Slashdot Mirror

If I were as crude as you, I would be responding with your trademark "bullshit" response right now. Unless you're talking about something else (wherein you should probably reference it), you never read that email because it was lost (at least the relevant parts, aka the attachment). The only writing from Clinton on the subject was a hasty "Pls print two copies." Is that what you call reading things she's written? Furthermore,, the supposedly "damning" thing is a chain-of-guilt. Nothing at all about Clinton giving information to her son it law, it's "Sullivan gave the info to someone else, who works at the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea works for the Clinton foundation too, and her husband was investing in Greece, therefore Hillary Clinton is a corrupt scumbag"). I'm rather surprised that with all of the stuff Clinton had to read on Greece as part of her job that they couldn't find something worse than this to try to tar her with. The most "corrupt" action that's come forth in the Wikileaks releases concerning Clinton and Mezvinsky themselves is that she forwarded an email from him to another government official. I know, stop the presses.

Back to the original topic: I recommend that people read things she wrote and form their own opinions from them. You clearly did not do that. It's something that very, very few people here commenting about the emails have actually done. They just repeat the "gotchas" that the leaks were designed to elicit.

The reason you even consider Hillary comparably evil to Trump is the unprecedented media campaign against him and for her.

Merely 7% of journalists are Republicans... There has not been a day in the last 6 months, when my iPhone did not have at least one link to a bad article about him, while she is mentioned either neutrally or positively. Washington Post alone has 20 journalists digging up dirt on Trump full time. In 2008, at least, the media still feigned neutrality, hiding the skew against McCain — although, it was an obvious pretense. The public was staggeringly misinformed about both sides — far more people knew all about the cost of Palin's new clothes, for example, than about Biden's past plagiarism, an objective evidence of media's failure to inform.

This time, they don't even pretend any more...

If, despite all these partisan efforts, the worst things they can come up with is his calling some cunt a cunt in 1988 (!), you really ought to ask yourself, how much of that negative perception you have of him is artificially planted...

I'm having a lot of trouble believing any of that, when there's numerous articles on "sanctuary cities" (where's the alien-harboring charge for those mayors/governors, huh?).

Here are some other links that would dispute what you claim:

Poor illegal immigrants get food stamps denied to poor U.S. citizens, $2 billion worth
Illegal immigrants tell San Diego border agents that Obama said it was OK to come
Lawless immigration policies of the Obama administration
DHS quietly moving and releasing vanloads of illegal aliens away from the border

You may not, but the problem is that too many of the politicians you vote for do. HRC is on record many times this campaign saying she wants to see the "Australian model" implemented in the US. That means forced confiscation of all personally owned firearms under the guise of "buybacks." The buybacks are mandatory, and you go to prison is you don't comply.

Here's a list of politicians talking about confiscating guns, just from a short period in 2013:

Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/...

New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation
http://www.breitbart.com/Breit...

Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-...

VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms
http://www.humanevents.com/201...

NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."
http://www.politickernj.com/ba...

Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation
http://www.examiner.com/articl...

Governor Cuomo says, "confiscation could be an option."
http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Feinstein suggests "compulsory buyback."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/...

CA assembly proposes confiscating 166,000 legally registered guns.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bre...

And the classic from 1995:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Do you notice any common political party among the people calling for confiscation?

DHS has declared elections to be critical infrastructure. They are planning on having elections run under DHS now.

How could you get rid of DHS now? Why is the Federal Government getting involved in elections for the first time in all of US history? I know I have a good guess as to why.

No, they state without proof that things happened. That's not showing the proof.

So you're now saying that those people linked didn't engage in harassment according to twitters own rules, or what you claimed was harassment by another individual(milo) for doing exactly the same thing? Might want to take those blinders off.

You've lost me. Chat logs of which incident are you referring to?

The ones you couldn't be bothered to read, or check in the linked stories. Maybe a few more will help.

They're all signing a pledge at a White House that still has a gender pay gap in 2016 under Obama. But of course Trump (who has long paid his female employees equally to his males) is the nasty/bad/evil/racist/bigot. Note: Most media claims to the contrary originate with a Boston Globe report that has as its basis a lawsuit by one temporary and part-time female campaign worker last January, NOT to his decades-long corporate record.

yup

makes sense to me...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
http://fortune.com/2016/04/12/...

But hey, you need to keep the plebes riled up.

Your research sucks./P

Kerry says AC is worse than ISIS.

You are a terrorist, apparently.

""Yesterday, I met in Washington with 45 nations — defense ministers and foreign ministers — as we were working together on the challenge of [the Islamic State], and terrorism," he said. "It's hard for some people to grasp it, but what we — you — are doing here right now [amending the Montreal Protocol] is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself."" http://www.washingtonexaminer....
remedial reading for rightwingers. http://www.teacher-of-english....
goes along with that remedial science course they need.

They are a private company. They can filter, block, promote any speech that they want.

I always said the same about TV and radio companies, but various Statists from FCC and FEC down to Slashdot cowards always disagreed.

Good to see some turnaround in public opinion towards liberty. Except, oh, wait, TV, radio, and even web-sites may not be able to do what they want... Even texting in support of a candidate may be illegal.

Unless, obviously, the candidate is from the Party of Government. For a few decades we had something called Fairness Doctrine, which allowed FCC to enforce "fairness". Libertarians fought it, but at least, with it on the books, one could formally complain against "unfair" coverage. Not any more — with only 7% of journalists being Republicans, the game is played with only one set of goal-posts...

They are a private company. They can filter, block, promote any speech that they want.

I always said the same about TV and radio companies, but various Statists from FCC and FEC down to Slashdot cowards always disagreed.

Good to see some turnaround in public opinion towards liberty. Except, oh, wait, TV, radio, and even web-sites may not be able to do what they want... Even texting in support of a candidate may be illegal.

Unless, obviously, the candidate is from the Party of Government. For a few decades we had something called Fairness Doctrine, which allowed FCC to enforce "fairness". Libertarians fought it, but at least, with it on the books, one could formally complain against "unfair" coverage. Not any more — with only 7% of journalists being Republicans, the game is played with only one set of goal-posts...

Then you have worked at two companies who you could file a complaint against. H1-B is supposed to be only for hiring workers you can't find in the US.

See, for example, Disney, the Senate Judiciary committee on several others, perhaps a couple more examples, though many overlap.

So instead having cheap animal feed, you had expensive gasoline that had less energy content than before and your food prices went up.

An obvious solution would be to vote for someone who wants to fix the problem. Not Hillary. Not Donald. So you have a choice of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

Does [Trump] have an ounce of integrity to his being? Does he have any comprehension of right and wrong? His racist brain-spasming and the fact that he got rich from inheriting his dad's fortune and multiplied it through ponzi schemes leads me to believe that the man is a nihilistic narcissist.

You might be interested in some of Hillary's less publicized dealings here (The dirty two dozen: Clinton's top controversies ) and here (Top 10 Clinton conflicts of interest).

Would you care to comment on Hillary's integrity, given the links provided?

I think everyone will agree that Trump loves money. A lot. Even Trump's most ardent supporters.

Did you know that Trump spent about $80,000 to run an ad in favor of the death penalty for the kids who confessed to the rape and murder of the Central Park jogger in 1989?

Funny thing about that story. They were innocent and their confessions were coerced lies. The REAL rapist was identified more than 10 years later and the kids (grown into prison-hardened adults) were released. No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.

I had originally thought that Hillary had only the one issue (E-mail scandal), but it turns out she's got a whole rack of skeletons in her closet.

If particular note, she made (what she called) a "shameless pitch" to Russia on behalf of Boeing. Russia made a multi-billion dollar deal with Boeing, and Boing then put $900,000 into the Clinton foundation.

Or giving the OK for a uranium deal to a close friend, after which the same close friend put $2.35 million into the Clinton foundation.

Trump has a history of getting money through business, but Hillary has a history of getting money through corruption.

She's not called dirty Hillary for nothing!

The USPS's pension funding requirement is 50 years, not 75 - see here (where an actual link to the legislation is provided, so you can check for yourself). The exaggeration originated with the postal unions, probably the NALC. Of course, you could say "So what?" if you don't think it's disturbing that they would abuse your blind trust like that, considering you believe they deserve to have monopoly powers.

Putin loves Donald Trump

Western sources who monitor Russian politics told the Washington Examiner that Rykov is a propagandist arm of the Putin government machine. "Rykov is considered to be one of the leading pro-Kremlin bloggers in Russia," said Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Obama who is now a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution think tank. "As you can see from his Twitter feed, he is very active. And he loves Trump."

The Kremlin is trolling for Trump
[this is special one since it has anti-Kremlin, anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-anti-semitic threads running though it, all tied to Trump!]

Is Trump a Sleeper Agent for Moscow?

Trump has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, describing him as a strong leader who defends Russian interests and who could be an ally of the United States, especially in the Middle East. Duke believes much the same thing, and has a personal relationship with a long-time adviser to Putin who has devised an anti-American “Eurasian” alliance that includes Iran in the Middle East

just look at what n e o c o n David Frum (@davidfrum) said:
"Russia’s “troll army” now an active presence in US social media too"
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/737385995906076674

"Trolling for Trump may be one of those jobs that Americans just won't do. Requires imported talent"
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/728752525357256704

Lots more craziness from looney n e o c o n s about Trump is out there.

I'll help you with how B happens. Technically illegal aliens cannot receive welfare. However their anchor baby is a legal citizen and they get free money plus lots of other services due to the anchor baby. Mostly the mom actually, in the US we really don't provide much for men. That's how illegal aliens get welfare. Indeed, they get more money than a fully legal US family on average as shown here: http://www.washingtonexaminer....

The price tag for that "free press" is tagged at $2B.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-has-won-nearly-2-billion-worth-of-free-press/article/2585879

How the hell did one of these equal pay stories get posted where they actually attributed for things like similar job and experience? If they keep this up the 77 cents on the dollar myth will be exposed for the lie that it is.

http://www.washingtonexaminer....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...

What corporation isn't a whore?

PayPal as per this story? The NFL? http://www.washingtonexaminer....

Arizona came close to losing the Super Bowl - heck that might have been 15 dollars of profit...

Georgia

http://www.breitbart.com/sport...

Indiana: http://www.indystar.com/story/...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/...

Ther are many more.

Because the peopel who want to impose their beliefs on othes are just a minority of loud assholes, most Americans simply don't give a dman about other peopels sex lives, and would prefer th loud assholes would just go bak to handling snakes,

They forgot to mention that those 'poor', 'undeveloped' countries don't give a shit about their intellectual property, they don't let their population die by the millions, just to honor that some moron in a foreign country got an idea first, but manufacture that drug anyway.
So these guys just adapt to reality. (which _is_ a small wonder IMHO)

PS. An example of such a country with around 1.5 billion 'patients'.
http://www.washingtonexaminer....

Muggers on Metro are a relatively recent phenomena. However, the Metro system seems to be suffering from imminent cascade failure. During the one day total shutdown of Metro, 26 separate badly-worn cable connections were found, of the sort that caused a local shutdown on March 14th, and similar to the short that caused the L'Enfant Plaza incident in 2015 that killed one rider, and hospitalized 80 more. .

The REAL question, at least in my eyes, for Metro, is given the damage shown during the March 17th shutdown, how did these cables POSSIBLY have passed the inspection that was claimed to have been done after the L'Enfant Plaza incident. . .

There's a great Salon article

Now that I find hard to believe. All magazines have their "heroes and villains" however Salon hates white people first and men second, with the ever popular punching bag of white males as the top of the villain hierarchy. Not unlike a melodrama where the boo and hiss whenever the "bad guy" comes on screen. Salon is the magazine for people who at best are passive aggressive against white people and at worst just about ready for white only concentration camps. Along the same lines, at best passive aggressive against men and at worst ready to lock them all up. I have no doubt that the $.78 is a myth. However you need to find a better source. Here's a couple to help out: http://time.com/3222543/5-femi... http://www.wsj.com/articles/th... http://www.washingtonexaminer.... Google "gender pay gap myth" and you can find dozens more. Heck, I'd love to see a study that included the child support that the average woman gets as most seem to. That subsidy ought to put them over the top since it's tax free.

Maybe you haven't been following the news lately, but the Republicans won't need to repeal it, as it's imploding all on it's own. http://www.washingtonexaminer....

I

I feel at this point, making any significant group (say more than 1%) feel excluded because of company culture is not particularly acceptable.

The Burkha set applauds you! They've been feeling excluded for a long time now.

You see, this is the trouble with your everyone must be included ideas. You end up supporting the Saudi's not allowing women to drive cars because of Diversity, and the strong anti-sexual ideas that some others have.

If I might, I made a lot of videos at my workplace. They went through the typical process, form storyboard to shooting to rough cut to screening to final cut.

One of the problems that we had was going through the rough cut stage. Because as I tonld them, in the aggregate, no one is going to like anything about this. And sure enough, there was criticism about every single part of what I did - and paradoxically, everyone loved the videos. How can this be?

Everyone has a different opinion. But if I were to completely redo everything according to every criticism, the same thing would happen again. Then again. I would never ever get done, because it's just not possible. So I made the final cut, taking the best suggestions, and yes, ignoring the other ones. You cannot have a tyranny of the utmost minority. Because at some point, you cater to the most extreme views.

And seriously - do you really want the sort of world that feminist Amanda Marcotte envisions, where asking a woman on a date even once constitutes harassment? http://www.washingtonexaminer....

You might be pleased to know that Amanda must be pleased that the High school boy who asked the woman out (Miss America) at a school assembly was suspended for 3 days for his crime.

Are you going to celebrate this potential rapists punishment? Did he not get what he deserved? I wonder if Miss America quit because he asked her out? Regardless, it's a victory for you.

I guess you haven't heard the news.

Obama: New citizens can skip pledge to take up arms and defend the U.S.

Activists rightly claim that sexual assault is one of the worst things a victim can go through. So why would anyone want to put someone through that?

Several months ago, the University of Michigan released a flawed survey claiming 22.5 percent of undergrad women at the university had been sexually assaulted. That's not actually the case — the study, like others, offered a broad definition of sexual assault guaranteed to elicit a high response.

Now, the researcher behind that survey is saying he was surprised that the number one write-in response from students as to why they didn't report the alleged sexual assault to an official was because "it was no big deal."

These services are built around the idea of a normalized distribution of usage. If one user uses a million times the average of the rest of the users, then "unlimited" offers can't be economically sustained.

You don't have to agree that it's "abuse". It just makes "unlimited" service models impossible -- one user can ruin it for everyone else. I'm sure you and some others think he has a "right" to do that. Maybe he does. It's still sad for everyone else who has to worry about usage caps as a result.

Exactly right. These companies get into the 'unlimited' bandwidth/storage/whatever business by analyzing the market and trying to figure out what the average user will use, and the price it accordingly. Sure, there are some users who use more and some who use less, but it eventually averages out. But then you have a few chuckleheads that abuse the system and use exponentially more resources than everyone else to the detriment of the whole service. Performance suffers and cost for the provider go through the roof, so the providers have to institute caps. Sure, some of them might be greedy, too, but those two scenarios aren't mutually exclusive.

It would be like going to Olive Garden (or pick your own low-rent eatery), ordering something that comes with unlimited breadsticks and then ordering a few thousand breadsticks. Hey, they're unlimited, right? Technically, yes, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to be a douche canoe without ruining it for everyone else.

So, no, 'unlimited' doesn't really mean 'infinite' and no reasonable person would think that it did. 'Unlimited' means 'as long as you play nice, there are no hard limits'. Then, people are shocked and outraged when the abusers run up the cost enough that the provider has to enact limits to keep things profitable for them. It's the same reason we have those stupid warning labels on everything, some dope ruined it for everyone.

Literally right. Anyone remember 2008? The runup to Obama's "election?" The "god damn America" speech?

Obama's church is a well known anti-semitic church.

And anyone who negotiates an "anti-nuclear" deal that, in their own words, gives Iran a year to make a nuclear weapon - well, saying Kerry has a mental age of 12 might be being kind.

There is an alternative outlet for that battery crankiness. Target that crankiness at government. Why is the government not doing more to drive battery research, solar panel research and wind turbine research.

The political environment - at least in America, simply isn't conducive to that.

When Solyndra went belly up, the far right went nuts about it.

Mind you, this isn't specifically about Republican versus Democrat, just that one of those groups really really really hates subsidies - except for their own. Here is an example so perfect, it's hard to imagine:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.... TL;DR version. While ubsidies to sugar producers continued, and the crop insurance program also expanded. They voted for that,

Food stamps? sorry, that's bad. Removed.

I'd even make some arguments against some aspects of the food stamp program.

But subsidies for sugar growers? And why should my taxpayer dollars go to some millionaire farmer so he never takes a loss (note, some members of the group that voted for that pulled more than 7 million dollars from their vote.

http://www.washingtonexaminer....

Well, I can't speak for the motives of those speaking in defence of refugees

Well, I can — and did. They are picking out "poster children" and lying to the rest of us by implying, the sample they picked is representative. It is not.

the motivation for the large number of young men running away [...] either enlist or kill every single military-age man just because

Those same assholes, who'd impress into service or kill men, would also rape women and/or sell them into slavery (pre-pubescent once included) — so that motivation does not explain the lopsided statistics... If these crowds really feared persecution, they would've contained entire families. Since they do not, the young men must be motivated by economic prospects, not danger.

But I don't blame the people wanting to move to a better-run country in the slightest. I am an immigrant myself.

Yet, I do not believe, the countries they chose have any obligation — neither legal nor even moral — to take them. And for those, who are so accepted — out of kind compassion (even if based on the above-discussed lie) — to seek changes to their new country (in particular to demand women be dressed a certain way on pain of rape) is an outrage. Maybe, their children will be entitled to vote for changes, but their own responsibility is to be appreciative and supportive of their new countries just as they found them.

It is this outrage, that is the motivation of the man in TFA, and I understand him very well.

Too bad evidence shows that typical cover-ups from this administration continue and the persons performing illegal activities are government officials.

IRS permanently destroyed up to 24,000 Lerner emails after subpoena

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM U.S. HOUSE OF RESPRESENTATIVES IRS E-mails: Part II

Hillary Clinton is not stupid, and she's a lawyer. Before anyone is given access to classified information, my understanding is that they have to take a class in how to manage classified information and they have to sign an agreement saying they will abide by the rules governing classified information.

Now Hillary Clinton is saying that she doesn't really understand all this confusing stuff. "Wipe the server.. you mean with a cloth?" Oh sure, Mrs. Clinton.

About a week before the news broke about her private server, Hillary Clinton was on a talk show and she said: "So I have an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone and a Blackberry." Then she said that the reason she set up a private server was so she could carry a single device. Now she's saying she was so busy saving the world that she didn't have time to think about what kind of server to use... which is why she didn't just use the server provided for her to use, but took steps to set up her own server and get everyone to use it?

I'm not buying it. The obvious reason why someone in her position would set up her own server, under her control, is to make sure that she would have control over which of her emails could be unearthed (e.g. by a Freedom of Information Act request). Notice that when she was finally forced to turn over emails, she picked and chose which emails to turn over, and then wiped the server to make sure nobody could ever get anything else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3209380/Former-attorney-general-says-classified-email-scandal-disqualifies-Hillary-Clinton-serving-president-s-prosecuted-breaking-federal-law.html

Also, we can't be sure that her private server wasn't compromised. If her admins didn't get every security patch applied fast enough, someone could have 0wned it over the Internet; and if it wasn't guarded 24/7 someone could have gained physical access to the server in the middle of the night. Secretary of State is a high-profile job with access to a whole bunch of secrets; I think China and Russia probably both have copies of all her emails from her time as Secretary of State. (Whereas the USA only has the ones she turned over, printed on paper.)

And we just found out about a really bad smoking gun. Hillary Clinton has claimed that no classified emails were on her server, but we have evidence that she had one or more people systematically copying messages from a secured system and sending them to Hillary's server. Details here. The key quote:

The subject line of the February 10, 2010, e-mail exchange is "Insulza." The exchange is about a speech, apparently by a foreign official. Perhaps the subject line refers to Jose Miguel Insulza, a Chilean politician who has been secretary general of the Organization of American States since 2005. In any event, the U.S. government's internal reporting on the speech has clearly been classified (not surprising in light of what Shannen Coffin and yours truly explained earlier: foreign government information is presumptively classified). This is clearly very irritating to Secretary Clinton, who is anxious to read the speech. In the first e-mail, Clinton curtly instructs Sullivan, "It's a public statement. Just email it." Minutes later, Sullivan responds, "Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can't even access it."

So some group known as "ops" is going to "convert" a message from the classified message system to "the unclassified email system"? That's go-to-prison stuff right there.

If you are a fan of Hillary Clinton... are you okay with a

... its been common knowledge from the start and has been reaffirmed repeatedly... here is Obama doing it again:
http://www.rt.com/usa/obama-sh...

but it goes back to reagan... just doing some basic google searches gets me this:
http://www.thereaganvision.org...

Do I need better links than that... fine... its a waste of time but whatever:
https://www.larouchepub.com/ot...

That is Bill Clinton saying he would also share missile defense tech with Russia... LIKE REAGAN.

But lets see if I can find a better link.
http://www.washingtonexaminer....

That cites that the Russians even opposed a shared missile shield.

I mean... do I really need to go on? I'm sure I do... I'm sure you just couldn't accept anything short of the giant 18 inch dildo right up your ass... Sigh... why is it so annoying to find these links. Its a fucking well known fact but all I can get are sideways references to it. God damn it.

http://www.heritage.org/resear...

Another link referencing the same thing.

Every US president since Reagan has supported the idea of sharing the tech with Russia. Every single fucking one.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Comme...

That's Henry fucking Kissinger saying the idea is a good one.

I think I've got enough there that you can see the US has had this position from the very beginning and has not wavered from it since. The Russians basically are addicted to scaring people. They don't feel right with the world unless they make people afraid which is part of why the US and Russia don't get along. We're never going to be afraid of those idiots.

There are big cultural differences between the US and the Russians. They think hissing at us like a fucking snake is going to get them respect at the table. That is the LAST thing we'll ever respect. Hissing at us gets this response:
https://youtu.be/SoswyNaAIUA?t...

The Russians just don't get it. You don't get the US's respect by acting like a punk.

As to you never hearing this before... it has been in the policy from the beginning and repeated by every president in this context from the start. So your failure to hear it is on YOU. Feel shame.

I could argue that restrictions on these seemingly unnecessary weapons might lead to similar restrictions on lesser weapons, and even to the point where rifle ammunition would be banned.

But that's stupid, right? Never happen, right?

we do care about those things

but when they come out of the mouth of a guy who says:

"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

then you really have to come to the conclusion that he says what he says in order to get press exposure, because clearly his remarks have no ground in "integrity" or "honesty" or anything like that

Why? Do you think he lied? Because I have heard of them, too. I've even heard of ones that didn't even survive. Why do you focus on that out-of-context quote instead of his entire point? Are there no issues with vaccines? Should the government be mandating 200 vaccine shots for every citizen, regardless of outcome, and regardless of the pharmaceutical company immunity from any liability, but retaining all the profits from government-supported funding? Do you distrust Rand Paul more than pharmaceutical companies? Because that's an easy choice for me.

“There’s 400 headlines now that say ‘Paul says vaccines cause mental disorders,'” he continued. “That’s not what I said. I said I’ve heard of people who’ve had vaccines and they see a temporal association and they believe that.”

I caution attempts at social engineering result in greater injustices than those they seek to fight against.

I would say that the first thing those attempting social engineering should seek is to utilize the solutions they propose. For instance, it's amazing how many of the politicians in the US who seek to raise the minimum wage also make broad use of unpaid interns. If even the crusaders can't manage to pay everybody minimum wage (not the new level of $10, $15, or whatever is being proposed today, but just the current amount), what makes you so certain it's a great idea?

Actually, I would suggest instead that those who oppose raising the minimum wage try to live on that for a year or two. No fair dipping into your savings during that time. Then we can talk about whether raising the minimum wage is a great idea.

I caution attempts at social engineering result in greater injustices than those they seek to fight against.

I would say that the first thing those attempting social engineering should seek is to utilize the solutions they propose. For instance, it's amazing how many of the politicians in the US who seek to raise the minimum wage also make broad use of unpaid interns. If even the crusaders can't manage to pay everybody minimum wage (not the new level of $10, $15, or whatever is being proposed today, but just the current amount), what makes you so certain it's a great idea?

Acela is run by Amtrak, which is government-run. This makes it political. It's routes are designed to serve and impress the politicians who sponsor and protect it (which is why its famous route you cite suits east-coast left-wingers like Joe Biden, who went straight from college to congress w/o ever doing ANYTHING productive). It's also a fully-unionized jobs program which is legally protected from any competition. The result is that its "high speed" is 1/3rd that of a slow plane, it will not ever be significantly expanded, and it cannot even make a profit selling cheeseburgers on board for $9.50.

Amtrak is the primary reason rail travel in the US sucks:

Amtrak was created by the US federal government as a monopoly and were given authority over rail travel in the nation, sort of a ULA on rails - corrupt politicians ALWAYS claim that they will improve prices and service by creating a monopoly, only to be proven wrong later by reality and the basic laws of economics. Just as the ULA monopoly produced ever-increasing rocket launch prices, Amtrak produced over-priced under-performing passenger rail service that withered in the face of many-providers, competition-driven, faster air travel.

When, as a political pork entity they could not "keep the trains running on time", could not generate a profit, and were an obvious red-stain on the federal budget, they were spun-off into a supposedly independent corporate entity BUT they still answer to congress and still have legal control over all passenger service on rails in the US (which is why no other company has arisen to provide passenger rail service - Amtrak bureaucrats simply deny all other approvals or they charge so much for "inspections" and certifications that nobody else can be profitable either). The cheapest way to move a ton over land is on rails, so a family OUGHT to be able to own or rent a sleeper car custom-outfitted like an RV and pay less to go across the country by paying Amtrak to hook it to one of their trains than they would pay to drive an RV...... but nobody other than multimillionaires does this because Amtrak regulations and certifications make private rail cars (which USED to be common in the US a century ago) more expensive than private planes (Amtrak regulations and related costs are actually far worse than those of the FAA).

At this point, only a child who lives in the glass-and-concrete womb of very big city, isolated from the realities the the real world would support this unrealistic and impractical entity. Most such people, regardless of age, are too immature to provide for themselves and are thus beggars; either they beg somebody else to employ them so they can buy the stuff they have no idea how to obtain in their own (like food, water, shelter, energy...) or they just directly beg the government for "benefits" and live off the labor of others. For such fully-dependent infants, most of whom think themselves adult by virtue of having automatically achieved biological puberty, a subsidized passenger train is just another "benefit" they beg for and expect other to provide, and they would be unable to survive on 95% of the planet's surface. Our nation's founders would have seen these people as being about as competent as a 6-year-old.

Read it and weep

1. Unlimited under or unemployed illegal aliens that can't find work.
2. Said illegal aliens need welfare.
3. Middle class being drained via taxation to pay for said welfare.
4 Talk of Illegal aliens being granted amnesty so they can vote in 2016. They will vote for "benefits".

Welcome to the new American feudal system. Only a matter of time before titles come back in vogue. Who will be your Lord?

I thought Boeing’s own Bank a.k.a. the U.S. Export-Import Bank were more than happy to loan the funds to buy Boeing aircraft. Eighty two percent of such loans went to Boeing customers in 2012 ref.

You still haven't provided any reliable sources for your previous posts.

Let's get you acquainted with a number of them. Note this list doesn't include pre-1992 Arkansas shenanigans (at least the ones which didn't spill over to Bill Clinton's presidency) such as magically making $100k (out of a $1k initial investment) while dabbling with cattle futures.

As far as we know, ONLY Hillary Clinton used her family email server.

You are mistaken. Hillary Clinton's top aides also used her private server.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/11/video-oh-by-the-way-hillarys-top-aides-used-private-e-mail-too/

The situation is perfectly clear. As Secretary of State, she was provided with a government email account that would archive her emails. She didn't use it, meaning she was free to delete any embarrassing emails with no check other than her own conscience.

She absolutely violated government policy by doing this. The State Department forced an ambassador to resign specifically because he violated this policy. Who was the head of the State Department when this happened? Hillary Clinton.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/05/hillarys-state-dept-forced-the-resignation-of-an-ambassador-for-using-private-e-mail/

I'm not saying that I agree with her using her own personal email server, but I also don't think this "controversy" rises to the level of me really giving a rat's ass about. Actually it rises to the level of "She should have known better... but meh".

Really? An elected official, a public servant, took affirmative steps to make sure that you and I cannot use FOIA to look at her official correspondence during her time in office, and that's "meh"?

Tell me, do you have one standard for Hillary Clinton and another one for Richard Nixon? Because IMHO what she did was far worse. No federal law required Nixon to record conversations, so he wasn't violating the law when he erased parts of the tapes. She was violating the law multiple ways, and knew she was doing so, and her actions took place over a span of years.

What does concern me is that the right decided to use this low grade political material so early that it will be forgotten by the time the election season actually hits full stride. So the more important question is what's going on that requires the gullible media's distraction on something as trivial as email usage by a retired secretary of state?

You are speculating that the Republicans are trying to distract the media? Do you think that would actually even work? Given the choice between publishing dirt on Republicans and publishing dirt on Hillary Clinton, the media will publish the dirt on Republicans 99 times out of 100, and the other time they will publish dirt on both.

There is a group trying to get records related to Benghazi, the incident where a US Ambassador and several other people were killed. We have reports that Hillary Clinton personally refused to beef up the security when the ambassador requested it. It would be nice to check the email records to see if this is true or not, so there is an FOIA request to see her email. It turns out that the State Department cannot turn over emails that they don't have.

This is a big deal. Hillary Clinton is not complying with the legal requirements of discovery during a lawsuit. She handed over 55,000 printed pages and claims that it's everything, but we just have to trust her on whether it really is everything.

We have no record of any emails from the Secretary of State for a period of months that includes Benghazi. And we have photographs of her using a Blackberry during those months, and a Blackberry is useful for exactly one thing, email.

Also, does it bother you that she is just straight-up lying about this? She said nothing for a week, and then came up with this weak-sauce excuse that she just didn't want to have two devices. Just two weeks previous to this blowup, she said on television that she uses both an iPhone and a Blackberry.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561329

Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this

That's all you have? One source, acknowledging the question as "tricky to answer", but offering its opinion nonetheless?

would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia

I contend, they would be even more flabbergasted to learn, that producing and selling pornography is protected by the right to petition the government for redress of grievances...

which is at odds with gun lovers

Gun lovers? Simple swords are illegal in most of the country — as are brass-knuckles.

for some insane lack of simple intelligence

Ah, yes, whoever disagrees with you must simply be lacking intelligence. Founding fathers were still alive, when Hans Christian Andersen dealt with this sort of argument. Feel free to educate yourself...

think that more guns somehow means more safety and somehow does not mean more death

Chicago, where even a museum can not showcase a WW2 rifle, and Washington D.C., where one can get imprisoned for using an empty shell-case as ashtray, have more violent crime, than Texas' cities, where guns are relatively easy to obtain.

But my argument is not that arms "help" — it is that, for better or worse, it is our right to keep and bear them. And that any laws and regulations infringing that right are unconstitutional and thus it is the citizens' moral duty to ignore or sabotage them.

For politicians, "net neutrality" is something to get people fired up about an idea, so that it can be wrapped up with other things. The recent Obama push for net neutrality isn't for the sake of net neutrality as we geeks know and love, but rather some vague notion of a clean internet. The real aim is to move the internet under Title II so that it can be heavily regulated. It would also be subjected to the 16.1% universal service fund tax (as spelled out in the telecom act of 1996).

With the recent events such as the Federal Election Commission wanting to impose new regulations on internet-based political activities, I question the motives of the government heavily regulating the internet, and if it would stay neutral for long. The government has a long, long history of grabbing up any amount of control and power it can reach, and I'm personally fearful that moving the internet under Title II will force on so many regulations that, even if the internet was "net neutral", it would be hampered in plenty other ways. How much more innovation would the telephone have gone through over the past 100 years if it weren't regulated? There's no way of knowing, but I personally don't want to see the internet thrown to that kind of experiment.

"Net Neutrality" is being used as the boondoggle to move the internet under Title II. This is a power grab by the government, and has nothing to do about protecting the consumer. Yes, I believe net neutrality is paramount to protecting the innovation that the internet brings us; but moving it under Title II does nothing to guarantee that.
 

Yes clearly the logical conclusion is a massive global conspiracy and it's not simply that the rest of the world is increasingly fed up with idiots obsessed with trivial bullshit (in the words of Aayan Hirsi Ali). Clearly the problem isn't that IT and similar fields are textbook examples of exactly the kind of extreme hours and lack of work/life balance that women are empirically proven to be repelled by time and time again. Clearly it's got nothing to do with the ever more extreme fearmongering and disempowering rhetoric that's created an orwellian culture of fear. Clearly we shouldn't listen to women actually in the field who have repeatedly called bullshit on people like you.

It's still Federally illegal. Even in any state that it is "legal" it can still be prosecuted. It won't be under the current president, but that can change in 2 years.

I cannot imagine how, after 6 years, you Obama supporters are still so starry eyed and ignorant. Under the "current president", prosecutions of legal marijuana use are *up* over the levels seen during the Bush administration. This isn't exactly a well-guarded secret.

Obama Explains Increasing Medical Marijuana Crackdowns
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Obama’s War On Medical Marijuana Steps Up
http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/1...

Judging From Prosecutions, Obama Is 80 Percent Worse Than Bush on Medical Marijuana
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06...

Republican Rand Paul has stated that DC should be able to legalize marijuana if they want:
http://www.washingtonexaminer....