patrick.net

Buzzfeed is hardly media

Do they not have the right to choose whose dollars they accept?

If he were black or a woman then this would be considered discriminiation.
If they can't sort out the definition of what discrimination is, then we're back to square one. And that means, this president, Obama the first balck president and a known Liberal.
Destroyed every inch of ground that the Civil rights era gained. The deal is off, and every sonofabitch for him self.

That's the white folks on top.

Tenpoundbass, starting with a capital letter and ending in period are good first steps to sentence construction, but you seem to be missing the other crucial pieces.

Capitals are unnecessary. Russian has only one case and does just fine.

The only reason this comment has caps is that my phone insists.

I've noticed the more on point I am, the more fault Liberals can find with my grammer and syntax.

They'll wax the poetic shit out of 140 character tweet missing nary a vowel, though. They love the shit out of their Tweets, and understands them regardless how esotericly abstruse they seemed.

Tenpoundbass says

I've noticed the more on point I am, the more fault Liberals can find with my grammer and syntax.

They'll wax the poetic shit out of 140 character tweet missing nary a vowel, though. They love the shit out of their Tweets, and understands them regardless how esotericly abstruse they seemed.

lol - good one.

I hate when my tweets are abstruse.

Being abtruse & deloosional are virtues on patrick.net.

To hell with grammar & syntax & i spell shyt lyke I want to.

If the baker doesn't, then they shouldn't...

errc says

Buzzfeed is hardly media

Do they not have the right to choose whose dollars they accept?

After the libbies unionized sentence construction, there's nothing left for "other crucial pieces"...

Rew says

Tenpoundbass, starting with a capital letter and ending in period are good first steps to sentence construction, but you seem to be missing the other crucial pieces.

Xanthidae says

If the baker doesn't, then they shouldn't...

If only St. Reagan hadn't ripped up the fairness doctrine.

This is just a publicity stunt by Buzzfeed.

They're trumping Trump at his own game

Buzzfeed, Gawker, Twitter and Fecebook and Goobers are already walking a thin line.

I'm pretty sure regardless who wins, the winning Prez is going to dial all of their Shit back.

If Hillary wins they will become her personal KGB unit, if Trump wins, they'll progressively taxed till they can't afford to operate. Sometimes you got to git Liberal to kill a Liberal at their own game.

rando says

Capitals are unnecessary. Russian has only one case and does just fine.

As are both Japanese alphabets, Hiragana and Katakana. Having two cases makes about as much sense as having three. It's a needless complication.

Of course, in code we'd have to find an alternative to upper and lower camel case, perhaps using spaces, to make identifiers out of phrases, but I'd be open to that.

identifiers should never have spaces, because then you don't know where they end in all situations.

underscores are pretty good.

My wife was telling me how Keiko Fujimori lost the Peruvian election today because all of the media touted the Liberal darling another foreigner, and pretty much gave her total media silence.
She said like they are doing to Donald Trump here in the US.

Underscores are too difficult to type when they are used very often. There are syntaxes that make it disambiguous where identifiers with spaces are delimited because they are surrounded by other tokens.

For example,
declare my age in years as integer;
my age in years = my age in months / 12;

Syntactical highlighting would make this even easier to read.

Personally, I'm so used to camel case, it doesn't matter too much to me except when dealing with the inconsistency of upper vs lower camel case when switching from .NET to JavaScript or when dealing with CSS where artists only like to use dashes and lowercase.

Patrick says

proof that public debate in the US is strangled by a demand to comply with the current left-leaning political orthodoxy.

IF he had said Irish immigrant were mostly dirtbags, would you still claim it was the same "proof."

Jesus Patrick. An organization doesn't have the right to say that they find his lies too blatant and especially too offensive ? Or is it they do have the right, but doing it proves political correctness has gone too far. Bullshit !

Certainly there must be a level of dishonest offensiveness that you would agree as offensive enough to not be simply political correctness. I won't try to give examples using your mother or something like that, but surely you must be able to see that it's it's possible to cross that line, even for you.

Therefore you must acknowledge your so called proof is a proof of nothing. Just because you place the line of what is offensive enough to not be just politically correct at a different place than I or others do, doesn't prove squat.

C'mon Patrick. You're smarter than that.

By the way. I don't care for BuzzFeed at all, but I think they have every right to deny advertisers that they find offensive, and it has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with what they deem to be offensive. For that matter, if they thought the risk was too high that he would be an evil tyrant, that would also be an acceptable reason for not accepting his ads. Even if they are wrong in their assessment of the risk.

errc says

Do they not have the right to choose whose dollars they accept?

I don't know about it. If Trump was gay, they'd be forced at gun point to accept that advertising or face discrimination lawsuits. Liberals aren't exactly "libertarian".

HEY YOU says

To hell with grammar & syntax & i spell shyt lyke I want to.

And if some of the best writing you've ever done. Was writing computer code, or comments on forums. Then you might have forgotten or never even have learned. That this really should have been one sentence. Instead of five.

marcus says

dishonest offensiveness

offensive is in the ear of the beholder.

also, where has trump been dishonest in this campaign?

rando says

also, where has trump been dishonest in this campaign?

Seriously ?

"They're rapists"

Here's a ranking of the final 5 from a couple months ago.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/27/final-five-truth-o-meter/

Trump specifically:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/

His dishonesty isn't a problem for those that love him. Hell, Fox news makes a fortune selling lies that will help them believe whatever it is they emotionally want to believe. Some people are such constant liars, they see it as some kind of a lost art form or something. Nothing disrespectful about lying to them . The only thing they would disrespect is people that use lies to believe things they disagree with.

Of course the problem with this is that if your entire reality is built on lies, then you assume everyone else's reality is built on lies too. So they can easily choose to not believe, for example, global warming because what the hell, they don't want to believe it, and "you're probably lying the same way I lie when I say the reasons for what I believe."

If you add the half true, mostly false and false together for Hillary, you get 48% (of her fact checked statements).

If you do the same for Trump you get 73%

Hey it works though. TPB and other will tell you, "I like the way his lies make me feel. He angry, just like me."

rando says

offensive is in the ear of the beholder

True. And as soon as people start to have some agreement on what's offensive, some people whine, "ewwww political correctness, political correctness !"

Often they're the same people who think reality has a liberal bias.

rando says

Russian has only one case and does just fine.

Actually Russian has five cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, and prepositional. Maybe six cases if you count the instrumental case, which I don't remember from college, but whatever.

If you add the half true, mostly false and false together for Hillary, you get 48% (of her fact checked statements).

If you do the same for Trump you get 73%

--------------

Oh now i see why you's give Hillary a pass, and spend all your energy railing against Trump. It's because she is so much more honest!

errc says

Oh now i see why you's give Hillary a pass, and spend all your energy railing against Trump. It's because she is so much more honest!

It's not just how much more untrue stuff Trump says than Hillary, it's the type of untrue things Trump says (and possibly believes) that scare me.

Completely false things that were fact checked ? (i.e. not adding the half true and mostly false to the completely false)

Bernie 14%

Hillary 13%

Donald 42%

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/27/final-five-truth-o-meter/

I can hear some people now. "Yeah, so three times as much completely false stuff comes out of his mouth than hers, and that's not even including "he's a loser" kind of statements. So ? He's a politician trying to get elected !"