His unabashed corruption in his dealings was open knowledge, what would ever possess you to think he'd get in office and not put Clinton's corruption (not denying that she was corrupt too) to shame?
Trump didn't outright buy the RNC and rig the Republican primary in his favor.
Trump didn't engage in a massive money laundering scheme to avoid campaign finance laws.
Trump didn't give speeches to banks for hundreds of thousands of dollars while campaigning to be president.
Trump doesn't have a 3 billion dollar slush fund, I mean "charity", to use as a peonage farm.
The layers of gun nut propaganda and selective reading are quite thick, so many, many times. Unfortunately.
The "militia" in the time of the founders consisted of all able-bodied men.
A well regulated militia. A collective group of people, not every Burt Gummer sitting at home polishing his dick extender.
Also, if you read the history behind it, defense against tyranny was absolutely a consideration.
Absolute delusion. Treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Suspension of habeas corpus:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Calling forth the militia:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Tell me again how the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to resist tyranny from the federal government, when exercising that so-called right will see the government legally, constitutionally call forth the militia to suppress your rebellion, throw you in prison without a warrant or a trial, and finally, with two witnesses, see you swinging from a tree for Treason.
So, which part of "the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" implies that it's not an individual Right?
Obviously, the part where it doesn't use the word Persons, obviously. As opposed to, say, the 4th Amendment. You know, like I said the first time.
Note, by the by, that the First Amendment doesn't use the word "Persons", either. In fact, taken literally, the First could be abrogated by Executive Order - the First specifically says that Congress can't mess with Free Speech, and sets no such limits on either the President or the Judiciary.
You're literally the second person not to actually read the 1st Amendment when trying to make this false equivalency:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
People refers to a gathering of persons, which is going to be people by definition - it's not the wording for the entire set of rights, the way it is for the 2nd. Also not present in the first amendment is the word "regulated".
You're the second person to quote the 1st Amendment without noting what it actually says - but it wouldn't be a gun debate without a false equivalency.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
People refers to a gathering of persons, which is going to be people by definition - it's not the wording for the entire set of rights, the way it is for the 2nd. Also not present in the first amendment is the word "regulated".
You first, clown shoes. The venn diagram of gun nuts and people who have actually read the 2nd Amendment is a couple of circles with a mile between them.
Well if you don't like it, amend or abolish the 2nd Amendment. Seriously, that's a good idea, do it. But in the mean time, people need to stop pretending that ignoring and gutting the intent of it
The intent was to create a well-regulated militia and to establish a collective right to own firearms. Not an individual right - otherwise it would have used the word Persons - and certainly not to oppose or overthrow the government with force of arms. Gun nuts who think that need to read the Constitution for the definition of Treason (war against the state) when habeas corpus may be suspended (in times of rebellion) and when the feds can call forth the militia (to suppress insurrections).
Sadly, making guns harder to buy wont help. That's treating the symptom, not the cause.
....
The reason gun control works in Australia and the UK (sorry gun nuts, it does work) is because the Australian and British people saw it was the right thing to do after incidents like Port Arthur (AUS) and Dunblane (UK).
Eh? Statements seem to be a wee bit contradictory.
Sounds like something a Hillbot nursing two year old butthurt would say. They could always take it up with the person most responsible for Trump being in the White House.
The security features included with 10 are significantly better than what comes with 7
Not having control over OS updates and reboots isn't very secure. I had one computer where Windows 10 kept trying to install a driver for an integrated graphics chip it didn't actually have - would throw it into a blue screen loop until I could use system restore. Had to find the hardware ID and disable updates for it in group policy.
If you have an enterprise deployment but you don't know to tick the box in gpo to turn off consumer experience and define a start menu xml I don't know what to tell you. It isn't rocket science
Uh, how about the fact you shouldn't have to deal with that shit in the first place in a professional environment? If you want to lick Redmond's boots that's your choice.
In all those cases there was not enough evidence to prove that they lied beyond a reasonable doubt. What part of that don't you understand?
You know, you could skip the gaslighting and go with "ok, false accusations are rare but those women lied and should serve just as much prison time as the innocent men faced". There was more than enough evidence to convict in every case I just mentioned if it went to trial. But prosecutors never take these cases to court, which is the problem. You're arguing like an Obamabot saying the reason he didn't criminally prosecute bank fraud is because the cases couldn't be won. Uh, you need to actually bring them to court and try to win before you can make that argument - otherwise you're engaging in circular reasoning.
Also note how the accusers were sued in two of those cases and lost, owning hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I said criminal prosecutions but good college try. I even stated that the money from Gibson was just paying back a settlement she won from the school. You think having to pay back ill gotten money is equivalent to 5 years of Brian Bank's life?
In the Duke case the accused each got $20M.
Not from the false accuser, and not awards won by state prosecutors. Nice try x2.
So to get back to the big question - can you name a single instance of a false accuser facing equivalent prison time to the man she sent to prison?
None of the women faced any criminal consequences for cases that could have or did send innocent men to prison. The only thing that happened to Gibson is she had to pay back a legal settlement to a school. And maybe if Mangum had gone to prison she wouldn't have stabbed a boyfriend to death a few years later.
So that's three examples of known liars getting away with it. You have any of women who have suffered serious (as in more than a few years of prison) for a false accusation? Aside from robbing innocent men of money (legal fees and lost property) and years of their lives - men wrongly sent to prison for rape allegations tend to be raped for real.
Only if the pension is invested in the company's own stock - like the Kodak employees who took it up the ass while the executives got golden parachutes. As opposed to 401k's, which even at the best of times sees you getting a fraction of the gains (while investing 100% of the capital and taking 100$ of the risk) because the bank takes their fees.
Summary says the phone was federal issue, so it almost certainly has been compromised already - by the FBI or another agency.
Remember he's the same guy that while shouting about Hillary's email security was running his own extremely insecure server
But also remember that this was a painfully false equivalency put forth by partisan Democrats to excuse Hillary's violations of the law and her monumental hypocrisy, while the same DOJ that let her off with a free pass sent Kristian Saucier to prison for trifles in comparison. If it turns out that Trump has sent thousands of messages from a personal (not government issue) iPhone and then deletes much of the evidence, then we can say "but his phone!"
You're really asking what the difference is between an automated system that can scan/process millions of photos in a searchable database with what a single person can remember?
Our lawmakers and representatives have no idea what is going on
If only we were so lucky - our public officials are bought, cowed, or were team players to start with (CIA director Bush getting to the White House). One noticeable case of this is Al Franken, who went from aggressively questioning an FBI stooge on how roving wiretaps could possibly be legal under the 4th Amendment, to being a supporter of warrantless wiretapping.
"[Trump's phone] isn't equipped with sophisticated security features designed to shield his communications"
But it doesn't say what those features are. So this could easily be a phone with GPS and cellular removed, set up only to work on White House wifi, but not be set up for a VPN tunnel on top of that. As they would never say what has or has not been modified on the phone we'd just have to speculate.
If that were the case, "we were right" is all you would hear all day, every day, from the all the Bush Administration alums and the Republican party. You haven't.
Hint: chemical weapons degrade over time. If that mustard gas warhead that may have wiped out a small village in 1983 was about as dangerous in 2003 as getting a shot of Febreze in the face....it's not a weapon of mass destruction.
I'm definitely concerned that we have a Russian spy occupying the WH, but clearly that is not an issue for you.
Then you're as much of a partisan cultist as the Birthers who spent years insisting Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim - and they had just as much evidence for their ideas as you do. FFS Trump has been far more confrontational with Russia than Obama ever was, but I suspect Russiagaters would still be calling Trump a "Putin Puppet" if he had ICBM's in the air, on their way to Moscow.
Job's quote doesn't change the fact Apple already had ten times as much liquid assets as the $150 million investment from Microsoft:
For Apple, the cash is symbolic. While the company has been bleeding money, it has about $1.2 billion in cash, according to its last quarterly earnings report, and doesn't need Microsoft's money to fend off immediate starvation.
Aside from that pile of money, Apple could have sold some of their real estate or their vast patent portfolio if they had to. They didn't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you're not a year into nuclear winter (Hillary campaigned on shooting down Russian jets in Syria) alone means Trump is the lesser evil.
Trump didn't outright buy the RNC and rig the Republican primary in his favor.
Trump didn't engage in a massive money laundering scheme to avoid campaign finance laws.
Trump didn't give speeches to banks for hundreds of thousands of dollars while campaigning to be president.
Trump doesn't have a 3 billion dollar slush fund, I mean "charity", to use as a peonage farm.
And no, I'm not a Trumpbot.
Your continued projection in the face of facts is noted. Feel free to come back with a response, as opposed to gun nut butthurt, at any time.
The layers of gun nut propaganda and selective reading are quite thick, so many, many times. Unfortunately.
A well regulated militia. A collective group of people, not every Burt Gummer sitting at home polishing his dick extender.
Absolute delusion. Treason:
Suspension of habeas corpus:
Calling forth the militia:
Tell me again how the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to resist tyranny from the federal government, when exercising that so-called right will see the government legally, constitutionally call forth the militia to suppress your rebellion, throw you in prison without a warrant or a trial, and finally, with two witnesses, see you swinging from a tree for Treason.
Obviously, the part where it doesn't use the word Persons, obviously. As opposed to, say, the 4th Amendment. You know, like I said the first time.
You're literally the second person not to actually read the 1st Amendment when trying to make this false equivalency:
People refers to a gathering of persons, which is going to be people by definition - it's not the wording for the entire set of rights, the way it is for the 2nd. Also not present in the first amendment is the word "regulated".
You're the second person to quote the 1st Amendment without noting what it actually says - but it wouldn't be a gun debate without a false equivalency.
People refers to a gathering of persons, which is going to be people by definition - it's not the wording for the entire set of rights, the way it is for the 2nd. Also not present in the first amendment is the word "regulated".
You first, clown shoes. The venn diagram of gun nuts and people who have actually read the 2nd Amendment is a couple of circles with a mile between them.
The intent was to create a well-regulated militia and to establish a collective right to own firearms. Not an individual right - otherwise it would have used the word Persons - and certainly not to oppose or overthrow the government with force of arms. Gun nuts who think that need to read the Constitution for the definition of Treason (war against the state) when habeas corpus may be suspended (in times of rebellion) and when the feds can call forth the militia (to suppress insurrections).
Eh? Statements seem to be a wee bit contradictory.
Sounds like something a Hillbot nursing two year old butthurt would say. They could always take it up with the person most responsible for Trump being in the White House.
Maybe he's referring to the tiles for shitware in the Start menu that Microsoft "helpfully" installs from time to time.
Not having control over OS updates and reboots isn't very secure. I had one computer where Windows 10 kept trying to install a driver for an integrated graphics chip it didn't actually have - would throw it into a blue screen loop until I could use system restore. Had to find the hardware ID and disable updates for it in group policy.
Uh, how about the fact you shouldn't have to deal with that shit in the first place in a professional environment? If you want to lick Redmond's boots that's your choice.
You know, you could skip the gaslighting and go with "ok, false accusations are rare but those women lied and should serve just as much prison time as the innocent men faced". There was more than enough evidence to convict in every case I just mentioned if it went to trial. But prosecutors never take these cases to court, which is the problem. You're arguing like an Obamabot saying the reason he didn't criminally prosecute bank fraud is because the cases couldn't be won. Uh, you need to actually bring them to court and try to win before you can make that argument - otherwise you're engaging in circular reasoning.
I said criminal prosecutions but good college try. I even stated that the money from Gibson was just paying back a settlement she won from the school. You think having to pay back ill gotten money is equivalent to 5 years of Brian Bank's life?
Not from the false accuser, and not awards won by state prosecutors. Nice try x2.
So to get back to the big question - can you name a single instance of a false accuser facing equivalent prison time to the man she sent to prison?
As opposed to every western society that went from travel by horseback to landing on the moon in a single lifetime?
You mean like Appalachia today? Step outside your bourgeois bubble and visit the poor areas of your own country before throwing stones here, mmmkay?
Here's three off the top of my head:
Crystal Mangum
Tawana Brawley
Wanetta Gibson
None of the women faced any criminal consequences for cases that could have or did send innocent men to prison. The only thing that happened to Gibson is she had to pay back a legal settlement to a school. And maybe if Mangum had gone to prison she wouldn't have stabbed a boyfriend to death a few years later.
So that's three examples of known liars getting away with it. You have any of women who have suffered serious (as in more than a few years of prison) for a false accusation? Aside from robbing innocent men of money (legal fees and lost property) and years of their lives - men wrongly sent to prison for rape allegations tend to be raped for real.
Only if the pension is invested in the company's own stock - like the Kodak employees who took it up the ass while the executives got golden parachutes. As opposed to 401k's, which even at the best of times sees you getting a fraction of the gains (while investing 100% of the capital and taking 100$ of the risk) because the bank takes their fees.
Fixed
Summary says the phone was federal issue, so it almost certainly has been compromised already - by the FBI or another agency.
But also remember that this was a painfully false equivalency put forth by partisan Democrats to excuse Hillary's violations of the law and her monumental hypocrisy, while the same DOJ that let her off with a free pass sent Kristian Saucier to prison for trifles in comparison. If it turns out that Trump has sent thousands of messages from a personal (not government issue) iPhone and then deletes much of the evidence, then we can say "but his phone!"
You're really asking what the difference is between an automated system that can scan/process millions of photos in a searchable database with what a single person can remember?
If only we were so lucky - our public officials are bought, cowed, or were team players to start with (CIA director Bush getting to the White House). One noticeable case of this is Al Franken, who went from aggressively questioning an FBI stooge on how roving wiretaps could possibly be legal under the 4th Amendment, to being a supporter of warrantless wiretapping.
But it doesn't say what those features are. So this could easily be a phone with GPS and cellular removed, set up only to work on White House wifi, but not be set up for a VPN tunnel on top of that. As they would never say what has or has not been modified on the phone we'd just have to speculate.
If that were the case, "we were right" is all you would hear all day, every day, from the all the Bush Administration alums and the Republican party. You haven't.
Hint: chemical weapons degrade over time. If that mustard gas warhead that may have wiped out a small village in 1983 was about as dangerous in 2003 as getting a shot of Febreze in the face....it's not a weapon of mass destruction.
Then you're as much of a partisan cultist as the Birthers who spent years insisting Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim - and they had just as much evidence for their ideas as you do. FFS Trump has been far more confrontational with Russia than Obama ever was, but I suspect Russiagaters would still be calling Trump a "Putin Puppet" if he had ICBM's in the air, on their way to Moscow.
Job's quote doesn't change the fact Apple already had ten times as much liquid assets as the $150 million investment from Microsoft:
Aside from that pile of money, Apple could have sold some of their real estate or their vast patent portfolio if they had to. They didn't have to.