Yeah, people like you and Obama are playing the "Nuance" game, trying to blur the line between various levels of "Classification".
The sad truth is, there was information so sensitive that even FBI agents had to get special clearance to view it. Meanwhile you're trying to pretend that it was all Hillary's yoga instruction and wedding plans.
I dare say, that if this was a (R) SecState, they would be indicted already and threatened with execution for Treason. But this is the Clintons, who get a pass on everything from Rape to whatever.
I'm not suggesting that Clinton should or should not be indicted or tried, but for all its demonizing of Obama for trying to promote a narrative, this article is as bad or worse.
If you really support whatever Obama is spewing out of his mouth, and not actually looking at what the FBI and other agencies are saying about the actual information contained on the private and insecure email server, then you're just a partisan shill. There is a reason why the FBI is being meticulous in building an airtight case before even presenting it for consideration, and that is to get past the "nuanced" crap being spewed by Clinton and Obama.
Just like Bill's legacy is built on Monica, Obama and Hillary's legacy is being built on her trying to avoid public records keeping and Libya
If she adopted a bit of a southern drawl in front of white southerners, is it white-on-white racism?
Does she do New York, Jersey, Minnesota, Valley Girl and Boston accents too? Does she customize her southern for the regional varances such as Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas ? Does she pick up a Hispanic accent in Miami?
Having listened to the speeches in question, it was contrived.
1) is bullshit. Heat of "passion" is a crap of excuse. I once saw a dude beating up his girlfriend. I stopped my car, got out and got in between them. He said she made him mad and that is why he was beating her up. I pushed him really hard and asked him if that made him mad. He said yes. I sad why aren't you hitting me? It was because I was 9 inches taller and about 70 lbs of muscle more than him. People CAN control their passions, they just choose not to when there is no danger to them. It is also why I am a big defender of 2nd Amendment. Passions change when you're staring down the barrel of a Glock
2) Premeditated murder comes at a cost. If that cost actually was "death", there would be some incentive to not ever go through with it. And quite frankly, even if we don't have that exact number, it is greater than 0, and that is a deterrent.
3) Altered states is like driving drunk IMHO You didn't mean to, but you didn't mean not to as well. I have no sympathy for people here. (excluding Mental Illness)
4) Accidents, by definition aren't murder.
And you conveniently forget the murderers who commit additional murders once released. Death Penalty would definitely prevent (not deter) those.
Finally, you totally ignore self preservation as a motivation for anything. Which is why you're viewpoint is completely wrong. At least my view is principled, I oppose the death penalty on practical grounds, there are way too many ways our systems fail. My view is pragmatic and you are unable to sway my opinion with unprovable claims of deterrence and prevention (either which way) .
This will change when people who have their data exposed can sue both those that exposed the data, and those that buy/use it. We should quit trying to stop these assholes, and just try to take the profit out of their side of the equation.
Death Penalty isn't to deter crimes, though that may actually e a side benefit. It is actually a form of punishment. However, as sparingly used as it is, you might as well do away with it. Since often takes 20 years (or more) to get though the process of the death penalty it actually doesn't serve as punishment either, so you might as well do away with it. Since there are quite a number of people who have been convicted of crimes they didn't actually commit, you OUGHT to do away with it.
I do believe in the death penalty in theory, however I am opposed to it in practice. There are people who don't deserve to live, even in prison, however because of the problems with the system itself, I oppose it on practical grounds.
Name the last IRA bombing. Name the last Catholic murder. I have never heard of Maoists before today, and they are not of any religious belief (leadership may be Christian, but the revolution is all inclusive) . No looking it up on Wikipedia, or Google, off the top of your head. Go on.
The problem with people like yourself is that you have NO idea what you're spewing, you just are repeating something you heard without ANY facts to back it up. You believe it, because you WANT to believe it, and it suits your agenda, and not much more.
Or when Hillary changes her speech patterns when in front of a black audience, as if she were... black. I find that much more offensive than anything Trump has actually said/done. Mind you, he's done quite a bit to be offended by, but as long as you give a pass to Hilliary's speech impediment your just a partisan hack.
Trump should sell chalk with that etched into it. We could cause all sorts of havoc on colleges across this land. The snowflakes would simply go apoplectic.
Actually, win or lose he will likely tear apart the (R) party. My only hope is that most of them end up Libertarian. And if we can get enough of the middle of the (D) party to go with them, then maybe we can get some sanity back into government.
rich get to set the laws, put their money in tax havens, get all the resources, and the poor are just left to die.
Because we have so many dead poor people these days!
I am personally for a system, of fairness, where there is a reasonable chance if you work hard, you have a chance to succeed.
We call that opportunity. You have a right to have the opportunity to succeed, but equality requires a equal opportunity to fail. Which is where you have problems. If you remove the failure part, you're necessarily affecting the ability to succeed. Which is where people like you fail to grasp to cause / effect of your ideals.
You can't have the chance to be an Olympic Athlete in a world that has only participation trophies.
inequalities exist. Being human has nothing to do with being forced to do things, because others want to spend your money for you. Empathy is emotion and just like acting when I am angry, I don't necessarily have to act when I am being Empathetic. Sometimes the BEST thing to do for a person is nothing. Which goes against just about every liberal tenant there is.
Yes, life is a struggle, and we all need help at some time or another. And sometimes, when we want help, we shouldn't be getting any, because the struggle is what makes life worth living.
The implied understanding is that income inequality is the root cause for differences in lifespan, when it might be intelligence (decision making ability). By this, it might mean those that are poor, make poor life decisions, like drugs, smoking, and other reckless behavior.
The other implication is, that if we normalize life spans for everyone by redistributing wealth, we'll all have longer lifespans. But that is not likely be true either, as we may just be shortening some lifespans while not increasing them for the others.
And as they don't account for these thigns, I'll just add it to the list of arguments under "correlation doesn't equal causation" and give them a copy of the Dihydrogen Momnoxie danger sheet.
There is nobody here that owned slaves, knows anyone that was or owned slaves, probably several more generations more.
I have relatives alive today who are in their 80s and 90s, whose grandfather or grandmother was born a slave in the United States.
If you're going to be pedantic, at least do it according to the criteria i setup. "Here" being slashdot. and "several more generations" would definitely qualify as making your cases, if your case was against my initial statement, rather than the "probably", which would acknowledge the possibility of edge case scenario you described. My dad's father may have known owners or former slaves. I don't know, because I don't remember him. My dad, was born at a time when there were former slaves and slave owners, but I am pretty sure he didn't know any. And I am kind of young for my "generation", my dad being in his 40's when I was born.
Suffice it to say, my statements aren't false, they were emphasizing a real point. You being pedantic doesn't negate accuracy. Most people here are several generations removed from slavery. Again, quit pretending it was yesterday. With each subsequent generation that follows, the further we are removed.
At some point, you're going to have to realize that the problem isn't slavery, it is attitude. And from yours, I can tell you're not yet there. Nobody you know was a slave, or owned a slave. Your kids are likely to have the exact same experience. Are you passing your excuses on to them?
Are they a "Dragon" because they "self identify" that way? Can I refuse to give them a ride because I don't allow animals in my taxi? Will they get a "Service animal" identification so that they can avoid that scenario?
There is always going to be a case which breaks whatever rule you can think up. Which is why people's choices should be free from interference and they should suffer the consequences of those choices. That way, if you want to be a dragon lady, you can be, and I don't have to cater to your insanity.
mechanisms are in place to keep assholes from screwing it all up
Assholes, by definition, will screw everything up, as they love to push things to the breaking edge. That is what makes them an asshole in the first place. You can't have anti-asshole laws, without screwing it up for everyone else.
Your home bathroom is single person usage (typically) and has a lock on the door (typically). Gender neutral is fine, if it is single person usage. "Shared" bathrooms are a different case all together.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you need to read the NDA Hillary signed about such things, before you parrot the Hillary talking point about being "marked" classified.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-conte...
In simple terms you can understand, the markings are irrelevant. But keep repeating that line and it will become the truth, right?
There were emails and / or attachments that were marked as special access?
The markings are irrelevant. But keep parroting the Clinton line, it makes you look really smart.
Yeah, people like you and Obama are playing the "Nuance" game, trying to blur the line between various levels of "Classification".
The sad truth is, there was information so sensitive that even FBI agents had to get special clearance to view it. Meanwhile you're trying to pretend that it was all Hillary's yoga instruction and wedding plans.
I dare say, that if this was a (R) SecState, they would be indicted already and threatened with execution for Treason. But this is the Clintons, who get a pass on everything from Rape to whatever.
I'm not suggesting that Clinton should or should not be indicted or tried, but for all its demonizing of Obama for trying to promote a narrative, this article is as bad or worse.
If you really support whatever Obama is spewing out of his mouth, and not actually looking at what the FBI and other agencies are saying about the actual information contained on the private and insecure email server, then you're just a partisan shill. There is a reason why the FBI is being meticulous in building an airtight case before even presenting it for consideration, and that is to get past the "nuanced" crap being spewed by Clinton and Obama.
Just like Bill's legacy is built on Monica, Obama and Hillary's legacy is being built on her trying to avoid public records keeping and Libya
If she adopted a bit of a southern drawl in front of white southerners, is it white-on-white racism?
Does she do New York, Jersey, Minnesota, Valley Girl and Boston accents too? Does she customize her southern for the regional varances such as Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas ? Does she pick up a Hispanic accent in Miami?
Having listened to the speeches in question, it was contrived.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The governments are among the biggest data collectors and they have just recently shown just how good they are at protecting it.
And this is tyranny. Nothing less. And yet, many people continue to support it. Something about the devil you know vs the devil you don't.
1) is bullshit. Heat of "passion" is a crap of excuse. I once saw a dude beating up his girlfriend. I stopped my car, got out and got in between them. He said she made him mad and that is why he was beating her up. I pushed him really hard and asked him if that made him mad. He said yes. I sad why aren't you hitting me? It was because I was 9 inches taller and about 70 lbs of muscle more than him. People CAN control their passions, they just choose not to when there is no danger to them. It is also why I am a big defender of 2nd Amendment. Passions change when you're staring down the barrel of a Glock
2) Premeditated murder comes at a cost. If that cost actually was "death", there would be some incentive to not ever go through with it. And quite frankly, even if we don't have that exact number, it is greater than 0, and that is a deterrent.
3) Altered states is like driving drunk IMHO You didn't mean to, but you didn't mean not to as well. I have no sympathy for people here. (excluding Mental Illness)
4) Accidents, by definition aren't murder.
And you conveniently forget the murderers who commit additional murders once released. Death Penalty would definitely prevent (not deter) those.
Finally, you totally ignore self preservation as a motivation for anything. Which is why you're viewpoint is completely wrong. At least my view is principled, I oppose the death penalty on practical grounds, there are way too many ways our systems fail. My view is pragmatic and you are unable to sway my opinion with unprovable claims of deterrence and prevention (either which way) .
I forget, it is only Racist when someone not in the DNC does it. My bad.
This will change when people who have their data exposed can sue both those that exposed the data, and those that buy/use it. We should quit trying to stop these assholes, and just try to take the profit out of their side of the equation.
Death Penalty isn't to deter crimes, though that may actually e a side benefit. It is actually a form of punishment. However, as sparingly used as it is, you might as well do away with it. Since often takes 20 years (or more) to get though the process of the death penalty it actually doesn't serve as punishment either, so you might as well do away with it. Since there are quite a number of people who have been convicted of crimes they didn't actually commit, you OUGHT to do away with it.
I do believe in the death penalty in theory, however I am opposed to it in practice. There are people who don't deserve to live, even in prison, however because of the problems with the system itself, I oppose it on practical grounds.
You act as if they aren't the same.
Name the last IRA bombing. Name the last Catholic murder. I have never heard of Maoists before today, and they are not of any religious belief (leadership may be Christian, but the revolution is all inclusive) . No looking it up on Wikipedia, or Google, off the top of your head. Go on.
The problem with people like yourself is that you have NO idea what you're spewing, you just are repeating something you heard without ANY facts to back it up. You believe it, because you WANT to believe it, and it suits your agenda, and not much more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
9 out of 10 is about right. That makes it 90%.
Or when Hillary changes her speech patterns when in front of a black audience, as if she were ... black. I find that much more offensive than anything Trump has actually said/done. Mind you, he's done quite a bit to be offended by, but as long as you give a pass to Hilliary's speech impediment your just a partisan hack.
"Trump 2016"
Trump should sell chalk with that etched into it. We could cause all sorts of havoc on colleges across this land. The snowflakes would simply go apoplectic.
Actually, win or lose he will likely tear apart the (R) party. My only hope is that most of them end up Libertarian. And if we can get enough of the middle of the (D) party to go with them, then maybe we can get some sanity back into government.
Yeah, we're screwe4!
Until they are bankrupt, and their product lives on.
They should be able to go after ANYONE using that database(s).
rich get to set the laws, put their money in tax havens, get all the resources, and the poor are just left to die.
Because we have so many dead poor people these days!
I am personally for a system, of fairness, where there is a reasonable chance if you work hard, you have a chance to succeed.
We call that opportunity. You have a right to have the opportunity to succeed, but equality requires a equal opportunity to fail. Which is where you have problems. If you remove the failure part, you're necessarily affecting the ability to succeed. Which is where people like you fail to grasp to cause / effect of your ideals.
You can't have the chance to be an Olympic Athlete in a world that has only participation trophies.
inequalities exist. Being human has nothing to do with being forced to do things, because others want to spend your money for you. Empathy is emotion and just like acting when I am angry, I don't necessarily have to act when I am being Empathetic. Sometimes the BEST thing to do for a person is nothing. Which goes against just about every liberal tenant there is.
Yes, life is a struggle, and we all need help at some time or another. And sometimes, when we want help, we shouldn't be getting any, because the struggle is what makes life worth living.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The implied understanding is that income inequality is the root cause for differences in lifespan, when it might be intelligence (decision making ability). By this, it might mean those that are poor, make poor life decisions, like drugs, smoking, and other reckless behavior.
The other implication is, that if we normalize life spans for everyone by redistributing wealth, we'll all have longer lifespans. But that is not likely be true either, as we may just be shortening some lifespans while not increasing them for the others.
And as they don't account for these thigns, I'll just add it to the list of arguments under "correlation doesn't equal causation" and give them a copy of the Dihydrogen Momnoxie danger sheet.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
While MSFT isn't exactly FB in terms of profiting off compiling data about you ... yet
Remember the Scroogle Ad campaign? Well they are doing the very thing they said they weren't doing. They are now going after that market.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
There is nobody here that owned slaves, knows anyone that was or owned slaves, probably several more generations more.
I have relatives alive today who are in their 80s and 90s, whose grandfather or grandmother
was born a slave in the United States.
If you're going to be pedantic, at least do it according to the criteria i setup. "Here" being slashdot. and "several more generations" would definitely qualify as making your cases, if your case was against my initial statement, rather than the "probably", which would acknowledge the possibility of edge case scenario you described. My dad's father may have known owners or former slaves. I don't know, because I don't remember him. My dad, was born at a time when there were former slaves and slave owners, but I am pretty sure he didn't know any. And I am kind of young for my "generation", my dad being in his 40's when I was born.
Suffice it to say, my statements aren't false, they were emphasizing a real point. You being pedantic doesn't negate accuracy. Most people here are several generations removed from slavery. Again, quit pretending it was yesterday. With each subsequent generation that follows, the further we are removed.
At some point, you're going to have to realize that the problem isn't slavery, it is attitude. And from yours, I can tell you're not yet there. Nobody you know was a slave, or owned a slave. Your kids are likely to have the exact same experience. Are you passing your excuses on to them?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...
You realize that crying "Microagression" is itself a "Microagression". You should stop yourself.
What about the "Transgendered woman dragon"?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...
Are they a "Dragon" because they "self identify" that way? Can I refuse to give them a ride because I don't allow animals in my taxi? Will they get a "Service animal" identification so that they can avoid that scenario?
There is always going to be a case which breaks whatever rule you can think up. Which is why people's choices should be free from interference and they should suffer the consequences of those choices. That way, if you want to be a dragon lady, you can be, and I don't have to cater to your insanity.
mechanisms are in place to keep assholes from screwing it all up
Assholes, by definition, will screw everything up, as they love to push things to the breaking edge. That is what makes them an asshole in the first place. You can't have anti-asshole laws, without screwing it up for everyone else.
Your home bathroom is single person usage (typically) and has a lock on the door (typically). Gender neutral is fine, if it is single person usage. "Shared" bathrooms are a different case all together.