It is really our belief that if something is not illegal it must be morally good, or that if it is illegal it must be morally bad? That is what you just said in a round about way twice.
Nice rant for mod points, but that's where the niceties end.
Free people aren't equal. Equal people aren't free.
I have no clue what planet or country you live in, but here in the USofA we are not free. You can't own a house and land, you pay rent to the Government and a Bank. You can't own a business, in fact good luck with all the regulations and paperwork required even if you are doing 1 person contracting. Work in the city? Well, some rich person is going to make sure that the majority of your income goes to them in rent. Don't like it, don't live in the city and spend 4 hours a day commuting. And even if you "buy" a house in the sticks you are only rending the land from the Government. Have doubts, refuse to make your tax payments and call me so I can laugh at you. You sure as hell can't buy land in the city, because property value is intentionally over inflated to keep people like you and me out. You can't drive the car you bought until you pay the State annual fees to drive, and depending on where you live pay for the proper testing on your car, and pay for the right amount of insurance, and of course you can only drive as fast as the Government tells you you can drive.
You are not free to work, free to eat what you want, free to hunt, and you are no longer free to practice your religion.
I emphatically state that it IS a moral evil to have people like Gates and the Koch brothers with billions and billions of dollars, who use their money as bribery to influence the system to further enrich themselves. Meanwhile we have people that can't afford basic clothing and food, and mentally ill people on the streets with no support system what so ever.
We have no equality because people like you not only ignore the morality of certain people who abuse the system, but attempt to claim that does not happen or have influence if it does.
See Socrates the story of the Artisan. Nothing new here except the people who spout the same tired bullshit..
The Privacy Shield is an agreement on how to handle data. It has no legal binding until agreed on by the EU courts, and even then can be challenged by members of the EU. Most would consider it a gentleman's agreement at this point.
Since Microsoft has a history of not being a gentleman I doubt anyone takes their faith in this agreement seriously at all. As soon as the US Government said "Give us the data" Microsoft has historically complied. I'm not sure how you are supposed to trust them on this one, but that's what TFA is attempting to imply.
All you need to do is read the top of the linked article to see how shitty our Government and people have been behaving. Not only does the CIA have front companies for harvesting DNA without the person's knowledge, but the first thing they say is A White House official says the CIA will no longer use vaccine programs as cover for spy operations. Good grief, the only reason they announced it is BECAUSE THEY KEEP GETTING CAUGHT! It also does not mean that they will actually stop using vaccine programs as cover, just that they claim it will.
You attempt to paint MK-Ultra as theory, when the papers were finally released. The CIA did drug people without their knowledge using LSD. They were caught smuggling drugs into the US and swapping those drugs for guns to send to South America. Not fantasy, not theory, facts.
Blah blah but the cowbows and indians blah, you need police with super powers blah. Shut the fuck up. If you are a paid shill you need to give your master back your money, you sure as hell don't know enough to earn it. If you are not a paid shill, seek medical help.
I don't expect a big mess, because as with every other case of fraud and tax evasion the more likely outcome will be silence and no action. There are some high profile American's on the list, and if you look at their associations I'm sure you could implicate many many other people. The Prime Minister of the UK has cried "private matter, don't look" from day one. All of the names of people in the Middle East, including many supported by the US and UK (and their best allies). One politician has left over the matter, from a Government who went through a soft revolt not very long ago. That is actually much more than I would expect, and more than we would have seen 20 years ago.
There are 15,600 companies that exist on paper simply to hide money, with hundreds of people from the largest economies in the world involved. What do we hear about it? "That bad ole Putin, he's so bad."
Hypocrisy comes to mind, as well as disgust...
Wake me up when these people are actually held accountable for their actions.
Are you attempting to claim that Phillip Morris had one owner, and that owner only owned that one business, and when tobacco sales started to dry up they owner became destitute and died poor?
How do you live with absolutely no depth perception?
Some friendly advice. Stop believing that people care about the world the same way you do. The ultra wealthy didn't become ultra wealthy because of their high moral standards. They became ultra wealthy at the expense of everyone else in society. Trying to threaten the 200 or so people that hold 99% of the worlds wealth with bankruptcy is a laughable tactic.
The game has been about money, which is where people hate and label people deniers. Everyone is supposed to pay a carbon tax to some unknown entity to sustain their current standard of living. In fact, the demand has not just been for paying off some unknown entity, but wealthier countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc.. all need to pay for previous generation of carbon.
We have massive amounts of pollution. We know it, but nobody will do anything. It's cheaper to dump and pay off people to look the other way than fix the problem. People making big piles of cash are not held accountable, and the politicians with greasy palms are not either.
Until we have a better solution than "give money to the people in shadows" people will argue and nothing will get done. Except that people like Bill Nye will still get paid very well to keep us arguing.
You are not a painter if you don't paint, you are not a guitarist if you don't play a guitar, and you are not a boxer if you don't box.
No issues with the digital world at all, but call things what they are and keep your feet on the ground and head out of the clouds. Rembrandt was a painter and artist. There were no online databases of paintings, and no store to order paints from. Classic painters mixed their own paint and colors, and mechanically crafted from scratch.
The brilliance of a painter like Rembrandt can not be reproduced digitally. The talent of a painter is only partially based on color and space utilization, but primarily based on brush strokes.
Build me a robot that uses a mechanical brush with the same finesse, then we will talk.
Digital mimicry is interesting, but it's not painting.
All of these people holding positions of power demanding access to everything we do all the time need to be the first to make their everything open to us. Strangely they won't do that, and go to great lengths to prevent us from knowing anything about their activities even though we write their paycheck.
This demand should extend beyond Government officials and to people like Gates, Schmidt, and others in the private sector that make the same arguments and demands that "we" be transparent while "they" hide information and hoard wealth.
You just cherry picked a fragment to argue instead of reading a statement IN CONTEXT. Read the paragraph just prior to the sentence you plucked to complain about and then read it as a generalization as written. If you have a 7th grade English reading level there is no confusion and you understand simple language flow. You just performed more mental gymnastics this to avoid the facts which disprove your believe.
Do the work, or you are a Troll. Rational and Logical is hard, I doubt you have the fortitude to make it.
When facts disagree with you, you claim that facts don't exist. What an immature and irrational opiion you demonstrate. I am not arguing with personal anecdote, I am arguing with verifiable facts. No, Im going to google that for you, because it takes very little effort to determine where there are real legal complaints You are simply playing the ostrich, and are a pathetic troll.
People claiming this is some outrageous act by the State ignore that nearly every State Law has the same wording. This is done to prevent lower Governments from usurping State power. Federal law does the same thing, to prevent States from usurping their power.
If people want to complain about State authority that's fine, but demand that you can have laws like a local drinking age of 18 and legalize drinking while driving and open containers. State law will negate any local laws regarding that subject, and if you believe otherwise let me know how jail feels.
Transgender does not mean that a person has been reassigned. A person being reassigned changes their biological sex, not to be confused with their sexual orientation.
Show me in the law where there is discriminating. Not someone telling you that it is discriminating, but the actual portion of the law which is discriminating. The majority of the bill is defining what exceptions exist for the use of the bathroom by someone of the "other" gender. The only complaint I can find (not the hysterics and ranting) is that people are legally restricted to the restroom matching their biological gender, and that local ordinances can not nullify or supersede the law. That last part being painted as nefarious and unconstitutional ignores the fact that nearly every State Law does this same thing. Your city can not pass a law reducing the drinking age to 12, or make it's local speed limits 200MPh, or allow 9 year old kids to get married, legalize heroin injection, etc.. etc... because the State Law is written to prevent usurpation by lower levels of Government. Federal laws prohibit States from usurping their power too. In other words, it is not only Constitutional for the State to claim exclusive powers but nearly boilerplate in the bill writing process at the State and Federal level.
If you are going to point to Section III, and the use of the term "biological sex" I have to ask WTF? If a transgender woman wanted to teach physical education to boys they can not be discriminated against due to being a biological woman. That wording is not discriminating, it's inclusive. If your complaint is that they didn't also call out every possible politically correct term we can find for gender then you are extremely short sighted. That level of detail would be discriminatory if they did not also call out every possible religion, ethnicity, handicap, etc..
The people complaining about a transgender person using the rest room are not men. As I said below in a different comment I can not find a single case of a woman being criminally charged for using the men's room without additional circumstances and charges (drunk, narcotics, violence, criminal trespassing/vandalism, etc..). Transgender does not make a difference, there are simply no charges I can find being filed, and no law suits to stop a person that I can find either. You may be able to find the 7-leaf clover, but that is not indicative of a systemic problem requiring legal protection.
I can find plenty of cases where men are arrested for being in the woman's bathroom. There is a pretty even split between transgender men and perverts in a brief search. So who are you trying to protect exactly? The men who are the subject of the overwhelming majority of the complaints benefit, not the women attempt to portray as needing the protection.
How exactly do you propose to make the law pertain to only the good people and ignore the bad ? Do you have any answer to this besides some fantasy view of the world as being full of perfect people who will do no harm? I have not seen an answer to this question, and very much doubt you have one. In fact in you just falsely claimed that my reasoning about your poor decision is based on "panic", when in fact I spelled out exactly what the problem with a law in of this nature is.
If people were only worried about the use of the rest room as you just attempted to claim then there is no need for the government to force people to accept the minority view. I can not find one instance of a woman being arrested for using the men's room without other circumstances (drunk, drugs, violent). Men are not running around threatening women with lawsuits if they happen to be transgender and using the men's room.
Alternatively, I have seen is women *rightly* complain that they feel threatened by women that appeared to be very masculine using their rest room. So this law does the exact opposite of protecting woman. Women will be _MORE_ at risk with a law of this nature.
So answer the point I addressed instead of making more false claims and ad hominem and fallacy. Surprise me with reason and logic instead of providing the expected trolling we normally see from SJWs and shills.
People need to remove the LGB from this discussion because there is nothing about Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexuals in the debate. Except that for positioning people conveniently lump those other groups into the lot. Here is your trigger warning, either go away or hold that rage for a minute. This is about people who dress like the opposite sex. The reasons for dressing like the opposite sex are varied, and can be perverse as well as due to any type of identity condition.
So you are a parent, do you mind if the older principle goes into the boys bathroom to check out the young penis? Prove it's not because she wants to be a man. If you are a parent, do you mind the janitor going into the girls bathroom to check out the young ladies? Prove it's not because he wants to be a woman.
This blanket assumption that everyone is innocent and altruistic is a fantasy that people need to snap out of. The actual amount of transgender people demanding to use any restroom they want is extraordinarily tiny. Blackmailing companies to force them to do it the way.1% of the population wants it is not the way to succeed in society where the other 99.9% of the population does not agree.
People need to wake up to the amount of social engineering being forced down their throat and take action against it. If not, well, you can see how things turned out in other countries when the loonies started running the asylum.
All of them, including the person who set up the server and ended up handing it over to the authorities.
Agencies known for their impeccable honesty with public disclosures...
If those same authorities were on your side, you would defend those same agencies on other matters benefit your political beliefs. You fool nobody but yourself.
A political opinion that has nothing to do with the question about the security of her email server.
It has everything to do with why people like you attempt to lie to make her look good, which YOU did by perpetuating an easy to verify as false claim.
How about you do a simple web search instead of making _false_ claims about there being no information. Sources that came up in the top 10 on duckduckgo are Breitbart, Businessinsider, CNN, and the NationalReview which of course are all well known right wing extremist crank sites, right? Wholly fuck, even Bill Gates said that it was likely her server was compromised, but of course he is just another right wing conservative gun nut. Am I right?
I do hope you can read sarcasm better than you can use a search engine.
Freud and his followers, like Edward Bernays, wrote books on the stuff. The fact that you don't know where to look does not mean that the claim is false, it is just not something you are going to find easily. Knowledge is power, and people hide knowledge all the time.
Okay, don't use anything but knowledge about security. How hard is it for someone to find the server information for an email server, and then hack into a server which is rarely managed.
Every Government agency (FBI, NSA, CIA, etc...) has said the server was insecure. The only people that want to defend Clinton's poor ethics, morals, and poor decisions related to this server are people who believe that they gain if she wins. If GW Bush had done the same thing my position would remain exactly the same, but you are either an idiot or a shill who would magically see the world differently.
Have any other shallow statements to share with the crowd?
Slashdot Mirror
It is really our belief that if something is not illegal it must be morally good, or that if it is illegal it must be morally bad? That is what you just said in a round about way twice.
*waiting*
Nice rant for mod points, but that's where the niceties end.
Free people aren't equal. Equal people aren't free.
I have no clue what planet or country you live in, but here in the USofA we are not free. You can't own a house and land, you pay rent to the Government and a Bank. You can't own a business, in fact good luck with all the regulations and paperwork required even if you are doing 1 person contracting. Work in the city? Well, some rich person is going to make sure that the majority of your income goes to them in rent. Don't like it, don't live in the city and spend 4 hours a day commuting. And even if you "buy" a house in the sticks you are only rending the land from the Government. Have doubts, refuse to make your tax payments and call me so I can laugh at you. You sure as hell can't buy land in the city, because property value is intentionally over inflated to keep people like you and me out. You can't drive the car you bought until you pay the State annual fees to drive, and depending on where you live pay for the proper testing on your car, and pay for the right amount of insurance, and of course you can only drive as fast as the Government tells you you can drive.
You are not free to work, free to eat what you want, free to hunt, and you are no longer free to practice your religion.
I emphatically state that it IS a moral evil to have people like Gates and the Koch brothers with billions and billions of dollars, who use their money as bribery to influence the system to further enrich themselves. Meanwhile we have people that can't afford basic clothing and food, and mentally ill people on the streets with no support system what so ever.
We have no equality because people like you not only ignore the morality of certain people who abuse the system, but attempt to claim that does not happen or have influence if it does.
See Socrates the story of the Artisan. Nothing new here except the people who spout the same tired bullshit. .
The Privacy Shield is an agreement on how to handle data. It has no legal binding until agreed on by the EU courts, and even then can be challenged by members of the EU. Most would consider it a gentleman's agreement at this point.
Since Microsoft has a history of not being a gentleman I doubt anyone takes their faith in this agreement seriously at all. As soon as the US Government said "Give us the data" Microsoft has historically complied. I'm not sure how you are supposed to trust them on this one, but that's what TFA is attempting to imply.
All you need to do is read the top of the linked article to see how shitty our Government and people have been behaving. Not only does the CIA have front companies for harvesting DNA without the person's knowledge, but the first thing they say is A White House official says the CIA will no longer use vaccine programs as cover for spy operations. Good grief, the only reason they announced it is BECAUSE THEY KEEP GETTING CAUGHT! It also does not mean that they will actually stop using vaccine programs as cover, just that they claim it will.
You attempt to paint MK-Ultra as theory, when the papers were finally released. The CIA did drug people without their knowledge using LSD. They were caught smuggling drugs into the US and swapping those drugs for guns to send to South America. Not fantasy, not theory, facts.
Blah blah but the cowbows and indians blah, you need police with super powers blah. Shut the fuck up. If you are a paid shill you need to give your master back your money, you sure as hell don't know enough to earn it. If you are not a paid shill, seek medical help.
I don't expect a big mess, because as with every other case of fraud and tax evasion the more likely outcome will be silence and no action. There are some high profile American's on the list, and if you look at their associations I'm sure you could implicate many many other people. The Prime Minister of the UK has cried "private matter, don't look" from day one. All of the names of people in the Middle East, including many supported by the US and UK (and their best allies). One politician has left over the matter, from a Government who went through a soft revolt not very long ago. That is actually much more than I would expect, and more than we would have seen 20 years ago.
There are 15,600 companies that exist on paper simply to hide money, with hundreds of people from the largest economies in the world involved. What do we hear about it? "That bad ole Putin, he's so bad."
Hypocrisy comes to mind, as well as disgust...
Wake me up when these people are actually held accountable for their actions.
Are you attempting to claim that Phillip Morris had one owner, and that owner only owned that one business, and when tobacco sales started to dry up they owner became destitute and died poor?
How do you live with absolutely no depth perception?
Some friendly advice. Stop believing that people care about the world the same way you do. The ultra wealthy didn't become ultra wealthy because of their high moral standards. They became ultra wealthy at the expense of everyone else in society. Trying to threaten the 200 or so people that hold 99% of the worlds wealth with bankruptcy is a laughable tactic.
The game has been about money, which is where people hate and label people deniers. Everyone is supposed to pay a carbon tax to some unknown entity to sustain their current standard of living. In fact, the demand has not just been for paying off some unknown entity, but wealthier countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc.. all need to pay for previous generation of carbon.
We have massive amounts of pollution. We know it, but nobody will do anything. It's cheaper to dump and pay off people to look the other way than fix the problem. People making big piles of cash are not held accountable, and the politicians with greasy palms are not either.
Until we have a better solution than "give money to the people in shadows" people will argue and nothing will get done. Except that people like Bill Nye will still get paid very well to keep us arguing.
Enough with the social commentary already!
You are not a painter if you don't paint, you are not a guitarist if you don't play a guitar, and you are not a boxer if you don't box.
No issues with the digital world at all, but call things what they are and keep your feet on the ground and head out of the clouds. Rembrandt was a painter and artist. There were no online databases of paintings, and no store to order paints from. Classic painters mixed their own paint and colors, and mechanically crafted from scratch.
The brilliance of a painter like Rembrandt can not be reproduced digitally. The talent of a painter is only partially based on color and space utilization, but primarily based on brush strokes.
Build me a robot that uses a mechanical brush with the same finesse, then we will talk.
Digital mimicry is interesting, but it's not painting.
Politicians need to have a healthy diet, with plenty of vitamins and irony...
All of these people holding positions of power demanding access to everything we do all the time need to be the first to make their everything open to us. Strangely they won't do that, and go to great lengths to prevent us from knowing anything about their activities even though we write their paycheck.
This demand should extend beyond Government officials and to people like Gates, Schmidt, and others in the private sector that make the same arguments and demands that "we" be transparent while "they" hide information and hoard wealth.
You just cherry picked a fragment to argue instead of reading a statement IN CONTEXT. Read the paragraph just prior to the sentence you plucked to complain about and then read it as a generalization as written. If you have a 7th grade English reading level there is no confusion and you understand simple language flow. You just performed more mental gymnastics this to avoid the facts which disprove your believe.
Do the work, or you are a Troll. Rational and Logical is hard, I doubt you have the fortitude to make it.
When facts disagree with you, you claim that facts don't exist. What an immature and irrational opiion you demonstrate. I am not arguing with personal anecdote, I am arguing with verifiable facts. No, Im going to google that for you, because it takes very little effort to determine where there are real legal complaints You are simply playing the ostrich, and are a pathetic troll.
People claiming this is some outrageous act by the State ignore that nearly every State Law has the same wording. This is done to prevent lower Governments from usurping State power. Federal law does the same thing, to prevent States from usurping their power.
If people want to complain about State authority that's fine, but demand that you can have laws like a local drinking age of 18 and legalize drinking while driving and open containers. State law will negate any local laws regarding that subject, and if you believe otherwise let me know how jail feels.
Transgender does not mean that a person has been reassigned. A person being reassigned changes their biological sex, not to be confused with their sexual orientation.
Show me in the law where there is discriminating. Not someone telling you that it is discriminating, but the actual portion of the law which is discriminating. The majority of the bill is defining what exceptions exist for the use of the bathroom by someone of the "other" gender. The only complaint I can find (not the hysterics and ranting) is that people are legally restricted to the restroom matching their biological gender, and that local ordinances can not nullify or supersede the law. That last part being painted as nefarious and unconstitutional ignores the fact that nearly every State Law does this same thing. Your city can not pass a law reducing the drinking age to 12, or make it's local speed limits 200MPh, or allow 9 year old kids to get married, legalize heroin injection, etc.. etc... because the State Law is written to prevent usurpation by lower levels of Government. Federal laws prohibit States from usurping their power too. In other words, it is not only Constitutional for the State to claim exclusive powers but nearly boilerplate in the bill writing process at the State and Federal level.
If you are going to point to Section III, and the use of the term "biological sex" I have to ask WTF? If a transgender woman wanted to teach physical education to boys they can not be discriminated against due to being a biological woman. That wording is not discriminating, it's inclusive. If your complaint is that they didn't also call out every possible politically correct term we can find for gender then you are extremely short sighted. That level of detail would be discriminatory if they did not also call out every possible religion, ethnicity, handicap, etc..
The people complaining about a transgender person using the rest room are not men. As I said below in a different comment I can not find a single case of a woman being criminally charged for using the men's room without additional circumstances and charges (drunk, narcotics, violence, criminal trespassing/vandalism, etc..). Transgender does not make a difference, there are simply no charges I can find being filed, and no law suits to stop a person that I can find either. You may be able to find the 7-leaf clover, but that is not indicative of a systemic problem requiring legal protection.
I can find plenty of cases where men are arrested for being in the woman's bathroom. There is a pretty even split between transgender men and perverts in a brief search. So who are you trying to protect exactly? The men who are the subject of the overwhelming majority of the complaints benefit, not the women attempt to portray as needing the protection.
How exactly do you propose to make the law pertain to only the good people and ignore the bad ? Do you have any answer to this besides some fantasy view of the world as being full of perfect people who will do no harm? I have not seen an answer to this question, and very much doubt you have one. In fact in you just falsely claimed that my reasoning about your poor decision is based on "panic", when in fact I spelled out exactly what the problem with a law in of this nature is.
If people were only worried about the use of the rest room as you just attempted to claim then there is no need for the government to force people to accept the minority view. I can not find one instance of a woman being arrested for using the men's room without other circumstances (drunk, drugs, violent). Men are not running around threatening women with lawsuits if they happen to be transgender and using the men's room.
Alternatively, I have seen is women *rightly* complain that they feel threatened by women that appeared to be very masculine using their rest room. So this law does the exact opposite of protecting woman. Women will be _MORE_ at risk with a law of this nature.
So answer the point I addressed instead of making more false claims and ad hominem and fallacy. Surprise me with reason and logic instead of providing the expected trolling we normally see from SJWs and shills.
People need to remove the LGB from this discussion because there is nothing about Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexuals in the debate. Except that for positioning people conveniently lump those other groups into the lot. Here is your trigger warning, either go away or hold that rage for a minute. This is about people who dress like the opposite sex. The reasons for dressing like the opposite sex are varied, and can be perverse as well as due to any type of identity condition.
So you are a parent, do you mind if the older principle goes into the boys bathroom to check out the young penis? Prove it's not because she wants to be a man. If you are a parent, do you mind the janitor going into the girls bathroom to check out the young ladies? Prove it's not because he wants to be a woman.
This blanket assumption that everyone is innocent and altruistic is a fantasy that people need to snap out of. The actual amount of transgender people demanding to use any restroom they want is extraordinarily tiny. Blackmailing companies to force them to do it the way .1% of the population wants it is not the way to succeed in society where the other 99.9% of the population does not agree.
People need to wake up to the amount of social engineering being forced down their throat and take action against it. If not, well, you can see how things turned out in other countries when the loonies started running the asylum.
Rarely managed according to what source?
All of them, including the person who set up the server and ended up handing it over to the authorities.
Agencies known for their impeccable honesty with public disclosures...
If those same authorities were on your side, you would defend those same agencies on other matters benefit your political beliefs. You fool nobody but yourself.
A political opinion that has nothing to do with the question about the security of her email server.
It has everything to do with why people like you attempt to lie to make her look good, which YOU did by perpetuating an easy to verify as false claim.
How about you do a simple web search instead of making _false_ claims about there being no information. Sources that came up in the top 10 on duckduckgo are Breitbart, Businessinsider, CNN, and the NationalReview which of course are all well known right wing extremist crank sites, right? Wholly fuck, even Bill Gates said that it was likely her server was compromised, but of course he is just another right wing conservative gun nut. Am I right?
I do hope you can read sarcasm better than you can use a search engine.
Freud and his followers, like Edward Bernays, wrote books on the stuff. The fact that you don't know where to look does not mean that the claim is false, it is just not something you are going to find easily. Knowledge is power, and people hide knowledge all the time.
Okay, don't use anything but knowledge about security. How hard is it for someone to find the server information for an email server, and then hack into a server which is rarely managed.
Every Government agency (FBI, NSA, CIA, etc...) has said the server was insecure. The only people that want to defend Clinton's poor ethics, morals, and poor decisions related to this server are people who believe that they gain if she wins. If GW Bush had done the same thing my position would remain exactly the same, but you are either an idiot or a shill who would magically see the world differently.
Have any other shallow statements to share with the crowd?
Except that it was owned (read outside of main stream media and use your brain bucket just a little).