These people problem mucked up the upgrade themselves and want to blame someone else. No OS bricks a device, maybe firmware upgrades can brick a PC but certainly not a OS. Yeah you might have to revert to previous version, or do a clean install. But their are solutions and the PC is not bricked. What does Microsoft have some 350 million upgrades done? A small fraction of these had issues and apparently some never got proper support to fix their problems? Some people rather complain then seek out help to fix a problem. Some also do not do homework to check if their device even worked with Windows10. All major PC makers provided lists that said which PC's were compatible with Windows 10. Microsoft did some shady stuff getting users to upgrade, but bricking their PC's I am sure was not on their list.
First, these are not people mucking it up, these are from the Microsoft prompt to upgrade. Not only that, but the Windows 10 upgrade prompt does a pre-upgrade evaluation of your system to ENSURE your system is compatible. From there it's literally a single step of clicking the "Upgrade" button. That's it. As soon as you do that, the upgrade process goes a little something like this:
1.) Windows 10 files download to a temporary location 2.) Any Windows updates that need to be installed prior to upgrade gets installed. 3.) Pre-upgrade preparation (moving your personal files (files located in your Library folders) and OS files to a temporary location) 4.) Windows 10 files start to un-package and the upgrade sequences start 5.) 5-10 minutes of windows 10 installation 6.) Post-upgrade clean up and data migration via temporary location made during step 3 7.) upgrade complete
Now if the upgrade fails, it reverts the upgrade via the OS files it set aside during step 3.
Not to beat a dead horse, but as I've informed others of, the upgrade process doesn't always complete successfully, I know this first-hand as an ex employee of a vendor used by MS for supporting Surface tablets, and I did that for a total of 4 years until recently.
You have two opportunities for failure: a) the initial upgrade to windows 10 appears successful but in reality it failed somewhere during the post-upgrade process, and thus the roll back doesn't happen, ultimately causing BSOD's; or b) the roll back also fails to revert files and the OS to pre-upgrade form.
This leaves you with the sole requirement of re-installing the Original OS that came with the system, as re-installing windows 10 on top of the clusterfuck that already exists isn't possible, isn't recommended(mostly for OEM PC's), or may cause other unexpected issues(missing drivers).
If you were one of the unlucky who did not solicit for the upgrade but your system made you do it anyways, this puts you in a really tough position, because all of your programs and files(unless otherwise backed up, which in my experience, is maybe 25% of people back up their files at all or regularly) are gone if you can't pull your HDD, and now you're having to deal with the daunting task of doing a nuke & pave followed by an entire rebuild of your system back to where it was. This can take a few hours up to a few days depending on how much you lost.
If you run a business from your computer and you fail to back up your data(which I will admit is totally the end-user's responsibility and if they don't, then they learn a hard lesson), then you're in for a real treat.
Bricking may be an excessive term, but to some that's how it's interpreted. The device is literally useless without some extraordinary process being necessary for it to function again. Not everyone has the patience of Job, and will likely call it a loss, and inevitably replace the computer, tossing the old one in the garbage. I know this, because I've been told this by pissed off customers.
You don't understand. The drive is encrypted on the Surface tablets. You cannot access the data outside of the OS due to bitlocker encryption. Getting your files would be impossible.
Guess what! The upgrade DID brick PC's! As I mentioned to someone else, I did tech support for a period of time for the MS Surface tablets. We received countless calls from customers whose Surface Pro tablets were no longer functional(couldn't boot / blue screen errors) after the Windows 10 upgrade due to corruption/failed upgrades. Not only that, but they were supposed to revert back to 8 if the upgrade failed, but even that didn't work half the time due to the corruption or damaged/missing files. We had no choice but to re-install the factory image via USB because there was way in fixing it any other way. Believe me, we tried! Not only that but they lost their data if it wasn't backed up! This lead to a large number of pissed off customers who swore off MS forever.
Also, I'm pretty sure that there have already been countless consumer complaints to the FTC and the US AG about this. Who knows what will happen in the end, but this isn't appropriate behavior by a company who's already experienced anti-trust lawsuits.
Wow you are completely unaware of the real world. Your total lack of understanding of the intricacies of this issue speak to your profound level of ignorance, coupled with your complete lack of empathy.
It's not as simple as you would like to make it. Businesses can't just simply port to Linux or Mac if the software they use are not compatible with or made for those platforms.
Microsoft used malware tactics to force Windows 10 on unsuspecting customers, who should have a legal right to refuse a different OS from the one they purchased. They didn't purchase licenses for Windows 10, they purchased licenses for Windows XP, 7, or 8. Nobody ever expected Microsoft to force an OS change, because they never have in the past. When Windows Vista rolled out, it was an offered upgrade for XP users, but they never strong-armed them into it. Same for when Windows 7 came out. They offered an upgrade to windows 7 from Vista, but it was voluntary, and was never forced upon the end-user.
This Windows 10 OS upgrade was at first a voluntary upgrade. You had the option to decline. They changed that a few months ago when they changed the GWX application to essentially force or trick unsuspecting users into upgrades they didn't want or need. They used malware tactics(i.e. remove the ability to close out of the prompts, forcing them to click the 'Upgrade' option(because there wasn't another option at the time), or if hitting the "X" to close the window still initiated the upgrade, or making people "schedule" the upgrade for later, still forcing it to happen because there wasn't an opt-out choice), and in the process they crippled business that are stuck with legacy software for one reason or another(i.e. costs), and ruined numerous PC's whose owners lost data because the Windows 10 upgrade crashed their machine, requiring a factory OS re-install. I know this first-hand because I used to do support for the MS Surface tablets and we had and endless number of customers call in who couldn't get their tablet to boot windows anymore due to corrupted/incomplete upgrades, and the only option we had was a factory OS re-install. Their data was essentially gone unless they were smart enough to back it up somewhere.
I'm hinting sarcasm, but sometimes it's hard to tell on the interwebs, so just in case you're serious...
The consumers were already compensated. They received a FREE upgrade to Windows 10, the most powerful and secure windows Ever, a 119.99 value!
Businesses that lost revenue due to shady Windows 10 upgrade practices should most definitely be compensated for said lost revenue.
Consumers could decline the upgrade, or if already upgraded, pay for a new copy of Windows 7 with selective downgrade rights.
Or ya know.. Microsoft could just stop aggressive malware tactics that forced Windows 10 onto their customers. You have to be out of your mind if you think it's fair to make a consumer pay for a windows 7 license that THEY ALREADY HAD in order to use it again.
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas) Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
So, as I stated before. The civil rights act clearly distinguished the southern dixiecrats from the rest of the democratic party.
And the only 100%'s for republicans were southern republicans voting AGAINST the Civil Rights Act.
Let me repeat: The Republicans garnered the festering tumor of the democratic party which was the Dixiecrats, using the "Southern Strategy" AFTER the CRA.
So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?
No because she never specifically questioned his birthplace, but some of her campaign staff forwarded around the birther e-mails when it started. Which while they may not directly be racist, it attributed to Obama's race issue and fueling the racist fire, per se.
Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.
Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.
If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?
The problem is that he lied about knowing David Duke. He did himself in on that subject by saying he didn't know who David Duke was. Regardless if he disavowed him or not, him lying about it is much worse because there's clearly a recording of him 15 years ago saying the complete opposite.
Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...
Tell that to half the country. I'm sure they'll totally be in agreement with you./s
Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite [wikipedia.org]. And Seddique Mateen [theguardian.com] — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter [heavy.com]. and Lezley McSpadden [washingtonpost.com], whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...
Nobody will give a shit about her disavowing Al Sharpton except for alt-right trolls such as yourself. There's no reason to disavow Mateen, because he wasn't the one who shot up the club, his son did. He cannot be wholly responsible for what his son did. He condemned the actions that his son had taken. I'm also guessing that you like to call quick to call him a political enemy for his quote: “Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,” And last but not least, Lezley McSpadden already has to deal with the grief of losing her son. Millions of people make mistakes, but nobody should die over petty theft. The fact that you believe she should be disavowed because of her son's poor decisions speaks volumes to your insipid and completely tasteless opinions.
They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.
You're a walking, talking, somehow-functioning dictionary of logical fallacies. Nobody will take you seriously if you don't present a proper argument.
So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?
No because she never specifically questioned his birthplace, but some of her campaign staff forwarded around the birther e-mails when it started. Which while they may not directly be racist, it attributed to Obama's race issue and fueling the racist fire, per se.
Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.
Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.
If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?
The problem is that he lied about knowing David Duke. He did himself in on that subject by saying he didn't know who David Duke was. Regardless if he disavowed him or not, him lying about it is much worse because there's clearly a recording of him 15 years ago saying the complete opposite.
Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...
Tell that to half the country. I'm sure they'll totally be in agreement with you./s
Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite [wikipedia.org]. And Seddique Mateen [theguardian.com] — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter [heavy.com]. and Lezley McSpadden [washingtonpost.com], whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...
Nobody will give a shit about her disavowing Al Sharpton except for alt-right trolls such as yourself. There's no reason to disavow Mateen, because he wasn't the one who shot up the club, his son did. He cannot be wholly responsible for what his son did. He condemned the actions that his son had taken. I'm also guessing that you like to call quick to call him a political enemy for his quote: “Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,” And last but not least, Lezley McSpadden already has to deal with the grief of losing her son. Millions of people make mistakes, but nobody should die over petty theft. The fact that you believe she should be disavowed because of her son's poor decisions speaks volumes to your insipid and completely tasteless opinions.
They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.
You're a walking, talking, somehow-functioning dictionary of logical fallacies. Nobody will take you seriously if you don't present a proper argument.
If you knew your history well enough, you'd understand that those same Democrats left the party after Truman and the other Democrats successfully pushed Civil Rights expansions for african americans. They then went to form the Dixiecrat party, which died off shortly thereafter when they were lured by southern Republican leaders with their "southern strategy," which appealed to white racist southerners.
Could you offer some proof of this — something the rest of us, who do not have your powers of telepathy, can verify on their own? Something, that makes Trump's suspecting Obama's eligibility uniquely different from Clinton suspecting same [factcheck.org]? Or suspecting that McCain [nytimes.com] or Ted Cruz [factcheck.org] may not be eligible either?
They were ALL being racist. He wasn't the only one. Being that Obama was the first real non-white nominee, everyone was playing the race card against him.
That judge has just awarded a scholarship to an illegal immigrant [theamerica...omparty.us]. Is it not fair to suspect, he may be biased against someone, who wishes to deport such illegal immigrants?
You are citing a source, self-described as: "The American Freedom Party (AFP) is both a political party and activist organization dedicated to the interests vital to the preservation and continuity of ethnic European communities within the United States of America."
Fail. extremely biased source who's objective is white European purity in the USA.
White judges are suspected of bias against Black defendants all the time [google.com] (as are White juries [wikipedia.org]) — why is it "racist" to suspect a Latino judge of similar bias against other races?
Show me proof that he's biased against other races. And not from your sketchy white supremacist websites. Give me clear court cases where he made his sole decision based on someone's race. Proof or GTFO.
The biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, which is about as far from the Middle East as is the US. Fail.
The Middle East has nearly 400 million muslims spread apart in the various countries in the area. That is nearly double of what Indonesia has.
My point still stands.
A YouTube clip with some talking-head talking about Trump is not proof, sorry. Maybe, he really forgot, who it was. Or, maybe, he lied. But that's not racism either way.
You are being willfully ignorant and down-right avoiding the fact that Trump lied through his teeth about Duke. That youtube video is Trump himself, not some talking-head pundit or whatnot paraphrasing him. Matt Lauer asked Trump about the reform party and their troubles, and Trump's first comment was "You got David Duke just joined. a bigot, a racist, a problem."
HE CLEARLY KNOWS HIM.
If Trump cannot remember who David Duke is, who joined the reform party he was running for in 2000, then he is not fit to be POTUS. His memory is clearly terrible. Maybe he has alzheimers? Maybe he has dementia? Who knows, but he very blatantly blew off the idea of condemning a man who he claimed he didn't know about, yet 15 years earlier he did. He could have easily said "I condemned him 15 years ago, and I am again today." But he didn't because of his known popularity with white nationalists.
As for "disavowing" David Duke — wake me up, when Hillary Clinton "disavows" Al Sharpton, who is no less a racist [breitbart.com] than David Duke... Except she would not do that, because, whereas Duke's endorsement of Trump was unsolicited, Hillary actively sought Sharpton's [nypost.com]. Maybe, if Trump ever went to a Duke's rally, you'd have had a point...
You using brietbart for a source like that is like me using the Huffington Post. You'd obviously dismiss anything sourced from a "liberal news source"
If all of your citations come from sites like brietbart, theamericanfreedomparty.us, or other OBVIOUS biased, partisan sources, you have no foundation for a legitimate argument.
Wow.. you got to be one of THE BIGGEST trump apologist I've ever seen.
First:
Trump's complete ignorance of the fact that Obama's mother was a US Citizen when he was born, and the push that he's not an American on the fabrication that he was born in Kenya, only for the sole fact that his father was Kenyan, was purely motivated by his mixed race.
Second:
What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest. If it is Ok to suspect [washingtonpost.com], that an All-white jury [wikipedia.org] may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?
You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.
That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association you're thinking of. http://www.snopes.com/judge-cu...
Third:
Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).
Not racism. Stick to the topic.
That's pretty much racist. It impacts a wide swath of individuals classified as Muslim, which is directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.
There have been numerous attacks on Sikhs who were believed to be muslim because they "looked like a muslim." The only similarity is the skin color.
Sorry to tell you buddy, but what you're promoting is anarcho-capitalism, and that is probably worse than anything we have going on right now.
Trying to say that we'd be better off if we just completely de-funded modern infrastructure would be like saying committing suicide would be appropriate to prescribe oneself for a bad migraine.
I used to do over-the-phone tech support for HP when I was green behind the ears, and we'd get customers who would receive shady calls from overseas reps claiming they had a virus, coincidentally some short time after speaking and working with an agent in Hyderabad. I am positively convinced that they accumulated customer phone numbers that were logged for purposed targeting later on.
Another convincing moment was when a friend of mine that I had worked with had his own HP laptop repaired, and received a targeted call from someone overseas about his laptop and an "infection" that it had on it. They had the serial number of his laptop, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
These people problem mucked up the upgrade themselves and want to blame someone else. No OS bricks a device, maybe firmware upgrades can brick a PC but certainly not a OS. Yeah you might have to revert to previous version, or do a clean install. But their are solutions and the PC is not bricked. What does Microsoft have some 350 million upgrades done? A small fraction of these had issues and apparently some never got proper support to fix their problems? Some people rather complain then seek out help to fix a problem. Some also do not do homework to check if their device even worked with Windows10. All major PC makers provided lists that said which PC's were compatible with Windows 10. Microsoft did some shady stuff getting users to upgrade, but bricking their PC's I am sure was not on their list.
First, these are not people mucking it up, these are from the Microsoft prompt to upgrade. Not only that, but the Windows 10 upgrade prompt does a pre-upgrade evaluation of your system to ENSURE your system is compatible. From there it's literally a single step of clicking the "Upgrade" button. That's it. As soon as you do that, the upgrade process goes a little something like this:
1.) Windows 10 files download to a temporary location
2.) Any Windows updates that need to be installed prior to upgrade gets installed.
3.) Pre-upgrade preparation (moving your personal files (files located in your Library folders) and OS files to a temporary location)
4.) Windows 10 files start to un-package and the upgrade sequences start
5.) 5-10 minutes of windows 10 installation
6.) Post-upgrade clean up and data migration via temporary location made during step 3
7.) upgrade complete
Now if the upgrade fails, it reverts the upgrade via the OS files it set aside during step 3.
Not to beat a dead horse, but as I've informed others of, the upgrade process doesn't always complete successfully, I know this first-hand as an ex employee of a vendor used by MS for supporting Surface tablets, and I did that for a total of 4 years until recently.
You have two opportunities for failure: a) the initial upgrade to windows 10 appears successful but in reality it failed somewhere during the post-upgrade process, and thus the roll back doesn't happen, ultimately causing BSOD's; or b) the roll back also fails to revert files and the OS to pre-upgrade form.
This leaves you with the sole requirement of re-installing the Original OS that came with the system, as re-installing windows 10 on top of the clusterfuck that already exists isn't possible, isn't recommended(mostly for OEM PC's), or may cause other unexpected issues(missing drivers).
If you were one of the unlucky who did not solicit for the upgrade but your system made you do it anyways, this puts you in a really tough position, because all of your programs and files(unless otherwise backed up, which in my experience, is maybe 25% of people back up their files at all or regularly) are gone if you can't pull your HDD, and now you're having to deal with the daunting task of doing a nuke & pave followed by an entire rebuild of your system back to where it was. This can take a few hours up to a few days depending on how much you lost.
If you run a business from your computer and you fail to back up your data(which I will admit is totally the end-user's responsibility and if they don't, then they learn a hard lesson), then you're in for a real treat.
Bricking may be an excessive term, but to some that's how it's interpreted. The device is literally useless without some extraordinary process being necessary for it to function again. Not everyone has the patience of Job, and will likely call it a loss, and inevitably replace the computer, tossing the old one in the garbage. I know this, because I've been told this by pissed off customers.
You don't understand. The drive is encrypted on the Surface tablets. You cannot access the data outside of the OS due to bitlocker encryption. Getting your files would be impossible.
God Damn Loch Ness Monsta! I Ain't givin' you no Tree Fidy!
Accidentally a word. I meant to say:
We had no choice but to re-install the factory image via USB because there was no* way in fixing it any other way.
Guess what! The upgrade DID brick PC's! As I mentioned to someone else, I did tech support for a period of time for the MS Surface tablets. We received countless calls from customers whose Surface Pro tablets were no longer functional(couldn't boot / blue screen errors) after the Windows 10 upgrade due to corruption/failed upgrades. Not only that, but they were supposed to revert back to 8 if the upgrade failed, but even that didn't work half the time due to the corruption or damaged/missing files. We had no choice but to re-install the factory image via USB because there was way in fixing it any other way. Believe me, we tried! Not only that but they lost their data if it wasn't backed up! This lead to a large number of pissed off customers who swore off MS forever.
Also, I'm pretty sure that there have already been countless consumer complaints to the FTC and the US AG about this. Who knows what will happen in the end, but this isn't appropriate behavior by a company who's already experienced anti-trust lawsuits.
Wow you are completely unaware of the real world. Your total lack of understanding of the intricacies of this issue speak to your profound level of ignorance, coupled with your complete lack of empathy.
It's not as simple as you would like to make it. Businesses can't just simply port to Linux or Mac if the software they use are not compatible with or made for those platforms.
Microsoft used malware tactics to force Windows 10 on unsuspecting customers, who should have a legal right to refuse a different OS from the one they purchased. They didn't purchase licenses for Windows 10, they purchased licenses for Windows XP, 7, or 8. Nobody ever expected Microsoft to force an OS change, because they never have in the past. When Windows Vista rolled out, it was an offered upgrade for XP users, but they never strong-armed them into it. Same for when Windows 7 came out. They offered an upgrade to windows 7 from Vista, but it was voluntary, and was never forced upon the end-user.
This Windows 10 OS upgrade was at first a voluntary upgrade. You had the option to decline. They changed that a few months ago when they changed the GWX application to essentially force or trick unsuspecting users into upgrades they didn't want or need. They used malware tactics(i.e. remove the ability to close out of the prompts, forcing them to click the 'Upgrade' option(because there wasn't another option at the time), or if hitting the "X" to close the window still initiated the upgrade, or making people "schedule" the upgrade for later, still forcing it to happen because there wasn't an opt-out choice), and in the process they crippled business that are stuck with legacy software for one reason or another(i.e. costs), and ruined numerous PC's whose owners lost data because the Windows 10 upgrade crashed their machine, requiring a factory OS re-install. I know this first-hand because I used to do support for the MS Surface tablets and we had and endless number of customers call in who couldn't get their tablet to boot windows anymore due to corrupted/incomplete upgrades, and the only option we had was a factory OS re-install. Their data was essentially gone unless they were smart enough to back it up somewhere.
I'm hinting sarcasm, but sometimes it's hard to tell on the interwebs, so just in case you're serious...
The consumers were already compensated. They received a FREE upgrade to Windows 10, the most powerful and secure windows Ever, a 119.99 value!
Businesses that lost revenue due to shady Windows 10 upgrade practices should most definitely be compensated for said lost revenue.
Consumers could decline the upgrade, or if already upgraded, pay for a new copy of Windows 7 with selective downgrade rights.
Or ya know.. Microsoft could just stop aggressive malware tactics that forced Windows 10 onto their customers. You have to be out of your mind if you think it's fair to make a consumer pay for a windows 7 license that THEY ALREADY HAD in order to use it again.
On the Contrary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
let me highlight a very particular passage of that page:
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
So, as I stated before. The civil rights act clearly distinguished the southern dixiecrats from the rest of the democratic party.
And the only 100%'s for republicans were southern republicans voting AGAINST the Civil Rights Act.
Let me repeat: The Republicans garnered the festering tumor of the democratic party which was the Dixiecrats, using the "Southern Strategy" AFTER the CRA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Where's you get your info from? Your Republican parents? The tree stump you argue with?
So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?
No because she never specifically questioned his birthplace, but some of her campaign staff forwarded around the birther e-mails when it started. Which while they may not directly be racist, it attributed to Obama's race issue and fueling the racist fire, per se.
Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.
Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.
If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?
The problem is that he lied about knowing David Duke. He did himself in on that subject by saying he didn't know who David Duke was. Regardless if he disavowed him or not, him lying about it is much worse because there's clearly a recording of him 15 years ago saying the complete opposite.
Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...
Tell that to half the country. I'm sure they'll totally be in agreement with you. /s
Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite [wikipedia.org]. And Seddique Mateen [theguardian.com] — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter [heavy.com]. and Lezley McSpadden [washingtonpost.com], whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...
Nobody will give a shit about her disavowing Al Sharpton except for alt-right trolls such as yourself.
There's no reason to disavow Mateen, because he wasn't the one who shot up the club, his son did. He cannot be wholly responsible for what his son did. He condemned the actions that his son had taken. I'm also guessing that you like to call quick to call him a political enemy for his quote: “Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,”
And last but not least, Lezley McSpadden already has to deal with the grief of losing her son. Millions of people make mistakes, but nobody should die over petty theft. The fact that you believe she should be disavowed because of her son's poor decisions speaks volumes to your insipid and completely tasteless opinions.
They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.
You're a walking, talking, somehow-functioning dictionary of logical fallacies. Nobody will take you seriously if you don't present a proper argument.
Run along now, troll. Your echo chamber awaits.
*Fixed open quote bracket. it was bothering me.*
So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?
No because she never specifically questioned his birthplace, but some of her campaign staff forwarded around the birther e-mails when it started. Which while they may not directly be racist, it attributed to Obama's race issue and fueling the racist fire, per se.
Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.
Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.
If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?
The problem is that he lied about knowing David Duke. He did himself in on that subject by saying he didn't know who David Duke was. Regardless if he disavowed him or not, him lying about it is much worse because there's clearly a recording of him 15 years ago saying the complete opposite.
Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...
Tell that to half the country. I'm sure they'll totally be in agreement with you. /s
Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite [wikipedia.org]. And Seddique Mateen [theguardian.com] — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter [heavy.com]. and Lezley McSpadden [washingtonpost.com], whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...
Nobody will give a shit about her disavowing Al Sharpton except for alt-right trolls such as yourself.
There's no reason to disavow Mateen, because he wasn't the one who shot up the club, his son did. He cannot be wholly responsible for what his son did. He condemned the actions that his son had taken. I'm also guessing that you like to call quick to call him a political enemy for his quote: “Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,”
And last but not least, Lezley McSpadden already has to deal with the grief of losing her son. Millions of people make mistakes, but nobody should die over petty theft. The fact that you believe she should be disavowed because of her son's poor decisions speaks volumes to your insipid and completely tasteless opinions.
They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.
You're a walking, talking, somehow-functioning dictionary of logical fallacies. Nobody will take you seriously if you don't present a proper argument.
Run along now, troll. Your echo chamber awaits.
If you knew your history well enough, you'd understand that those same Democrats left the party after Truman and the other Democrats successfully pushed Civil Rights expansions for african americans. They then went to form the Dixiecrat party, which died off shortly thereafter when they were lured by southern Republican leaders with their "southern strategy," which appealed to white racist southerners.
Could you offer some proof of this — something the rest of us, who do not have your powers of telepathy, can verify on their own? Something, that makes Trump's suspecting Obama's eligibility uniquely different from Clinton suspecting same [factcheck.org]? Or suspecting that McCain [nytimes.com] or Ted Cruz [factcheck.org] may not be eligible either?
They were ALL being racist. He wasn't the only one. Being that Obama was the first real non-white nominee, everyone was playing the race card against him.
That judge has just awarded a scholarship to an illegal immigrant [theamerica...omparty.us]. Is it not fair to suspect, he may be biased against someone, who wishes to deport such illegal immigrants?
You are citing a source, self-described as: "The American Freedom Party (AFP) is both a political party and activist organization dedicated to the interests vital to the preservation and continuity of ethnic European communities within the United States of America."
Fail. extremely biased source who's objective is white European purity in the USA.
White judges are suspected of bias against Black defendants all the time [google.com] (as are White juries [wikipedia.org]) — why is it "racist" to suspect a Latino judge of similar bias against other races?
Show me proof that he's biased against other races. And not from your sketchy white supremacist websites. Give me clear court cases where he made his sole decision based on someone's race. Proof or GTFO.
The biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, which is about as far from the Middle East as is the US. Fail.
The Middle East has nearly 400 million muslims spread apart in the various countries in the area. That is nearly double of what Indonesia has.
My point still stands.
A YouTube clip with some talking-head talking about Trump is not proof, sorry. Maybe, he really forgot, who it was. Or, maybe, he lied. But that's not racism either way.
You are being willfully ignorant and down-right avoiding the fact that Trump lied through his teeth about Duke. That youtube video is Trump himself, not some talking-head pundit or whatnot paraphrasing him. Matt Lauer asked Trump about the reform party and their troubles, and Trump's first comment was "You got David Duke just joined. a bigot, a racist, a problem."
HE CLEARLY KNOWS HIM.
If Trump cannot remember who David Duke is, who joined the reform party he was running for in 2000, then he is not fit to be POTUS. His memory is clearly terrible. Maybe he has alzheimers? Maybe he has dementia? Who knows, but he very blatantly blew off the idea of condemning a man who he claimed he didn't know about, yet 15 years earlier he did. He could have easily said "I condemned him 15 years ago, and I am again today." But he didn't because of his known popularity with white nationalists.
As for "disavowing" David Duke — wake me up, when Hillary Clinton "disavows" Al Sharpton, who is no less a racist [breitbart.com] than David Duke... Except she would not do that, because, whereas Duke's endorsement of Trump was unsolicited, Hillary actively sought Sharpton's [nypost.com]. Maybe, if Trump ever went to a Duke's rally, you'd have had a point...
You using brietbart for a source like that is like me using the Huffington Post. You'd obviously dismiss anything sourced from a "liberal news source"
If all of your citations come from sites like brietbart, theamericanfreedomparty.us, or other OBVIOUS biased, partisan sources, you have no foundation for a legitimate argument.
FAIL
Wow.. you got to be one of THE BIGGEST trump apologist I've ever seen.
First:
Trump's complete ignorance of the fact that Obama's mother was a US Citizen when he was born, and the push that he's not an American on the fabrication that he was born in Kenya, only for the sole fact that his father was Kenyan, was purely motivated by his mixed race.
Second:
What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest. If it is Ok to suspect [washingtonpost.com], that an All-white jury [wikipedia.org] may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?
You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.
That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association you're thinking of.
http://www.snopes.com/judge-cu...
Third:
Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).
Not racism. Stick to the topic.
That's pretty much racist. It impacts a wide swath of individuals classified as Muslim, which is directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.
There have been numerous attacks on Sikhs who were believed to be muslim because they "looked like a muslim." The only similarity is the skin color.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/...
Fourth:
Trump's Real Estate business that he ran with his father were biased against black renters
https://www.documentcloud.org/...
That happened in 1973. He took over his father's business in 1971.
Fifth:
Trump stated that he wouldn't disavow David Duke because he didn't know who he was or what he was about.
Except that was a lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
He clearly knows who David Duke is, unless it helps his agenda to feign ignorance.
And these are the kind of people leading the Party of the Klu Klux Klan. The so-called Democrat Party.
Sorry, but that's probably the most laughable comment I've read yet this week.
The summary was a direct grab from the FUCKING ARTICLE.
That's about 0.0000000000001086956 Boeing 747's
Not to be confused with Bob Loblaw's Law Blog
Just in the event that those who still don't understand, 500 Albanian Leks is about 320 Bengladeshi Taka.
Sorry to tell you buddy, but what you're promoting is anarcho-capitalism, and that is probably worse than anything we have going on right now.
Trying to say that we'd be better off if we just completely de-funded modern infrastructure would be like saying committing suicide would be appropriate to prescribe oneself for a bad migraine.
----Message from Zionist Overlords----
Your location details have been recorded. Be prepared to assimilate. You shall conform.
----Message End----
I stopped reading after "Facebook spacecraft". The humor needs to come before the ignorance.
That was part of the joke; not born of ignorance.
You're more annoying than a spambot
Keep fucking that chicken, AC.
I used to do over-the-phone tech support for HP when I was green behind the ears, and we'd get customers who would receive shady calls from overseas reps claiming they had a virus, coincidentally some short time after speaking and working with an agent in Hyderabad. I am positively convinced that they accumulated customer phone numbers that were logged for purposed targeting later on.
Another convincing moment was when a friend of mine that I had worked with had his own HP laptop repaired, and received a targeted call from someone overseas about his laptop and an "infection" that it had on it. They had the serial number of his laptop, as well.