An anti-Muslim "comedian" on Twitter originally posted that image on 16/06/15. It didn't get picked up by "anti-semite websites" until a week later.
Wait, so you're saying it went from an "anti-Muslim comedian" to the anti-semitic message board to Donald Trump's twitter feed and you think that makes it OK for the Trump campaign? Who the fuck does Donald let post on his Twitter feed? I thought he hired only the "best people".
How the fuck is Donald getting memes from anti-semitic websites unless he or one of his assistants is going to those sites?
I want everyone to take a close look at the URL of this guy's citation of a "survey of respected Generals from around the world".
www.high-level-military-group.org
Can anyone else spot the clue that it's bogus?
OK, now take a loot at the "In The Media" section from that website. Can you spot the single issue that appears to be the sole reason for this group of "respected Generals from around the world" to exist?
Israeli intelligence *is* Facebook. Who do you think Zuckerbergsteingoldfarbenmann is loyal to? The question is why this public rabble-rousing, must be some subterfuge taking place they want to distract from.
If these things start carrying drugs, they will certainly get hit by a lot of people. The 12 year old kids on bicycles are cheaper, less hassle and more dependable. Plus they provide a good career path into your criminal organisation. Kind of like a summer internship...
How long before these things start getting stolen, hacked, and used by drug dealers instead of 12 year-old kids on bicycles? Another example of automation putting hard-working Americans out of work.
So stop with all the labeling crap already. If people care, they will gravitate to products which are labeled. If they don't, and I would guess 99.999999999 of people on the planet don't, then most manufacturers won't bother.
If consumers want labelling, why do they buy stuff that isn't labelled?
No, dummy. The point wasn't that consumers want labels on everything, but they clearly want labeling on GMOs. Research shows that up to 90% of consumers want GMO foods to be labeled.
Unfortunately, once you ruin your credibility in another's eyes, it's very hard to get it back, even if your position now is stronger than your previous one.
Unless you're the consumer, in which case your credibility doesn't matter. All that matters is that you're the ones paying the bills, so when you say, "Put a label on it", eventually the rent-seeking bloodsuckers have to say, "Sir, yes sir!"
Yes, I really like the labels that say organic, tells me which products are over priced to serve an indoctrinated audience.
Exactly. And a GMO label will serve the same function. You'll be able to know which products you're paying a license fee to a multi-national petrochemical company that also makes chemical and biological weapons.
the key issue here is not your freedom of choosing GMO or not, it's the millions of people who are starving.
Horseshit. What does my ability to make consumer choices about the provenance of the food I eat have to do with millions of people who are starving?: If I don't eat RoundupTM Corn, does that mean starving people in Bangladesh won't get to eat their Golden RiceTM? Is the food safety of the world dependent on hiding a single true bit of information from food consumers?
No, they don't. Labels can indicate benefits, too. There are nutritional labels, labels that say, "organic" or "kosher" or even, "New and Improved!".
The bottom line is that consumers, who are paying for every goddamn thing including the research into GMOs, want labels indicating GMOs. It doesn't matter why. They're paying the bills, they get to make consumer choices for whatever reason they want, including ones that you might think unimportant.
Tight corporate IP control and the potential for homogeneity in the food supply are both valid concerns wrt/ GMO food. But aside from the occasional, non-specific, and inarticulate rant of "Monsanto is teh evilz!"; a very tiny minority of the anti-GMO crowd addresses either of those issues.
That's not true. I find it's more like 50-50. People are starting to figure out the social, political and economic problems associated with GMOs.
Me, I don't care about food safety. If I did, I wouldn't have eaten that burrito from a street vendor with prison tattoos. You've heard of the five-second rule? Hell, I've got a 30-second rule. But I oppose using intellectual property laws to cover basic foodstuffs. So do what you wanna do with your GMOs, just don't expect the government to subsidize you with monopolistic IP protections. And for got sakes, put a label on it. Because consumers want labels and they're paying the goddamn bills.
That was a pretty speech, but does it explain why Apple makes it impossible to change a fucking battery? I'm amused when companies hate their own customers to this extent.
1. The results are reported by a known source of ongoing propaganda regarding the 2nd Amendment. Such organizations have a long history of cherry picking data to support their agenda (ignoring any and all issues that might invalidate the data, or the conclusions they draw from it). You might ask where these organizations get their funding (especially now that the Cold War is over).
Another guy who knows absolutely nothing about NORC.
2. The GSS is a survey of only (roughly) 3000 adults a year, hardly representative of the current US population of over 318 million.
Doesn't get how that whole statistics thing works. I mean, how can you do research unless you collect all the data, amirite?
3. Many people are unwilling to participate in such a survey, which further limits the applicability of the survey data. Information has always been a weapon, and mistrust of people collecting information is very high in many places and within many cultural groups (as it should be).
People love to talk about themselves. Gun enthusiasts especially are very fond of telling you about their guns.
4. Gun owners are especially likely to not want to participate, for a variety of reasons. For example, given how often in the past collection of ownership data has led to confiscation, admitting ownership would seem foolish to many, which generally means not participating in the study at all.
Please give us an example of when "collection of ownership data has led to confiscation"?
5. There is no evidence that the GSS data actually reflects reality in general.
See #2
6. Even those people who do participate may not know whether there is a gun in their household.
Unless you are a toddler (and toddlers are not included in the survey), you absolutely know whether there is a gun in your household or not, because your spouse likes to pose with it in the mirror in his underwear and black socks.
7. The people who conduct the GSS are in a position of conflict of interest with respect to the reliability of their results, and a whole host of variables associated with the survey (making the results extremely suspect).
This is just a repeat of #1. Asked and answered.
8. Other surveys have shown completely different results with respect to household firearm ownership. Many indicate that household firearm ownership has held steady or gone up.
And yet you couldn't be troubled to give us a citation of these "other surveys".
9. The GSS is partially funded by the Joyce Foundation - known for its anti-gun agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so you're saying it went from an "anti-Muslim comedian" to the anti-semitic message board to Donald Trump's twitter feed and you think that makes it OK for the Trump campaign? Who the fuck does Donald let post on his Twitter feed? I thought he hired only the "best people".
How the fuck is Donald getting memes from anti-semitic websites unless he or one of his assistants is going to those sites?
I want everyone to take a close look at the URL of this guy's citation of a "survey of respected Generals from around the world".
Can anyone else spot the clue that it's bogus?
OK, now take a loot at the "In The Media" section from that website. Can you spot the single issue that appears to be the sole reason for this group of "respected Generals from around the world" to exist?
http://www.high-level-military...
You have to be able to know when you're being had.
Trump 2016
It'll be OK when Trump is president because he loves the Jews and Israel.
http://time.com/4392387/donald...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.politicususa.com/20...
The difference is that the kids get paid.
Um, you might want to look at this:
http://www.securitynewspaper.c...
How long before these things start getting stolen, hacked, and used by drug dealers instead of 12 year-old kids on bicycles? Another example of automation putting hard-working Americans out of work.
When you typed that sentence, did you think it sounded smart?
http://thehill.com/regulation/...
http://thehill.com/regulation/...
No, dummy. The point wasn't that consumers want labels on everything, but they clearly want labeling on GMOs. Research shows that up to 90% of consumers want GMO foods to be labeled.
http://www.justlabelit.org/wp-...
No, I'm suggesting it's a good thing.
Unless you're the consumer, in which case your credibility doesn't matter. All that matters is that you're the ones paying the bills, so when you say, "Put a label on it", eventually the rent-seeking bloodsuckers have to say, "Sir, yes sir!"
My marriage proposal to my wife was, "You're what?"
But it does prove once and for all that Open Source Software is a religion.
Exactly. And a GMO label will serve the same function. You'll be able to know which products you're paying a license fee to a multi-national petrochemical company that also makes chemical and biological weapons.
Horseshit. What does my ability to make consumer choices about the provenance of the food I eat have to do with millions of people who are starving?: If I don't eat RoundupTM Corn, does that mean starving people in Bangladesh won't get to eat their Golden RiceTM? Is the food safety of the world dependent on hiding a single true bit of information from food consumers?
You are funny.
http://www.infowars.com/watch-...
No, they don't. Labels can indicate benefits, too. There are nutritional labels, labels that say, "organic" or "kosher" or even, "New and Improved!".
The bottom line is that consumers, who are paying for every goddamn thing including the research into GMOs, want labels indicating GMOs. It doesn't matter why. They're paying the bills, they get to make consumer choices for whatever reason they want, including ones that you might think unimportant.
That's not true. I find it's more like 50-50. People are starting to figure out the social, political and economic problems associated with GMOs.
Me, I don't care about food safety. If I did, I wouldn't have eaten that burrito from a street vendor with prison tattoos. You've heard of the five-second rule? Hell, I've got a 30-second rule. But I oppose using intellectual property laws to cover basic foodstuffs. So do what you wanna do with your GMOs, just don't expect the government to subsidize you with monopolistic IP protections. And for got sakes, put a label on it. Because consumers want labels and they're paying the goddamn bills.
Star Wars is fantasy, with princesses and emperors and weapons mimicking swords. Star Trek is science fiction. That is the difference.
You might as well ask why the world of The Wizard of Oz turned out differently than the world of Joe Haldeman's Forever War.
Trump 2016
That was a pretty speech, but does it explain why Apple makes it impossible to change a fucking battery? I'm amused when companies hate their own customers to this extent.
In related news, I haven't seen my cat since I bought the Roomba.
Did Spotify say such a thing? I've only seen the opposite.
https://www.fastcompany.com/30...
Another guy who knows absolutely nothing about NORC.
Doesn't get how that whole statistics thing works. I mean, how can you do research unless you collect all the data, amirite?
People love to talk about themselves. Gun enthusiasts especially are very fond of telling you about their guns.
Please give us an example of when "collection of ownership data has led to confiscation"?
See #2
Unless you are a toddler (and toddlers are not included in the survey), you absolutely know whether there is a gun in your household or not, because your spouse likes to pose with it in the mirror in his underwear and black socks.
This is just a repeat of #1. Asked and answered.
And yet you couldn't be troubled to give us a citation of these "other surveys".
I refer you back to #1, you numpty.