And let's ban caffeine vapors in 2nd-hand caffeine inhalation (supermarket isles and all hot caffeinated beverages). Say, are you a mormon? Oh, and, of course, 2nd-hand alcohol inhalation by anyone smelling alcohol vapors under any circumstances. And don't forget gasoline vapors. What else can we ban that doesn't hurt anyone in marginally small amounts?
No, it doesn't. The point of extra disclosure during advertisements is to bring attention to the fact that what the viewer is seeing is not part of the regular content, but that it is some other content which has the aim of influencing opinion. An ad in a newspaper or on TV can be made to look like regular news content or TV content. So this extra flash of information (you are watching an attempt to influence! pay attention!) is required. On a social platform, you are presumably familiar with everyone providing "regular" content (because they interacting with you rather than just broadcasting at you). So anything which just projects a flat message already stands out (because it's not interactive and not communicating in a familiar manner). So ther is no need for extra reminders. The only purpose this law can serve is to increase barrier to entry of less organized speech. In other words, it's a suppression of free political speech.
Well, it participates in your conversation in the same way as someone trying to give you a pamphlet, while you are talking to a friend on the street, participates in your conversation. It doesn't actively do it. But it injects itself into a private conversation. A commercial playing during a TV broadcast is effectively part of the programming. So there is more of a need to remind you that it isn't part of the programming. Someone injecting himself into a private conversation is very clearly a sideshow rather than part of the show itself. So you are actually proving my point.
News Corporation's largest shareholder is Murdoch family (and Murdoch is not an American citizen). And the concern over News Corp's influence on US politics is quite frequently expressed.
Speaking of New York Times, should it have to disclose that its largest shareholder is a Mexican national with close ties to the Mexican government? Or is this something its readers are not entitled to knowing when they read all the criticisms of building a border wall with Mexico?
Is there some reason you think Facebook should be immune from what the New York Times has to do?
Advertising on Facebook is paying to participate in private conversations of others. Advertising in traditional media (even when it is distributed online) is injecting your messages into broadcast message stream which has the air of being vetted and authoritative. Advertising in social media is pretty much like paying the host to be invited to a private party. Advertising in traditional media is like announcing that you are the benefactor of a theater before a theatrical performance. These are entirely different and should not be treated equally.
Extending that to Facebook, Twitter, etc. is hardly overreach.
Why? Social media acts as social platforms (ie, town squares) much more so than as broadcast "media" platforms such as TV and radio. Why should social media be treated with the same gloves as TV and radio rather than the same gloves as town squares?
Did that comment of yours advertise your point of view just now? Should your home address be disclosed because you posted your opinion on the Internet?
I didn't. The article he used to justify his lies did. It only cited the Stanford study and the Communist "Detroit Free Press". I addressed them both in my reply.
I can't even remember the last time a right winger passed a basic logic test for consideration for an interview at my job.
Just like in Hollywood, they know they need to be smart enough to hide it. It's the 1st rule of dealing with the insane -- adopt their world view or you don't have any chance of getting through when talking to them.
Nuclear are more expensive not because of construction or safety concerns. Most of the costs are regulatory. Whereas "renewables" still get the benefit of direct and windfall from indirect subsidies (eg. subsidies which were recently given to promote R&D would be indirect ones).
I don't know why India is building more power plants,
Maybe you didn't. But you do now. Because per-kW generation is cheapest with nuclear.
Toshiba filed for bankruptcy after buying Westinghouse because of cost overruns in Georgia and SC.
Most likely because of regulatory hurdles put in the way of new construction by the previous administration.
You don't need to cherry pick data because you're obviously starting with the conclusion
Conclusion? There are multiple instances of Clintons breaking laws. There is only one instance of Clintons suffering any legal repercussions for their law breaking -- Bill Clinton's disbarment. There are multiple occasions on which Clintons publically stated that they had no interest in abiding by laws which restricted behaviors of the people who were in positions which they (Clintons) occupied at the time. So, yeah, serial recidivism of Clintons is public knowledge and I do take it into account when reaching my conclusions.
Which is why I don't think he is an idiot. I've demonstrated on a few occasions that he is a liar though. If his points were so obviously true, he wouldn't need to lie to prove them.
Come to Stockholm, and ride the subway 4-5 stops, any line. You're almost certain to hear Russian being spoken. Here in my suburb we have a block known as "Little Moscow" because nearly all the people living there are Russian.
That's not refusing to assimilate. New York is a motley of ethnic neighborhoods. Most people of 3rd generation or so still know where their grandparents came from. But they are all assimilated. They are all American in every way. They all speak English and they are more likely to be familiar with English-language writers than with writers of countries from which their grandparents came from. If they follow any sports, it's more likely that they follow American sports. It's not any one detail that defines a culture. It's the totality of them. The fact that they can have some flair of their ancestors' culture in their lives is not a failure to assimilate.
And speaking of Helsinki--lots and lots of Russians there, too, as well as in Espoo and Turku.
The fact that they speak Russian to each other doesn't mean as much as the fact that they can speak your native language to you. Helsinki is really not a fair example, btw. Google maps shows that it's about 2 hours by car from St Petersburg (E18 ?). That's closer to St Petersburg than most cities in Russia.
So... You were saying...?
That the communities which uproot local cultures are invasive. Muslims (in Europe) do that. Russians seem to adapt to local cultures rather than isolate themselves from them.
The issue of non-assimilation has nothing to do with this issue, nice try at straw man.
It's not a straw man. The muslim minorities which refuse to allow assimilation are the main reason for destabilization of Western European societies. Trying to blame any of it on Russia is just a misdirection.
Over a dozen intrusions into various election-related systems, including several state-level systems. Just because the hacks didn't "change" the election doesn't mean it's OK
No, something else makes it Ok. The fact that it never happened.
Ok, I think you are missing the whole "she is above the law" part. Well, not missing, but lying about it like you are about everything else. And you do like to cherry pick your data. Your example of 8 million is less than 1% of the billion dollars the foundation collected. But you found 1 year in which Clintons were not paid anything directly by the foundation? That's kind of the nature of money laundering -- they always have to use different schemes for each new operation because repeating the same scheme make them catchable. Like Hillary's newest book... C'mon. best seller? No one would read that tripe. It's another laundry scheme.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
Jesus. Read this sentence 3 times and then think about whether anyone who is paying attention would actually believe this kind of bullshit. "Programming expenses"? What's the drill down? How much of it on private-jet fuel?
Trump's cabinet is doing stupid things like making energy more expensive by pushing coal and nuclear energy, the EPA is allowing more pollution
aha. It's why India has signed a deal to build 10 nuclear plants. Because it's looking to waste money. Nuclear has the cheapest per kW generation and coal has the cheapest booster per kW generation. "Renewables" only have cheapest generation during excess production times.
I voted for Bush in 2000.
You want me to take the word of a criminal-supporter such as yourself on your voting record? Pass. Although if you did vote for Bush, you might be in a better position to claim that you are just an idiot rather than an apologist for criminals. I just don't think you are that stupid.
if the Democratic party wants to win in...
Yeah, I hope they do exactly what you suggest. I won't give any hints on what they should do. I would rather see this vile scumbags dethroned and all the criminals among them jailed before they get to be heard again. There is a new path the country should take, but for now it is the Republicans who still have to act like they have something to prove. So it is the Republicans who are more years from becoming corrupt than the Democrats (who are already there).
There you go lying again. You really have to provide evidence which, at least, agrees with you when you push these lies. From the article you linked:
supporters point to a 2013 Stanford study that found that Michigan charter-school students are learning at a faster rate in reading and math than their public-school peers — seeing an additional two months of gains in each subject. Gains for Detroit charter-school students were greater, at three months.
The only downside it lists is in some mismanaged of expenses (as if Public schools had none of those) and the source for that is Detroit Free Press -- an unapologetically Communist (by their own admission) newspaper.
Care to list some other cherry-picked bull shit to show that the system which has consistently produced better education outcomes should somehow be denied to blacks? That's your evidence for "humane" treatment of blacks by the Democrats, right? I'd call you an idiot, but I don't want to be that generous. I doubt you don't get it. You just can't sell the truth, so you pander lies.
85% of the Clinton Foundation was spent on doing charity work
Well, either you are lying or most of the news sources are. I'll go ahead and assume it's you.
spending that money running charitable programs themselves
That is they spent that money on their family activities? Got it. Your evidence that I am wrong is to agree with me. Clintons were broke when BIll left office. And then he somehow magically had enough money to spend millions on his daughter's wedding. That's his personal money -- not government picking up his bills (as it did when he was President). I am sure a billion dollars in donations from state actors to a foundation which is doing charity in countries in which those states have no interest is producing no family income for Clintons. It's all above board. Tax filings.... Jesus H Christ! Tax filings! This is what you use to judge how Clintons spend their money abroad? Clinton family has been in money laundering business first and foremost ever since Bill left office. Everything else they did was subservient to that activity. And before you think I am some right-wing nut, you should know that I voted for Gore.
That's because you (and the general public) doesn't seem to grok the Russian's actual goals here.
Really? So was this not a problem before the election? The full damage that the Clintons had done to the US interests was known. Why did the fact that it was Russians who participated in buying of Clintons only become a story after Clinton lost the election? I don't know how you come to the conclusion that only one side is aware of something. Both D's and R's are claiming Russian interference in the elections. Neither side is offering anything sinister which occurred in secret (buying ads and paying shills is not sinister -- it's politics-as-usual). The only things which can be claimed to have been sinister were done in the open. And, again, they were not brought up as anything important before the US electorate rejected the criminals who are now pushing this narrative.
The real goal is the destabilization of Western democracies.
Oh? My bad. I didn't realize there were millions of Russians who settle in the West and refused to assimilate in order to create their own society-within-a-society in order destabilize the host countries. Oh, wait. It wasn't the Russians who did that. It was the muslim immigrants. I wonder who has more money to buy influence in secret.... Russia, which emerged as a result of an economic collapse of the Soviet Union, or OPEC nations (awash in oil cash)? Well, I guess we'll never know.
Slashdot Mirror
Should we all stop breathing in public, too? I assure you that what we all exhale is more toxic to you than water vapor.
Water vapors make your eyes watery? Should we outlaw boiling water in public for your convenience?
And let's ban caffeine vapors in 2nd-hand caffeine inhalation (supermarket isles and all hot caffeinated beverages). Say, are you a mormon? Oh, and, of course, 2nd-hand alcohol inhalation by anyone smelling alcohol vapors under any circumstances. And don't forget gasoline vapors. What else can we ban that doesn't hurt anyone in marginally small amounts?
naturally they are going to ban batteries and gasoline next? To make sure their fumes are not inhaled through 2nd-hand exposure?
The bullshit claim stands.
No, it doesn't. The point of extra disclosure during advertisements is to bring attention to the fact that what the viewer is seeing is not part of the regular content, but that it is some other content which has the aim of influencing opinion. An ad in a newspaper or on TV can be made to look like regular news content or TV content. So this extra flash of information (you are watching an attempt to influence! pay attention!) is required. On a social platform, you are presumably familiar with everyone providing "regular" content (because they interacting with you rather than just broadcasting at you). So anything which just projects a flat message already stands out (because it's not interactive and not communicating in a familiar manner). So ther is no need for extra reminders. The only purpose this law can serve is to increase barrier to entry of less organized speech. In other words, it's a suppression of free political speech.
Well, it participates in your conversation in the same way as someone trying to give you a pamphlet, while you are talking to a friend on the street, participates in your conversation. It doesn't actively do it. But it injects itself into a private conversation. A commercial playing during a TV broadcast is effectively part of the programming. So there is more of a need to remind you that it isn't part of the programming. Someone injecting himself into a private conversation is very clearly a sideshow rather than part of the show itself. So you are actually proving my point.
Oh? Well, good to know. I guess the concern is overblown then.
News Corporation's largest shareholder is Murdoch family (and Murdoch is not an American citizen). And the concern over News Corp's influence on US politics is quite frequently expressed.
Speaking of New York Times, should it have to disclose that its largest shareholder is a Mexican national with close ties to the Mexican government? Or is this something its readers are not entitled to knowing when they read all the criticisms of building a border wall with Mexico?
Is there some reason you think Facebook should be immune from what the New York Times has to do?
Advertising on Facebook is paying to participate in private conversations of others. Advertising in traditional media (even when it is distributed online) is injecting your messages into broadcast message stream which has the air of being vetted and authoritative. Advertising in social media is pretty much like paying the host to be invited to a private party. Advertising in traditional media is like announcing that you are the benefactor of a theater before a theatrical performance. These are entirely different and should not be treated equally.
Extending that to Facebook, Twitter, etc. is hardly overreach.
Why? Social media acts as social platforms (ie, town squares) much more so than as broadcast "media" platforms such as TV and radio. Why should social media be treated with the same gloves as TV and radio rather than the same gloves as town squares?
Did that comment of yours advertise your point of view just now? Should your home address be disclosed because you posted your opinion on the Internet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I didn't. The article he used to justify his lies did. It only cited the Stanford study and the Communist "Detroit Free Press". I addressed them both in my reply.
I can't even remember the last time a right winger passed a basic logic test for consideration for an interview at my job.
Just like in Hollywood, they know they need to be smart enough to hide it. It's the 1st rule of dealing with the insane -- adopt their world view or you don't have any chance of getting through when talking to them.
I don't know why India is building more power plants,
Maybe you didn't. But you do now. Because per-kW generation is cheapest with nuclear.
Toshiba filed for bankruptcy after buying Westinghouse because of cost overruns in Georgia and SC.
Most likely because of regulatory hurdles put in the way of new construction by the previous administration.
You don't need to cherry pick data because you're obviously starting with the conclusion
Conclusion? There are multiple instances of Clintons breaking laws. There is only one instance of Clintons suffering any legal repercussions for their law breaking -- Bill Clinton's disbarment. There are multiple occasions on which Clintons publically stated that they had no interest in abiding by laws which restricted behaviors of the people who were in positions which they (Clintons) occupied at the time. So, yeah, serial recidivism of Clintons is public knowledge and I do take it into account when reaching my conclusions.
Which is why I don't think he is an idiot. I've demonstrated on a few occasions that he is a liar though. If his points were so obviously true, he wouldn't need to lie to prove them.
Am I? At least my (even if farfetched) has more evidence for it than the bogus Russian-election interference claim that the Democrats are pushing.
Come to Stockholm, and ride the subway 4-5 stops, any line. You're almost certain to hear Russian being spoken. Here in my suburb we have a block known as "Little Moscow" because nearly all the people living there are Russian.
That's not refusing to assimilate. New York is a motley of ethnic neighborhoods. Most people of 3rd generation or so still know where their grandparents came from. But they are all assimilated. They are all American in every way. They all speak English and they are more likely to be familiar with English-language writers than with writers of countries from which their grandparents came from. If they follow any sports, it's more likely that they follow American sports. It's not any one detail that defines a culture. It's the totality of them. The fact that they can have some flair of their ancestors' culture in their lives is not a failure to assimilate.
And speaking of Helsinki--lots and lots of Russians there, too, as well as in Espoo and Turku.
The fact that they speak Russian to each other doesn't mean as much as the fact that they can speak your native language to you. Helsinki is really not a fair example, btw. Google maps shows that it's about 2 hours by car from St Petersburg (E18 ?). That's closer to St Petersburg than most cities in Russia.
So... You were saying...?
That the communities which uproot local cultures are invasive. Muslims (in Europe) do that. Russians seem to adapt to local cultures rather than isolate themselves from them.
The issue of non-assimilation has nothing to do with this issue, nice try at straw man.
It's not a straw man. The muslim minorities which refuse to allow assimilation are the main reason for destabilization of Western European societies. Trying to blame any of it on Russia is just a misdirection.
Over a dozen intrusions into various election-related systems, including several state-level systems. Just because the hacks didn't "change" the election doesn't mean it's OK
No, something else makes it Ok. The fact that it never happened.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
Jesus. Read this sentence 3 times and then think about whether anyone who is paying attention would actually believe this kind of bullshit. "Programming expenses"? What's the drill down? How much of it on private-jet fuel?
Trump's cabinet is doing stupid things like making energy more expensive by pushing coal and nuclear energy, the EPA is allowing more pollution
aha. It's why India has signed a deal to build 10 nuclear plants. Because it's looking to waste money. Nuclear has the cheapest per kW generation and coal has the cheapest booster per kW generation. "Renewables" only have cheapest generation during excess production times.
I voted for Bush in 2000.
You want me to take the word of a criminal-supporter such as yourself on your voting record? Pass. Although if you did vote for Bush, you might be in a better position to claim that you are just an idiot rather than an apologist for criminals. I just don't think you are that stupid.
if the Democratic party wants to win in...
Yeah, I hope they do exactly what you suggest. I won't give any hints on what they should do. I would rather see this vile scumbags dethroned and all the criminals among them jailed before they get to be heard again. There is a new path the country should take, but for now it is the Republicans who still have to act like they have something to prove. So it is the Republicans who are more years from becoming corrupt than the Democrats (who are already there).
supporters point to a 2013 Stanford study that found that Michigan charter-school students are learning at a faster rate in reading and math than their public-school peers — seeing an additional two months of gains in each subject. Gains for Detroit charter-school students were greater, at three months.
The only downside it lists is in some mismanaged of expenses (as if Public schools had none of those) and the source for that is Detroit Free Press -- an unapologetically Communist (by their own admission) newspaper.
Care to list some other cherry-picked bull shit to show that the system which has consistently produced better education outcomes should somehow be denied to blacks? That's your evidence for "humane" treatment of blacks by the Democrats, right? I'd call you an idiot, but I don't want to be that generous. I doubt you don't get it. You just can't sell the truth, so you pander lies.
85% of the Clinton Foundation was spent on doing charity work
Well, either you are lying or most of the news sources are. I'll go ahead and assume it's you.
spending that money running charitable programs themselves
That is they spent that money on their family activities? Got it. Your evidence that I am wrong is to agree with me. Clintons were broke when BIll left office. And then he somehow magically had enough money to spend millions on his daughter's wedding. That's his personal money -- not government picking up his bills (as it did when he was President). I am sure a billion dollars in donations from state actors to a foundation which is doing charity in countries in which those states have no interest is producing no family income for Clintons. It's all above board. Tax filings.... Jesus H Christ! Tax filings! This is what you use to judge how Clintons spend their money abroad? Clinton family has been in money laundering business first and foremost ever since Bill left office. Everything else they did was subservient to that activity. And before you think I am some right-wing nut, you should know that I voted for Gore.
That's because you (and the general public) doesn't seem to grok the Russian's actual goals here.
Really? So was this not a problem before the election? The full damage that the Clintons had done to the US interests was known. Why did the fact that it was Russians who participated in buying of Clintons only become a story after Clinton lost the election? I don't know how you come to the conclusion that only one side is aware of something. Both D's and R's are claiming Russian interference in the elections. Neither side is offering anything sinister which occurred in secret (buying ads and paying shills is not sinister -- it's politics-as-usual). The only things which can be claimed to have been sinister were done in the open. And, again, they were not brought up as anything important before the US electorate rejected the criminals who are now pushing this narrative.
The real goal is the destabilization of Western democracies.
Oh? My bad. I didn't realize there were millions of Russians who settle in the West and refused to assimilate in order to create their own society-within-a-society in order destabilize the host countries. Oh, wait. It wasn't the Russians who did that. It was the muslim immigrants. I wonder who has more money to buy influence in secret.... Russia, which emerged as a result of an economic collapse of the Soviet Union, or OPEC nations (awash in oil cash)? Well, I guess we'll never know.