Nice strawman there. Notice how you ignored the very next sentence which indicated that the REASON why it isn't in this case is because the accusation is not a crime. Nobody will EVER be prosecuted for misogyny - because it isn't a crime. So NOTHING in the FBI report has anything TO DO with the accusation of misogyny, they didn't investigate misogyny - it's not a crime.
My point was that the two things are utterly unrelated, and you had to go and quote a sentence out of the context of the very next one to try and pretend I was arguing against presumption of innocence.
By the way - do you spend equal measures of time defending OJ Simpson's reputation ?
3 Million Marchers in America. 5 Million worldwide. Biggest protest march in human history.
Number of arrests: 0 Number of violent episodes: 0
Violence in protests are hardly ever instigated by the protestors, it's generally police that start that shit. When the protestors are mostly white women, the police are scared to start fights -and there are no protestors fighting back you can take photos of to post on rightwing propaganda sites and claim the protests were "violent".
No. Nazis are not people and punching them is never wrong and always righteous. Fuck you don't GET more righteous and heroic than punching a fucking nazi.
"Not prosecuted" is not the same as "exonerated", especially since misogyny is not a criminal offense. It is despicable, but it's not a crime. I saw the messages they sent, I saw the evidence piled up, I saw the impacts. The movement was a flagrantly misogynistic one, but much like the Trump campaign (which, frankly was just GamerGate USA - or do you think it's a surprise that Trump gave Milo's boss a high profile government job ?) we had all these despicable things being said, despicable groups saying "That's our guy" yet somehow we were supposed to NOT link the movement with the despicable things done in it's name.
And we're not talking about a few extremists, we're talking about a constant and obviously and hardly disguised trend with just barely enough plausible deniability attached to be able to claim "it's not ME it's all those OTHER people who don't really represent the movement".
The movement was a bunch of zero-sum thinkers who had this bizarre idea that, if not EVERY game has nekked chicks in it then somehow gaming is dead.
>Is there a better to way to keep terrorists from entering the country? About a million of them, which were already being used. > Is that a worthy goal? Nah, the vetting process on refugees is already a hugely stringent thing that takes many years. Terrorists would not generally use that way - it's so much easier and more effective to spread propaganda to people ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY. Trying to smuggle new ones in is much more difficult. On the other hand there is a massive payout in SAYING you are doing that, because it means the people you want to kill tomorrow have fewer places to run to.
> How would you do it? Definitely NOT by being a dick and giving ISIS more propaganda fuel (as John McCain put it), I would keep them out by replacing the drone program with a much bigger food aid program. If I want to keep terrorists from attacking me, I would make them very unpopular back home - and the best way to do that is to make myself very popular. I would refuse to use incendiary phrases like "radical islamic terrorism" because I want to maintain solid friendships with the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism even MORE than we do (seeing as they make up the vast majority of victims) - I want them on my side, I want them to tell me if their neighbour is planning a bomb plot. Basically - everything Obama did. Would I go any further ? No, because I can't actually kick out the group which both the FBI and the NSA has rated the single greatest terrorist risk in the USA: rednecks who join "militia" movements. If Trumps actions were about kicking out terrorists - he'd kick out those fuckers... trouble is most of them voted for him.
> Is Trump aware of the problems he's caused to some immigrants stuck in the airport? (I think the answer is yes) He for damn sure is aware NOW. I'm pretty sure he was informed of his first major court loss. A more important question is: should he have foreseen that ? Well yeah. Traditionally EOs that change something like this do NOT take "immediate effect". Both Obama and Bush had, at times, limited immigration ban orders (much more limited than this) but they all gave the airports a bit of fair warning. "With effect 4 days from now" kind of thing, so the world's airports have a chance to implement the new rules, understand them, and ensure that nobody affected by the ban is in-transit when the ban goes in effect. What this speaks to is Trump's known complete lack of policy experience, his clearly not paying for people who DO have experience to advise him (or ignoring their advice) and resulting in a flagrant display of flagrant incompetence that make even the usual legendary government incompetence look like sterling successes.
>At this point there's no reason to continue hating on Trump. Yes, he seems rather despicable, but dispassionately analyzing goals and policy objectives will be more effective (the protests are falling on deaf ears). No, those are not mutually exclusive actions - we need BOTH. Even if no protest changes his mind on anything - the protests are galvanizing and uniting the opposition and allowing us all to keep each other energised and motivated. And that is going to be decisive. Just ask any general how good your odds are at winning any fight with a demoralised army. The protests are providing morale, even if they do nothing else - they are worth it just for that.
>They say they looked at it, then they say it was not actionable. I believe them. You obviously don't. Evidence-based reasoning has never been your strong point.
If it was credible ENOUGH for them to even look into it... that means you can hardly blame HER for being sufficiently scared to get the hell out of dodge, which means your claim that she "lied" about being chased out of her home is utter bunk. The FBI are a law enforcement agency, they are concerned with wether the evidence is strong enough to make a case in court -because it looks bad when you lose too many cases. Wu is a private citizen, she has no such concern - she saw a death threat with her address attached. Only a complete fucking moron would NOT run after that.
If you seriously are going to argue she is lying about that, then I invite you to prove that by posting, everywhere you can, your home address and real name, as well as a confession to having helped plan and execute the 9/11 attacks and bragging how the police can't touch you because you have friends in high places.
Lets see how long you stay in your home when a bunch of crazy-assed wingnut vigilante shoot-up-the-school types decide you're public enemy number one and KNOW where you live.
>Your interpretation of "they found nothing actionable" is "they are unequipped to deal with this", rather than "they found nothing actionable".
Now what does that remind me off... something that happened around 6 months ago... what was it again, something about emails and "nothing actionable" and "no prosecutor would try to make a case"... I seem to recall a LOT of people who did NOT interpret that "nothing actionable" as, you know "nothing actionable"... were you one of them ?
>How exactly does running for Congress subvert due process in this instance?
Because she's not running as a republican and if she wins there will be one less republican in the majority and that is pretty much all these people need to consider her guilty of ALL crimes ever invented.
In practise of course, running for congress does not subvert due process in ANY instance. Hell congressman have been elected with criminal convictions hanging over them - and spent much of their terms in jail (it's easy if you are running unopposed).
Seriously... where the fuck did you think they came from ?
Even if you're a creationist... you didn't actually think we're still speaking with the words God used when talking to Adam did you ? Not to mention - if that had been real, Adam would like have spoken Mesopotamian - not English. English wouldn't be made up for another 9 thousand years or so.
Words are made up all the time - and all words are made up. One of the most basic purposes of making up words is to accurately describe things that were not previously described accurately. Which is exactly what the thing you're so freaked out about happens to consist off. As it happens that failure to use the right word (and how new it is has NOTHING to do with how right it is) is proven to actually KILL people - so punishing those who malignantly refuse to do so after they learn this is an act of saving lives.
Yep... we're the greatest threat to freedom of speech (not Trump arresting journalists)... because we told you, you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theaterhouse and today's rightwingers are such namby-pamby little snowflakes that they believe they should be able to live in a little safe space where nothing you say ever has consequences.
Hint: getting people fired for saying asshole things is NOT an infringement on free speech, it's an ACT AND CELEBRATION of free speech. You have the right to say fucked up shit -and I have the right to tell your boss that if he doesn't fire your ass for it I will not shop at his business. Consequences of speech are ALSO free speech. Telling us we can't DO that- now THAT is the biggest threat to free speech. It's trying to make a world where only YOU lot get to have free speech because you precious little alt-right snowflakes can't handle criticism.
>I think you just proved his point. You dont agree with him, so you automatically label him as a bigoted asshole.
No. We only do that when the opinions we don't agree with are the ones that are LITERALLY DEFINED AS "being a bigot".
We don't call you a bigotted asshole for saying "I want tax cuts on the rich" - we think you're an idiot, but we don't think your a bigoted asshole. We think that policy has racist outcomes but we generally hold that your pursuit of it is motivated by ignorance OF those outcomes rather than a desire to achieve them. But when you hold bigoted opinions - calling you a bigot is the ONLY form of a disagreement around.
You want the fastest possible way to destroy the world ? Start treating NAZIs like "just another political opinion".
>The problem with second life sems to be that if you let people build whatever they want, they invariably build cocks.... you're right... and right now I'm willing to bet 50 bucks the wall is going to have an oddly phallic appearance...
To be fair, there is a solid and scientific reason to be concerned about processed foods. And it has nothing to do with the processing (about which, frankly there seems to be equal evidence for and against). The real concern is that they tend to use very few ingredients - which means they are nutritionally very poor. We're omnivores, we are evolved to make use of (and as a result require) a diverse diet.
>Right. Because hunter-gatherer societies were the pinnacle of human evolution. The ones that had a child mortality rate around 50% and lived to, maybe, their mid thirties.
Which, to be fair, is 40% LESS than the child mortality rate in Industrial-Revolution Britain. 90% of children died before age 10 during that little adventure in unregulated, unrestrained capitalism. It's no wonder the very first labour law *ever* passed in Britain was to outlaw child-labour. So when libertarians hold that period up as some kind of model we should be emulating - one has to wonder if they are ignorant of those deaths or just don't care if we go back to most people having to bury their children. When they tell you we need to "compete" with sweatshop countries by building our own sweatshops... they somehow never mention those things. They want to get more jobs for the people and they stop talking there, most people dying on the job isn't mentioned - either because they don't KNOW that's what they are advocating, or because they don't care... or because they LIKE that idea, killing people for profit has always appealed to the people they admire most.
>Cannibalism only makes sense when killing & eating the odd failure individual.
In nature, cannibalistic behaviour seems to be naturally limited almost exclusively to species that literally cannot tell the difference between their own species and anything else edible. Spiders is the prototypical example - but even there it's not as widespread as commonly believed. While all spiders will eat other spiders - that's not cannibalism (different species). Actual cannibalism do happen but very rarely. What's interesting is that, rather than evolving means to avoid eating their own species - they evolved means to avoid BEING eaten by their own species. So for example male spiders in the orb-web families spin a line of very stretch silk which they keep attached to a leg during initial contact and mating with a female - as soon as mating concludes they let go with the other legs and their bungie cord gives them a very rapid escape. Cannibalism only happens if the cord fails to function for some reason, or the female manages to be faster than the cord (seriously low odds). So while cannibalism almost never happens - the behaviour shows that there is a very real risk of it, hence the males have evolved an intricate defence mechanism to avoid that fate. Wolf spiders (and many scorpion species) carry their young on their backs to defend them... but if one falls of mother will definitely try to eat it herself. Yet, as far as we can tell - cannibalism is completely absent in social spider species - perhaps because, in order to become a social species, they had to evolve ways to recognise members of the species as allies rather than food.
Now compare that with species that have some intelligence - and you see a marked decline in cannibalistic behaviour. The more social the species - the less it happens. Rats generally don't partake of other rats unless they are starving. They adopt orphans. Humans were a bit of an odd one out, there is some strong evidence that palaeolithic humans engaged in widespread cannibalism - but it ends almost as rapidly as it began. What leads to the general abhorrence for eating your own species appears to be an evolved response - it's simply too massively high a disease vector, and even a species that managed to stop obeying it's evolutionary impulses and override them with cultural evolution and individual brain-evolution (i.e. neural-net reprogramming) - ended up avoiding it, likely for the same reason.
So what does that tell us about the hamsters ? Likely that this cannibalism is neither a "Survival of the fittest" thing, nor a nutrient hunt, - it's simply a case of dietary shortcomings causing insanity.
I assume then, that you are calling EQUALLY LOUDLY for the prosecution of Colin Powel ? He was the first Secretary of State that we know off who used a private mail server, hell he publicly stated that HE was the one who gave Clinton the idea !
So... if it's a crime for her it MUST be a crime for him too ? Right ?
>but I wonder how they feel about the possibility of being blown up, raped, or ran over in their own country?
One in a million odds... versus 100% chance of letting millions of innocent people die ? I choose the smaller risk of people dying, especially since that risk involves the smallest death toll... by millions.
Let me put it this way: all parallel constructions are alternative facts, but not all alternative facts are parallel constructions. By definition it can only be the latter if two other conditions are both true: 1) It's told to a judge 2) It is about the source of a piece of evidence.
Whereas lies about other things are no less despicable - they are not the same thing.
Aawww you poor widdle melting snowflake... you afraid of being internet shamed ? It's not like the internet is real right ? Nothing people say there could possibly be matter in the real world. You should just ignore them. Did your widdle feewings get hurt ?
Or is it only women who are getting death threats and rape threats after being doxed who should be mocked ? What - can't handle your own medicine ?
Slashdot Mirror
So let me get this straight. X uses words to do harm and that's okay, but if I arrange a boycott of his employer - then THAT harm is NOT okay ?
Only a rightwinger can write a flagrantly hypocritical statement like you just did and not even fucking blush.
Nice strawman there. Notice how you ignored the very next sentence which indicated that the REASON why it isn't in this case is because the accusation is not a crime. Nobody will EVER be prosecuted for misogyny - because it isn't a crime.
So NOTHING in the FBI report has anything TO DO with the accusation of misogyny, they didn't investigate misogyny - it's not a crime.
My point was that the two things are utterly unrelated, and you had to go and quote a sentence out of the context of the very next one to try and pretend I was arguing against presumption of innocence.
By the way - do you spend equal measures of time defending OJ Simpson's reputation ?
>violently rioting
3 Million Marchers in America. 5 Million worldwide. Biggest protest march in human history.
Number of arrests: 0
Number of violent episodes: 0
Violence in protests are hardly ever instigated by the protestors, it's generally police that start that shit.
When the protestors are mostly white women, the police are scared to start fights -and there are no protestors fighting back you can take photos of to post on rightwing propaganda sites and claim the protests were "violent".
>punching NAZIS
FTFY.
No. Nazis are not people and punching them is never wrong and always righteous. Fuck you don't GET more righteous and heroic than punching a fucking nazi.
Captain America punched fucking NAZIs.
Not to mention, Trump alone knows how the hell he expects DHS to hire 5000 new staff while obeying the hiring freeze he instituted.
"Not prosecuted" is not the same as "exonerated", especially since misogyny is not a criminal offense. It is despicable, but it's not a crime. I saw the messages they sent, I saw the evidence piled up, I saw the impacts. The movement was a flagrantly misogynistic one, but much like the Trump campaign (which, frankly was just GamerGate USA - or do you think it's a surprise that Trump gave Milo's boss a high profile government job ?) we had all these despicable things being said, despicable groups saying "That's our guy" yet somehow we were supposed to NOT link the movement with the despicable things done in it's name.
And we're not talking about a few extremists, we're talking about a constant and obviously and hardly disguised trend with just barely enough plausible deniability attached to be able to claim "it's not ME it's all those OTHER people who don't really represent the movement".
The movement was a bunch of zero-sum thinkers who had this bizarre idea that, if not EVERY game has nekked chicks in it then somehow gaming is dead.
Well then, here goes.
>Is there a better to way to keep terrorists from entering the country?
About a million of them, which were already being used.
> Is that a worthy goal?
Nah, the vetting process on refugees is already a hugely stringent thing that takes many years. Terrorists would not generally use that way - it's so much easier and more effective to spread propaganda to people ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY. Trying to smuggle new ones in is much more difficult. On the other hand there is a massive payout in SAYING you are doing that, because it means the people you want to kill tomorrow have fewer places to run to.
> How would you do it?
Definitely NOT by being a dick and giving ISIS more propaganda fuel (as John McCain put it), I would keep them out by replacing the drone program with a much bigger food aid program. If I want to keep terrorists from attacking me, I would make them very unpopular back home - and the best way to do that is to make myself very popular. I would refuse to use incendiary phrases like "radical islamic terrorism" because I want to maintain solid friendships with the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism even MORE than we do (seeing as they make up the vast majority of victims) - I want them on my side, I want them to tell me if their neighbour is planning a bomb plot. Basically - everything Obama did. Would I go any further ? No, because I can't actually kick out the group which both the FBI and the NSA has rated the single greatest terrorist risk in the USA: rednecks who join "militia" movements. If Trumps actions were about kicking out terrorists - he'd kick out those fuckers... trouble is most of them voted for him.
> Is Trump aware of the problems he's caused to some immigrants stuck in the airport? (I think the answer is yes)
He for damn sure is aware NOW. I'm pretty sure he was informed of his first major court loss. A more important question is: should he have foreseen that ? Well yeah. Traditionally EOs that change something like this do NOT take "immediate effect". Both Obama and Bush had, at times, limited immigration ban orders (much more limited than this) but they all gave the airports a bit of fair warning. "With effect 4 days from now" kind of thing, so the world's airports have a chance to implement the new rules, understand them, and ensure that nobody affected by the ban is in-transit when the ban goes in effect. What this speaks to is Trump's known complete lack of policy experience, his clearly not paying for people who DO have experience to advise him (or ignoring their advice) and resulting in a flagrant display of flagrant incompetence that make even the usual legendary government incompetence look like sterling successes.
>At this point there's no reason to continue hating on Trump. Yes, he seems rather despicable, but dispassionately analyzing goals and policy objectives will be more effective (the protests are falling on deaf ears).
No, those are not mutually exclusive actions - we need BOTH. Even if no protest changes his mind on anything - the protests are galvanizing and uniting the opposition and allowing us all to keep each other energised and motivated. And that is going to be decisive. Just ask any general how good your odds are at winning any fight with a demoralised army. The protests are providing morale, even if they do nothing else - they are worth it just for that.
>They say they looked at it, then they say it was not actionable. I believe them. You obviously don't. Evidence-based reasoning has never been your strong point.
If it was credible ENOUGH for them to even look into it... that means you can hardly blame HER for being sufficiently scared to get the hell out of dodge, which means your claim that she "lied" about being chased out of her home is utter bunk. The FBI are a law enforcement agency, they are concerned with wether the evidence is strong enough to make a case in court -because it looks bad when you lose too many cases. Wu is a private citizen, she has no such concern - she saw a death threat with her address attached. Only a complete fucking moron would NOT run after that.
If you seriously are going to argue she is lying about that, then I invite you to prove that by posting, everywhere you can, your home address and real name, as well as a confession to having helped plan and execute the 9/11 attacks and bragging how the police can't touch you because you have friends in high places.
Lets see how long you stay in your home when a bunch of crazy-assed wingnut vigilante shoot-up-the-school types decide you're public enemy number one and KNOW where you live.
>Your interpretation of "they found nothing actionable" is "they are unequipped to deal with this", rather than "they found nothing actionable".
Now what does that remind me off... something that happened around 6 months ago... what was it again, something about emails and "nothing actionable" and "no prosecutor would try to make a case"... I seem to recall a LOT of people who did NOT interpret that "nothing actionable" as, you know "nothing actionable"... were you one of them ?
>Wow, screwing their females, and then bungee jumping right afterwards - these spiders are rad, dude!
Nah, that's nothing, when they bungee jump DURING sex ... then I'll be impressed.
>How exactly does running for Congress subvert due process in this instance?
Because she's not running as a republican and if she wins there will be one less republican in the majority and that is pretty much all these people need to consider her guilty of ALL crimes ever invented.
In practise of course, running for congress does not subvert due process in ANY instance. Hell congressman have been elected with criminal convictions hanging over them - and spent much of their terms in jail (it's easy if you are running unopposed).
The actual definiition is posted... literally ONE POST ABOVE YOURS... and yet you persist with this flagrant lie.
Damn, that was beautifully put.
> made-up pronouns
All pronouns are made up. All WORDS are made up.
Seriously... where the fuck did you think they came from ?
Even if you're a creationist... you didn't actually think we're still speaking with the words God used when talking to Adam did you ? Not to mention - if that had been real, Adam would like have spoken Mesopotamian - not English. English wouldn't be made up for another 9 thousand years or so.
Words are made up all the time - and all words are made up. One of the most basic purposes of making up words is to accurately describe things that were not previously described accurately. Which is exactly what the thing you're so freaked out about happens to consist off. As it happens that failure to use the right word (and how new it is has NOTHING to do with how right it is) is proven to actually KILL people - so punishing those who malignantly refuse to do so after they learn this is an act of saving lives.
Yep... we're the greatest threat to freedom of speech (not Trump arresting journalists)... because we told you, you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theaterhouse and today's rightwingers are such namby-pamby little snowflakes that they believe they should be able to live in a little safe space where nothing you say ever has consequences.
Hint: getting people fired for saying asshole things is NOT an infringement on free speech, it's an ACT AND CELEBRATION of free speech. You have the right to say fucked up shit -and I have the right to tell your boss that if he doesn't fire your ass for it I will not shop at his business. Consequences of speech are ALSO free speech. Telling us we can't DO that- now THAT is the biggest threat to free speech. It's trying to make a world where only YOU lot get to have free speech because you precious little alt-right snowflakes can't handle criticism.
>I think you just proved his point. You dont agree with him, so you automatically label him as a bigoted asshole.
No. We only do that when the opinions we don't agree with are the ones that are LITERALLY DEFINED AS "being a bigot".
We don't call you a bigotted asshole for saying "I want tax cuts on the rich" - we think you're an idiot, but we don't think your a bigoted asshole. We think that policy has racist outcomes but we generally hold that your pursuit of it is motivated by ignorance OF those outcomes rather than a desire to achieve them. But when you hold bigoted opinions - calling you a bigot is the ONLY form of a disagreement around.
You want the fastest possible way to destroy the world ? Start treating NAZIs like "just another political opinion".
Two reasons:
1) Minecraft had a much larger group of young children in their audience
2) Nobody wanted to build blocky-cocky ?
>The problem with second life sems to be that if you let people build whatever they want, they invariably build cocks. ... you're right... and right now I'm willing to bet 50 bucks the wall is going to have an oddly phallic appearance...
Apparently the argument is that the dead babies weren't being burried - they were being eaten by the parents.
Talk about slow-cooking your dinner...
To be fair, there is a solid and scientific reason to be concerned about processed foods. And it has nothing to do with the processing (about which, frankly there seems to be equal evidence for and against).
The real concern is that they tend to use very few ingredients - which means they are nutritionally very poor. We're omnivores, we are evolved to make use of (and as a result require) a diverse diet.
>Right. Because hunter-gatherer societies were the pinnacle of human evolution. The ones that had a child mortality rate around 50% and lived to, maybe, their mid thirties.
Which, to be fair, is 40% LESS than the child mortality rate in Industrial-Revolution Britain. 90% of children died before age 10 during that little adventure in unregulated, unrestrained capitalism. It's no wonder the very first labour law *ever* passed in Britain was to outlaw child-labour. So when libertarians hold that period up as some kind of model we should be emulating - one has to wonder if they are ignorant of those deaths or just don't care if we go back to most people having to bury their children.
When they tell you we need to "compete" with sweatshop countries by building our own sweatshops... they somehow never mention those things. They want to get more jobs for the people and they stop talking there, most people dying on the job isn't mentioned - either because they don't KNOW that's what they are advocating, or because they don't care... or because they LIKE that idea, killing people for profit has always appealed to the people they admire most.
>Cannibalism only makes sense when killing & eating the odd failure individual.
In nature, cannibalistic behaviour seems to be naturally limited almost exclusively to species that literally cannot tell the difference between their own species and anything else edible. Spiders is the prototypical example - but even there it's not as widespread as commonly believed. While all spiders will eat other spiders - that's not cannibalism (different species). Actual cannibalism do happen but very rarely. What's interesting is that, rather than evolving means to avoid eating their own species - they evolved means to avoid BEING eaten by their own species. So for example male spiders in the orb-web families spin a line of very stretch silk which they keep attached to a leg during initial contact and mating with a female - as soon as mating concludes they let go with the other legs and their bungie cord gives them a very rapid escape. Cannibalism only happens if the cord fails to function for some reason, or the female manages to be faster than the cord (seriously low odds).
So while cannibalism almost never happens - the behaviour shows that there is a very real risk of it, hence the males have evolved an intricate defence mechanism to avoid that fate.
Wolf spiders (and many scorpion species) carry their young on their backs to defend them... but if one falls of mother will definitely try to eat it herself. Yet, as far as we can tell - cannibalism is completely absent in social spider species - perhaps because, in order to become a social species, they had to evolve ways to recognise members of the species as allies rather than food.
Now compare that with species that have some intelligence - and you see a marked decline in cannibalistic behaviour. The more social the species - the less it happens. Rats generally don't partake of other rats unless they are starving. They adopt orphans. Humans were a bit of an odd one out, there is some strong evidence that palaeolithic humans engaged in widespread cannibalism - but it ends almost as rapidly as it began.
What leads to the general abhorrence for eating your own species appears to be an evolved response - it's simply too massively high a disease vector, and even a species that managed to stop obeying it's evolutionary impulses and override them with cultural evolution and individual brain-evolution (i.e. neural-net reprogramming) - ended up avoiding it, likely for the same reason.
So what does that tell us about the hamsters ? Likely that this cannibalism is neither a "Survival of the fittest" thing, nor a nutrient hunt, - it's simply a case of dietary shortcomings causing insanity.
I assume then, that you are calling EQUALLY LOUDLY for the prosecution of Colin Powel ? He was the first Secretary of State that we know off who used a private mail server, hell he publicly stated that HE was the one who gave Clinton the idea !
So... if it's a crime for her it MUST be a crime for him too ? Right ?
>but I wonder how they feel about the possibility of being blown up, raped, or ran over in their own country?
One in a million odds... versus 100% chance of letting millions of innocent people die ? I choose the smaller risk of people dying, especially since that risk involves the smallest death toll... by millions.
Let me put it this way: all parallel constructions are alternative facts, but not all alternative facts are parallel constructions. By definition it can only be the latter if two other conditions are both true:
1) It's told to a judge
2) It is about the source of a piece of evidence.
Whereas lies about other things are no less despicable - they are not the same thing.
Aawww you poor widdle melting snowflake... you afraid of being internet shamed ? It's not like the internet is real right ? Nothing people say there could possibly be matter in the real world. You should just ignore them. Did your widdle feewings get hurt ?
Or is it only women who are getting death threats and rape threats after being doxed who should be mocked ? What - can't handle your own medicine ?