You gave no facts to support your own childish name-calling against Trump. Show me how he benefits personally from the changes with the EPA using facts. If not, you are simply a troll. Proving of course that you are in fact an imbecile, instead of just looking like one.
Oh, so now the Government redistributing wealth by confiscation is the same thing as a person investing in a company? Wholly fuck! Stop and think! Solyndra was a success? Because after receiving 500 million dollars from Tax payers they went out of business less than 3 months later? Does your IQ get as high as the temperature on a cold day?
common leftist strawman is that if you don't believe in man made critical climate change theory you must be an evil denier.
You'd be a denier, even if it's not evil. Left or right has nothing to do with it. The science is objective and clear.
Really? That's great. So what percentage of the current climate shift is natural versus induced by man? How about some clear numbers on reforestation rates and impact to the climate since the 1970s in the US and Europe? Better still, if we shut down all Petroleum Production and usage today, what would the economic impact be and how many people would die because of it? Please hold your breath while you search for those clear and objective numbers. The only thing settled is your opinion, which may not have much to do with "science" at all.
You failed miserably at both. I can only suggest that you get outside of your echo chamber, because it's making you appear to be an imbecile. Perhaps you are, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.
You really need to show me some. Keith Ellison, Tom Perez, Sally Brown, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Tim Kaine?
Those are the current "voices" and leaders in the Democratic Party. You have everyone from open haters of the US Constitution to open haters of White people in that mix, and not a single honest thought in the bunch. Seriously, the Democrats have nobody that I can think of capable of winning an election. The current leaders and voices command a small group of people who fall for the identity politics. The majority of the US is just being more and more turned off by them.
I'm anxiously waiting for more results like we just saw in Virginia, where over 1,000 people self reported that they voted illegally. An actual investigation was called for, and I hope we start to see results.
GP is correct, that the majority of votes case illegally tend to go to Democratic candidates. Again, I am anxious to see the numbers.
Perhaps you meant Bill Clinton? Jackoff versus getting one? Oh wait, you are repeating propaganda without considering your words. Obama using the EPA to "put coal out of business" was fine because it fits your agenda better. Obama giving hundreds of billions of tax dollars to great projects like Solyndra are similarly fine. Typical hypocritical leftist bullshit.
If that's all you hear, you are certainly not talking to the average citizens in the US. Try choosing sources more carefully and you would hear about a different world. Hell, do you think I listen to just the BBC for issues in the UK? How about Der Spiegel for issues in Germany? How about the Pravda for Russia? The answer is "NO", I know what propaganda looks like.
The first part you mention is a trend going back quite a ways. The US has been creeping toward fascism for quite some time, but it has always taken money to be a politician. TO the second, the common leftist strawman is that if you don't believe in man made critical climate change theory you must be an evil denier. Rational thought is not part of leftism, nor is rational discourse. Again, nothing new but surely more pronounced today than even a decade ago.
To the last part, it's a partial answer. Regulations push local surcharges, licensing fees, and other burdens add more cost than health care to most businesses. Economics is certainly hard, meaning that a simple answer is going to be wrong.
Lastly, in the 70s LA had smog days where it was dangerous to go outside. We have been cleaning and getting better since before that time, but the 70s started a massive push to clean the air. China opening up a solar power plant is a start, but the air in Beijing is certainly not getting better. We can talk about how great China is for the environment when they are actually doing great. Until then, full facts matter much more than hyperbole and selective anecdotes supporting a fake claim.
Lets start by the DNC stacking the deck to give the nomination to her instead of Sanders, and colluding on ways to beat him. Not the Hillary campaign mind you, but the Democratic National Party. Then we get into the Hillary back slapping crowd, and the back stabbing crowd, each demonstrating what a great for America team this truly was.. right?
Now lets talk about how many positive "lets work on this platform for a better America" emails we found in the dumps...... *crickets*
Trump needed to win enough votes from the Electoral College no matter which States they were. AND HE DID! There were 2 States where Trump had no chance, and he spent no money or time in them. He was in every State where he had a chance, more than once.
Compared to Hillary who did not campaign, but had bought and paid for shilvertisements alleging to be "interviews". Hillary had very few stops in very few States talking to very few people. We know now that Health probably played a role (pneumonia), but her and her staff lied about that which hurt more than it helped adding to her reputation for dishonesty and deceit.
Hillary did have Obama out campaigning for her during the last 3 months of the Election cycle instead of acting as the President. She had massive amounts of cash from PACs running negative ads, and the full array of News Papers, On-line media, and TV media pushing for her and trashing Trump.
Just quit with the woe as me shit "If only Michigan or Ohio", or "If only not for the FBI", or any of the other horse shit. Hillary was and is a terrible person, and made for a horrible candidate. A better candidate may have beaten Trump, but that's up for debate. Trump won because he was not from the Establishment, not because he is a great politician.
The world as a whole has gained from the productivity and innovation found in the US. The US has been getting "green" since I was a kid in the late 60s, meaning we have had concerns with pollution and environmental impact. No, it's not something you can fix by hitting it with a mallet, but Yes we have been working toward cleaner solutions, restoration, reforestation, recycling, etc.. Not just changing/updating machinery, but huge cash investments in public awareness and education as well.
Meanwhile counties that have benefited from the US technology boosts have become bigger polluters without the same traction for becoming "green". That is not necessarily nefarious, but because industrialization takes time to implement, and then you have to go back and start fixing stuff to make it "green".
I am really tired of the demonization of the US. The American people are the most generous in the world, with the most concern for other nations in the world. While we don't always take the "right" actions, the intent from the public is never "screw them other guys".
The Paris Climate Treaty was firstly illegal, because a treaty requires congressional approval not an EO. It also happens to punish the American Public, and not for some direct action of the US Public. These are not even punishing for the sins of our father, it's more akin to punishing sins of a second cousins father in-laws adopted brother. If we all somehow got rich polluting the world and continue to do so, where the hell is my share?
If enough members of society agree with you, you could have your way. Fortunately the majority of society is moral so laws like this have to be hidden in backdoor rulings and judge shopping. Too bad you can't see the need for basic logic and reason.
The amount of people like you, who cherry pick a sentence from a post to argue with, is quite disturbing. I get that reading and comprehension skills are down across the US, but holy hell! There are a total of 3 sentences in that paragraph, and you can't get past the first!
It absolutely does matter if it's immoral. In the case of a law being immoral it is up to members of society to point out the immorality and demand change to law. This happens regularly in a direction against the populace, but does occasionally happen in the other direction (an should). Complacency in the face of immorality makes the complacent just as guilty as the oppressor.
And it will be appealed and should be. The law should not favor a little guy suing a big guy any more than the reverse. Comedians with a reputation for stealing jokes become the brunt of them, and lose audiences.
Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words.
What... like a book?>
Selective reading at it's finest. Try not cherry picking points to make non-existent arguments with.
There is not hard line of "originality" the brain is input output with an arbitrary amount of processing, cases argue originality of creative works all the time, and everytime they draw an arbitrary line, so "can you copyright a joke"? that's subjective, it depends on the case, it depends on the Judge. (Yes copyright makes no sense)
A joke is not just a string of words. A joke is delivery, context, relevance to history/current events, etc... This is why jokes are recycled over and over again over generations. No, you can't copyright a joke. It is material that already exists in the public domain. If you have to go judge shopping to get the answer you want, it is an immoral position to hold.
Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words. You can trademark a company name, but I can tell jokes about your Company all day long and not violate your trademark law. You can copyright very long strings of words as complete thoughts, but even then I can quote you all I like as long as I give credit.
If one could copyright a joke, countless comedians would have no possibility of a career. Jokes are remade over and over and over, in addition to being simply stolen between acts. (Intentionally avoiding digs at comedians known to steal other people's jokes.)
"me", "me", "me", "me". Face it, you don't give a shit about others. Yet you want me to have empathy for you being corrected for poor grammar and spelling? Oh no, life does not work that way. Relationships are reciprocated.
While I agree that the first 2 are of no value, Apple and Google make tangible useful products. As someone else in the topic states, there is a duopoly on mobile phones between the two. They both make products for the desktop and mobile which dig into the long held MS monopoly.
That is not to say they don't have crap too, but definitely not a Facebook or Twitter. If those two companies stopped receiving free advertising from people, competing products would put them out of business.
I'm not going to get into specifics, but don't deny there are exceptions. Children are supposed to push boundaries, parents are supposed to establish them. This is normal behavior. Timeout, Grounding, etc... only works as long as the minor agrees to the premise that they have to be grounded, put on timeout, etc.. Girls tend to be less anti-authoritarian than boys. Again, normal behavior.
A boy is far more likely to tell you to F-off when being subject to discipline, perhaps even take a swing at you on their way out of the area to ignore you, cause harm to themselves or others due to rage against authority. Those are normal exceptions where being a parent requires a set of different actions. Not every kid has them, but enough do where there are acceptable limits to the no corporal punishments rule of the Non Aggression Principles.
Does not sound like your case, but again don't deny the need for exceptions.
While I agree with the basic tenants of the Non Aggression Principle, there are exceptions. Where the statistics show problems is under a chronic fear of physical punishment, or where physical violence is the only punishment. There are similar problems with children who are never punished and let run wild as well.
The two parties are not mutually exclusive. I agree that parenting is a large part of that culture, instructors (teachers/professors) are just as guilty. I don't agree that you need a belt either. My kid was always disciplined in school and held accountable for his actions, right or wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
You gave no facts to support your own childish name-calling against Trump. Show me how he benefits personally from the changes with the EPA using facts. If not, you are simply a troll. Proving of course that you are in fact an imbecile, instead of just looking like one.
Oh, so now the Government redistributing wealth by confiscation is the same thing as a person investing in a company? Wholly fuck! Stop and think! Solyndra was a success? Because after receiving 500 million dollars from Tax payers they went out of business less than 3 months later? Does your IQ get as high as the temperature on a cold day?
common leftist strawman is that if you don't believe in man made critical climate change theory you must be an evil denier.
You'd be a denier, even if it's not evil. Left or right has nothing to do with it. The science is objective and clear.
Really? That's great. So what percentage of the current climate shift is natural versus induced by man? How about some clear numbers on reforestation rates and impact to the climate since the 1970s in the US and Europe? Better still, if we shut down all Petroleum Production and usage today, what would the economic impact be and how many people would die because of it? Please hold your breath while you search for those clear and objective numbers. The only thing settled is your opinion, which may not have much to do with "science" at all.
You failed miserably at both. I can only suggest that you get outside of your echo chamber, because it's making you appear to be an imbecile. Perhaps you are, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.
You really need to show me some. Keith Ellison, Tom Perez, Sally Brown, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Tim Kaine?
Those are the current "voices" and leaders in the Democratic Party. You have everyone from open haters of the US Constitution to open haters of White people in that mix, and not a single honest thought in the bunch. Seriously, the Democrats have nobody that I can think of capable of winning an election. The current leaders and voices command a small group of people who fall for the identity politics. The majority of the US is just being more and more turned off by them.
I'm anxiously waiting for more results like we just saw in Virginia, where over 1,000 people self reported that they voted illegally. An actual investigation was called for, and I hope we start to see results.
GP is correct, that the majority of votes case illegally tend to go to Democratic candidates. Again, I am anxious to see the numbers.
Perhaps you meant Bill Clinton? Jackoff versus getting one? Oh wait, you are repeating propaganda without considering your words. Obama using the EPA to "put coal out of business" was fine because it fits your agenda better. Obama giving hundreds of billions of tax dollars to great projects like Solyndra are similarly fine. Typical hypocritical leftist bullshit.
If that's all you hear, you are certainly not talking to the average citizens in the US. Try choosing sources more carefully and you would hear about a different world. Hell, do you think I listen to just the BBC for issues in the UK? How about Der Spiegel for issues in Germany? How about the Pravda for Russia? The answer is "NO", I know what propaganda looks like.
The first part you mention is a trend going back quite a ways. The US has been creeping toward fascism for quite some time, but it has always taken money to be a politician. TO the second, the common leftist strawman is that if you don't believe in man made critical climate change theory you must be an evil denier. Rational thought is not part of leftism, nor is rational discourse. Again, nothing new but surely more pronounced today than even a decade ago.
To the last part, it's a partial answer. Regulations push local surcharges, licensing fees, and other burdens add more cost than health care to most businesses. Economics is certainly hard, meaning that a simple answer is going to be wrong.
Lastly, in the 70s LA had smog days where it was dangerous to go outside. We have been cleaning and getting better since before that time, but the 70s started a massive push to clean the air. China opening up a solar power plant is a start, but the air in Beijing is certainly not getting better. We can talk about how great China is for the environment when they are actually doing great. Until then, full facts matter much more than hyperbole and selective anecdotes supporting a fake claim.
The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.
Most Americans do believe that the Government no longer works for them though, which was the hallmark of a Great America.
Nothing bad in the leaked emails? Really?
Lets start by the DNC stacking the deck to give the nomination to her instead of Sanders, and colluding on ways to beat him. Not the Hillary campaign mind you, but the Democratic National Party. Then we get into the Hillary back slapping crowd, and the back stabbing crowd, each demonstrating what a great for America team this truly was.. right?
Now lets talk about how many positive "lets work on this platform for a better America" emails we found in the dumps...... *crickets*
Russia Russia Russia my ass.
Trump needed to win enough votes from the Electoral College no matter which States they were. AND HE DID! There were 2 States where Trump had no chance, and he spent no money or time in them. He was in every State where he had a chance, more than once.
Compared to Hillary who did not campaign, but had bought and paid for shilvertisements alleging to be "interviews". Hillary had very few stops in very few States talking to very few people. We know now that Health probably played a role (pneumonia), but her and her staff lied about that which hurt more than it helped adding to her reputation for dishonesty and deceit.
Hillary did have Obama out campaigning for her during the last 3 months of the Election cycle instead of acting as the President. She had massive amounts of cash from PACs running negative ads, and the full array of News Papers, On-line media, and TV media pushing for her and trashing Trump.
Just quit with the woe as me shit "If only Michigan or Ohio", or "If only not for the FBI", or any of the other horse shit. Hillary was and is a terrible person, and made for a horrible candidate. A better candidate may have beaten Trump, but that's up for debate. Trump won because he was not from the Establishment, not because he is a great politician.
The world as a whole has gained from the productivity and innovation found in the US. The US has been getting "green" since I was a kid in the late 60s, meaning we have had concerns with pollution and environmental impact. No, it's not something you can fix by hitting it with a mallet, but Yes we have been working toward cleaner solutions, restoration, reforestation, recycling, etc.. Not just changing/updating machinery, but huge cash investments in public awareness and education as well.
Meanwhile counties that have benefited from the US technology boosts have become bigger polluters without the same traction for becoming "green". That is not necessarily nefarious, but because industrialization takes time to implement, and then you have to go back and start fixing stuff to make it "green".
I am really tired of the demonization of the US. The American people are the most generous in the world, with the most concern for other nations in the world. While we don't always take the "right" actions, the intent from the public is never "screw them other guys".
The Paris Climate Treaty was firstly illegal, because a treaty requires congressional approval not an EO. It also happens to punish the American Public, and not for some direct action of the US Public. These are not even punishing for the sins of our father, it's more akin to punishing sins of a second cousins father in-laws adopted brother. If we all somehow got rich polluting the world and continue to do so, where the hell is my share?
That same appeal to emotion works with the Government Controlled Firewall too.
If enough members of society agree with you, you could have your way. Fortunately the majority of society is moral so laws like this have to be hidden in backdoor rulings and judge shopping. Too bad you can't see the need for basic logic and reason.
The amount of people like you, who cherry pick a sentence from a post to argue with, is quite disturbing. I get that reading and comprehension skills are down across the US, but holy hell! There are a total of 3 sentences in that paragraph, and you can't get past the first!
It absolutely does matter if it's immoral. In the case of a law being immoral it is up to members of society to point out the immorality and demand change to law. This happens regularly in a direction against the populace, but does occasionally happen in the other direction (an should). Complacency in the face of immorality makes the complacent just as guilty as the oppressor.
And it will be appealed and should be. The law should not favor a little guy suing a big guy any more than the reverse. Comedians with a reputation for stealing jokes become the brunt of them, and lose audiences.
No
Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words.
What... like a book?>
Selective reading at it's finest. Try not cherry picking points to make non-existent arguments with.
There is not hard line of "originality" the brain is input output with an arbitrary amount of processing, cases argue originality of creative works all the time, and everytime they draw an arbitrary line, so "can you copyright a joke"? that's subjective, it depends on the case, it depends on the Judge. (Yes copyright makes no sense)
A joke is not just a string of words. A joke is delivery, context, relevance to history/current events, etc... This is why jokes are recycled over and over again over generations. No, you can't copyright a joke. It is material that already exists in the public domain. If you have to go judge shopping to get the answer you want, it is an immoral position to hold.
No
Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words. You can trademark a company name, but I can tell jokes about your Company all day long and not violate your trademark law. You can copyright very long strings of words as complete thoughts, but even then I can quote you all I like as long as I give credit.
If one could copyright a joke, countless comedians would have no possibility of a career. Jokes are remade over and over and over, in addition to being simply stolen between acts. (Intentionally avoiding digs at comedians known to steal other people's jokes.)
"me", "me", "me", "me". Face it, you don't give a shit about others. Yet you want me to have empathy for you being corrected for poor grammar and spelling? Oh no, life does not work that way. Relationships are reciprocated.
While I agree that the first 2 are of no value, Apple and Google make tangible useful products. As someone else in the topic states, there is a duopoly on mobile phones between the two. They both make products for the desktop and mobile which dig into the long held MS monopoly.
That is not to say they don't have crap too, but definitely not a Facebook or Twitter. If those two companies stopped receiving free advertising from people, competing products would put them out of business.
I'm not going to get into specifics, but don't deny there are exceptions. Children are supposed to push boundaries, parents are supposed to establish them. This is normal behavior. Timeout, Grounding, etc... only works as long as the minor agrees to the premise that they have to be grounded, put on timeout, etc.. Girls tend to be less anti-authoritarian than boys. Again, normal behavior.
A boy is far more likely to tell you to F-off when being subject to discipline, perhaps even take a swing at you on their way out of the area to ignore you, cause harm to themselves or others due to rage against authority. Those are normal exceptions where being a parent requires a set of different actions. Not every kid has them, but enough do where there are acceptable limits to the no corporal punishments rule of the Non Aggression Principles.
Does not sound like your case, but again don't deny the need for exceptions.
While I agree with the basic tenants of the Non Aggression Principle, there are exceptions. Where the statistics show problems is under a chronic fear of physical punishment, or where physical violence is the only punishment. There are similar problems with children who are never punished and let run wild as well.
Being human is nothing to be ashamed of.
The two parties are not mutually exclusive. I agree that parenting is a large part of that culture, instructors (teachers/professors) are just as guilty. I don't agree that you need a belt either. My kid was always disciplined in school and held accountable for his actions, right or wrong.