Well, I was told to stop over by my second cousin's wife's brother-in-law's (from a previous marriage, first husband died in a tragic fire in his double-wide, they said it was a gas leak, the insurance company disagrees, they think he was running a meth lab, it's still in litigation) nephew's friend that works over in the Kansas City DMV and drives the special ed kids to class in the morning. He's quite the social butterfly and a real snappy dresser and a great dancer. He's hoping to get on that TV show, you know, the one with all those famous people?
"conversation" heh, yeah, you're a real Aristotle there.. I feel so inadequate. All this "fake news" stuff is so new to me.(well not really but I don't know that either)
*pat on the head and rubbing my stomach* I can even walk and chew gum, at the same time And I haven't wet the bed for over a week now. I feel special!
So you think that anyone who has the money should be allowed to try and corrupt the system, get special favors, subvert democracy...
They can try. Democracy does not have to let itself get subverted. That would only happen if the bribes are accepted. If they are not accepted, or if the politician accepting a bribe loses the election, democracy triumphs. Isn't that a good thing, to see democracy stand strong in the face of temptation?
...or escape the consequences of their actions.
What are the consequences of a rejected bribe?
The bad news is that people like you, yes YOU are the reason that attempted bribery is illegal.
That is illogical. I'm old, but not that old. Bribery was made illegal long before I was born. And all it did was to protect people of weak character who have no business being in a position of authority. This is by design so the powerful authoritarian doesn't risk exposing themselves as weak and corrupt.
The good news is that you're gonna love our new president!
Wrong. I do not care for him at all. He did not get my vote. On the other hand I have to wait to see what he does after he takes office.
The solution to the issue is to vote for the people with a strong enough will to resist, not some namby pamby that whines *the devil made me do it* while stuffing his pockets. And then democracy will not be subverted. As it stands democracy is being subverted by people who take bribes and are rewarded with reelection to office. Ultimately it's the voters who are the ones subverting it. Of course that truth they find unacceptable, but like it or not, the truth is the truth, plain as day. And I'm sure this is why I am meeting so much resistance over the matter. Introspection is hard... The mirror can be pretty harsh
Regardless, does anybody see what obsessing over a silly tape (as opposed to evidence of an actual assault) cost in terms of the election? Passed you right by it did. I mean, did you want to lose it? Just as good really, it would have been a far bigger loss if real issues were at the forefront. I guess the democrats needed the distraction, like using Monica to derail the Whitewater investigation away from actionable charges. Kinda of a reverse *wag the dog* thing.
You mean "The Clinton Foundation's" proceeds of a criminal enterprise?
No, I mean the DNC (democratic party), though the Clinton foundation is also a part of that. Don't believe for even a microsecond that the money is beginning to dry up. Quite the contrary.
As for Snowden, he's not jeopardizing anything. They are just milking the name, which could be entirely fictional itself, fake news to keep the 'liberals' attached to mass media.
I don't credit Clinton with any special intellect in this area.
Maybe you should. This is her legacy. To the people who count, including HK, this matters a lot. And she still has this power.
Did you ever play "Balance of Power" back in the 80s/90s?
No, did you see how Brzezinski and Carter defeated the Soviet Union? What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Not that I agree really, but I would say Clinton was following through on that plan very well. And to tell the truth, I'm not sure if the thousand years of war between Europe and Russia is really over.
I don't like her, and would never vote for her (even less so, Trump), but there is something there... And it would be unwise to dismiss her out of hand.
Clinton carries the same knowledge as Kissinger (and for the most part the same opinion. The last 45 years has been his (and Brzezinski's) show. Hell, they set up many of the struggles between nations, take Afghanistan, please), and he thinks very highly of her. They are a matched set. In foreign affairs Trump will indeed consult with her. Remember, these are very close friends. Pay no attention to the campaign theatrics. It was more fake than any of the news stories that went out. They all deserve Emmys. Let's not be deluded by emotion and personal feelings.
Sorry, sets off too many alarms. We need to protect ourselves from that kind of crap. We are dealing with psychopathic authority, and the only proper solution is just not palatable to most people.
Then attempted murder must be a bullshit charge too, eh?
Bribery is a consensual thing. No force required. A little less conflation is due here. Your analogies do not apply.
I'm finding this a bit fatiguing and will concede the argument to you, the majority.. but I will continue evangelizing the truth on the desires of the flesh, in a completely non denominational/secular fashion of course. I'm not ready to believe in ghosts quite yet.
This would go a lot farther if they tried to develop low latency ad hoc (neural?) networking ultimately linking to the nearest municipal backbone. Then they could simultaneously deal with the ongoing ISP problem that plagues virtually all users of the internet.
I don't know why you keep going on about the "For the love of money" quote, since I never mentioned it at or made reference to it.
Of course you don't mention it, or even notice it, I would have to say intentionally. It blows your entire belief on the subject right out of the water, so you have to ignore it. The entire idea of resisting temptation seems to go completely over your head. And I'm telling you that you have it completely backwards. The desire is what gives an inanimate object its power. Without it there is nothing. The motivation to act is strictly personal. What you are saying is *the devil made me do it*. That, sir, is a mistake, even if it does sell, which it does, and the law reflects that erroneous belief to its own detriment if it wants respect.
they wouldn't do that if they didn't think it mattered.
It matters only because there is a desire which they can count on. Without it they would be out of business. It up to the voters to stop rewarding that desire. Only then will the problem go away, not a moment before.
By the way, that hunger thing is a horrible analogy. People need food to live, they don't need pallets full of money.
Well, I guess you can blow off the rest of the post as you see fit, nothing I can do. Marijuana is illegal too. That doesn't make the law right. Attempted bribery is a bullshit charge, just like possession of the 'evil weed'.
Oh, you mean quit calling out the main motivator and the root of the problem?... I'm pointing out the elephant in the room.
Money has no value of its own. The desire (the love of...) is the motivator, precisely what the quote says and exactly the opposite of what you are pointing out. Without the love of money, the lobbyists have no power at all. Their entire exploit is based on that.
I have to thank you for clarifying why the system is what it is. It confirms so eloquently and succinctly the simplicity of all things. If I stand alone, so be it, but I don't believe that's the case. Transcendence of our animal nature is still so far into the future, if at all.
As for the question of the article, the answer is no. In fact DNS itself is something else we need to transcend, along with the entire server/client nature of computer networking. Gotta go ad hoc.
It's called self discipline, or self control, moral and ethical.
*The law is an ass - an idiot.* The law, and you apparently, choose expedience, and a form of censorship that should never be tolerated. There is nothing sensible about it.
Attempted bribery that is rejected in nothing. It is meaningless. The entire crime is in its acceptance.
And evidently you decided to wave off the passage I quoted for you, so maybe that is why you find no moral or ethical standard in it. For me and the person who wrote it, and probably one or two other people, the standard is quite clear.
You can vote for people who have the moral/ethical self control to turn their backs, they do exist, and the value of the money evaporates into thin air. But you have to take the initiative and seek them out. The people that advertise for the job are most frequently the least qualified for it, as you will soon find out in spades.
The guy who pulls the trigger is the killer, not the guy who pays him. The guy who takes the bribe is the 'evil' one, not the guy who offers it. Temptation is one thing, the failure to resist is much worse. That's what is supposed to get you kicked out of the garden.The voters are rewarding the failure to resist. They are the ones being 'bribed' with false promises, and selling their votes to the highest bidder. And they are the ones deflecting the blame to the object of desire. This bit of truth they find unacceptable and thus will lash out against those who reveal it (for those keeping score in this thread).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I was told to stop over by my second cousin's wife's brother-in-law's (from a previous marriage, first husband died in a tragic fire in his double-wide, they said it was a gas leak, the insurance company disagrees, they think he was running a meth lab, it's still in litigation) nephew's friend that works over in the Kansas City DMV and drives the special ed kids to class in the morning. He's quite the social butterfly and a real snappy dresser and a great dancer. He's hoping to get on that TV show, you know, the one with all those famous people?
"conversation" heh, yeah, you're a real Aristotle there.. I feel so inadequate. All this "fake news" stuff is so new to me.(well not really but I don't know that either)
*pat on the head and rubbing my stomach* I can even walk and chew gum, at the same time And I haven't wet the bed for over a week now. I feel special!
What's a "far left"? Is that three rights?
So you think that anyone who has the money should be allowed to try and corrupt the system, get special favors, subvert democracy...
They can try. Democracy does not have to let itself get subverted. That would only happen if the bribes are accepted. If they are not accepted, or if the politician accepting a bribe loses the election, democracy triumphs. Isn't that a good thing, to see democracy stand strong in the face of temptation?
What are the consequences of a rejected bribe?
The bad news is that people like you, yes YOU are the reason that attempted bribery is illegal.
That is illogical. I'm old, but not that old. Bribery was made illegal long before I was born. And all it did was to protect people of weak character who have no business being in a position of authority. This is by design so the powerful authoritarian doesn't risk exposing themselves as weak and corrupt.
The good news is that you're gonna love our new president!
Wrong. I do not care for him at all. He did not get my vote. On the other hand I have to wait to see what he does after he takes office.
The solution to the issue is to vote for the people with a strong enough will to resist, not some namby pamby that whines *the devil made me do it* while stuffing his pockets. And then democracy will not be subverted. As it stands democracy is being subverted by people who take bribes and are rewarded with reelection to office. Ultimately it's the voters who are the ones subverting it. Of course that truth they find unacceptable, but like it or not, the truth is the truth, plain as day. And I'm sure this is why I am meeting so much resistance over the matter. Introspection is hard... The mirror can be pretty harsh
Regardless, does anybody see what obsessing over a silly tape (as opposed to evidence of an actual assault) cost in terms of the election? Passed you right by it did. I mean, did you want to lose it? Just as good really, it would have been a far bigger loss if real issues were at the forefront. I guess the democrats needed the distraction, like using Monica to derail the Whitewater investigation away from actionable charges. Kinda of a reverse *wag the dog* thing.
Since the big "upset", probably sooner than later. Everything is so overpriced, except human labor.
You mean "The Clinton Foundation's" proceeds of a criminal enterprise?
No, I mean the DNC (democratic party), though the Clinton foundation is also a part of that. Don't believe for even a microsecond that the money is beginning to dry up. Quite the contrary.
As for Snowden, he's not jeopardizing anything. They are just milking the name, which could be entirely fictional itself, fake news to keep the 'liberals' attached to mass media.
I don't credit Clinton with any special intellect in this area.
Maybe you should. This is her legacy. To the people who count, including HK, this matters a lot. And she still has this power.
Did you ever play "Balance of Power" back in the 80s/90s?
No, did you see how Brzezinski and Carter defeated the Soviet Union? What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Not that I agree really, but I would say Clinton was following through on that plan very well. And to tell the truth, I'm not sure if the thousand years of war between Europe and Russia is really over.
I don't like her, and would never vote for her (even less so, Trump), but there is something there... And it would be unwise to dismiss her out of hand.
China, and other governments/corporations that finance terrorism and fake news impel greater global circumvention of their attempted curbs.
So there!
I doubt Trump cares much what Clinton thinks.
Clinton carries the same knowledge as Kissinger (and for the most part the same opinion. The last 45 years has been his (and Brzezinski's) show. Hell, they set up many of the struggles between nations, take Afghanistan, please), and he thinks very highly of her. They are a matched set. In foreign affairs Trump will indeed consult with her. Remember, these are very close friends. Pay no attention to the campaign theatrics. It was more fake than any of the news stories that went out. They all deserve Emmys. Let's not be deluded by emotion and personal feelings.
Do you still maintain that offering a bribe isn't illegal?
Illegal it is, but unjustly so.
Even from beyond the "grave" they just have too much influence.
plausible suspicition
Sorry, sets off too many alarms. We need to protect ourselves from that kind of crap. We are dealing with psychopathic authority, and the only proper solution is just not palatable to most people.
Jesse Jackson sez...
they're washed up in politics and it's really not worth it.
That's just not true. They are drowning in money. The flow has not dwindled one bit.
And Trump will need her advice once Kissinger kicks the bucket.
Regardless, 0 - 60 in 2.4 seconds ain't too shabby. Time to test the brakes...
Spam sells too :-) You win!
Then attempted murder must be a bullshit charge too, eh?
Bribery is a consensual thing. No force required. A little less conflation is due here. Your analogies do not apply.
I'm finding this a bit fatiguing and will concede the argument to you, the majority.. but I will continue evangelizing the truth on the desires of the flesh, in a completely non denominational/secular fashion of course. I'm not ready to believe in ghosts quite yet.
The battery slowly swelled up and busted the case.
This would go a lot farther if they tried to develop low latency ad hoc (neural?) networking ultimately linking to the nearest municipal backbone. Then they could simultaneously deal with the ongoing ISP problem that plagues virtually all users of the internet.
I don't know why you keep going on about the "For the love of money" quote, since I never mentioned it at or made reference to it.
Of course you don't mention it, or even notice it, I would have to say intentionally. It blows your entire belief on the subject right out of the water, so you have to ignore it. The entire idea of resisting temptation seems to go completely over your head. And I'm telling you that you have it completely backwards. The desire is what gives an inanimate object its power. Without it there is nothing. The motivation to act is strictly personal. What you are saying is *the devil made me do it*. That, sir, is a mistake, even if it does sell, which it does, and the law reflects that erroneous belief to its own detriment if it wants respect.
they wouldn't do that if they didn't think it mattered.
It matters only because there is a desire which they can count on. Without it they would be out of business. It up to the voters to stop rewarding that desire. Only then will the problem go away, not a moment before.
By the way, that hunger thing is a horrible analogy. People need food to live, they don't need pallets full of money.
Well, I guess you can blow off the rest of the post as you see fit, nothing I can do. Marijuana is illegal too. That doesn't make the law right. Attempted bribery is a bullshit charge, just like possession of the 'evil weed'.
He had to go public to correct the situation. Just like with security flaws, full disclosure is the only way, or it won't get fixed.
Oh, you mean quit calling out the main motivator and the root of the problem?... I'm pointing out the elephant in the room.
Money has no value of its own. The desire (the love of...) is the motivator, precisely what the quote says and exactly the opposite of what you are pointing out. Without the love of money, the lobbyists have no power at all. Their entire exploit is based on that.
I have to thank you for clarifying why the system is what it is. It confirms so eloquently and succinctly the simplicity of all things. If I stand alone, so be it, but I don't believe that's the case. Transcendence of our animal nature is still so far into the future, if at all.
As for the question of the article, the answer is no. In fact DNS itself is something else we need to transcend, along with the entire server/client nature of computer networking. Gotta go ad hoc.
It's called self discipline, or self control, moral and ethical.
*The law is an ass - an idiot.* The law, and you apparently, choose expedience, and a form of censorship that should never be tolerated. There is nothing sensible about it.
Attempted bribery that is rejected in nothing. It is meaningless. The entire crime is in its acceptance.
And evidently you decided to wave off the passage I quoted for you, so maybe that is why you find no moral or ethical standard in it. For me and the person who wrote it, and probably one or two other people, the standard is quite clear.
You can vote for people who have the moral/ethical self control to turn their backs, they do exist, and the value of the money evaporates into thin air. But you have to take the initiative and seek them out. The people that advertise for the job are most frequently the least qualified for it, as you will soon find out in spades.
The guy who pulls the trigger is the killer, not the guy who pays him. The guy who takes the bribe is the 'evil' one, not the guy who offers it. Temptation is one thing, the failure to resist is much worse. That's what is supposed to get you kicked out of the garden.The voters are rewarding the failure to resist. They are the ones being 'bribed' with false promises, and selling their votes to the highest bidder. And they are the ones deflecting the blame to the object of desire. This bit of truth they find unacceptable and thus will lash out against those who reveal it (for those keeping score in this thread).
49 - Chicago Cubs?!
So that's how they won! I knew it was rigged...
FYI: If you add up all the unions together in that list, they are pretty high up there.
Do you believe droughts are visited on states that vote Democrat?
Doubtful. But the AC's post is still kinda funny.