's talking about who's going to be the nominee, Sherlock.
They screwed up and got caught, which is an intelligence failure no matter which way you wish to pedantically cut it. Same goes for the rest of the list.
I am not worried if Russians hacked USA or not. I am quite certain they did (try to affect the outcome).
I am quite certain you'd be interested in this oceanfront property I have, it's in Idaho. Sorry, can't show you the deed to the place, it's classified. But I'm sure you'll take my word for it....
No you fucking idiot, they exposed half the truth. They also hacked the Republicans, but did not choose to release that information.
Your fucking idiocy.
1) Trump was targeted by Anonymous in the spring, but you sure didn't see Hillbots or the MSM demanding to know whyyyyyyyy they hadn't hacked the DNC at the same time.
2) The RNC was the original "anybody but Trump" organization. What leak was going to change the general election on that front?
3) Wikileaks isn't in the business of hacking, themselves. They can only leak what they've been given. So, knock yourself out going after the Trump Administration and the foreign boogymen of your choice.
Yes, the white house did say that, ergo the news is not fake. Is the white house mistaken? That's irrelevant to whether this is fake news or not.
Pedantic distinction without a difference. You think that the Democratic Establishment wouldn't be hoisting on high an example of fake news if a meme didn't shoot around Facebook that Alex Jones "said" he uncovered evidence that HRC really did murder Vince Foster?
The "some people say" canard isn't just bullshit when it's Fox doing it.
Bernie lost the popular vote during the primaries by nearly 4 million.
1) Any mention of a "popular vote" in a primary with caucus states is inherently dishonest.
2) You're surprised that the conservative candidate with universal name recognition did better than an unknown, after the DNC conspired to limit the number of debates while front-loading the primary with conservative southern states?
They made a reasonable decision: Bernie looked unelectable.
According to the kind of partisans who spent over a billion dollars only to lose to a baboon. A baboon who boasted about grabbing women by the pussy a month before the election.
The American people loathe socialism in all it's forms
1) He's not a socialist. The world has a definition, and Bernie doesn't come close to matching it.
2) Americans would love the shit out of Socialism if they got to try it for five minutes. Getting to keep the output of their work rather than sending almost all of it to the leisure class? That's why capitalist scumfucks and their stooges in both parties work so hard to propagandize people.
If Bernie had won the nomination, it's all but certain he'd have lost too.
Baring a 'dead girl or a live boy', Bernie would have beat Trump like a rented mule. That's not opinion, that's fact. Bernie had none of Hillary or Trump's baggage, corruption, or unforced errors. Bernie actually fucking talks to voters and manages to get Trump voters agreeing with him in a matter of minutes.
Sure, the Republicans and the biased conservative media would have pulled out the fainting couches over the Socialist label. Except:
1) They do that to every Democratic nominee, regardless. They did it to Hillary's husband back in '92, demanding to know why he visited the USSR twenty years earlier.
2) People are eligible to run for Congress now that were born after The Wall fell in Berlin. The red scare shit just doesn't work anymore. Because....
3) Those who wet their beds at the sign of a hammer and sickle would never have voted for a Democrat, regardless.
But it's not like Trump didn't say more and much worse things.
Irrelevant. Trumps idiocy does not excuse Hillary's. Otherwise you gotta let Trump play tit for tat as well - you want him to start with Superpredators or being terrified of black men wearing hoodies?
There was no "gaming of the DNC system". This is one of these stupid political memes that flourish because people are ignorant about how things work.
Other than the laughably limited debate schedule, and the early primary calendar front-loaded with conservative southern states to give the most conservative candidate an early boost. Which were known about a year before the Podesta emails were released. Which means you're either woefully ignorant on a subject you're commenting on, or are a sophist.
I know, because when this came up I took the time read the party bylaws.
And how about their charter, which calls for neutrality and not for picking one candidate over another?
So getting mad at the national committee for playing favorites is like getting mad at rural voters for not voting for you -- it misses the point.
No. It's the entire point.
If you don't like the power insiders wield then take it away from them. Which means becoming an insider yourself. That's the problem with being anti-establishment: winning means becoming what you hate.
You go crosseyed writing that?
Hillary's problem is that she ran like she was running for prime minister, by cultivating the party base and power brokers.
Somewhat similar in that regard Turkey wants the U.S. to hand over a cleric it blames for the coup attempt but so far the Obama Administration hasn't been given enough evidence to hand Gulen over to Turkey.
Therefore, Turkey should bomb the shit out of the United States, overthrow its government, offer bounties to throw people into island prisons, torture hundreds of them to death, and plan on occupying our country for the next 30 years at least.
Just apply the Clinton rules. Even if there's zero evidence of any wrongdoing, she must be punished for something, because surely she did something wrong.
Uh, no. If she were anyone else, she'd be looking at a few centuries in combined prison time, for sending emails through an unsecured, unauthorized server plus obstruction of justice for deleting them. Just as the sailor server a year in prison for having a handful of selfies on an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.
When. When Donna Brazile was feeding debate questions to Clinton, or when the media just happened to release old audio tapes or tax returns of Trump every time a Clinton Clusterfuck happened?
Nothing compared to Hillary's praise of the Reagans on AIDS, but you didn't see the entire media spend the next few months chicken-fucking her over it.
Slashdot Mirror
Starting with the props used in faking the moon landing, right? Remember to wash the tin foil, after it sits on your head long enough you might get a rash if you don't.
Uh, NO. They are literally trying to protect their watershed, thus making "water protectors" just as reasonable as calling the oil supporters "security contractors".
I hope you were yelling those words at the nearest mirror when writing them.
You mean you believe any horseshit the cops will throw at you, and they've thrown a lot this year. Same sheriffs department has on its most wanted list a person who disarmed an agent provocateur, not the agent who was assaulting people (pointing his AR-15).
But that's okay, just to let you know we're all friends here, I actually own some oceanfront property near the Standing Rock reservation, which I'm willing to sell you at a cut rate....
I wonder how many of those drones were pointing weapons at the unarmed protesters. If you're going to break out the mine-resistant vehicles from the National Guard, might as well bring in your mini-Predators as well.
Pointless word salad is pointless.
So? People are always free to hire their own lawyers, at their own risk and on their own dime, to file their own lawsuit. As opposed to having to do nothing whatsoever to gain some compensation from the company that wronged you, while punishing the guilty party.
The alternatives are:
1) Consumers and workers take it up the ass. Even if a few successfully file their own lawsuits, the pain to the company is insignificant and therefore does nothing to force a change in business practices, much less provide compensation to the many.
2) You want to quadruple the budget of every local or federal prosecutor, giving them the means and the authority to go after companies with the brass knuckles, so more money ends up back in the hands of those affected.
But the sort of people who complain about lawwwwyers making some mooooney are likely to be the sort that also complain about "big government", leaving people with the first choice. Almost like it was on purpose.
Annnnnd determining the facts invariably involves putting people under oath and asking them questions. The original pedant fail.
Nonsense. Congress has stronger investigative powers than any police department or the DOJ, as they can directly issue subpoenas to compel documents or testimony, as opposed to having to go through a court order. They can even use inherent contempt to have the sergeant at arms drag your to the hearing, without having to ask the capital police or the DOJ to do it for them. Lying to Congress is a federal offense, though it's up to the DOJ to bring charges. No, they can't sentence you to jail, but neither can the police while performing an investigation.
So, not only are you a pedant who is wrong on the facts, you whine about non-existent insults. Because it's not an insult when it's true:
Posting a response that is a pointless nitpicking of spelling without addressing the argument being made, is pedantry, straight up.
So you'd want him to hold the information until it's too goddamned late to do anything about it, like when the New York Times sat on the constitutional crisis that was domestic NSA wiretapping through the 2004 election?
1) Wikileaks isn't in the business of hacking themselves, they're already on the shit list of every Western Exceptionalist spy agency.
2) They can only leak what they've been given. So knock yourself out - hack the Trump Administration and send the details to Wikileaks.
3) Anonymous targeted Trump in the spring. Were you complaining about why they didn't hack Clinton for "balance"? If not, why not?
Don't forget your earplugs, they'll help keep out the sand.
Nonsense? A full year before the Podesta emails were released, it was known that the DNC had rigged the primary by slashing the number of debates and front-loading the primary with conservative southern states, to give the conservative candidate an early lead. Remember your earplugs.
It's against the DNC charter to favor one candidate over another. And did you think about this line of reasoning before positing it? If party stooges are going to put their thumbs on the scale of an election, it's going to give people less of a reason to turn out and vote. How well did that work out for President Hillary?
The debate schedule alone makes that a lie.
You mean the candidate with universal name recognition, who called in every favor owed to it by every party operative, had a head start over an unknown who wasn't worth a hundred million dollars? Shocking news at 11.
Ratfucking, noted.
Whoosh. He's talking about who's going to be the nominee, Sherlock.
They screwed up and got caught, which is an intelligence failure no matter which way you wish to pedantically cut it. Same goes for the rest of the list.
I am quite certain you'd be interested in this oceanfront property I have, it's in Idaho. Sorry, can't show you the deed to the place, it's classified. But I'm sure you'll take my word for it....
Your fucking idiocy.
1) Trump was targeted by Anonymous in the spring, but you sure didn't see Hillbots or the MSM demanding to know whyyyyyyyy they hadn't hacked the DNC at the same time.
2) The RNC was the original "anybody but Trump" organization. What leak was going to change the general election on that front?
3) Wikileaks isn't in the business of hacking, themselves. They can only leak what they've been given. So, knock yourself out going after the Trump Administration and the foreign boogymen of your choice.
So? Why is it that when Hillary's problems are mentioned, someone brings up Trump as if that's supposed to mean or change anything?
Pedantic for the sake of deflection is less obvious when you actually address the point being made.
What active Congressional investigation does not include testimony? Pedant fail, squared.
Pedantic distinction without a difference. You think that the Democratic Establishment wouldn't be hoisting on high an example of fake news if a meme didn't shoot around Facebook that Alex Jones "said" he uncovered evidence that HRC really did murder Vince Foster?
The "some people say" canard isn't just bullshit when it's Fox doing it.
1) Any mention of a "popular vote" in a primary with caucus states is inherently dishonest.
2) You're surprised that the conservative candidate with universal name recognition did better than an unknown, after the DNC conspired to limit the number of debates while front-loading the primary with conservative southern states?
According to the kind of partisans who spent over a billion dollars only to lose to a baboon. A baboon who boasted about grabbing women by the pussy a month before the election.
1) He's not a socialist. The world has a definition, and Bernie doesn't come close to matching it.
2) Americans would love the shit out of Socialism if they got to try it for five minutes. Getting to keep the output of their work rather than sending almost all of it to the leisure class? That's why capitalist scumfucks and their stooges in both parties work so hard to propagandize people.
Baring a 'dead girl or a live boy', Bernie would have beat Trump like a rented mule. That's not opinion, that's fact. Bernie had none of Hillary or Trump's baggage, corruption, or unforced errors. Bernie actually fucking talks to voters and manages to get Trump voters agreeing with him in a matter of minutes.
Sure, the Republicans and the biased conservative media would have pulled out the fainting couches over the Socialist label. Except:
1) They do that to every Democratic nominee, regardless. They did it to Hillary's husband back in '92, demanding to know why he visited the USSR twenty years earlier.
2) People are eligible to run for Congress now that were born after The Wall fell in Berlin. The red scare shit just doesn't work anymore. Because....
3) Those who wet their beds at the sign of a hammer and sickle would never have voted for a Democrat, regardless.
Irrelevant. Trumps idiocy does not excuse Hillary's. Otherwise you gotta let Trump play tit for tat as well - you want him to start with Superpredators or being terrified of black men wearing hoodies?
Other than the laughably limited debate schedule, and the early primary calendar front-loaded with conservative southern states to give the most conservative candidate an early boost. Which were known about a year before the Podesta emails were released. Which means you're either woefully ignorant on a subject you're commenting on, or are a sophist.
And how about their charter, which calls for neutrality and not for picking one candidate over another?
No. It's the entire point.
You go crosseyed writing that?
You got that half right - she sure did cultivate those donors. The base, she DGAF about, aside from getting endorsements from party hacks leading organizations like the SEIU who endorsed the candidate opposed to free education, a $15 minimum wage and universal health care without bothering to ask their members to vote.
They also offered to hand Bin Laden over if the Bush Administration bothered to back up their claims.
They didn't bother.
Somewhat similar in that regard Turkey wants the U.S. to hand over a cleric it blames for the coup attempt but so far the Obama Administration hasn't been given enough evidence to hand Gulen over to Turkey.
Therefore, Turkey should bomb the shit out of the United States, overthrow its government, offer bounties to throw people into island prisons, torture hundreds of them to death, and plan on occupying our country for the next 30 years at least.
Almost as well as the attempted deflection, thanks for asking.
Uh, no. If she were anyone else, she'd be looking at a few centuries in combined prison time, for sending emails through an unsecured, unauthorized server plus obstruction of justice for deleting them. Just as the sailor server a year in prison for having a handful of selfies on an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.
When. When Donna Brazile was feeding debate questions to Clinton, or when the media just happened to release old audio tapes or tax returns of Trump every time a Clinton Clusterfuck happened?
Nothing compared to Hillary's praise of the Reagans on AIDS, but you didn't see the entire media spend the next few months chicken-fucking her over it.