SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-never-have-too-many-offsite-backups-eh dept.
The Internet Archive plans to create a backup of its data in Canada in response to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States:
The Internet Archive, a nonprofit that saves copies of old web pages, is creating a backup of its database in Canada, in response to the election of Donald Trump. "On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change," the organization wrote in a blogpost explaining the move. "It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change."
[...] The move will cost millions, according to the Internet Archive, which is soliciting donations. In their post, the Internet Archive justified its decision to backup its data in Canada, claiming that Trump could threaten an open internet. "For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a Web that may face greater restrictions."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:04PM
Luckily we didn't elect a dictator.
Especially given Obama's record on a free press; maybe the left will finally realize the virtue of limited government.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:10PM
The "left" tried to elect Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton was picked instead, for various reasons.
The "left" control nothing. There will be no limited government, not during the Don's reign, and not after a Democrat takes office.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:29PM
Oh boy here we go...
I appreciate in trying to draw strict definitions, especially when distinguishing from specifics at an individual level, but when speaking to generalities, I have to imagine you, much like me, didn't have a candidate that perfectly reflected your views, and had to make the best choice out of what was available (and even Original Owner would chastise you that Bernie was far from left you right-wing nutjob, so spare me the finer granulations of how far left is left enough. You sound like whiny AnCaps bitching that only they are true libertarians).
And an overwhelming majority of you voted Hilary. Not Stein, not Johnson, but Hilary.
And even stating that you supported Saunders means limited government wasn't at the forefront of your decision making process, and maybe, just maybe, since El Presidente is elected, you might consider the broad reach of government can be a bitch when your guy losses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:51PM
I think you mean El Supremo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:54PM
Limited government was never on the menu.
I voted for the lizard person because I didn't want to put up with being on double secret probation for 4 years while women whine and cry about Roe v. Wade, rape, sexual harassment, glass ceilings, asshole 13 year olds playing Cock of Duty being representative of all assigned males who play video games, you name it.
I already voted for Johnson in 2012. I contributed to Johnson's campaign again this year for the hell of it. And we got so close to the magical 15% polling number set by the corprotocracy. It was over, however, when Johnson wasn't invited to the debates.
Plus, really, let's be completely honest with ourselves. He would have been roflstomped by Trump and bamboozled by Clinton even if he had gotten into the debates. He's not good at thinking on his feet, and he's certainly not good at demagoguery. He wouldn't have gone negative on Clinton (also Sanders' mistake), and he would have looked weak next to Trump with military non-intervention and free trade positions.
Turns out we got the guy who unlocked the “strong man top score” achievement. And women wanted him too! Turns out women love strongmen, especially when it gives them license to be complete assholes for the next 4 years!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:15PM
True, Johnson wasn't the strongest candidate.
However, to state that ideologically some parties aren't in support of limited government is completely facile on its face.
And the expansion of government from both of the major parties has come home to roost in the most improbable way possible.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:57PM
1: Which one is the lizard person?
2: You are more worried about women complaining than actual anti-LGBT policies that will directly affect you?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:55PM
12 Million Americans Believe Lizard People Run Our Country [theatlantic.com]
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:58PM
Well fuck, let's get on this train!
Riley Martin 2020!
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:35PM
1. Clinton is the lizard person. I'm hoping that's just metaphor, but you never know!
2. Yes. Both Clinton and Trump were that horrendously bad (along with Stein and Johnson being exercises in futility) that the choice really did come down to that. Well, more I should say that the choice came down to my usual exercise in futility by throwing the lever for the L candidate vs. maybe insignificantly nudging the result towards unlocking the “female head of state” achievement. Clinton also carried a distinct risk of all-out nuclear war, but on the other hand I might have been able to buy cannabis legally in my own state for a month or two before the bombs fell.
I don't think we're going to see too much in the way of anti-LGBT policies. I guess we'll see once the dust settles. If anything, gay marriage will devolve to states rights (which I guess is better than the federal government being in the marriage business).
One specific example is that has the interesting effect of kicking the conflict between my state constitution's DOMA provisions vs. an eyebrow-raising decision by the Supreme Court down the road. I'm still waiting to see if conservatives are appeased this year or whether “merry Christmas” is something you yell at people in anger again this year. A conflict like that could turn the holiday greeting from an expression of hatred and rage to actual blows.
Trump's already said he's not in favor of bathroom laws also. I don't think LGBT stuff was much of a concern with Trump vs. Clinton.
Cannabis was probably about the only actual policy factor I could find that mattered to me. Nobody knows what Trump thinks, but Clinton would have at least continued Obama's policies to let the states “experiment” (experiment must be a modern way of saying federalism).
Now, what really has me worried is a Republican congress. I'm also sort of worried with Trump that in addition to being “on punishment,” women might decide to fuck with my medical care once more. But if Trump and the Rs repeal Obamneycare and open up mail order from overseas pharmacies again, women can do whatever the fuck they want because I won't be at the mercy of some bullshit system any more. If we keep Obamneycare, I will probably will get fucked with again in retaliation when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:48PM
The vice-president-elect thinks you can be "fixed" with drugs. No problem there, I'm sure.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:39AM
Yeah granted that's disconcerting, but the worst he did in Indiana is make it so that wedding cake bakers can refuse certain people's money.
(Why they would do so is beyond me, like literally in the sense I don't get their connection to this Reichsführer Jesus in the sky. While I haven't found Mr. Right yet, so maybe I speak from naïveté, I can't imagine finding somebody to bake a wedding cake could possibly be anywhere near as difficult as finding a doctor. And there are plenty of rituals that don't involve cake that would be acceptable. Maybe the cake is a lie!)
I can think he's a vile person (ignorance can be easily cured, but people like him are not ignorant) without being too worried what he'd even be able to get away with. I'm expecting a lot of meh for the next four years. Discrimination laws just create angst to nod at AC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:33AM
Trump’s Justice Department could undermine hate crime protections for LGBT people and withdraw Obama’s directive to schools not to discriminate against transgender students. Trump could also rescind Obama’s executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees, or support legislation that allows employment discrimination.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/28/trump-may-not-be-anti-gay-but-much-of-his-senior-staff-is/ [theintercept.com]
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:35AM
The "left" lives in a perpetual no-true-scotsman fallacy while curtailing rights of majority in the name of minorities when in power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:25AM
With President Trump, the White race may finally get a fair shake.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:14PM
"See? Your desire to maintain basic human rights for all citizens should totally bring you in line with our policy of unregulated corporate economics!"
Jesus, Christ, pseudolibertarians, your bullshit oversimplifications remains bullshit oversimplifications in spite of a good half of you contributing to electing an actual fascist.
Now, I've never been a fan of using "State secrets" as a reason to punish or jail people not sworn to secrecy, and Obama's continuation of that practice is horrible, and I'll continue to support ACLU efforts to fight those decisions. And it's not like we had a candidate who was running on stopping that.
But that's got nothing on
in terms of being "Yep, we'll just shut down whatever we want and fuck our foundational principles along the way".
Fuck you and false your false equivalences. Fuck every single idiot who ignored the incredibly fascist things this guy said and just rolled their eyes and went "He's not a Nazi, what about emails?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:47PM
Actually, a good portion of libertarians support the idea of dissolving the very notion corporatehood since it it is essentially the state conferring a right to a group that the individual doesn't have.
Have to admit that's a bit more principled than bearing the evils of Apple so long as you can tax the to fund your utopia.
And I find it odd that that a group as marginal as libertarians (as the left was found of pointing out... until they lost complete control of the government) could be that major of a force for Trump, especially since totals for the libertarian party have never been higher.
Your tears are delicious and your parties will die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-1SkYN5ZG0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:00PM
I've got my own objections to the ideals of libertarianism, that are a lot more nuanced than this debate will probably allow for. Suffice it to say, the eye rolling thing is definetly directed at the pseudolibertarians who can't imagine a difference between fundamental human rights that allow us all to live the lives we want to live and free market economics that assume the best possible results for everyone will always be fostered by less government interference in everything.
That is to say, an asshole who opposes people saying mean things about him getting elected is probably going to have zero effect on my conclusion that claims of treating an illness ought to have some kind of objective third party review that keeps people from being defrauded or injured. The debate I'd have with a sincere, radical libertarian would probably require a lot more lengthy discussions about the nature of knowledge and the failings of the efficient market hypothesis, the definition of ethics, the role of government, and countless other basic premises of my beliefs than dismissing a trite shithead who thinks "You think X, YOU MUST ALSO THINK Y, HA!" is valid reasoning(I mean it can be if Y absolutely logically follows from X, but you know).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:09PM
Your backtracking has been noted, but the issue remains: given the possibility that a person like Trump can and has been elected, is it better that he have the full force of government as the left imagines it, or limited government?
Or moving to Canada. Whatever. It's not like consistency has been the left's strong suit.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:19PM
Considering that some of the most dangerous other policies he's going to be taking on are the dismantling of the useful parts of the government and the reducing the tax burden in exactly the way you'd call "shrinking" I find it a starkly irrelevant question.
Do I wish our military were less gigantic and police forces less militarized? Yes. Do I think the people advocating "shrinking government" have ever even briefly considered doing that? No. So fuck off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:32PM
<sarcasm>Yes, the Libertarian Party has long been associated with wars abroad and full arming the police with personal nuclear devices to combat crime.</sarcasm>
(Score: 2, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:02PM
Alright, fine. We'll have this stupid debate. Even though the point wasn't libertarianism, but the people who think that there's a magic oversimplified answer to the problem of tyranny.
A nice solid majority of people using your magic words of "small government" do. Period. The end. The thing I said? The words I used? Absolutely true.
The slight change you made? Arguable either way. Reason magazine, what I think of of as the face of libertarian ideology, wasn't [reason.com] exactly [reason.com] anti-war [reason.com] in 2002.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:02PM
Even though the point wasn't libertarianism
Jesus, Christ, pseudolibertarians
Man, you can't even stay coherent in a single thread.
Three articles in the aftermath of 9/11 is all you got?
One questions whether the left would be as anti-war if there was a democrat elected (which we all know the answer to that after Obama was elected), one questions how bad human rights violations have to get before the idea of military intervention is justified (Was it justified to go to war against Germany even though they never attacked the US directly), and the other postulating justifications for attack, the author even taking part in a debate concerning (yeah, Reason is waving that pro-war flag)
http://reason.com/archives/2003/01/01/should-we-invade-iraq/#comment [reason.com]
Pretty disingenuous to represent that as pro-war given the circumstances.
Here's a few other bits from the era you conveniently ignored
http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/baghdad-bait-and-switch [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/07/us-out-of-saudi-arabia [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/30/the-other-of-all-battles [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/09/11/were-not-winning-the-war-on-te/1 [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/10/30/avoid-tenuous-reasoning [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2002/12/30/saddams-war-and-ours [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/16/its-alright-ma-were-only-bleed [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/31/if-war-doesnt-work-we-may-have [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2003/02/13/time-for-war-right [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/17/liberators-or-invaders [reason.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:09PM
You know how I said "arguable either way?" That wasn't a "I refuse to acknowledge anti-war libertarians exist." That was a "You're being highly selective to create a worldview where you're always right." You seem intent on misunderstanding me.
So... I'll let you go. You defeated what imaginary me said. Good job, kid. That man, and his straw is all nicely scattered ripped to shreds.
The argument I never made, laid to rest with surgical precision. The careful word choice to exclude exactly what you want excluded, safely ignored. Your victory is well earned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:37PM
Uh-huh. More backpedaling.
Debating an issue isn't exactly condoning, and is pretty far removed from "arguable either way" considering only ONE of the articles you cite actually made the case for war with Iraq specifically (and was in fact part of a debate that also argued against going to war).
Here's selections from the Libertarian platform in 2002 in case you were unclear:
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.
The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
We recognize that foreign governments might violate the rights of Americans traveling, living, or owning property abroad, just as those governments violate the rights of their own citizens. We condemn all such violations, whether the victims are U.S. citizens or not.
Any effort, however, to extend the protection of the United States government to U.S. citizens when they or their property fall within the jurisdiction of a foreign government involves potential military intervention. We therefore call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk. In particular, we oppose -- as unjust tax-supported subsidy -- any protection of the foreign investments of U.S. citizens or businesses.
We support withdrawal of the United States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations. Specifically, we oppose any U.S. policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the world, committing U.S. troops to wars at the discretion of the U.N., or placing U.S. troops under U.N. command. We oppose U.S. government participation in any world or international government. We oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated.
We call for the reform of the Presidential War Powers Act to end the President's power to initiate military action, and for the abrogation of all Presidential declarations of "states of emergency." There must be no further secret commitments and unilateral acts of military intervention by the Executive Branch.
We favor a Constitutional amendment limiting the presidential role as Commander-in-Chief to its original meaning, namely that of the head of the armed forces in wartime. The Commander-in-Chief role, correctly understood, confers no additional authority on the President.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:52PM
No, you won. You utterly got me on all those things I specifically set out not to say, and intentionally chose words to indicate I was not saying.
Yep. You're not a fuckwad trying to "win" a dispute that didn't really exist except in your mind. I'm totally "backpeddling" by pointing out what I actually said and meant.
Congratulations hero. You won! Because that's clearly what matters here! Beating someone in an argument, not having a meaningful point to make.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:28AM
He's almost right about the spelling of "back-pedaling"!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:51AM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/backpedaling [thefreedictionary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:52PM
Which is the political affiliation talking about banning, "Fake news" again?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:07PM
None, they're certainly saying that unchecked sharing of fake news is destroying our democracy, and it is. If people can't tell that an abc.com.co story about a protestor being paid is literally fake, and there's no indication on the primary news feed that many people use that that's happening, it's a real problem.
That being a real problem doesn't mean anyone in power for the party you've chosen to hate is saying it should be banned from existing. (Heaven help us if we point out that sites like breitbart also make up news stories, because then we're extra evil.)
Meanwhile this other party nominated then elected someone who seems to have an actual stated antipathy towards free press. Fuck your false equivalences a second time.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:59PM
That's why credibility and reputation and comportment are so important, because that divides "fake" news from "real" news in terms of how much sway you have with the public. And, honestly, the "real" news outlets completely shredded any of those three qualities they still clung to in the course of this election. They stopped substantiating their real claim to those three qualities a long time ago when they stopped doing real journalism because it's hard and expensive and nowhere near as sexy as spouting any kind of drivel and having the proles accept it as fact, based on the real journalism they used to do.
The way I see it, what is really destroying our democracy is the moral and intellectual torpor, the sheer laziness, of a society that has enshrined worthless, non-productive, non-value producing bankers, politicians, actors, and sports icons as its highest avatars of achievement. Nobody can be bothered to learn to spell, write, calculate, or reason any more because it has been established that you can just phone it in and win a trophy telling you how special you are.
"Free" is not what I read, but "biased." "Biased" press is the sticking point. And biased they surely are. The New York Times, the standard of American journalism, issued a mea culpa after the election saying they blew it. With that and similar admissions, how can anyone dispute the bald facts that the American media are of a piece, and biased to the core?
If the media ever were to want to be relevant again (frankly, I think that ship has sailed), they'd have to do something really, really, really hard that would involve a lot, a shit ton, a mega ton, of really, really, really hard work and do real investigative journalism again instead of plucking plums off the AP Wire, changing a couple words, and passing it off as their own.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:14PM
How do you get real investigate journalism, by your own admission being expensive, to be profitable, or at least breaking even from the investments?
That's the hard part. As worthwhile as investigate journalism *is* in our post-truth world, it currently has no value with the public, and they aren't willing to pay for it. Of which I suspect in many cases is because they can't afford it. When many are sick, tired, burned out, underpaid, overworked, etc. it's hard to get them to do anything, even when it clearly benefits them. I've been doing community outreach for a few years now and that is exactly what I get a lot from people I'm attempting to organize. "I'd love to help, but I have 3 jobs and two kids", and then I'm still arranging for them to be helped, because they very much need it. Extra food donated from local businesses, and stuff like that. I meet very few people in a strong enough position to help others and are also willing to work to make things better for everyone, or at least a few others in their community.
Do I wish people were willing and able to pay $15-$30 a month for investigative journalism like they do Netflix? Hell yes, but I don't know how to get there. Other than general strikes for living wages, of course. Then also factor in skyrocketing costs of living. Don't even dream of doing this in San Fransisco since it costs over 100% of average income to afford rent, with most people I see living with roommates or letting out rooms to make up the difference. Over 40% increase in the last 5 years cuts the legs off large portions of the community otherwise willing to engage with you.
We need a revolution at so many different levels in this country, and investigate journalism is one of them. Of which I admittedly have no idea how to start. I lament it as well.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:49AM
Bless you for doing it, ed. I burned my early- to middle 30's doing that.
It used to be that "doing your homework" was part of that job. Hell, "doing your homework" used to be part of many jobs. But an illness began in the top echelons of the society where people believed it was their right to have their cake and eat it, too. Bankers could get paid top dollar to manage vast sums of money, but pay no price when they fucked up or broke the law. CEOs could get paid top dollar for plunging their companies into ruin and throwing all the good people working hard in them out onto the streets. And so on and so on until the average Joe on the street wants to have store shelves full of cheap widgets made with slave labor in China, but still wants high-paying jobs in America making shelves full of widgets. But why shouldn't they have that pittance when they don't see anyone on Wall Street or in DC being held accountable? Sure, it means that the whole society from top-to-bottom stops working entirely, but why should they sacrifice when Wall Street and DC never have, and in fact have previously gorged themselves every time patriotic Americans gave the "full measure of devotion" for the country?
When your family has a monthly budget of, say, $20 for entertainment, do you spend it for the services of people employed by the people who are lying to you all the time, manipulating you all the time, or do you spend it on a little escapism via Netflix or basic cable?
It is hard. It is also ineluctable. We must undertake it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:36PM
> The New York Times, the standard of American journalism, issued a mea culpa after the election saying they blew it.
That's something you'll never see from a site like breitbart, or even fox. Fox doesn't even have an ombudsman.
The fact that they are publicly willing to own their mistakes is why they deserve trust. Perfection is impossible, a level-headed approach to imperfection is necessary both for publishers and readers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:07AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-the-wake-of-corey-lewandowski-arrest-breitbart-editor-admits-he-was-wrong/ [cbsnews.com]
Oh, and
https://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/three-years-late-nyt-admits-andrew-breitbart-was-right/ [wordpress.com]
I suppose after you've exhausted every other remote possibility, it's okay to admit even Breitbart can be correct once in a while. Three years later.
Do you enjoy smelling your own farts?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @01:09AM
A tweet is not an editorial holding themselves to account on breitbart.com
Furthermore, breitbart's throwing of their own reporter under the trump bus wasn't an article either, it was a reality-tv quality HR fuckup.
Nor is some random hyperpartisan blogger's skewed characterization of a NYT article an accurate description of reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:03AM
Way to move the goalpost, you dolt. The statement was "The fact that they are publicly willing to own their mistakes", which I do believe a tweet qualifies.
Throwing the reporter under the bus, or holding them to account when evidence clearly contradicted what they were reporting? Not only that, but stand-by the decision even when loosing one of their most recognizable contributors. And if they would have stood by the reporter, it would have just been proof of bias. Essentially, they can never hit those vaunted hills of "trust" since they aren't shoveling your brand of it. Gotcha.
The "hyperpartisan blogger" quotes the NYT article in full with just an opening paragraph to set context. I note the New York Times omitting completely Breitbart accusation.
But here's another "hyperpartisan blogger" reaching the same conclusion
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/how-did-progressive-journalists-get-pigford-so-wrong/275593/ [theatlantic.com]
but with a nice dose of smear so fart sniffers, such as yourself, can maintain their smug.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @02:59AM
Subscribe to your local newspaper, if you still have one. We are fairly fortunate, our long standing paper is now owned by Buffet and he appears to mostly leave them alone. While they don't have the news staff that they used to, they still have reporters that go dig for stories and expose real problems.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:22PM
None, they're certainly saying that unchecked sharing of fake news is destroying our democracy, and it is.
We don't even have a democracy to begin with. We have a system that suppresses third parties and makes many people believe they have to vote for the 'lesser evil'. Where is the democracy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:30PM
::rolleyes::
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:15AM
Chip on your shoulder much? The NDP were the official opposition party from 2011 until last year's elections.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:08PM
"He's not a Nazi, what about emails?"
And to add insult to injury he's floating David Petraeus for Secretary of State (you know, Clinton's old gig). This is a guy who was actually convicted for purposefully leaking classified information!
The hypocrisy is truly amazing!
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:46PM
Well, no. That's what he was accused of. His plea deal was the charge they tried to give to Clinton. If I'm remembering how that played out correctly.
Don't bang your biographer and give her classified documents, people. He's far and away the least evil of Trump's proposed cabinet, though.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:58PM
He was convicted of mishandling classified information. [washingtonpost.com]
It's still a conviction even if you plead down to a lesser charge.
"As part of the agreement, Petraeus admitted that he improperly removed and retained highly sensitive information in eight personal notebooks that he gave to Broadwell."
I think my statement is accurate...
He's far and away the least evil of Trump's proposed cabinet, though. Agreed.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:21PM
I concede that I was being excessively pedantic and the way you phrased it was fine.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:01PM
Well, Obama established the precedent that the Secretary of State can purposefully leak classified information without any repercussion, so why wouldn't Petraeus be eligible for the job?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:17PM
I don't even know what you are alluding to. Perhaps a citation?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:29PM
Will Politico work for you? Obama knew about Hillary's illegal email server and did nothing [politico.com]. He clearly knew it was a no-no because he used a pseudonym, not his real name, as he would have if he thought it was OK for her to do that.
Or here's one from the New York Times saying the same thing [nytimes.com].
Obama knew Hillary was breaking the law and allowed it. Hillary didn't set up an email server by accident; she did it deliberately. She did not, still has not, and now probably never will go to jail for that deliberate, conscious act. Therefore, the precedent has been set that the Secretary of State of the United States can leak, or allow to be known, top secrets of the United States, without repercussion.
So, why would having done the same thing disqualify Petraeus for Sect. of State now? It's merely his misfortune that he did it before he had the juice to be considered above the law, too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:38PM
Setting up an email server isn't illegal.
Handing over classified information to a reporter who then publishes a book about it, is.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:19AM
Putting classified information on an unsecured system is. Lesser people, peons, have been prosecuted for doing that. Why is she excused from obeying the laws that others have done jail time for breaking? They were "extremely careless," too, but were not given a pass.
Of course, if you do not accept the premise that the law ought to apply equally to everyone, then that inconsistency will not be apparent to you, or it will not matter.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:07AM
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:14AM
I still have never seen any verified accusation that any of Hillary Clinton's emails, that were stored on her "private" server, were ever leaked or revealed to anyone not authorized to see them.
Let's then all together ask the intelligence services of all leading countries to confess that they have been there and they have taken all the messages and left no traces. They should have reported all this to the public years ago! Isn't it in their charter?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:14AM
That's because you're only considering the relative position of those jobs in the org chart. Hillary's power derived from something more than that. Obama beat her in the primaries, but only just. She had the DNC locked up behind her, and most of the media then. All the big donors maxed out their contributions to her then. If you'll recall, when Obama asked her to become Sect. of State it took the Clintons months and months to decide, with lots of negotiation with Obama's camp. Obama probably thought he was uniting a divided party behind him after a rancorous primary process. The Clintons were clearly figuring out how to position her for another run for the Whitehouse, later.
That's why Hillary had the juice to be above the law, and Petraeus didn't. Be that as it may, the precedent that the Sect. of State can ignore the law has been set. Now it doesn't matter whose butt is in the chair. The Secretary is immune from prosecution.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:31PM
The jury is still out on that. Trump tweeted that he's in favor of revoking citizenship and jailing people who burn the flag. (Imagine if Obama had proposed curtailing free speech and the first amendment with imprisonment.) The only limited government Trump supports is an authoritarian one that is limited to him, Pence, and his cabinet of misfit toys. Trump's hatred of the press is well known, with him even banning certain outlets from talking with his campaign.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:51PM
so did clinton, in fact she was behind a bill to jail people and then fine them 100k$, what the fuck is your point?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:55PM
Interesting that Hillary sponsored basically the exact same thing Trump tweeted while in the Senate. One year and/or $100,000 fine for flag burning at protests.
Despite you and the rest of Correct The Record's best efforts at her out of the Wikipedia entry for this bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005, 80% of the edits have been made since Trump's tweet), you don't get to revise history on this one.
For the record, I don't support this position. But I do support exposing hypocrisy.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:13PM
Despite you and the rest of Correct The Record's best efforts
Holy crap, that $6 mil went a loooooooong way! I wish someone that frugal was in charge of the budget.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:17PM
Interesting that Hillary sponsored basically the exact same thing Trump tweeted while in the Senate. One year and/or $100,000 fine for flag burning at protests.
Also, I should mention that this is factually incorrect.
From your link:
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service summarized the act as follows:
Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or (3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.[1]
So no, burning (your own) flag at a protest would not have been illegal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:53PM
... aren't those things already illegal, whether you use a flag or a bed sheet?
(1) destroying or damaging something with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace;
(2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning something; or
(3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of something belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that something.
Am I wrong, or is this yet another case of stacking charges? Similar to outlawing fraud/bullying/harassment/threats, but this time "on the Internet", so they could threaten people with 500 years in jail or something to that effect.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:28PM
(1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace;
That's ridiculous. If people see you burning a flag and react violently, that was their own choice; your intentions do not matter because what you actually did does not change either way and your intentions cannot magically force other people to react in any particular way. I know the US doesn't believe in freedom or personal responsibility, but it's still sad to see this kind of thinking. And why just a U.S. flag? What was the point of this nonsense?
(Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:10AM
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:45AM
That's a very charitable interpretation of their actions, and you could do that with pretty much any issue to make one party seem spotless.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:09PM
The jury is still out on that. Trump tweeted that he's in favor of revoking citizenship and jailing people who burn the flag.
The SCOTUS was wrong. Not the first time. Burning the flag is not free speech, it is an act of rebellion and possibly treason. One change in your thinking and it makes perfect sense.
If I were proposing changing the rules though, I'd suggest this:
If you aren't an American Citizen and you burn the flag on American soil, you are outta here. Apply again in ten years and express some contrition and maybe you can visit.
If you are a Citizen without a passport (i.e. have never left the U.S. before) you get issued one along with ten $100 bills and placed at random in a third world city. You may not reenter the U.S. for two years and it shall be a crime for a U.S. national to transfer funds to you during your banishment. We would need to make a deal with the target countries to allow this 'educational' enrichment. If you choose to reenter after two years the whole event will be expunged from the record, lesson learned.
If a Citizen with a valid passport does it, they should be forced to spin again, pick a new country to pledge allegiance to since they have obviously and publicly rejected this one. Same for anyone with dual-citizenship, burn our flag and you automatically forfeit the American one.
Many reading the above are outraged. Allow me to explain the why.
Most of the alt-right have accepted the notion of white-identity politics as the only answer to the self evident reality that every other group is practicing identity politics. Lots of disparagement of "magic dirt" theory and the "proposition nation" ideas. I accept that criticism but note that it really isn't fair to say the "proposition nation" doesn't and can't work since for a century now we haven't even been trying. The Proposition Nation as a basis for America requires we make a real effort to assimilate people to the Proposition and cast out those who refuse to accept it. I.e. it is NOT possible to be a patriotic Anti-American. So before you post a fiery reply inside [flame] tags, consider the options, chaos and anarchy followed by something worse, the fast approaching White Nationalism as a response to the identity politics of the Left that will also lead to chaos and fire, or a return to the American Proposition Nation of a hundred years ago.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:55PM
Um, wrong wrong wrong on so many levels. Just because you want it to be so doesn't mean you are correct, close or even on the right planet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:35PM
Twice in two days. I looks like "identity politics" is the phrase of the week dished out by the alt-right talking-point generator.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:35PM
In Canada, burning the flag is the proper disposal method. Though you are supposed to do it discretely.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:10PM
It is in the US as well. Trump and the people in this thread would know that if they'd been in the military, or even the scouts. Here, there's a ceremony involved.
Like Trump, I had a high draft number (365, the very highest) and served. Guess what, you don't have to be drafted, you can VOLUNTEER! Who woulda known? I was offered a medical discharge after two years and declined and finished my hitch. Trump is one of the least patriotic people I've ever heard of. He's a proven fraudster (he settled the fraud case) and a proven racist--he was found guilty of housing discrimination twice.
But we survived GW Bush (barely), we'll survive Trump.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:54AM
What is the most depressing part in Trump's (upcoming) presidency is the refusal of left to do some introspection. It is still all about finding fault with Trump, as if that wasn't done enough pre-election. People still voted and the best answer I get from reading leftist media is that people are *(basket of deplorable)ists. Trump is an outsider. He is also incompetent. He is definitely not smart enough for this job. Left should really think about itself when it lost to Trump, but is it? No.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:28AM
But the left has absolutely no reason to endure any mansplaining given the previous successes weren't from logical appeals but indoctrination. You'd need some type of framework in order to make re-evaluations instead of gaping hole.
Being left-leaning moderate myself (or in the parlance of the left, a crypto Klan supporter) I get either to look over either inept nihilist or pink shirts to make an appeal.
And honestly it's looking like the nihilist as the left is just too far gone to even be worth expending the energy. The absolute best outcome is minimizing how much damage they can inflict as they cannibalize each other.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:50AM
You should have posted non-AC, I would have befriended you. The lack of framework is very much a reality. Instead, left has embraced propaganda and censorship. I said this here a long time ago, but left is the new conservative. In gutting the actual dissenters of establishment, it has allowed right to rise again.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:41PM
(1) Burning a flag is actually appropriate disposal for one. I know you're not really addressing that here, but it's important to note that merely burning a flag shouldn't constitute an "act of rebellion and possibly treason." You'd need to determine intent.
(2) I'm not going to post some "flaming" response, just to note that the flag is JUST a symbol. I show great respect for it personally. I know the rules for display and if I do display one, I'd always do it properly. BUT, it is a symbol, and the defacement of a SYMBOL is nowhere near "treason."
(3) I think any citizen should be outraged at the suggestion that other citizens should be stripped of citizenship or unilaterally deported, regardless of their actions. At times, we may justify removing rights (e.g., putting people in prison, taking away certain rights from felons, etc.), and I'll grant that we have the right to choose when to deport non-citizens. But the suggestion that we start deporting people who merely disagree enough to destroy a SYMBOL... I just don't even know what to say.
Whether or not it is possible to be a "patriotic anti-American," as you put it, it IS possible to be an American (period) who does not defer to some symbol of America. I can even understand -- though I don't agree with -- those who might argue for punishing "unpatriotic" Americans who don't respect that symbol, e.g., with fines or even jail time. But deporting them?? Again, I don't even know what to say.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:03PM
Burning the flag is not free speech, it is an act of rebellion and possibly treason.
If that's true, then flying the battle flag of the confederacy is even worse, since that was the flag that says "I am at war with America and her ideals." I consider the Confederate flag akin to the ISIS flag.
"First they came for the flag burners, and I said nothing because I love the flag. Then they came for the confederate flag flyers...
Face it, it is NOT a crime to hate the US, nor should it be. Burning the flag is a hell of a lot more "speech" than having a lot of money to bribe politicians legally with.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:16PM
Burning or doing anything at all to the flag or any other symbol is the highest form of free speech, and deserves the most intense protection. Saying, "babies are cute" or somesuch is not why we have freedom of speech in the United States of America. Burning the flag or telling the President of the United States (past, current, or future) to go fuck himself to his face, are.
As far as your "proposition nation" goes, you're deluded. America is a work in progress and always has been. The "proposition" has always been a point of contention as to what exactly that is. I personally don't care for many of the zigs in the path that proposition has taken over time, but that's why I have the freedom of speech, and ultimately the strength of arms, to contest the position of that proposition with vigor.
If it were otherwise, jmorris, then I'd be perfectly right and empowered to tell the rest of you to fuck off and get out of my country, since my people were here long before there was said country.
But I'm not.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:37PM
You're a fucking moron, and I'll burn a flag this week just to celebrate the fact that I can.
It's NOT FUCKING TREASON, but a political statement, and we get to protest. Protesting is a sacrosanct right in our country, or just how the fuck did we create it in the first place? Did we change our status from within the English monarchy? Did we operate within the rules and procedures, gain votes, and had the fucking King of England *grant* us our freedom? Or did we fucking take it by force?
Burning the flag IS FREE SPEECH. It's an expressive act to illuminate the abject and absolute failures of our government and the people that working within it.
Rebellion? That's a nice easy word to throw around when you don't like what we're saying. It's not rebellion you stupid fuck, but again, a PROTEST. It's absolutely utterly and immutably and act of Free Speech. Forever.
To say that I have the moral high ground in burning a flag is a massive fucking understatement. It's people like you that need to drop fucking dead in this country, because YOU WILL FOMENT AND ENGENDER CIVIL FUCKING WAR WHEN YOU DECIDE TO TAKE AWAY MY FUCKING RIGHTS.
You want to deport mother fucker, then come and do it.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:06PM
Protesting is a sacrosanct right in our country, or just how the fuck did we create it in the first place? Did we change our status from within the English monarchy? Did we operate within the rules and procedures, gain votes, and had the fucking King of England *grant* us our freedom? Or did we fucking take it by force?
America was founded by violent revolutionaries who committed high treason against the crown. That was the whole point of the exercise, it was why we had the Revolutionary War. What do you think the words "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" mean? They understood they were going all on on a cause they thought right and praying God deliver them the victory because they sure as heck weren't counting on purely strength of arms; remember that they were going up against the most powerful nation the world had yet seen. They understood all too well that had they lost they would have been hanged, their names forever blackened by history as traitors and their children left penniless if they were allowed to live at all. And this is all right and proper, Revolution should be difficult and dangerous so as to discourage it. See the Declaration of Independence itself for why; our Founders were after all, pretty wise.
So by all means, declare your rebellion against America, burn the flag, whatever. Just be prepared to pay the price when you are wrong and lose your rebellion / war of independence. Look at the Confederate States of America for how that losing bit works. Otherwise you are limited to changing the system from within it, by the rules established for that purpose. And declaring your explicit disloyalty to the country should have negative consequences.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:20PM
Go fuck yourself again.
We get to burn the flag as an act of Free Speech, protected by the U.S Constitution. The moment you think you can take that away because you don't like the speech, YOU BECAME THE ENEMY, not us.
So go fucking die in a fire.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 02 2016, @10:40PM
Read the entire Declaration, not just the last paragraph. Because it also directly declares that, should any government become oppressive, it is just and proper for the citizens to rebel against it. That's part of why the Constitution has a very specific and narrow definition of treason -- they were trying to AVOID repeating the oppression of the government they were escaping, not permanently embed it into the new nation.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
No, they say it should not be taken lightly, but also that all experience has shown that nothing needs to be done specifically to discourage it. It says that people are naturally resistant to change and will therefore willingly suffer for quite some time before being pushed far enough to take action. What they are saying is that they do not themselves take this decision lightly, and they were declaring that this fact should be self-evident because NOBODY would willingly start that war unless the problems were truly insufferable:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:38PM
Burning the flag is not free speech, it is an act of rebellion and possibly treason.
So is your position that the first amendment only protects written word and actual speech? If not, then how can you possibly justify this? You can perform an action in order to convey a message, and that is rightly recognized as being protected by the first amendment. Just because you don't like someone's speech doesn't mean it's treason or not protected by the first amendment. At any rate, read the first amendment.
Burning a flag does not meet the Constitution's definition of treason, once again putting you at odds with the highest law of the land. Furthermore, you seem to automatically assume that someone burning a US flag indicates that they don't like the US; that is not necessarily the case at all. You could burn a US flag to celebrate the fact that you have the freedom to do things such as burn the US flag, for instance. It's also possible that someone is protesting the US government because it doesn't respect the freedoms and principles this country is supposed to stand for. You have arbitrarily decided that burning a US flag can mean one thing and one thing only. When you fail to take into account someone's intent, you look just like the SJWs you often complain about.
Stripping people of their citizenship also isn't constitutional.
Many reading the above are outraged. Allow me to explain the why.
I don't know about outraged, but I vehemently disagree because it's a blatant violation of the Constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:19AM
We should be burning Confederate and Nazi flags at every opportunity! They are as anti-American as you can get.
Burning the American Flag is an acceptable form of protest. So is flying it upside-down, because the country is in distress.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 02 2016, @10:07PM
Rebellion and indeed even treason against government injustice are as American as apple pie. If you're so offended by the ideals upon which this nation was founded, then maybe YOU should get the fuck out.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Webweasel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:10PM
I'm an amendment-to-be, yes an amendment-to-be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.
There's a lot of flag-burners,
Who have got too much freedom,
I want to make it legal
For policemen to beat'em.
'Cause there's limits to our liberties,
At least I hope and pray that there are,
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:45PM
We didn't elect a dictator? Really? I'm sure that will come as a surprise to Trump. As will that he will find there are limits to his power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:27AM
Watch him do everything he can to permanently dismantle those limits.
He already summoned all the heads of major media orgs for a dressing down. [nypost.com] A literal attack on the freedom of the press.