Slashdot Mirror

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

C'mon, you can use google for just a quick verification before you post a statement like that.

For the lazy, who think that having the highest corporate tax rates in the world won't have negative repercussions

Hell, for a lot of people VPN use at home is also very sensible. ISP's are data-mining their customers' internet usage, and of course nearly every website participates in 5+ networks to data-mine the people accessing them.

But, I think it is also safe to assume that netflix themselves are participating in that data-mining, correlating viewing data (and account information) with IP address and selling that info to the same data-mining companies that infest every other part of the web. So, from that perspective, netflix has a direct financial benefit to banning VPN access. Your real IP address is a valuable commodity.

Side note: piracy == privacy.

That's definitely not all they hate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/1...

If you ever wondered where the 'Obama is a muslim' rhetoric came from, it was Cruz's new foreign policy guy.

This is a sympathetic article designed to sow confusion about this stuff. The article made the true but irrelevant statement that of a recent batch of emails not many were classified and those not Top Secret; it repeated Hillary Clinton's assertion that nothing she sent or received was marked classified, without discussing what is questionable about that assertion; it didn't mention how many Top Secret emails were found, didn't mention the satellite data or the discussion of the names of spies, and didn't mention that about 7% of all the emails were classified at some level. It also didn't mention that the State Department offered a Blackberry and Huma Abedin said that idea "doesn't make a whole lot of sense." But the article did spend several paragraphs talking about how well she is doing in the primaries.

Problems with Hillary Clinton's claims that no material was marked classified:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/28/1416309/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Felony-The-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/09/judicial-watch-hillary-e-mailed-classified-info-to-get-printout-without-any-identifiers/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-server-classified-ig-report/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

Names of spies discussed in insecure email, lives probably lost:
http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3413033/Hillary-s-emails-contained-classified-information-HUMAN-SPYING-State-Department-says-won-t-meet-deadline-publish-emails.html

Satellite data discussed in emails:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3196774/Hillary-s-emails-contained-secret-CIA-intelligence-satellite-info-panic-hits-Democrats-campaign-issues-4-000-word-explanation-s-innocent.html

7% of emails classified... 2079 out of about 30,000:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/new-email-release-brings-final-total-of-classified-clinton-emails-to-2079.php

"doesn't make a whole lot of sense":
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/18/state-to-huma-in-2011-your-boss-better-get-an-official-e-mail-account/

P.S. So Hillary Clinton wanted a mobile device that could be used for secure communications, and was told "nope, that's not secure, you can visit the SCIF just like everyone else has to do." So naturally she just used her own insecure server to send and receive classified information, so she could use her mobile device. Great.

If President Obama doesn't pardon Hillary Clinton, she will have problems fr

They did do more serious stuff as well, and it triggered quite a storm about the professional ethics of the experiment, "white hat" or not.

You do realize this is propaganda initiated by the Obama administration? A lot of the load is taken up by presidential memoranda or even notices from a department. The latter link mentions a "Treasury Department notice" which put off implementation of the employer mandate of Obamacare.

The US Constitution specifically says "advice and CONSENT".

They have considered him - hell, before 1916 there weren't even hearings - they just voted on Supreme Court nominees.

And the Senate has considered the entirety of the situation decided it doesn't CONSENT with his nomination. The first time the Senate did that with a Supreme Court nominee was back in the 1820s.

The Washington Post has already branded Obama a liar for suggesting the Senate has a "duty" to hold a vote:

Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?

...

In August 1828, Justice Robert Trimble died just as President John Quincy Adams was battling a tough reelection campaign against Democrat Andrew Jackson. Adams ended up losing to Jackson, but in December nominated Kentucky lawyer John Crittenden to replace Trimble. (Recall that before passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, the presidential inauguration did not take place until March.)

...

But this amendment was rejected in a voice vote and then the Senate voted 23-17 to adopt an amendment saying “that it is not expedient to act upon the nomination of John I. Crittenden.” A few days after becoming president, Jackson nominated John McLean, the Postmaster General under Adams, to replace Trimble. (Jackson did this mainly to get McLean out of the Cabinet and to remove the possibility of him running for president, according to a study of the confirmation process.)

According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.”

...

But it is also clear that politics has always played a role — and the Senate has set the rules to act as it wants. Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.

It’s matter of opinion whether a refusal to consider a nominee is a dereliction of constitutional duty or walking away from a constitutional responsibility. But the Senate majority can in effect do what it wants – unless it becomes politically uncomfortable. Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.

Three Pinocchios [He's a liar!]

You can also try the optimally compact method. There are actually several reasonable algorithmic ideas for choosing districts.

You can be sure that whichever of those algorithms is chosen, it will be the one that most benefits the party in office at the time it is chosen.

I think the Republicans are more willing than Democrats to sacrifice the interests of the Nation as a whole for their own partisan and selfish interests.

You can parse McConnell's quotes yourself. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

There is no constitutional duty to for the Senate to act either way regarding the President's nominee. In fact, speaking constitutionally, Congress could, tomorrow, set the number of justices at 8.

Jonathan Adler, in The Volokh Conspiracy discusses this very issue.

The President nominates, with the advice AND consent of the Senate someone to be a justice. The Senate can then consent, not consent or decline to bring the matter to a vote. The Senate sets their rules and determines how Senate business is conducted. Those calling for hearings in order to fulfill constitutional duties are even more off-base; there were no hearings for Supreme Court justices before 1916.

The President and Congress are co-equal branches of the government. It's not too far fetched an argument that the voters knew exactly what they were doing when they gave the presidency to the Democrats and Congress to the Republicans. There might be perfectly rational reasons for the voters to impose forced cooperation or gridlock rather than a single party running away with their own interests.

There may be policy and political reasons that the Senate should act but there are no constitutional duties imposed on the Senate to act.

talk to mr. bezos

Personally I don't read it any more because of it's decidedly screwball view of reality. #YMMV

That said, I live out in the boonies nowadays and haven't experienced the DC metro for 8 or 10 years. But I recall it as being no worse than, and possibly a bit better than the Boston MTA, NYC subways, PATH, the Japanese subway and train systems, or the London underground. Has it changed?

I was in the DC area a lot about 15 years ago, and found the system much, much nicer to use to use than most of the London Underground or the NYC subway, with few technical problems. In 2013 I went back and had the alarming experience of sitting on a train that started to fill with acrid fumes as something began to burn, luckily while still at one of the above ground stations. Passengers in 2015 weren't so lucky, when a smoke incident in a tunnel caused a fatality. Decades of neglect, including inadequate cleaning and maintenance, seem to have taken their toll: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Refuse to pursue clear, obvious mishandling of State secrets by its own SecState. Ignore the use the IRS to attack political opponents. And now threaten to seize assets of a company that has done nothing wrong. Absolute fascism on display. 2017 cannot come soon enough - and as long as it's not Hillary, I don't care - Bernie or Trump would be fine. Anyone to tear down the fascist bureaucratic facade that is the Federal Government today.

Are you a fool? oh, nevermind . . .

If you'd have just stopped at the title and not spoken your mind, someone may have agrees.

Refuse to pursue clear, obvious mishandling of State secrets by its own SecState. Ignore the use the IRS to attack political opponents. And now threaten to seize assets of a company that has done nothing wrong. Absolute fascism on display. 2017 cannot come soon enough - and as long as it's not Hillary, I don't care - Bernie or Trump would be fine. Anyone to tear down the fascist bureaucratic facade that is the Federal Government today.

Then why did the IRS apologize for targeting opponents of the President? And do you suggest they did it of their own volition, with zero input or request from the person who would benefit from such targeting?

Peer Review isn't all that it is cracked up to be. THE only real review is when peers can actually review the work. Just being published behind a paywall doesn't mean it is reviewed, by anyone.

http://www.natureworldnews.com...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Give the world access, and the papers will be peer reviewed.

It's all about disarming victims.

I'd say it's all about responsible gun ownership. Toddlers shot themselves or others on a weekly basis in 2015. And here's another parent shot in the back by her son. It's pretty dumb.

I suspect that's his strategy. Despite the media portraying him as a looney out in right field, Trump is actually the most moderate candidate still left in the race. Even you point out he advocates liberal NE policies. His stance on core issues aligns pretty closely with the American mainstream.

How does a moderate candidate get past the primaries to run for President in our polarized two-party system? By highlighting his few extremist views to appeal to extremists in one party during the primaries to win the nomination, then coming back to center in the general election to win over the mainstream.

Gosh, I'd love to find the link and read the whole context of your Daniel Webster quote. I tried to googled it, and my meager search skills were unable to locate the source.

And, given the stuff Webster has written elsewhere about the public health approach, see http://annals.org/article.aspx... this quote doesn't really sound like Webster...

As you've noted, Mr. Webster runs the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research; his job is basically to fund and promote anti-gun research, so when Daniel Webster comes out and says a pro-gun-control study is flawed you know it has got to have some serious problems! Looks like the majority of the Daniel Webster quotes indicting Bindu Kalesan's study are from an email exchange with the Washington Post.

hey, we apparently agree; trying to reduce avoidable injuries and death means you're anti-gun! wow, never thought you'd say it. congrats on your honesty.

The person I replied said 'subsidize' and so I used the word 'subsidize'. So let's talk about subsidization: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Also, your federal government is owned in large part by corporations and yes they are winning many exemptions from regulations and preventing newcomers from entering the market. Hell, a large segment of your own people VOTE to make them exempt from regulations and to allow them to prevent newcomers from entering the market.

This is happening not just in support of Apple, but because the US has announced they will be using their surveillance infrastructure for law enforcement, not just antiterrorism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

You can because other countries have implemented those or similar laws and have massively lower gun deaths per capita.

Other countries had much lower gun deaths per capita before they implemented gun control. And if you look at recent examples like Australia, the effect of gun control was nil.

There is essentially no relationship between gun control and homicides, or gun ownership and homicides. People like you promoting that idea are utterly unscientific and irrational. You pick and choose your data to try to reach a pre-determined conclusions, and facts apparently don't matter to you. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

i can too: cities and states that lack gun control, or are barred from enacting local gun control by state law. cities like New Orleans, St Louis, Detroit, Birmingham.

meanwhile cities with gun control dont appear on those lists. cities like chicago (not the murder capital), new york (safest in the country).

FYI, Chicago now has very little gun control, and is prohibited by the 2013 statewide preemption law from enacting new gun control. Chicago's 1982 catch-22 handgun registration (ban) law has been overturned, it's now possible (if you have time and money to spare), to obtain a concealed carry permit even if you are a Chicago resident.

As with the rest of the country, changes in gun laws show no correlation with changes in homicide rates in Chicago. None of the changes in Chicago's gun laws have made any difference in Chicago's crime problem -- not making them stricter, and not making them looser.

And yet when you compare the figure of 100% of US residents that murder people with guns to the Canadian gun stats, somehow the US stats are much higher. I don't know what it means but some genius should study those figures. We could have a murder-fee society in just a few years. I'm actually going to propose a study that will determine if gun manufacturers are embedding some type of ignorance drug into the metal, wood and plastics that guns are made of recently.

So it's ignorant to recognize that crime rates and laws are not uniform across provinces or across states?

There are parts of Canada with shockingly high violent crime rates, and high overall homicide rates. There are parts of the USA with shockingly high violent crime rates, and high overall homicide rates. It's almost as if homicide isn't a uniform issue in either of these nations, and firearms ownership does not show a strong correlation to homicide rate, which should lead the non-ignorant person to suspect there are other factors driving these problems.

Given that Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire have high firearms ownership (about 10% of residents carry handguns) and lower homicide rates than Canada, maybe we don't need new nationwide laws covering the entire US, maybe we should look at what is different about Maine and it's neighbors to make them safer not only than the USA average, but also safer than the Canadian average?

Uh-huh. And just for the sake of comparison, what do the CEOs at those noble 'for profit' government defense contractors make on a yearly basis? The article mentioned Lockheed Martin, whose CEO made $25 million in 2013: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Secondly, even normally left leaning organizations don't buy it: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

People were less likely to die from gunshot wounds on the western frontier in the 1800s than they are in modern-day Detroit, Chicago, or Washington DC (all cities with idiotic and unconstitutional victim-disarmament statutes).

You're going to have to support this with some references, because I'm finding contradictory information that appears to be more credible than your assertions:

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

“Carrying of guns within the city limits of a frontier town was generally prohibited. Laws barring people from carrying weapons were commonplace, from Dodge City to Tombstone,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA’s School of Law and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “When Dodge City residents first formed their municipal government, one of the very first laws enacted was a ban on concealed carry. The ban was soon after expanded to open carry, too.”

The result was that, by contemporary standards, gun homicides were relatively rare. In cattle towns such as Tombstone or Dodge City, the average number of homicides was only 1.5 or 2 a year, according to path-breaking research by Robert R. Dykstra of SUNY-Albany. The murder rate was much higher in mining towns, such as Bodie, Calif. During its boom years, the town had 29 murders a year...

White noted that the violence was restricted to narrow social milieus, such as armed and drunk young men. “The towns such as the cattle towns that disarmed young men lowered the rates of personal violence considerably,” White wrote. “Those towns such as Bodie and Aurora that did not disarm men tended to bury significantly more of them.”

Homicide Rates in the American West

For instance, the adult residents of Dodge City faced a homicide rate of at least 165 per 100,000 adults per year...

This is interesting, because Dodge City, with its very strict gun control according to the previous article, had an incredibly high homicide rate. And yet... the towns without gun control were apparently even more violent, also according to the previous article.

There is almost no funding for gun violence research because the gun lobby knows it will produce more papers like this one.

Hopefully that will change, but i think the U.S. will switch to the metric system first.

So the $16 Million in research funding by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Joyce and MacArthur Foundations is almost no funding? Prior to the Dickey Amendment, only about 3 percent of papers on gun control received US government funding. There is still plenty of "funding for gun violence research", all that changed is that CDC usage of tax money was restricted after the CDC spent millions on gun control propaganda "studies" with preordained outcomes to support a political push for more gun control laws. This was never a ban on research or statistics collection.

Mark Rosenberg, Director the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch stated on record that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.” (Rolling Stone, 1993), and also “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.” (Washington Post,10/19/1994). Does this sound like unbiased scientific research, or like a politician?

If anything, the publication and funding of actual "gun violence research" has increased since the Dickey Amendment, it's just that the CDC is no longer allowed to hand out taxpayer money to their friends to help push a political agenda.

Gosh, I'd love to find the link and read the whole context of your Daniel Webster quote. I tried to googled it, and my meager search skills were unable to locate the source.

And, given the stuff Webster has written elsewhere about the public health approach, see http://annals.org/article.aspx... this quote doesn't really sound like Webster...

As you've noted, Mr. Webster runs the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research; his job is basically to fund and promote anti-gun research, so when Daniel Webster comes out and says a pro-gun-control study is flawed you know it has got to have some serious problems! Looks like the majority of the Daniel Webster quotes indicting Bindu Kalesan's study are from an email exchange with the Washington Post.

Gosh, I'd love to find the link and read the whole context of your Daniel Webster quote. I tried to googled it, and my meager search skills were unable to locate the source

I was interested too and I found it with DuckDuckGo. You can read the quote on an NRA website and in the Washington Post.

Actually, the USA seems to go really far out of its way not to ignore the criminality of blacks, in comparison to its willingness to ignore the criminality of whites.

For example, despite similar rates of use of marijuana, blacks are arrested more often for marijuana use.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This article in Huffington post claims that we enthusiastically prosecute Blacks for the same crimes that we ignore in whites, and that blacks commit no more crimes than whites:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

I am not black so I don't know the black experience, but this sure seems like systematic injustice to blacks to me. Also, it seems to me that it's demonstrably false that blacks can be fairly characterized as "rampantly criminal" as you said. Instead it seems that perception of blacks as rampantly criminal is flatly racial bias if not outright racism.

--PeterM

Are you signed up for the revolt? That is the only way you are going to get someone in charge who is not an authoritarian, wanting the FBI to get their way. Not a single candidate in either the Democratic or Republican party has mentioned the Constitutional protection which should exist. They have all said that the FBI should be able to do what they want, when they want, to whom they want.

In fact they have all said Safety is more important than Freedom and Government intrusion. (a couple have intentionally used double speak to try and hide it, but..)

Tyranny is frighteningly close.

You need to google it more... Here's the list of who's against and who's on the fence:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

You'll note there isn't a single Democrat who's all-in for the FBI. I'm not happy that no Presidential candidate has completely supported Apple's position (because it's the constitutional position), but if either Trump or Cruz is the candidate for Republicans (90% likelihood), then I'll venture that either Sanders or Clinton will lean to the liberty side of this argument.

One other thing to note is Sanders' opinion on spying programs: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

There's a guy who has successfully flown a model plane across the Atlantic twice.

He's not kidding. Maynard Hill actually did that. I'm glad I looked it up because I had no idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

"Non-profit" is a pretty loaded term here. It implies charities or colleges or arts organizations. That's not really what's going on. It just means that they're not turning their profits over to any shareholders. There are tax consequences, but it's actually not all that big a deal, since even ordinary corporations are only supposed to be paying taxes on profits anyway, not revenues. Which theoretically lets them raise wages and lower prices, though they're not actually all that good at either. Mostly, they turn it into giant executive bonuses.

I'm not exactly sure how MITRE and some other Beltway bandits get away with being "non-profits". I think they call themselves "research". But really, they don't belong in the same category as charities.

I think any place with a tram/train system for mass transit lets you drink (or don't enforce it) on the trains, Vancouver is the same way, so is Tokyo. So long as you're not peeing on the seat or something.

DC is pretty strict - even a candy bar can get you arrested. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed

And more people died back then (unpreventably) due to this, so it is an irrelevent point.

If someone could call for help and get assistance faster (greater chance of surviving), and you interfere with this, then you become liable for their death, and if you did it with knowledge and/or intent, or a legal equivalent (such as reckless negligence), then criminally liable.

And more and more members of the Meanderthal iDioticus species die from cell-phone addle-brain each day:

Eyes down, minds elsewhere, ‘deadwalkers’ are among us

Outlaw cell phones! They cause iDiots to hurt and kill themselves!

1. Form a non-profit org whose purpose is to remind MS that they serve us, not the other way around

1a. Everybody send in all your money to make 2 and 3 happen

2. Create a superPAC to defeat pro-MS candidates. How-to:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/04/10/how-to-start-a-super-pac-because-you-can/

3. Hire a lobbyist and get pro-user legislation written. How-to:
http://lobbying101.wordpress.com/recommendations/how-to-hire-a-lobbyist/

Or we can keep bitching...

And today, the world power is the USA, with worse teeth than the British.

... hiring people to "imaginate" solutions before.
And prior to that too.

Usually they produce a lot of nothing.

The CIA has definitely done some things in its history, but it hasn't been supporting these fighters since Reagan.

Complaints about the CIA are honestly like complaining about the conquistadors now. They're a part of history. They had their impact, but their active involvement in the events of today pales in comparison to the forces now at work.

from: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA's overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents The Washington Post obtained from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden."

While we're not trying to "steal" oil, we are definitely trying to keep the area stable enough so that no one can grab it and hold it for ransom. That is why we need forces in the region and why we need to remain interested.

Iraq in 2002 had a stable secular dictatorship and virtually no problem with Islamic extremists. We removed the government in 2003 and the resulting power vacuum (and the unemployment of vast numbers of trained military officers) directly led to the creation of ISIS. Not to mention the expansion of Iranian influence amongst the majority-Shia population.

Libya had a somewhat-stable dictatorship that had made amends with the West, and Gaddaffi was arguably well on his way to putting down his Arab Spring rebellion....until we intervened and bombed all of his tanks. Now Libya is also a major ISIS base.

Syria had one of the lowest crime rates and highest levels of development in the MidEast ~2009. We conspired with the Turks and Qataris to accelerate "regime change" (because the Qataris and Saudis want a natgas pipeline to Europe through Syrian territory) and now the refugee crisis might very well collapse the European Union!

This is your idea of the US "keeping the area stable"?

There are laws about how to declassify information and it's not just "because the SOS said so".

You did read that link first before posting?

The Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Executive Director exercise downgrading and declassification authority in the FERC.

I was not aware that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission set the classification standards for the State Department.

http://www.ferc.gov/

Maybe this link will provide some insights. Although it doesn't mention who declassifies information, it's reasonable to assume that the person who has the authority to classify information can also declassify information.

In the State Department, original classification authority for top secret info goes to the secretary of state or anyone the secretary has said -- in writing -- can do the job. Past examples include: "Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, the Counselor, Assistant Secretaries and equivalents; Chiefs of Mission and U.S. representatives to international organizations."

Secret or classified information is decided on by the secretary and/or a senior agency official, who can give classification power to others in writing as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-state-department-classifies-information/

It is astounding the number of rabid attack dogs that are swarming all over this thread. You'd think this was an old-fashioned lynching.

What this really is is just the criminalization of politics. People are making hay out of information that was retroactively classified, and things that never should have been classified at any time. For fuck's sake, a New York Times article was declared "classified"! That defies all reason and sense, yet it is standard operating procedure for the farce that is our "national security" apparatus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillary-clintons-new-unlikely-ally-in-email-controversy-colin-powell/2016/02/04/6d0bcc30-cb82-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

Read that. All of it. I'm talking to you, foaming-at-the-mouth Clinton haters. Gen. Colin Powell just called you out as the partisan attack dogs you really are.

"I have reviewed the messages, and I do not see what makes them classified," Powell said of the emails, which were uncovered late last year by the State Department's inspector general and, he said, brought to his attention by the department in recent weeks.

Clinton has said that the emails in question did not originate with her, and that the information was not "marked classified" when she received it. Late Thursday, after Powell's remarks, her campaign released a statement saying she "agrees with her predecessor that his emails, like hers, are being inappropriately subjected to over-classification."

The State Department and the intelligence community have clashed over the origin of some of the material, with intelligence agencies saying information could only be gleaned from classified sources and State saying much of it comes from its own personnel simply paying attention to the obvious in the countries in question.

So in summary, the people whose job it is to spy and gather secrets are asserting that anything and everything are conclusions based on "classified information", and the people whose job it is to watch the world are saying, "Mary Lou in Louisiana can figure this out by watching the news." It is exceedingly clear that the national security apparatus is just trying to protect their own jobs and egos, and have lost sight of reality. And it is also exceedingly clear that the attacks on Clinton are just a partisan witch-hunt by people trying to turn political disagreements into criminal indictments.

And just as a reminder, Bush's White House mysteriously lost all of their e-mails. All of them. The ones that are legally required to be kept for the Library of Congress, and that happened to include all of the internal discussions leading up to the Iraq invasion based on known lies. Where's the criminal investigation into that? Where are the Republican talking heads demanding those heads on a pike? Crickets, I hear.

Remember, one of the signs of the impending fall of the Roman Empire was when Consuls were routinely accused and tried in court the instant they left power. It was standard practice. That's one of the reasons Ceasar overthrew the democracy, he couldn't afford to leave power and get thrown in chains. Remember that every time you demand Clinton get indicted.

The schools should stop teaching everything. Modern education is a complete failure and are pushing out students that cannot handle cold cereal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Most people aren't tin foil hat people that through paranoia think the govt is spying on them.

However, the government is spying on them, regardless of their level of paranoia about it.

And most are OK with govt monitoring communications for terrorist/criminal activity. Maybe you missed the NSA poll? https://www.washingtonpost.com...

That's because they lack imagination. They probably think they have noting to hide and therefore nothing to fear. Anyone posting here should understand that reasoning to be fallacious.

Most people aren't tin foil hat people that through paranoia think the govt is spying on them.

And most are OK with govt monitoring communications for terrorist/criminal activity. Maybe you missed the NSA poll? https://www.washingtonpost.com...

That is an interesting article. The poll says that 2/3 of Democrats are in favour of the government having the ability to invade privacy, compared to 1/2 of Republicans, with a Democrat in office. With a Republican in office, it was 1/3 of Democrats and 3/4 of Republicans. It is also all about invasion of privacy specifically to thwart terrorism, one of the least likely things to kill you. How would people respond to government monitoring of your drinking, smoking, eating or driving habits?

The only conclusion I came to from reading it are that people are idiots.

Most people aren't tin foil hat people that through paranoia think the govt is spying on them.

And most are OK with govt monitoring communications for terrorist/criminal activity. Maybe you missed the NSA poll? https://www.washingtonpost.com...

You have falsely convolved free speech and money. Are all bribe givers now merely free-speakers?

Until now, money in politics has long been regulated: https://www.washingtonpost.com... . McCain-Feingold may have been an overreach, but the Supreme Court's resulting decision was extreme and not only struck down McCain-Feingold but also effectively killed other finance regulations going all the way back to 1907's Tillman Act. I stick by my assertion that we are in a new era of campaign finance and that we are going to see more of these multicandidate races and I believe this will evolve into multicandidate non-party races.

try giving any source that isn't a conservative chat site, and we'll start from there. no fox news, no townhall, no breitbart or powerline. no ace of spades, no conservapedia, no newsmax or world net daily.. show us something that actually involves evaluation of factual information rather than just someone declaring her to be awful because her existence makes them feel awful. can you do that? i know i for one have never seen anyone make an honest claim to the statement you just made, but maybe you can surprise us.

in fact, an ivory tower survey released last february ranked her 4th most effective from the past 50 years. this same survey put kissinger as most effective and kerry tied as least effective, so you really can't say they were heavily biased towards secretaries who served under democrats.

That's funny you're at a +3 interesting, when Sanders has been talking about H1Bs for years:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...