She can run all the private email servers she wants, but when it comes to official state business, shit needs to be on record. That's the issue. Perhaps we need to turn the NSA loose on the fed.
1. conservatives are interested in protecting things like rule of law (such that people are treated equally by the state), free speech, protection against unlawful searches and seizures (basically what's in the bill of rights). These are the things that make this country stand out from the rest, and they are damned important. All it takes is one look at the different kinds of hell socialism has wrought in other nations to see that, from the spineless stagnation and cultural self-loathing in sweden, the UK, and many western european countries, to the cult of personality shitholes like the USSR, cuba, and of course, north korea. Neocons on the other hand fit your conservative description pretty well, but there's a reason the 'neo' prefix exists. They're big statists with a different cultural agenda. It takes a lot of money to police the world after all.
2. For every right wing 'wingnut' blog, there are 20 left wing 'wingnut' blogs, more if you count all the publications that pretend to cover specific topics, but are really using them to push their narrative. You're right about right wing dominance in radio programming, though. Good luck getting any useful information from any of them. They're all too busy pushing narratives to give a shit about inconvenient truth. There are nuggets that get through though, especially where the opposing side is denying truth, and it's interesting to see what conclusions can be drawn with comparisons of coverage.
3. Real problems you say? Their positions on the following suggest they're more interested in creating/inflaming problems instead of solving them just to keep themselves relevant:
Rape hysteria. So-called 'micro aggressions.' 'offensive' speech. Punitive taxation. Deficit spending. Warped public school curricula. Pushing self-loathing and dependence into culture. Fracturing of society (men vs women, white vs non-white, straight vs gay, fat vs healthy) with so-called 'affirmative action', the biggest pile of bigoted hypocrisy since slavery. Just because they promote the issue of climate change doesn't mean the rest of their offering is sane.
Technical progress is great and will help the situation, 'progressive' politics will not. Renewables will not be enough, so where are the nuclear plants that are needed to cleanly power all these electric cars? Oh right, nuclear is bad too according to the same people who want to curb fuel use with punitive taxation. "It's no use doing anything until we have 100%" is the implied argument from them, not me.
No, probably not, because anyone who says stupid shit to a large enough audience will probably also piss off a few crackpots in the mix. However, they did choose to hype their 'oppression' as much as possible. Hiring security guards to escort them everywhere over internet drama they themselves caused is a prime example. It's hard to sympathize with people who broadcast badly framed arguments meant to shame a whole population (in this case, male gamers) and then bitch when their bullshit gets thrown back in their faces.
IIRC, women's suffrage (real suffrage, not this SJW bs) also encountered similar issues with non-acceptance by established authorities. Did that make their case invalid? No. Arguments from authority are fallacious. It's no better than saying "Those people are the boss, so therefore they're right."
Right, just like generalizing and stereotyping games and gamers as a "Choose your own patriarchal adventure" doesn't deserve all the criticism and derision it got.. Oh wait, yes it did.
I guess I could generalize all women gamers with something like: "Women gamers must be a horde of ugly, fat, losers who can't get a boyfriend in real life, so they play online games to harass guys looking to unwind after work" because of statements made by a few women like anita and zoe quinn, but that would stoop to your level of fallacious argument and be just as untrue.
The SJWs are more often than not, the real doxers, shamers, and ragers, who want to shut down discourse and cry victim when they're criticized. It's just that we're supposed to see their behavior as 'empowerment' and critics' as bigotry. If society could put that political correctness aside, then it could actually look at the merits of each side's argument (if any exist) and come to rational conclusions. This is not what the current pop culture politic wants. It's not what drives people to the ballot box to vote for certain politicians.
Making threats is often done when one's back is against the wall. Fifth columns that depict part of a community as oppressed by default when, in most cases, it's not, then demanding the rest must make 'reparations' by relinquishing power, can be just such a situation. The best way to fix this is to wipe out the 'affirmative action' mentality and reenforce policies promoting equal opportunity in it's true form: a meritocracy.
No, thanks to gamergate, three women have chosen to treat the criticism they got for making stupid, shaming, hypocritical arguments at male gamers as threats. Those law enforcement officers are either hired guards, which is not quite the same thing as anyone can hire guards for whatever reason, or are there because the police submitted to the 'rapist around every corner' hysteria. Like usual, the morons running governments take the internet too seriously, probably because they don't understand it or because they look for any excuse to clamp down on discourse they don't like, just like SJWs. In fact, many of them probably are SJWs as well.
Basically your entire post is argument from authority when it's the irrationality of its policies that's part of the problem. Also, try making an argument that doesn't involve calling people names. After all, you consider that abuse, right? Or is it only abuse when it's directed at a woman?
In an era where human rights (like equality before the law and due process) are being trampled in western countries by radical, emotionally driven agendas, animals somehow deserve habeus corpus? What about the prisoners in Guantanamo bay? Those on secret no-fly lists? The behavior of TLAs? National security letters?
Did peta manage to get a presidential department too?
Yeah.. There's a reason the USA and Russia (then the USSR) still lead in that area, though other nations are starting to catch up. I got downmodded for speaking the truth.. go figure.
Well, if it's running linux, it's probably using netfilter so it probably does have a firewall..at least a drop policy with dynamically opened ports for established/related connections. NAT's security is from the fact that the rfc1918 hosts' addresses are not directly routable, but that's about it. It does not replace a firewall.
Not necessarily. Due process is still important. There are cases where people admit to crimes they didn't actually commit, sometimes because of pressure from interrogation, and other times due to conditioning from others.
The appeals system is there to be damned sure before ending someone's life, and that still isn't enough. 0 innocents should die this way, period, even if it means guilty ones go free sometimes.
It might've been dumb of him given the current climate, but that doesn't mean he was wrong. If the polygraph is bogus, then he's not helping anyone to lie to the fbi. The fbi is guilty of using pseudoscience to fish out lying.
No it wouldn't. It would make everyone neurotic as hell trying to hide aspects that others will see as imperfections. I'll pass on your 'better world.'
Not even 'kinder' really, just more passive aggressive. This makes the abuse that much worse...assuming of course that it is abuse and not just valid criticism. There's a lot out there making the same arguments because they want the chance to shame valid criticism they don't like or is not in their interest.
Slashdot Mirror
She can run all the private email servers she wants, but when it comes to official state business, shit needs to be on record. That's the issue. Perhaps we need to turn the NSA loose on the fed.
1. conservatives are interested in protecting things like rule of law (such that people are treated equally by the state), free speech, protection against unlawful searches and seizures (basically what's in the bill of rights). These are the things that make this country stand out from the rest, and they are damned important. All it takes is one look at the different kinds of hell socialism has wrought in other nations to see that, from the spineless stagnation and cultural self-loathing in sweden, the UK, and many western european countries, to the cult of personality shitholes like the USSR, cuba, and of course, north korea. Neocons on the other hand fit your conservative description pretty well, but there's a reason the 'neo' prefix exists. They're big statists with a different cultural agenda. It takes a lot of money to police the world after all.
2. For every right wing 'wingnut' blog, there are 20 left wing 'wingnut' blogs, more if you count all the publications that pretend to cover specific topics, but are really using them to push their narrative. You're right about right wing dominance in radio programming, though. Good luck getting any useful information from any of them. They're all too busy pushing narratives to give a shit about inconvenient truth. There are nuggets that get through though, especially where the opposing side is denying truth, and it's interesting to see what conclusions can be drawn with comparisons of coverage.
3. Real problems you say? Their positions on the following suggest they're more interested in creating/inflaming problems instead of solving them just to keep themselves relevant:
Rape hysteria. So-called 'micro aggressions.' 'offensive' speech. Punitive taxation. Deficit spending. Warped public school curricula. Pushing self-loathing and dependence into culture. Fracturing of society (men vs women, white vs non-white, straight vs gay, fat vs healthy) with so-called 'affirmative action', the biggest pile of bigoted hypocrisy since slavery. Just because they promote the issue of climate change doesn't mean the rest of their offering is sane.
How is the parent's statement pro-government?
Technical progress is great and will help the situation, 'progressive' politics will not. Renewables will not be enough, so where are the nuclear plants that are needed to cleanly power all these electric cars? Oh right, nuclear is bad too according to the same people who want to curb fuel use with punitive taxation. "It's no use doing anything until we have 100%" is the implied argument from them, not me.
No. That's from one of anita's videos.
No, probably not, because anyone who says stupid shit to a large enough audience will probably also piss off a few crackpots in the mix. However, they did choose to hype their 'oppression' as much as possible. Hiring security guards to escort them everywhere over internet drama they themselves caused is a prime example. It's hard to sympathize with people who broadcast badly framed arguments meant to shame a whole population (in this case, male gamers) and then bitch when their bullshit gets thrown back in their faces.
IIRC, women's suffrage (real suffrage, not this SJW bs) also encountered similar issues with non-acceptance by established authorities. Did that make their case invalid? No. Arguments from authority are fallacious. It's no better than saying "Those people are the boss, so therefore they're right."
Right, just like generalizing and stereotyping games and gamers as a "Choose your own patriarchal adventure" doesn't deserve all the criticism and derision it got.. Oh wait, yes it did.
I guess I could generalize all women gamers with something like: "Women gamers must be a horde of ugly, fat, losers who can't get a boyfriend in real life, so they play online games to harass guys looking to unwind after work" because of statements made by a few women like anita and zoe quinn, but that would stoop to your level of fallacious argument and be just as untrue.
The SJWs are more often than not, the real doxers, shamers, and ragers, who want to shut down discourse and cry victim when they're criticized. It's just that we're supposed to see their behavior as 'empowerment' and critics' as bigotry. If society could put that political correctness aside, then it could actually look at the merits of each side's argument (if any exist) and come to rational conclusions. This is not what the current pop culture politic wants. It's not what drives people to the ballot box to vote for certain politicians.
Making threats is often done when one's back is against the wall. Fifth columns that depict part of a community as oppressed by default when, in most cases, it's not, then demanding the rest must make 'reparations' by relinquishing power, can be just such a situation. The best way to fix this is to wipe out the 'affirmative action' mentality and reenforce policies promoting equal opportunity in it's true form: a meritocracy.
No, thanks to gamergate, three women have chosen to treat the criticism they got for making stupid, shaming, hypocritical arguments at male gamers as threats. Those law enforcement officers are either hired guards, which is not quite the same thing as anyone can hire guards for whatever reason, or are there because the police submitted to the 'rapist around every corner' hysteria. Like usual, the morons running governments take the internet too seriously, probably because they don't understand it or because they look for any excuse to clamp down on discourse they don't like, just like SJWs. In fact, many of them probably are SJWs as well.
Basically your entire post is argument from authority when it's the irrationality of its policies that's part of the problem. Also, try making an argument that doesn't involve calling people names. After all, you consider that abuse, right? Or is it only abuse when it's directed at a woman?
In an era where human rights (like equality before the law and due process) are being trampled in western countries by radical, emotionally driven agendas, animals somehow deserve habeus corpus? What about the prisoners in Guantanamo bay? Those on secret no-fly lists? The behavior of TLAs? National security letters?
Did peta manage to get a presidential department too?
I think we need to fix the legal system first, then worry about how we're going to punish people.
I never said it 'did' anything for them or not..
but closed sores leave scars...
Yeah.. There's a reason the USA and Russia (then the USSR) still lead in that area, though other nations are starting to catch up. I got downmodded for speaking the truth.. go figure.
At least it didnt' have a shitty christian rock intro and a vulcan that cried every two minutes.
Most of the reason we have the space tech we have today is because of cold war era military research budgets.
Well, if it's running linux, it's probably using netfilter so it probably does have a firewall..at least a drop policy with dynamically opened ports for established/related connections. NAT's security is from the fact that the rfc1918 hosts' addresses are not directly routable, but that's about it. It does not replace a firewall.
How do you propose a person with a life sentence pay for his incarceration without employment? Put him in jail until he pays??
Not necessarily. Due process is still important. There are cases where people admit to crimes they didn't actually commit, sometimes because of pressure from interrogation, and other times due to conditioning from others.
The appeals system is there to be damned sure before ending someone's life, and that still isn't enough. 0 innocents should die this way, period, even if it means guilty ones go free sometimes.
It might've been dumb of him given the current climate, but that doesn't mean he was wrong. If the polygraph is bogus, then he's not helping anyone to lie to the fbi. The fbi is guilty of using pseudoscience to fish out lying.
Which would imply the fbi thinks the polygraph test has merit when they really shouldn't.
No it wouldn't. It would make everyone neurotic as hell trying to hide aspects that others will see as imperfections. I'll pass on your 'better world.'
People like you need to read up on history.
Not even 'kinder' really, just more passive aggressive. This makes the abuse that much worse...assuming of course that it is abuse and not just valid criticism. There's a lot out there making the same arguments because they want the chance to shame valid criticism they don't like or is not in their interest.
Without ISPs there'd be no internet.