- It claims that what was told was known at the time to not be true (ie, the definition of a lie)
- It claims the wrong order of events (it would be essentially impossible to lie about something before it happens - if I tell you that the Boston Celtics will win the 2018 Super Bowl is that automatically a lie [even though the Celtics don't play football]?)
- it implies that had something else been said, the four who died would still be alive
- If it is a response to the "Bush Lied, Thousands Died" stickers that oppose the war in Iraq, it implies that the lie was told in order to promote an event or decision
Source: CNN's State of the Union interview with the Kevlar Kandidate
Walker on if being gay is a choice: âoeOh, I mean I think - that's not even an issue for me to be involved in. The bottom line is, I'm going to stand up and work hard for every American regardless of who they are, no matter where they come from, no matter what their background. I'm going to fight for people and no matter whether they vote for me or not.â
Walker on if Boys Scouts of America should keep its ban on gay leaders: âoeThat's up to the people who run the boy scouts. â¦Sure. I said in this case that's what I thought. I thought the policy was just fine. â¦ I was saying when I was in scouts it was fine. You're asking what should the policy be going forward? It should be left up to the leaders of the scouts.â
Notice his very humble interview, in the back of his Winnebago. Don't you usually give media interviews in your decked-out Winnebago? He's just like everyone else, of course...
There is no shortage of popular conspiracies for Republicans to channel when looking to enrage their base against President Lawnchair. Barely a week in to his "official" campaign (which unofficially started at least a year ago), Scott "Kevlar" Walker reached for one of the most popular conspiracies in a recent appearance on Fox News:
Mr. Walker and the Fox host Megyn Kelly tut-tutted about the fact that President Obama did not immediately call the Chattanooga killer a Muslim terrorist. They had no idea at the time whether that was true, but the point of the exchange was to attack Mr. Obama. They used it to revive another favorite talking point â" that the president did not quickly label the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi as a terrorist attack
He also is testing the popularity of a conservative bill from not-too-long ago:
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who recently joined the Republican primary carnival in an âoeofficialâ way, says the government should reauthorize the Patriot Act in response to the murder of four Marines in Chattanooga, Tenn., by a 24-year-old gunman.
Which segues into another popular tack for that side:
And he suggested that changing a policy that stops military personnel from carrying weapons in certain civilian areas would have prevented the attack. Those policies âoeare outdated,â Mr. Walker said on Fox News, because the United States is âoeat war and radical Islamic terrorism is our enemy.â
"ACT scores are up and Wisconsin now ranks second in the country" - Kevlar Kandidate
"But the state's ACT college admission scores are not up, and it ranks second out of 30 states - not the entire country" - USA Today, after fact-checking his claim
Would the Kevlar Kandidate do better by only going after electoral votes from 30 states - particularly when 29 of them have worse average ACT scores than his? As I mentioned in a comment elsewhere, I don't expect him to last long regardless.
Though he did decide to go rogue - only slightly, as he would - by waiting a little later into the campaign cycle to formally declare candidacy than his friend Teflon Tim did back in 2011. Unlike the Teflon Candidate, though, The Kevlar Kandidate has much higher name recognition and could afford to come in a little later. Now the problem he has is in taking his name recognition and building it into something useful, as he is surrounded by other candidates who are proposing the same policies.
Conservatives won't like it because it supports the thesis I have been repeating for some time - that the republicans voted against the ACA not because they disliked the contents but because they didn't want Obama to get the credit for a health care reform bill.
Liberals won't like it because it shows how the ACA is just the next offspring of a long lineage of conservative bills that line the pockets of big businesses in the guise of improving health care.
Slashdot "libertarians" won't like it because it isn't a youtube video of Ron Paul
Smitty won't like it because I posted a link to it
My comment was generally well received (as seen by the moderations applied to it), though clearly some people were confused by it. Note for example two anonymous applications of the standard form, neither of which showed good comprehension of my comment. Overall my comment fielded 13 replies, many of which seemed to struggle with my statement in one way or another.
However the one who really failed most dramatically was this comment claiming - based on nothing at all - that everything I said was completely wrong. I eventually challenged his faith in spam filters, which apparently caused him to take off the gloves and make it personal.
In fact, so personal, that he kept bringing the conversation back to himself. Eventually I got tired of trying to bring the discussion back to being about spam, and he apparently got tired of talking about himself.
Even for this crowd, that was an odd discussion. Something like 18 comments from him in ~5 days and possibly not a single fact across the lot of them.
Because certainly they must have known that he had all those deleted emails from Hillary Clinton's email server - particularly the ones where she asked him to initiate the strike - on his person when he was killed in Iraq this week. Hence this airstrike was done only to bring about the coronation of Mrs. Clinton.
Am I getting the conspiracy about right this time? I haven't heard anything from the usual gang here to tell me what to think about this yet.
I just sent off for the fifth and, I hope, last pre-publication copy of Yesterday's Tomorrows. I was sure it would be finished a month ago, but there were problems printing it due to some of the illustrations being too high of a resolution. It took a month to get the fourth printed.
I can't decide whether or not to assign an ISBN to it, since the book may not be legal in all countries. What do you think? I only have three or four left, and a block of ten is $250. Should I use one? The only country besides the US that has bought my books was Great Britain, and very few there although the web site gets visits from all over the world.
I'm pretty sure I'll never sell a book in Australia, because they're crazy expensive down there; tariffs, probably.
Oh, if you want to read the copy of Huckleberry Finn at my site, better hurry because when I post Yesterday's Tomorrows I'll have to take the Twain book down to make space. It will be back up this fall when I renew my URL and upgrade my hosting level. When it's back up I'll have a version that's easy to read on a phone.
sent by Slashdot Message System on Tuesday June 02, 2015 @12:05AM
hitchhacker (122525) has made you their foe.
At first I figured it was likely that this person foe'd me after I called out (slashdot heroes) Ron and Rand Paul as fascists. However this user posts so little it is hard to tell if they read that or not. I notice they do have Barbara on their foes list as well, which may have been the reason instead.
I figured they would eventually get pushed aside and things would go back to business as usual. Indeed, that has mostly happened - wall street still runs the show and tells Washington what to do while the rest of us get screwed.
However, it appears that not only did something come from the Occupy movement, but it is a tangible product that you can buy.
âoeI gotta tell you, ladies and gentlemen, part of the reason why Iâ(TM)m even thinking about what Iâ(TM)m thinking about â" we havenâ(TM)t announced anything yet, wonâ(TM)t until after the end of June when our state budget is done â" I have yet to see anyone in the field or in the emerging field whoâ(TM)s done both.â
I will say though, that if somehow the "democrats" manage to nominate Bernie Sanders, it would be fantastic to watch the two square off. Unfortunately Bernie can't raise enough money to be taken seriously by those who have the power to select a candidate - and will eventually be assassinated by the media (in the same was they offed Howard Dean) - which will result in a subpar nominee being on the ballot.
On the plus side, the Kevlar Kandidate keeps packing his offices with people who worked for the Teflon Candidate. This suggests he has a low probability of actual success. Unfortunately, Wisconsin will still be stuck with him after that failure occurs.
Slashdot is a DHI service.
And was left to wonder if the Slashdot parent company was bought out. Apparently they just changed their name for better branding. I'm sure this can only lead to good things for this site, right?
There are an awful lot of pages on my web site, and I've been busy making them all "mobile-friendly". Most of them are little or no problem making them look good on all platforms, but there are three that are especially problematic.
I jumped this hurdle (well, sort of stumbled past it) by making two of each of the pages with a link to the mobile page from the index.
Ideally, I could just check to see if it was a phone or not and redirect phones to the mobile page, but there's no way to make this 100% successful*. Each brand of phone has a different user agent, there are a lot of installable phone browsers. On top of that, is it an Android phone or an Android tablet? With the minimum typeface size and viewport set, those pages are fine on the PC version but the phone version looks like crap.
Apple should have thought of this when they made the first iPhone, and Google should have thought of this when developing Android. The answer is simple, but it can only be implimented by browser makers and perhaps the W3C.
From the beginning of the World Wide Web, browsers looked for index.html, the default front page in any directory. This worked fine before smart phones, but no longer.
Phone browsers should look first for mobile.html, and if it exists display that, and display index.html if it isn't there. Tablets and computers would behave as they always have.
It doesn't have to be mobile.html, it could be any name as long as everyone agreed that it was the standard, like they did with index.html.
Maintaining a web site would be much easier if they did this. What do you guys think?
* A reader tipped me to the Apache Mobile Filter. It looks promising, especially since my host uses Apache. I'm looking into it.