I don't understand your response...though my post was merely poking fun a summary that starts and finishes with the same exact sentence, I can't connect that logically with what you responded with.
If you run a Fortune 50 or even Fortune 500 company, legislation has the power to cripple your business. Therefore paying lobbyists to help keep the political environment stable for your business is a necessary expense. Three huge companies handling revenue in the billions per year spending an average of $20 million a year on lobbying for an industry that has a lot of regulatory burden they must account for is not that much. Whether Net Neutrality would have significantly affected their net profit or not, it absolutely is disruptive to their business. And anything that is disruptive to your business is a negative for the business, so they're going to try to mitigate that impact or reverse it. If they did NOT lobby congress, shareholders would start wondering if they had any clue what they were doing.
lobbying is paying your own lawyers and other type people to go to the government and spend time selling them on whatever idea it is the company wants. They can pay those people all they want.
One legitimately inaccurate story but what stories about the dossier or any other Trump/Russia illegal connection have been found true? None. It's not about just CNN either, but the entire mainstream media. The entire mainstream media machine has been derelict in their duty to verify news before reporting it. To think that is anything other than malevolence at its source is asinine. The alternative is that the entire mainstream media machine is so blind/inept that they mistakenly published story after story that has turned out to be false about Trump collusion with Russia. So what has this administration ACTUALLY done that warrants this behavior? The worst thing Trump has done is repeatedly go off rude/half cocked on Twitter which, while super annoying regardless of anyone's political affiliation, isn't the criminal behavior Trump has been accused of. Every single action he has taken as president has resulted in a completely overblow reaction in the media. The temp travel ban for 6 countries identified as a concern by Obama's administration? OMG TRUMP HATES IMMIGRANTS AND IS BANNING MUSLIMS FROM THE U.S.! The Wall? OMG TRUMP IS RACIST AND HATES IMMIGRANTS! Repeal and replace the teetering failure that is Obamacare? OMG TRUMP HATES POOR PEOPLE AND WANTS THEM TO DIE! Pulls out of a Paris Climate Accord that has no demonstrable value other than to send money to the U.N. and third world countries? OMG TRUMP WANTS THE WORLD TO BURN!
I didn't approve of many of the things Obama did, but there was NEVER this level of excoriation of Obama by the mainstream media and that includes Fox News. Despite Obama popping off incorrectly on the Harvard professor and blaming the cops, or encouraging the divide in race in our country by saying Treyvon Martin is what his son would look like despite the legal evidence showing no crime was committed. Obama did more to purposely divide the country than any president before him or likely will after him. Yes people protested Obama, but generally in small numbers. Trump's divisiveness is passive, because it's actively caused through mainstream media and liberal crybabies numbering the millions who have protested his mere existence. RESIST! Don't think! RESIST! Because acting on verifiable, true information is not important anymore (CNN or otherwise)...>RESIST
Yes, fake sources used as the sole impetus for such incendiary claims bother me greatly. I can write game changing articles citing anonymous sources with vague bona fides too, and it would be just as real as these articles.
He hasn't actually done what is stated in this article. Unnamed "White House advisers" and "source familiar with President Trump’s thinking". Yes, it is common for news agencies to report based on anonymous sources, but given the lack of journalistic integrity that has plagued coverage of Trump, shit like this has no place in headlines without verifiable sources. When I see any story about anybody that has it's sole source for such a damning quote being an anonymous source with nothing else to back it up, I immediately dismiss it. Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, someone I love, or someone I hate. Literally none of the Trump connections to Russia in the formerly "earth shattering" Russia Dossier have been proven true. Yet it was bandied about like it was Trump's death sentence. Where are all the retractions? Three people at CNN fired? That's it? Bullshit. They just double down and go after the next fake story.
If CNN/NY Times had levied this level of attack to Obama, I would be citing those stories as proof that they aren't biased, just hollow brained. They are supposed to be a world class news agency, yet they continue to publish unverified stories that can't even be followed up on to fact check. It's honestly like they are trying to self destruct because eventually this shit will catch up with them. It already has in some areas...they just don't seem to care enough to change....oh wait..maybe the hint is in the fact noted in the article that they (CNN) are making so much money being exactly this kind of news agency. Fuck integrity, just sell ads!
Or the media could do their job and report the news. This has nothing to do with the travel ban and isn't even newsworthy. The existence of the story may be topical, but reporting it is 100% inflammatory without reason.
Perhaps it's a simple answer, but it is in no way demonstrably correct. If that sentence had been simply reversed, highlighting the relevant subject of the story (Afghanistan is not included on the list of six countries for which President Trump ordered a travel ban.) then it would have at least been a genuine attempt to clear it up. Instead it's making the travel ban the active, important clause of the sentence. There is a difference, and it's purposeful. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is certainly an attempt to inflame rather than explain. In fact, writing the sentence "backwards" like that is poor writing. The important part of the sentence is Afghanistan is not on the list, not that trump order the travel ban. It being the second sentence of the article is also unnecessary. The second sentence should be the statement that it is currently unknown why the girls' visas were denied.
Yeah it would look something like the shape of his shadow permanently emblazoned on the chunk of street surface that he had been standing on as it floats through space in the orbital path formerly occupied by Earth.
So what happens when the test works really well and suddenly that asteroid is knocked into a collision course with earth? What could possibly go wrong? While I would imagine the test isn't enough to cause a major trajectory change, this quote seems like the start of an end of the world movie.
No it doesn't PROBABLY have nothing to do with the travel ban, it definitely has no connection at ALL to the travel ban as the article and summary both admit. The travel ban doesn't include Afghanistan. End of story.
This is at least the fourth story I've seen posted here where the "muslim ban" is referenced while in the same article it specifically states that the travel ban has nothing to do with why this happened. Such a BS biased tactic on the part of the editing staff both here and at the various sites that reported this.
We're talking people's time here, not people themselves. Jobs aren't slavery. That's trading employee time for employer money. End of story. It's part of the supply and demand market. Your whole post makes no sense to that discussion. Yes, all of what I have or what anyone has can be gone. But your presumptions about me are as ridiculous as your entire post.
Give Seattle a year, it will become more obvious. Like all the naysayers over Illinois' complete butchering of their economy, soon enough you can't hide the negative effects through political grandstanding. Seattle may not have as bad a politically corrupt climate as Illinois has had for a long time, but it's suffering from the same head in the sand attitude towards truly obvious bad ideas. I really can't even begin to comprehend how people don't see this as the only possible outcome. It's like they all assume every business is making billions of dollars and hording it, which just isn't true.
You are dumb. The company I work for sells something. It sells labor. It's part of the market you fucking idiot. Labor is supply and demand. I can't even begin to fathom how you figured out how to get on the internet and type stuff...
4 weeks in a war that lasted 6 years is brief. They engaged them in this offensive at the very end of the war. Japan had already been thoroughly routed by the United States by this point including the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia attacked a defeated empire that had already given up. Between the time of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 8 and the Japanese Emperor agreeing to unconditional surrender August 9, While Japanese forces in Manchuria certainly didn't act like surrendered forces, they did not have the backing of Japan that they would have if they hadn't been completely obliterated for the past 4 years by the United States. Again, I'm not discounting the Soviet part in the Allied effort for WW2, but the United States played at least as critical a role, if not more critical overall.
Take away either the US or the Russian efforts in the war would have likely resulted in the Axis winning over the Allies. Without the US, Europe would have been routed allowing Germany to focus on Russian front. And without US support of Russia, Russia wouldn't have been able to push Germany back into Germany, let alone press into German lands themselves. If Russian had gone turtle or somehow stayed out of the war, then Germany wouldn't have been stretched as thin and would have likely been able to repel any allied attempts at retaking the western front. However, that isn't as clear cut.
he US did put forth a humongous effort as a country to support the war effort. US beat Japan, not Russia. Russia had only the briefest interaction with Japan. Had Russia been forced to deal with Japan for real, they wouldn't have been able to sustain such force against Germany. Not without the US heavily engaging Japan. Bringing all the minds and resources together to come up with the atomic bomb and the lives lost getting to the point of being able to use them is the only reason Japan was eliminated. Yes, Russia, by far, lost the most military and civilians in the war. Their sacrifice was tremendous. I am not discounting that. But the point is that what the US did as a country, civilians and all, was critical to the success of the entire war, including their support of Russian effort.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand your response...though my post was merely poking fun a summary that starts and finishes with the same exact sentence, I can't connect that logically with what you responded with.
So what happens to many remote towns if access to Prime is reduced, or in some cases, cut off?
If you run a Fortune 50 or even Fortune 500 company, legislation has the power to cripple your business. Therefore paying lobbyists to help keep the political environment stable for your business is a necessary expense. Three huge companies handling revenue in the billions per year spending an average of $20 million a year on lobbying for an industry that has a lot of regulatory burden they must account for is not that much. Whether Net Neutrality would have significantly affected their net profit or not, it absolutely is disruptive to their business. And anything that is disruptive to your business is a negative for the business, so they're going to try to mitigate that impact or reverse it. If they did NOT lobby congress, shareholders would start wondering if they had any clue what they were doing.
lobbying is paying your own lawyers and other type people to go to the government and spend time selling them on whatever idea it is the company wants. They can pay those people all they want.
One legitimately inaccurate story but what stories about the dossier or any other Trump/Russia illegal connection have been found true? None. It's not about just CNN either, but the entire mainstream media. The entire mainstream media machine has been derelict in their duty to verify news before reporting it. To think that is anything other than malevolence at its source is asinine. The alternative is that the entire mainstream media machine is so blind/inept that they mistakenly published story after story that has turned out to be false about Trump collusion with Russia. So what has this administration ACTUALLY done that warrants this behavior? The worst thing Trump has done is repeatedly go off rude/half cocked on Twitter which, while super annoying regardless of anyone's political affiliation, isn't the criminal behavior Trump has been accused of. Every single action he has taken as president has resulted in a completely overblow reaction in the media. The temp travel ban for 6 countries identified as a concern by Obama's administration? OMG TRUMP HATES IMMIGRANTS AND IS BANNING MUSLIMS FROM THE U.S.! The Wall? OMG TRUMP IS RACIST AND HATES IMMIGRANTS! Repeal and replace the teetering failure that is Obamacare? OMG TRUMP HATES POOR PEOPLE AND WANTS THEM TO DIE! Pulls out of a Paris Climate Accord that has no demonstrable value other than to send money to the U.N. and third world countries? OMG TRUMP WANTS THE WORLD TO BURN!
I didn't approve of many of the things Obama did, but there was NEVER this level of excoriation of Obama by the mainstream media and that includes Fox News. Despite Obama popping off incorrectly on the Harvard professor and blaming the cops, or encouraging the divide in race in our country by saying Treyvon Martin is what his son would look like despite the legal evidence showing no crime was committed. Obama did more to purposely divide the country than any president before him or likely will after him. Yes people protested Obama, but generally in small numbers. Trump's divisiveness is passive, because it's actively caused through mainstream media and liberal crybabies numbering the millions who have protested his mere existence. RESIST! Don't think! RESIST! Because acting on verifiable, true information is not important anymore (CNN or otherwise)...>RESIST
Yes, fake sources used as the sole impetus for such incendiary claims bother me greatly. I can write game changing articles citing anonymous sources with vague bona fides too, and it would be just as real as these articles.
He hasn't actually done what is stated in this article. Unnamed "White House advisers" and "source familiar with President Trump’s thinking". Yes, it is common for news agencies to report based on anonymous sources, but given the lack of journalistic integrity that has plagued coverage of Trump, shit like this has no place in headlines without verifiable sources. When I see any story about anybody that has it's sole source for such a damning quote being an anonymous source with nothing else to back it up, I immediately dismiss it. Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, someone I love, or someone I hate. Literally none of the Trump connections to Russia in the formerly "earth shattering" Russia Dossier have been proven true. Yet it was bandied about like it was Trump's death sentence. Where are all the retractions? Three people at CNN fired? That's it? Bullshit. They just double down and go after the next fake story.
If CNN/NY Times had levied this level of attack to Obama, I would be citing those stories as proof that they aren't biased, just hollow brained. They are supposed to be a world class news agency, yet they continue to publish unverified stories that can't even be followed up on to fact check. It's honestly like they are trying to self destruct because eventually this shit will catch up with them. It already has in some areas...they just don't seem to care enough to change....oh wait..maybe the hint is in the fact noted in the article that they (CNN) are making so much money being exactly this kind of news agency. Fuck integrity, just sell ads!
Or the media could do their job and report the news. This has nothing to do with the travel ban and isn't even newsworthy. The existence of the story may be topical, but reporting it is 100% inflammatory without reason.
Perhaps it's a simple answer, but it is in no way demonstrably correct. If that sentence had been simply reversed, highlighting the relevant subject of the story (Afghanistan is not included on the list of six countries for which President Trump ordered a travel ban.) then it would have at least been a genuine attempt to clear it up. Instead it's making the travel ban the active, important clause of the sentence. There is a difference, and it's purposeful. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is certainly an attempt to inflame rather than explain. In fact, writing the sentence "backwards" like that is poor writing. The important part of the sentence is Afghanistan is not on the list, not that trump order the travel ban. It being the second sentence of the article is also unnecessary. The second sentence should be the statement that it is currently unknown why the girls' visas were denied.
If you live in Illinois, they'll take good care of that banked cash real soon now.
Yeah it would look something like the shape of his shadow permanently emblazoned on the chunk of street surface that he had been standing on as it floats through space in the orbital path formerly occupied by Earth.
presumably because an alien civilization that can get to our moon would be mostly unphased by us throwing refrigerator-sized satellites at them.
I wish I could mod myself redundant...i deserve it for thinking I was going to have an original post.
So what happens when the test works really well and suddenly that asteroid is knocked into a collision course with earth? What could possibly go wrong? While I would imagine the test isn't enough to cause a major trajectory change, this quote seems like the start of an end of the world movie.
No it doesn't PROBABLY have nothing to do with the travel ban, it definitely has no connection at ALL to the travel ban as the article and summary both admit. The travel ban doesn't include Afghanistan. End of story.
This is at least the fourth story I've seen posted here where the "muslim ban" is referenced while in the same article it specifically states that the travel ban has nothing to do with why this happened. Such a BS biased tactic on the part of the editing staff both here and at the various sites that reported this.
We're talking people's time here, not people themselves. Jobs aren't slavery. That's trading employee time for employer money. End of story. It's part of the supply and demand market. Your whole post makes no sense to that discussion. Yes, all of what I have or what anyone has can be gone. But your presumptions about me are as ridiculous as your entire post.
Give Seattle a year, it will become more obvious. Like all the naysayers over Illinois' complete butchering of their economy, soon enough you can't hide the negative effects through political grandstanding. Seattle may not have as bad a politically corrupt climate as Illinois has had for a long time, but it's suffering from the same head in the sand attitude towards truly obvious bad ideas. I really can't even begin to comprehend how people don't see this as the only possible outcome. It's like they all assume every business is making billions of dollars and hording it, which just isn't true.
You are dumb. The company I work for sells something. It sells labor. It's part of the market you fucking idiot. Labor is supply and demand. I can't even begin to fathom how you figured out how to get on the internet and type stuff...
same thing as calling a glass of wine a glass of water.
To certain Nazarenes those are the same thing.
4 weeks in a war that lasted 6 years is brief. They engaged them in this offensive at the very end of the war. Japan had already been thoroughly routed by the United States by this point including the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia attacked a defeated empire that had already given up. Between the time of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 8 and the Japanese Emperor agreeing to unconditional surrender August 9, While Japanese forces in Manchuria certainly didn't act like surrendered forces, they did not have the backing of Japan that they would have if they hadn't been completely obliterated for the past 4 years by the United States. Again, I'm not discounting the Soviet part in the Allied effort for WW2, but the United States played at least as critical a role, if not more critical overall.
Take away either the US or the Russian efforts in the war would have likely resulted in the Axis winning over the Allies. Without the US, Europe would have been routed allowing Germany to focus on Russian front. And without US support of Russia, Russia wouldn't have been able to push Germany back into Germany, let alone press into German lands themselves. If Russian had gone turtle or somehow stayed out of the war, then Germany wouldn't have been stretched as thin and would have likely been able to repel any allied attempts at retaking the western front. However, that isn't as clear cut.
he US did put forth a humongous effort as a country to support the war effort. US beat Japan, not Russia. Russia had only the briefest interaction with Japan. Had Russia been forced to deal with Japan for real, they wouldn't have been able to sustain such force against Germany. Not without the US heavily engaging Japan. Bringing all the minds and resources together to come up with the atomic bomb and the lives lost getting to the point of being able to use them is the only reason Japan was eliminated. Yes, Russia, by far, lost the most military and civilians in the war. Their sacrifice was tremendous. I am not discounting that. But the point is that what the US did as a country, civilians and all, was critical to the success of the entire war, including their support of Russian effort.
I guess compared to the 22 he originally cited that's a lot...but neither amount is meaningful enough to make policy decisions on.
Not saying this isn't important news..but 40 is not a lot.