You cite purchasing decisions by two government agencies as support for your argument? Good job./s
It's also worth pointing out that vaccines aren't much like a free market; lots of people are required to get them (for good reason) and there's basically no profit in them.
The claim you were replying to didn't say it would "suddenly" go away, just that it would *eventually*. What you're arguing about is whether a) government force makes fraud go away faster, and b) if it does, whether you can justify using it. Those are points worth discussing.
No, libertarians would say that if you scam me on a medical test, I can sue you. Enough suits and the company goes out of business. Plus, even most small government types think the government should protect against outright fraud. You're conflating libertarians with anarchists.
Libertarians tend to take contracts pretty seriously. Fraud would be a breach of contract, and as such, even in a libertarian's ideal world, would still be dealt with by the government. But hey, nice strawman.
Cheney couldn't have put a server in his basement, his coffin takes up too much space there.
In all seriousness, while the Bush administration did some bad things related to email and record-keeping, and ideally they'd be prosecuted for them, what Hillary did was different. Some rules were more fully spelled out by the time she got into office (and yes, I know they updated the requirements to be even clearer after she left), and her treatment of classified material was shameful.
It's democratic mob rule, but I can't really see how it's fascist, since fascism is undemocratic and usually requires a dictator. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's fascist.
He cc'd the official SoS account on every email from his private account. He may have violated the FRA, but he didn't mishandle classified information. It's not the same thing.
Here is a partial explanation for why what Powell did isn't the same as what Hillary did. Policies changed between the two of them, for one; Powell also never had any non-DoS classified documents on his private email - the classified ones were ones he had the authority to declassify - while Hillary had both Secret and Top Secret documents that she did not have the authority to declassify on her private email.
Intercourse: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person; "anal intercourse", "oral intercourse". You were saying?
I don't know, but apparently she didn't even ask. It seems like other people at the State Department - career people there, I guess. Probably a panel of some sort.
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Socialism: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
So no, in an economy that's actually socialist (not just commonly called "socialist" by people, like the Nordic countries), you can't privately own a business. Capitalism allows one to use money to make more money, but it's not part of the definition.
I don't think that's quite an accurate representation of either universe. In Star Trek, people are still allowed to own their own property and businesses (individual ownership of business = capitalism), but in a (largely) post-scarcity setting, there's not much need to actually exert effort if you don't want to.
Star Wars - at least, the movies - show us much more of the outskirts. They don't really have a government, so while the outskirts are largely capitalist, they're also pretty much in anarchy. It's not really an indictment of capitalism as much as it is an indictment of chaos and anarchy.
I'm not sure whose authority you'd normally need to move classified data around, but that's sort of irrelevant for her case; she didn't have permission from anyone to set up her server.
As for determinations - sometimes it's by law, and sometimes it's by Executive Order, like it says. Some pieces of data are automatically classified as soon as they're created - most satellite imagery, for instance - because letting them loose would give away certain capabilities. The POTUS generally has the ability to declassify data (and presumably give themselves the right to take it with them), so a low-level clerk wouldn't be able to make them be in violation of the law.
Of course not, that's a ludicrous suggestion. There have been some good POTUSes, a lot of mediocre ones, and some pretty bad ones. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I think they're the worst in America's history; they almost certainly aren't, but that doesn't mean they can't screw things up.
I think Hillary probably will be the next POTUS, but I don't think there will be a campaign of "pure misogyny". There will be a lot of criticism, of course, because there always is, and some of it will be misogynistic, but I think most of it will be because people disagree with what she's doing, not because of her gender. I'm also quite confident that regardless of how much is actually gender based, her team will try to paint it all as sexist, because that's the easiest way to dismiss it.
Under 18 U.S. Code 1924. She also violated several portions of the CFR, which generally wouldn't carry a possibility of prison, but would justify fines and loss of security clearance.
110 classified emails stored improperly; each of those could be grounds for prosecution. The fact that there were also lots of work and personal emails there means nothing. It's completely irrelevant.
After the dropout issue was corrected, there was no gender bias. From the article:
Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely. So while the attrition numbers aren’t great, I’m massively encouraged by the fact that at least in these findings, it’s not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever.
They even said beforehand that neither trend (women masked as men doing worse, men masked as women doing better) reached statistical significance in the first place.
In the article, the only statistically significant finding was that women leave after bad interviews more often than men do. They found trends that women masked as men did worse, and men masked as women did better, but neither effect reached statistical significance.
"If you can't compete against women (who are getting an unfair advantage) in the job market, you really don't deserve to get hired." Hmm. Sounds a little bad now, doesn't it? Let's switch out the groups a bit - if whites are getting an unfair advantage over blacks, and the blacks don't get hired, did they not deserve it?
Slashdot Mirror
You cite purchasing decisions by two government agencies as support for your argument? Good job. /s
It's also worth pointing out that vaccines aren't much like a free market; lots of people are required to get them (for good reason) and there's basically no profit in them.
The claim you were replying to didn't say it would "suddenly" go away, just that it would *eventually*. What you're arguing about is whether a) government force makes fraud go away faster, and b) if it does, whether you can justify using it. Those are points worth discussing.
No, libertarians would say that if you scam me on a medical test, I can sue you. Enough suits and the company goes out of business. Plus, even most small government types think the government should protect against outright fraud. You're conflating libertarians with anarchists.
Libertarians tend to take contracts pretty seriously. Fraud would be a breach of contract, and as such, even in a libertarian's ideal world, would still be dealt with by the government. But hey, nice strawman.
Cheney couldn't have put a server in his basement, his coffin takes up too much space there.
In all seriousness, while the Bush administration did some bad things related to email and record-keeping, and ideally they'd be prosecuted for them, what Hillary did was different. Some rules were more fully spelled out by the time she got into office (and yes, I know they updated the requirements to be even clearer after she left), and her treatment of classified material was shameful.
Significant quantities of the classified information they found wasn't from the State Department. She had no authority to declassify that stuff.
It's democratic mob rule, but I can't really see how it's fascist, since fascism is undemocratic and usually requires a dictator. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's fascist.
He cc'd the official SoS account on every email from his private account. He may have violated the FRA, but he didn't mishandle classified information. It's not the same thing.
Here is a partial explanation for why what Powell did isn't the same as what Hillary did. Policies changed between the two of them, for one; Powell also never had any non-DoS classified documents on his private email - the classified ones were ones he had the authority to declassify - while Hillary had both Secret and Top Secret documents that she did not have the authority to declassify on her private email.
Intercourse: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person; "anal intercourse", "oral intercourse". You were saying?
Libertarian (even big "L" Libertarian) != anarchist. And you call them ignorant in your sig? FFS, man.
"Should have known better" can be a criminal offense with classified information.
I don't know, but apparently she didn't even ask. It seems like other people at the State Department - career people there, I guess. Probably a panel of some sort.
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Socialism: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
So no, in an economy that's actually socialist (not just commonly called "socialist" by people, like the Nordic countries), you can't privately own a business. Capitalism allows one to use money to make more money, but it's not part of the definition.
I don't think that's quite an accurate representation of either universe. In Star Trek, people are still allowed to own their own property and businesses (individual ownership of business = capitalism), but in a (largely) post-scarcity setting, there's not much need to actually exert effort if you don't want to.
Star Wars - at least, the movies - show us much more of the outskirts. They don't really have a government, so while the outskirts are largely capitalist, they're also pretty much in anarchy. It's not really an indictment of capitalism as much as it is an indictment of chaos and anarchy.
I'm not sure whose authority you'd normally need to move classified data around, but that's sort of irrelevant for her case; she didn't have permission from anyone to set up her server.
As for determinations - sometimes it's by law, and sometimes it's by Executive Order, like it says. Some pieces of data are automatically classified as soon as they're created - most satellite imagery, for instance - because letting them loose would give away certain capabilities. The POTUS generally has the ability to declassify data (and presumably give themselves the right to take it with them), so a low-level clerk wouldn't be able to make them be in violation of the law.
Of course not, that's a ludicrous suggestion. There have been some good POTUSes, a lot of mediocre ones, and some pretty bad ones. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I think they're the worst in America's history; they almost certainly aren't, but that doesn't mean they can't screw things up.
I think Hillary probably will be the next POTUS, but I don't think there will be a campaign of "pure misogyny". There will be a lot of criticism, of course, because there always is, and some of it will be misogynistic, but I think most of it will be because people disagree with what she's doing, not because of her gender. I'm also quite confident that regardless of how much is actually gender based, her team will try to paint it all as sexist, because that's the easiest way to dismiss it.
Under 18 U.S. Code 1924. She also violated several portions of the CFR, which generally wouldn't carry a possibility of prison, but would justify fines and loss of security clearance.
Only for some crimes. Mens rea is not a defense or a mitigating factor in all cases.
Yep, all that money she gets from Wall Street and Saudi Arabia definitely make her better qualified to be President. /s
They're both corrupt jackasses. America is screwed either way - the only difference is how, in particular, they'll screw it up.
110 classified emails stored improperly; each of those could be grounds for prosecution. The fact that there were also lots of work and personal emails there means nothing. It's completely irrelevant.
Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely. So while the attrition numbers aren’t great, I’m massively encouraged by the fact that at least in these findings, it’s not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever.
They even said beforehand that neither trend (women masked as men doing worse, men masked as women doing better) reached statistical significance in the first place.
In the article, the only statistically significant finding was that women leave after bad interviews more often than men do. They found trends that women masked as men did worse, and men masked as women did better, but neither effect reached statistical significance.
They said neither trend was statistically significant. The only real difference was that women left after bad interviews far more often than men did.
"If you can't compete against women (who are getting an unfair advantage) in the job market, you really don't deserve to get hired." Hmm. Sounds a little bad now, doesn't it? Let's switch out the groups a bit - if whites are getting an unfair advantage over blacks, and the blacks don't get hired, did they not deserve it?