I see that claim over and over. Make a list with actual proof. It'll be short, likely numbering 0.
Dude, the FBI found Top Secret satellite imagery on her private email server. The email server itself is also illegal, even without the classified stuff.
Reality has no bias. If these things are true, and I have seen no indications that they are not, then the news is making Donald Trump look bad because Donald Trump is actually bad.
Reality may not have a bias, but The New York Times does.
The allegations that the New York Times is making are almost certainly true. But the implications they are making are false.
The documents that the Times printed showed that Trump lost a bunch of money by investing in a casino in 1995. The Times is also reporting (accurately) that in 1995, you could "carry over" business losses from previous years and deduct them (against your gains) until either 1. you ran out of losses or 2.18 years passes from the original loss. (The rules are substantially the same today, but those are the rules from 1995.)
The Times is implying that Trump did something shady or illegal by taking a fairly standard tax deduction. (The same deduction, in fact, taken by The New York Times this year.) BREAKING: DONALD TRUMP TOOK THE SAME TAX DEDUCTION THAT EVERY BUISNESS OWNER WHO LOSES MONEY ALWAYS TAKES isn't really news, but they and the rest of the media are reporting on it like it's a gigantic scandal.
Meanwhile Obama has weaponized the IRS and the Justice Department against his political opponents and Hillary Clinton and her cronies hid her records, including top-level classified information, on secret servers so the American people wouldn't be able find the corruption until it was too late, but the New York Times doesn't care about ANY of that this morning.
I hate Trump, don't get me wrong. But the only reason this is a story is that the New York Times is a bought and paid for wing of the Democratic Party.
This option is exactly what TiVo is. You buy your TiVo equipment, and rent a Cablecard from your existing provider. Per FCC rule, the fee to rent the Cablecard is capped (IIRC, at $5.00/month, although Comcast charges like $3). One Cablecard can support up to 6 TVs.
Except for the Cablecard, your cable company won't be charging you an equipment fee because you own your own devices.
I also read about the involvement of a Christian organization on the parents' side, which gave me pause.
Well then you're dumb.
The family are devout Catholics. The Catholic teaching on refusing necessary medical care is that it is tantamount to suicide, a sin that gets you sent to Hell.
While the girl was in the hospital, the hospital authorities were preventing her from going to Mass with the hospital's chaplain.
The family reached out to Christian groups because they didn't have enough money to sue to get their daughter back. And because it is in fact BS, the (perhaps right-wing) Christian groups agreed to help. And then, years later, because it was BS, the (perhaps left-wing) Huffington Post reports sympathetically on the hacker.
Verizon isn't describing these plans as unlimited. That's something the Slashdot submitter pulled out of their ass. Verizon is calling this feature "Safety Mode."
Verizon's name for this feature is "Safety Mode" because it helps keep you safe from an unexpected charge at the end of the month. It's an accurate name.
The phrase "Unlimited Data" comes from Slashdot, not Verizon. Verizon is describing these plans as limited to however many GB of data are in the contract.
According to Dreams from My Father, when he was in high school, Obama and his buddies were part of a group called The Choom Gang where they smoked pot regularly and used cocaine when they could get their hands on it. He was definitely a stoner in high school.
That's not a substantial criticism of President Obama (although there are many), because everyone does things in high school they later regret.
The reason Gawker went after Thiel in the first place is because Thiel was politically active in a way that Gawker disagreed with.
The "Hillary's lesbian lover" stuff that GP referenced is examples of transparent, dopey right wing smears that Slashdot isn't (and shouldn't be) reporting on. This report on Thiel is the left wing version of that. It's a bullshit smear, from a transparently non-objective source. And Slashdot is covering it as real anyway. Hmm.
So why did you bring up right to work? If it's not a union issue, right to work is a non-sequitor.
Automation doesn't care how much the worker it replaces is making.
That's not strictly speaking true either. If the lifecycle cost of employing people (including training and benefits in addition to salary) is cheaper than the lifecycle cost of automation (including service and initial setup cost) then automation doesn't make sense. Cheaper employees have a lower lifecycle cost.
No they weren't. The new Hostess didn't lay off 22,000 people.
The 22,000 figure is from before the collapse, when old Hostess wasn't exercising its right to employ at-will and most of the employees weren't exercising their right to work. There were some layoffs at old Hostess prior to its collapse, but most of the 22,000 lost their jobs when old Hostess went out of business.
New Hostess didn't hire everyone that worked at old Hostess, but that's neither an at-will employment issue nor a right to work issue.
Rat, "Right to Work" means you can't be forced to join the union as a condition of employment. However, employees can waive that right by voluntarily joining the union. If you DO join the union, as nearly all Hostess employees did, your relationship with your employer (wages, whether you can be fired, etc) is governed by the union contract just like in a forced-union state.
The thing you're thinking of is "At-Will Employment," which means that the employer has the right to fire the employee without showing due cause (i.e. misconduct by the specific employee.) This right can be waived by the employer (and was waived by Hostess) by agreeing to a union contract specifying a grievance process.
Since Hostess waived its right to employ At-Will, and nearly all Hostess employees waived their right to work, neither were in play when the original Hostess collapsed. The Hostess bankruptcy went down exactly like it would have in a forced union state.
Zuckerberg is a liberal. He gives big money to people with D's at the end of their names. He also supports liberal groups, notably (for the Slashdot audience anyway) FWD.us, an open borders and pro-H1B group.
None of that is an attack on Zuckerberg. He can vote for whoever he wants and use his money to support whoever he wants. It's simply inaccurate to call him a conservative.
As for the Keystone Pipeline being at risk of creating an environmental disaster, not even the EPA belives that. There's pipelines all over the place.
Wasn't it like a week ago that Facebook announced they were going to change their internal rules to stop their employees from targeting conservatives? And now the IRS, an organization well known for targeting conservatives, has sicced their dogs on Facebook. Very interesting coincidence of timing.
Hey Rat, you know how people are pointing out how Trump is a bad tactician with the Saddam Hussein and the Star of David being PC BS crap? And that if he was even halfway competent, his message this week would have been "The FBI didn't indict Crooked Hillary because the Democrats are corrupting the rule of law to protect her?"
This is the third time today I've seen you bitching about that meme on Slashdot, and IIRC, none of the three threads had anything to do with Trump. There's plenty to oppose the man over, but you're taking attention away from those to argue the semantics of a meme that Trump's guy posted.
Clinton didn't violate security willfully, and shared state secrets with those authorized to see them, not wantonly.
Neither of these things are true.
Setting up the server itself was the act that violated security. The server was set up because Clinton ordered it to be set up. Ergo, Clinton ordered the security violation. (The individual emails themselves also show evidence of Clinton specifically ordering subordinates to send classified info through unclassified channels.)
Among those who had access to classified information on the Clinton Email server was Sydney Blumenthal, who has been a Clinton lackey for years. He's so untrustworthy that higher-ups in the Obama administration (to their credit) EXPLICITLY ordered Clinton not to hire him at the State Department. Since Blumenthan had no official position in the government or other need to know classified information, he wasn't authorized to have it. Blumenthal used the classified information he received in his Clinton email to run a secretive intelligence service that interfered with the CIA in the Middle East.
the key point of difference between all the examples you twits bring up is this: they were classified at the time that they were knowingly misused, rather than retroactively classified after the fact.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret, special access program, at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters, and receiving emails about those matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified secret by the U.S. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email. That is excluding any later upclassified emails.
None of these emails should have been on any unclassified system.
- FBI Director James Comey, today.
dywolf, you've been full of shit about this from day 1.
I'm with you that they should always label the party that a politician belongs to. (And with Senators they should also give the state.)
However, the problems with FOIA's execution are of the executive branch, which is currently run by a Democrat. Leaving out the party ID helps Democrats, because if someone isn't paying attention, they'll assume the story is "Republican Senator criticizes Democrat President," which happens all the time. "Democrat criticizes Democrat" is more likely to be interesting.
Because France didn't enter the war on July 4th? If you want to have a "Thank France Day" you should probably either line it up with the signing of the Treaty of Alliance [between France and the United States] on February 6th, 1778, or the Battle of Yorktown (October 19th, 1781), because it was the biggest example of French and American cooperation during the war. (The British defeat also largely ended combat operations in the war.)
Slashdot Mirror
Kristian Saucier
This is a lie.
I see that claim over and over. Make a list with actual proof. It'll be short, likely numbering 0.
Dude, the FBI found Top Secret satellite imagery on her private email server. The email server itself is also illegal, even without the classified stuff.
That's two.
Reality has no bias. If these things are true, and I have seen no indications that they are not, then the news is making Donald Trump look bad because Donald Trump is actually bad.
Reality may not have a bias, but The New York Times does.
The allegations that the New York Times is making are almost certainly true. But the implications they are making are false.
The documents that the Times printed showed that Trump lost a bunch of money by investing in a casino in 1995. The Times is also reporting (accurately) that in 1995, you could "carry over" business losses from previous years and deduct them (against your gains) until either 1. you ran out of losses or 2.18 years passes from the original loss. (The rules are substantially the same today, but those are the rules from 1995.)
The Times is implying that Trump did something shady or illegal by taking a fairly standard tax deduction. (The same deduction, in fact, taken by The New York Times this year.) BREAKING: DONALD TRUMP TOOK THE SAME TAX DEDUCTION THAT EVERY BUISNESS OWNER WHO LOSES MONEY ALWAYS TAKES isn't really news, but they and the rest of the media are reporting on it like it's a gigantic scandal.
Meanwhile Obama has weaponized the IRS and the Justice Department against his political opponents and Hillary Clinton and her cronies hid her records, including top-level classified information, on secret servers so the American people wouldn't be able find the corruption until it was too late, but the New York Times doesn't care about ANY of that this morning.
I hate Trump, don't get me wrong. But the only reason this is a story is that the New York Times is a bought and paid for wing of the Democratic Party.
The Republican investigation found plenty of crimes. You're right about the FBI covering for her.
Are you sure? When was the last time you saw democrats doing something like this?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...
Except for the Cablecard, your cable company won't be charging you an equipment fee because you own your own devices.
I also read about the involvement of a Christian organization on the parents' side, which gave me pause.
Well then you're dumb.
The family are devout Catholics. The Catholic teaching on refusing necessary medical care is that it is tantamount to suicide, a sin that gets you sent to Hell.
While the girl was in the hospital, the hospital authorities were preventing her from going to Mass with the hospital's chaplain.
The family reached out to Christian groups because they didn't have enough money to sue to get their daughter back. And because it is in fact BS, the (perhaps right-wing) Christian groups agreed to help. And then, years later, because it was BS, the (perhaps left-wing) Huffington Post reports sympathetically on the hacker.
Verizon isn't describing these plans as unlimited. That's something the Slashdot submitter pulled out of their ass. Verizon is calling this feature "Safety Mode."
The phrase "Unlimited Data" comes from Slashdot, not Verizon. Verizon is describing these plans as limited to however many GB of data are in the contract.
Huh? Terry Boella is an actor who is famous for playing a character named Hulk Hogan. Is Johnny Depp a liar because he's not really a pirate?
Univision, the new owner, intends to keep publishing all of the other Gawker Media blogs. It's just the main Gawker site itself that is shutting down.
That's not a substantial criticism of President Obama (although there are many), because everyone does things in high school they later regret.
The "Hillary's lesbian lover" stuff that GP referenced is examples of transparent, dopey right wing smears that Slashdot isn't (and shouldn't be) reporting on. This report on Thiel is the left wing version of that. It's a bullshit smear, from a transparently non-objective source. And Slashdot is covering it as real anyway. Hmm.
CROSS OUT THE CLINTON AND WRITE BERNIE ON THE BALLOT. BRTHERS ACROSS AMERICA UNITE
Why would birthers unite against Hillary Clinton? She's the one who started the "Obama was born in Kenya" rumor.
It's also not a union issue.
So why did you bring up right to work? If it's not a union issue, right to work is a non-sequitor.
Automation doesn't care how much the worker it replaces is making.
That's not strictly speaking true either. If the lifecycle cost of employing people (including training and benefits in addition to salary) is cheaper than the lifecycle cost of automation (including service and initial setup cost) then automation doesn't make sense. Cheaper employees have a lower lifecycle cost.
The 22,000 figure is from before the collapse, when old Hostess wasn't exercising its right to employ at-will and most of the employees weren't exercising their right to work. There were some layoffs at old Hostess prior to its collapse, but most of the 22,000 lost their jobs when old Hostess went out of business.
New Hostess didn't hire everyone that worked at old Hostess, but that's neither an at-will employment issue nor a right to work issue.
The thing you're thinking of is "At-Will Employment," which means that the employer has the right to fire the employee without showing due cause (i.e. misconduct by the specific employee.) This right can be waived by the employer (and was waived by Hostess) by agreeing to a union contract specifying a grievance process.
Since Hostess waived its right to employ At-Will, and nearly all Hostess employees waived their right to work, neither were in play when the original Hostess collapsed. The Hostess bankruptcy went down exactly like it would have in a forced union state.
Zuckerberg is a liberal. He gives big money to people with D's at the end of their names. He also supports liberal groups, notably (for the Slashdot audience anyway) FWD.us, an open borders and pro-H1B group.
None of that is an attack on Zuckerberg. He can vote for whoever he wants and use his money to support whoever he wants. It's simply inaccurate to call him a conservative.
As for the Keystone Pipeline being at risk of creating an environmental disaster, not even the EPA belives that. There's pipelines all over the place.
Wasn't it like a week ago that Facebook announced they were going to change their internal rules to stop their employees from targeting conservatives? And now the IRS, an organization well known for targeting conservatives, has sicced their dogs on Facebook. Very interesting coincidence of timing.
This is the third time today I've seen you bitching about that meme on Slashdot, and IIRC, none of the three threads had anything to do with Trump. There's plenty to oppose the man over, but you're taking attention away from those to argue the semantics of a meme that Trump's guy posted.
You and Trump actually have a lot in common.
Clinton didn't violate security willfully, and shared state secrets with those authorized to see them, not wantonly.
Neither of these things are true.
Setting up the server itself was the act that violated security. The server was set up because Clinton ordered it to be set up. Ergo, Clinton ordered the security violation. (The individual emails themselves also show evidence of Clinton specifically ordering subordinates to send classified info through unclassified channels.)
Among those who had access to classified information on the Clinton Email server was Sydney Blumenthal, who has been a Clinton lackey for years. He's so untrustworthy that higher-ups in the Obama administration (to their credit) EXPLICITLY ordered Clinton not to hire him at the State Department. Since Blumenthan had no official position in the government or other need to know classified information, he wasn't authorized to have it. Blumenthal used the classified information he received in his Clinton email to run a secretive intelligence service that interfered with the CIA in the Middle East.
the key point of difference between all the examples you twits bring up is this: they were classified at the time that they were knowingly misused, rather than retroactively classified after the fact.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret, special access program, at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters, and receiving emails about those matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified secret by the U.S. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email. That is excluding any later upclassified emails.
None of these emails should have been on any unclassified system.
- FBI Director James Comey, today.
dywolf, you've been full of shit about this from day 1.
However, the problems with FOIA's execution are of the executive branch, which is currently run by a Democrat. Leaving out the party ID helps Democrats, because if someone isn't paying attention, they'll assume the story is "Republican Senator criticizes Democrat President," which happens all the time. "Democrat criticizes Democrat" is more likely to be interesting.
You could also pick a French holiday.