It's just another example of Obama stirring up as much crap as he can in his final days in office; both to screw things up for Trump, and to implement some of his ideas that are deeply unpopular. A man of honor and dignity would be a much more modest caretaker of government business during the final weeks of his tenure. Instead, Obama is trying to start fights with Russia, has orchestrated a UN backstab of a traditional US ally, and is spewing out regulations that won't survive their first challenge in court. This is what we elected. Twice. This is the man he's always been. If it wasn't for the sycophantic media, it would have been clear to most Americans by 2012.
I take it you haven't seen the so-called Pied Piper memo?
It wasn't Daddy's money and influence propelling Trump over the past year, it was Hillary's. As disturbing as that revelation was to me, I can only imagine how Trump took it. He must feel like the victim of the world's most elaborate troll.
I don't think the president-elect feels like a victim of anything. The Democrats thought they were being clever when they had their media allies pump him up in the primaries, but they ended up only helping him win the election in the end.
... the problem is that too few care. She's on the same 'D' team as 80% of the media, so every incompetent or corrupt act is explained away by legions of sycophants.
I'm willing to bet Russia is trying to manage it's fertility rate. It was as low as 1.59 children per woman in 2012, closer to 1.75 recently. 1.59 is rather low in terms of maintaining your population.
[citation needed] And no, Fox News does not count. Deliver evidence of a successful prosecution or STFU.
You can review everything released by the FBI yourself. They didn't prosecute her because she was incompetent, and for her*, they decided incompetence mitigates reckless behavior when it comes to criminal prosecution. Clinton is damned by every line of everything released by the FBI except for this part:"Oh, we decided not to recommend prosecuting her." You people cling to that line like it's solid gold when every other sentence incriminates her. And why did she have that server to begin with? To evade the requirements of federal records retention laws. Why would she want to do that? I have my guesses.
Anyway, back to the last remaining defense of HRC. What a ringing endorsement: Hillary Clinton: certifiably incompetent to protect national secrets.
or maybe:
Hillary Clinton: She's so stupid, we can't hold it against her. The FBI could only recommend prosecution to a corrupt DoJ- you know, the one with the Attorney general who met with Hillary's husband the week before the announcement. *"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
And what they need does include entertainment, social connection and interaction, and VARIETY of foods. This may not be required to produce the physical meat of the body but it is a requirement for proper mental function.
And thus 'need' becomes the only, and most important, 'virtue.' That's the underlying problem with (honest (snicker)) communism and socialism- there's always justification for a greater 'need.' However, the mental and verbal gymnastics that justify that greater need cannot produce anything to meet that 'need.' I agree that there should be a baseline existence that we don't let fellow citizens fall beneath, but where we draw that line is the difference between creating an idle, trouble prone permanent dependent underclass that bankrupts the country, and a bare-bones safety net that makes sure people are fed enough to be able to figure out a way to serve their fellow man.
The "theoretical" aspect you deride was terribly important to potential Democratic party competitors when they were deciding whether or not to run. Sure, Hillary beat an angry old communist in a two person primary. Woo hoo. Why was it only a two person primary? Because everyone else saw the writing on the wall.
Democrats... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Hillary?
The super delegate system, plus some rigging at the DNC, ensured there was never really a choice. Potential qualified competitors realized that Hillary had all the super delegates bought and paid for, so they didn't even bother. Bernie was dug up as an 'opponent', a sham primary was had- it got a little out of control- and in the end, the pre-determined outcome was obtained. I think few people really support Hillary. They're just being obedient to the party.
Automating every last job is the correct path to a future where nobody has to work and we can just exist as humans, bettering ourselves.
Ideal society if you ask me. Working for masters is overrated.
I think we can look to children of the rich (and how they busy themselves when they don't have to look after their needs) to figure out where this road goes.
Of course you can help it. You are actively looking for things, regardless of how small, allowing you to redirect blame to people you dislike. You are a partisan twit and part of the problem slowly but surely destroying our country from within. I do not care what "side" you are on (Democrat or Republican) but you are the real enemy.
You sound like a partisan democrat that doesn't have an actual response to the charge levied.
"I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."
I can't help but notice that his statement comes a few years after Obama abandoned Iraq and consequently allowed ISIS to take over a third of the country.
Well, blame the Constitution, which was devised for a tiny nation of fewer than four million... That's including the 18% that were slaves. We're over 80x larger than we were in the 1790 census, but the House is only seven times as big. It's considerably less representative than the framers envisioned.
If the House had grown proportionally there'd be almost five thousand reps and more of them would answer their own correspondence. It'd be harder to gerrymander a decisive party advantage without winning the popular vote too. With modern IT it'd be perfectly manageable. You'd have to build a new Capitol though.
Such a large body has it's own problems. The Federalist papers, #58, discusses the topic, and the founding fathers actually did consider population growth and it's impact on representation. Summary here.
If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.
Plenty has been found on the Clintons; the problem is their supporters just don't care, and they always seem to have the right friends in charge of the relevant prosecutor's office.
The 'Joker' character in Suicide Squad was badly written and over-acted. I enjoyed the movie overall, but Leto's character didn't even have the depth of your average comic book villian. He's just a nut ball. The movie is already loaded with backstory, so without sacrificing protagonist screen time, this Joker never had a chance to get his own identity. He's a supporting character for Harley. Given that, I think they probably should have stayed a bit more 'sane' and traditional with him.
Which, if you know what the term means, is also a democracy.
It's democratic in nature, but with significant differences intended to control some of the negative tendencies of pure democracies.
Of course, you knew that, and you knew that I knew that, and you knew that's what I was getting at. Yet you decided to be a smart ass anyway. Any particular reason?
.... such as a sham primary, extensive money laundering to get around contribution limits, racist commentary on various groups, condescension towards unions, and so on.
Upholding the law, as written, is something they might do in their spare time, so long as it doesn't interfere with advancing their goals by any means necessary.
To be fair, the Republicans managed to toss the Democrats the most easily defeatable opponent ever in someone who is consistently offensive to nearly everyone including most of the party he is nominated for and the Democrats still couldn't actually field someone who could soundly beat him.
There was never a Democratic presidential nomination contest. Hillary's victory this week was decided on years ago. Maybe Bernie was the last to be told, but didn't you think it strange that the Dem contest was just Hillary vs. Bernie (plus the occasional third guy)? The Republicans had over a dozen people vying for the spot, and say what you like about the man, but Trump got the votes, and the Republican establishment hated it. It was a real contest.
Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?
I'm a conservative, so encouraging poor people to vote actually hurts my party goals.
The problem is that I'm also a staunch defender of rights, and I feel that everyone should be allowed to vote as a right, and not some based on some arbitrary cutoff of responsibility.
[...] but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.
To quote Malcom Reynolds: "who will speak for these people?"
They can speak for themselves. I stated above I'm fine funding programs that pay for the expenses associated with getting ID's. If you're against voter ID you're pro-fraud. End of story. You can make any excuse you like (and toss in some claims about being conservative, too). I see no reason to believe anyone who is making the same arguments as the administration, what with it's star liars Gruber, Rhodes, and the chosen successor Clinton.
Getting an ID costs money in the US, so requiring an ID puts more strain on the poor than the working class.
The annual fee for a drivers license is around $35, a state-issued ID is around $30, and a passport costs $100.
When you're poor, that $35 could pay for 7 meals frugally made.
Social security cards are given out and replaced at no charge, but aren't generally accepted as an ID because they lack pictures.
Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?
I'm kidding, of course. We all know you're actually interested in promoting electoral fraud, and covering for that fraud with any available argument. Some studies have shown that minority voter participation actually goes up with ID laws- maybe they have more faith that their vote means something- but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.
*I'd actually be fine funding programs to help people obtain proper ID in order to negate this line of thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just another example of Obama stirring up as much crap as he can in his final days in office; both to screw things up for Trump, and to implement some of his ideas that are deeply unpopular.
A man of honor and dignity would be a much more modest caretaker of government business during the final weeks of his tenure. Instead, Obama is trying to start fights with Russia, has orchestrated a UN backstab of a traditional US ally, and is spewing out regulations that won't survive their first challenge in court. This is what we elected. Twice. This is the man he's always been. If it wasn't for the sycophantic media, it would have been clear to most Americans by 2012.
Well, here it is. A man seeking gay wedding cakes at Islamic bakeries.
...we can use 'social justice bullies' or 'cry-bullies', they're more accurate anyway.
I take it you haven't seen the so-called Pied Piper memo?
It wasn't Daddy's money and influence propelling Trump over the past year, it was Hillary's. As disturbing as that revelation was to me, I can only imagine how Trump took it. He must feel like the victim of the world's most elaborate troll.
I don't think the president-elect feels like a victim of anything. The Democrats thought they were being clever when they had their media allies pump him up in the primaries, but they ended up only helping him win the election in the end.
... the problem is that too few care. She's on the same 'D' team as 80% of the media, so every incompetent or corrupt act is explained away by legions of sycophants.
I'm willing to bet Russia is trying to manage it's fertility rate. It was as low as 1.59 children per woman in 2012, closer to 1.75 recently. 1.59 is rather low in terms of maintaining your population.
Hillary is a criminal
[citation needed] And no, Fox News does not count. Deliver evidence of a successful prosecution or STFU.
You can review everything released by the FBI yourself. They didn't prosecute her because she was incompetent, and for her*, they decided incompetence mitigates reckless behavior when it comes to criminal prosecution. Clinton is damned by every line of everything released by the FBI except for this part :"Oh, we decided not to recommend prosecuting her."
You people cling to that line like it's solid gold when every other sentence incriminates her. And why did she have that server to begin with? To evade the requirements of federal records retention laws. Why would she want to do that? I have my guesses.
Anyway, back to the last remaining defense of HRC. What a ringing endorsement:
Hillary Clinton: certifiably incompetent to protect national secrets.
or maybe:
Hillary Clinton: She's so stupid, we can't hold it against her.
The FBI could only recommend prosecution to a corrupt DoJ- you know, the one with the Attorney general who met with Hillary's husband the week before the announcement.
*"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
"That does mean food and housing"
And what they need does include entertainment, social connection and interaction, and VARIETY of foods. This may not be required to produce the physical meat of the body but it is a requirement for proper mental function.
And thus 'need' becomes the only, and most important, 'virtue.' That's the underlying problem with (honest (snicker)) communism and socialism- there's always justification for a greater 'need.' However, the mental and verbal gymnastics that justify that greater need cannot produce anything to meet that 'need.'
I agree that there should be a baseline existence that we don't let fellow citizens fall beneath, but where we draw that line is the difference between creating an idle, trouble prone permanent dependent underclass that bankrupts the country, and a bare-bones safety net that makes sure people are fed enough to be able to figure out a way to serve their fellow man.
The "theoretical" aspect you deride was terribly important to potential Democratic party competitors when they were deciding whether or not to run.
Sure, Hillary beat an angry old communist in a two person primary. Woo hoo. Why was it only a two person primary? Because everyone else saw the writing on the wall.
Democrats... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Hillary?
The super delegate system, plus some rigging at the DNC, ensured there was never really a choice. Potential qualified competitors realized that Hillary had all the super delegates bought and paid for, so they didn't even bother. Bernie was dug up as an 'opponent', a sham primary was had- it got a little out of control- and in the end, the pre-determined outcome was obtained.
I think few people really support Hillary. They're just being obedient to the party.
Automating every last job is the correct path to a future where nobody has to work and we can just exist as humans, bettering ourselves.
Ideal society if you ask me. Working for masters is overrated.
I think we can look to children of the rich (and how they busy themselves when they don't have to look after their needs) to figure out where this road goes.
I can't help but notice
Of course you can help it. You are actively looking for things, regardless of how small, allowing you to redirect blame to people you dislike. You are a partisan twit and part of the problem slowly but surely destroying our country from within. I do not care what "side" you are on (Democrat or Republican) but you are the real enemy.
You sound like a partisan democrat that doesn't have an actual response to the charge levied.
"I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."
I can't help but notice that his statement comes a few years after Obama abandoned Iraq and consequently allowed ISIS to take over a third of the country.
Well, blame the Constitution, which was devised for a tiny nation of fewer than four million... That's including the 18% that were slaves. We're over 80x larger than we were in the 1790 census, but the House is only seven times as big. It's considerably less representative than the framers envisioned.
If the House had grown proportionally there'd be almost five thousand reps and more of them would answer their own correspondence. It'd be harder to gerrymander a decisive party advantage without winning the popular vote too. With modern IT it'd be perfectly manageable. You'd have to build a new Capitol though.
Such a large body has it's own problems. The Federalist papers, #58, discusses the topic, and the founding fathers actually did consider population growth and it's impact on representation. Summary here.
If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.
Plenty has been found on the Clintons; the problem is their supporters just don't care, and they always seem to have the right friends in charge of the relevant prosecutor's office.
The 'Joker' character in Suicide Squad was badly written and over-acted. I enjoyed the movie overall, but Leto's character didn't even have the depth of your average comic book villian. He's just a nut ball.
The movie is already loaded with backstory, so without sacrificing protagonist screen time, this Joker never had a chance to get his own identity. He's a supporting character for Harley. Given that, I think they probably should have stayed a bit more 'sane' and traditional with him.
Good thing we're aiming for a Republic.
Which, if you know what the term means, is also a democracy.
It's democratic in nature, but with significant differences intended to control some of the negative tendencies of pure democracies.
Of course, you knew that, and you knew that I knew that, and you knew that's what I was getting at. Yet you decided to be a smart ass anyway. Any particular reason?
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill
Good thing we're aiming for a Republic.
.... such as a sham primary, extensive money laundering to get around contribution limits, racist commentary on various groups, condescension towards unions, and so on.
Have you guys ever heard of Operation Chokepoint? It's an operation wherein banks are bullied into dropping customers whose line of business is in disfavor with Democrats. There's a million other examples, but every law enforcement arm of the federal government has been bent to explicitly political ends.
Upholding the law, as written, is something they might do in their spare time, so long as it doesn't interfere with advancing their goals by any means necessary.
To be fair, the Republicans managed to toss the Democrats the most easily defeatable opponent ever in someone who is consistently offensive to nearly everyone including most of the party he is nominated for and the Democrats still couldn't actually field someone who could soundly beat him.
There was never a Democratic presidential nomination contest. Hillary's victory this week was decided on years ago. Maybe Bernie was the last to be told, but didn't you think it strange that the Dem contest was just Hillary vs. Bernie (plus the occasional third guy)?
The Republicans had over a dozen people vying for the spot, and say what you like about the man, but Trump got the votes, and the Republican establishment hated it. It was a real contest.
Are you implying there are celebrities of substance?
Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?
I'm a conservative, so encouraging poor people to vote actually hurts my party goals.
The problem is that I'm also a staunch defender of rights, and I feel that everyone should be allowed to vote as a right, and not some based on some arbitrary cutoff of responsibility.
[...] but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.
To quote Malcom Reynolds: "who will speak for these people?"
They can speak for themselves. I stated above I'm fine funding programs that pay for the expenses associated with getting ID's.
If you're against voter ID you're pro-fraud. End of story. You can make any excuse you like (and toss in some claims about being conservative, too).
I see no reason to believe anyone who is making the same arguments as the administration, what with it's star liars Gruber, Rhodes, and the chosen successor Clinton.
Why are you putting an entry price on the democratic process?
I'm not. To quote myself:
"I'd actually be fine funding programs to help people obtain proper ID in order to negate this line of thinking."
Getting an ID costs money in the US, so requiring an ID puts more strain on the poor than the working class.
The annual fee for a drivers license is around $35, a state-issued ID is around $30, and a passport costs $100.
When you're poor, that $35 could pay for 7 meals frugally made.
Social security cards are given out and replaced at no charge, but aren't generally accepted as an ID because they lack pictures.
Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?
I'm kidding, of course. We all know you're actually interested in promoting electoral fraud, and covering for that fraud with any available argument. Some studies have shown that minority voter participation actually goes up with ID laws- maybe they have more faith that their vote means something- but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.
*I'd actually be fine funding programs to help people obtain proper ID in order to negate this line of thinking.