They don't have a choice but to lie, because otherwise they have to admit Obama's eight years were eight years of generally positive economic growth, and that means they elected a buffoon who was simply inventing nonsense claims about America's economic woes. When people rationalize away facts, they are emotionally incapable of admitting that in many cases, so will simple ignore anything that confirms those much hated facts.
The statistics don't matter to the Trump supporters. The statistics can't matter to Trump supporters. They are not emotionally equipped to deal with the statistics.
It is what is called a strategic alliance, just like the US and British alliance with Stalin during WWII. Is it moral, no, not really, but considering the vast wealth sitting below the House of Saud's feet, it's much better to have them in your corner than, say, being toppled by some sort of Jihadi regime. Whether you like it or not, Realpolitik is a real thing, and it is ultimately what drives alliances, and breaks them. Go look at the shifting loyalties of Alexander I during the Napoleonic Wars for how this game has been played for centuries.
To say the 1979 Revolution had nothing to do with the overthrow of Mossadegh is like saying the US Civil War had nothing to do with the New England states abolishing slavery. In reality, it's a lot closer than that. Mossadegh was ousted in 1953, and the Revolution was just 26 years later, and almost certainly the huge amount of anti-American sentiment that typified the Revolution stemmed from the perception (not all that mistaken) that the US had helped the Shah overthrow a legitimate government and then had put him back on the throne, where, with US backing, he spent the next quarter century in equal parts being great modernizer and horrible tyrant.
And before you blame Islam for that, the 1979 Revolution is hardly the first revolution to go completely awry. The French Revolution lead to equally terrifying consequences for many, and that was in a predominantly Catholic nation. Go back further, and the English Civil War ousted a rather moderate despot in the form of Charles I and replaced him with a pack of religious fanatics in the form of the Roundheads, the leader of which, Oliver Cromwell, used his New Model Army and the Rump Parliament to run England as a dictatorship, not to mention the atrocities he committed in Ireland, which are still remember centuries later.
In fact, the first wave of the Revolution against the Shah largely came from reformists and intellectuals, most of which who were actually fairly friendly to the West, even if they had every reason to distrust the United States. Their significant error was in trusting Khomeini. When they got into contact with him in France, that wily old fox convinced them that he only intended to return as a symbolic leader, and that he had no intention of actually playing an political role at all. The reformers, who certainly had no desire for any kind of theocracy, for whatever reason fell for this load of nonsense, and of course, once Khomeini landed, he immediately set about setting a theocracy, and the reformers were the first people Khomeini moved against.
It sounds like his own family wanted some sort of intervention. While we can debate whether sending a would-be Jihadi to jail before they've even begun planning an attack seems very anti-civil liberties to me, the impression I get is that French authorities weren't the only people concerned about this character.
And it's not like other countries haven't played the same game. The McCarthy witch hunts were largely predicated on the notion that to be a member of a particular movement automatically made you a traitor, or at least suspect of treasonous acts.
The problem with law enforcement in any country where the notion of basic civil liberties are supposed to be present is that effectively criminalizing hypothetical future crimes opens a whole can of worms as to how it can be abused. France has toyed with this sort of "justice" before, and it came to be known as the Terror.
It's not that the Windows Phone division hasn't earned a profit, it's that it has been nothing but a black pit that MS has thrown money into, and worse, it's likely the Ballmer-lead push into the market produced a UI that was forced on to the desktop and mucked things up in other divisions.
There is a point when the gamble fails, and while MS has deeper pockets than most, where it's clear the entire platform has not only been a failure, but a horribly monstrous one, that I think it's fair to call it day.
Let's be clear. Microsoft isn't even a bit player in the smartphone market. It produced devices no one wants.
No, nuance, as in that thing that allowed Nixon and Kissinger to sort out that there isn't just one big monolithic thing called "Communists". Nuance, whereby Churchill happily made common cause with Stalin, despite knowing that Stalin was one of the vilest mass murderers in history (the British government knew about the Katyn Massacre, for instance).
I realize we've entered an age where ignorance is worn proudly, but never have I seen it in more evidence than here, where people who actually spend more than fifteen seconds thinking about the complexities of the real world are regarded as inferior to people whose whole world view is just one big knee jerk response.
ISIS is a dead man walking. Trump will be declaring victory on a war that Obama already largely won. But that's hardly the first time that has happened.
The problem is that no matter how much a political site tries to stay on course and keep posters behaving with a certain modicum of decency, when you're dealing with people who have deep emotional attachments to their ideology you will inevitably get flame wars. Throw in mischievous trolls looking to stir up the shit, I doubt many political sites would survive.
Besides, even Slashdot moderation gets criticized by the some posters due to what they claim is groupthink.
And what is Trump going to do? He's a President, not an emperor, and the last president who used the office to settle scores and pursue his enemies real snd imagined ended up jumping before Congress pulled the rug out from under him.
Much like newspapers won't publish hate filled racist screeds and will often edit or reject letters that try view as libelous.
Get used to it. The alt-right's days of using mainstream social networking are done, and they'll be stuck with whatever venom filled sites, which is fine. Nazis belong back under the rock.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have a choice but to lie, because otherwise they have to admit Obama's eight years were eight years of generally positive economic growth, and that means they elected a buffoon who was simply inventing nonsense claims about America's economic woes. When people rationalize away facts, they are emotionally incapable of admitting that in many cases, so will simple ignore anything that confirms those much hated facts.
The statistics don't matter to the Trump supporters. The statistics can't matter to Trump supporters. They are not emotionally equipped to deal with the statistics.
If it is a liberal shithole, why do so many Libertarians and Conservatives frequent it, and make so much noise?
I suggest you look at Cromwell's treatment of Catholics. The Roundheads were extremely anti Catholic. Cromwell's Ireland campaign is evidence of that.
To be a Catholic in 17th century England was hardly a walk in the park.
It is what is called a strategic alliance, just like the US and British alliance with Stalin during WWII. Is it moral, no, not really, but considering the vast wealth sitting below the House of Saud's feet, it's much better to have them in your corner than, say, being toppled by some sort of Jihadi regime. Whether you like it or not, Realpolitik is a real thing, and it is ultimately what drives alliances, and breaks them. Go look at the shifting loyalties of Alexander I during the Napoleonic Wars for how this game has been played for centuries.
To say the 1979 Revolution had nothing to do with the overthrow of Mossadegh is like saying the US Civil War had nothing to do with the New England states abolishing slavery. In reality, it's a lot closer than that. Mossadegh was ousted in 1953, and the Revolution was just 26 years later, and almost certainly the huge amount of anti-American sentiment that typified the Revolution stemmed from the perception (not all that mistaken) that the US had helped the Shah overthrow a legitimate government and then had put him back on the throne, where, with US backing, he spent the next quarter century in equal parts being great modernizer and horrible tyrant.
And before you blame Islam for that, the 1979 Revolution is hardly the first revolution to go completely awry. The French Revolution lead to equally terrifying consequences for many, and that was in a predominantly Catholic nation. Go back further, and the English Civil War ousted a rather moderate despot in the form of Charles I and replaced him with a pack of religious fanatics in the form of the Roundheads, the leader of which, Oliver Cromwell, used his New Model Army and the Rump Parliament to run England as a dictatorship, not to mention the atrocities he committed in Ireland, which are still remember centuries later.
In fact, the first wave of the Revolution against the Shah largely came from reformists and intellectuals, most of which who were actually fairly friendly to the West, even if they had every reason to distrust the United States. Their significant error was in trusting Khomeini. When they got into contact with him in France, that wily old fox convinced them that he only intended to return as a symbolic leader, and that he had no intention of actually playing an political role at all. The reformers, who certainly had no desire for any kind of theocracy, for whatever reason fell for this load of nonsense, and of course, once Khomeini landed, he immediately set about setting a theocracy, and the reformers were the first people Khomeini moved against.
It sounds like his own family wanted some sort of intervention. While we can debate whether sending a would-be Jihadi to jail before they've even begun planning an attack seems very anti-civil liberties to me, the impression I get is that French authorities weren't the only people concerned about this character.
And it's not like other countries haven't played the same game. The McCarthy witch hunts were largely predicated on the notion that to be a member of a particular movement automatically made you a traitor, or at least suspect of treasonous acts.
The problem with law enforcement in any country where the notion of basic civil liberties are supposed to be present is that effectively criminalizing hypothetical future crimes opens a whole can of worms as to how it can be abused. France has toyed with this sort of "justice" before, and it came to be known as the Terror.
Read Joshua 11...
It's not that the Windows Phone division hasn't earned a profit, it's that it has been nothing but a black pit that MS has thrown money into, and worse, it's likely the Ballmer-lead push into the market produced a UI that was forced on to the desktop and mucked things up in other divisions.
There is a point when the gamble fails, and while MS has deeper pockets than most, where it's clear the entire platform has not only been a failure, but a horribly monstrous one, that I think it's fair to call it day.
Let's be clear. Microsoft isn't even a bit player in the smartphone market. It produced devices no one wants.
Yes, you and the two other guys that bought this platform must feel really special.
No, nuance, as in that thing that allowed Nixon and Kissinger to sort out that there isn't just one big monolithic thing called "Communists". Nuance, whereby Churchill happily made common cause with Stalin, despite knowing that Stalin was one of the vilest mass murderers in history (the British government knew about the Katyn Massacre, for instance).
I realize we've entered an age where ignorance is worn proudly, but never have I seen it in more evidence than here, where people who actually spend more than fifteen seconds thinking about the complexities of the real world are regarded as inferior to people whose whole world view is just one big knee jerk response.
Because the most powerful leader in the world should have a world view utterly devoid of nuance.
Ignorance is strength, I suppose.
ISIS is a dead man walking. Trump will be declaring victory on a war that Obama already largely won. But that's hardly the first time that has happened.
So we're back to the "Obama is really a Muslim..."
I think get ridding of the Nazis and trolls will do the job.
The problem is that no matter how much a political site tries to stay on course and keep posters behaving with a certain modicum of decency, when you're dealing with people who have deep emotional attachments to their ideology you will inevitably get flame wars. Throw in mischievous trolls looking to stir up the shit, I doubt many political sites would survive.
Besides, even Slashdot moderation gets criticized by the some posters due to what they claim is groupthink.
He's a bloody national hero. I can think of a lot more ludicrous things to spend tax money than airlifting one of the greatest explorers in history.
He walked on the Moon. If Buzz Aldrin wants to go to the South Pole, who the hell has any right to say no?
I urge you to go tell Buzz that to his face...
https://youtu.be/wptn5RE2I-k
I love it when Nazis feign calm rationality.
Whatever the hell "alt-left" even means.
Your mother must be so proud to know she raised a nazi.
And what is Trump going to do? He's a President, not an emperor, and the last president who used the office to settle scores and pursue his enemies real snd imagined ended up jumping before Congress pulled the rug out from under him.
The problem being the only people on it would be people like you.
Much like newspapers won't publish hate filled racist screeds and will often edit or reject letters that try view as libelous.
Get used to it. The alt-right's days of using mainstream social networking are done, and they'll be stuck with whatever venom filled sites, which is fine. Nazis belong back under the rock.
I loved go clearly bigoted communications are now suddenly "satirical".