"In this case all Classified information is Classified by the Executive Branch, which means the guy who runs the Executive Branch (Obama), and his closest advisers (like Clinton) by definition are the guys who decide whether something is Classified, and therefore they can declassify shit simply by talking about it. Legally speaking much of the case against Clinton will collapse in Court simply because most shit that was on her server, and was classified, was classified by the state department, using her authority as Secretary of State."
That's some fundamentally flawed understanding of classification authority. Let's go backwards first. A lot of the classified information was classified by other agencies, so the case collapsing because some or most of it is from the State department is spurious. Next, not even the original classifying agency can declassify something without discussing it with other agencies. Finally, under the law, the President delegates classification authority to the agencies. The President can not declassify something on a whim, they must ask the agency to declassify it. The agency head can decline to do so; but theoretically the President could just fire the head of the agency and keep doing so until someone agrees to.
Also, "was it marked" is not relevant, as whether it is or not is irrelevant under the laws and regulations that she signed onto. You are supposed to know what is classified.
84 out of 2000+ were retroactively classified. And those 84 were not the 22 that were deemed to highly classified to be released. Also most of the egregious stuff came from other agencies.
It's been a growing trend for politicians and society in general to view cash transactions as the realm of illicit trade. Take news reports of people having their money confiscated by state police in Tennessee because they were carrying so much. And there's no reason to carry that much money except to buy drugs or some other illegal good.
That latter group: "that's stupid, I'm not buying that, stop being so annoying." Is still a win. If that latter group sees the ad enough and then when they do have to buy a product, one of first things they'll think of is the one that's stuck in their head. It's how annoying ads work. A chunk of the people who aren't going to buy the stuff right away or don't think they need to or want to, will remember that product later when/if they do need to buy one. The more annoying, catchy, or intrusive the ad, the more likely it is to stick with the person no matter their opinion.
The reference to the Canadian issue was actually the result of laws in Canada against harassment. So in at least one case it was a real law that led to a "thought crime."
How about the people being fired from jobs or getting jail time for twitter posts? There's an actual Canadian who disagreed with a feminist on Twitter, and do to cyber violence harassment law (or whatever they call it in Canada) the guy was tried, convicted, and had jail time.
Slashdot Mirror
FOUO doesn't protect something from FOIA requests.
"In this case all Classified information is Classified by the Executive Branch, which means the guy who runs the Executive Branch (Obama), and his closest advisers (like Clinton) by definition are the guys who decide whether something is Classified, and therefore they can declassify shit simply by talking about it. Legally speaking much of the case against Clinton will collapse in Court simply because most shit that was on her server, and was classified, was classified by the state department, using her authority as Secretary of State."
That's some fundamentally flawed understanding of classification authority. Let's go backwards first. A lot of the classified information was classified by other agencies, so the case collapsing because some or most of it is from the State department is spurious. Next, not even the original classifying agency can declassify something without discussing it with other agencies. Finally, under the law, the President delegates classification authority to the agencies. The President can not declassify something on a whim, they must ask the agency to declassify it. The agency head can decline to do so; but theoretically the President could just fire the head of the agency and keep doing so until someone agrees to.
Also, "was it marked" is not relevant, as whether it is or not is irrelevant under the laws and regulations that she signed onto. You are supposed to know what is classified.
84 out of 2000+ were retroactively classified. And those 84 were not the 22 that were deemed to highly classified to be released. Also most of the egregious stuff came from other agencies.
Most of the more egregious stuff she had on her email server was not originated by the State Department.
Lifetime warranties and assurances are for you the buyer's lifetime. Don't be facetious.
More salt!
Sounds like someone is salty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In this case Konami actually made a remake for it on the Game Cube if memory serves.
See what I did there?
Considering xbox controllers have worked on PCs for a long while, wouldn't be a stretch...
OMG, they thought they were actually pirates! LMAO.
Hobbits were humans in Tolkien's universe much closer to humans than the Orcs were to Elves because they weren't twisted by magic.
They have this thing called Western Union.
Austria not Australia.
It's been a growing trend for politicians and society in general to view cash transactions as the realm of illicit trade. Take news reports of people having their money confiscated by state police in Tennessee because they were carrying so much. And there's no reason to carry that much money except to buy drugs or some other illegal good.
You're assuming everyone is like you.
That latter group: "that's stupid, I'm not buying that, stop being so annoying." Is still a win. If that latter group sees the ad enough and then when they do have to buy a product, one of first things they'll think of is the one that's stuck in their head. It's how annoying ads work. A chunk of the people who aren't going to buy the stuff right away or don't think they need to or want to, will remember that product later when/if they do need to buy one. The more annoying, catchy, or intrusive the ad, the more likely it is to stick with the person no matter their opinion.
*ahem* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I bet you loved Hitler.
Say it with me now, "A strong dollar is a good for imports. A weak dollar is good for exports."
Is that why Japan signed a surrender treaty with the USSR? Oh wait, they never did.
The reference to the Canadian issue was actually the result of laws in Canada against harassment. So in at least one case it was a real law that led to a "thought crime."
How about the people being fired from jobs or getting jail time for twitter posts? There's an actual Canadian who disagreed with a feminist on Twitter, and do to cyber violence harassment law (or whatever they call it in Canada) the guy was tried, convicted, and had jail time.