Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
Breaking News
posted by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:00PM   Printer-friendly

A suspected Islamic terrorist opened fire at a gay nightclub in Florida, killing 50 people and wounding another 53 before he was killed by police. While authorities continue to investigate to determine whether this man had ties to ISIS, the terror organization has not been quiet in praising the attack. This comes three days after ISIS announced they would attack somewhere in Florida. Today's attack marks the largest act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11.

takyon: The gunman reportedly called 911 emergency services to pledge allegiance to ISIS. The President will hold a briefing momentarily. Compare this article to the original submission.


Original Submission   Late submission by physicsmajor

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tynin on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:56PM

    by tynin (2013) on Sunday June 12 2016, @08:56PM (#358835) Journal

    I'm a Libertarian who'd vote for Bernie given the chance. Isolationism doesn't mean building walls or being a conspiracy theorist.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:13PM

    If you'd vote in favor of wealth redistribution, you are no libertarian.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:57PM (#358898)

      Uh, there is a whole 'nuther side to libertarianism, left-libertarianism, which in fact your particular strain draws heavily from, since it pre-dates it by a few hundred years.

      "Wealth redistribution" is little more than "returning stolen property" in the right circumstances.

      And back to your regularly scheduled rant.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:53AM (#359256)

        What?
        Are you telling me that an extremist is ignorant of the full extent of his own professed philosophy?
        Who would have guessed!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:39PM (#358931)

      Do you have a quote to back up your claim that Bernie is somehow worse than others in the current pool of politicians?

      I have one that says Bernie is a Capitalist-friendly politician of the FDR variety.
      "The next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this: I don’t believe government should own the means of production... I believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas."
      Sanders outlines pro-capitalist, pro-war positions in speech on "democratic socialism" [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wsws.org]

      Bernie may call himself a "Democratic Socialist" (a redundant term), but he's just another Liberal Democrat: Progressive taxation in proportion to one's ability to pay (and in proportion to the benefits derived from the business-friendly infrastructure provided by government)--the way it was done when USA was strongest and most vibrant.

      ...and if you want to see what a total mess Libertarians make of things, look at the fiasco that Gov. Sam Brownback has made of Kansas. [google.com]

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @11:28PM (#358952)

        In fact, many of Sander's positions coincide with... gasp Gary Johnson.

        Granted, the Libertarian convention about imploded with its purity tests over Johnson and his pick for VP, but to claim there isn't a lot over overlap between libertarians and Sanders is just ignorant.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:29AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:29AM (#358984)

          Specify 2 of those.
          Make both of them ECONOMIC positions.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:18AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:18AM (#359014)

            Per on the issues-

            •Break up large banks; add fees for high-risk investments. (Apr 2015)
            •Why did we bail out South Korea? (Dec 2010)
            •Middle class spending $2,200 each to bail out Wall Street. (Oct 2008)
            •More enforcement of mortgage fraud and TARP fraud. (May 2009)
            •Yes, limit size of government, but address inequality. (Feb 2016)

            http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm [ontheissues.org]

            Now return the favor and point out issues where the Libertarian party and Trump agree.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:58AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:58AM (#359092)

              With Trump, it's pretty easy.
              For any issue, he has at least 2 positions (1 for each audience he addresses.)
              Trump has no core values except to inflate his brand.

              Politically, he is simply a loose cannon.
              It will be interesting to see how many old-school Pachyderms refuse to vote for him in November.

              ...assuming he doesn't implode before then.
              (Pretty sure you can go to jail for fraud--and antagonizing judges doesn't help things.)

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @01:38AM

        Are you insane? Legitimate question. Anyone who thinks FDR was a friend to capitalists has lost their bloody mind.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @02:21AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday June 13 2016, @02:21AM (#359070) Journal

          Okay vulture breath, I'm gonna spell this out real simple-like for you so even you can get it: in a consumer economy, if the consumers can't consume, the economy grinds to a halt. In a fiat money milieu, the velocity of that money is more important than the size of the supply; if the velocity drops, as it does when the rich hoard it rather than the poor and middle class spending it, the economy also crashes.

          This isn't even a moral or ideological argument; it's akin to saying that in a grinding mill, if the river isn't flowing, no flour is going to get made.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @10:10AM

            Ah, my number one fan. How's the family? Job treating you well?

            Re: your rant... No. Shit. Sherlock. But neither will shooting the 1% cow get you any milk. Sure, you eat steak for a little bit but then you're fucked.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @04:40PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday June 13 2016, @04:40PM (#359431) Journal

              You have a reality distortion field that would give Saint Jobs a run for his ill-gotten money, you know that? I'm no more a fan of yours than someone pursuing an Ebola vaccine is enamored of haemorrhagic fevers, and my motivation is roughly similar.

              And if you think my plan is as silly and shortsighted as "shoot the 1%" you're delusional. No, my plan is "make the 1% pay their right and just share, whether they like it or not, and if they want to go Galt, good fucking luck to them."

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:22PM

                You're not a fan and yet you follow me around talking to me? Woot! I got me a stalker!

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @08:35PM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday June 13 2016, @08:35PM (#359594) Journal

                  No, shitheel. I "follow you around" on here to post counters to whatever toxic shit you spew hoping it'll prevent impressionable minds from being infected with whatever pernicious mind-virus you picked up. Did you not see the analogy to an Ebola researcher above, or did you choose to ignore it deliberately?

                  Once again: you are one of many Patient Zeros for the mental equivalent of those lovely tropical fevers that turn your organs into liquid shit; I am attempting to vaccinate anyone exposed to you. That makes me a "fan" in about the same way Ed Jenner was a fan of smallpox.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:03AM

                    I ignore roughly half of what you say on the grounds that it's bloody stupid and stupid is contagious.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:36AM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:36AM (#359733) Journal

                      *fwoosh! phwEEEEEEEEeeeeee--boom!* FUCK! That's the second time in 5 minutes you've blown out every single last fuse in the ol' Irony-o-tron. I'm gonna start sending you the bill for replacement parts, damn it all. Even with two jobs keeping the thing supplied is murderous.\\

                      On the other hand, it's a very telling indication that you're well and truly out of ammunition when all you have it "hurr hurr ur a st00pid dumb poopyhead an' yer mamma wears army boots." Keep going; you aren't half as slick as you think you are and the more you keep this crap up the more you reveal your true colors to everyone watching.

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @10:29AM

                        Oh please, I can do way better than that nonsense. Yo momma so ugly she puts a bag over her own head when she masturbates.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 14 2016, @05:14PM

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday June 14 2016, @05:14PM (#360015) Journal

                          The army boots thing would have been a better insult. See, MOST people don't look at themselves in the mirror when they jill/jack off (I realize you are an exception, but in a lot of ways you are far from normal). Whereas "yo mamma wears army boots!" is a way of saying "Your mother's a whore and shagged a random soldier and that's where she got the boots from."

                          You're batting zero for three so far :) Your panicked, inflamed flailing is amusing though; do keep it up. Remember, every time you fuck up, everyone on here can see it, and it just confirms what kind of person you are.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:10PM

                            Your reality. It must be quite different from the one the rest of us live in. Do tell us about it.

                            --
                            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:13PM

                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:13PM (#360097) Journal

                              You only wish, vulture breath. Unfortunately for you, your delusions do not make you correct.

                              --
                              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:23PM

                                A mirror, get one. Look into it when you say things along those lines. You and your shrink will thank me later.

                                --
                                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:38PM

                                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday June 14 2016, @07:38PM (#360114) Journal

                                  God damn, so this is what you've degenerated into. You got nothing left but "Uh uh, no you! You're the crazy one, nerr nerny nerr nerr!"

                                  Go back to third grade. It's clear you never graduated the playground. And very likely didn't pass basic math or history either.

                                  --
                                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:37AM (#359082)

          The fact that Capitalism still exists in the USA is clear evidence the FDR didn't want it to fail.

          Just as happened in the crash of the 21st Century, those individuals with excess wealth pounced on the failed businesses and bought them up for pennies on the dollar of what they had been worth months before.
          Had he wanted to, FDR could have made a move to snatch those up for the same cut-rate prices via Eminent Domain and nationalized them.
          He didn't.

          ...and, after that, had he wanted to finally end the repeated boom-and-bust cycle of Capitalism in the USA, he could have continued on nationalizing still-solvent companies.

          What he actually did was put USAians on the public payroll when Capitalists wouldn't hire them.
          (15 million of them when the population of the country was 130M.)
          He put them to work building roads and bridges and ports and all sorts of things that the private sector uses.

          Now these Working Class people had money in their pockets and could spend it on the products of the Capitalists.
          What FDR did was save Capitalism when it had yet again completely fallen on its face.
          (Too many Capitalists are too stupid to realize that without customers, there's no way to make more money and that WORKERS are their customers.)

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Monday June 13 2016, @03:56AM

          by CirclesInSand (2899) on Monday June 13 2016, @03:56AM (#359116)

          Are you kidding? FDR is a great argument in a favor of capitalism. He was the polar opposite of Coolidges hands off approach that created the roaring 20s. FDRs 90% taxes and destruction of food in the middle of a depression to create demand is a socialist dream. FDR turned the 30s and early half of the 40s into a nightmare with his policies, providing every capitalist with tremendously valuable argument against socialism. He's the best friend a capitalist could have.

          Unless of course, you actually had to live under his policies. Which I guess we still do.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:47AM (#359162)

            destruction of food in the middle of a depression to create demand

            Have a cite for that?

            is a socialist dream

            Socialists wouldn't have overproduced in the first place.
            I don't see how "socialist" applies at all. Fnord? [google.com]

            What you're talking about is Supply-Side Economics aka the boom-and-bust cycle aka Capitalism (in its most perverse form).

            ...and, if wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a few (who don't spend much of it), hijinx isn't needed.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @09:39AM

              If significant wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a relative few, most of the comforts you take for granted today do not exist. Nothing that takes a large initial investment ever happens unless the government wants it to and they're not known for taking risks or having vision. Well, unless their pockets have been appropriately lined by those with concentrated wealth. The only exception I can name is the space program and it's currently suffering under a lack of vision and an abundance of risk aversion.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:42PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:42PM (#359335)

                And here we go...

                If significant wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a relative few, most of the comforts you take for granted today do not exist

                Is that specific to wealth or how markets are set up? I mean you could have mentioned Pareto distribution as being fairly consistent across different economies, that some people are skilled in building wealth, but that is an effect and not a condition, and the corollary is that absolutely NOTHING takes places without work. Your pile of gold doesn't magically turn into a house, but labor is free to act in the absence of capital.

                Nothing that takes a large initial investment ever happens unless

                Their Patreon sounds good? People form a co-op? Payment is offered as shares in lieu of wages?

                There are multitudes of ways of organizing markets that don't rely on having piles of money lying around.

                Even Hayek understood that coordination was key. That is capital, labor, and need all have to occupy the same space-time. The genius is bringing those elements together, not the elements themselves.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:31PM

                  There are multitudes of ways of organizing markets that don't rely on having piles of money lying around.

                  Not for anything that requires significant up-front capital there aren't. Try and design and produce a prototype of a new car if you doubt it. Must be street legal in all fifty states. Not everything can be beg-sourced.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:56PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:56PM (#359564)

                    There are multitudes of ways of organizing markets that don't rely on having piles of money lying around.

                    Not for anything that requires significant up-front capital there aren't.

                    Ah, tautology. Good for you.

                    Prior to capitalism being mistaken for markets, sailing voyages were frequently paid through shares. Were talking equivalent to multi-million dollar endeavors that got started with little seed money and a promissory IOU after the fact.

                    It's called market innovation. In the face of not enough money, the work still needs to get done.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:57PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:57PM (#359483)

                Huge amounts of money that just sit around and aren't used to produce new goods|services may as well be a rock that is buried and forgotten.

                From FDR's time until after Ike left the Oval Office, the marginal tax rate on the billionaire class was over 90 percent.
                That money was used by the gov't to build infrastructure and develop a space program.
                In that time, USA transitioned from a place with 25 percent unemployment to become the envy of the world.

                It's clear that collective activity by millions of people can easily match and even surpass what a few wealthy individuals can and will do.

                Once again, you show your unwillingness to embrace (or even recognize) paradigms which aren't rooted in the dark past.
                The AC above me mentioned, as an example, Patreon (A Kickstarter sort of thing for artists).

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:19PM

                  You'd be correct if the rich left their money in mattresses. Unfortunately for your theory, they invest nearly every penny where it will make them more money. Which is putting it back in circulation and blows your entire line of reasoning out of the water.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:28PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:28PM (#359588)

                    Buying a stock certificate doesn't create anything.
                    It simply moves that existing thing from one set of hands to another.
                    What you are talking about is EXTRACTING wealth from the economy while producing nothing.

                    The rich buying each others' mansions and yachts at ever-inflated prices doesn't improve the economy either.
                    At best, the economic activities of the uberrich creates economic bubbles and drives up prices for Joe Average.

                    Now, if that money was spent hiring a worker or building a factory, -THAT- would actually be useful for the economy.

                    ...then there's the 1 Percenters using their excessive wealth to buy up gov't.

                    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:10AM

                      You've obviously never worked in the business end of any publicly traded company to say something that foolish. Your stock price (which increases when people buy your stock) directly effects your ability to take out loans. Which directly effects your ability to grow, hire more employees, and pay the ones you have better. No, my friend, trading stock does in fact make a damned big difference to someone other than the two people trading.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:36AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:36AM (#359716)

                        Your stock price (which increases when people buy your stock

                        Take off your rose-colored glasses and put down your pom-poms.
                        Stock prices also go down.
                        (That's when the smartest Capitalists buy.)

                        Again, nothing new is created when stock is sold.
                        Ownership of that simply exchanges hands.
                        It's no different from moving your wallet from your right pocket to your left pocket.

                        ...and, with fewer and fewer actual customers for actual goods each week, you guys who think that unearned income, aggregated by people with more money than they can spend, is useful to the economy are a hoot.

                        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:09AM

                          Yes, stock prices do go down. Until someone buys the stock. Then it stops going down. Which means buying stock kept a company from being utterly unable to get a loan and having to fold its doors and put people out of work.

                          Oversimplifying something as complex as the meta level of our economy is foolish. I expected better of you. Your reasoning generally tries to at least be not blatantly and provably false.

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by boxfetish on Monday June 13 2016, @04:00AM

      by boxfetish (4831) on Monday June 13 2016, @04:00AM (#359119)

      No matter how popular Sanders became as president he would be unable to enact much wealth redistribution. Perhaps tynin realizes that tall tales of rampant socialism and any tangible wealth redistribution are just right-wing scare tactics. The reality of a Sander's presidency would just be a relatively honest man trying to level the playing field and prevent any further siphoning of wealth from the working and middle classes to the rich by ending Corporate welfare and one dollar=one vote. A true Libertarian would be in favor of Sanders over Clinton or Trump. Double plus good, citizen.