Yes, this was an attempt to diminish the value of what the actually-achieving students have been spending tens of thousands of dollars for. No, it's not the security department's fault. Just like it wouldn't be their fault if he was willing to smash a window.
So if I pay $501 to run ads on FB say things like, "Be sure to elect a president that hasn't deliberately allowed classified information to be stored on a home computer and then lied repeatedly about it!" without explicitly mentioning Hillary Clinton, I should be good, right?
And from, that they gather... that I'm male and white? Or female and black? Or dressed in a Che t-shirt, or with a flag pin on a lapel, or what? What does any of that you about who flew me to the protest, who handed me the printed signs, who's feeding me lunch, and who's buying my time so I don't have to be at a job while I'm being "grass roots" for a paycheck? Specifically, how does seeing me carry a sign tell you who I am?
you shouldn't have to if you are campaigning for something that is just
It's exactly because they knew there would be people like you that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution made the very first item on the Bill Of Rights a specific ban preventing people like you from using the power of government to decide who gets to speak because of what's "just" according to whoever has that power that particular week. If you don't get that, then please refrain from doing dangerous things like voting - you're not familiar enough with the constitution to have that power over other people.
No. She's demonstrably incompetent, she lies badly and regularly (about big stuff like mishandling classified information, and little stuff - everything from how she got her first name to her adventures in being "under fire" at airports), she and her husband enriched themselves to the tune of millions of dollars through selling influence while in public office, and she's almost universally disliked by most normal people who've ever had to work with her. So, why would I be kidding?
proven from the fact that Facebook ads can influence an election and give us Trump as President
Oh, come on. First, it wasn't just Hillary losing. Under Obama, the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats. Most of the governorships. Both houses of congress. They lost the White House because they put all of their resources into backing a wildly corrupt, incompetent, serially lying, awful person up as the standard-bearer for their party, and then were too scared of her future power over them to remind her that doing thing like calling half the women in the county deplorable and not even bothering to set foot in states like Wisconsin during the campaign were stupid. She lost because she was the perfect emblem of the Democrat party, and millions of two-time Obama voters turned their backs in disgust. But sure, you just keep telling yourself it was the Russians.
Which is what makes marching around with a sign different - you're already identifying yourself.
How am I identifying myself when I'm walking down the sidewalk holding a sign? Am I having to show my papers? Do my signs, legally, have to have my name on them or explain which activist group gave me the money to print them up?
So, if I spend $501 running ads that say things like, "Hey, internal combustion engines really aren't so bad. Firefighters need them!" or "Really, we need to be careful with our H1-B visa program" or "We need leaders that only want peace, non-GMO corn, and no guns"... which politician or party just benefited from my spending? If I spend $501 on fancy printed signs and march around downtown proclaiming the same things, how is that different?
And yet I had coverage before the ACA. And lost it because of the ACA, only to have to buy it again, but this time with maternity coverage I can't possibly use, and now with premiums that are over 400% higher, and a deductible that's over 500% higher. Yay, ACA. Now I get essentially no benefit from my huge new premiums, and no longer have in hand the cash I'd normally have used for a routine visit to the doctor that the ACA's coverage no longer covers. Yay, thanks Democrats. You've given me essentially a catastrophic insurance plan at the cost of a premium plan that delivers exactly zero actual health care until I've dished out tens of thousands of dollars on top of what the care actually costs me. Thanks, Democrats.
Ah, so, you still don't actually have anything (say, from a "real" source) that counters the statements from the quoted protester and the many other abundant examples of violent protesters working for the left. Which is why you're sticking with the craven ad hominem. Gotcha! Because coming to terms with the fact that it's the left that likes to do things like put on black masks and beat people bloody to prevent them from hearing someone speak would mean examining what you actually stand for. Right now, you've got the brown shirts working for you, and your political compatriots cheering on their classically thuggish lefty way of life. So, do you like the red "Che" t-shirt with the black art, or are you more of a black t-shirt with the red Che on it kinda person? It's so hard to choose the best way to celebrate leftist violence.
Shall we go through just this web site alone and compile your typos and half-baked sentences? No, because that wouldn't be a fair representation of your cognitive skills? I see.
Way to deflect with lazy ad hominem instead of providing any actual substance that presents the facts in a different light. Essentially, you're working to prove him right by showing that even though you're trying to wish away the facts, the best you can come up with is juvenile insult instead of actual information.
Of course you're taking Dodge City numbers OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD and comparing them to annual rates in Chicago. And, pertinent to the conversation, you're not distinguishing between people beaten to death while drunk or stabbed to death, etc. as opposed to those killed using openly carried firearms. And, again, most deaths by gun in the west did NOT involve a handgun at all. Regardless, you're cherry picking a single infamous cattle town, and ignoring the fact that for the vast majority of people living in the west, someone (anyone!) in their town getting killed (let alone with a gun) wasn't a daily, weekly, or even monthly occurrence. The Hollywood portrayal is unrelated to the reality experienced by millions of people living across the midwest, the mountain states, and the west coast in the second half of 19th century.
I own many guns. Some are meant to kill... dinner. Like a nice tasty pheasant or dove. Or the critter that used to be a deer but is now a spectacular tenderloin roast I'm serving my friends. There's a farm I visit when running dogs, with adjacent property that as a problem with feral swine. The gun I take along for that occasion is a magnum handgun... not to kill, per se, but to save my life if I cross paths with one of those 500-pound very deadly and territorial escaped hogs. That gun is meant to save life, not take it. I also own guns that are all but useless for anything but breaking clay pigeons... an activity roughly like golfing or bowling. You could definitely use a golf club and kill somebody through a single blow to the head... and golf clubs are only meant for one thing: swinging at high speeds to cause a violent reaction, right?
My wife as a couple of guns, one of which she uses for bird hunting, and the other which is her preferred personal defense piece. Its only purpose is to protect her life. We've actually had to brandish a gun in the service of running off a giant, drug-addled guy screaming threats and well on his way to breaking down our back door with a four foot pipe. Another few minutes and he'd have been through. Took the cops almost half an hour to arrive. You, though, would like to ban the thing that would have saved my wife's life if she were home alone when that happened. Screw you and your arrogant ignorance.
Have you run this idea past your mommy yet? Or, your nanny, if your mommy is at work? Because you seem inclined to that level of having someone else think for you. How is it that you've avoided death by running with scissors? Does someone watch you all day to prevent that from happening?
yea, its not like it was in the old west when ppl carried open guns and nobody got killed because the robbers/bad guys would skip those areas
Actually, that happened FAR less that one would think, if one was forming all of one's opinions by watching violent western movies. Modern day Chicago is WILDLY more violent than anyplace in the frontier west. And most people who died in gunfights were killed with shotguns and rifles, not pistols. Pistols, the great equalizers, were considered a big factor in keeping everyone polite.
We just started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft last year???
No, but since they haven't seen a storm like that since 1939, current reporting implies it's never happened before. And depending on what network you're watching, it has only happened because Trump became president in January. Try to keep up. That wasn't a storm that hit Puerto Rico, it's all part of his genocide plan. You can tell, because a politician said so.
No, I'm not saying things aren't warmer. But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."
That's great. But right now they want food, water, and medicine. They don't want a fat orange asshole throwing paper towels at them.
Wow, you really are actively, deliberately, desperately TRYING to experience an alternate reality, aren't you? That's fine, if that's what makes you feel better about yourself. Just don't do anything dangerous to other people based on your assertion of an alternate universe (like, say, voting).
Right, because reminding everyone in PR, where they've been bankrupting themselves for years and doing nothing to invest in the sort of infrastructure that would make them more resilient to huge storms that will predictably and regularly pummel their tropical island, that they are now expecting some guy paying his taxes in Ohio or Delaware or Arizona to buy them a the services they demand so they can keep living on that tropical island... no, we wouldn't want to EVER characterize the situation as it actually is. We sure wouldn't want PR's people - who keep voting in the corruption that has left them in their vulnerable condition - to even hear a single comment that might remind them of the fact that they're demanding not just a huge expenditure of other people's money to deal with their immediate storm damage, but a years-long flood of other people's money to prop up their own unwillingness to operate like a first-world territory. Meanwhile, people like our favorite mayor there insist that the tens of thousands of relief workers there delivering an unprecedented stream of goods and services paid for by that hardworking soccer mom in Massachusetts, are actually on the island to commit genocide.
I get it, you're a partisan troll. But if you were an actually decent human being, you'd be scolding politicians like her, who are what's actually wrong with Puerto Rico and are the very reason that they're in such bad shape in the first place. It was a terrible storm. Its results were hugely magnified by local corruption, and incompetence. And the toxic, politically divisive atmosphere that the media is trying so hard to amplify because they still can't get over the fact that their preferred political candidate isn't president, is being magnified by people like you can't handle a single honest comment from the politician she lost to. I don't like Trump either, but your priorities are WAY wrong.
I am appalled that Puerto Ricans are being treated as a second class citizens.
You mean you've BEEN appalled for years about that? About how the local politicians in PR have, after being returned to office over and over again, carried on in a completely corrupt way, resulting in third-world conditions for those in PR still try to work and produce there? PR's people get treated like second class citizens because they ACT like second class citizens, and maintain a local government that keeps them that way. Let me guess, they were being treated like first class citizens by Obama, a year, ago, but everything's changed since then, right? Their infrastructure wasn't fragile a year ago, their economy was robust a year ago, and Obama had a huge fleet of people and material endlessly waiting to be dispatched to PR in case that hurricane-prone island had an usually bad hit. But all of that disappeared in January, right? Gotcha.
Donald Trump even believes that Puerto Rico is foreign country...
Why lie? Really, what's the point? Who do you think you're fooling?
... and does not deserve our help.
Yeah, the tens of thousands of federal employees and military people he's dispatched there, and the millions of tons of supplies, generators, fuel, medical equipment, food, water and the rest - he's keeping all of that just off-shore and teasing them with it because he hates them. Gotcha. Again, why are you lying? What's your agenda?
This is our chance to do right by PR and develop plans to manage disasters.
You mean RE-plan. Because up until Trump took over the executive branch, everything was planned and ready, right? The career people who work in all of the relief agencies had it all under control and ready until January, when they suddenly forgot everything, sank all of the supplies because Trump ordered them too, and are now working on the "genocide" program that some partisan socialist mayor in PR says Trump is executing. Gotcha. Or are you actually admitting that when the Democrats had full control of the government, and had control of the executive branch and thus the relief agencies like FEMA for the last eight years, they did nothing to make things more prepared? I see.
The aftermath of Katrina and Rita turned thriving areas into scenes right out of disaster films.
Right. Because those were (ready?) disasters. Puerto Rico also just had a real disaster. Made as difficult as it is because of a terribly corrupt local political environment, and a third-world quality power infrastructure they weren't willing to invest in. Why? Because they'd already squandered all of their people's money on corrupt waste. Not unlike New Orleans, really, where much of the scale of the problem was a result of LOCAL incompetence. Displays of desperation on the part of people who live below sea level in a routine hurricane target, but can't set aside a week's worth of canned beans and 30 gallons of drinking water because that's just too much trouble. It's Bush's fault! It's Trump's fault!
I believe he truly thinks a few roles of Bounty will solve anything.
Because you're full of crap and you know it. I suppose you think that Barrack Obama standing around shaking hands and helping to dish up some food for people in a line WAS going to solve things? Ah, I see. You're a complete hypocrite. Got it.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. Musk doesn't have even ONE smart person who can do any kind of math working for him. You should remind him to do something about that.
Was there any financial harm?
Yes, this was an attempt to diminish the value of what the actually-achieving students have been spending tens of thousands of dollars for. No, it's not the security department's fault. Just like it wouldn't be their fault if he was willing to smash a window.
So if I pay $501 to run ads on FB say things like, "Be sure to elect a president that hasn't deliberately allowed classified information to be stored on a home computer and then lied repeatedly about it!" without explicitly mentioning Hillary Clinton, I should be good, right?
No, people can physically see who you are.
And from, that they gather ... that I'm male and white? Or female and black? Or dressed in a Che t-shirt, or with a flag pin on a lapel, or what? What does any of that you about who flew me to the protest, who handed me the printed signs, who's feeding me lunch, and who's buying my time so I don't have to be at a job while I'm being "grass roots" for a paycheck? Specifically, how does seeing me carry a sign tell you who I am?
you shouldn't have to if you are campaigning for something that is just
It's exactly because they knew there would be people like you that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution made the very first item on the Bill Of Rights a specific ban preventing people like you from using the power of government to decide who gets to speak because of what's "just" according to whoever has that power that particular week. If you don't get that, then please refrain from doing dangerous things like voting - you're not familiar enough with the constitution to have that power over other people.
No. She's demonstrably incompetent, she lies badly and regularly (about big stuff like mishandling classified information, and little stuff - everything from how she got her first name to her adventures in being "under fire" at airports), she and her husband enriched themselves to the tune of millions of dollars through selling influence while in public office, and she's almost universally disliked by most normal people who've ever had to work with her. So, why would I be kidding?
proven from the fact that Facebook ads can influence an election and give us Trump as President
Oh, come on. First, it wasn't just Hillary losing. Under Obama, the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats. Most of the governorships. Both houses of congress. They lost the White House because they put all of their resources into backing a wildly corrupt, incompetent, serially lying, awful person up as the standard-bearer for their party, and then were too scared of her future power over them to remind her that doing thing like calling half the women in the county deplorable and not even bothering to set foot in states like Wisconsin during the campaign were stupid. She lost because she was the perfect emblem of the Democrat party, and millions of two-time Obama voters turned their backs in disgust. But sure, you just keep telling yourself it was the Russians.
Which is what makes marching around with a sign different - you're already identifying yourself.
How am I identifying myself when I'm walking down the sidewalk holding a sign? Am I having to show my papers? Do my signs, legally, have to have my name on them or explain which activist group gave me the money to print them up?
So, if I spend $501 running ads that say things like, "Hey, internal combustion engines really aren't so bad. Firefighters need them!" or "Really, we need to be careful with our H1-B visa program" or "We need leaders that only want peace, non-GMO corn, and no guns" ... which politician or party just benefited from my spending? If I spend $501 on fancy printed signs and march around downtown proclaiming the same things, how is that different?
Stop messing up your body's sugar metabolizing sensibilities by drinking sugar OR fake sugar. Drink water.
Yeah, starving yourself. That sounds like a great plan!
You don't really think, do you, that there's no middle ground between starving yourself and eating yourself into obesity?
Guy with bad knees can't walk. Gains weight. Needs knee replacement surgery.
What happened to "Guy with bad knees chooses not to overeat?"
And yet I had coverage before the ACA. And lost it because of the ACA, only to have to buy it again, but this time with maternity coverage I can't possibly use, and now with premiums that are over 400% higher, and a deductible that's over 500% higher. Yay, ACA. Now I get essentially no benefit from my huge new premiums, and no longer have in hand the cash I'd normally have used for a routine visit to the doctor that the ACA's coverage no longer covers. Yay, thanks Democrats. You've given me essentially a catastrophic insurance plan at the cost of a premium plan that delivers exactly zero actual health care until I've dished out tens of thousands of dollars on top of what the care actually costs me. Thanks, Democrats.
Ah, so, you still don't actually have anything (say, from a "real" source) that counters the statements from the quoted protester and the many other abundant examples of violent protesters working for the left. Which is why you're sticking with the craven ad hominem. Gotcha! Because coming to terms with the fact that it's the left that likes to do things like put on black masks and beat people bloody to prevent them from hearing someone speak would mean examining what you actually stand for. Right now, you've got the brown shirts working for you, and your political compatriots cheering on their classically thuggish lefty way of life. So, do you like the red "Che" t-shirt with the black art, or are you more of a black t-shirt with the red Che on it kinda person? It's so hard to choose the best way to celebrate leftist violence.
Shall we go through just this web site alone and compile your typos and half-baked sentences? No, because that wouldn't be a fair representation of your cognitive skills? I see.
Way to deflect with lazy ad hominem instead of providing any actual substance that presents the facts in a different light. Essentially, you're working to prove him right by showing that even though you're trying to wish away the facts, the best you can come up with is juvenile insult instead of actual information.
Of course you're taking Dodge City numbers OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD and comparing them to annual rates in Chicago. And, pertinent to the conversation, you're not distinguishing between people beaten to death while drunk or stabbed to death, etc. as opposed to those killed using openly carried firearms. And, again, most deaths by gun in the west did NOT involve a handgun at all. Regardless, you're cherry picking a single infamous cattle town, and ignoring the fact that for the vast majority of people living in the west, someone (anyone!) in their town getting killed (let alone with a gun) wasn't a daily, weekly, or even monthly occurrence. The Hollywood portrayal is unrelated to the reality experienced by millions of people living across the midwest, the mountain states, and the west coast in the second half of 19th century.
A gun is meant to kill.
I own many guns. Some are meant to kill ... dinner. Like a nice tasty pheasant or dove. Or the critter that used to be a deer but is now a spectacular tenderloin roast I'm serving my friends. There's a farm I visit when running dogs, with adjacent property that as a problem with feral swine. The gun I take along for that occasion is a magnum handgun ... not to kill, per se, but to save my life if I cross paths with one of those 500-pound very deadly and territorial escaped hogs. That gun is meant to save life, not take it. I also own guns that are all but useless for anything but breaking clay pigeons ... an activity roughly like golfing or bowling. You could definitely use a golf club and kill somebody through a single blow to the head ... and golf clubs are only meant for one thing: swinging at high speeds to cause a violent reaction, right?
My wife as a couple of guns, one of which she uses for bird hunting, and the other which is her preferred personal defense piece. Its only purpose is to protect her life. We've actually had to brandish a gun in the service of running off a giant, drug-addled guy screaming threats and well on his way to breaking down our back door with a four foot pipe. Another few minutes and he'd have been through. Took the cops almost half an hour to arrive. You, though, would like to ban the thing that would have saved my wife's life if she were home alone when that happened. Screw you and your arrogant ignorance.
Have you run this idea past your mommy yet? Or, your nanny, if your mommy is at work? Because you seem inclined to that level of having someone else think for you. How is it that you've avoided death by running with scissors? Does someone watch you all day to prevent that from happening?
yea, its not like it was in the old west when ppl carried open guns and nobody got killed because the robbers/bad guys would skip those areas
Actually, that happened FAR less that one would think, if one was forming all of one's opinions by watching violent western movies. Modern day Chicago is WILDLY more violent than anyplace in the frontier west. And most people who died in gunfights were killed with shotguns and rifles, not pistols. Pistols, the great equalizers, were considered a big factor in keeping everyone polite.
We just started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft last year???
No, but since they haven't seen a storm like that since 1939, current reporting implies it's never happened before. And depending on what network you're watching, it has only happened because Trump became president in January. Try to keep up. That wasn't a storm that hit Puerto Rico, it's all part of his genocide plan. You can tell, because a politician said so.
Thanks for making my point.
Back in 1939, when global warming was much worse!
No, I'm not saying things aren't warmer. But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."
That's great. But right now they want food, water, and medicine. They don't want a fat orange asshole throwing paper towels at them.
Wow, you really are actively, deliberately, desperately TRYING to experience an alternate reality, aren't you? That's fine, if that's what makes you feel better about yourself. Just don't do anything dangerous to other people based on your assertion of an alternate universe (like, say, voting).
Right, because reminding everyone in PR, where they've been bankrupting themselves for years and doing nothing to invest in the sort of infrastructure that would make them more resilient to huge storms that will predictably and regularly pummel their tropical island, that they are now expecting some guy paying his taxes in Ohio or Delaware or Arizona to buy them a the services they demand so they can keep living on that tropical island ... no, we wouldn't want to EVER characterize the situation as it actually is. We sure wouldn't want PR's people - who keep voting in the corruption that has left them in their vulnerable condition - to even hear a single comment that might remind them of the fact that they're demanding not just a huge expenditure of other people's money to deal with their immediate storm damage, but a years-long flood of other people's money to prop up their own unwillingness to operate like a first-world territory. Meanwhile, people like our favorite mayor there insist that the tens of thousands of relief workers there delivering an unprecedented stream of goods and services paid for by that hardworking soccer mom in Massachusetts, are actually on the island to commit genocide.
I get it, you're a partisan troll. But if you were an actually decent human being, you'd be scolding politicians like her, who are what's actually wrong with Puerto Rico and are the very reason that they're in such bad shape in the first place. It was a terrible storm. Its results were hugely magnified by local corruption, and incompetence. And the toxic, politically divisive atmosphere that the media is trying so hard to amplify because they still can't get over the fact that their preferred political candidate isn't president, is being magnified by people like you can't handle a single honest comment from the politician she lost to. I don't like Trump either, but your priorities are WAY wrong.
I am appalled that Puerto Ricans are being treated as a second class citizens.
You mean you've BEEN appalled for years about that? About how the local politicians in PR have, after being returned to office over and over again, carried on in a completely corrupt way, resulting in third-world conditions for those in PR still try to work and produce there? PR's people get treated like second class citizens because they ACT like second class citizens, and maintain a local government that keeps them that way. Let me guess, they were being treated like first class citizens by Obama, a year, ago, but everything's changed since then, right? Their infrastructure wasn't fragile a year ago, their economy was robust a year ago, and Obama had a huge fleet of people and material endlessly waiting to be dispatched to PR in case that hurricane-prone island had an usually bad hit. But all of that disappeared in January, right? Gotcha.
Donald Trump even believes that Puerto Rico is foreign country ...
Why lie? Really, what's the point? Who do you think you're fooling?
Yeah, the tens of thousands of federal employees and military people he's dispatched there, and the millions of tons of supplies, generators, fuel, medical equipment, food, water and the rest - he's keeping all of that just off-shore and teasing them with it because he hates them. Gotcha. Again, why are you lying? What's your agenda?
This is our chance to do right by PR and develop plans to manage disasters.
You mean RE-plan. Because up until Trump took over the executive branch, everything was planned and ready, right? The career people who work in all of the relief agencies had it all under control and ready until January, when they suddenly forgot everything, sank all of the supplies because Trump ordered them too, and are now working on the "genocide" program that some partisan socialist mayor in PR says Trump is executing. Gotcha. Or are you actually admitting that when the Democrats had full control of the government, and had control of the executive branch and thus the relief agencies like FEMA for the last eight years, they did nothing to make things more prepared? I see.
The aftermath of Katrina and Rita turned thriving areas into scenes right out of disaster films.
Right. Because those were (ready?) disasters. Puerto Rico also just had a real disaster. Made as difficult as it is because of a terribly corrupt local political environment, and a third-world quality power infrastructure they weren't willing to invest in. Why? Because they'd already squandered all of their people's money on corrupt waste. Not unlike New Orleans, really, where much of the scale of the problem was a result of LOCAL incompetence. Displays of desperation on the part of people who live below sea level in a routine hurricane target, but can't set aside a week's worth of canned beans and 30 gallons of drinking water because that's just too much trouble. It's Bush's fault! It's Trump's fault!
I believe he truly thinks a few roles of Bounty will solve anything.
Because you're full of crap and you know it. I suppose you think that Barrack Obama standing around shaking hands and helping to dish up some food for people in a line WAS going to solve things? Ah, I see. You're a complete hypocrite. Got it.