When it's used to smear the messenger instead of debating the content of the article, then yes.
Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally?
No, of course not, and that's the crux of the issue. Wikipedia has a set of "trusted" sources. When this set is heavily biased in one manner, Wikipedia will also be biased. These same "trusted" sources will go out of their way to smear anybody that goes against their bias.
After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
Sure, but that alone cannot be a proxy for truth.
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants?
The stories contain facts and links. What facts stated there do you dispute? As for opinion, it's obvious where the opinion lies in the "trustworthy" news sources in how they report and what they choose to report.
This is the same Trudeau that invites Islamic militants into his country? This is the same media that propagates hoax attacks against Muslims to garner sympathy?
No trust in institutions and the media? I wonder why?
There is no dispassionate dispenser of "facts". Facts can be reported out of context. Some facts can be omitted, while others amplified. What are considered "facts" one day can be found to be falsehoods the next. And facts can be spun together to paint a misleading or partisan narrative.
If you think that facts favour the left, question why you're on the right.
If you think "facts" favor the left, then question your own bias.
If a conventional computer would take 10,000 years to crack it, that is pretty good security. It implies that even if you had 10,000 computers, it would still take a year.
Alternatively, if you had a 100,000 node bot network, it would take on the order of a month. In other words, it's good casual security, but terrible security if you're a dedicated target.
If that were the case there would be very few Muslims in Israel which is demonstrably not true.
I said keep them out, not kick them out. Seeing as how Israel is surrounded by Muslims who want to destroy the state of Israel and make it Palestine, and that Israel explicitly defines itself as a Jewish state, you can stop pretending that Israel doesn't have a strict immigration policy.
No, they refuse entry to *violent jihadists* not Muslims in general.
Israel doesn't have a magic wand to determine who is okay with Israel being a Jewish state and who is not. They have strict limits on who is allowed to immigrate to Israel -- and big hint, Jews have a "right of return", Muslims will be told to fuck off, and they'll probably give some Christians refugee status.
Why do you waste your life with Jew-hate bigotry?
Why do you waste your life on denying obvious facts?
I guess you're talking about the "nuclear option" that the Democrats used to appoint judges. The Republicans returned the favor with the Supreme Court nomination.
As for completely ending the filibuster, maybe their ulterior motive is to keep voting issues alive, or maybe they like keeping the majority party in check via tradition. Not being privy to their thoughts or private conversations, I don't know what their thinking is, but I tend to agree, I'd be inclined to end the filibuster too.
That said, even without a filibuster, there is a problem with getting a sane immigration policy because there's a certain percentage of Republicans (like Paul Ryan) that are soft on immigration. That puts a tarnish on Republicans, but compared to the Democrats it's night and day.
1) It does not dispute the facts, the main point being it pre-cheked the citizen box.
2) It includes an admission from the Democrats that they intentionally did this to go after a "diverse and rising electorate".
Ergo, they targeted a population rife with illegal immigrants, and encouraged them to register.. It's official: Democrats are the party of illegal immigration.
Nobody has to agree to host your racist bullshit, loser.
Right, now it's get your own platform -- get your own hosting provider -- get your own domain service -- get your own ISP -- get your own payment processor -- get your own banking network... and bake me that cake, you fucking Christian bigot!
"The Texas Democratic Party asked non-citizens to register to vote, sending out applications to immigrants with the box citizenship already checked "Yes," according to new complaints filed Thursday asking prosecutors to see what laws may have been broken.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation alerted district attorneys and the federal Justice Department to the pre-checked applications, and also included a signed affidavit from a man who said some of his relatives, who aren't citizens, received the mailing."
"The applications were pre-addressed to elections officials, which is likely what left many voters to believe they were receiving an official communication from the state.
But the return address was from the State Democratic Executive Committee, and listed an address in Austin that matches the state Democratic Party's headquarters.
The letter is emblazoned with "Urgent! Your voter registration deadline is October 9." It continues: "Your voter registration application is inside. Complete, sign and return it today!"
On the application, boxes affirming the applicant is both 18 and a U.S. citizen are already checked with an "X" in the Yes field.
The mailing also urges those who are unsure if they're registered to "Mail it in.""
I agree, he's still being a dick and not particularly professional. Which makes it all the more stupid on all sides: that he accepted the Code of Conformity and that people think this is being "polite". The entire fiasco was a waste of energy.
Those Muslim Arabs were already living there. Israel is defined as a Jewish state. If you're Jewish, not only can you move there and get citizenship, you are encouraged to do so.
1. We gauge time by memorable events. As William James hypothesized, we may be measuring past intervals of time by the number of events that can be recalled in that period. Imagine a 40-something mom experiencing the repetitive, stressful daily grind work and family life. The abundant memories of her high school years (homecoming football games, prom, first car, first kiss, graduation) may, compared to now, seem like much longer than the mere four years that they were.
2. The amount of time passed relative to one's age varies. For a 5-year-old, one year is 20% of their entire life. For a 50-year-old, however, one year is only 2% of their life. This "ratio theory," proposed by Janet in 1877, suggests that we are constantly comparing time intervals with the total amount of time we've already lived.
3. Our biological clock slows as we age. With aging may come the slowing of some sort of internal pacemaker. Relative to the unstoppable clocks and calendars, external time suddenly appears to pass more quickly.
4. As we age, we pay less attention to time. When you're a kid on December 1, you're faithfully counting down the days until Santa brings your favorite Hot Wheels down the chimney. When you're an adult on December 1, you're a little more focused on work, bills, family life, scheduling, deadlines, travel plans, Christmas shopping, and all of that other boring adult stuff. The more attention one focuses on tasks such as these, the less one will notice the passage of time.
5. Stress, stress, and more stress. As concluded by Wittmann and Lehnhoff (and replicated by Friedman and Janssen), the feeling that there is not enough time to get things done may be reinterpreted as the feeling that time is passing too quickly. Even older individuals (who are, more often than not, retired from work) may continue to feel similarly due to physical handicaps or diminished cognitive ability.
I agree, opting out of transgender competitions is the best immediate option, whether it's athletes or viewers. But then what happens if those that opt out want to do their own thing and exclude transgenders? The authoritarian left will tell them they can't freely associate and outlaw their activities. And then you have the issues of sports in public schools.
That's an opinion that you linked to. A wrong one, in my opinion.
"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn't."
Slashdot Mirror
Citing Wikipedia is considered an attack, now
When it's used to smear the messenger instead of debating the content of the article, then yes.
Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally?
No, of course not, and that's the crux of the issue. Wikipedia has a set of "trusted" sources. When this set is heavily biased in one manner, Wikipedia will also be biased. These same "trusted" sources will go out of their way to smear anybody that goes against their bias.
After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
Sure, but that alone cannot be a proxy for truth.
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants?
The stories contain facts and links. What facts stated there do you dispute? As for opinion, it's obvious where the opinion lies in the "trustworthy" news sources in how they report and what they choose to report.
Huh... it's good to know about the sources people cite.
Notice that you didn't dispute anything the articles had to say. Instead, you attacked the messenger.
This is the same Trudeau that invites Islamic militants into his country? This is the same media that propagates hoax attacks against Muslims to garner sympathy?
No trust in institutions and the media? I wonder why?
Facts are immutable.
There is no dispassionate dispenser of "facts". Facts can be reported out of context. Some facts can be omitted, while others amplified. What are considered "facts" one day can be found to be falsehoods the next. And facts can be spun together to paint a misleading or partisan narrative.
If you think that facts favour the left, question why you're on the right.
If you think "facts" favor the left, then question your own bias.
If a conventional computer would take 10,000 years to crack it, that is pretty good security. It implies that even if you had 10,000 computers, it would still take a year.
Alternatively, if you had a 100,000 node bot network, it would take on the order of a month. In other words, it's good casual security, but terrible security if you're a dedicated target.
If that were the case there would be very few Muslims in Israel which is demonstrably not true.
I said keep them out, not kick them out. Seeing as how Israel is surrounded by Muslims who want to destroy the state of Israel and make it Palestine, and that Israel explicitly defines itself as a Jewish state, you can stop pretending that Israel doesn't have a strict immigration policy.
No, they refuse entry to *violent jihadists* not Muslims in general.
Israel doesn't have a magic wand to determine who is okay with Israel being a Jewish state and who is not. They have strict limits on who is allowed to immigrate to Israel -- and big hint, Jews have a "right of return", Muslims will be told to fuck off, and they'll probably give some Christians refugee status.
Why do you waste your life with Jew-hate bigotry?
Why do you waste your life on denying obvious facts?
Because Israel uses screening and immigration policies that actually work, unlike the politically-correct US/UK/EU systems.
In other words, they keep the Muslims out.
I guess you're talking about the "nuclear option" that the Democrats used to appoint judges. The Republicans returned the favor with the Supreme Court nomination.
As for completely ending the filibuster, maybe their ulterior motive is to keep voting issues alive, or maybe they like keeping the majority party in check via tradition. Not being privy to their thoughts or private conversations, I don't know what their thinking is, but I tend to agree, I'd be inclined to end the filibuster too.
That said, even without a filibuster, there is a problem with getting a sane immigration policy because there's a certain percentage of Republicans (like Paul Ryan) that are soft on immigration. That puts a tarnish on Republicans, but compared to the Democrats it's night and day.
You need 60 votes to break a filibuster on an immigration bill. The Democrats have gone all-in as the party of illegal immigration.
I'm not triggered by you looking ignorant. I'm just telling you that your fly was open.
I appreciate the "more balanced" source, because:
1) It does not dispute the facts, the main point being it pre-cheked the citizen box.
2) It includes an admission from the Democrats that they intentionally did this to go after a "diverse and rising electorate".
Ergo, they targeted a population rife with illegal immigrants, and encouraged them to register.. It's official: Democrats are the party of illegal immigration.
That's why I spell I-phone that way, so you know what I'm talking about.
To be honest, it makes you look ignorant.
Nobody has to agree to host your racist bullshit, loser.
Right, now it's get your own platform -- get your own hosting provider -- get your own domain service -- get your own ISP -- get your own payment processor -- get your own banking network... and bake me that cake, you fucking Christian bigot!
they are trying to gain partisan advantages [..] false hysteria
You mean like this?
"The Texas Democratic Party asked non-citizens to register to vote, sending out applications to immigrants with the box citizenship already checked "Yes," according to new complaints filed Thursday asking prosecutors to see what laws may have been broken.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation alerted district attorneys and the federal Justice Department to the pre-checked applications, and also included a signed affidavit from a man who said some of his relatives, who aren't citizens, received the mailing."
"The applications were pre-addressed to elections officials, which is likely what left many voters to believe they were receiving an official communication from the state.
But the return address was from the State Democratic Executive Committee, and listed an address in Austin that matches the state Democratic Party's headquarters.
The letter is emblazoned with "Urgent! Your voter registration deadline is October 9." It continues: "Your voter registration application is inside. Complete, sign and return it today!"
On the application, boxes affirming the applicant is both 18 and a U.S. citizen are already checked with an "X" in the Yes field.
The mailing also urges those who are unsure if they're registered to "Mail it in.""
I agree, he's still being a dick and not particularly professional. Which makes it all the more stupid on all sides: that he accepted the Code of Conformity and that people think this is being "polite". The entire fiasco was a waste of energy.
(((This))) refers to a coincidence, formerly enabled by a Chrome add-in.
If you're going to meme, do it right. It would be a "cohencidence".
But the fact remains that the vast majority of Muslim Arabs living in Israel immigrated there, they were not born there
You state this without any evidence. Israel explicitly defines itself as a Jewish state, and has policies to remain that way.
Israel is the only modern civilized nation in the ME, the rest are frozen in the primitive & violent 6th century by radical Islamists.
And how would they remain that way if they had a generous migration policy for Muslims?
Wow, who knew Arabs lived so long while looking so young!
There's this thing called reproduction. You probably watch the act on your computer.
Those Muslim Arabs were already living there. Israel is defined as a Jewish state. If you're Jewish, not only can you move there and get citizenship, you are encouraged to do so.
I directly quoted you. Instead of calling me a troll, can you respond to the argument? Or will you just go back to your smug opinions?
We have a democracy if people are free to vote, not based on what candidates are voted for.
On November 6th I think we'll find out how much democracy still exists in America.
What, if they vote the "right" way, meaning what you think is right?
Lay off the weed. Realistic theories:
1. We gauge time by memorable events.
As William James hypothesized, we may be measuring past intervals of time by the number of events that can be recalled in that period. Imagine a 40-something mom experiencing the repetitive, stressful daily grind work and family life. The abundant memories of her high school years (homecoming football games, prom, first car, first kiss, graduation) may, compared to now, seem like much longer than the mere four years that they were.
2. The amount of time passed relative to one's age varies.
For a 5-year-old, one year is 20% of their entire life. For a 50-year-old, however, one year is only 2% of their life. This "ratio theory," proposed by Janet in 1877, suggests that we are constantly comparing time intervals with the total amount of time we've already lived.
3. Our biological clock slows as we age.
With aging may come the slowing of some sort of internal pacemaker. Relative to the unstoppable clocks and calendars, external time suddenly appears to pass more quickly.
4. As we age, we pay less attention to time.
When you're a kid on December 1, you're faithfully counting down the days until Santa brings your favorite Hot Wheels down the chimney. When you're an adult on December 1, you're a little more focused on work, bills, family life, scheduling, deadlines, travel plans, Christmas shopping, and all of that other boring adult stuff. The more attention one focuses on tasks such as these, the less one will notice the passage of time.
5. Stress, stress, and more stress.
As concluded by Wittmann and Lehnhoff (and replicated by Friedman and Janssen), the feeling that there is not enough time to get things done may be reinterpreted as the feeling that time is passing too quickly. Even older individuals (who are, more often than not, retired from work) may continue to feel similarly due to physical handicaps or diminished cognitive ability.
I agree, opting out of transgender competitions is the best immediate option, whether it's athletes or viewers. But then what happens if those that opt out want to do their own thing and exclude transgenders? The authoritarian left will tell them they can't freely associate and outlaw their activities. And then you have the issues of sports in public schools.
Because consumers don't benefit from capitalism? Great idea, let's go down the path of Venezuela and all the other failed socialist experiments.
That's an opinion that you linked to. A wrong one, in my opinion.
"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn't."