Yup, exactly. The part I have a problem with is hiding overseas. THAT is it. I understand why he ran, and in some ways don't blame him for doing so. But doing so diminished what he did.
Standing boldly is often very hard to do, especially when facing Treason charges for exposing the treason of the Dark Shadow Government.
And both Liberals/Democrats and Conservative/Republicans are part of that cabal, and Snowden's expose is one of the reasons I argue for a VERY limited government.
Any government that can give you everything you want, can take everything you have.
"“I have said I am not a supporter of gay marriage."
Said to get elected. ---- "I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married"
Changed his mind once elected. ---- "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"
I could go on all day. Of course, you'll suggest he became "enlightened" in the former case, and in the latter case you'll likely say something assumptive about motives and such
tweeted accusations that the prior administration broke federal law and did something so unethical that Congress is required to investigate
Actually it was the NYT that reported this, using classified sources as source material. DJT didn't say anything the NYT didn't already report on.
So, was the NYT reporting in error and factually false, or is Trump accurate for tweeting what the NYT actually reported? These are directly related points. Liberals want it both way, but in doing so, are exposing their own hyperbole is nothing more than the hot air they think Trump is tweeting.
PRESS: "Donald Trump was wiretapped in an ongoing investigation into ties to Russia"
Trump: "I was wiretapped!!!!"
PRESS: "Donald Trump Unhinged! Claims he was Spied On. Unfounded!!!!"
It is actually funny seeing the same NYT "reporter" reporting "Donald Trump was Wiretapped" and "Donald Trump wasn't wiretapped". Liberals can quote both, and believe both simultaneously
His supporters understand this, and don't mind when he is factually wrong because they understand he is a bullshit artist. They just think he's their bullshit artist.
This is exactly right. The same kind of bullshit Obama used to spew, and the left understood he was "lying" in order to "progress" the narrative. All good leaders do this. Get caught in a lie, tell and even BIGGER lie that everyone already knows is a lie, and nobody remembers the previous lie, which was actually worse than the HUGE lie they just told.
Obama was just smoother at lying than Trump. They both play the game well.
People believing the lying liar James Clapper about anything are idiots. He was already caught bald face lying to congress. Why isn't he in jail already?
You are under the delusion that Trump wasn't wiretapped, when the NYT said he was, before they claimed he wasn't (By the same "reporter no less).
You have got to hand it to the liberals, they can cite sources no matter what side of the fence they need to be on. And it is often the same "unnamed" sources.
Unlike WikiLeaks, which provides actual documentation to their allegations, the only "proof" anyone has of Trump doing anything is leaked classified documents that show... he was indeed being spied upon.
While I am not a supporter of Trump, I am enjoying the lastest round of "Russians hacked the Elections" becoming "Uh sorry, there was no hacking of the Elections because that would point fingers at the CIA, FBI and the rest of the Dark Shadow Government".
As bad as the liberals want to get Trump, what they are in fact doing is exposing that our elected people aren't actually running anything anymore, its just the dark operatives feeding disinformation to the media.
Consider this, the whole "It was the Russians hacking the election" is nothing more than false flag operation by the Deep Dark Government against our elected officials. THAT should terrify everyone, but liberals are "derp derp derp TRUMP BAD!!!!!!!"
Just and FYI, most of the commercial product hacks are known. There is very little security on IoT devices, including "smart" TVs that it is trivial to compromise one. And I've seen active "hacks" of vehicles in videos, not quite as trivial as IoT devices,
In general, I already suspected much of what was revealed by WikiLeaks, even if I couldn't actually prove it. Most of the IT people I am familiar with, understood the possibility and even the likelihood that the tools existed, and weren't surprised when WikiLeaks said as much.
Most people don't want to know how deep the surveillance state goes. Very few of us are terrified of it.
I am not sure that WikiLeaks is partisan issue at all. The Republicans hated it when it was leaking stuff they wanted hid (and the Democrats loved it), now the shoe is on the other foot, and the roles are reversed. I have said in the past, when people ask me how I view Snowden, I say he is a Traitorous Hero. They have no concept that he can legitimately be both Hero and Traitor. Such is the world painted with only black and whites.
Which is why I find the whole (R) good/bad (D) bad/good arguments amusing.
Perhaps there were real security concerns vis a vis
Irrelevant and completely subjective. Where was this "concern" when Hillary ran her unpatched and protected private email server that was "less secure than Gmail"?
I'm sorry, but I have a VERY hard time believing anything coming from the Dark Shadow Government. Remember, it was Clapper who said they didn't collect any data on any US citizen, only to have it come out that they collect a shit ton of data on everyone, not just those they are "watching".
These people will lie with a straight face, and believe that they are entitled to lie about lying. AND if you trust your government still, you're just not paying attention or are so partisan that Trump could cure cancer and you'd have a conniption fit about it being from a Nazi or some shit.
This is it in a nutshell. You can "Like" and "Share" and "Reblog" and... all you want, it doesn't create meaninful relationships upon which we build cherished memories.
Something even Facebook seems to know, by suggesting you "re-post" from "year ago" some significant (or meaningless) life event.
I don't live on social media, but I probably spend way too much time there.
AGW is a proven fact, the Consensus Opinion of Scientists says so.
Please note, I am not saying AGW is false, I'm simply saying that consensus opinion is masquerading as "fact" in the biggest science debate, and yet nobody seems to notice.
They all are hypocrites. All of them. Believing your side is free from Hypocrisy, or that it is "less" hypocritical is just you justifying hypocrisy in your favor, and not excusing it when it is the other guy. Which is the real definition of hypocrisy.
If what Pence did was so horrible by liberal standards, then what Hillary did was beyond horrible, being Secretary of State and having State secrets on her PRIVATE email server. Keep in mind, this is not a public server (like AOL) in Pence's case, but "Private" one. Which actually shows a greater lack of competence.
The problem with Hillary is, that everything she did was actually worse than whatever hypocrisy the Republicans are being accused of. Being hypocritical in Washington is now considered a job requirement.
As bad as Trump is, Hillary is equally horrible. No, there is no scenario where Hillary is actually better than Trump. Anyone claiming there is, is simply delusional.
how many interactions in what sort of period would count? If CEO of Apple worked in an apple store for an hour a month, would that suffice? How about a small wood shop, where the "owner" is behind the machine most of the day? For every example of defining you come up with, I can find a loophole that shows it is nothing but emotional encumbrances that you're applying.
I don't know how to effectively translate that into tax policy, though.
Fair enough, but that is kind of my point. People have all sorts of "good ideas" that sound good, feel good, but when it comes to practice are really a bunch of regulations that people will seek to avoid whenever / wherever possible. That is the one thing socialist progressives never really figure out.
Inadvertent assertion of my point. "make up" is completely correct. Arbitrary distinctions I am sure, which will affect some "Small" corporations while leave some "big" corporations free and clear of entanglements.
Exactly when does a small corporation become "big"? How does one write a law that deals with only size differences without affecting (adversely, no unintended consequences) the smaller mom and pop corporations?
Basically, what you said is nominally true, but there is no way for you to distinguish between size differences in any meaningful way... besides "size". And size doesn't make one "evil" (as hinted at by the GP post).
And if you want to save your "local community" there is practically no way to do that in today's world. Every corporation has employees that are affected by business decisions. I would dare say, that many (most even) mom n pop operators make critical errors at a much higher rate than the larger corps do. Those often lead to closures and the entire workforce being laid off. Size only hides the problems or makes them seem worse than they really are.
What you say is effective if you ignore everything that you ignore.
The problem I have with cases as you present, is that there is no definitive definition of "Big" vs Mom n Pop. How many locations becomes "big"???
Big Bad Corporations are exactly the same as small mom n pop stores. But idiot socialists don't understand the basics of economics so they don't know (and don't care)
Cut the Mega Corporations off? And all those people that work for them just became poor. Causing more unemployment and more stagflation and the rich will move their assets to other places that create wealth. In the meantime, you've solved nothing, and created more problems.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/new...
IT was on the NYT, they edited the story once it was revealed the consequences of that headline. Edited "News" is "fake" news.
Yup, exactly. The part I have a problem with is hiding overseas. THAT is it. I understand why he ran, and in some ways don't blame him for doing so. But doing so diminished what he did.
Standing boldly is often very hard to do, especially when facing Treason charges for exposing the treason of the Dark Shadow Government.
And both Liberals/Democrats and Conservative/Republicans are part of that cabal, and Snowden's expose is one of the reasons I argue for a VERY limited government.
Any government that can give you everything you want, can take everything you have.
Please, give me an example of Obama doing this
"“I have said I am not a supporter of gay marriage."
Said to get elected.
----
"I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married"
Changed his mind once elected.
----
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"
I could go on all day. Of course, you'll suggest he became "enlightened" in the former case, and in the latter case you'll likely say something assumptive about motives and such
tweeted accusations that the prior administration broke federal law and did something so unethical that Congress is required to investigate
Actually it was the NYT that reported this, using classified sources as source material. DJT didn't say anything the NYT didn't already report on.
So, was the NYT reporting in error and factually false, or is Trump accurate for tweeting what the NYT actually reported? These are directly related points. Liberals want it both way, but in doing so, are exposing their own hyperbole is nothing more than the hot air they think Trump is tweeting.
Summary
PRESS: "Donald Trump was wiretapped in an ongoing investigation into ties to Russia"
Trump: "I was wiretapped!!!!"
PRESS: "Donald Trump Unhinged! Claims he was Spied On. Unfounded!!!!"
It is actually funny seeing the same NYT "reporter" reporting "Donald Trump was Wiretapped" and "Donald Trump wasn't wiretapped". Liberals can quote both, and believe both simultaneously
His supporters understand this, and don't mind when he is factually wrong because they understand he is a bullshit artist. They just think he's their bullshit artist.
This is exactly right. The same kind of bullshit Obama used to spew, and the left understood he was "lying" in order to "progress" the narrative. All good leaders do this. Get caught in a lie, tell and even BIGGER lie that everyone already knows is a lie, and nobody remembers the previous lie, which was actually worse than the HUGE lie they just told.
Obama was just smoother at lying than Trump. They both play the game well.
People believing the lying liar James Clapper about anything are idiots. He was already caught bald face lying to congress. Why isn't he in jail already?
You are under the delusion that Trump wasn't wiretapped, when the NYT said he was, before they claimed he wasn't (By the same "reporter no less).
You have got to hand it to the liberals, they can cite sources no matter what side of the fence they need to be on. And it is often the same "unnamed" sources.
Unlike WikiLeaks, which provides actual documentation to their allegations, the only "proof" anyone has of Trump doing anything is leaked classified documents that show ... he was indeed being spied upon.
While I am not a supporter of Trump, I am enjoying the lastest round of "Russians hacked the Elections" becoming "Uh sorry, there was no hacking of the Elections because that would point fingers at the CIA, FBI and the rest of the Dark Shadow Government".
As bad as the liberals want to get Trump, what they are in fact doing is exposing that our elected people aren't actually running anything anymore, its just the dark operatives feeding disinformation to the media.
THIS!
Consider this, the whole "It was the Russians hacking the election" is nothing more than false flag operation by the Deep Dark Government against our elected officials. THAT should terrify everyone, but liberals are "derp derp derp TRUMP BAD!!!!!!!"
So, what you're saying is the the whole "It was the Russians" line given to us by the surveillance state (17 agencies) is ... not true???
Say it ain't so!
Just and FYI, most of the commercial product hacks are known. There is very little security on IoT devices, including "smart" TVs that it is trivial to compromise one. And I've seen active "hacks" of vehicles in videos, not quite as trivial as IoT devices,
In general, I already suspected much of what was revealed by WikiLeaks, even if I couldn't actually prove it. Most of the IT people I am familiar with, understood the possibility and even the likelihood that the tools existed, and weren't surprised when WikiLeaks said as much.
Most people don't want to know how deep the surveillance state goes. Very few of us are terrified of it.
I am not sure that WikiLeaks is partisan issue at all. The Republicans hated it when it was leaking stuff they wanted hid (and the Democrats loved it), now the shoe is on the other foot, and the roles are reversed. I have said in the past, when people ask me how I view Snowden, I say he is a Traitorous Hero. They have no concept that he can legitimately be both Hero and Traitor. Such is the world painted with only black and whites.
Which is why I find the whole (R) good/bad (D) bad/good arguments amusing.
Perhaps there were real security concerns vis a vis
Irrelevant and completely subjective. Where was this "concern" when Hillary ran her unpatched and protected private email server that was "less secure than Gmail"?
I'm sorry, but I have a VERY hard time believing anything coming from the Dark Shadow Government. Remember, it was Clapper who said they didn't collect any data on any US citizen, only to have it come out that they collect a shit ton of data on everyone, not just those they are "watching".
These people will lie with a straight face, and believe that they are entitled to lie about lying. AND if you trust your government still, you're just not paying attention or are so partisan that Trump could cure cancer and you'd have a conniption fit about it being from a Nazi or some shit.
Our highways have been an inadequate crumbling mess for decades
But at least the men can use the girls bathrooms now. And we have High Speed Rail between nowhere and idon'twanttogothere. So there is that.
"Scientists don't just pull consensus opinions out of their asses."
Consensus is not science. Keep saying it is, and I'll know you're not a scientist.
quality of interactions
This is it in a nutshell. You can "Like" and "Share" and "Reblog" and ... all you want, it doesn't create meaninful relationships upon which we build cherished memories.
Something even Facebook seems to know, by suggesting you "re-post" from "year ago" some significant (or meaningless) life event.
I don't live on social media, but I probably spend way too much time there.
it's not consensus, its *expert* consensus
Experts according to consensus. I rest my case.
AGW is a proven fact, the Consensus Opinion of Scientists says so.
Please note, I am not saying AGW is false, I'm simply saying that consensus opinion is masquerading as "fact" in the biggest science debate, and yet nobody seems to notice.
Its Pronounced "Politicians"
They all are hypocrites. All of them. Believing your side is free from Hypocrisy, or that it is "less" hypocritical is just you justifying hypocrisy in your favor, and not excusing it when it is the other guy. Which is the real definition of hypocrisy.
If what Pence did was so horrible by liberal standards, then what Hillary did was beyond horrible, being Secretary of State and having State secrets on her PRIVATE email server. Keep in mind, this is not a public server (like AOL) in Pence's case, but "Private" one. Which actually shows a greater lack of competence.
The problem with Hillary is, that everything she did was actually worse than whatever hypocrisy the Republicans are being accused of. Being hypocritical in Washington is now considered a job requirement.
As bad as Trump is, Hillary is equally horrible. No, there is no scenario where Hillary is actually better than Trump. Anyone claiming there is, is simply delusional.
how many interactions in what sort of period would count? If CEO of Apple worked in an apple store for an hour a month, would that suffice? How about a small wood shop, where the "owner" is behind the machine most of the day? For every example of defining you come up with, I can find a loophole that shows it is nothing but emotional encumbrances that you're applying.
I don't know how to effectively translate that into tax policy, though.
Fair enough, but that is kind of my point. People have all sorts of "good ideas" that sound good, feel good, but when it comes to practice are really a bunch of regulations that people will seek to avoid whenever / wherever possible. That is the one thing socialist progressives never really figure out.
probably more we could make up.
Inadvertent assertion of my point. "make up" is completely correct. Arbitrary distinctions I am sure, which will affect some "Small" corporations while leave some "big" corporations free and clear of entanglements.
Thanks!
Exactly when does a small corporation become "big"? How does one write a law that deals with only size differences without affecting (adversely, no unintended consequences) the smaller mom and pop corporations?
Basically, what you said is nominally true, but there is no way for you to distinguish between size differences in any meaningful way ... besides "size". And size doesn't make one "evil" (as hinted at by the GP post).
And if you want to save your "local community" there is practically no way to do that in today's world. Every corporation has employees that are affected by business decisions. I would dare say, that many (most even) mom n pop operators make critical errors at a much higher rate than the larger corps do. Those often lead to closures and the entire workforce being laid off. Size only hides the problems or makes them seem worse than they really are.
What you say is effective if you ignore everything that you ignore.
The problem I have with cases as you present, is that there is no definitive definition of "Big" vs Mom n Pop. How many locations becomes "big"???
Big Bad Corporations are exactly the same as small mom n pop stores. But idiot socialists don't understand the basics of economics so they don't know (and don't care)
Cut the Mega Corporations off? And all those people that work for them just became poor. Causing more unemployment and more stagflation and the rich will move their assets to other places that create wealth. In the meantime, you've solved nothing, and created more problems.
Good Job Socialist Idiot.