The claim defies history and basic reasoning. Wikileaks gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a US Soldier fed up with the system. The Guardian (now looks like a leftist rag) gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a NSA contractor fed up with the system. Obama has jailed a record 31 Whistle blowers during his term so far, and wanted a 32nd in jail who fled to Russia. They also want Assange in jail or dead. Make it 33.
The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen. We have countless people working in Federal law enforcement fed up with the system who are forced to leak information for fear of being jailed or worse. The damages from these dumps are not anti-America, they are anti-corrupt politician. Russian gains nothing from seeing Hillary lie, they probably laugh and think "just like us".
Write your Congress and Senate representatives and demand a halt to any action. It could be blowing smoke, but given the massive amount of visible corruption I'm not so sure. I sure as hell don't trust Obama or Clinton who have on numerous occasions stated that they want to censor web sites "they" find unfavorable. Consider that the US is currently bombing Yemen without any public inspection of policy and media refuses to talk about it. They are way too busy fabricating false victims to smear Trump to talk about the real world.
Overall the answer is "yes" assuming the Generalization is an allegedly "Free" Western form Government. The US pays the 2nd highest (not 3rd) Corporate taxes in the World. This is in addition to income tax, property tax, social security tax, unemployment tax, State tax, Estate Tax, Death Tax, Capital Gains tax, interest taxes, City Tax (does not universally apply but must be considered), sales tax, taxes on services (health and human services fees and various fees for insurance), and Regulatory fees for virtually everything.
A recent report shows that over 20% of our GDP is Government, which requires revenue from Taxes. That is not just the Broken Window fallacy on steroids, it's a full blown rampaging radioactive Hulk.
If you wish to compare some taxes you are being dishonest, but I agree that you can find some types of tax where we are not the highest.
Sexual abuse? READ THE TRANSCRIPT! Are you are claiming that him getting turned down for sex is abuse? Pretending that someone talking about a person of the opposite gender is being attractive is "abuse" and not instinctual and biological? Perhaps you are attempting to claim that gold-diggers and groupies don't exist? Saying that only men who accept offers from that type of person is guilty of wrong doing? How about talking about someone being unattractive, is that also abuse and unrelated to biology and instinct? Do you have even a basic understanding of reproductive biology and evolution?
Or are you going to claim that contrary to the tape Donald got off the bus and groped the woman, because he talked about her being attractive and that is the only logical outcome? Which interestingly is exactly not what happened, in fact within 2 seconds of meeting the woman he let her know he was spoken for by another woman.
If you simply believe the cherry picked content so that someone can manipulate you, and you refuse to validate known liars, I say you are an idiot. Fallacious logic is easy to spot, but you have to at least try. Thorazine may be your best option.
Your failure to read is not my mudslinging. www.wikileaks.com just in case you wanted to go read the emails for yourself. Congressional hearing transcripts can be found here, here, and since you appear to be inept with a Web Search you can get help here. If you refuse to find facts and choose to ignore facts, keep your comments to yourself.
Facts are used to make claims against Hillary. You don't have to like facts, but stop being a fool and denying facts. She lied about Bengazi, read what she told Americans and compare to her later testimony and leaked emails by several people. She lied about having a private email server, she lied about having classified email on the server, she lied about knowing what a (C) was in classified mail [evidenced by the fact that she used the designation in other emails], she lied about hearing from Ambassador Stevens, and that list could go on and on.
The question people should be asking is what is she currently lying about? Open borders which would destroy America, or fixing Immigration [which she has not bothered with in her long political career]. Is she lying about cutting taxes? If so, how do you suppose we pay for free college, free health care, and all of the other free stuff she's promising? Consider that the US is currently 20Trillion dollars in red spending 1Trillion dollars a year more than we currently take in. Is she lying about forcing companies to profit share? That would kill the entrepreneurs in the country because nobody will invest in new business. Especially if she raises taxes on the wealthy as she claims, who are the entrepreneurs.
Oh, you need more? How about asking Hillary what this magical "Fair Share" is that she keeps telling everyone we should be paying. Here is a hint, if she does not give you a number and we already pay the highest taxes in the world it's probably 100%. She want's fossil fuels to become stranded resources. How do we power a country with no assets exactly?
Go ahead and piss and moan about Trump's comment that every single person beyond puberty as at least heard, if not said. Feign moral outrage while popular musicians promote promiscuity, masturbation, killing cops, pimpin hos, and doing anything for money. Virtue signal while Universities teach people how to have great orgasm with a dildo and promote gratification while pushing the idea that only one gender can be held accountable for regrettable sex, and that sex is a great weapon to use to get ahead. Yeah, those same people that get invited to the current White House to party with the Dems and accolades from the Progressives. Why do you think Hillary openly claims she wants Supreme Court justices with a certain type of experience and refuses to mention Constitutional Rights in the same sentence? That should be easy. It's the same reason she has amassed a huge amount of wealth as a politician. The same thing people complain about with every goddamn nasty dictator and tyrant in the world.
You won't get a prize by letting them win the game. You will get bent over first and fucked the hardest. Sorry folks, the US is really that far gone and it won't take much to push it over. All you need to do to validate that is look at the collusion between the Pravda^WMedia and Kremlin^WProgressives (including the current President).
Pointing out that a scary event could happen because there was once a small event is the exact logic failure I wrote about previously. Do you have any non fallacious arguments for why this should be done by Executive order and should not be done by Congress? Make sure you consider that a "Real" project would require tax payer funding and accountability.
I'm guessing that you can't find any, which is why you went to the appeal to emotion.
Does not pass the logic test. Any argument can be framed in that same way. The allegations that Russia is responsible for hacking Podesta and the DNC are "serious national defense" issues if you actually believe that to be true. Allegations that there is a conspiracy to elect a specific person to office is similarly a "serious national defense" issue.
Facts should be used to determine priorities and projects, not ambiguous fallacies.
Necessary planning? Sure, but it requires funding and accountability which should be passed by Congress and not EO. So much for the US Constitution, people no longer even question the activity of Probably illegal actions.
Cherry picking what you perceive as significant are different when maintained in context. There is no reason to cherry pick except to distort context. The only people who miss Trump's context are the people who are against Trump. Which as I stated in a different thread all together is why I no longer listen to broadcast media in the US. I listen to speeches and read transcripts. As I also said, the only claim that has validity is that of maligning McCain with a statement which was immediately (within seconds) modified in the same conversation.
A person should never be found guilty by allegation. That is now how the US Constitution and Justice system were defined very intentionally. A person is to be presumed innocent until _proven_ guilty. Hillary and Bill have been _PROVEN_ guilty by review of evidence, and a visibly corrupt legal system is not needed to make that assertion but review of _facts_. Trump's fans don't overlook wrong doing, they dismiss unreasonable allegations which they should.
Look, if someone started saying Hillary kills and eats babies it would be an allegation. I would expect that people dismiss that claim as allegations requiring proof. Most people would dismiss the claims for that reason. Trump would probably dismiss those allegations for the same reason. He has been very cautious to lay out only facts which can be verified against Hillary by means other than allegation. Leaked emails, her own testimony and that of the Director of the FBI, Her own released statements verifiable by transcript, etc...
That is not how it works, because if that were true I can make you say anything I wish. That claim is pure and simple idiocy. If you wish to argue, as I do, that cherry picking to create statements never said is wrong we would agree. It should be, and historically has been, treated with disdain when someone fabricates a narrative to slander someone.
If you wish to argue that certain politicians do so, then treat them with disdain. Simple.
There is a big difference between fact and fantasy. My contention is that one candidate is guilty by facts and those facts were mentioned and easily verifiable. The other faces fabricated claims so often that even if you showed someone a real claim we would not believe it. No facts have been provided to back the assertions being made.
Facts are not up for debate, how one uses facts can be up for debate.
Whether or not someone has been jailed and/or convicted of a crime the facts remain. Facts are the evidence of wrong doing, not feelings.
That single statement is called snark. Those of us who understand basic US English can recognize it when we see it. If you don't believe a Politician can use Snark you had best put every Politician ever recorded in Jail immediately.
Simple. Outside of the media claiming he is racist there are 0, recordings or writings of Trump demonstrating racism. Out of the media and democrats claiming he is against Muslims, there are 0 recordings of him being against Muslims. That trend continues, so as I said above if you believe he actually is racist prove it! Not what someone claims he said, but what he said IN CONTEXT WITHOUT CHERRY PICKING.
If you want cherry picking, you just said exactly what I did. "Trump is unfairly treated." and nothing more. Isn't that nice how we can just cherry pick a fragment and change your whole message?
As to the Criminal DNC candidate: In context and without cherry picking there are literally hundreds of thousands of admissible evidence that Hillary is a liar, abused her power illegally, has sold out the USA (influence and assets) to terrorist states, accepts money from terrorist states, is abusive to women, knew damn well that her personal server was illegal, despises those less fortunate than her (which is most of us since she can abuse power for personal gain), caused severe permanent damage to a woman who was raped at 12 years old, has committed perjury more than once, and the list could go on and on.
It's not a question any more, read the dumps from Wikileaks. IMHO the whole State Department needs to be placed under subpoena and investigated for collusion, numerous members of the Department of Justice need the same, and Hillary and Bill should be held without bail until a formal investigation of all assets, communications, and financial records are reviewed for illegal activity.
Your history has numerous of little snipes at Trump each lacking substance or references. Out of the first 5 pages of history I see 2 downmods and 1 upmod for "see subject:" as your only comment. I am not going to go find what that post was about because my goal was not to indict you as pro-Hillary shill but check the validity of the claim that anti-Trump posts are being flagrantly down modded. Which in your case is an absolute false allegation.
I believe that you may be attempting to confuse people tired of shills and shill accounts down modding posts when they can. Trump does not to any knowledge have paid shills down modding posts on Slashdot. There are allegations and connections of the same to Hillary's campaign. Considering the links between the US DOJ, Department of State, etc.. I would be curious to check the moderation by IPs owned by the US Government in favor of a particular candidate.
The negative moderation in any post unfavorable to Hillary has become obvious. At the same time, I'd rather be honest and speak than remain silent. I'll take the Karma hits if they come, and occasionally they do. Similar posts to this I made yesterday were all marked down. I have banked bonus karma, and regulars with Mod points seem to balance a bit.
My personal belief comes direct from Socrates (paraphrasing): A Philosopher is not only a person who loves wisdom, but puts the pursuit of truth above all things including themselves.
He didn't come off as outraged by policy? Really? You are either a complete retard in need of professional care, or a paid shill. As I said, selectively chosen fragments of statements do not make you right. They make you a pathetic propagandist.
He specifically stated that ISIS formed because of the power vacuum Obama and Clinton created by their policies in the Middle East. "We don't like Assad" so they fucked up that country. "We don't like Gaddafi", so they got him killed too. They didn't like the President of Egypt, so he was gone. Yemen, let the Saudi's bomb the shit out of that country. Afghanistan and Iraq were already fucked over, so no need to mess with the mess already created.
Stop selectively reading context you like and actually find some facts.
If you don't, you may never ever bitch about Putin or China taking over countries they don't like because we set the goddamn example for them to follow. Is this the America you want to live in? I sincerely hope not.
The statement put in bold is snark, and it's painfully obvious snark to an objective viewer. Go find reality, it's honestly out here! Or don't, be a piss ant for the elites. If you choose the latter, shut the fuck up and stop trying to take others with you!
I refuse to watch any "NEWS" and am very selective about the Radio stations I listen to. From those, I take political comments as false and if I feel like investigating will attempt to prove otherwise. The media in the US today is at the same level of propaganda we made fun of with the Pravda in Russia back in the 80s (sorry folks, I'm a hardened old cynical bastard, much worse than your ordinary cynical bastard).
The latest hysteria about Trump for example: Trump said very clearly that he would ask his Attorney General to assign a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clinton's. Sounds reasonable to most of us considering the amount of corruption that surrounds them (worded intentionally, so read what I wrote instead of what you want to see). Media report: Trump is going to randomly jail people. He's a dictator, he's a this, he's a that.
I have taken hundreds of hours to read transcripts and watching full speeches to validate context. I can find almost nothing the media says that is true. Nearly every allegation with the exception of McCain is over hyped bullspittle which requires a complete lack of context and cherry picking.
Meanwhile, potentially real crimes are being buried under the same hype and hysteria. Perhaps the FBI is investigating the DNC, the Media, and the Ultra wealthy responsible for some things. The Media won't report it even when there is a finding, like why is either Comey or Hillary not up on perjury charges? One of them flat out lied to the US Congress.
One thing the US desperately needs is a anti-trust case to break up the media monopolies so that we can get out of the damn echo chamber. We were warned by real journalists when they started allowing monopolization that this would occur, and dang if those people were not right.
Typical cherry picking bullshit. In the recent debate Trump promised to put Clinton in jail if he won the election. Wrong, and a complete fabrication just like most of the other anti Trump rhetoric. What Trump DID say is that he would ask his Attorney General to assign a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clintons due to the overwhelming amount of corruption that surrounds them.
That is a LEGAL request, and follows actual procedure LAW requires. Reading full statements is not that intellectually difficult, so you are not trying. Pointing out Liberal controlled media cherry picking the same way does not make it true, it makes you look like an idiot who can't follow even a few simple sentences.
So what you are attempting to claim is that Nigel Farage wanting out of the Euro due to the unaccountable policy generators which refused to listen to the UK people's interests was all fluff and BS. Mr. Farage had no factual basis for his claims, and he has bullshitted the UK out of a life full of rainbows, cotton candy, and unicorns.
I quoted "add" because that is your claim on both occasions. Quoting your word is not a scare quote, it's a factual quote. This time claiming that hoards of Lords were added because Brexit passed, when that is simply untrue. You seem to be truth averse, so no point in continuing the conversation.
Impossible to debate cherry picked points effectively. When you say the Pound dropped overnight you omitted my point that Economists have been predicting it for quite a while. Just like they have been predicting the fall of the Euro due to financial problems in Germany. "Sudden" implies that nobody saw it coming so nobody could have prepared when the contrary is true. There are bad economic problems globally due to massive debt by virtually all Nations. The falling Euro and instability which the UK is tied to has much to do with the loss in value of the Pound. The UK voted themselves out, but that relationship is still alive and well and the UK will feel it's effects.
Removing a foreign un-elected unaccountable mass of bureaucrats from the British Economic and Political system did not "add" Government to the UK. It removed the unaccountable un-elected bureaucrats.
Fair points, and my apology for misunderstanding. I assumed your argument was that we were legally forced to return the money., not that you felt my argument was "stealing" Iranian money. It appears to me through reading that the US Government does have the ability to seize assets through various Laws. There are certainly diplomatic concerns with doing so, but legally we can and have seized assets. There is also discretion on how those assets are used.
Amazing commentary, especially since I didn't read Wikipedia at all. Try searching for methods the US could have used to hold the money and reading commentary from practicing attorneys on the subject. You will find plenty that consider what President Obama did, in addition to various means of continuing to withhold the money. You know, that thing you said we can't legally do but did for decades perfectly legally.
Sanctions approved by the US Congress and Senate which President Obama lifted without Congressional approval. You could also go with US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. How about trying a Google search yourself, you will find plenty of law books. You know, so then you could actually be smart instead of pretending.
Wow, did you just think that up all by yourself? I am simply amazed by your intellectual prowess. (That is called sarcasm, because you appear to be slow)
Slashdot Mirror
The claim defies history and basic reasoning. Wikileaks gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a US Soldier fed up with the system. The Guardian (now looks like a leftist rag) gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a NSA contractor fed up with the system. Obama has jailed a record 31 Whistle blowers during his term so far, and wanted a 32nd in jail who fled to Russia. They also want Assange in jail or dead. Make it 33.
The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen. We have countless people working in Federal law enforcement fed up with the system who are forced to leak information for fear of being jailed or worse. The damages from these dumps are not anti-America, they are anti-corrupt politician. Russian gains nothing from seeing Hillary lie, they probably laugh and think "just like us".
Write your Congress and Senate representatives and demand a halt to any action. It could be blowing smoke, but given the massive amount of visible corruption I'm not so sure. I sure as hell don't trust Obama or Clinton who have on numerous occasions stated that they want to censor web sites "they" find unfavorable. Consider that the US is currently bombing Yemen without any public inspection of policy and media refuses to talk about it. They are way too busy fabricating false victims to smear Trump to talk about the real world.
Overall the answer is "yes" assuming the Generalization is an allegedly "Free" Western form Government. The US pays the 2nd highest (not 3rd) Corporate taxes in the World. This is in addition to income tax, property tax, social security tax, unemployment tax, State tax, Estate Tax, Death Tax, Capital Gains tax, interest taxes, City Tax (does not universally apply but must be considered), sales tax, taxes on services (health and human services fees and various fees for insurance), and Regulatory fees for virtually everything.
A recent report shows that over 20% of our GDP is Government, which requires revenue from Taxes. That is not just the Broken Window fallacy on steroids, it's a full blown rampaging radioactive Hulk.
If you wish to compare some taxes you are being dishonest, but I agree that you can find some types of tax where we are not the highest.
Sexual abuse? READ THE TRANSCRIPT! Are you are claiming that him getting turned down for sex is abuse? Pretending that someone talking about a person of the opposite gender is being attractive is "abuse" and not instinctual and biological? Perhaps you are attempting to claim that gold-diggers and groupies don't exist? Saying that only men who accept offers from that type of person is guilty of wrong doing? How about talking about someone being unattractive, is that also abuse and unrelated to biology and instinct? Do you have even a basic understanding of reproductive biology and evolution?
Or are you going to claim that contrary to the tape Donald got off the bus and groped the woman, because he talked about her being attractive and that is the only logical outcome? Which interestingly is exactly not what happened, in fact within 2 seconds of meeting the woman he let her know he was spoken for by another woman.
If you simply believe the cherry picked content so that someone can manipulate you, and you refuse to validate known liars, I say you are an idiot. Fallacious logic is easy to spot, but you have to at least try. Thorazine may be your best option.
Your failure to read is not my mudslinging. www.wikileaks.com just in case you wanted to go read the emails for yourself. Congressional hearing transcripts can be found here, here, and since you appear to be inept with a Web Search you can get help here. If you refuse to find facts and choose to ignore facts, keep your comments to yourself.
Facts are used to make claims against Hillary. You don't have to like facts, but stop being a fool and denying facts. She lied about Bengazi, read what she told Americans and compare to her later testimony and leaked emails by several people. She lied about having a private email server, she lied about having classified email on the server, she lied about knowing what a (C) was in classified mail [evidenced by the fact that she used the designation in other emails], she lied about hearing from Ambassador Stevens, and that list could go on and on.
The question people should be asking is what is she currently lying about? Open borders which would destroy America, or fixing Immigration [which she has not bothered with in her long political career]. Is she lying about cutting taxes? If so, how do you suppose we pay for free college, free health care, and all of the other free stuff she's promising? Consider that the US is currently 20Trillion dollars in red spending 1Trillion dollars a year more than we currently take in. Is she lying about forcing companies to profit share? That would kill the entrepreneurs in the country because nobody will invest in new business. Especially if she raises taxes on the wealthy as she claims, who are the entrepreneurs.
Oh, you need more? How about asking Hillary what this magical "Fair Share" is that she keeps telling everyone we should be paying. Here is a hint, if she does not give you a number and we already pay the highest taxes in the world it's probably 100%. She want's fossil fuels to become stranded resources. How do we power a country with no assets exactly?
Go ahead and piss and moan about Trump's comment that every single person beyond puberty as at least heard, if not said. Feign moral outrage while popular musicians promote promiscuity, masturbation, killing cops, pimpin hos, and doing anything for money. Virtue signal while Universities teach people how to have great orgasm with a dildo and promote gratification while pushing the idea that only one gender can be held accountable for regrettable sex, and that sex is a great weapon to use to get ahead. Yeah, those same people that get invited to the current White House to party with the Dems and accolades from the Progressives. Why do you think Hillary openly claims she wants Supreme Court justices with a certain type of experience and refuses to mention Constitutional Rights in the same sentence? That should be easy. It's the same reason she has amassed a huge amount of wealth as a politician. The same thing people complain about with every goddamn nasty dictator and tyrant in the world.
You won't get a prize by letting them win the game. You will get bent over first and fucked the hardest. Sorry folks, the US is really that far gone and it won't take much to push it over. All you need to do to validate that is look at the collusion between the Pravda^WMedia and Kremlin^WProgressives (including the current President).
Pointing out that a scary event could happen because there was once a small event is the exact logic failure I wrote about previously. Do you have any non fallacious arguments for why this should be done by Executive order and should not be done by Congress? Make sure you consider that a "Real" project would require tax payer funding and accountability.
I'm guessing that you can't find any, which is why you went to the appeal to emotion.
Does not pass the logic test. Any argument can be framed in that same way. The allegations that Russia is responsible for hacking Podesta and the DNC are "serious national defense" issues if you actually believe that to be true. Allegations that there is a conspiracy to elect a specific person to office is similarly a "serious national defense" issue.
Facts should be used to determine priorities and projects, not ambiguous fallacies.
Necessary planning? Sure, but it requires funding and accountability which should be passed by Congress and not EO. So much for the US Constitution, people no longer even question the activity of Probably illegal actions.
Cherry picking what you perceive as significant are different when maintained in context. There is no reason to cherry pick except to distort context. The only people who miss Trump's context are the people who are against Trump. Which as I stated in a different thread all together is why I no longer listen to broadcast media in the US. I listen to speeches and read transcripts. As I also said, the only claim that has validity is that of maligning McCain with a statement which was immediately (within seconds) modified in the same conversation.
A person should never be found guilty by allegation. That is now how the US Constitution and Justice system were defined very intentionally. A person is to be presumed innocent until _proven_ guilty. Hillary and Bill have been _PROVEN_ guilty by review of evidence, and a visibly corrupt legal system is not needed to make that assertion but review of _facts_. Trump's fans don't overlook wrong doing, they dismiss unreasonable allegations which they should.
Look, if someone started saying Hillary kills and eats babies it would be an allegation. I would expect that people dismiss that claim as allegations requiring proof. Most people would dismiss the claims for that reason. Trump would probably dismiss those allegations for the same reason. He has been very cautious to lay out only facts which can be verified against Hillary by means other than allegation. Leaked emails, her own testimony and that of the Director of the FBI, Her own released statements verifiable by transcript, etc...
That is not how it works, because if that were true I can make you say anything I wish. That claim is pure and simple idiocy. If you wish to argue, as I do, that cherry picking to create statements never said is wrong we would agree. It should be, and historically has been, treated with disdain when someone fabricates a narrative to slander someone.
If you wish to argue that certain politicians do so, then treat them with disdain. Simple.
There is a big difference between fact and fantasy. My contention is that one candidate is guilty by facts and those facts were mentioned and easily verifiable. The other faces fabricated claims so often that even if you showed someone a real claim we would not believe it. No facts have been provided to back the assertions being made.
Facts are not up for debate, how one uses facts can be up for debate.
Whether or not someone has been jailed and/or convicted of a crime the facts remain. Facts are the evidence of wrong doing, not feelings.
That single statement is called snark. Those of us who understand basic US English can recognize it when we see it. If you don't believe a Politician can use Snark you had best put every Politician ever recorded in Jail immediately.
Simple. Outside of the media claiming he is racist there are 0, recordings or writings of Trump demonstrating racism. Out of the media and democrats claiming he is against Muslims, there are 0 recordings of him being against Muslims. That trend continues, so as I said above if you believe he actually is racist prove it! Not what someone claims he said, but what he said IN CONTEXT WITHOUT CHERRY PICKING.
If you want cherry picking, you just said exactly what I did. "Trump is unfairly treated." and nothing more. Isn't that nice how we can just cherry pick a fragment and change your whole message?
As to the Criminal DNC candidate: In context and without cherry picking there are literally hundreds of thousands of admissible evidence that Hillary is a liar, abused her power illegally, has sold out the USA (influence and assets) to terrorist states, accepts money from terrorist states, is abusive to women, knew damn well that her personal server was illegal, despises those less fortunate than her (which is most of us since she can abuse power for personal gain), caused severe permanent damage to a woman who was raped at 12 years old, has committed perjury more than once, and the list could go on and on.
It's not a question any more, read the dumps from Wikileaks. IMHO the whole State Department needs to be placed under subpoena and investigated for collusion, numerous members of the Department of Justice need the same, and Hillary and Bill should be held without bail until a formal investigation of all assets, communications, and financial records are reviewed for illegal activity.
Your history has numerous of little snipes at Trump each lacking substance or references. Out of the first 5 pages of history I see 2 downmods and 1 upmod for "see subject:" as your only comment. I am not going to go find what that post was about because my goal was not to indict you as pro-Hillary shill but check the validity of the claim that anti-Trump posts are being flagrantly down modded. Which in your case is an absolute false allegation.
I believe that you may be attempting to confuse people tired of shills and shill accounts down modding posts when they can. Trump does not to any knowledge have paid shills down modding posts on Slashdot. There are allegations and connections of the same to Hillary's campaign. Considering the links between the US DOJ, Department of State, etc.. I would be curious to check the moderation by IPs owned by the US Government in favor of a particular candidate.
The negative moderation in any post unfavorable to Hillary has become obvious. At the same time, I'd rather be honest and speak than remain silent. I'll take the Karma hits if they come, and occasionally they do. Similar posts to this I made yesterday were all marked down. I have banked bonus karma, and regulars with Mod points seem to balance a bit.
My personal belief comes direct from Socrates (paraphrasing): A Philosopher is not only a person who loves wisdom, but puts the pursuit of truth above all things including themselves.
He didn't come off as outraged by policy? Really? You are either a complete retard in need of professional care, or a paid shill. As I said, selectively chosen fragments of statements do not make you right. They make you a pathetic propagandist.
He specifically stated that ISIS formed because of the power vacuum Obama and Clinton created by their policies in the Middle East. "We don't like Assad" so they fucked up that country. "We don't like Gaddafi", so they got him killed too. They didn't like the President of Egypt, so he was gone. Yemen, let the Saudi's bomb the shit out of that country. Afghanistan and Iraq were already fucked over, so no need to mess with the mess already created.
Stop selectively reading context you like and actually find some facts.
If you don't, you may never ever bitch about Putin or China taking over countries they don't like because we set the goddamn example for them to follow. Is this the America you want to live in? I sincerely hope not.
The statement put in bold is snark, and it's painfully obvious snark to an objective viewer. Go find reality, it's honestly out here! Or don't, be a piss ant for the elites. If you choose the latter, shut the fuck up and stop trying to take others with you!
I refuse to watch any "NEWS" and am very selective about the Radio stations I listen to. From those, I take political comments as false and if I feel like investigating will attempt to prove otherwise. The media in the US today is at the same level of propaganda we made fun of with the Pravda in Russia back in the 80s (sorry folks, I'm a hardened old cynical bastard, much worse than your ordinary cynical bastard).
The latest hysteria about Trump for example: Trump said very clearly that he would ask his Attorney General to assign a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clinton's. Sounds reasonable to most of us considering the amount of corruption that surrounds them (worded intentionally, so read what I wrote instead of what you want to see). Media report: Trump is going to randomly jail people. He's a dictator, he's a this, he's a that.
I have taken hundreds of hours to read transcripts and watching full speeches to validate context. I can find almost nothing the media says that is true. Nearly every allegation with the exception of McCain is over hyped bullspittle which requires a complete lack of context and cherry picking.
Meanwhile, potentially real crimes are being buried under the same hype and hysteria. Perhaps the FBI is investigating the DNC, the Media, and the Ultra wealthy responsible for some things. The Media won't report it even when there is a finding, like why is either Comey or Hillary not up on perjury charges? One of them flat out lied to the US Congress.
One thing the US desperately needs is a anti-trust case to break up the media monopolies so that we can get out of the damn echo chamber. We were warned by real journalists when they started allowing monopolization that this would occur, and dang if those people were not right.
Typical cherry picking bullshit. In the recent debate Trump promised to put Clinton in jail if he won the election. Wrong, and a complete fabrication just like most of the other anti Trump rhetoric. What Trump DID say is that he would ask his Attorney General to assign a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clintons due to the overwhelming amount of corruption that surrounds them.
That is a LEGAL request, and follows actual procedure LAW requires. Reading full statements is not that intellectually difficult, so you are not trying. Pointing out Liberal controlled media cherry picking the same way does not make it true, it makes you look like an idiot who can't follow even a few simple sentences.
So what you are attempting to claim is that Nigel Farage wanting out of the Euro due to the unaccountable policy generators which refused to listen to the UK people's interests was all fluff and BS. Mr. Farage had no factual basis for his claims, and he has bullshitted the UK out of a life full of rainbows, cotton candy, and unicorns.
I quoted "add" because that is your claim on both occasions. Quoting your word is not a scare quote, it's a factual quote. This time claiming that hoards of Lords were added because Brexit passed, when that is simply untrue. You seem to be truth averse, so no point in continuing the conversation.
Impossible to debate cherry picked points effectively. When you say the Pound dropped overnight you omitted my point that Economists have been predicting it for quite a while. Just like they have been predicting the fall of the Euro due to financial problems in Germany. "Sudden" implies that nobody saw it coming so nobody could have prepared when the contrary is true. There are bad economic problems globally due to massive debt by virtually all Nations. The falling Euro and instability which the UK is tied to has much to do with the loss in value of the Pound. The UK voted themselves out, but that relationship is still alive and well and the UK will feel it's effects.
Removing a foreign un-elected unaccountable mass of bureaucrats from the British Economic and Political system did not "add" Government to the UK. It removed the unaccountable un-elected bureaucrats.
Fair points, and my apology for misunderstanding. I assumed your argument was that we were legally forced to return the money., not that you felt my argument was "stealing" Iranian money. It appears to me through reading that the US Government does have the ability to seize assets through various Laws. There are certainly diplomatic concerns with doing so, but legally we can and have seized assets. There is also discretion on how those assets are used.
Amazing commentary, especially since I didn't read Wikipedia at all. Try searching for methods the US could have used to hold the money and reading commentary from practicing attorneys on the subject. You will find plenty that consider what President Obama did, in addition to various means of continuing to withhold the money. You know, that thing you said we can't legally do but did for decades perfectly legally.
Sanctions approved by the US Congress and Senate which President Obama lifted without Congressional approval. You could also go with US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. How about trying a Google search yourself, you will find plenty of law books. You know, so then you could actually be smart instead of pretending.
Wow, did you just think that up all by yourself? I am simply amazed by your intellectual prowess. (That is called sarcasm, because you appear to be slow)