The real mystery here is would you be able to present proof to a police officer that you didn't drive? He couldn't. I present you can? (I'm glad we're all geniuses here.)
So blocking porn isn't about blocking porn, it's about protecting the 1%/elites/corporation/etc. ??
Do you think you'll ever expand to have a second narrative? This one is getting a little threadbare since you seem to apply it to everything. Nothing is about itself, it is all a nefarious plot to protect the rich / 1% / corporations / blah / blah/blah.
Measles vaccine being skipped? Protects the elites. Measles vaccine being made mandatory? Protects the elites. NY City cuts the size of soft drinks? Protects the elites. India cuts Russia out of space program? Protects the elites. Never before seen spider species found? Benefits the elites.
Frankly I don't know how you missed the opportunity to show how this wasn't all an attempt to promote the interests of the rich elites of the porn industry.
Do you have a timeline you could disclose on when you'll have a second or alternate explanation for everything?
Ferguson, a predominately black city, has been hit by two nights of rioting, looting and arson with some businesses burned to the ground, but authorities say an increased security presence on Tuesday night helped quell the violence.
If that were true you would be able to understand it perfectly, which you apparently don't. Maybe you should try having someone read it to you slowly and explain things until you can understand it.
If that would have happened then he wouldn't have gotten a ticket unless his friend refused to state he drove him, and why would he do that if he was a friend? That theory doesn't hold much water.
If that was true then that person could have made a statement to that effect and then there wouldn't have been a ticket. The fact that didn't heppen tells us there was no second person who what the driver. This is simple to figure out. Maybe you're "over thinking" this.
I did not know... You need a license to own a parked car? Was he seen "operating" the vehicle?
How do you think his car came to be at a parking meter ($2/hr) on the National Mall in DC? Teleportation? Do you think he kept feeding it quarters for days and weeks on end? Or do you think he was doing radom business there when the license fairy appeared and told him his license was gone?
Unless he is a tester for Uber or reported it stolen, the list of possibilities is pretty short for it to be where it is, and I would be surprised it if had been there very long at $2/hr.
I haven't presented a "straw man," you are moving the goal post.
Left parties exist in the US, their ideology and goals are essentially the same as those in Western Europe and other parts of the world. The Communist Party of the US is recognizable to members of the Communist parties in the UK, France, Germany, etc.. The difference is that there is very little support for that ideology in the US. They are "fringe" only in their level of support, not in their doctrines being "weird" or held by cranks. (Although one could make various comments about people failing to recognized the repeated catastrophes brought about by Communist rule and the continued existence of Communist parties.)
No party is going to form the government in the US unless it has substantial backing among US voters, and Communists don't have that. Despite that they will keep trying. Despite their limited support they have been far too successful in influencing politics and values in the US. The US may yet face disaster because of it.
Both Americans and Europeans value freedom and equality. However Europe has generally stressed equality, and Americans have generally stressed freedom. The outcome has been a number of social differences that have persisted till now. We will see what the future holds. If it makes you feel better I'm not overly optimistic.
It was the same then as it is now; in any random group of humans, at least 1 in 10 are homosexual.
The actual percentage, as has been shown repeatedly in research, is around 1.5% (one point five percent), not 10%. So called ""transgender" adds a fraction onto that. The 10% figure is a misunderstanding of poorly conducted research that has been taken up for propaganda purposes by advocates.
Ancient Greece and Rome also commonly practiced pederasty. Do you think that enobles it for us today?
There are several words in English that adequately describe the post I made. Here is one of them: correct.
The problem here isn't that I'm "stupid" but that you are uninformed. If you can manage to follow links, and can follow up on the information you find, there is a lot of food for thought for you here:
Did he find the answer? Even if you look past the misleading statements, distortions, and glaring ommissions in the original post, the section you quote above is a huge distortion in itself based on the omission it contains. Why do you think he omits any mention of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed Congress and signed by President Clinton? Because it didn't have the same list of names in it? Because the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed with the support of Democrats and signed into law by a President who is a Democrat?
It is equally fascinating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/Left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:
In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.[17]
In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.[18]
In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.[19]
In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.[20]
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.[21]
In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.[22]
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.[23]
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.[24]
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor.[25]
All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.[26]
In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.[27]
In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.[28] In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.[29]
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.[30]
These numbers are nothing short of astonishing. It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other.
I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.
So you're here to offer a Left-wing attack job?
An editor at McGraw-Hill once told me that if he picked up a story from the NYT, he would have to check it for accuracy...
Interesting that you go on to quote the NYT attacking the WSJ.
Now when (if) I read a WSJ story, I have to ask myself, "What did they leave out because the publisher, or some big business like GM, didn't like it?" like any other newspaper
Did you bother to identify what the NYT left out in their story? And the fall of the WSJ is, in essence, to lower them to the level of the NYT? That is damning.
What do you bet that not all of the releveant or interesting emails were turned over to State or investigating committees?
I would be surprised if there are not at least technical violations of the law, and very possibly more serious breaches. The real question will be is there a prosecution? The Clintons have enough friends and reach to likely derail that.
Reporters are a huge part of the equation since they produce the content. Editors are likely to come up through the ranks of reporters and will be the same as reporters. Many owners won't care as long as the financial numbers for the newsrooms are acceptable and the brand remains strong. Even owndership by a genuine conservative or Republican doesn't matter if it doesn't result in a change in editorial policy. (And where is the evidence of that on any large scale?)
You also leave out the role of Schools of Journalism, which these days inculcate Liberal / Progressive views into the students. They aren't coming out to find and tell the stories, but to "change the world" and make the news.
All of this would be less of a concern if the media still had the ethic of being "equal opportunity bastards." That is, the reporting might be liberal, but he still expect more or less the same standards of behavior out of liberal politicians as he does out of conservative ones, and is equally ready to write them up. Corruption from liberals should be treated the same as corruption from those claiming to be conservatives. Saddly that hasn't been the case for quite some time. Journalists are far too willing to put their thumbs on the scales these days in favor of their personal ideology.
No, the overall media is quite clearly liberal in training, sympathies and output. They can use the same techniques to get eyeballs as anyone. The real howling is over the existence of a few media outlets with a conservative outlook. That can't be tolerated! And that is why the so called "Fairness Doctrine" has repeated attempts to ressurect it, and the FEC keeps being rumored to be ready to step on Drudge and others. And more ways than just those are being sought to bring government into controlling the media to drive out the small conservative presence.
No, I cite the New York Times reporter quoted there. Are you claiming that the quote was in error? Would you feel better if the quote came from another source?
Well, it's turning out that the book should be recategorized as 'fiction'.
When you turn on "deflectors" you aren't kidding around, although it is more of a "reality distorion field" (props Steve Jobs).
Very little of the book was affected, and it will be part of the public discussion for months, perhaps as long as Hillary is running for or in public office.
The use of a privately provisioned and held email server for use in official business while US Secretary of State was improper and should be investigated, including the question of: were all emails associated with her official duties turned over, why were they turned over so late, and was the email server hacked by foreign intelligence agencies?
... Amazon has emailed those who'd purchased the e-book version that an "updated version" is available.
"The updated version contains the following changes: Significant revisions have been made," the alert reads.
HarperCollins, which published the book, played down the changes.
"The changes that Amazon is referring to as significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were," HarperCollins spokeswoman Joanna Pinsker said in an email.
Hmm... Amazon... Bezos...big donor to Democrats as I recall.
Among other things they might reveal how much (if any) of the $2 billion in donations that went to the Clinton Foundation were pay for play. There are a number of large business deals that relied upon State Department approval to go through, and some of the companies involved in those deals made large contributions to the Clintons. One of those deals resulted in Russia owning 20% of US uranium reserves. (Not really in the US interest I think.) There are also donations from many troubling sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone should gently remind the prime minister that the Victorian era is over.
MP to PM: Sir, I beg leave to inform you that the Victorian era is over.
PM to MP: Then let the Neo-Victorian era begin!
God save the Queen! Protect the Falklands! ...... Egad! What happened to the Jewel of the Empire?
The real mystery here is would you be able to present proof to a police officer that you didn't drive? He couldn't. I present you can? (I'm glad we're all geniuses here.)
So blocking porn isn't about blocking porn, it's about protecting the 1%/elites/corporation/etc. ??
Do you think you'll ever expand to have a second narrative? This one is getting a little threadbare since you seem to apply it to everything. Nothing is about itself, it is all a nefarious plot to protect the rich / 1% / corporations / blah / blah /blah.
Measles vaccine being skipped? Protects the elites. Measles vaccine being made mandatory? Protects the elites. NY City cuts the size of soft drinks? Protects the elites. India cuts Russia out of space program? Protects the elites. Never before seen spider species found? Benefits the elites.
Frankly I don't know how you missed the opportunity to show how this wasn't all an attempt to promote the interests of the rich elites of the porn industry.
Do you have a timeline you could disclose on when you'll have a second or alternate explanation for everything?
(a) there's a difference between exercising civil rights and rioting,...
Agreed, there is.
...but the law enforcement agencies in the St. Louis area apparently can't tell what it is
That doesn't seem to be true.
More than 400 arrested as Ferguson protests spread to other U.S. cities
Ferguson, a predominately black city, has been hit by two nights of rioting, looting and arson with some businesses burned to the ground, but authorities say an increased security presence on Tuesday night helped quell the violence.
Same goes for Baltimore.
200 arrested in Baltimore rioting; 144 cars destroyed
Looting, arson, and mob violence are pretty good indicators that the line has been crossed.
If that were true you would be able to understand it perfectly, which you apparently don't. Maybe you should try having someone read it to you slowly and explain things until you can understand it.
Do I really have to start citing Ferguson and Baltimore, you fucking moron?!
Arresting people for rioting, mob violence, and arson doesn't constitute "no reason."
If that would have happened then he wouldn't have gotten a ticket unless his friend refused to state he drove him, and why would he do that if he was a friend? That theory doesn't hold much water.
Unfortunately those "plausible answers" consditute a defense against the charge, and they didn't happen, hence the charge.
If that was true then that person could have made a statement to that effect and then there wouldn't have been a ticket. The fact that didn't heppen tells us there was no second person who what the driver. This is simple to figure out. Maybe you're "over thinking" this.
Washington DC is about 50% black. I'm pretty sure they have drivers licenses at about the same rate as other places.
Why don't you take the race baiting to another site?
I did not know... You need a license to own a parked car? Was he seen "operating" the vehicle?
How do you think his car came to be at a parking meter ($2/hr) on the National Mall in DC? Teleportation? Do you think he kept feeding it quarters for days and weeks on end? Or do you think he was doing radom business there when the license fairy appeared and told him his license was gone?
Unless he is a tester for Uber or reported it stolen, the list of possibilities is pretty short for it to be where it is, and I would be surprised it if had been there very long at $2/hr.
I haven't presented a "straw man," you are moving the goal post.
Left parties exist in the US, their ideology and goals are essentially the same as those in Western Europe and other parts of the world. The Communist Party of the US is recognizable to members of the Communist parties in the UK, France, Germany, etc.. The difference is that there is very little support for that ideology in the US. They are "fringe" only in their level of support, not in their doctrines being "weird" or held by cranks. (Although one could make various comments about people failing to recognized the repeated catastrophes brought about by Communist rule and the continued existence of Communist parties.)
No party is going to form the government in the US unless it has substantial backing among US voters, and Communists don't have that. Despite that they will keep trying. Despite their limited support they have been far too successful in influencing politics and values in the US. The US may yet face disaster because of it.
Both Americans and Europeans value freedom and equality. However Europe has generally stressed equality, and Americans have generally stressed freedom. The outcome has been a number of social differences that have persisted till now. We will see what the future holds. If it makes you feel better I'm not overly optimistic.
It was the same then as it is now; in any random group of humans, at least 1 in 10 are homosexual.
The actual percentage, as has been shown repeatedly in research, is around 1.5% (one point five percent), not 10%. So called ""transgender" adds a fraction onto that. The 10% figure is a misunderstanding of poorly conducted research that has been taken up for propaganda purposes by advocates.
Ancient Greece and Rome also commonly practiced pederasty. Do you think that enobles it for us today?
There are several words in English that adequately describe the post I made. Here is one of them: correct.
The problem here isn't that I'm "stupid" but that you are uninformed. If you can manage to follow links, and can follow up on the information you find, there is a lot of food for thought for you here:
In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias
Measuring Media Bias
There is plenty more on this subject if you care to look.
Did he find the answer? Even if you look past the misleading statements, distortions, and glaring ommissions in the original post, the section you quote above is a huge distortion in itself based on the omission it contains. Why do you think he omits any mention of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed Congress and signed by President Clinton? Because it didn't have the same list of names in it? Because the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed with the support of Democrats and signed into law by a President who is a Democrat?
President William J Clinton - Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, October 31, 1998
Citation provided.
Feel free to read the original, which contains the endnotes. This is hardly the only time this issue has come up in the media.
In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias
It is equally fascinating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/Left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:
In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.[17]
In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.[18]
In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.[19]
In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.[20]
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.[21]
In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.[22]
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.[23]
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.[24]
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor.[25]
All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.[26]
In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.[27]
In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.[28]
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.[29]
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.[30]
These numbers are nothing short of astonishing. It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other.
I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.
So you're here to offer a Left-wing attack job?
An editor at McGraw-Hill once told me that if he picked up a story from the NYT, he would have to check it for accuracy...
Interesting that you go on to quote the NYT attacking the WSJ.
Now when (if) I read a WSJ story, I have to ask myself, "What did they leave out because the publisher, or some big business like GM, didn't like it?" like any other newspaper
Did you bother to identify what the NYT left out in their story? And the fall of the WSJ is, in essence, to lower them to the level of the NYT? That is damning.
I'm also wondering what you left out?
Then let's start the investigation.
What do you bet that not all of the releveant or interesting emails were turned over to State or investigating committees?
I would be surprised if there are not at least technical violations of the law, and very possibly more serious breaches. The real question will be is there a prosecution? The Clintons have enough friends and reach to likely derail that.
There are no left parties in the US.
You are one of the ignorant majority I see.
There seem to be one or more gaps between what you believe and what actually is. Unpopularity and non-existence are not the same.
"Left" parties do in fact exist in the US, more than one in fact. Here are a couple:
Communist Party USA
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
And they work hard to move their agendas forward.
Communist Party USA: 'Working with the Democratic Party' is key
Thankfully there are few Americans that are given to this ideology which has proven so murderous over the last century.
The Black Book of Communism
Reporters are a huge part of the equation since they produce the content. Editors are likely to come up through the ranks of reporters and will be the same as reporters. Many owners won't care as long as the financial numbers for the newsrooms are acceptable and the brand remains strong. Even owndership by a genuine conservative or Republican doesn't matter if it doesn't result in a change in editorial policy. (And where is the evidence of that on any large scale?)
You also leave out the role of Schools of Journalism, which these days inculcate Liberal / Progressive views into the students. They aren't coming out to find and tell the stories, but to "change the world" and make the news.
All of this would be less of a concern if the media still had the ethic of being "equal opportunity bastards." That is, the reporting might be liberal, but he still expect more or less the same standards of behavior out of liberal politicians as he does out of conservative ones, and is equally ready to write them up. Corruption from liberals should be treated the same as corruption from those claiming to be conservatives. Saddly that hasn't been the case for quite some time. Journalists are far too willing to put their thumbs on the scales these days in favor of their personal ideology.
No, the overall media is quite clearly liberal in training, sympathies and output. They can use the same techniques to get eyeballs as anyone. The real howling is over the existence of a few media outlets with a conservative outlook. That can't be tolerated! And that is why the so called "Fairness Doctrine" has repeated attempts to ressurect it, and the FEC keeps being rumored to be ready to step on Drudge and others. And more ways than just those are being sought to bring government into controlling the media to drive out the small conservative presence.
No, I cite the New York Times reporter quoted there. Are you claiming that the quote was in error? Would you feel better if the quote came from another source?
Well, it's turning out that the book should be recategorized as 'fiction'.
When you turn on "deflectors" you aren't kidding around, although it is more of a "reality distorion field" (props Steve Jobs).
Very little of the book was affected, and it will be part of the public discussion for months, perhaps as long as Hillary is running for or in public office.
The use of a privately provisioned and held email server for use in official business while US Secretary of State was improper and should be investigated, including the question of: were all emails associated with her official duties turned over, why were they turned over so late, and was the email server hacked by foreign intelligence agencies?
Ah, "good" ol' Media Matters! When the chips for Bill and Hill are down, they'll come throught!
NYT reporter: Misdirecting on Clinton stories is what Media Matters "exists to do"
Bombshell book 'Clinton Cash' to get up to 8 revisions, publisher says
... Amazon has emailed those who'd purchased the e-book version that an "updated version" is available.
"The updated version contains the following changes: Significant revisions have been made," the alert reads.
HarperCollins, which published the book, played down the changes.
"The changes that Amazon is referring to as significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were," HarperCollins spokeswoman Joanna Pinsker said in an email.
Hmm ... Amazon ... Bezos ...big donor to Democrats as I recall.
Well, I guess we'll see what emerges over time.
You need to learn to think like a politician.
Owner = 1 vote
Labor = 100 votes
Good luck winning an election if you have only owners and labor is against you. Will you argue this point?
Among other things they might reveal how much (if any) of the $2 billion in donations that went to the Clinton Foundation were pay for play. There are a number of large business deals that relied upon State Department approval to go through, and some of the companies involved in those deals made large contributions to the Clintons. One of those deals resulted in Russia owning 20% of US uranium reserves. (Not really in the US interest I think.) There are also donations from many troubling sources.
Don't you think the public has a right to know?
Why Clinton Cash Has Bi-Partisan And National Importance