Of course it was. I don't know why you seem to enjoy using PatNet "mutts" as your fact-checkers, or why they keep falling for it, but it's a waste of time. If you can't find confirmation outside the "right"wing nut-o-sphere, it isn't worth posting. The same fake fooled Ben Carson, so you're not entirely alone, but that's the company you're keeping.
category of people who are getting exasperated with clueless sand dwellers saying they want to cut off my head and yours because their imaginary friend says so, and then hearing the alternative is Texas "Christians" whose arrogance defies belief.
I had this bad gasoline that I wanted to dispose of in the proper manner--I called a recycling place thinking they might charge me $20-30 for the service. Imagine my shock when they said it would cost $125! For four gallons of gasoline! I took it and dumped it at the edge of the back yard and said to hell with it.
Even Texas environmental regulation is too much for him, and his response is to poison his neighbor's property, and then he holds forth about his own superiority and how modern writers including Stephen King are too "vulgar."
the connection between farming and morality was always emphasized as a check on urban decadence and corruption.
That's Texas rural morality, as represented by Ted Cruz et al, and it threatens the world including America. The current fighting in Syria results from W's "crusade" after 9/11, which itself resulted from his failure to protect America from Islam, a religion he professed to "respect."
As for who can produce food, it seems well within the capability of a great many people, which is to say it isn't rocket science.
Rural religiosity requires ignorance in order to maintain stereotypes and enforce division. It has happened continuously for centuries worldwide and has nothing particular to do with contemporary American life. If some charlatan presents a stereotype about people who don't follow the Gospel or Koran, it sells mainly among the ignorant and desperate. It doesn't sell in an affluent city where people know personally a dozen neighbors whose lives contradict the charlatan's narrative. Similarly, ISIL destroys Roman ruins, and the Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues, because their doctrine claims they are divinely favored, and they can't stand evidence that people with other doctrines did better. In America, the Christian charlatans are (mostly) less bad than their Muslim counterparts, but either way the division has the same cause. If you are selling a fundamentally counter-factual narrative, it helps to keep the customer base ignorant.
The Texas school board would have you believe that America was founded by religious pilgrims who set sail for Plymouth rock to escape persecution in England, but in fact the Plymouth pilgrims had been living in Holland, and for economic reasons set sail for America. They intended to sail to the thriving Dutch city of New Amsterdam (now New York), but due to poor navigation ended up at Plymouth instead. Later, their poor grain storage practices caused their rye to rot, which caused them to hallucinate, and they and their descendants misinterpreted the hallucinations as supernatural, so they set about executing each other for witchcraft.
As the rural voters insist on a counter-factual creationist religious narrative, they remain vulnerable to exploitation by charlatans, and thus endure the sort of poverty that plagues the Muslim world - and for the same reason. Our Saudi "allies" execute "witches" just as the Plymouth pilgrims did. It's rather difficult to build a successful and prosperous civilization when exposing fallacies and presenting facts is considered terrorism and everyone must always agree to follow the charlatans no matter how crazy.
is a realization by the left and centrists that the enemy of their enemy is not necessarily their friend.
With good reason, the European left and centrists have demonized the "right wing" "nationalist" "fascists" and neo-Nazis. Those parties campaign on nostalgia for "traditional" imagery, but they have nothing really to offer except scapegoating and lies. UKIP reaches the Forthood voter, but never explains how stopping gay couples from getting married will help Britain in any way. Ditto Marine LePen and her Forthood supporter who blew his own brains out all over the altar at Notre Dame de Paris. Scapegoating is not a solution. Europe doesn't need another fascist along the lines of Mussolini, Franco, or The One Who Must Not Be Named For Fear of Godwin's Law.
Unfortunately, many people cherish a delusion that they have only one enemy, one "great Satan," whether it's the neo-Nazis or whoever. It's a heuristic: whatever the Enemy says, the identitarian liberals want to say the opposite. They forget that even a broken clock is right twice a day, and they don't want to see that they have multiple enemies. They want to believe that everyone loves them and wants to be just like them, except the one acknowledged enemy. So, because the nationalist fringe parties (including neo-Nazis) oppose immigration, the majority support it.
The question is how to get the majority to make the effort of critical thinking, and ask what policies make sense, instead of substituting the easier question of "what does my leader/enemy say?" The centrist leaders, being paid lavishly to say what they say, are not a reliable indicator. The nationalist/fascist fringe, consisting mostly of idiots (e.g. Forthood) and their exploiters, are not a reliable indicator either. The vast majority, being easily divided, have no mechanism by which to insist on policy results. With manufactured consent, most people vote their party without question.
Ross Perot, by campaigning on a balanced budget in 1992 and 1996, helped to focus attention on that issue and to produce a balanced budget by 1998. Donald Trump is a clown, but like the 'wise fool' who could speak to power in royal times, he may focus attention on issues related to immigration.
Europe has too many centrists and fascists, when it needs a Ross Perot or Donald Trump to change the terms of debate.
Please don't start stalking me again. I guess you probably have been all this time....
Nobody ever bothers to stalk you, at least I certainly never have, but you maintain that delusion to keep your ego inflated. I don't bother reading even a tenth of your comments, but occasionally your obviously wrong math sets off my SIWOTI.
First of all, "Wikepdia" does not exist. Second, Wikipedia, which does at least exist, is not a reliable source. Third, if you look up that assertion on Wikipedia, you'll find it links to a source that doesn't say 69%. Other sources say 29%. I can believe 29%, although it's an estimate, not an actual count. I can't understand how anyone could seriously believe 69%.
Your point works better if you leave religion out of it. In my opinion, people are (slightly) evolved from apes, and that explains more vividly how both react when they feel threatened. If people believed really that they had an omnipotent deity watching over them and protecting them, then they would never feel threatened. Such a belief might distract some people weekly at the level of the cortex, but it doesn't fool the pre-human brain: the inner ape feels threatened and reacts naturally.
I watched sadly the recent election results in Houston, where voters reacted to their fear of 6' anatomical males loitering in the ladies' room waiting for little girls to walk in unattended. I felt even more sad seeing some Democrats call the voters homophobic, forgetting that those same voters had elected and re-elected an openly gay mayor. Instead of compromising on the bathroom issue, the Democrats insisted on all-or-nothing, and ended up with nothing.
Wow. Thanks for letting me know about that. It reminds me of an interview where Noam Chomsky was asked about supporting BDS and then getting excoriated unfairly for having questioned a particular tactic:
Pierre Omidyar funded The Intercept, and it reports very diligently on some topics, but I think the authors tend to overestimate the risk from NSA et al. and underestimate the risk from Islam. For example, Glenn Greenwald is brilliant, but he seems more upset about people allegedly trying to read his e-mail than about people who are expressly trying to kill him.
I've given up on finding a truly objective source to report comprehensively what is happening.
All of the commercial sources have expressly a commercial agenda: they are getting paid to say what they say, and who pays the piper calls the tune. The NY Times supported the Iraq war and Obamneycare, but the Murdoch sources (Faux Noise, NY Post, etc.) drive their cult with even worse misinformation. I saw recently a surprising headline and read the article, then looked for corroboration, and found that only the Murdoch papers had the story; I searched using a witness quote, and found that the Murdoch papers had spun a story first reported in a different paper: the Murdoch version was so distorted as to be almost unrecognizable, quoting out of context to reflect a funhouse mirror opposite.
Then on the non-profit side, I saw this, not just once but deliberately repeated, so essentially the same falsehood ran on three different broadcasts and remains uncorrected on the website.
I keep trying to follow facts, but it's like looking for needles in haystacks spewed out by self-interested sources on all sides.
Do you mean those letters appeared there in front of the President, magically or by divine intervention, along with the blindfold? Why would the NY Post, a paper with a long history of altering photos of the President, be favored with the sole divine revelation of this particular image?
The whole photo seems obviously altered, but Patrick says that "it's real." Some leftover mushrooms in the coffee today, methinks.
“It’s also common in parts of the world where there’s terrorist activity or civil insurrection, like northwest Pakistan, where 40 to 50 per cent might marry a cousin.
“You’ve got little or no control from the government, and there’s this idea that ‘blood is thicker than water’ — you can rely on your family more than even your neighbours. It’s a self-protecting mechanism.”
There are 1100 million people living in countries where the rate of inter-family marriages is 20-50 per cent. Many families value knowing their new social circle and the medical history of those entering the bloodline.
Marrying a relative, or “consanguinity”, is particularly common among migrant communities in Australia.
Prof Bittles, who works at the Centre for Human Genetics explains. “In Australia, it’s second or third generation migrants from countries with strong traditions, like the Middle East.”
In Europe there has been some movement, with Denmark banning marriage between relatives by equating it with forced marriage, and the Netherlands set to follow suit. Some MPs in the UK, where it is mainly seen in rural areas, said it should be banned because of health problems, but these were “grossly exaggerated”, said Prof Bittles, and their progress stalled.
“Until the mid-19th century, it was quite valued,” added the professor. “It was seen as favourable for a girl to marry into a branch of the same family, not an alien one.”
Prof Bittles says he was “taken aback” when he first encountered marriages between uncles and nieces in the 1970s on a visit to India, but his tests on genetic defects showed only a negligibly detrimental effect."
IOW, they have their own way of doing things, and as far as they are concerned it has worked for them for more than 1,000 years. They and their predecessors have conquered much of the world. When they are offered even more opportunities, e.g. Europe, it only validates their belief that they "are a superior religion."
Gary is off duty today, due to the holiday, so please allow me to fill in and explain. More than a thousand years ago, according to Gary, some ruthless Zionists conspired to set their neighbors against each other. The Zionists called their plan Islam, wrote a book they called the Koran, and hired a violent sociopath named Mohamed (which was an unusual name, at the time) to spread it. The idea was to trick the neighbors to the point where they inbreed selectively for violence and end up cutting off each other's heads and killing their own children for "honor". As you can see, it worked. Now, nearly all Arabs and Egyptians are required to pound their own heads against the ground five times a day, on threat of execution. (According to Gary, the Zionists invented that little ritual as revenge for what Pharaoh did to Jews prior to Moses.) While most other peoples in the world, both religious and non-religious, have advanced, the descendants of Pharaoh and the lost city of Babylon have actually regressed. It's all been a huge conspiracy. The only question is, how to get the Muslims to realize that Islam is actually a Zionist conspiracy against them?
It states that in the months before Casey Kasem's death, his wife repeatedly left him in various hospitals for days despite the fact he was ready to be discharged. The lawsuit also details numerous confrontations about Kasem's care, and it states Jean Kasem transported his body to Norway where it was buried in an unmarked grave.
That was despite Casey Kasem's wishes to be buried at a cemetery in Los Angeles, the lawsuit states."
Note that drug prices are spiking only among Rx drugs covered by mandatory insurance programs, e.g. Obamneycare. Among OTC drugs, where customers can compare alternatives on store shelves and buy whatever they want, prices remain low.
In all other sectors, advancing technology results in better value. In the mandatory subsidized insurance sector, it results in higher prices, because that is what the legislation is designed to do. It operates as designed, on behalf of its authors: the revenue recipients.