Yet. No one is sitting in jail, yet. This was just uncovered. Everyone involved is already punished to some degree though. The public official was fired. The political adviser was not only fired but was told he would not be eligible to work as a consultant for any Republican governor again.
Because you can't criminally charge anyone with information obtained through warrant-less surveillance. But you can conduct military operations based on intelligence regardless of how that intelligence was obtained. Laws don't exist to define what is right or wrong they exist to define what is acceptable in a civil society. International affairs are not civil. International affairs are completely subject to the whims of the participants. Civil society is supposed to operate based on predictable rules of acceptable behavior. And the police can only operate legally if they enforce these predictable rules (warrant-less surveillance is not allowed by those rules).
Well, soulskill usually just tries to find way to justify the Communist Manifesto. But then again, I stopped reading him after I realized that there are plenty of people around, some even adults... perfectly eloquent ones.. who just don't have anything to say. So the only way they can make a living is by going through life as carnival clowns.
How is he a public figure? He is boring on every account. There is just nothing there. How? Wha? He couldn't even make impregnating a Kardashian controversial or even interesting. Now if you tell me that Dennis Rodman wants to have money named after him, I could see why. Money would be more popular if you named it after youtube kittens than Kanye West... or furniture. Ikea coin. How about that? At least it wouldn't be useless.
I am not a lawyer, either. But it seems to me the company may have a case against him. Accepting salary from your employer pretty much comes with the assumption that you won't do anything to actively harm the company's bottom line. Even if you have criticism, you can keep inside the company walls. Even if they do make (what you think is) a bad business decision of not listening to your opinion, it's their money. But if you actively harm the company while on their salary, you do violate the trust they put in you. A case might be made that you should pay for the harm you cause.
But it's exactly why transparency is bad. It diminishes management's ability to set workers' priorities. This diminish's management's effectiveness and everyone suffers as a result.
So I guess that means that the US doesn't care about breaking laws in other countries.
Why should it be? Every government is only responsible for enforcing laws of its own country. US is bound by treaties it signed, but internal laws of other countries? I should hope not. Why should we be bound by laws over which we have no control?
We were caught abusing the rights of the American people and the people's of many other nations.
They weren't caught. I am certain that Snowden is still an NSA operative. He gave them a gift. The facility in Salt Lake City is so huge, it's impossible not to know about it. Now NSA can claim that everything they has been vetted by the public opinion. Oh, and rights of citizens of other nations? What? US Government is not responsible for protecting rights of citizens of other nations. Other nations' governments have that responsibility.
Jealousy is an ugly and yet ever-present human emotion. It breeds animosity towards people who do one no harm. In fact, it often breeds animosity towards those who benefit one the most because they appear to reap the most benefit.
It's getting more and more computionally intensive, which requires a lot of power, which means computers running on coal-burning power and being cooled by coal-burned power.
So are video games. All highly-ordered activity has waste. If you want the scientific reason, it's the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you want a visual explanation, building a statue requires taking a pristine stone and chopping off "the waste" while creating the art. What's the environmental impact of credit card processing, by the way? Life produces waste. That's not an argument against life.
I already addressed this point. The fact that he thought it was worthy of mentioning at all demonstrated that he viewed it as a contributing factor that is much larger than a margin of error. And that's a condemnation of a significant portion of the population and of society as a whole. It's a slur which we do not deserve and should not take in stride notwithstanding the fact that he phrased his slur without using an expletive.
You are perfectly free to spout whatever nonsensical garbage you want.
What I am saying is not garbage. It's accurate. You are scum. People who try convince us that the perfect decent full of merit society that is the United States is somehow a den of villainy and racism are people who deserve nothing but derision. I am simply letting you have what is due. Not because I have strong feelings on the subject of you as a person, but because that is the correct way to address someone of your ilk.
I am choosing to try to have a discussion as adults,
Yes, but the worst kind of adult. You are trying to promulgate the myth that America is divided along racial lines. You and people who talk like try to create social tensions along race lines. Your rhetoric is divisive and what is worse is that it is patently provably undeniably untrue. Your view has been discredited but you keep clinging to rhetorical devices which were used to promulgate that view when people weren't paying close attention to what was being said. It won't work anymore. Treat people as people rather than as "members of society" or kindly eat shit and die. Merry Christmas.
Pointing out that you and your ilk no longer deserve civility is enough. Majority of people are not racist. Saying otherwise is not offensive because it hurts. It's offensive because insults our intelligence.
You shouldn't be. As I pointed out, it is a candy wrap around the shit candy that is your passive aggressive bull shit.
It suggested that he received an advantage from being black, without any explanation.
That's is an outrageous lie. I gave an explanation by drawing a parallel to what would happen to a non-black President under similar circumstances.
I am going to pretend that you have a crystal ball
Oh, you don't know because it's too hypothetical? That's your argument? Obama himself drew a scenario (before being elected to his 1st term) of what would happen if the economic situation were as dire as it ended up being at the end of his 1st term. In his own scenario, he admitted that if any President did as poor a job as he ended up doing, he would have lost. Doesn't take crystal ball to be aware of history.
It is certainly impossible to verify what would have happened according to you in an objective way.
Aha. Doesn't need to. Your accusation of racism, your claim that it is mainstream... It's utter crap. Cultural trends are not discoverable via absolute arguments. They are discoverable only through statistical evidence. And statistical evidence points to Obama having an advantage from being black rather than having his chances diminished. That's a fact. Anyone who is offended by facts, offends those of us who are sane.
What were those circumstances that allowed Obama's blackness to help him win, where most white presidents would have lost?
The fact that enough voters were willing to vote for a black President even if they would have voted for the other guy had both of the candidates been white.
Did someone traumatize you by telling you to google something? Holy shit you've got problems.
You don't deserve civility. Don't blame it on others when you don't get it. It's you. The treatment you get is the result of what you say. It's just that sane people have been civil to you and not treating you the way you really deserve to be treated for a long time now. It's over. I was giving an example of another twerp who thinks that his snide makes him clever. You are not clever.
I didn't think this was even up for debate that *some* people are racist.
The fact that you thought it important enough to bring it up states that you believed it to be a significant number of his opposition. And that is deeply offensive. Calling decent people (and you are doing that, make no mistake about it) is obnoxious to the core. Those innocent of the charges, don't know how to defend themselves simply because it's not something on their minds. You are trying to instill in them an original sin -- guilt through actions they didn't take. One doesn't easily know how to defend against that. It takes quite a bit of skill and most people aren't there. And you and the scum like you are trying to take advantage of that in order to get people to concede political points which they should not be conceding. The points on which they are absolutely correct. It's not just an ad hominem attack. It is an ad hominem that demands that a person prove his innocence or be deemed guilty. It is pernicious and vile.
You would prefer people be prohibited from deriding you? I would suggest you grow some thicker skin if you want to participate in a public forum.
Yeah, thanks! You don't get to make that suggestion anymore. You've ran out of all the chances and all the patience. You've burned those bridges. Civility is not what you get to request when being called on a lie and doubling down.
No, it stems from being played for fools. The bull shit he is selling is significantly more steaming than anything that came out Bush. Bush took an ambiguity and claimed certainty. And that caused quite a bit of discontent. Obama tells plain lies. He knows he is lying. Everyone else knows he is lying. He breaks laws left and right and doesn't even bother with the legal process... oh, and that's just on top of his obvious lies. And yet those who criticism him are met with derision. THAT is the reason for the animosity.
That kind of misses the point... If we were seeing blacks as lacking merit (if we were racist), being black would have diminished Obama's chances. Instead, it increased his chances. So the only conclusion that can be drawn is that we are fond of blacks. You can argue that it was a guilt vote, but that would be the reason for why we have a fondness for a certain cross-section of the population. It would not be a justification for dismissing that fondness as non-existing.
Are you seriously saying Obama won *because* he was black?
That is such a loaded piece of crap question and anyone who asks it is an ass hole. I am sorry tired of being polite to people who are obviously doing nothing but insulting those who do not deserve insulting and who think that their passive aggressive eloquence somehow makes it ok. You know -- people like you. But hey, what the hell? It's Christmas. So I'll actually address your idiocy as if it came from an actual thinking human being rather than a drone that you are.
No, Obama being black was by no means the sole reason he was elected. Nor did my comment suggest anything of the kind. Events have multiple consequences. In much the same way, they have multiple contributing factors (multiple outputs AND multiple inputs if you want to think of life as information processing). Had he not be been black, that contributing element would not be present as a contributing factor in his election. Given that under the circumstances under which he ran most white Presidents would have lost, a conclusion must be drawn that being black helped his chances rather than diminish them.
There have been lots of black people in the history of America that were not able to pull of being elected president by virtue of being black.
No shit, Sherlock. Sky is still blue, right? You are as dumb as everyone who posts the answer "just google it" to every question in a forum... you know the forums... the ones whose questions come as search results when you google... I love finding half of my google searches pointing to questions which have a random "just google it" answer from a twerp like you.
Only black people should be offended by the treatment of blacks in America?
Fuck you. Fuck you with a cherry on top. Fuck you with a chain saw and a cherry on top. 53% of the votes went to a black President who couldn't get the economy running and who was running against a businessman with a very clear understanding of how to stabilize destabilizing businesses. Had Obama been any other President he would have lost in shame. Yet he won. Because of how America treats blacks? Fuck you!
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike Christie, Obama hasn't fired anyone responsible though. So unlike Christie, Obama is guilty.
Yet. No one is sitting in jail, yet. This was just uncovered. Everyone involved is already punished to some degree though. The public official was fired. The political adviser was not only fired but was told he would not be eligible to work as a consultant for any Republican governor again.
Becuase the Global Warming will do us in first... right about now... Peer reviewed... blah blah blah... Fox news.... something? let it go.
Because you can't criminally charge anyone with information obtained through warrant-less surveillance. But you can conduct military operations based on intelligence regardless of how that intelligence was obtained. Laws don't exist to define what is right or wrong they exist to define what is acceptable in a civil society. International affairs are not civil. International affairs are completely subject to the whims of the participants. Civil society is supposed to operate based on predictable rules of acceptable behavior. And the police can only operate legally if they enforce these predictable rules (warrant-less surveillance is not allowed by those rules).
Well, Bernie, yes. He is a self-avowed socialist. The rest of Congress? They are just stealing... umm, no "lobbying" for their district.
Well, soulskill usually just tries to find way to justify the Communist Manifesto. But then again, I stopped reading him after I realized that there are plenty of people around, some even adults... perfectly eloquent ones.. who just don't have anything to say. So the only way they can make a living is by going through life as carnival clowns.
How is he a public figure? He is boring on every account. There is just nothing there. How? Wha? He couldn't even make impregnating a Kardashian controversial or even interesting. Now if you tell me that Dennis Rodman wants to have money named after him, I could see why. Money would be more popular if you named it after youtube kittens than Kanye West... or furniture. Ikea coin. How about that? At least it wouldn't be useless.
I am not a lawyer, either. But it seems to me the company may have a case against him. Accepting salary from your employer pretty much comes with the assumption that you won't do anything to actively harm the company's bottom line. Even if you have criticism, you can keep inside the company walls. Even if they do make (what you think is) a bad business decision of not listening to your opinion, it's their money. But if you actively harm the company while on their salary, you do violate the trust they put in you. A case might be made that you should pay for the harm you cause.
But it's exactly why transparency is bad. It diminishes management's ability to set workers' priorities. This diminish's management's effectiveness and everyone suffers as a result.
So I guess that means that the US doesn't care about breaking laws in other countries.
Why should it be? Every government is only responsible for enforcing laws of its own country. US is bound by treaties it signed, but internal laws of other countries? I should hope not. Why should we be bound by laws over which we have no control?
We were caught abusing the rights of the American people and the people's of many other nations.
They weren't caught. I am certain that Snowden is still an NSA operative. He gave them a gift. The facility in Salt Lake City is so huge, it's impossible not to know about it. Now NSA can claim that everything they has been vetted by the public opinion. Oh, and rights of citizens of other nations? What? US Government is not responsible for protecting rights of citizens of other nations. Other nations' governments have that responsibility.
And that is bad because...?
Jealousy is an ugly and yet ever-present human emotion. It breeds animosity towards people who do one no harm. In fact, it often breeds animosity towards those who benefit one the most because they appear to reap the most benefit.
It's getting more and more computionally intensive, which requires a lot of power, which means computers running on coal-burning power and being cooled by coal-burned power.
So are video games. All highly-ordered activity has waste. If you want the scientific reason, it's the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you want a visual explanation, building a statue requires taking a pristine stone and chopping off "the waste" while creating the art. What's the environmental impact of credit card processing, by the way? Life produces waste. That's not an argument against life.
I already addressed this point. The fact that he thought it was worthy of mentioning at all demonstrated that he viewed it as a contributing factor that is much larger than a margin of error. And that's a condemnation of a significant portion of the population and of society as a whole. It's a slur which we do not deserve and should not take in stride notwithstanding the fact that he phrased his slur without using an expletive.
I am uncivil to you not out failure to act in a civil manner. I am uncivil to you by design. Incivility is what your merit.
You are perfectly free to spout whatever nonsensical garbage you want.
What I am saying is not garbage. It's accurate. You are scum. People who try convince us that the perfect decent full of merit society that is the United States is somehow a den of villainy and racism are people who deserve nothing but derision. I am simply letting you have what is due. Not because I have strong feelings on the subject of you as a person, but because that is the correct way to address someone of your ilk.
I am choosing to try to have a discussion as adults,
Yes, but the worst kind of adult. You are trying to promulgate the myth that America is divided along racial lines. You and people who talk like try to create social tensions along race lines. Your rhetoric is divisive and what is worse is that it is patently provably undeniably untrue. Your view has been discredited but you keep clinging to rhetorical devices which were used to promulgate that view when people weren't paying close attention to what was being said. It won't work anymore. Treat people as people rather than as "members of society" or kindly eat shit and die. Merry Christmas.
Stop me.
Pointing out that you and your ilk no longer deserve civility is enough. Majority of people are not racist. Saying otherwise is not offensive because it hurts. It's offensive because insults our intelligence.
It's not my job to be politically correct to spare your hurt feelings.
No, not at all. But it's also not your prerogative to spew crap and not be called on it just because you think it's crap de jour.
a businessman with a very clear understanding of how to loot destabilizing businesses
No, stabilize. Don't really need to address the rest of anonymous troll. The quote with bull shit removed is
a businessman with a very clear understanding of how to stabilize a destabilizing businesses
Thanks for lying, ass hole.
I am flattered that you think I'm eloquent.
You shouldn't be. As I pointed out, it is a candy wrap around the shit candy that is your passive aggressive bull shit.
It suggested that he received an advantage from being black, without any explanation.
That's is an outrageous lie. I gave an explanation by drawing a parallel to what would happen to a non-black President under similar circumstances.
I am going to pretend that you have a crystal ball
Oh, you don't know because it's too hypothetical? That's your argument? Obama himself drew a scenario (before being elected to his 1st term) of what would happen if the economic situation were as dire as it ended up being at the end of his 1st term. In his own scenario, he admitted that if any President did as poor a job as he ended up doing, he would have lost. Doesn't take crystal ball to be aware of history.
It is certainly impossible to verify what would have happened according to you in an objective way.
Aha. Doesn't need to. Your accusation of racism, your claim that it is mainstream... It's utter crap. Cultural trends are not discoverable via absolute arguments. They are discoverable only through statistical evidence. And statistical evidence points to Obama having an advantage from being black rather than having his chances diminished. That's a fact. Anyone who is offended by facts, offends those of us who are sane.
What were those circumstances that allowed Obama's blackness to help him win, where most white presidents would have lost?
The fact that enough voters were willing to vote for a black President even if they would have voted for the other guy had both of the candidates been white.
Did someone traumatize you by telling you to google something? Holy shit you've got problems.
You don't deserve civility. Don't blame it on others when you don't get it. It's you. The treatment you get is the result of what you say. It's just that sane people have been civil to you and not treating you the way you really deserve to be treated for a long time now. It's over. I was giving an example of another twerp who thinks that his snide makes him clever. You are not clever.
I didn't think this was even up for debate that *some* people are racist.
The fact that you thought it important enough to bring it up states that you believed it to be a significant number of his opposition. And that is deeply offensive. Calling decent people (and you are doing that, make no mistake about it) is obnoxious to the core. Those innocent of the charges, don't know how to defend themselves simply because it's not something on their minds. You are trying to instill in them an original sin -- guilt through actions they didn't take. One doesn't easily know how to defend against that. It takes quite a bit of skill and most people aren't there. And you and the scum like you are trying to take advantage of that in order to get people to concede political points which they should not be conceding. The points on which they are absolutely correct. It's not just an ad hominem attack. It is an ad hominem that demands that a person prove his innocence or be deemed guilty. It is pernicious and vile.
You would prefer people be prohibited from deriding you? I would suggest you grow some thicker skin if you want to participate in a public forum.
Yeah, thanks! You don't get to make that suggestion anymore. You've ran out of all the chances and all the patience. You've burned those bridges. Civility is not what you get to request when being called on a lie and doubling down.
the animosity probably stems from racism
No, it stems from being played for fools. The bull shit he is selling is significantly more steaming than anything that came out Bush. Bush took an ambiguity and claimed certainty. And that caused quite a bit of discontent. Obama tells plain lies. He knows he is lying. Everyone else knows he is lying. He breaks laws left and right and doesn't even bother with the legal process... oh, and that's just on top of his obvious lies. And yet those who criticism him are met with derision. THAT is the reason for the animosity.
That kind of misses the point... If we were seeing blacks as lacking merit (if we were racist), being black would have diminished Obama's chances. Instead, it increased his chances. So the only conclusion that can be drawn is that we are fond of blacks. You can argue that it was a guilt vote, but that would be the reason for why we have a fondness for a certain cross-section of the population. It would not be a justification for dismissing that fondness as non-existing.
Are you seriously saying Obama won *because* he was black?
That is such a loaded piece of crap question and anyone who asks it is an ass hole. I am sorry tired of being polite to people who are obviously doing nothing but insulting those who do not deserve insulting and who think that their passive aggressive eloquence somehow makes it ok. You know -- people like you. But hey, what the hell? It's Christmas. So I'll actually address your idiocy as if it came from an actual thinking human being rather than a drone that you are.
No, Obama being black was by no means the sole reason he was elected. Nor did my comment suggest anything of the kind. Events have multiple consequences. In much the same way, they have multiple contributing factors (multiple outputs AND multiple inputs if you want to think of life as information processing). Had he not be been black, that contributing element would not be present as a contributing factor in his election. Given that under the circumstances under which he ran most white Presidents would have lost, a conclusion must be drawn that being black helped his chances rather than diminish them.
There have been lots of black people in the history of America that were not able to pull of being elected president by virtue of being black.
No shit, Sherlock. Sky is still blue, right? You are as dumb as everyone who posts the answer "just google it" to every question in a forum... you know the forums... the ones whose questions come as search results when you google... I love finding half of my google searches pointing to questions which have a random "just google it" answer from a twerp like you.
Only black people should be offended by the treatment of blacks in America?
Fuck you. Fuck you with a cherry on top. Fuck you with a chain saw and a cherry on top. 53% of the votes went to a black President who couldn't get the economy running and who was running against a businessman with a very clear understanding of how to stabilize destabilizing businesses. Had Obama been any other President he would have lost in shame. Yet he won. Because of how America treats blacks? Fuck you!