A need does not create a right. People need health care, but it is NOT government's job to give everybody what they need.
If you need to eat, you go obtain food...
You need money to buy food, you go to work...
You need a job, you go out and find one...
See how this works?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping those who are unable to help themselves, the disabled, the elderly and such and I support government and private programs that do this, but government should not give to those who could and should be helping themselves because it does more harm than good.
Second: Trump saying doesn't mean republicans think its OK.
You have a valid point. Trump ran as a republican, but he's not a traditional republican by a long shot. He's more of a centrist on his social positions, which is why Mike Pence is his VP. Personally I figured he ran as a republican because he knew Clinton had the democrat nomination sewn up and he had not chance there, and not because he agreed with the republican party on all that much. In fact, I think Clinton was STUPID in not exploiting this rift between Trump and the right of the republican party better than she did, but I guess it would take too much effort and she was going to win anyway so she got lazy.
It makes me laugh with the LGBT folks picket him too... He is decidedly NOT on the far right on social issues so they have nothing to fear from Trump and a lot to gain should they see their way clear to work with him... But no, their democratic handlers won't let that message get out...
OR, maybe I think the left in this country in the vitriol they've been spewing has prompted some nut case into taking some action that they have suggested over and over and now feign "but we didn't actually mean it so we have no responsibility here.." when the PR crap hits the fan.
Remember the shooting of Gabby Gifford (By another nut case) and how the left went after Sara Palain because she had run a campaign ad with a target (but no advocating of violence) in it? Have you heard the musing of popular left personalities lately? I'm guessing the double standard doesn't matter to you...
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is about self defense.
No. You want it to be, I understand that, but there's as much in there about self-defense as there is about abortion:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm just grateful no organization, ever, has used its "official position" as a shield for the more nefarious goals of its members.
So what does the last clause mean? "he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" In historical context it's about the right to self defense, but in reality it's an absolute constitutional guarantee to the right to be armed. The first phrase is about why this right is necessary and valuable to the country as a whole, not a limit to said right. Remember "Shall not be infringed" was added to the second phrase.
The NRA is about self defense and sport and supporting the rights of individuals to own arms for these reasons. Officially that's their position and they will quickly condemn any of their members who advocate using violence for political gain. Democrats? Not so much....
I'm betting that it is nothing but a pad that you lay your phone on instead of having to plug it in... Something that My Samsung Note 4 can already do if you have the right third party equipment. Trust me, this will only make chargers a whole lot more expensive.
Where I welcome the water proof part, I wonder what this means to how you sync your phone now? Are they removing the lighting connector or just adding the necessary elements to capture power from a magnetic field....
There IS something illegal about inciting riots, destruction of property and generally breaking laws during your protesting. Not all "resist" participants are involved in such stuff, but I don't hear very many of them calling for the people who are doing these things to stop. In fact, I hear exactly the oppsit when you hear the rhetoric from the democratic leadership.
This includes Clinton. I've not heard her say anything other than unqualified support of the "resist" movement. She's not called for non-violent protesting, she's not denounced the violence. Silence is compliance in this case. Both Clinton and high ranking Democrats have not denounced any of this. But this is par for the left's course. Remember Obama's "If you bring a knife we will bring a gun" speech? I do. Is the imagery lost on you? I hope not.
But really, it's clear why they do this... As in all unethical and immoral behavior involving politicians, follow the money.... Clinton is protecting her donations by giving at least lip service to the causes they want her to. Clinton may not approve of this stuff, but apparently her principles don't hold enough sway to actually cause her to clearly denounce it, so I figure she's complicit.
Yes, this guy was a certifiable nut job, they are everywhere, not just working for Bernie.. (Although, working for Bernie could be a mental illness in some circles [kidding]).
What I'm talking about is the irresponsible rhetoric that gives these nut jobs targeting advice. Cathy Giffords stunt and the NY Theater play where they kill an actor dressed like Trump are recent egregious examples of what I'm talking about. Go look at who this shooter held in high regard and what kind of idiotic things they have said should be done... Many of them are very public figures in the left's ideological world. He took his targeting from them.
I'm just pointing out that Clinton has unclean hands here. I get that she's playing political games with all this and I don't begrudge her that. However, I do take exception to those who willingly ignore just how complicit she is in all this "the election was unfair" foolishness. She's a Clinton, she's got dirty hands and you should admit that to yourself...
Why do I feel like this has turned into a grade school playground troll fest... "I'm rubber and you are glue, what you say bounces of me and sticks to you!"
You use a LEFTIST website to prove your point and totally misunderstand what the NRA is actually saying... Do try to pay attention...
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is about self defense. What the NRA says is about defense, about being armed and ready to DEFEND oneself. They do NOT advocate offensive activity.
Of course, leave it to those who don't like the NRA to mischaracterize their official position and attempt to convince others that the NRA advocates the use of firearms for anything other than defense or sport...I can assure you that the NRA doesn't advocate violence to further it's political positions, unlike what the left has done (Cathy Giffords, the NY Theater in the park come to mind as recent examples).
How's this have ANYTHING to do with ANY news outlet? (Hint: It doesn't..)
But now that you brought this up, of all the outlets out there, Fox seems the most responsible to me. But hey, if you think otherwise, enjoy the channel you like the best. I would just caution you about "confirmation bias" and encourage you to carefully weigh what you are hearing and seeing and make sure you are not just confirming your own personal bias though standing in an echo chamber you agree with.
This is getting out of hand... WAY out of hand. The specific targeting of the right needs to end. I'm not talking about the nut jobs with guns, but those who engage in irresponsible verbal targeting that encourage the nut jobs with guns and provide them targeting.
Come on folks, all this hateful rhetoric needs to come to a full and final stop. Those on the other side of the isle are NOT (in general) trying to do harm to others or the country and it's way past time we stop trying to claim they are. Attach the principles, argue about what the country should do, discuss the issues, but leave the personal attacks and outlandish claims alone.
This shooting illustrates just one of the reasons why this is important..
OK, so why is she providing tacit support to the "resist" movement which in general does NOT accept the election's results and why is she blaming the fake Russian collusion narrative, even partially? She did say "it's hard not to believe" Trump colluded with the Russians, when there was little evidence...
I think she is using all this to her political advantage. Sure she realized that there was zero chance at a legal challenge succeeding, but that was only after all the recount foolishness we went though and the effort to sway electoral college electors to change their votes. (You do recall all that right?)
So sure, she conceded nearly a day late, then has been stirring the pot of discontent since. Shame on her for helping the Russians sow discontent and doubt in the minds of the electorate, mostly on her side of the spectrum. This is something the Republicans DON'T generally do, but Democrats often engage in that damages the country.
So... In a country blessed with a first amendment.... How's this an issue we can fix?
You may not like it, but freedom of speech is a given around these parts. Granted it's got good and bad parts, but over all it's not something we want to try and abridge... Right?
So how do you propose we keep the Russians from doing this kind of thing? I'm not sure we have much leverage on that. We can secure our voting systems, tighten our controls on who gets to vote where and keep the results untainted, but I don't think we can control the media or the internet. Perhaps we could tighten up the libel protections for public figures, but I don't think even that wouldn't run crosswise to the 1st amendment.
Personally, I think an educated and well informed electorate is your best defense from such outside influences.... However, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink...
ALWAYS avoid adopting technology that you don't understand just because somebody on your staff or a salesman with some glossy sales flyer says it will be great! If your manager shows up with the idea, convinced that it's going to be the solution to all his problems and won't take your advice on the matter, update your resume....The devil is ALWAYS in the details...
There is no silver bullet... Trust me, I've looked for years... However, that doesn't mean you cannot shoot yourself in the foot with a plain old lead round.
Really? I don't think she's accepted the results, even yet. She has blamed everybody and the kitchen sink for her loss INCLUDING the Russians and as I remember, she was very slow to accept the results and concede (took until after noon the next day). Her surrogates have fostered both the violent and riotous "resist" movement (which she has openly supported) and foisted this fictional Russian Collusion narrative that has dominated the press for the last 6 months. Certainly she's not denounced any of this stuff.
What Trump believes or maintains about the popular vote is immaterial, and I think if you actually listened to his statements on this, you will understand he's not exactly holding the position you think. He's claiming there was significant fraud that ran up his opponent's votes. Fraud did exist and there were reports that it was significant at the time, though perhaps not as much as Trump would like. However, his language is imprecise at times, so it's hard to know for sure, but I don't think he believes what you think. But he DOES believe (correctly) that HE is president by the rules of the contest, and that's really all that matters.
Sure, we need to protect ourselves from such efforts by the Russians (or any other group who wants to try this)....
But.. Do we need to compound the electorates' doubts by hoisting up unfounded accusations of criminal activity by one of the campaigns as if they where all true? Truly, all the trumped up (pun intended) charges about all this only serve to further the Russian's gains and multiply the results of their efforts.
Personally, I would have preferred that we concentrated in on the REAL issue (The Russians activities) and let all the rest of the political based accusations which have no basis just go away. It should NEVER had been blown up into what it's become over the last 9 months and letting it happen has only served to further aid the Russians in their gains.
Well... Traditionally the FCC was about RF communications and in that capacity they are really necessary. Of course they also branched out into phone/telegraph regulations from that point and have collected legacy "communications" technologies as they developed. They took on broadcasting, Cable TV, POTS networks, Cell phones and now the internet all fall within their authority. Where I don't think the FCC's classical mission has really gone away, I do think that their legacy claim on things like the internet and related technologies is something that fits into their regulatory structure easily.
Maybe it's time for a wholesale reorganization of the FCC and the laws upon which they are based? I think a wholesale re-thinking about the primary roles of the FCC needs to be done and a whole lot of the ground they have assumed based on legacy might be better handled though another agency if at all. Why does the FCC have any say about how the internet may work anyway? Sure keep the RF emissions regulations, licensing and enforcement parts, but make most of the rest of the functions of the FCC more about setting standards and less about regulating how certain businesses must operate.
as the Orange Clown didn't order it, it's all FINE right?
Not in the least, of course it matters.. However... WHY have we been accusing Trump of organizing this for literally MONTHS? He didn't have anything to do with this if you take what Comey says to be true. Seriously, why all the sputtering and spitting about collusion we've been hearing since before Trump took office?
However, I'd like to point out that we still haven't seen any evidence that "The Russians" managed to change the count of votes cast, only that they where trying to disrupt what they could.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody dare try a study about in code comments and Salary levels?
My guess is you will see the same difference between Emacs and VI users...
THIS!
Personally, I don't care about tabs verses spaces, it doesn't make much of a difference to me.
At least not in this country... In some places $50K is good money...
A need does not create a right. People need health care, but it is NOT government's job to give everybody what they need.
If you need to eat, you go obtain food...
You need money to buy food, you go to work...
You need a job, you go out and find one...
See how this works?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping those who are unable to help themselves, the disabled, the elderly and such and I support government and private programs that do this, but government should not give to those who could and should be helping themselves because it does more harm than good.
Second: Trump saying doesn't mean republicans think its OK.
You have a valid point. Trump ran as a republican, but he's not a traditional republican by a long shot. He's more of a centrist on his social positions, which is why Mike Pence is his VP. Personally I figured he ran as a republican because he knew Clinton had the democrat nomination sewn up and he had not chance there, and not because he agreed with the republican party on all that much. In fact, I think Clinton was STUPID in not exploiting this rift between Trump and the right of the republican party better than she did, but I guess it would take too much effort and she was going to win anyway so she got lazy.
It makes me laugh with the LGBT folks picket him too... He is decidedly NOT on the far right on social issues so they have nothing to fear from Trump and a lot to gain should they see their way clear to work with him... But no, their democratic handlers won't let that message get out...
OR, maybe I think the left in this country in the vitriol they've been spewing has prompted some nut case into taking some action that they have suggested over and over and now feign "but we didn't actually mean it so we have no responsibility here.." when the PR crap hits the fan.
Remember the shooting of Gabby Gifford (By another nut case) and how the left went after Sara Palain because she had run a campaign ad with a target (but no advocating of violence) in it? Have you heard the musing of popular left personalities lately? I'm guessing the double standard doesn't matter to you...
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is about self defense.
No. You want it to be, I understand that, but there's as much in there about self-defense as there is about abortion:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm just grateful no organization, ever, has used its "official position" as a shield for the more nefarious goals of its members.
So what does the last clause mean? "he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" In historical context it's about the right to self defense, but in reality it's an absolute constitutional guarantee to the right to be armed. The first phrase is about why this right is necessary and valuable to the country as a whole, not a limit to said right. Remember "Shall not be infringed" was added to the second phrase.
The NRA is about self defense and sport and supporting the rights of individuals to own arms for these reasons. Officially that's their position and they will quickly condemn any of their members who advocate using violence for political gain. Democrats? Not so much....
I'm betting that it is nothing but a pad that you lay your phone on instead of having to plug it in... Something that My Samsung Note 4 can already do if you have the right third party equipment. Trust me, this will only make chargers a whole lot more expensive.
Where I welcome the water proof part, I wonder what this means to how you sync your phone now? Are they removing the lighting connector or just adding the necessary elements to capture power from a magnetic field....
There IS something illegal about inciting riots, destruction of property and generally breaking laws during your protesting. Not all "resist" participants are involved in such stuff, but I don't hear very many of them calling for the people who are doing these things to stop. In fact, I hear exactly the oppsit when you hear the rhetoric from the democratic leadership.
This includes Clinton. I've not heard her say anything other than unqualified support of the "resist" movement. She's not called for non-violent protesting, she's not denounced the violence. Silence is compliance in this case. Both Clinton and high ranking Democrats have not denounced any of this. But this is par for the left's course. Remember Obama's "If you bring a knife we will bring a gun" speech? I do. Is the imagery lost on you? I hope not.
But really, it's clear why they do this... As in all unethical and immoral behavior involving politicians, follow the money.... Clinton is protecting her donations by giving at least lip service to the causes they want her to. Clinton may not approve of this stuff, but apparently her principles don't hold enough sway to actually cause her to clearly denounce it, so I figure she's complicit.
Hey, if they can make up statistics, I can too...
Way to miss the point....
Yes, this guy was a certifiable nut job, they are everywhere, not just working for Bernie.. (Although, working for Bernie could be a mental illness in some circles [kidding]).
What I'm talking about is the irresponsible rhetoric that gives these nut jobs targeting advice. Cathy Giffords stunt and the NY Theater play where they kill an actor dressed like Trump are recent egregious examples of what I'm talking about. Go look at who this shooter held in high regard and what kind of idiotic things they have said should be done... Many of them are very public figures in the left's ideological world. He took his targeting from them.
Lost the argument I see.... Need your safe space?
I'm just pointing out that Clinton has unclean hands here. I get that she's playing political games with all this and I don't begrudge her that. However, I do take exception to those who willingly ignore just how complicit she is in all this "the election was unfair" foolishness. She's a Clinton, she's got dirty hands and you should admit that to yourself...
Right...
Why do I feel like this has turned into a grade school playground troll fest... "I'm rubber and you are glue, what you say bounces of me and sticks to you!"
LOL..
You use a LEFTIST website to prove your point and totally misunderstand what the NRA is actually saying... Do try to pay attention...
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is about self defense. What the NRA says is about defense, about being armed and ready to DEFEND oneself. They do NOT advocate offensive activity.
Of course, leave it to those who don't like the NRA to mischaracterize their official position and attempt to convince others that the NRA advocates the use of firearms for anything other than defense or sport...I can assure you that the NRA doesn't advocate violence to further it's political positions, unlike what the left has done (Cathy Giffords, the NY Theater in the park come to mind as recent examples).
You seeing the difference here?
How's this have ANYTHING to do with ANY news outlet? (Hint: It doesn't..)
But now that you brought this up, of all the outlets out there, Fox seems the most responsible to me. But hey, if you think otherwise, enjoy the channel you like the best. I would just caution you about "confirmation bias" and encourage you to carefully weigh what you are hearing and seeing and make sure you are not just confirming your own personal bias though standing in an echo chamber you agree with.
You're right. It should start with the President and his "Second Amendment solutions".
Right, how is supporting the NRA even close to this? I've never heard the NRA advocate the shooting of it's political opponents, have you? I haven't.
You see, it's THIS very kind of irresponsible rhetoric from folks like you that I'm calling out here..
This is getting out of hand... WAY out of hand. The specific targeting of the right needs to end. I'm not talking about the nut jobs with guns, but those who engage in irresponsible verbal targeting that encourage the nut jobs with guns and provide them targeting.
Come on folks, all this hateful rhetoric needs to come to a full and final stop. Those on the other side of the isle are NOT (in general) trying to do harm to others or the country and it's way past time we stop trying to claim they are. Attach the principles, argue about what the country should do, discuss the issues, but leave the personal attacks and outlandish claims alone.
This shooting illustrates just one of the reasons why this is important..
Partisan politics brings out the worst in people? Who'd have thought?
Yea, that and the feeling of being anonymous on the Internet....
OK, so why is she providing tacit support to the "resist" movement which in general does NOT accept the election's results and why is she blaming the fake Russian collusion narrative, even partially? She did say "it's hard not to believe" Trump colluded with the Russians, when there was little evidence...
I think she is using all this to her political advantage. Sure she realized that there was zero chance at a legal challenge succeeding, but that was only after all the recount foolishness we went though and the effort to sway electoral college electors to change their votes. (You do recall all that right?)
So sure, she conceded nearly a day late, then has been stirring the pot of discontent since. Shame on her for helping the Russians sow discontent and doubt in the minds of the electorate, mostly on her side of the spectrum. This is something the Republicans DON'T generally do, but Democrats often engage in that damages the country.
So... In a country blessed with a first amendment.... How's this an issue we can fix?
You may not like it, but freedom of speech is a given around these parts. Granted it's got good and bad parts, but over all it's not something we want to try and abridge... Right?
So how do you propose we keep the Russians from doing this kind of thing? I'm not sure we have much leverage on that. We can secure our voting systems, tighten our controls on who gets to vote where and keep the results untainted, but I don't think we can control the media or the internet. Perhaps we could tighten up the libel protections for public figures, but I don't think even that wouldn't run crosswise to the 1st amendment.
Personally, I think an educated and well informed electorate is your best defense from such outside influences.... However, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink...
ALWAYS avoid adopting technology that you don't understand just because somebody on your staff or a salesman with some glossy sales flyer says it will be great! If your manager shows up with the idea, convinced that it's going to be the solution to all his problems and won't take your advice on the matter, update your resume....The devil is ALWAYS in the details...
There is no silver bullet... Trust me, I've looked for years... However, that doesn't mean you cannot shoot yourself in the foot with a plain old lead round.
Clinton accepted the results with no issue.
Really? I don't think she's accepted the results, even yet. She has blamed everybody and the kitchen sink for her loss INCLUDING the Russians and as I remember, she was very slow to accept the results and concede (took until after noon the next day). Her surrogates have fostered both the violent and riotous "resist" movement (which she has openly supported) and foisted this fictional Russian Collusion narrative that has dominated the press for the last 6 months. Certainly she's not denounced any of this stuff.
What Trump believes or maintains about the popular vote is immaterial, and I think if you actually listened to his statements on this, you will understand he's not exactly holding the position you think. He's claiming there was significant fraud that ran up his opponent's votes. Fraud did exist and there were reports that it was significant at the time, though perhaps not as much as Trump would like. However, his language is imprecise at times, so it's hard to know for sure, but I don't think he believes what you think. But he DOES believe (correctly) that HE is president by the rules of the contest, and that's really all that matters.
Sure, we need to protect ourselves from such efforts by the Russians (or any other group who wants to try this)....
But.. Do we need to compound the electorates' doubts by hoisting up unfounded accusations of criminal activity by one of the campaigns as if they where all true? Truly, all the trumped up (pun intended) charges about all this only serve to further the Russian's gains and multiply the results of their efforts.
Personally, I would have preferred that we concentrated in on the REAL issue (The Russians activities) and let all the rest of the political based accusations which have no basis just go away. It should NEVER had been blown up into what it's become over the last 9 months and letting it happen has only served to further aid the Russians in their gains.
Well... Traditionally the FCC was about RF communications and in that capacity they are really necessary. Of course they also branched out into phone/telegraph regulations from that point and have collected legacy "communications" technologies as they developed. They took on broadcasting, Cable TV, POTS networks, Cell phones and now the internet all fall within their authority. Where I don't think the FCC's classical mission has really gone away, I do think that their legacy claim on things like the internet and related technologies is something that fits into their regulatory structure easily.
Maybe it's time for a wholesale reorganization of the FCC and the laws upon which they are based? I think a wholesale re-thinking about the primary roles of the FCC needs to be done and a whole lot of the ground they have assumed based on legacy might be better handled though another agency if at all. Why does the FCC have any say about how the internet may work anyway? Sure keep the RF emissions regulations, licensing and enforcement parts, but make most of the rest of the functions of the FCC more about setting standards and less about regulating how certain businesses must operate.
as the Orange Clown didn't order it, it's all FINE right?
Not in the least, of course it matters.. However... WHY have we been accusing Trump of organizing this for literally MONTHS? He didn't have anything to do with this if you take what Comey says to be true. Seriously, why all the sputtering and spitting about collusion we've been hearing since before Trump took office?
However, I'd like to point out that we still haven't seen any evidence that "The Russians" managed to change the count of votes cast, only that they where trying to disrupt what they could.