Perhaps the people building it should have not sued the "owners" of the mountain so many times for the 4 that are there now and instead have asked more nicely, or sued more effectively previously for better permissions for future structures.
Though I do believe that a preemptive pardon is illegal and would be found so by the courts.
Wasn't for Nixon. History disagrees with you.
I really don't see any reason that would motivate him to do this, take the hit to his legacy and damage the party.
You assert damage to the party, based on the example of Nixon, yet refuse to acknowledge it's "legal" based on the example of Nixon. Pick one. Either Nixon is an example for both or neither. But picking the one you like and ignoring the other just makes you a hypocrite.
As for why, it just makes sense. Billions of taxpayer money has been spent on the conservative conspiracy against the Clintons. Investigated constantly for anything and everything for 20+ years. Move on. As for the damage, it's not like she's president. He wouldn't do it if she were elected, but she won't be. So she'll be of no great importance, and not in the new government. So all the pardon will do is reduce taxpayer expense. Why do you want more taxes? Save taxes, pardon the Clintons. I don't like her. I don't care whether she goes to jail or not. It wouldn't bother me either way. What I hate is the billions of dollars spent trying to persecute the Clintons. Stop wasting my money.
I'm not either kind of libertarian. Pointing out that the "core" of rights for libertarians is simpler when they are property rights doesn't mean I have to be one of them.
Nope. I said "if". It's sad when conversations can't happen because one of the participants doesn't even know common two-letter words. Take your head out of your ass and try reading it again.
I've never seen a Libertarian who didn't have their philosophy simplified by saying "people don't have rights, property does, and people's rights are derived from the property they own."
So, it can't work because you don't know what verified voting is? I guess that means car's can't run, since you don't know how those work either. They must be magic.
I don't have the time or interest to look up, but I've seen posted on previous Assange articles a long list of people that were interviewed via phone, or via Swedish representatives overseas. I've not seen anything that explains the unequal treatment, so it seems like special circumstances designed to extradite Assange, not prosecute the crimes he's accused of.
It wasn't state law that mattered, but that when asked if he had sex with her, the lawyers requested a definition of sex, and the definition given by the judge was more restrictive than the general use. Bill answered the only valid answer, and was impeached for it.
Who had their own privately managed server that they used to conduct all department business other than HC?
Ah yes, the, "who else did it" when if you remove "all" from your qualifications, the answer is "all of them that had email". The others before her with email used personal email for department business. Yes, all of them. They also had the official email, which was used at least once (though in many cases, only by an underling). She's the first who didn't bother with the double email that everyone else had done. But nobody else was investigated for extensive use of personal email for business. Though they *all* did it.
If she did wrong, what rule was in place that she broke? From what I saw on that, they are going after her for classified stuff because the "rules" against using a personal server didn't exist. The first witch hunt was for having a personal server. Then it was a Benghazi again, then there was discussion about classifications. But the reason it all started. The question of whether it was illegal to have a personal server. Was that ever answered?
The bigger question is, when will the hateful Republicans stop spending billions investigating the Clintons. You don't like them. We get it. But 20+ years of constant investigations, and not a single conviction just wastes money. Stop wasting my money. I don't like her. I won't vote for her. But I want the Repbulicans to stop talking about her. The only person they love more than her is Pelosi. Back in Peak Pelosi, I couldn't go an hour without hearing someone talk about how much they love her, even if they show it by calling her an evil bitch. Any woman with any power is hated. Don't you see that's their appeal? Nobody talked about how bad Carly was. She disappeared. As the bad politicians should. The effort and attention on the Clintons increased their power, not decreased it.
If Clinton wins, it'll be because of all the support the Republicans have given her, making sure she's in the news 24/7 for 20 years.
Sanders vs Trump is more secure. Sanders is the better candidate for the Democrats defeating the Republicans. Hillary is too polarizing to get any crossover, and too boring to get a high turnout. She may defeat the invisible candidate of Sanders (last I saw an analysis, the other candidates were getting 10x or more exposure in the general media), but when the light is shined on them, Sanders is better for defeating the Republicans.
If we had verified voting, then it wouldn't be an issue. A single vote would be sufficient to deal with statistical ties, as there would be no margin of error.
They don't count the absentee ballots at all, unless the margin of victory is less than the number of absentee ballots. Then they release the "wrong" numbers for the candidates. It's easier than counting. Don't look behind the curtain. Fraud and incompetence is everywhere.
They Live is so old and unwanted that it's on YouTube (As are many others of the age and popularity) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't have any idea who owns the rights, but Netflix gets lots of content by buying bulk access to studio catalogues, so They Lives may be in Universal's classics catalog, or it could be one of the many that falls into a "too hard" bucket, if John Carpenter has a perpetual % of gross, how do you measure and pay for that? There are lots of "classics" that end up in the too hard bucket because of little issues like that, or they'll find that the license for the music for a movie was too narrow, so they end up in troubles when re-distributing it.
https://flixsearch.io/ Try your search on that. Best to have an international VPN service. You'll find that though the US has the largest catalog, you'll often find what you are looking for is available, but not in the US.
More than just "good prices". If I buy a game on Steam, I own it for life (yes, it can be played offline if Steam dies a final death) and I can re-install it an unlimited number of times on 3 OSs, with full Linux support. I'm not locked in to a single OS or obtrusive DRM. Though some Steam games come with DRM, it's few and falling (As a percentage of catalog), and the DRM isn't on *everything*, added on top, preventing me from using the game.
You realize that many people have been charged in absentia in Sweden, right? It's standard practice to perform phone interviews, or send representatives to foreign locations for the pre-charge interview. They refused to do so with Assange, and required that he surrender himself physically to Sweden. Something that's *never* been done before (according to the news reports, feel free to let us know of another case where Sweden refused to interview someone who offered in a foreign country, but was instead extradited for a pre-charge interview).
Also Sweden doesn't have any laws to allow them to lend someone to another country. That goes against both Swedish law and EU law.
So Sweden has no ambassadors? No tourists? Nobody ever leaves? It's like the roach-motel of countries. And Sweden doesn't even have phones? Why couldn't the people already outside Sweden at http://www.swedenabroad.com/lo... walk down to Assange? It's illegal for someone from Sweden to walk?
That's why I default to believing Assange. The "other side" just seems insane.
I expect he'd be spending a lot more time in countries that don't have extradition with the USA. He's not afraid of being arrested. He's afraid of being sold to the US and tortured until dead, as the US has done before and has numerous executive orders from both parties allowing, condoning, or encouraging.
I don't care about this issue enough to compare the blogger's report of the event to others, but base on the comments here, either you are lying (so far the *only* person I've seen who asserted the blogger was factually accurate) or the people in the many posts pointing out the factual errors in the blogger's complaints are lying. I'll let you guess which side I'm on in that point.
And I already know you are a liar, because you implied I'm a fanboy. I have no care at all about Musk or his endeavors. The only fanboy here is you. If one can be a negative fanboy.
Nope. Musk's actions are reasonable regardless of your fanboyhood. If a customer pisses you off, fire them. There have even been books written about firing your customers.
It just happens when you fire a blogger, he goes out of his way to try to make your reasonable action look unreasonable, thus proving that the customer deserved firing.
Ever been to Disneyland on a holiday? If so, did you "rage quit" the place when you weren't first in line to ride your favorite ride the one time that day,
No. But then, I'm not Stewart Alsop. He's the ragequitting douche. Musk is Disneyland escorting him off the property because he's causing a scene.
Slashdot Mirror
The white ones? They started it.
Perhaps the people building it should have not sued the "owners" of the mountain so many times for the 4 that are there now and instead have asked more nicely, or sued more effectively previously for better permissions for future structures.
Though I do believe that a preemptive pardon is illegal and would be found so by the courts.
Wasn't for Nixon. History disagrees with you.
I really don't see any reason that would motivate him to do this, take the hit to his legacy and damage the party.
You assert damage to the party, based on the example of Nixon, yet refuse to acknowledge it's "legal" based on the example of Nixon. Pick one. Either Nixon is an example for both or neither. But picking the one you like and ignoring the other just makes you a hypocrite.
As for why, it just makes sense. Billions of taxpayer money has been spent on the conservative conspiracy against the Clintons. Investigated constantly for anything and everything for 20+ years. Move on. As for the damage, it's not like she's president. He wouldn't do it if she were elected, but she won't be. So she'll be of no great importance, and not in the new government. So all the pardon will do is reduce taxpayer expense. Why do you want more taxes? Save taxes, pardon the Clintons. I don't like her. I don't care whether she goes to jail or not. It wouldn't bother me either way. What I hate is the billions of dollars spent trying to persecute the Clintons. Stop wasting my money.
I'm not either kind of libertarian. Pointing out that the "core" of rights for libertarians is simpler when they are property rights doesn't mean I have to be one of them.
Nope. I said "if". It's sad when conversations can't happen because one of the participants doesn't even know common two-letter words. Take your head out of your ass and try reading it again.
I've never seen a Libertarian who didn't have their philosophy simplified by saying "people don't have rights, property does, and people's rights are derived from the property they own."
So, it can't work because you don't know what verified voting is? I guess that means car's can't run, since you don't know how those work either. They must be magic.
So you've changed your stance from "it's impossible" to "it's impractical". So, were you wrong them, or are you wrong now?
I don't have the time or interest to look up, but I've seen posted on previous Assange articles a long list of people that were interviewed via phone, or via Swedish representatives overseas. I've not seen anything that explains the unequal treatment, so it seems like special circumstances designed to extradite Assange, not prosecute the crimes he's accused of.
It wasn't state law that mattered, but that when asked if he had sex with her, the lawyers requested a definition of sex, and the definition given by the judge was more restrictive than the general use. Bill answered the only valid answer, and was impeached for it.
Who had their own privately managed server that they used to conduct all department business other than HC?
Ah yes, the, "who else did it" when if you remove "all" from your qualifications, the answer is "all of them that had email". The others before her with email used personal email for department business. Yes, all of them. They also had the official email, which was used at least once (though in many cases, only by an underling). She's the first who didn't bother with the double email that everyone else had done. But nobody else was investigated for extensive use of personal email for business. Though they *all* did it.
If she did wrong, what rule was in place that she broke? From what I saw on that, they are going after her for classified stuff because the "rules" against using a personal server didn't exist. The first witch hunt was for having a personal server. Then it was a Benghazi again, then there was discussion about classifications. But the reason it all started. The question of whether it was illegal to have a personal server. Was that ever answered?
The bigger question is, when will the hateful Republicans stop spending billions investigating the Clintons. You don't like them. We get it. But 20+ years of constant investigations, and not a single conviction just wastes money. Stop wasting my money. I don't like her. I won't vote for her. But I want the Repbulicans to stop talking about her. The only person they love more than her is Pelosi. Back in Peak Pelosi, I couldn't go an hour without hearing someone talk about how much they love her, even if they show it by calling her an evil bitch. Any woman with any power is hated. Don't you see that's their appeal? Nobody talked about how bad Carly was. She disappeared. As the bad politicians should. The effort and attention on the Clintons increased their power, not decreased it.
If Clinton wins, it'll be because of all the support the Republicans have given her, making sure she's in the news 24/7 for 20 years.
Sanders vs Trump is more secure. Sanders is the better candidate for the Democrats defeating the Republicans. Hillary is too polarizing to get any crossover, and too boring to get a high turnout. She may defeat the invisible candidate of Sanders (last I saw an analysis, the other candidates were getting 10x or more exposure in the general media), but when the light is shined on them, Sanders is better for defeating the Republicans.
How do you grant a pardon for a crime she's not admitting too and hasn't been convicted of?
The same way Ford did it for Nixon. What, it's OK to do if it's one Republican for another, but somehow evil if it's one Democrat for another?
If we had verified voting, then it wouldn't be an issue. A single vote would be sufficient to deal with statistical ties, as there would be no margin of error.
They don't count the absentee ballots at all, unless the margin of victory is less than the number of absentee ballots. Then they release the "wrong" numbers for the candidates. It's easier than counting. Don't look behind the curtain. Fraud and incompetence is everywhere.
They Live is so old and unwanted that it's on YouTube (As are many others of the age and popularity) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't have any idea who owns the rights, but Netflix gets lots of content by buying bulk access to studio catalogues, so They Lives may be in Universal's classics catalog, or it could be one of the many that falls into a "too hard" bucket, if John Carpenter has a perpetual % of gross, how do you measure and pay for that? There are lots of "classics" that end up in the too hard bucket because of little issues like that, or they'll find that the license for the music for a movie was too narrow, so they end up in troubles when re-distributing it.
https://flixsearch.io/ Try your search on that. Best to have an international VPN service. You'll find that though the US has the largest catalog, you'll often find what you are looking for is available, but not in the US.
More than just "good prices". If I buy a game on Steam, I own it for life (yes, it can be played offline if Steam dies a final death) and I can re-install it an unlimited number of times on 3 OSs, with full Linux support. I'm not locked in to a single OS or obtrusive DRM. Though some Steam games come with DRM, it's few and falling (As a percentage of catalog), and the DRM isn't on *everything*, added on top, preventing me from using the game.
Also Sweden doesn't have any laws to allow them to lend someone to another country. That goes against both Swedish law and EU law.
So Sweden has no ambassadors? No tourists? Nobody ever leaves? It's like the roach-motel of countries. And Sweden doesn't even have phones? Why couldn't the people already outside Sweden at http://www.swedenabroad.com/lo... walk down to Assange? It's illegal for someone from Sweden to walk?
That's why I default to believing Assange. The "other side" just seems insane.
I expect he'd be spending a lot more time in countries that don't have extradition with the USA. He's not afraid of being arrested. He's afraid of being sold to the US and tortured until dead, as the US has done before and has numerous executive orders from both parties allowing, condoning, or encouraging.
I don't care about this issue enough to compare the blogger's report of the event to others, but base on the comments here, either you are lying (so far the *only* person I've seen who asserted the blogger was factually accurate) or the people in the many posts pointing out the factual errors in the blogger's complaints are lying. I'll let you guess which side I'm on in that point.
And I already know you are a liar, because you implied I'm a fanboy. I have no care at all about Musk or his endeavors. The only fanboy here is you. If one can be a negative fanboy.
Nope. Musk's actions are reasonable regardless of your fanboyhood. If a customer pisses you off, fire them. There have even been books written about firing your customers.
It just happens when you fire a blogger, he goes out of his way to try to make your reasonable action look unreasonable, thus proving that the customer deserved firing.
Ever been to Disneyland on a holiday? If so, did you "rage quit" the place when you weren't first in line to ride your favorite ride the one time that day,
No. But then, I'm not Stewart Alsop. He's the ragequitting douche. Musk is Disneyland escorting him off the property because he's causing a scene.
I think you are confusing OEM and home/pro.