Slashdot Mirror

Obviously, there is no conclusive research proving that GMO is harmful, or it would not be peddled to us so aggressively. There are, however, a few caveats:
1. The side effects could take decades to develop
2. Side effects cannot be linked to GMO. Let's say people are dying of cancer, but since GMO is not labelled it is hard to collect relevant statistics.
3. Since GMO is linked to corporate profits, the corporations can cut financing to public GMO research via bribe err...lobbying. They do forbid export of GMO to Europe, maybe the Europeans found something?

• Looting antiquities and selling them on the black market
• Kidnapping and extortion

In the latter case, I don't see bombing helping at all, and in the former I suppose it might help, but would essentially be a crime against humanity.

Like these folks.

And they still want to make the haystack even bigger! Everyone was "On Message" last Sunday!

Face the Nation Transcripts November 15

Interview with Michael Morell, former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

DICKERSON: So, just to -- so these weren't kind of a bunch of lone wolves? These are people who have a connection to a headquarters?

MORELL: It seems that way, yes.

DICKERSON: And how does that communication take place?

MORELL: So, I think what we're going to learn, we don't know for sure yet, but I think what we're going to learn is that these guys are communicating via these encrypted apps, right, the commercial encryption, which is very difficult, if not impossible, for governments to break, and the producers of which don't produce the keys necessary for law enforcement to read the encrypted messages.

Yep, we can also add Buddhists to this list:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un...

Wrong. The whole point of surge pricing is to only offer taxis to those who can afford it, screw the non-rich folks. That's gouging.

But for some reason, you haven't broken into an art gallery and stolen a Picasso to give it to some of those non-rich folks. And before you tell me that a taxi is different because it's a basic necessity, 1) there is already a federal almost-ban on surge pricing during disaster events, 2) Uber isn't a monopoly, 3) there is a difference between limited surge pricing and absolutely no surge pricing, which you have failed to address, 4) did I mention Uber isn't monopoly, which is typically a pretty damn important component of price gauging?

And look, I can link to articles too. Here's one:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ub...

Hey, look at that, even the NYC council isn't considering completely banning surge pricing, only limiting it:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/09...

And even that seems to be dead in the water:

http://legistar.council.nyc.go...

Yeah, a political guy thought his job (and the jobs of his underlings) was to make the President look good. Like I said - this is bi-partisan. Just look at all the jerks in the Obama admin who forgot they were working at the taxpayers' expense and think their jobs are to make Obama look good.

Here's some of the faux-gagging of Hansen:

2006 CBS hansen, while supposedly gagged rants to "60 minutes"

2007 PBS theoretically gagged and persecuted interview.

Jan 2006 NYT interview by the supposedly gagged man with the most-read paper on the planet.

2006 WaPo The supposedly gagged man gives a panel discussion on what he supposedly cannot say without being waterboarded and it's published in one the nation's most-read papers

People really need to stop being manipulated by propaganda meisters like Hansen and his friends. There are TONS of articles in the web based on interviews and talks the man made while he was supposedly wearing a dick-cheney-administered ball-gag. The man is on record admitting that the famous global warming hearings in the Senate in 1988 were political theater - they were scheduled for a hot day and the Democrats made sure to kill the AC in the hearing room so everybody would be hot and sweating in all the pictures and video. YOU HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED, possibly for your entire life by this man and his political allies.

Oh, bullshit. I have lived in many areas of the country, and found one important thing - people are the same everywhere.

And, shut the hell up with the racist crap.

Yeah, I have often found myself having problems distinguishing people from rural Mississippi from say, people from Boston or New York. Like identical gaddamned twins, I'll tell you what!

So are you sayiong that a Black American citizen can just show up in some all white village in rural Mississippi, and everyone will shower him or her with gifts? Invite them into their home for a nice dinner? Ignore them?

Pointing out racism isn't racist, merely a description of what is.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tw...

That's just from the recent past, you'd perhaps like to discuss going back a few years?

Oh, and Joseph built the pyramids to use for grain storage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/be...

You seem to have difficulties following the flow of discussion in a thread. Try rereading it and see if you can follow it this time. And yes, a person matching the description at the head of the tread did join al Qaeda. Should I be calling you a name at this point and mocking your lack of comprehension?

Show me a tunnel project that finished ahead of schedule and under budget. For that matter show me a tunnel project that finished on time, and met it's budget. It's absurd to think this tunnel will be different than every tunnel ever built in human history.

Found it! http://www.cbsnews.com/picture...

Jonathan Kozol is an idiot. We spend more on education than any other country. More Money isn't the answer. Innovation and Competition (Something public schools are not allowed to have) are. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us... http://nces.ed.gov/programs/co... http://www.ppic.org/main/publi....

Well, first of all, you would have us believe the same about the scientists funded by ExxonMobil. Koch brothers, et cætera. Why is suspicion more believable about the corporation-funded folks, than about the government-funded ones?

The corporation-hired folks are paid to write a paper (called a deliverable) with arguments supporting the theory of their sponsors, while government scientists are paid to do research regardless of the result, much to the annoyance of various politicians.

But the way the system is set up, the would-be "rebels" get screened-out long before making a name for themselves — if you argue in your papers, that AGW is insignificant and a misplaced concern, what are the chances of making it into a grad-school today?

As good as any one else's, unless their denying AGW is an indicator of their prowess in science.

Most people would go into sincere denial.

So you think thousands of scientists can produce bogus results without ever having an inkling that their results are wrong. So they all read their instruments incorrectly, get their math wrong, and still they all get the same results, and still none of them notices anyone else's errors despite the reviews. You call that believable?

But the way the system is set up, the would-be "rebels" get screened-out long before making a name for themselves

So on one side we have plenty of proof that a few dozens of scientists are being paid to deny or minimize AGW; and on the other we have thousands of scientists producing lies supporting AGW but we have not a single shred of evidence that anyone is pushing them to lie. And according to you that's because the selection and formatting process is so efficient that out of thousands of scientists none of them got depressed to the point where he would publicize their frustration with the system. And none of them rebelled either? And the exact same phenomenon worked across 120 countries with different cultures and opposing interests. And you really claim with a straight face that your conspiracy theory is the more plausible one? Just, wow!

A seasoned and established tenure-professor might be able to get away with it, but not scratch-free.

So Lindzen is your best example of a scientist being unfairly persecuted by the AGW crowd? The Lindzen who, from your own article, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. And you were the one who talking about conflicts of interests was asking people to recuse themselves! And instead of asking for Lindzen to recuse himself you try to pass him off as a martyr?

CBS news article describes how an upstate New York man was convicted Friday of plotting to kill Muslims with a mobile X-ray device by a jury that rejected his lawyer's argument that he was entrapped by the FBI.

SO - if YOU do it, you go to jail, if the COPS do it, it's crime fighting. Hmmmm.....yeah....

incorrect

~ 32% of Americans live in a house where *somebody owns a gun.
~22% of Americans actually own a gun.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nu...

Oddly, why didn't you suggest a story on how Taxi drives are on strike right now at this very moment over Uber, which you mysteriously, inexplicably failed to mention! http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/84e1... https://www.bostonglobe.com/bu... http://algarvedailynews.com/ne... http://www.chicagobusiness.com... http://www.cbsnews.com/picture... http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... http://www.theguardian.com/tec... https://euobserver.com/connect... http://www.wftv.com/videos/new... http://in-cyprus.com/nicosia-t...

The BAC limits are completely arbitrary. No one here arguing against me has yet posted a refutation of that point. They also skip over the part that I fully believe impaired drivers should not be on the road and punished more harshly when their actions result in harm than they currently are.

A meaningful objective measure will always be difficult to come by regarding this issue. Ask any anesthesiologist, not everyone reacts to drugs the same way, which is why they are present and monitoring their patients carefully throughout the application of anesthesia. You can't have BAC be 0 because you can naturally produce alcohol although that is a severe case. There are other mechanisms that will result in trace BAC amounts as well, so "zero tolerance" would mean no one drives.

All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.

Except Jeb did practically the same thing:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/je...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/...

And George W. Bush did even worse, breaking the law in doing so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

He even refused to turn over e-mails under subpoena: "The White House stated it might have lost five million emails"

At least 5 different investigations were hampered by his private e-mail account:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Unlike George, Hillary appears to have broke no laws, turned over all the data to investigators, and isn't hampering any investigations.

Let me guess: You're one of those misguided soda addicts out to defend your disgusting habit? You can quit anytime you want but claim to "enjoy it"? You tell yourself "it's not as bad as people think" because you once heard about a life-long two-cases-a-day pop-drinking grandmother who lived to be 102 with nary a health problem? You're not "one of those" inconsiderate drinkers that leave sticky rings all over the place? That's not your ant-infested collection of empty cans littering the streets? I'll be you even think most soda drinkers are clean and respectful!

When I watch one of you chug down a 32oz Big Gulp, all I see is a junkie pushing a needle in to their veins...

It can be difficult to tell a meth user from a soda drinker. This is your future, if it's not already your reality...

No?

Yes. The campuses — including this one, the public schools are all legally gun-free. A pop-tart eaten to the shape of a pistol is enough for a kid to be kicked out.

That cinema, where "a joker" killed 12 people — that movie theater was not closest to his house, but it was the only one within a 20-minute drive, that declared itself "gun-free".

In denial much?

Maybe it was the only theatre showing that Batman movie that night?

And do you really think a darkened room full of amateur gun owners opening return fire is going to in any way lessen the death toll?

Against a gunman with body armour?

Retard much?

No?

Yes. The campuses — including this one, the public schools are all legally gun-free. A pop-tart eaten to the shape of a pistol is enough for a kid to be kicked out.

That cinema, where "a joker" killed 12 people — that movie theater was not closest to his house, but it was the only one within a 20-minute drive, that declared itself "gun-free".

In denial much?

So what you're saying is that all (or virtually all) campuses are gun free, so the fact this specific campus is gun free is pretty much meaningless.

No?

Yes. The campuses — including this one, the public schools are all legally gun-free. A pop-tart eaten to the shape of a pistol is enough for a kid to be kicked out.

That cinema, where "a joker" killed 12 people — that movie theater was not closest to his house, but it was the only one within a 20-minute drive, that declared itself "gun-free".

In denial much?

If Thatcherism was so unpopular, why didn't Thatcher lose?

Falklands. Which isn't really Thatcherism. Thatcherism is economics (monetarism).

Can't explain 1987, or John Major's defeat of an anti-Thatcherite in '92.

In the UK you had a massive unemployment crises. Both problems were solved, by right-wing governments

Not really. As I said Labour were campaigned against for having 1 million unemployed. Thatcher took it to 3 million. And the apparent wealth of the late 80s was North Sea Oil revenue, plus selling off nationalised companies, selling off public housing plus people feeling richer due to house-price inflation. None of these are part of a real sustainable economic boom, they are selling off the family silver. Thatcherism was economically illiterate, and a failure.

If that was the case you would expect that the UK would have had an economic collapse in the mid-90s, when there were no more things to privatise and the oil price was in the teens.

Even those of us who agree with you in theory wonder about how in touch you are with reality, and worry that you'll do shit like re-open coal mines that were a useless drag on the economy from the 50s until Thatcher closed them.

The closing of the mines was never about economics. Thatcher closed them because the mineworker's union had brought down the previous Tory government. For sure there's been times since when mining wouldn't have been worth it due to the world price, and other times when it would. But they aren't going to be reopened - they are destroyed. And Corbyn values the environment.

Sanders the front-runner? What are you smoking?

Just something I heard in passing on Colbert. Looks like it was in Iowa and or New Hampshire. It's still remarkable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ba...

Like I've said, he's almost certain to win those two states.

His problem is that most Democrats aren't rural white progressives. Those guys have been wiped out over the past 20-odd years.

probably because said friend has read the economic data (which shows that, on balance, Thatcher was right), but never seen the bits of the UK Thatcher had to destroy to be right economically.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong on all counts.

Here's the thing. For the past 25 years, neo-liberalism has been the only game in town. People have become to accept is as being the natural way. That's why Corbyn is getting a lot of opposition right now. But the election os 4.5 years away. That's a long time for the idea of a real alternative to become familiar. And when it comes to it, more than left/right ideology, what the UK electorate votes for is a leader with conviction. That appears to believe what he says and says what he believes. Miliband didn't have that. Corbyn does.

Economic growth in the UK beat Europe which didn't buy into the neo-liberal agenda with nearly the fervor of Thatcher. Ands if she's too young to remember any of the Thatcher years it's rather hard for her to have seen the coal-mining towns Thatcher gutted, now isn't it?

Corbyn's got a chance. The Opposition always does. But he's going to have top flesh out his anti-Thatcherism into something that takes into account that in 1980 most of what she did was a good idea; if he plans on convincing anyone outside the "Ding dong the witch is dead" community to vote for him.

If Thatcherism was so unpopular, why didn't Thatcher lose?

Falklands. Which isn't really Thatcherism. Thatcherism is economics (monetarism).

In the UK you had a massive unemployment crises. Both problems were solved, by right-wing governments

Not really. As I said Labour were campaigned against for having 1 million unemployed. Thatcher took it to 3 million. And the apparent wealth of the late 80s was North Sea Oil revenue, plus selling off nationalised companies, selling off public housing plus people feeling richer due to house-price inflation. None of these are part of a real sustainable economic boom, they are selling off the family silver. Thatcherism was economically illiterate, and a failure.

Even those of us who agree with you in theory wonder about how in touch you are with reality, and worry that you'll do shit like re-open coal mines that were a useless drag on the economy from the 50s until Thatcher closed them.

The closing of the mines was never about economics. Thatcher closed them because the mineworker's union had brought down the previous Tory government. For sure there's been times since when mining wouldn't have been worth it due to the world price, and other times when it would. But they aren't going to be reopened - they are destroyed. And Corbyn values the environment.

Sanders the front-runner? What are you smoking?

Just something I heard in passing on Colbert. Looks like it was in Iowa and or New Hampshire. It's still remarkable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ba...

probably because said friend has read the economic data (which shows that, on balance, Thatcher was right), but never seen the bits of the UK Thatcher had to destroy to be right economically.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong on all counts.

Here's the thing. For the past 25 years, neo-liberalism has been the only game in town. People have become to accept is as being the natural way. That's why Corbyn is getting a lot of opposition right now. But the election os 4.5 years away. That's a long time for the idea of a real alternative to become familiar. And when it comes to it, more than left/right ideology, what the UK electorate votes for is a leader with conviction. That appears to believe what he says and says what he believes. Miliband didn't have that. Corbyn does.

Posting as AC means you likely won't get my response. But here goes:

ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

I call BS. I specifically do work in my community in de-radicalisation efforts, and also liaise with other efforts internationally. I seek out people like this, and I have to tell you, they're pretty hard to find. Admittedly, I'm in Australia, but if there are anything like double digit percentage chunks of our community who sympathize with bombers, I'd know about it. I'd be surprised of the number of Muslims who condone terrorism is above 1%.

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report...

The mosque I usually attend is mainly a Turkish community. My wife is Turkish, and I've spent time there specifically discussing global politics with them. Once again, there's no way almost 1 in 3 support suicide attacks in any form against anyone. Suicide attacks are, in any Islam 101 class, specifically ruled out, and the fact that brainwashed youngsters are conned into it doesn't change that fact. No mainstream Muslim who has had a modicum of Islamic education would condone a prohibited act. ...

Looking down the rest of these "surveys", I can only speculate that they are the result of very skewed research, or perhaps loose interpretation of the answers to leading questions. Also, looking into the actual paper referenced in the one that states "World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans" I found that the actual research results showed that only 8% of Egyptians approved of attacks on Americans in America, and 7% approved of attacks on Americans working abroad (I'd have thought it'd go the other way, but meh). I was not able to find 61% approval of attacks anywhere.

At this point, I shall terminate evaluating that site, it's clearly (and I'm being charitable with my wording here) badly mistaken in the facts it is presenting.

Yet here were are, with you ending your sentence with an ellipsis.

What does the moon moving into the Earth's shadow have to do with grammar.... oh... wait... ellipsis..... not the upcoming supermoon lunar eclipse...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/su...

But Pop-Tart Kid wasn't white..... And it was in Texas!!
Oh, wait. Five year old white kid. Annapolis Maryland.... right outside Washington D.C. Eh, nevermind. He's on a roll.

Islamist isn't quite a synonym for Muslim, it's more like saying "Christian theocrat".

But anyway. Whether something bad happens in the room with an axe depends on the Jew, the atheist, the mormon, the buddhist, the fucking scientologist, and the "Islamist". I don't know why you expect anybody to believe your assessment.

Jew you wouldn't want with an axe: Baruch Goldstein, American Jewish mass murderer who took out 29 praying Muslims and wounded 125 more.
Catholic

Buddhists massacring Muslims: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un...

I admit I didn't find Mormons or scientologists butchering Muslims, because their population centers don't tend to overlap. Not hard to find general murderers among them though.

The problem here is special pleading. When a Jew massacres Muslims, citing their religious convictions, it's an exception. When a Muslim massacres Jews, the problem is Islam.

According to CBS News.

We could spend less than 1% of our GDP on defense and still have a larger military than most countries out there.

Thanks for making my point.

Second, what infrastructure? Be specific.

Is "public" a specific enough modifier for you?

I was a truck driver for years, and if you're going to mention highways and bridges - don't bother. You're wrong.

I don't find your personal anecdotal experience very compelling. I find multiple reports from credible sources far more convincing.

We are responsible for quite a few things, military-wise...[blah blah blah]

I asked for accomplishments, not responsibilities. Care to try again?

Did you even read that link?

No. Why would I? All I did was accurately observe that you didn't add anything to the discussion.

I defined "threat" by the only measure it should be defined: based on the actual reality of the situation [...] Is that the reality? Yes.

Uh huh. Another prick on the internet who claims to know the true reality of the situation.

We face a much larger threat from people who can't use their brain properly.

I assume that would that include people who claim that North Korea "shot a missle over Japan", right?

Where are the death squads and ditches full of dead bodies?

• https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
• http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#

Where are the crying survivors hoping to find their disappeared loved ones?

• http://www.cbsnews.com/feature/protests-over-police-violence/
• http://theantimedia.org/4-victims-come-forward-chicago-secret-prison-man-tortured-weed/

What is scary is that you even thin you can get away with asking the question given that the answer is so obvious.

The US is a huge country and probably contains the same number of potential STEM workers that we're "taking" from the rest of the world.

The US has about 5% of the world's population. It is laughable to think we have the same number of potential STEM workers as the rest of the world, especially given that our primary schools rate so poorly compared to other nations.

It just so happens that we don't really want to invest in Americans.

The US spends more per student than any other developed country in the world. (source). Private school tuition does not affect these averages much, so even our public schools are better funded than the rest of the world. We absolutely do invest in Americans, but with only 5% of the population and 22% of the world's GDP, it is impossible to keep up our current advantage without continuing the brain drain we have been doing since the world wars.

I do agree we need massive changes to our school system, but there is even more resistance from the educational industry than there is against immigration.

Did you even watch the last vice-presidential debate? When Ryan was speaking, Biden was babbling, laughing, and almost drooling.

I think you may be misremembering.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/po...

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

But people can watch for themselves. That's the beauty of the Internet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ta...

It happens currently, just not commonly either.

That article also says: Someone can get infected with PAM from swimming in warm fresh water, such as a lake or river. So, there have possibly been zero deaths from chlorinated water. So it's more like being concerned over something that kills no people per year.

2 > 0

However, the victims - a 28-year-old man and a 51-year-old woman from Louisiana - had not been near freshwater. The only thing they had in common was that they both routinely used the tap water with neti pots. Further tests on their home plumbing came back positive for the amoeba, although the city's water distribution systems' tests came back negative. The bacteria was found in a tankless water heater in the man's home and in the bathroom sink and faucet tub of the woman's home.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tap-water-in-neti-pots-behind-two-brain-eating-amoeba-deaths-in-2011-investigation-finds/

It's rare, sure, but it can and does happen.

Hasn't every single case in USA been due to someone swimming in a open body of water?

No.

Why would we care about them surviving in drinking water?

Because it's also the water that you shower in, swim in, get sprayed with if someone uses a squirt gun on you, get splashed with when you wash a dish by hand and so forth. Most people don't want to constantly be exposed to a parasite that can kill them.

Guess I should boil that water first.

Definitely

Sorry troll, but the OP is right. The republicans are already on the warpath:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytime...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://www.sanduskyregister.co...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oh...

Now if they could just find a way to prevent fraud due to amnesia.

No taxes. How nice!
But here, about 60% of fuel is taxes as well. We have to pay Greece, after all. :-(
And our government is working a on free-money-for-everyone-program... I shit ye not... On the other hand, while the US bridges are falling to pieces, ours are maintained very well.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/th...

I guess you haven't been following the news lately. A 30 year old teacher who had sex with her 17 year old male student was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Just for example.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/predator-teacher-gets-22-years-for-sex-with-students/

When it comes to slimming down, a diet low in fat seems to beat a diet low in carbohydrates for body fat loss, new research suggests.

Well, this guy did it.

tl;dr - Teacher eats only McDonald's for 90 days, limits his calories, loses weight and improves his cholesterol.

That claim is such utter bullshit that it isn't even worth for a citation. Use your head, man. I mean, how utterly ignorant can you be?

Yes, it's worth a citation. In fact, I have a couple for you. Here's a Fortune Magazine article that shows my claim is true. There's even a nifty graph for you to look at and not understand.

http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/...

https://fortunedotcom.files.wo...

http://nelp.org/publication/gr...

the fact is that the US has one of the highest effective corporate tax rates in the world (go look it up).

Yeah, I looked it up:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex...

And here's the full (peer-reviewed) article, for your perusal. Let's hope you are more capable of perusal than you are of simple Google searches.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Pa...

This is hilarious, it was quite obvious that you only read the first paragraph article you cited... and now you didn't even read the first paragraph of what I last cited, allow me to demonstrate. You claim:

State may have them. Nobody knows except the State Department.

Except that's not what the State Department has said, to quote the last article I cited (and the first paragraph no less):

The State Department said Thursday that it could not locate “all or part” of 15 e-mails provided last week to the House Select Committee on Benghazi by Sidney Blumenthal from his exchanges with then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Still not convinced? Why not consult a whole number of articles from various sources which report the same thing?

http://news.yahoo.com/state-de...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/15...
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/26...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sta...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes...

Noticing a trend yet?

Thus, your claim that we know she didn't turn over all of the emails is false. The State Department might have them, they might not.

So you are calling the professionals at the State Department and national archives incompetent because they cannot adequately locate these documents they may or may not have? Riiight. Occam's Razor would seem to apply.

You're misunderstanding the quote. According to them the information should have been deemed confidential.

On the contrary, I understand it quite well (as unlike you I've spent some time reading on this subject. Failing to set the 'classified' flag on an email doesn't change whether it is actually classified or not, it simply flags it for filtering & handling... not unlike putting "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED" in a subject line of an email. It's the content that matters, not the subject of flags.

It wasn't, though. That means there is no proof that she sent material that was, at the time it was sent, deemed classified.

Again... that's not what the IGs (two of them) have said. Though even your use of the term 'proof' is laughable. The intelligence agencies do not deal in proof the way the rest of us do, but in terms of probability. And the IGs have determined it is very probable that classified information that Hillary had access to is not in the control of the government due to her. That's the first step to opening a criminal investigation which will hopefully lead to a trial and proof that even you would accept.

Say hi to President Sanders for me.

A while ago there was a glitch with processing EBT cards, the spending limits were not being checked, and EBT shoppers bought as much as they could carry to the register. Once limits were were again being checked, the EBT shoppers abandoned their stuffed carts and went home.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eb...

Problems occur, and making zero provisions for when a problem eventually does occur will multiply the impact of the problem.

The one thing in common with virtually all these lone gunman type terrorists or spree killers is their involvement in extremist online communities. It's a positive feedback loop.

Sources? I know that the church shooter guy was interested in neo-nazis online, but what other ones are you talking about? I actually think that you're just making that up, though, so you don't have to respond.

Well Elliot Rodger is one but I was mostly thinking about lone wolf terrorists or people like Luka Magnotta (though he wasn't a spree killer). However it's hard to find good sources in part because it isn't really mentioned. When people do something crazy like go on a killing spree or post a murder video people assume they'll be part of some screwy online communities and papers don't want to get flack from readers for posting the name of a really disturbing site.

But at a more abstract level no one disputes the fact that people can fall in with a bad crowd in the physical world, why would you dispute that it's possible to fall in with a bad crowd on the Internet?

I had thought it had all been buried, but apparently I was wrong, and someone else in this thread found it: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st...

Sorry, there is plenty of evidence:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st...

even though the study was initially retracted, it's since been republished and the initial retraction was widely condemned by scientists and researchers worldwide.

A case could be made that Monsanto pressured people for the retraction.

Personally I think that their GMO corn is really bad for people and animals and that eventually it'll be proved without a doubt but in the mean time Monsanto continues to rake in millions if not billions on products that are dangerous to peoples health just like aspartame.

>> I will go to any extent necessary, to never allow this on my vehicle.

I completely echo your sentiment but already see that the car manufacturers and legislators are already removing such freedoms of choice from us. New US laws have already been made that all new cars must include tech to spy on drivers and new tech is being added to remotely control cars.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ne...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wh...
http://rt.com/news/remote-car-...

I quite seriously expect the value of old pre-computerized cars to go up significantly just because of stuff like this, however you can bet the legislators will also keep finding new ways to get cars they cant spy with or control off the roads.