Simple costs/benefits analysis indicates it is far more productive to audit rich people than poor people. That's just common sense, not discrimination against the rich.
Simple cost/benefit analysis indicates it's far more productive for the police to stop black people than white people. That's just common sense, not discrimination against black people.
Now do you see the problem?
AR 25-2 has all the info you need on how digital classified material is supposed to be handled, including what markings are necessary. Once you know that "how to strip the markings" is obvious. (It's an Army document, but the rules are the same throughout the Federal government.) Educate yourself a little, and then come back with questions. Right now you're just braying nonsense designed to confuse people.
"That doesn't change the fact that the material was still SCI, even without the markings"
Well obviously
This is a defense that Hillary's people are using.
The Clinton Foundation exists to give jobs to Clinton machine operatives in between formal election campaigns. (If the operatives got real jobs, they'd have to quit them to work on the campaign.) The Clinton Foundation accepts money from foreign donors. You're not supposed to use foreign money to fund a political campaign. Hence, her paying people she wants to keep available for her campaign using Foundation money is illicit.
Illegal as in a court ruling?
You've got to be kidding me. I know liberals are confused about the proper role of the court system, but this takes the cake. "Illegal" means it violates A LAW that was passed by Congress and acted on (signed OR vetoed, but with the veto overridden) by the President.
Deliberately ignoring those rules is likely even be enough to justify having a trial or at least a public hearing where she could defend herself, much as she did on Benghazi. Actually that partly involved email, so presumably we can skip the bits already covered.
I'm not sure what you think happened at the Benghazi hearings. What actually happened was that Hillary admitted sending emails within a few hours of the attack calling the attack the work of al Qaeda and not a peaceful protest over a YouTube video. "Peaceful Protest over a YouTube video" was the State Department's official story for two weeks following the attack, but Hillary knew it to be false within a few hours of it happening.
Do I think that Hillary is a better choice than any of the republicans? Yes.
Right, Clinton aides stripped the markings that indicated that the material was SCI before sending it through the server. That doesn't change the fact that the material was still SCI, even without the markings, and that the server was still illegal because it was set up in the first place to evade FOIA and make it easier for her to illicitly fund her political operation through the Clinton Foundation.
BUT BUT BUT... Hillary didn't hold other jobs while also being on the government payroll. Her top aides were the ones actually doing the other jobs. How did she break the law?
It's like Obama's red lines. There's no depth past which some people won't sink defending her. Look at the comments from six months ago about "there's no proof that there was classified information on the server, so Hillary should get off clean for running the illegal server in the first place."
The Justice Department "decided it wouldn't be worth their time" to prosecute Lois Lerner. Also, the IRS's dragnet was FAR larger than Ron Paul fans and included most of the medium sized players on the Right (i.e. nobody big enough to afford huge legal fees.)
The DoJ has done a lot of "deciding it wouldn't be worth their time" to prosecute Obama cronies though. One of Hillary's top aides, Huma Abdelin, got caught claiming to be at the office (for pay purposes) while she was on vacation and other types of leave, to the tune of a few hundred thousand. Plenty of VA corruption (whistleblower retaliation and bonus fraud) also went unpunished. (Keep in mind, the relevant Inspectors General recommended that the DoJ pursue jail time in the cases on my list.)
Her email server had SCI satellite imagery on it. Those photos are classified (at a level higher than Top Secret) from the moment they're taken. They were 100% SCI when they arrived on her sever.
If your subordinate keeps sending you child pornography, you should fire them and report them to the appropriate authorities. Did Hillary fire her subordinates who were sending classified information over the nonclassified email system? And report them to the FBI?
Most of the emails that Clinton herself received on her private server was sent to her by her top aides, most of whom worked with her before she was Secretary of State, and then got jobs at State when she was Secretary. Today, most of them work on either her campaign or at the Clinton Foundation. The ones who worked at State used both official State email addresses and addresses on her private server.
Most of the people who violated handling requirements were (and are) top-level aides to Hillary Clinton.
but it's rather rare for somebody at her level to do so; either you trust your subordinates' judgment or you replace them because you've got too much to do every day to have time for that kind of micromanagement.
Well, since her subordinates were apparently untrustworthy (because they kept emailing classified information through her private server that she used for graft) and she didn't replace them, perhaps Hillary Clinton's managerial skills are suspect. It might not be the wisest choice to put her in charge of people if shes's a bad judge of her subordinates' abilities to prevent themselves from committing felonies.
Tell us how Hillary! can see intelligence data from CIA or NGA, not recognize it as TOP SECRET (and more because it's probably SCI also) and still be qualified to be President.
There's no "probably" involved. Hillary sent at least two emails which were redacted as Talent Keyhole. Talent Keyhole is an SCI program involving a specific imaging satellite or set of imaging satellites. All Talent Keyhole images are SCI because we don't want the enemy to know the capabilities of the satellite. (On the other hand, the fact that "NGA has a super cool spy satellite named Talent Keyhole" isn't classified and shows up in the press. Just the images are classified.)
TLDR: The State Department has admitted that Hillary's server was used to send spy satellite images that are more classified than TOP SECRET.
Keep in mind, the only reason we know about this is because there's a Congressional investigation that State wasn't complying with correctly because they couldn't turn over Hillary's secret emails. In your formulation, "obstructing the Congressional investigation" is a useful side effect.
It made you more likely to switch than during the iPhone 3 to 4 transition. Because they were using a different connector all of the sudden, so you had to replace your stuff anyway. That supports my point,
But now that you have a bunch of Lightning stuff, that ties you into Lightning until Apple changes it again.
And Ray just is abandoned on Jakku as a child; we don't know who abandoned her, and we don't know why.
In fairness, we didn't know anything worthwhile about Luke's history at the end of IV either except that his father's name was Anakin and that he and Kenobi knew each other.
It's not just the $30 charger that locks you in. There's a bunch of stuff that you've probably invested in. Can you plug your iPhone into your car stereo? Or a speaker dock? That stuff which uses Lightning connection and used to use 30-pin. If you have enough of that stuff, replacing it is a tall order.
my tax information (which is, technically, public information).
In the United States, your federal tax information is confidential between you and the IRS. If the IRS leaks your tax return, the person who does it is supposed to go to jail. It's not "public information."
Apple traded the knowledge of how Lightning works to the people at large in exchange for legal (civil) protections from competitors for a certain period of time. That's how all patents work. Without patents, Apple would just keep the workings of Lightning secret, and then wouldn't be able to license Lightning to potential competitors to use it in new things (speaker docks and the like.) They'd keep it secret forever, as opposed to "known but not commercially usable without a license until the patent expires" like it is now.
The exclusive utility franchise is a monopoly, though.
Apple is using the lightning connectors (and the associated data transfer standards) to lock customers in to only purchasing from Apple. Letting the USB committee standardize on Lightning would defeat the purpose
I would imagine whoever built the Queen Mary told the owners that transatlantic travel by steam ship is difficult, and so they hired a large crew to do all the difficult jobs involved in operating a transatlantic steam ship.
By contrast, it takes fewer than ten people with difficult jobs to fly a commercial airplane from New York to London. (I'm counting ground based mechanics, who, of course, can be the mechanic of multiple planes per day in a way that doesn't work with steamship mechanics.) That's a much smaller crew.
There have been plenty of legal cases in which the question has been whether certain rights only apply to US citizens or all persons.
The First Amendment's legal protections apply to people who are under American jurisdiction. The cases you are talking about involve the foreigners ACTUALLY BEING IN the United States.
The First Amendment isn't international law. The world would be a better place if it were, but it isn't.
Such constructions are "legal" in the sense that no single law is violated. Yet they are considered "illegal" by the IRS
The proper word for "something that the IRS considers illegal that doesn't actually violate the law" is "legal." Forgive me for not trusting the self serving interpretation of law delivered by the guys who hid Lois Lerner's emails about targeting their political opponents.
But forget that part. You went way off the rails with your rant about "legitimate vs. illegitimate government." In the post I replied to, you said you wanted to wanted to raise taxes on Apple because you don't like them. Regardless of whether the government is using currently collected taxes to do the things it's supposed to be doing, collecting a new tax to punish someone for something (especially something currently legal) is immoral.
The only legitimate reason to raise taxes is "The government needs more money so we can do X." Ideally, the citizens can then debate whether X is necessary or a good idea; whether X is a state job, a federal job, or the kind of thing that should be left up to the private sector; whether the price tag for X is too high and it can be done cheaper, whether we should stop spending so much on Y and use that money on X; etc.
That's not the plan you posted. Your "point of view" on the legitimate functions of government and how taxes are currently being spent doesn't matter here because you already said that the point isn't to raise money, it's to punish Apple.
Taxation is one the lighter clubs we grant the the govt. to adjust behavior
That's just it. The only club that we grant government to adjust the behavior of the civilian population is the system of punishments set up to dissuade people from breaking the law.
Generally speaking, the government isn't supposed to be adjusting anyone's behavior because we're a free people and not subjects of a dictator or something. When we do need to adjust someone's behavior, there's a pretty high bar. (First you have to make sure the behavior is illegal. Then you have to convict them. Being a defendant comes with a set of protections from the government.)
Taxation is a whole different ball of wax. It's only there to raise money for the legitimate functions of government. There's no morality involved.
To point 1, no, we shouldn't be challenging people or groups that are following the law as written. If you don't think people who are following the law are acting correctly, you should consider changing the law. ("Change the law" is your second point. The fact that your first point is separate from that is the part where you imply that tax avoidance is illegal.)
Your point 2 is a lot of words to just say "We should change the law to raise corporate taxes." The justification you give is "we feel corporations could contribute more to society." This is where you go off the rails.
Taxation should ONLY be used as a tool to fund the legitimate functions of government. It's not a club you can beat people with because you don't like them.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple costs/benefits analysis indicates it is far more productive to audit rich people than poor people. That's just common sense, not discrimination against the rich.
Simple cost/benefit analysis indicates it's far more productive for the police to stop black people than white people. That's just common sense, not discrimination against black people.
Now do you see the problem?
"That doesn't change the fact that the material was still SCI, even without the markings"
Well obviously
This is a defense that Hillary's people are using.
The Clinton Foundation exists to give jobs to Clinton machine operatives in between formal election campaigns. (If the operatives got real jobs, they'd have to quit them to work on the campaign.) The Clinton Foundation accepts money from foreign donors. You're not supposed to use foreign money to fund a political campaign. Hence, her paying people she wants to keep available for her campaign using Foundation money is illicit.
Illegal as in a court ruling?
You've got to be kidding me. I know liberals are confused about the proper role of the court system, but this takes the cake. "Illegal" means it violates A LAW that was passed by Congress and acted on (signed OR vetoed, but with the veto overridden) by the President.
Deliberately ignoring those rules is likely even be enough to justify having a trial or at least a public hearing where she could defend herself, much as she did on Benghazi. Actually that partly involved email, so presumably we can skip the bits already covered.
I'm not sure what you think happened at the Benghazi hearings. What actually happened was that Hillary admitted sending emails within a few hours of the attack calling the attack the work of al Qaeda and not a peaceful protest over a YouTube video. "Peaceful Protest over a YouTube video" was the State Department's official story for two weeks following the attack, but Hillary knew it to be false within a few hours of it happening.
Do I think that Hillary is a better choice than any of the republicans? Yes.
Then you're a crazy person.
Right, Clinton aides stripped the markings that indicated that the material was SCI before sending it through the server. That doesn't change the fact that the material was still SCI, even without the markings, and that the server was still illegal because it was set up in the first place to evade FOIA and make it easier for her to illicitly fund her political operation through the Clinton Foundation.
BUT BUT BUT... Hillary didn't hold other jobs while also being on the government payroll. Her top aides were the ones actually doing the other jobs.
How did she break the law? It's like Obama's red lines. There's no depth past which some people won't sink defending her. Look at the comments from six months ago about "there's no proof that there was classified information on the server, so Hillary should get off clean for running the illegal server in the first place."
The DoJ has done a lot of "deciding it wouldn't be worth their time" to prosecute Obama cronies though. One of Hillary's top aides, Huma Abdelin, got caught claiming to be at the office (for pay purposes) while she was on vacation and other types of leave, to the tune of a few hundred thousand. Plenty of VA corruption (whistleblower retaliation and bonus fraud) also went unpunished. (Keep in mind, the relevant Inspectors General recommended that the DoJ pursue jail time in the cases on my list.)
Her email server had SCI satellite imagery on it. Those photos are classified (at a level higher than Top Secret) from the moment they're taken. They were 100% SCI when they arrived on her sever.
If your subordinate keeps sending you child pornography, you should fire them and report them to the appropriate authorities. Did Hillary fire her subordinates who were sending classified information over the nonclassified email system? And report them to the FBI?
Most of the people who violated handling requirements were (and are) top-level aides to Hillary Clinton.
but it's rather rare for somebody at her level to do so; either you trust your subordinates' judgment or you replace them because you've got too much to do every day to have time for that kind of micromanagement.
Well, since her subordinates were apparently untrustworthy (because they kept emailing classified information through her private server that she used for graft) and she didn't replace them, perhaps Hillary Clinton's managerial skills are suspect. It might not be the wisest choice to put her in charge of people if shes's a bad judge of her subordinates' abilities to prevent themselves from committing felonies.
Tell us how Hillary! can see intelligence data from CIA or NGA, not recognize it as TOP SECRET (and more because it's probably SCI also) and still be qualified to be President.
There's no "probably" involved. Hillary sent at least two emails which were redacted as Talent Keyhole. Talent Keyhole is an SCI program involving a specific imaging satellite or set of imaging satellites. All Talent Keyhole images are SCI because we don't want the enemy to know the capabilities of the satellite. (On the other hand, the fact that "NGA has a super cool spy satellite named Talent Keyhole" isn't classified and shows up in the press. Just the images are classified.)
TLDR: The State Department has admitted that Hillary's server was used to send spy satellite images that are more classified than TOP SECRET.
Keep in mind, the only reason we know about this is because there's a Congressional investigation that State wasn't complying with correctly because they couldn't turn over Hillary's secret emails. In your formulation, "obstructing the Congressional investigation" is a useful side effect.
But now that you have a bunch of Lightning stuff, that ties you into Lightning until Apple changes it again.
And Ray just is abandoned on Jakku as a child; we don't know who abandoned her, and we don't know why.
In fairness, we didn't know anything worthwhile about Luke's history at the end of IV either except that his father's name was Anakin and that he and Kenobi knew each other.
It's not just the $30 charger that locks you in. There's a bunch of stuff that you've probably invested in. Can you plug your iPhone into your car stereo? Or a speaker dock? That stuff which uses Lightning connection and used to use 30-pin. If you have enough of that stuff, replacing it is a tall order.
my tax information (which is, technically, public information).
In the United States, your federal tax information is confidential between you and the IRS. If the IRS leaks your tax return, the person who does it is supposed to go to jail. It's not "public information."
The 30-pin charger was originally picked over USB for lock in purposes too.
The exclusive utility franchise is a monopoly, though.
Apple is using the lightning connectors (and the associated data transfer standards) to lock customers in to only purchasing from Apple. Letting the USB committee standardize on Lightning would defeat the purpose
By contrast, it takes fewer than ten people with difficult jobs to fly a commercial airplane from New York to London. (I'm counting ground based mechanics, who, of course, can be the mechanic of multiple planes per day in a way that doesn't work with steamship mechanics.) That's a much smaller crew.
There have been plenty of legal cases in which the question has been whether certain rights only apply to US citizens or all persons.
The First Amendment's legal protections apply to people who are under American jurisdiction. The cases you are talking about involve the foreigners ACTUALLY BEING IN the United States.
The First Amendment isn't international law. The world would be a better place if it were, but it isn't.
There are more and more voices demanding the UN move its HQ to some more neutral place, like Austria, Sweden or Switzerland.
And just recently, some of those calls have been coming from other countries.
Such constructions are "legal" in the sense that no single law is violated. Yet they are considered "illegal" by the IRS
The proper word for "something that the IRS considers illegal that doesn't actually violate the law" is "legal." Forgive me for not trusting the self serving interpretation of law delivered by the guys who hid Lois Lerner's emails about targeting their political opponents.
But forget that part. You went way off the rails with your rant about "legitimate vs. illegitimate government." In the post I replied to, you said you wanted to wanted to raise taxes on Apple because you don't like them. Regardless of whether the government is using currently collected taxes to do the things it's supposed to be doing, collecting a new tax to punish someone for something (especially something currently legal) is immoral.
The only legitimate reason to raise taxes is "The government needs more money so we can do X." Ideally, the citizens can then debate whether X is necessary or a good idea; whether X is a state job, a federal job, or the kind of thing that should be left up to the private sector; whether the price tag for X is too high and it can be done cheaper, whether we should stop spending so much on Y and use that money on X; etc.
That's not the plan you posted. Your "point of view" on the legitimate functions of government and how taxes are currently being spent doesn't matter here because you already said that the point isn't to raise money, it's to punish Apple.
Taxation is one the lighter clubs we grant the the govt. to adjust behavior
That's just it. The only club that we grant government to adjust the behavior of the civilian population is the system of punishments set up to dissuade people from breaking the law.
Generally speaking, the government isn't supposed to be adjusting anyone's behavior because we're a free people and not subjects of a dictator or something. When we do need to adjust someone's behavior, there's a pretty high bar. (First you have to make sure the behavior is illegal. Then you have to convict them. Being a defendant comes with a set of protections from the government.)
Taxation is a whole different ball of wax. It's only there to raise money for the legitimate functions of government. There's no morality involved.
To point 1, no, we shouldn't be challenging people or groups that are following the law as written. If you don't think people who are following the law are acting correctly, you should consider changing the law. ("Change the law" is your second point. The fact that your first point is separate from that is the part where you imply that tax avoidance is illegal.)
Your point 2 is a lot of words to just say "We should change the law to raise corporate taxes." The justification you give is "we feel corporations could contribute more to society." This is where you go off the rails.
Taxation should ONLY be used as a tool to fund the legitimate functions of government. It's not a club you can beat people with because you don't like them.