The missing emails is hardly the only evidence here either.
It is the evidence of a coverup that is what pushed Nixon over the line, and it should be here too. Obama simply does not have that type of character that would require him to resign in shame. In this case, Obama is shameless.
As for impeachment... not going mean much if there is a Democrat controlled Senate, they will never take action, just like the case of Clinton.
And that is the number one criteria: Do you have a passion for IT?
I would suggest that the things we do in IT generally don't appeal to everyone. For one, it requires that level of focus and single-mindedness that is common in autistics and near autistic spectrum people.
And Autism, that sexist condition, occurs at 1:4.3 ration F:M.
I presume people have modded it funny because they have forgotten Nixon was forced to resign over 18 minutes of missing tape out of 200 hrs of conversation related to the break in at Watergate.
You could put it that way, that the IRS was looking for motes in the Republican cases, while ignoring the OFA plank.
Plank technically, not a boulder, but the same idea.
These organizations don't have to report donations, but the OFA was collecting $500k for access to the President in 2013, and had a goal of $50 Million:
President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington’s biggest lobbying operations.
Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...
First, if the OFA is not rejected, being a direct decedent of a Presidential campaign organization with access to the President's twitter account to promote funding drives, then no one should be scrutinized.
You seemed to have skipped over that "salient" fact.
Second, you are mis-informed on the scrutiny rates as stated by the IG doing the investigation:
To date, no group appears to be actually rejected, but they are still "pending". Either way, the effect is the same, they do not have status, while OFA does.
CVTs do shift, as they are usually mated to a secondary transmission of some sort.
My now-retired Vespa 250GTS had a reduction unit 3-gear drive. You never felt the shift, there was enough overlap to let the CVT keep the engine speed the same.
They are easy and smooth to operate, but not very fuel efficient. I usually got 65 or so, while some people reported 75.
In contrast, my replacement for the Vespa, a BMW F700GS gets 50ish, up to 67 in a hypermile-ing effort, while producing 3.5X the power and torque.
But I do have to shift, even if it seems silly to do so. The shift can be 1st to 50mph, then right to 6th, if I want to. Usually it is 1-3-6. 2nd is good for slow traffic, while 5th is only for climbing hills situations, passing on freeway (even then, 4th is better) and if I forget I HAVE a 6th gear...
That OFA received and maintains its status is prima facie evidence that there is favoritism.
No way that an organization that has access to the personal twitter account of a sitting president is not a political entity, and should not have 501c status.
They cannot explain OFA getting status, seeing how the supposed 501(4)(c) uses the Presidents Twitter account to make announcements.
There is no way that the Tea Party applicants can be scrutinized when OFA was not, given the regulations. OFA is the proverbial camel that passed through the eye of a needle, while conservative organizations are being examined in detail.
501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[44] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[45] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities – generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election – is taxable.[46] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization.[47] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively,[48] direct lobbying or grass roots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose.[49] A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities.[37][50]
The 97% claim has been refuted and it is not hard disprove either.
It is not 97% of scientists, it is 97% of PAPERS written on CLIMATE CHANGE. How many scientists that represents is unclear.
The paper looks at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years (see here, the paper doesn’t actually specify the numbers, http://notalotofpeopleknowthat...). It ditches about 8,000 papers because they don’t take a position.
They put people who agree into three different bins — 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that “implicitly endorse” because they’re looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming.
So only 1.6% actually support AGW with actual numbers and not opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I am saying we should not expect it to be 50/50%.
Equal is not the same as equitable.
Man, we so missed out on the "Internet of Buggy Whips".
The missing emails is hardly the only evidence here either.
It is the evidence of a coverup that is what pushed Nixon over the line, and it should be here too. Obama simply does not have that type of character that would require him to resign in shame. In this case, Obama is shameless.
As for impeachment... not going mean much if there is a Democrat controlled Senate, they will never take action, just like the case of Clinton.
And that is the number one criteria: Do you have a passion for IT?
I would suggest that the things we do in IT generally don't appeal to everyone. For one, it requires that level of focus and single-mindedness that is common in autistics and near autistic spectrum people.
And Autism, that sexist condition, occurs at 1:4.3 ration F:M.
So it is self selecting.
I presume people have modded it funny because they have forgotten Nixon was forced to resign over 18 minutes of missing tape out of 200 hrs of conversation related to the break in at Watergate.
One more:
How many emails does it take to equal 18 minutes of tape?
Some already did:
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
How many emails does it take to equal 18 minutes of tape?
You could put it that way, that the IRS was looking for motes in the Republican cases, while ignoring the OFA plank.
Plank technically, not a boulder, but the same idea.
These organizations don't have to report donations, but the OFA was collecting $500k for access to the President in 2013, and had a goal of $50 Million:
President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington’s biggest lobbying operations.
Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...
First, if the OFA is not rejected, being a direct decedent of a Presidential campaign organization with access to the President's twitter account to promote funding drives, then no one should be scrutinized.
You seemed to have skipped over that "salient" fact.
Second, you are mis-informed on the scrutiny rates as stated by the IG doing the investigation:
292 Conservative groups.
6 progressive groups.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/...
To date, no group appears to be actually rejected, but they are still "pending". Either way, the effect is the same, they do not have status, while OFA does.
CVTs do shift, as they are usually mated to a secondary transmission of some sort.
My now-retired Vespa 250GTS had a reduction unit 3-gear drive. You never felt the shift, there was enough overlap to let the CVT keep the engine speed the same.
They are easy and smooth to operate, but not very fuel efficient. I usually got 65 or so, while some people reported 75.
In contrast, my replacement for the Vespa, a BMW F700GS gets 50ish, up to 67 in a hypermile-ing effort, while producing 3.5X the power and torque.
But I do have to shift, even if it seems silly to do so. The shift can be 1st to 50mph, then right to 6th, if I want to. Usually it is 1-3-6. 2nd is good for slow traffic, while 5th is only for climbing hills situations, passing on freeway (even then, 4th is better) and if I forget I HAVE a 6th gear...
Must not be a complete list, seeing how a quick google showed many with more than that $200M Cap you claim as "richest"
teacher's union $316M
http://www.unionfacts.com/unio...
Electrical workers, $730M
http://www.unionfacts.com/unio...
SEIU, $411M
http://www.unionfacts.com/unio...
That OFA received and maintains its status is prima facie evidence that there is favoritism.
No way that an organization that has access to the personal twitter account of a sitting president is not a political entity, and should not have 501c status.
They cannot explain OFA getting status, seeing how the supposed 501(4)(c) uses the Presidents Twitter account to make announcements.
There is no way that the Tea Party applicants can be scrutinized when OFA was not, given the regulations. OFA is the proverbial camel that passed through the eye of a needle, while conservative organizations are being examined in detail.
501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[44] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[45] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities – generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election – is taxable.[46] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization.[47] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively,[48] direct lobbying or grass roots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose.[49] A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities.[37][50]
Not really, it seems perfectly possible they are collecting internal emails from all federal government agencies.
Hell, I would expect and demand that they do, as a "watchers of the watchers" role.
100% certain, since I ran the email archive and search engine systems.
Any email, from 1998 on was archived and indexed. You could search and retrieve mail content and get back the attachments as well.
It was required... by government regulation. (Healthcare)
All my personal emails too, since I use Gmail, only the ones I actively deleted are gone, and even then... I bet they are out there.
He is Majority Leader, not Speaker of the House.
That is John Boehner.
This race it means a lot, this is the House majority leader, with a lot of seniority.
If nothing else, it impacts his home state, better or worse.
Not the same as being a natural citizen, now is it?
The 97% claim has been refuted and it is not hard disprove either.
It is not 97% of scientists, it is 97% of PAPERS written on CLIMATE CHANGE. How many scientists that represents is unclear.
The paper looks at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years (see here, the paper doesn’t actually specify the numbers, http://notalotofpeopleknowthat...). It ditches about 8,000 papers because they don’t take a position.
They put people who agree into three different bins — 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that “implicitly endorse” because they’re looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming.
So only 1.6% actually support AGW with actual numbers and not opinion.
I think can sum up your position as "Things the left-wingers and left wing propaganda" tell you you want passed.
See how I can marginalize your position like you did mine?
I'm not dead yet!
Assuming "being productive" is passing laws.
Doing nothing might be the best thing.
Open boarder either way?
I like it. I can move to Baja with my US dollars and live like a king.
But... you can't own property within 50 miles of the coast unless you are a natural Mexican citizen.
There is pretty good evidence that democrats voted for the contender against Cantor.
Smart move to force the strong incumbent out of the race.
Might backfire tho... have to wait and see.