You can already do that — no need for new laws. US Department of Treasury accepts private donations — have you ever used that option? I don't think so... Because you don't care to pay on your own — you wish to force others to do it...
They've found a warm welcome. In a March survey, 68% of Europeans said they would vote yes in a basic-income referendum, up from 64% last year.
I suppose, it depends on how the question is phrased:
Would you like to be given money even if you do not work?
Hell yah!
Would you like to pay higher taxes so that some of it will be given to others even if they do not work?
Hell no!
Or 30+ years of political experience, in-depth exposure to and familiarity with US law, experience with international relations, military operations, and other required skills.
Aside from the document metadata, the reused phishing domains from other state-backed, pro-Kremlin operations, the reused C2 server from other state-backed, pro-Kremlin operations.
All easy to fake — even if we were to assume, those earlier exploits were really Kremlin-backed. You aren't citing any sources either. This: "evidence that has been publicly released, which there is no shortage of" is not a citation — had it been so easy to find, you would've cited the link(s) here.
And, of course, you aren't addressing the facts I gave, which implicate Clinton as very Putin-friendly — whether out of corruption, stupidity, treason, arrogance, or some combination of all or some of the above...
Russian hackers broke into the emails of the Democratic National Congress.
No evidence supporting claims of the attack's origins was ever presented. Indeed, no irrefutable evidence may even exist for this...
Whatever you are up to, stick to the facts!
Indeed! I listed a few. And they are both irrefutable and so damning for Clinton, that you are trying to deflect with "Michael Flynn met with the Russian ambassador." Oh, wow, some smoking gun you have there!
Her opponents claimed — during their sole debate — the following, I quote:
When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."
Would you like me to spell out the 5 lunacies packed into that one phrase of his? Do you disagree, that, had Palin (or any Republican) said something remotely as idiotic as this, all newspapers and all TV-channels would've been dwelling on it for weeks and months? But, because Biden was a Democrat, you never even knews about this until now...
It does not require Flash for most of the functionality. My browser does not have Flash installed, and it told me quite a bit about my environment anyway. It does need JavaScript, but that's enabled for most people, because a vast number of sites break without it.
I agree, that SASL is stupid, but I only had to set it up once... I've been a happy user of the IMAP-server for many years now — and the configuration I created originally remains valid and "just works" with the latest versions of the software.
Frankly, I think it is insane to trust e-mail to proprietary software for which you do not have sources... MS Exchange?!? Eeww...
as valid as the the claim that the documents are legitimate
No such claims were made in this conversation.
neither side can prove their authenticity or lack thereof.
This is true about (nearly) everything said in or around politics. For example, the authenticity of Wikileaks' publications — so embarrassing to the US — has never been proven either.
And yet, it was this particular document-dump, that you claimed to have untruth mixed into it. Without citing anything — much less proving the citation is valid.
The rest of your drivel is irrelevant. Congratulations on winning.
You ought to learn to lose more gracefully. Feeling charitable, I'll allow that you simply aren't losing often enough to become good at it...
Feel free to demand proof from The En Marche! Movement.
Thank you for the kind permission, but they aren't party to this discussion. You made the claim, you have to substantiate it. And you, obviously, can not.
But your comment, where the unsupported claim was made, is now highly-rated, which means, a number of people will accept the claim on faith. Congratulations on providing a good example of misleading.
Either he killed his wife and her lover or he did not.
Indeed! But which was it remains unknowable for the rest of us — which is why I mentioned an omniscient deity earlier...
What is decided by a court does not change that reality.
The courts' decisions are the best approximation of truth the humans are capable of. Sad but true... There is also scientific method, which is usually more reliable, but it often requires multiple repetitions and thus is not suitable in all situations.
The problem with recent elections is not the availability of information, but the availability of misinformation.
How is this problem unique to the recent elections? Mark Twain wrote his Running for Governor in the 1870 — you really ought to read it to get rid of these silly beliefs, that our contemporary politicians are somehow uniquely bad and good.
Yeah-yeah, yada-yada. The typical hand-waving of "pragmatists" dismissing the Founding Fathers as idealists.
Imagine, if we treated the First Amendment the same way.
The conflicting rights of the individual's right to bear arms and the state's right, indeed its duty under its inherent police power, to make reasonable regulations
The minute you allow "reasonable" to enter an argument, you no longer have a Constitution. And, maybe, you don't need it — United Kingdom, for example, remains a fairly free country without one. But the US does have it — and it must be adhered to. If the Second Amendment is overly zealous, let's amend it further or even abolish. But until then, it is just as sacred as the Fourth — or the First.
And I'm not even talking about tanks or RPGs here — many locales ban mere knives and brass-knuckles!
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be happy if the paupers receiving public assistance were not allowed to vote while at it... But somehow this is anathema to most people.
It is not an "all or nothing". The fact acknowledged by TFA itself is that people receiving assistance begin working less than they used to.
And they are happy to have others help them pay for it...
You can already do that — no need for new laws. US Department of Treasury accepts private donations — have you ever used that option? I don't think so... Because you don't care to pay on your own — you wish to force others to do it...
I suppose, it depends on how the question is phrased:
Would you like to be given money even if you do not work? Hell yah! Would you like to pay higher taxes so that some of it will be given to others even if they do not work? Hell no!So you voted for McCain, not Obama, right?
As opposite to newspaper articles?
Either the article belongs in front of "Lithuania" as well, or it does not belong in front of "Ukraine".
Describes the facts I listed quite well, thank you very much.
Trump is not a party to this debate. You can't refute, what I said, so you are trying to erect strawmen and attack them. Poorly.
Oh, and you post anonymously so as to keep your pathetic downmodding of my posts in effect. Pathetic...
Don't be an asshole — stick to either downmodding or commenting.
You really are a dishonest piece of shit, aren't you?
I made no mention of uranium. My argument stands on its own, the facts I listed are irrefutable — and I will not allow you to change the subject.
All easy to fake — even if we were to assume, those earlier exploits were really Kremlin-backed. You aren't citing any sources either. This: "evidence that has been publicly released, which there is no shortage of" is not a citation — had it been so easy to find, you would've cited the link(s) here.
And, of course, you aren't addressing the facts I gave, which implicate Clinton as very Putin-friendly — whether out of corruption, stupidity, treason, arrogance, or some combination of all or some of the above...
No evidence supporting claims of the attack's origins was ever presented. Indeed, no irrefutable evidence may even exist for this...
Indeed! I listed a few. And they are both irrefutable and so damning for Clinton, that you are trying to deflect with "Michael Flynn met with the Russian ambassador." Oh, wow, some smoking gun you have there!
Would you like me to spell out the 5 lunacies packed into that one phrase of his? Do you disagree, that, had Palin (or any Republican) said something remotely as idiotic as this, all newspapers and all TV-channels would've been dwelling on it for weeks and months? But, because Biden was a Democrat, you never even knews about this until now...
Not at all! Once again, Illiberals fail to recognize their own. To wit, Hilllary Clinton:
Of course, Putin would've loved for her to retain — and elevate — her stature...
In both the US and France Putin was perfectly willing to bet on a female candidate...
It does not require Flash for most of the functionality. My browser does not have Flash installed, and it told me quite a bit about my environment anyway. It does need JavaScript, but that's enabled for most people, because a vast number of sites break without it.
Though my User-Agent header clearly says: "FreeBSD", the site claimed, my OS is "likely Windows" :)
Other than that, yes, it is quite amazing, how much info is available to the JavaScript code...
I agree, that SASL is stupid, but I only had to set it up once... I've been a happy user of the IMAP-server for many years now — and the configuration I created originally remains valid and "just works" with the latest versions of the software.
Frankly, I think it is insane to trust e-mail to proprietary software for which you do not have sources... MS Exchange?!? Eeww...
No such claims were made in this conversation.
This is true about (nearly) everything said in or around politics. For example, the authenticity of Wikileaks' publications — so embarrassing to the US — has never been proven either.
And yet, it was this particular document-dump, that you claimed to have untruth mixed into it. Without citing anything — much less proving the citation is valid.
You ought to learn to lose more gracefully. Feeling charitable, I'll allow that you simply aren't losing often enough to become good at it...
Interestingly enough, bringing an entire ice asteroid to a hitherto very dry planet was not considered an ecological disaster waiting to happen...
In those quaint times — the novel is from 1952 — human progress was not deemed "dangerous"...
Thank you for the kind permission, but they aren't party to this discussion. You made the claim, you have to substantiate it. And you, obviously, can not.
But your comment, where the unsupported claim was made, is now highly-rated, which means, a number of people will accept the claim on faith. Congratulations on providing a good example of misleading.
Indeed! But which was it remains unknowable for the rest of us — which is why I mentioned an omniscient deity earlier...
The courts' decisions are the best approximation of truth the humans are capable of. Sad but true... There is also scientific method, which is usually more reliable, but it often requires multiple repetitions and thus is not suitable in all situations.
How is this problem unique to the recent elections? Mark Twain wrote his Running for Governor in the 1870 — you really ought to read it to get rid of these silly beliefs, that our contemporary politicians are somehow uniquely bad and good.
Yeah-yeah, yada-yada. The typical hand-waving of "pragmatists" dismissing the Founding Fathers as idealists.
Imagine, if we treated the First Amendment the same way.
The minute you allow "reasonable" to enter an argument, you no longer have a Constitution. And, maybe, you don't need it — United Kingdom, for example, remains a fairly free country without one. But the US does have it — and it must be adhered to. If the Second Amendment is overly zealous, let's amend it further or even abolish. But until then, it is just as sacred as the Fourth — or the First.
And I'm not even talking about tanks or RPGs here — many locales ban mere knives and brass-knuckles!