Slashdot Mirror

Thats terrible. Think "when all fuel has nitro, her job as racecar driving SoS made her game dangerous the moment she built her own racetrack" Still terrible. If you KNOW a thing thats classified and type it into a brand new email, is that classified? This is a simple question, and the answer to this whole case...on the surface. But there is so much more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

Sen. Feinstein

see TFA [thehill.com]
http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...

Their own Senator plans to leave a smoking crater where the Valley was. Maybe they can plant orchards again.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...

went to great lengths to violate standing policy in order to be even less transparent while working in the administration

... after criticizing Republicans for using non-government e-mails for anything...

Trump doesn't do that. He calls important people a pussy on national TV as easily as the common man does it at the bar or the office cooler. That's what's driving his popularity - he's an anti-politicians.

Right, he's Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, but with worse hair.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are completely naive.

America is an oligarchy. It has been for a very long time. The government is merely the place where wealthy special interests come together to negotiate the laws they want (and they are negotiating with each other, never us).

There is an amazing dog-and-pony show that makes us feel like we have some say. But our voice is only as loud as the amount of money we can summon up to further a cause; which for most of us means none at all (we love to vote because that is free, but we hate to put our money where our mouth is and support political lobbies, so we are politically impoverished).

The corporations have all the power, and this conflict between them is just more visible than most.

Personally, my money is on the tech leaders. They have the clear upper hand in this case. Any victory against encryption will be temporary at best.

No, no... He's not making it up. Really. The Pope said something about Trump not being a good Christian because a good Christian tries to build bridges and not walls. Needless to say, this has made some folks unhappy and they are (now) very much in favor of keeping the religious leaders (or at least this particular one) out of politics. Then, to top it off, one of the persons given airing and a voice, one that voiced agreement with this principle, was none other than Jerry Falwell Junior.

No, it is made up.

The pope didn't say what people think he said or so says his spokesperson.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

But more to the point. Most Christians in the US are protestant in which they do not revere the pope in the first place. So it is nothing new to dislike or hold contempt for the pope for anyone not catholic because of the supposed restrictions of only selected people being worthy.

As for Fox News Radio, I did not know they had anything other than news on it. I've only heard the solid news part so I will have to take your word for it. To me, it is no different than the evening news on any broadcast network- Mostly news and little opinion except for the fluff pieces.

...they had documented terrorism involvement prior to this...

I've heard it claimed that they openly expressed support for ISIS, but I also know that was refuted by the FBI. I haven't followed this closely, but I've not heard of any other claims directly linking them to a particular terrorist group or terrorist activity, and I can't find any such claims that haven't already been refuted.

Do you have a source for the above claim?

You just happen to be a member of the crowd to which Bernie is playing. And, obviously, he is doing a good job of it.

Don't ever make the mistake of trusting him. Every action he takes that is not subject to public scrutiny will be a betrayal, as is true of every politician (that succeeds).

Nonsense. Sanders has had a remarkably open and public political career. He has answered questions from the public for an hour every Friday for years on the Thom Hartmann Show and his answers are reassuringly consistent and are backed up by his voting record. Plenty of Republicans in Vermont trust him because he does what he says he will. With regards to the surveillance state, Sander's has been outspoken in his opposition to pervasive data collection, voicing support for Edward Snowden's whistleblowing. Here's and article comparing his stance on NSA spying to that of Secretary Clinton.

I have observed that Sanders has generally narrowed his message in his campaign rhetoric, and specifically seems to avoids nuances of electronic security and privacy during the debates.

Well McConnell has said Obama can pound sand on getting that replacement

http://thehill.com/homenews/se...

I'll lay odds that the usual suspects demonstrate they neither know or care about the constitution by throwing tantrums and shouting "They can't do that"

The answer is of course "YES WE CAN"

From Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:

        He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Yes - it's been that way for a decade

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/0...

It's starting to change. I guess companies do get tired of being made the target of blame for all of our countries woes
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

Not that I like dysfunctional government, or the Republicans in control, but it's not like he listens to them either when he implements major laws via executive order.

On that note, let's not forget that each expansion of government power, no matter how tiny, accumulates and is passed on to future administrations. Donald Trump is already proclaiming those powers to be his if elected. Trump with that much power scares me a hell of a lot more than Obama.

I'll vote for her before Trump or Cruz

Trump is the only candidate the powers-that-be in Davos appeared the least bit concerned about. Hillary, on the other hand, will fit right in with that crowd. You people bitch and moan about the "one percent" but when you're given the unique opportunity to vote for someone the "one percent" don't like you run right into the arms of your preferred statists.

She can't be trusted, full stop. A vote for Hillary is a vote against your interests because the only interests Hillary has is in what is good for her.

I don't trust Hillary but I trust the goons on the right even less because their interests are routinely directly contrary to my own as well as to what I consider good public policy. All politicians act in self interest and to presume otherwise is dangerously naive. I presume they are acting in self interest and just try to find someone who isn't too obviously a crook ...

No, you don't. You don't try AT ALL.

Because if you did, you'd have NOTHING to do with Clinton.

Tens of millions of dollars - at least from the selling of the Marc Rich pardon. And some of that money was for selling control of US uranium to a Russian associate of Marc Rich -while HIllary! was Secretary of State - a deal that needed State Department approval. The Clinton "Foundation" only got $1 million from that Russian for that deal.

Hillary! is under FBI investigation for corruption and violating national security laws.

She's told her aide to delete classification headers and send a classified email unsecurely - in other words, Hillary! LIED.

You haven't tried to find someone who isn't a crook - AT ALL.

Go ahead, lie to yourself if you want. The only way you could believe yourself is if you have your head so far up you ass you can see your own damn molars.

She can't be trusted, full stop. A vote for Hillary is a vote against your interests because the only interests Hillary has is in what is good for her.

I don't trust Hillary but I trust the goons on the right even less because their interests are routinely directly contrary to my own as well as to what I consider good public policy. All politicians act in self interest and to presume otherwise is dangerously naive. I presume they are acting in self interest and just try to find someone who isn't too obviously a crook ...

No, you don't. You don't try AT ALL.

Because if you did, you'd have NOTHING to do with Clinton.

Tens of millions of dollars - at least from the selling of the Marc Rich pardon. And some of that money was for selling control of US uranium to a Russian associate of Marc Rich -while HIllary! was Secretary of State - a deal that needed State Department approval. The Clinton "Foundation" only got $1 million from that Russian for that deal.

Hillary! is under FBI investigation for corruption and violating national security laws.

She's told her aide to delete classification headers and send a classified email unsecurely - in other words, Hillary! LIED.

You haven't tried to find someone who isn't a crook - AT ALL.

Go ahead, lie to yourself if you want. The only way you could believe yourself is if you have your head so far up you ass you can see your own damn molars.

So while this looks like a "dud" as a fusion weapon test, they already have bombs like the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course, Bill Clinton assured us that his 1994 "nuke deal" with North Korea would stop their nuclear weapons development program. That was the deal his "social worker" and Democrat activist friend Wendy Sherman negotiated - since innner-city poverty work is clearly the primary qualification needed for international nuclear weapons deal negotiations. Sadly, this is the same incompetent woman President Obama turned to to negotiate the equally feckless Iran nuclear deal and that Harvard will now allow to indoctrinate young Americans into terminal stupidity. Of course, as with her North Korea nuke deal, this woman was so incompetent that she never even READ the Iran "deal" she brokered. Expect Iranian nuke tests soon, and global nuclear terrorism and blackmail in the decades ahead.

Leftist lunatics with "social justice" agendas should never be allowed near serious issues. Even most right-wingers are too un-serious and insufficiently suspicious/cautious to be involved in such matters. Such negotiations should only involve people who have been on a battlefield smelling and tasting death with a gritty awareness that such things are REAL and not some damned abstract polysci exercise to slam-dunk an "achievment" or "legacy" during a short political term with no concern for the people who will face the results decades later.

Not clear if you're a troll, ignorant or simply an idiot. Because, the Supremes never got involved in what I mentioned.

Donald trump has alienated enough voters that he's unelectable. And he's actually motivating democrats to vote (and vote against him) which is an important factor in the next race.

Good analysis here

http://thehill.com/blogs/congr...

fwiw, I considered Hillary Clinton unelectable. The republicans have had to work hard to get so far to the right that she's a plausible candidate. It's very rare to get three presidents from the same party in a row.

Looks like they also sneaked in a massive enlargement of H1-B from 66k to either 200k or 250k, depending on who you ask.

Well, when something must be kept going "at all costs", then the costs turn out to be high.

We also have here a strong argument for government reduction as well. The less crap government does, the less they can hold hostage when they want to pass something like CISA or an H1-B expansion.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/262281-cyber-bills-final-language-will-anger-privacy-advocates

Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act is back and this time they even removed some of the few privacy protections it used to have.

Oh please.. Money != power in our republic. Poor people get as many votes per person as the rich.

That is not the case. Numerous studies have shown that money buys power in this country.

taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" may provide an immediate reduction in poverty, but it lowers everyone's standard of living.

I am fine with lowering the standard of living of the wealthiest x% people in this country to provide a humane minimum standard of living for everyone else. (Where x is defined as roughly a very low single digit percentage give or take one or two percent.)

Today we have millions living in abject poverty while the wealthiest are wealthier than ever. The country can survive taking from the top just enough to end poverty.

But taking from the rich only goes so far, so we as a country are going into debt to provide welfare, healthcare and anti-poverty campaigns.

Back when taxes were higher, we didn't have a debt problem like we do today. One man's "government spends too much!" is another man's "maybe we should increase government's income so it can pay its bills."

The CBO says that repealing the ACA (Obamacare) would actually lower the deficit, raise employment, cut taxes and actually end up putting more on health insurance roles, which is EXACTLY what the right was saying when this got rammed though congress...

First of all, the right came up with the idea. The left wanted single payer, and continues to argue in favor of it on the grounds that it would be less expensive in the long run than the current public/private mess we have today.

Second, that CBO analysis you're referring to is a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. You might want to read about it in more detail. Depending on how you interpret the data, some analysts say repeal would lower the deficits, others say it would add to the deficit dramatically.

Conservatives are driven by what's best in the long term and what's going to do the most good for people.

That doesn't seem like a very well supported statement to me. Conservatives oppose policies that would end poverty on the grounds that it's morally wrong to take from rich people. That's by definition elitist, not "what's good for most people."

Your classic teach a man to fish rather than give a man a fish analogy is a perfect illustration of that. You see other men as only deserving of fish if they're capable of fishing for them themselves. If you see it is morally acceptable to deny a man a fish who is unable or unwilling to fish it up himself, then your ideology is not "what's going to do the most good for people" because it's predicated on unnecessary starvation of those you deem unworthy of eating.

The ideology that will "do the most good for people" is the one that doesn't impose conditions on the basic needs of others. Imposing conditions kills people. Personally, I'm not a fan of social darwinism.

The moment you start dehumanizing people who haven't committed a crime, deciding that it's OK to do bad things to them just because you disagree with them, and they're not worthy of the same rights and protections you give to people you agree with, you've started using the same reasoning ISIS uses to justify what they do.

So you mean that TRUMP saying that we should "take out" the families of suspected terrorists is a bad thing, right?

"I would do my best, absolute best â" I mean, one of the problems we have or one of the reasons we're so ineffective, you know, they're trying to, they're using them as shields. It's a horrible thing," the real estate tycoon said.

"But we're fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families," Trump added.

"When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. But they say they don't care about their lives. You have to take out their families."

Yeah, promoting war crimes is defensible.... not.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

--
BMO

The environmentalists are going to complain it doesn't go far enough and the politicians in all of the countries that matter are just going to ignore it or cheat it.

You're mistaken. The main goal of this treaty is to stop TERRORISM, because you know, global warming caused the Paris attack. Feel the Burn!

Well apparently the killer's brother was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Is that active enough for you AC?

http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

The killer's brother wasn't an extremest Muslim. I don't see your point.

Well apparently the killer's brother was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Is that active enough for you AC? http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

Next to the title there's a link (thehill.com)

http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...

I was able to infiltrate this ISIS help desk and here is the prompt I heard when calling into it (translated from Arabic):

Welcome to the Daesh hotline. Please listen carefully to the following message as our options have changed.
Press 1 for information on how to encrypt messages sent to members of your terrorist cell
Press 2 if you're a suicidal bomber and are having trouble detonating your device
Press 3 if you're an oppressed female who would like to sign up for our next Perl Programming Bootmap
Press 4 for tips on how to write terror and/or hate messages in 140 characters or less
Press 5 to voice your displeasure with systemd
Or Press 0 to speak with a member of the Bush family for further assistance

Democrats push to gut First Amendment.

The group Citizen's United makes a movie critical of a politician and gets harassed by the FEC.

THAT'S what Citizen's United did - dare to criticize HILLARY!

And for that heinous act, DEMOCRATS want to shut down free speech.

Thank the Supreme Court for preserving your right to criticize politicians - even if they're DEMOCRATS.

So if you want to overturn the Citizen's United decision, STFU about a few criminals that had a right taken away.

BECAUSE YOU SUPPORT TAKING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS FROM *EVERYONE*

In that case, the older you get, the more wrong you are.

Studies like that one have conclusively demonstrated that it doesn't matter which congresscritter gets voted in...those with money make the decisions, and that's it. The whole political process of campaigning, voting, etc....is just a circus.

Yes, there is a degree to which this is the voter's fault. If we would just vote for people who don't have these disgusting alliances, things would be better. You fail to realize: people who don't have these alliances never have a chance of winning. The reasons are many: most such people don't seek power in the first place, those that do are honest and hence are at an immediate disadvantage against their dishonest competitors, and if any manage to win anyway they quickly fall to temptation once they start to see the dollars and to think of themselves as potentates.

Facing reality is not pessimism, even if the reality faced is unpleasant.

478 billion dollars for the 2015 highway bill. For the rest I will note you are just as wrong about them as you are the highway bill.

http://thehill.com/policy/tran...

Sorry, I don't oppose TTP because of Obama. I oppose it because it is a secret deal, pre approved by the powers that be, and enough (D) and (R) supported it to make it bi-partisan. If you support it, not knowing anything other than it was "Obama says it will be good" then you are the real fool. I bet you'd oppose it if GWB supported it (all other things considered).

The fact is, the whole (D) good (R) bad (Or visa versa) is really getting old. And do not pretend the (D) don't do the very same thing. Blindly following your party is for Sheeple.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

"Clinton dismissed the notion that she set up the private
account and server to make it more difficult for her government
officials or her political enemies to gather information on her record
as she seeks the White House."

“That’s totally ridiculous, that never crossed my mind,” Clinton said."

OK, now we've crossed over into the Onion Zone. Parody Writers couldn't come up with better stuff if they tried.

Kim Davis is a Democrat.

Not any more!

In 2010 Obama killed the Constellation program w/o discussing it with congress first and with NO PLAN for ANY American manned spaceflight going forward; his plan only funded the Americans using ISS for a few more years via Russian Soyuz flights before dumping ISS into the Pacific Ocean There was vague rhetoric about new tech development and a possible commercial crew taxi program, but. That was it. Congress had a freak-out because Constellation had been a hard-negotiated bi-partisan program with support and buy-in from the hard-right in congress all the way to the hard-left in congress and supported by both Bush and the Pelosi-Reid team. Constellation had even made it through the 2008 election cycle ans the change of power in congress. Congress under-funded Constellation back then, as they always do to NASA, but Bush and his team did not go around whining about it and blaming the underfunding on Democrat hatred of Bush and/or white people. Obama's supporters have used commercial crew underfunding as "proof" that his opponents are racists; they LOVE this fight.

Obama's plan got such a negative backlash even from prominent Democrats that he cobbled together a plan to come up with a plan and, after months of back-room negotiations, ended up calling for a manned version of the Bush-era commercial cargo program, combined with an extension to ISS operations (which even now not all of the ISS partners have agreed to). Congress (again BOTH parties) were so unimpressed with the plan that they insisted on the SLS rocket as part of the plan and the law that ended up getting written allowed Obama's commercial crew program but also REQUIRED the SLS rocket. Obama signed that into law, but has been playing passive-aggressive games with it ever since. Every year, he tries to shift money from SLS to commercial crew, which angers congress and they in turn refuse to increase the commercial crew funds. He then announces that SLS does not need the money any way, then in separate reports to congress announces that SLS is slipping its schedule due to lack of funds (he actually says it's slipping because of delays to the Orion's service module - but THAT is because ESA is building it because he said we could not afford to have Lockheed build it in the US (an budgetary bankshot))

Congress wants a rocket to enable the US to return to the Moon and go on to Mars.

Obama is adamant that we not return to the Moon and that we will go to Mars someday in the distant future

There's no happy compromise between such opposite views.

Obama's NASA fills its website with Mars-centric rhetoric but absolutely no plan, budget, goals, or schedule (this is called "planning to fail by failing to plan"). He attempts to square-the-circle politically by making it look like he is agreeing to a deep-space future for NASA while in actuality he keeps trying to limit NASA to renting taxis for flights to and from LEO that will be easy for a future President to kill-off (since it will lack the political constituency of a big NASA program). He could EASILY get the funding for commercial crew if he would do 2 things: [1] stop slow-walking SLS and robbing its funds, and [2] agree to let congress increase the NASA budget WITHOUT tying that to an across-the-board budget balloon (boosting NASA would require either cutting something else or violating the budget caps, and Obama insists that he be allowed to bust the caps on all social spending programs if NASA gets a boost); Obama is using NASA in a supremely partisan set of fights and it's VERY bad for NASA.

The FAA disagrees.

That's quite a little rant you put together, but it doesn't change the facts.

Fitness standards in both the US Marines (not to mention the US Army and other services) are "gender normed" rather than the same. Example:
Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Points - Male
Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Points - Female

Judging women on the mens scale will cause their scores to plummet.

Despite your attempt to misquote me and distort the meaning of what I wrote, the fact remains that the female office you so approve of wrote this:

But there came a point when I could not persuade my body to perform. It wasn’t a matter of will but of pure physical strength. My mind wanted more, but my muscles quivered in failure after multiple attempts. I began to shiver as I got cold. I was told I could not continue

PURE PHYSICAL STRENGTH.

Current and Past SOCOM Commanders Split on Women in Combat

The current SOCOM commander is limited in what he can say as a serving officer. The former commander is not so constrained and seems to have some insights that you lack. Do you plan to write him and insult his penis too?

You should probably read this paper:
New British Ministry of Defence Review Paper Shreds Case for Women in Ground Close Combat

Special ops forces fear standards will be lowered for women

Men in U.S. special operations forces do not believe women can meet the physical and mental standards to join their ranks, and fear the requirements will be lowered to integrate them into the elite units, polling shows.

The surveys, reported by The Associated Press, found widespread concerns in special ops that Pentagon leaders would "capitulate to political pressure, allowing erosion of training standards."

Some women already in the elite forces expressed similar worries, the AP said.

Frankly I'm amused at the silly insults you hurl at me, and find your attempts to denigrate me both pathetic and ineffective. You know nothing about me other than I have a view different than yours, one that is shared by no small number of warriors and people who have looked these matters on a serious basis. For all you know I could have been callsign leader in a Fireforce, or a member of C Squadron, a Seabee, a USAFSOC PJ, a Legionnaire with 2e REP, an FBI HRT sniper, an armored cavalry troop commander in 3rd ACR, or simply someone that bothers to be informed. Whatever I've done in life you'll probably never know what it was since I value my privacy more than I value the approval of Internet "tough guys."

For all your claims as to having "made the grade," or "made the cut," all of which are both vague and unsubstantiated, I don't see you bringing much to this discussion beyond what we could get from a communist dog catcher in some university district in Melbourne. Perhaps you actually were the chief supply clerk, underwear exchange, 1 Commando, or maybe something more interesting. All you seem to be today is just another internet "tough guy" twisting words and hurling abuse to try to compensate for a bad argument derived from strong political beliefs of dubious merit.

Pro tip: "Stand in the door!" does not mean you should queue at a building exit to wait for quitting time and the race to the parking lot.

When I said what's different between the banks and Apple, it was about the process itself.

My bank keeps gets information on my credit card usage even though all the information is stored with VISA, Mastercard, AMEX, etc...

What is fundamentaly different from a patent perspective between what Apple pantented and what the banks do when it comes to targeted adds based on credit availability? I would say that the only differences would be that Apple would have external ads that are targeted based on a certain credit availability. Even then, I've see ads from afiliated 3rd parties from my bank for insurance companies whereas my son, who doesn't have a job and doesn't have a lot of money going into his account, does not see any of those ads. I would think that the targeted add has looked at our credit worthiness before showing specific ads.

But if you wanted to look at it from your perpective, Apple might become a bank in the future...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/...
http://thehill.com/policy/fina...
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...

I am not sure if it could happen in the US, but in other jurisdictions, I could see it happening. It's already hapening with phone companies becoming banks in Africa:

http://qz.com/424535/in-south-...
http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...

“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.

There is one 2016 candidate who opposes the secrecy of the TPP:
http://thehill.com/policy/fina...

FYI, at least one Congressman thinks the NSA isn't collecting ENOUGH:

http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

This is relevant. In today's news:

Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper wasn’t lying when he wrongly told Congress in 2013 that the government does not “wittingly” collect information about millions of Americans, according to his top lawyer.

He just forgot.

“This was not an untruth or a falsehood. This was just a mistake on his part,” Robert Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said during a panel discussion hosted by the Advisory Committee on Transparency on Friday.

“We all make mistakes.”

Get that? The goddamn Director of National Intelligence just "forgot" that they're collecting information about millions of Americans. It takes balls to get up in front of a congressional committee and say that shit. "We all make mistakes". Yes, we all make mistakes. I accidentally left my keys in the back door once. But forgetting about data collection efforts on millions of Americans? "We all make mistakes" doesn't quite cover it. But the senators? They're made because they're just figured out that the NSA treats them just like the rest of us. So they're gonna get all up in John Brennan's grill but let the NSA get off with a warning, billions of dollars in increased black budget and maybe a little tug job in the basement of the Capital for the effort.

http://thehill.com/policy/tech...

Sen. Reid said that the reason they didn't bring it to a floor vote is that Senators from both parties had made it clear they would filibuster the bill, so there would be no vote.

There were some good reasons for the resistance. Some of the compromises made in the Senate to the bill last year were a gift to large companies because it would limit the rights of those seeking redress for patent infringement.

Even Sen. Leahy, the bill's primary sponsor in the Senate admitted that. He said,

“If the stakeholders are able to reach a more targeted agreement that focuses on the problem of patent trolls, there will be a path for passage this year, and I will bring it immediately to the Committee.”

Source

Why bother lying about Gitmo? I mean, yes, it's useful as an extraterritorial prison, but attributing its continued existence to Obama is bizarrely counterfactual.

Obama issued orders to close Gitmo in 2009. Congress fought back with appropriations bills. The GOP has been and continues to be hugely critical and combative with Obama's attempts to close the detention camp. Romney was openly supportive of it, and a Republican Senator has said the Gitmo detainees can "rot in hell". Are you just completely ignorant of everything that has happened until this point, or are you arguing the President should just ignore the law, Congress, Republicans, and 53% of the country and close it anyway?

This about making country independent energy-wise too.

Yeah, yeah — and reduce Global Warming, right.

Except electric cars still need energy — so, instead of burning something inside the vehicle, we now have to burn something somewhere else — often enough losing overall. And instead of depending on our own oil, we now need the Chinese to make those wonder-batteries — so our dependence on the potential military rival only grows with each Tesla sold.

But a great idea otherwise — as great as any to come up from the so-called "progressives"... Keep at it.

Huh? Where have you been?

The state department was stonewalling congress when they requested emails from the secretary of state surrounding Benghazi and finally admitted they didn't have them for some reason. Mrs Clinton then disclosed she used a private email address on her home server to do all her state business because it was too cumbersome to have more than one device or email to check.

Here is something about how even Obama knew about it. This isn't disputed territory, it's just questioned to the legality and motives.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...

Funny, he said the same sort of thing at Robert Byrd's funeral. Democrats excuse anything that keeps them in power. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

Don't question the most transparent administration in history.

Valid complaints would be that the numbers reported don't include the homeless (although those estimates are gathered elsewhere), you don't understand the report, or that it conflicts with your personal opinion.

Incorrect.

The numbers are specifically the number of people who are unemployed long term.

If you want to include the people who have simply stopped looking entirely, the percentage of working age people who were engaged, but are no longer, in the workforce in the U.S. who are not working is much higher.

Feel free to try and spin-doctor this:

IT’S AN ILLUSION: HERE ARE THE REAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS
http://www.infowars.com/its-an...

The Real Unemployment Rate: In 20% Of American Families, Everyone Is Unemployed
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

Fact Check: No, ‘Actual’ Unemployment Isn’t 37.2 Percent
(it's "only" more than twice the number reported by the government)
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

Chart: What’s the real unemployment rate?
(This is the "U-6 rate" - "The U-6 rate covers the unemployed, underemployed and those who are not looking but who want a job.")
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1020551...

Real unemployment rate is at least 18 percent
http://thehill.com/blogs/congr...

Missing Workers: The Missing Part of the Unemployment Story
(This is the economic policy institute; they have the lowest "real" estimate, slightly less than 2X what the fed is reporting; they have a somewhat vested interest in casting the numbers lower than the others, as they get more than 1/4 of their funding from labor unions)
http://www.epi.org/publication...

Feel free to disagree with them, or cite numbers from sources that don't have a political master to which their numbers are subservient (i.e. "someone other than the DOL").

The driving one is actually a really important point that deserves its own mention. Driving is a *lot* more dangerous than flying, even including Sep 11 and everything since. It not only wastes more of your life (takes longer), it (on average) shortens it. Keep people pissed off about TSA bullshit enough to drive instead of fly for long enough, and the TSA will (actually, quite possibly already has) be responsible for more American deaths than the Sep 11 terrorists.

One site reporting the story (though not the primary source): http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

They started by blocking all US Gov't web properties. LOL.