I went to the supermarket today. According to the National Enquirer, Hillary Clinton has already been indicted for a whole bunch of illegal things she did. It was on the front page.
I'm still a little leery of jumping on the "OMG FAKE NEWS!!" bandwagon given there seems to be absolutely nothing new about the phenomenon. I'm inclined to blame a combination of an awful Democratic candidate (well, she was. And no, I don't think Bernie would have won either. Democrats had a dreadful choice at the primaries this year) and the seductive nature of Fascism, which has proven itself over and over again to be a message people respond to as long as they don't recognize it for what it is.
The supermarket tabloids have been peddling this crap for decades. TV news, especially local news, also has its own version of "reality", frequently mixing syndicated spots of dubious accuracy with genuine news. (And this is ignoring justified, if over stated, criticism of mainstream serious print media, which is a different category of misleading content.)
Please ignore the correlation between "looks" and genetic indicators of reproductive health
That would be a nice argument if there was some universal agreement on what is attractive. In some cultures, thin is attractive. In others, fat. Some places like women who stretch their necks out. Others like their feet bound to the point that they can hardly walk. In Meiji era Japan, it was seen as attractive for women to paint their teeth black. Do you find that hot? There is no single standard of beauty. You cannot just declare yours to be universally applicable.
The majority of "beauty" traits have nothing to do with genetic indicators of reproductive health. That said, there are some. For example, for both sexes, "clear skin" is usually desirable, as that is an indicator of immune system fitness. And of course standard secondary sex characteristics, including having typical voice ranges appropriate to their sex, muscle mass in men, in women breasts and wide hips, etc. But the majority of the specific details that make up the "look" of an attractive man or woman versus other men and women in their society are simply cultural.
"We know A LOT about clouds. If you've got any cloud questions, ask us."
The Intercept is a legitimate site co-founded by Glenn Greenwald. It has essentially the same reputation as Greenwald, it's truthful and focuses on certain issues to the point of obsession, but for fairly good reasons.
As far as not answering the question, the correct response to "Will you ever sell your services to make a registry for Muslims?" is the same one as "Would you build baby mulching machines in Toddler sizes?" or even just "If Trump asked you to make your workers wear militaristic uniforms with jackboots, would you do that?" - the answer is always going to be "Fuck no", not "At this time we'd prefer not to answer" or no answer at all. That's regardless of whether the questioner is from the New York Times or Breitbart.
You're being ripped off. Our satellite is about $60 per month, that includes a DVR and all the other things you'd expect but I have a gut feeling cable companies still charge extra for like HD.
It's actually an article of faith among some here that having your content available to download for free doesn't in any way affect your sales negatively, an argument frequently used as a justification for mass copyright infringement.
The presumption people who make the argument usually have is that people download what they want to test it, and then buy the stuff they think is good. I'm not convinced, but there you have it.
Try extending your graph back to 2000 - it tells a story opposite to the one you're thinking of.
By the way, most of those manufacturing jobs are never coming back. A lot of them have simply been priced completely out of the US market. Many of them don't even exist anymore, having been taken over by automation.
As for where US job growth has been: the US is increasingly a service economy. Also energy has been growing a lot. Correspondingly, construction too. Healthcare... retail... business & professional services..leisure and hospitality... all strong growth fields.
What tax policy did Obama pass "by fiat"?
The Democrats controlled the House in the 80s, so spending budgets came from them.
Right. It's the Democrats who are really into extreme tax cuts for the wealthy! Why didn't I notice this before? I also apparently missed the part where the president signs bills that he doesn't support.
The "Reagan tax cuts" that passed were very close to what Reagan was seeking in each case.
According to this graph
"According to this deliberately deceptive graph..."
Anything that shows financial issues a long period of time, without including inflation, while trying to argue that "the last person in the list did the most of X", is being partisan at best, intentionally misleading at worst. In reality, even inflation alone isn't enough; the best figure you can use is debt as a fraction of GDP. But I digress.
As a second issue, you make it misleading when you focus on debt and not the deficit. Because the deficit makes much clearer what sort of situations the next person inherits, as well as the immediate impact of financial shocks and passed bills.
The reality is, when Obama took office, there was a massive deficit left behind by Bush. During Obama's administration it reduced every year.
VPS providers usually have reasonable reasons to customize the distros they run somewhat to fit within the framework they're using to virtualize each server - which are vary rarely simple "VMWare on a Xeon" type environments due to cost/scalability issues.
My guess is that certain providers are crappier than others.
Hmm, possibly the Mediterranean, though the English Channel and North Sea can also be sources of clouds in Europe.
Talking about debt isn't helping your case any. Here's the deficit (change in debt) from year to year: Link
Why is that Republicans keep blowing the budget? Well, let's look at the case of Bush. Wow, whodathunkit, massive tax breaks to top income earners skyrockets debt, news at 11! And yes, having the government hawk itself into debt is great for the short term strength of the stock market.
Re, debt outlook under Trump: absolutely not if he enacts his "Bush Tax Cuts+++ proposal.
You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page