Slashdot Mirror

The links to wikileaks.org show Hillary and her associates in their own words. It is not possible to dismiss those e-mails with claims of character assignation or conspiracy theory. People can try that stuff about this video of Cathy O'Brien. Cathy states that she was raped by Hillary Clinton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arHL2Mz14yc

After all, CNN claims it's illegal for us to read them, but it's different for them. So just trust CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NYT to summarize and give you the information you need to know. They won't steer you wrong!

See subject: "... Death, sometimes, had its price. That is why the bounty killers appeared"-> https://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9775949&cid=53085867/

* Strong sites will survive - so will the web, as it did LONG before it was monetized for advertisement.

(If those ads wouldn't INFECT us w/ malicious code, slow us down & track us? That program NEVER would've been released to the "general public" in the 1st place... but, here we are, doing MORE for stopping that, natively, & for FAR less...!)

APK

P.S.=> "Video Analogy" from For a Few Dollars More https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9vZJMVYHf0/ , starring "the KING of cool", Clint Eastwood (out here in the "wild west of the web" (complete w/ 'outlaws' & all)) ... apk

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

Every time I hear "synergy" or have to sit through a bullshit bingo talk, I can't help but think of this.

I have actually been to speeches that sound like someone just read those lyrics word by word.

She's probably already working on that. But either her campaign or someone related to the DNC is paying youtubers to endorse her. And sorry no, "omg, I bet that's infowars" retards. It's Phil DeFranco saying he's been offered money to endorse Clinton and so have others.

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

chicken chicken chicken chicken!

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

This hasn't always been the case. Michael Faraday had no formal degree and used hardly any math and yet contributed a great deal. I just watched a lecture series by him recently (reccomended) and was impressed by how much he was able to demonstrate through nothing but rigorous qualitative experimentation. I kinda have this impression, which I know to be completely false, that everyone prior to the modern era were total idiots who ascribed all natural phenomena to humorous vapors and spirits and the mumbling of witch doctors. To be able to learn something about the physical world from someone who's been dead for 150 years is somewhat revelatory.

Of course, most all of what can be learned that way has been learned that way. So you're not completely off base to say that you can't do science without math if you're talking about contributing to the sum of human knowledge, but a person who learns a thing through rigorous experimentation and application of the scientific method is still doing science, even if what they discover is already known to the broader scientific community.

wild rice has been available in North America since the first humans migrated here. And people have a very long history of eating them, even if they weren't planting them intentionally.

And here's a video of a man planting a primitive sweet potato patch. Everything he's done in the video is available to a person from the middle paleolithic, and possibly as far back as the lower paleolithic. (building a cooking fire starts to become less common when you go back far enough)

We shoot Matthew McConaughey into space and that fixes everything.
Also, we get space colonies and anti-gravity plus Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain are involved in the whole thing as well.
Oh, and Matt Damon gets shot out into space out of an airlock.

It's win-win-win-win-win... win-win all the way.

"... Death, sometimes, had its price. That is why the bounty killers appeared."

APK

P.S.=> From For a Few Dollars More https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1Y5tbo8RVIk#t=72 ... apk

The obligatory reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Thanks to the incompetence of the US not being able to figure out the right group to back in Syria,
Anyone who is against the dictator Assad is a good place to start. Since Russia is actively engaged in supporting said dictator, anyone who is against Russia is also one to support.

I would suggest to watch this video to get an idea of what is really going on. You should also take a good look at Iraq and Libya to see what killing dictators actually gets you, i.e. major sources of terrorism and certainly not more freedom for the people, unless, of course, you consider getting killed by Islamists a "freedom" you actually want to achieve for these people.

and now the Russians have to figure out a way to get them downed.
Considering all the hospitals Russia is bombing, it sounds like Russia is substantially more incompetent.

Just like the the US and US backed Saudia Arabia, I guess.

The government of course. This supports their desire to create and maintain an ignorant and thus compliant citizenry. By only providing information that they want you to have under the illusion that they are being open with you.

It kind of reminds me of of the movie "Animal House" where Kevin Bacon is trying to quell a stampede at the parade ALL IS WELL

... as though I'm going to trust a mega-corp for the truth.

Now that we have that out of the way, will you trust me? I'm just me. Understand that you probably won't like what I have to say because I'll tell you the truth, though understand I might be wrong. This is often at odds with the BS people believe today. I expose oxymorons like the "fascist right". No, it's the fascist left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... for example.
Just that one link is probably more than a lot of people can take for a month. I had one guy research the hell out of what was said there and came to the conclusion that most of what is said today is nothing more then leftist propaganda.

As Ben Franklin said - We're a Republic, if we can keep it. We're really close to losing it with Hillary being above the law. She'll make a great despot.

A: Hillary was in a hell of a hurry to support the Iraq war - she voted for it as a senator with access to classified info yet now blames Trump who was a civilian with no access to classified info and when in ONE interview when pressed about the war said the economy was more important, "but, I guess so" (before returning to opposition in all other interviews).

B: Hillary was in a hell of a rush to light Libya on fire, then laughed later and said "we came, we saw, he died". Gaddafi was a dirtbag, but was no longer threatening the people of the US.

C: Hillary was in a hell of a rush to create a bloodbath in Syria and is currently supporting a "no fly zone" there - which would mean she is pushing to shoot down any Russian jets flying there. The Russians WILL fly there to defend Assad who is a critical ally of theirs, so like it or not this means she's willing to either go to war against Russia or fold like a cheap suit and further weaken American international credibility.

D: Hillary was quite eager to help the Muslim Brotherhood wreak havoc in Egypt, first overturning the tolerable jerk who was running the place, then unmasking themselves as the vile scum they are and leading to the military of that country arising back into power but this time with MORE support from a public who had a taste of "freedom" Hillary-Style (a terror-affiliated group of Islamo-supremacists run amok) and were repelled.

If the American people CHOOSE to put this woman in charge, and a bloody war results that rains some fire on the US as part of the exchange then it's probably only fair. Hillary and Obama have never been interested in using the military to protect America's ACTUAL national security (things like securing the borders of the US); now they want to risk war against Russia as revenge for the hack of some Democrat party people which had as its primary "bad" side effect the exposure of corruption and dishonesty among Democrats... WOW. The thing these people are willing to risk war for is their own raw domestic political power.

I keep hearing that Trump is the dangerous one - a real NAZI.... funny but he is the one who has never killed anybody, and SHE is the one backed and partly funded by an actual NAZI collaborator (George Soros, who in a 60 Minutes TV interview described how happy he was to help Hitler's Holocaust activities ).

Bush looking for WMDs in his oval office

I hope you gave a lot of money to the Trump campaign, because I hear the rent at Trump tower is really high.

Oh yes, very robust. Lightweight even.

All you need is an air compressor.

http://www.theonion.com/graphi... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Yup, there's the subpoena. But even before that (addressing parent now), I'd argue that the emails are more important from the Bush Administration. From the excellent Newsweek article: "when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons."

The Iraq war (II) and subsequent fighting is responsible for over 1 million deaths. 1 million deaths. I can't imagine how anyone can argue that it's not the most serious issue of the past 40+ years. Then there's the refugee crisis, al qaeda in Iraq (I don't care how they spell it), and the birth of isis, all stemming from this political decision.

If you have to talk politics, and sorry - this is a binary choice at the presidential level, you have to bring up the death of a *million* people. And then remember this email thing really came from a political witch hunt, costing tax payers millions of dollars. About a few broken laws and a handful of documents? If Hillary directly shot the 4 Benghazi victims herself, that would be comparable to less than an hour of American soldiers dying in the worst Iraq fighting. But she didn't. She was running a big organization and she (and more so others) made a mistake, for which she's examined and answered plenty already, and changes have been made to hopefully prevent the mistakes in the future.

Where's the Iraq War marathon hearings? How much did who profit from them?

Just FYI, my posts are the ones that say "Orgasmatron" at the top. Lemme quote myself a bit here, everything I've had to say about the evidence:

Which crime lab destroyed the evidence? Her crime lab destroyed the evidence. The state crime lab had a match already and handed the intact evidence over to the defense, which promptly destroyed it. Then, in a move that only a lawyer could love, the defense asked that the key evidence be thrown out because after destroying it, they were unable to verify the state lab's conclusion.

The lawyer is not to participate in the destruction of evidence.

In some versions of the story, the state crime lab only cut out half of the blood spot, leaving enough for a retest. The defense then cut a sample from an unknown location, didn't find anything, then lost the remainder of the article so it was impossible to tell if the defense had actually tested the same spot or not.

Hmm. No one confused here but you. Speaking of confusion:

Post 53075403 links to an article then says "The evidence was never under her control. She didn't cause it to be lost."

And yet, in the linked article, I found "Clinton said she got permission from the court to take the underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York City to see if he could confirm that the evidence had been invalidated.".

Hmm. What is the next step after getting permission to transport the evidence to NYC? Really only two things can happen next. Either she took possession of the evidence and took it to the NYC lab, or she didn't bother getting it tested at all.

Let me tell you now that the second option doesn't make her look any better than the first. She says that the expert looked at it, so if she actually take it to NYC, she needs to explain why she pretended that she had.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? My old quake handle and slashdot nickname has never been more relevant than this election year. Here is what Hillary thinks of you, her enabler:

I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit
I am the emperor of lies, you grovel at my feet
I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain
And still you play the sycophant, and revel in your pain
And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate
I am the politician, and I decide your fate

Some legal advice to Hillary if she wants all of these accusations to stop.

Lemme guess, you mistook Kill the Poor for a policy plan?

Can we see some of this troubling new evidence before we go to war with Russia please?

I'm not counting out Trump losing for about the next 2 weeks. We have yet to see the following:

1) Wikileaks has said it has evidence that will get Hillary indicted. As yet, the Podesta E-mails haven't done that, so everyone is expecting a big drop sometime soon. Probably on Hillary's birthday, October 26th.

2) We haven't seen the last of the Podesta E-mails. A recent drop shows the democrats creating two organizations to infiltrate the Catholic religion, to create a "Catholic Spring" at some point of their choosing. (Yikes! WTF, Democrats?)

3) It seems that Hillary had a hand in Kim Dotcom's arrest (remember him?). In response, Kim has promised a surprise birthday present for Hillary. (Many people will be quick to point out that Kim is various flavors of asshole, but that's beside the point - he's tech savvy, has lots of contacts, an axe to grind against Hillary, and a ton of money.)

4) Someone over at Reddit/4chan has Clinton's deleted E-mails, and will be releasing them. These are apparently the ones deleted from her server before turning it over to the FBI.

5) One of the recent Podesta dumps included his iPhone account password, and someone hacked his account, post a screencap proving that they were in the account, and sent all the data to Wikieaks. This means that Wikileaks not only has Podesta's E-mails up to whenever, they've got more recent ones up to about 2 days ago.

6) ...and apparently remote-wiped his phone.

7) Hillary is not appearing in person *anywhere*. (Check her rallys and engagements: it's all Bill, Barak, Michelle, and Chelsea. Hillary appears in person once from now to the end of the month.) Conspiracy theorists think that this is because of some hidden illness, but that's probably not the case. The Podesta E-mails reveal that the reason she's not being seen is because she's perceived as untrustworthy in person. Her campaign is being run largely by remote control.

8) A couple of tapes of Clinton have yet to be released.

9) And weirdly, during the last debate a fly landed on Hillary's face. That's not a problem or even especially interesting, but the fact that it landed, walked around and she never flinched or even notices is creeping out a lot of people.

I'm not giving up on Trump just yet, and I've still got lots of popcorn.

John Carpenter's They Live wasn't supposed to be a documentary,

Zaius Servers rock!

We just dodged that bullet in 2012 too https://www.youtube.com/watch?... The national defense implications are huge, namely because it is down to the random odds of which side of the earth is facing the sun at any particular moment.

Note-aaa... seven.

Has there been any updates on the SoundHound language processing tech. Because if it's not fake, than it's pretty impressive and sounds similar to what Google is trying to do.

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

Which is why we need chaperones. Rich, powerful men are always gonna grab the pussy. An awful lot of women are gold digging whores who let them grab the pussy, because that's how they get gold. Some frigid dykes, though, get all pissy about it and scream "sexual harrrrraaaaaaaaaassment!" But they can't even be reliably counted on to cry about it the century it happens so we can pretend to care before they turn into wrinkled old hags. They're attention-seeking bitches, too, and they gotta save it up until just right for maximum attention-seeking potential. Then they'll go on Anderson Cooper and smile through the whole fucking interview about it.

So, are you going to:

1) Teach rich powerful men not to grab the pussy?

2) Teach gold digging whores not to like it?

3) Teach frigid dykes to cry about it faster?

I'm guessing none of these things. So we're back to reality: the sexual revolution failed. Bring back chaperones and don't let men and women who aren't related or married (or both!) to each other be alone together.

Sick AC here - you know, the question we want to know is: WHY NOW?
Why suddenly now, just when the Russians have recalled all their foreign staff ?
Unless he's party to extraordinary information, why is the chance of a Carrington event suddenly important enough to raise the alert ?
But you know, you can call me sick, if you want to - I don't mind ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AST3gXmzfSs

Or men could just learn how to behave like men instead of insecure adolescents.

What was that South Park episode about Tiger Woods and everybody just can't seem to figure out why rich, powerful, high-status men seem to like hot young puss so much?

Also, are you going to lecture women about how they shouldn't like 50 Shades of Grey?

Woosh

Someone's been watching too much Family Guy.

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

President Oboner showing of his 'Agent' as they call it double the views in 24 hours but is missing from the trending videos.

Ohh nooesss , hurry come up with a lame excuse.

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

President Oboner showing of his 'Agent' as they call it double the views in 24 hours but is missing from the trending videos.

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

Google is another clinton shill.

Make sure your password is unbreakable, like 12345

obligatory spaceballs clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's pretty much a "day in the life" for HP to make people redundant. I'm convinced they only do it to boost their stock price.
If you look at the HP Origins movie which they show to all new hires, HP brags of a company that cares about it's employees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Excuse me while I feel violently ill. Maybe that used to be the case when Bill and Dave were alive..... but now....?
How the mighty have fallen. It's very sad watching that video.

The real problem for HP is that they now make "Made in China" crap and ride on their brand name and it's past glories. I can't think of a worse brand for computers now. Quality seems to be an afterthought in the drive to produce stuff that only barely just scrapes past the warranty period. Every HP I have come across has had some lingering issue with it. Dead and dying keyboards, broken hinges off the bottom of laptops, laptops that fall apart, random blue-screens on their business docks, glitchy displays, Windows 10 upgrades that cause serious display issues, their custom HP BIOS that blocks third party hardware from being used (forcing the consumer to endure phone support to buy HP parts at greatly inflated prices), their printers from barring 3rd party ink through firmware updates, etc. etc. etc. and that's just what I've seen.
Sure all brands have the occasional bad egg, but HP seem to create more than others.

And yet, HP equipment floods the market where I live, and given the choice... it's just cheap and nasty. ... and heaven help you if you have to deal with their support.

So these days they're almost irrelevant in the consumer space. Microsoft pushed people away from Windows with Windows 8 and has been scrambling to bring them back. Then of course most computers these days are good enough for most people and don't need to be upgraded constantly.
Then, you have iPads for most people who just want email and to surf the internet
Then you have Macs for most people who want to do stuff rather than wrestle with a computer ...and then you have Windows PCs for most everyone else who hasn't got the memo yet - but yet relies on office and the like.
That said, Windows computer issues keeps most home IT techs in business.... as they'd otherwise be working for HP.... if HP didn't send their jobs overseas.

But I guess you do... Please spend an hour here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...

Then tell me where we're going from here.

See subject & take a peek @ that theory (sometimes called "the magnetic universe") to understand WHY I said that.

* Especially when shown the video in particular from the link of them below on "the PRIMER fields"...

(That one in particular shows how spirals form on BOTH poles of magnetic polarity in the same shape as galaxies do (using extremely FINE metal filings placed into a plasma containment magnetic field's poles off the 'zero-point' (void of charge area?)))

A simple design is the better one. Iirc also, this makes subatomic areas act just like the "macroverse" relativistic frame WE live in act the same (no true differences iirc).

APK

P.S.=> Interesting stuff https://www.youtube.com/result... & it does away w/ the need for chickenwire/rubberbands/superglue "dark-matter" bs put-up job thinking... apk

Yup, here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8NCigh54jg

Your IV example is not a good example, that is actually something people are working on, here some quick list of some links:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

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

https://web.stanford.edu/group...

http://www.yissum.co.il/techno...

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

Milo does not appear to be in bed with the KKK or Islamists. Rather, I said that certain segments of the left are in bed with the Islamists.

Note the distinction between sharing certain beliefs with someone and aligning with them or defending them as a group or movement (above and beyond the basic defense of tolerance that all who live in a freedom-oriented society should be granted.)

So: Even though the KKK or maybe even Milo might has more in common with Islamists than most self-described progressives, those people do not promote or defend or stand by the Islamists... whereas many self-described progressives will. I'm not saying those leftists are very much like Islamists (although other people are quite fond of that comparison), just that they defend and excuse them.

And this is dangerous and self-destructive behavior on the part of those leftists. Standing up for free speech is great, and I've done this repeatedly in this thread. (I'd even much prefer that just we let ISIS have a Twitter account.) But standing up for free speech is very different from defending abhorrent practices in the name of multiculturalism, standing in the way of stamping out those practices[1], and/or insisting that we allow self-described Islamists who openly reject our constitution to become citizens[2].


1. This is a much, much bigger problem in the UK at the moment than it is over here, but that's all the more reason to be vigilant against its spread. The left's behavior regarding coercion and violence against women, gender segregation from an early age, taxpayer subsidy of vile religious teachings and the forced surgical removal of some of the most joyful bits of humanity (glans clitoris) is reprehensible. Even the police often seem to be openly aligned with, or are at least deferring to the Islamists out of fear of being called racists (e.g. the Rotherham child rapes, the fallout from "Undercover Mosque".)

This appears to be a perversion of or unfortunate outcome of the "policing by consent" principle.

2. It's unbelievable how widespread this sentiment is, even when it's contrasted to the onerous hoops one must jump through to become a naturalized citizen of almost any other country. Not even someone like Bruce Perens can admit the self-destructive insanity inherent in allowing someone who openly, explicitly rejects the very foundation of a nation to become a naturalized citizen of that nation and be allowed to wander, associate, settle freely. You might as well argue the UK should be forced to allow KKK members to become citizens when in reality, any well known KKK member would be banned from even entering the country for a vacation.