They are all rights guaranteed by the constitution. You are after all talking about taking away someone's rights because they were extrajudicially added to a list of people who might be bad people. What difference does it make after all? Religion could be thought to be dangerous too, as it is religion that is causing most of these attacks, so separating people from religion because they might be terrorists seems like a great idea. That way they can't radicalize others of the religion./s (in case it isn't obvious).
The second amendment right to bear arms is deligated to the PEOPLE, not the militia. Read the sentence, it is right there.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You see all that space between Militia and right, there is a reason for that, the right wasn't guaranteed to the Militia, but the people, and at that, all of them, including felons and the mentally unstable.
How about if we take away their right to practice a religion, or speak in public because they are on a no-fly list too? After all you think taking away rights due to someone being on a list because someone thought they might be a bad guy, is acceptable.
Because perfectly functional militia isn't required for gun ownership, but gun ownership is required for a functional (what well regulated means) militia.
I bought my truck to be able to tow, but that isn't the only reason I bought a truck.
"The need to tow trailers being important to me, I bought a truck"
Does that sentence really say to you that the only reason to buy a truck is to tow trailers? That is what you just typed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Considering the Militia was all men 17-45, and well regulated meant that it would work, how does that restrict anything about the right of the people and not the militia to own guns?
The most destructive arm of the day when the second was envisioned was a cannon. Most of the cannon in the revolutionary war were privately owned in fact. Would you try to claim that a cannon is less destructive than a modern AR-15?
According to that article, a 12 pounder in the napoleonic period could reasonably be expected to take out 36 people...with a single shot. Not sure why you would think that the arms in the revolutionary war would be less effective than the arms allowed to your average person today, after all, the Orlando night club shooter took out 49 people, heck, that is less than two shots of an old time cannon.
I do know that thirteen investigations by a hostile Congress turned up no wrongdoing, and I find that pretty convincing.
None of the investigations had access to her emails because she had them on a private server. How do you do an investigation when you have no information to use to investigate?
As far as the email server went, which specific law did it break?
Clinton had some classification authority, and telling her staff to send a classified document by unclassified channels strikes me as a judgment call she probably had the authority to make.
As a classification authority, she can't tell people to just remove classification markings (that others put there) and send unclassified since they are having problems with the classified fax machine. This is breaking the law. Also, BECAUSE she is a classification authority, she should have been able to tell that the TS emails were not supposed to be emailed on the public internet. By the accounts I have seen, she received HUMINT, which is ALWAYS TS/HCS, not ever Unclassified.
You're also speculating here: "If she...". If you killed someone because they had different opinions of Clinton than you do, then you'd be a murderer.
As I am not a part of the investigation, and they haven't said if she sent emails that were classified or not, I can only speculate on that point. It isn't required for her to have broken laws, but it helps to pin that SHE sent classified emails, not one of her underlings.
You're also speculating on her intentions and what subpoenas actually do. If I were running an enterprise, and my emails for 2014 were subpoenaed, I'd hand over the ones for 2014.
The problem is, she sent over half the emails from 2014, claiming that the rest were personal email.
Look at the size of the piles, there is no reason that there should have been that much of a difference in the number of emails she sent like that. The only reason for that difference is that Hillary didn't hand over emails that were related because they made her look bad.
You don't even have to believe me, believe the inspector general of the state department about the email server:
At this point, if you still see nothing wrong with what she did, as Trump put it, she could murder someone on main street, and you would still cheer her on. She HAS broken the law, there is no doubt about it, the doubt is whether she will be charged before November, and if she isn't, it has more to do with politics than guilt.
In a hot environment which would be more useful, a fan? Or a swamp cooler? And why?
It depends on the relative humidity. When the humidity is low, swamp coolers work wonders, where the humidity is high, a fan might help, but AC is the solution.
What does this have anything to do with VWs engineering abilities though?
At Benghazi she repeatedly ignored requests for security upgrades for a year, and ignored an active riot condition where they were requesting help for many hours instead telling the soldiers to hold back. Also, because of her personal email server, she was able to delay, and conceal any evidence of her wrongdoing. The concealing was so bad that the congressperson was able to show that she hid around 9/10 of the emails having to do with it.
As far as the email server, it literally broke the law. There are laws that define what records retension is required of a person who is in charge of the state department, she didn't follow them, and could be facing charges just for that. Encouraging people to remove classification markings from classified documents is just icing on the cake, and having the emails where she told her interns to do it, is just proof of a Felony. Receiving in email documents she should have known would be classified top secret and not reporting them is another Felony, but harder to prove. If she forwarded any of those emails on to anyone, that just adds to the charges.
If you honestly believe that she did no wrong, I'm sorry for you. She intentionally hid the emails about what happened in Benghazi by running her own email server, then when they requested the emails, rather than turning them over, she went through them and cleaned out "personal" emails. Last I checked, when you get a subpoena, you don't get to decide which emails apply to the court order.
Funny you say that, as that would be a good name for the White House while Bill was president. He was so presidential committing rape in the oval office.
BTW, it is called rape when you get sexual favors while being someone's superior. It is termed quid pro quo.
I'm waiting for Trump to announce Hillary as his running mate, and Hillary to announce the other way. That would make the whole election a great big troll.
Someone who thinks a small fraction of Apple users listen to music? Yeah, the iTunes store is really hurting from all these users who don't listen to music on their headphones.
Read the username, he is always apologetic about anything Apple does wrong. My assumption is that macs4all is a paid employee of Apple and doesn't want to admit it.
I took my camera scuba diving with me, went well past its depth rating and got some great pictures, without any loss to the camera. Why can't I buy a phone like that? I would pay $$$$ for a phone I didn't have to worry about getting wet.
Slashdot Mirror
They are all rights guaranteed by the constitution. You are after all talking about taking away someone's rights because they were extrajudicially added to a list of people who might be bad people. What difference does it make after all? Religion could be thought to be dangerous too, as it is religion that is causing most of these attacks, so separating people from religion because they might be terrorists seems like a great idea. That way they can't radicalize others of the religion. /s (in case it isn't obvious).
That sir is a laughable prospect. The Russian people haven't ruled ever.
ISIS - Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
ISIL - Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Bull shit.
The second amendment right to bear arms is deligated to the PEOPLE, not the militia. Read the sentence, it is right there.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You see all that space between Militia and right, there is a reason for that, the right wasn't guaranteed to the Militia, but the people, and at that, all of them, including felons and the mentally unstable.
How about if we take away their right to practice a religion, or speak in public because they are on a no-fly list too? After all you think taking away rights due to someone being on a list because someone thought they might be a bad guy, is acceptable.
Because perfectly functional militia isn't required for gun ownership, but gun ownership is required for a functional (what well regulated means) militia.
I bought my truck to be able to tow, but that isn't the only reason I bought a truck.
"The need to tow trailers being important to me, I bought a truck"
Does that sentence really say to you that the only reason to buy a truck is to tow trailers? That is what you just typed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Considering the Militia was all men 17-45, and well regulated meant that it would work, how does that restrict anything about the right of the people and not the militia to own guns?
No one is against sensible gun laws. The problem is your definition of sensible is not the same as 90% of the American citizenry.
Actually, in the times of the founders, there was a standing army, it was called the continental army.
The most destructive arm of the day when the second was envisioned was a cannon. Most of the cannon in the revolutionary war were privately owned in fact. Would you try to claim that a cannon is less destructive than a modern AR-15?
https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...
According to that article, a 12 pounder in the napoleonic period could reasonably be expected to take out 36 people...with a single shot. Not sure why you would think that the arms in the revolutionary war would be less effective than the arms allowed to your average person today, after all, the Orlando night club shooter took out 49 people, heck, that is less than two shots of an old time cannon.
I do know that thirteen investigations by a hostile Congress turned up no wrongdoing, and I find that pretty convincing.
None of the investigations had access to her emails because she had them on a private server. How do you do an investigation when you have no information to use to investigate?
As far as the email server went, which specific law did it break?
https://www.archives.gov/about...
I know it would be illegal now.
It was just as illegal back then.
Clinton had some classification authority, and telling her staff to send a classified document by unclassified channels strikes me as a judgment call she probably had the authority to make.
As a classification authority, she can't tell people to just remove classification markings (that others put there) and send unclassified since they are having problems with the classified fax machine. This is breaking the law.
Also, BECAUSE she is a classification authority, she should have been able to tell that the TS emails were not supposed to be emailed on the public internet. By the accounts I have seen, she received HUMINT, which is ALWAYS TS/HCS, not ever Unclassified.
You're also speculating here: "If she...". If you killed someone because they had different opinions of Clinton than you do, then you'd be a murderer.
As I am not a part of the investigation, and they haven't said if she sent emails that were classified or not, I can only speculate on that point. It isn't required for her to have broken laws, but it helps to pin that SHE sent classified emails, not one of her underlings.
You're also speculating on her intentions and what subpoenas actually do. If I were running an enterprise, and my emails for 2014 were subpoenaed, I'd hand over the ones for 2014.
The problem is, she sent over half the emails from 2014, claiming that the rest were personal email.
Also, the problem is:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...
Look at the size of the piles, there is no reason that there should have been that much of a difference in the number of emails she sent like that. The only reason for that difference is that Hillary didn't hand over emails that were related because they made her look bad.
You don't even have to believe me, believe the inspector general of the state department about the email server:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
At this point, if you still see nothing wrong with what she did, as Trump put it, she could murder someone on main street, and you would still cheer her on. She HAS broken the law, there is no doubt about it, the doubt is whether she will be charged before November, and if she isn't, it has more to do with politics than guilt.
Streaming and playing JPEGs? You do realize that JPEG is a static image format, not a video format don't you?
Exactly, there are currently 4 declared candidates (though Trump and Hillary are not actually the candidates yet, they are pretty much there).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I much prefer Johnson, though some of the stuff he says is pretty out there.
Feel the Johnson!
What you responded didn't make any sense.
In a hot environment which would be more useful, a fan? Or a swamp cooler? And why?
It depends on the relative humidity. When the humidity is low, swamp coolers work wonders, where the humidity is high, a fan might help, but AC is the solution.
What does this have anything to do with VWs engineering abilities though?
At Benghazi she repeatedly ignored requests for security upgrades for a year, and ignored an active riot condition where they were requesting help for many hours instead telling the soldiers to hold back. Also, because of her personal email server, she was able to delay, and conceal any evidence of her wrongdoing. The concealing was so bad that the congressperson was able to show that she hid around 9/10 of the emails having to do with it.
As far as the email server, it literally broke the law. There are laws that define what records retension is required of a person who is in charge of the state department, she didn't follow them, and could be facing charges just for that. Encouraging people to remove classification markings from classified documents is just icing on the cake, and having the emails where she told her interns to do it, is just proof of a Felony. Receiving in email documents she should have known would be classified top secret and not reporting them is another Felony, but harder to prove. If she forwarded any of those emails on to anyone, that just adds to the charges.
If you honestly believe that she did no wrong, I'm sorry for you. She intentionally hid the emails about what happened in Benghazi by running her own email server, then when they requested the emails, rather than turning them over, she went through them and cleaned out "personal" emails. Last I checked, when you get a subpoena, you don't get to decide which emails apply to the court order.
I would write a review of any hardware I was given, sounds like a fair trade to me. Where do I sign up?
Big Brothel
Funny you say that, as that would be a good name for the White House while Bill was president. He was so presidential committing rape in the oval office.
BTW, it is called rape when you get sexual favors while being someone's superior. It is termed quid pro quo.
I'm waiting for Trump to announce Hillary as his running mate, and Hillary to announce the other way. That would make the whole election a great big troll.
Microsoft proved it could be done far earlier than Apple. Apple didn't invent the smartphone, they improved it.
Someone who thinks a small fraction of Apple users listen to music? Yeah, the iTunes store is really hurting from all these users who don't listen to music on their headphones.
I use a set of these with my Nexus when working out, they work great.
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/pr...
You have gigabit (as you say above) from FiOS? Funny, the fastest I have ever seen advertised is 300 Mb.
I would suggest you look into why your connection is shitty than.
Read the username, he is always apologetic about anything Apple does wrong. My assumption is that macs4all is a paid employee of Apple and doesn't want to admit it.
Kyocera Brigadier...unfortunately I lost mine to a cracked screen.
Camping, swimming, diving, etc?
I took my camera scuba diving with me, went well past its depth rating and got some great pictures, without any loss to the camera. Why can't I buy a phone like that? I would pay $$$$ for a phone I didn't have to worry about getting wet.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/fu...
Took it to 100 ft..no issue at all.
It isn't like waterproofing is hard, just put the connectors behind sealing covers, or have no connectors and charge with wireless technology.