And the fact that the felonies they decided to commit clearly came with the penalties to their liberties and finances as well as the future trust their fellow Floridians were willing to put in them to help run the state were already well established. If you choose to commit a felony in Florida, you know that you risk losing your liberty for the duration of your prison sentence, and permanently losing the trust of your fellow voters. Just like you permanently lose that state's willingness to endorse your purchase of a gun.
Cuba is doing poorly because they are not allowed to trade with practically anyone
By "practically anyone" you mean, not with the US. I'm sure that all of those Europeans and central and south Americans who do regular trade with Cuba would be amused to find that you think they don't count as anyone.
Or, you could just read some history, and recognize that I didn't have to pinpoint anything, because people have been conveniently pointing things like this out for centuries. The Romans themselves explained it to you, not that you've probably troubled yourself to digest any of that.
Right. And even when you use territorial invasion and slavery to try to prop that up, it still doesn't work. When there's no other substantial regional power to challenge an empire like that, even when it's rotting from within, it eventually fails. It was retracting LONG before those 900 years were up.
No, Rome fell because they abandoned their Republican framework and went for a dictatorial cult of personality model instead. It's why Cuba is poorer than Chile. It's why North Korea is a gulag-infested hell hole resorting to threats of violence to bully for food. It's why Venezuela is eating itself alive. It's the difference between, say, Obama waving his pen to make immigration look the way he feels it needs to to preserve some of his party's political power, vs Trump insisting that the issue be tackled legislatively, by the congress.
The irony of you lecturing others about ignorance and lack of wisdom is hilarious.
economies based on bartering never actually existed
Right. You can't build a large, thriving, productive economy based on primitive trade techniques. People (like the GP) who confuse "greed" with "money" are going out of their way to display their ignorance and/or their intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, brother. Let me guess... you'd be happy if we went back to bartering so that no Eeeeevil Money was involved. Because you can't wrap your head around the fact that a society that uses money (instead of trade goods) is wildly more efficient for everybody and is a central part of the prosperity that has even very poor people in the US living better than 99.9% of the people centuries ago.
But even so, I'm sure you'd tell the person who's invested the time to breed, raise, feed and protect a really nice egg laying chicken that they're being greedy if they value that chicken more than the crappy chicken some other guy his trying to use to barter for the same farm implement. Greed works. It's what causes people to breed better chickens. You want everybody to have crappy chickens because you feel entitled to a chicken and value your laziness more than egg quality. You personally embody a big part of what's wrong with contemporary society. That you can't even grasp that money is a wildly more efficient stand-in for trade goods and bartered services suggests that you don't have the intellectual development to do things possibly dangerous to other people, like voting. Please don't do that - you're not ready.
Comey's letter to Congress on Oct 28th most certainly cost Clinton votes and quite possibly the election.
So, you're probably quite pleased that Trump fired him. Regardless, the ONLY reason that the FBI had to act again was because Clinton assured them that her staff had turned over every existing record, storage device, and copy of all such emails. Of course she'd already wiped tens of thousands of them off of her personal non-secure server, literally had mobile devices smashed with hammers after SIM cards were removed, etc. And then her staff - who had to negotiate immunity agreements before they'd even talk - promised the FBI had everything. Including Huma. Who, of course, it turns out had NOT done what she said. She had a huge trove of Clinton's mails, including more classified documents, on her personal laptop at home, shared with her reckless pedo husband.
But why did Comey tell congress about the re-opened investigation? Because some of the Clinton-supporting fans in the FBI had found those emails OVER A MONTH EARLIER and hadn't told him anything. When he finally became aware of the existence of all of that new evidence and the underlying false statements that it represents, his agency had been - for partisan reasons - sitting on that little fact for a month. He knew that if it came out later that his people had been trying to protect her for over a month before the election, he'd be rightly accused of trying to giver her political cover.
Who cares if their internal costs were a million dollars or a billions dollars a month? It's that much more hilarious if they ran a situation that inefficient and still spent most what they actually deployed in the real world AFTER the election, and what they spent during the entire election was an amount so small that Hillary's operation out-spent that amount every day. And, of course, only some portion of what they spent was aimed at her - they spent it on every front, in self-contradictory ads. Which you know. How about YOU read the whole indictment, including the part where they address the actual amount of money spent making things (hardly at all) visible to the public?
Hey, look! The coward automatically loses the non-debate he's engaged in by once again stamping his little feet and dishing out lazy ad hominem without even once addressing the subject matter. Such a cute little fanboy you are.
They didn't want Trump. They didn't want Clinton. They wanted discord and wow did they ever get it.
More importantly, they were sure (just like the Democrats, all of the media, most of the pollsters, and pretty much every foreign government) that Clinton was going to win. Their modest pot-stirring prior to the election was simply meant to chip away at any wider national support behind her when she took office, making it harder for the US to act cohesively against Russian shenanigans elsewhere in the world. When she lost, the troll operation simply realigned itself towards trying to stir up liberal haters against the incoming Trump administration.
How is telling the truth about when and how an insignificant number of Russian-bought pot-stirring social media ads were purchased "currying favor?"
If he'd remained silent and allowed the left to continue to mischaracterize the situation, THAT would have been an example of currying favor - with the politically liberal monoculture that runs his entire industry.
The left has this entire narrative either muddled and wrong, or sometimes precisely backwards. And they're hanging onto their inverted interpretation of reality because they simply cannot accept what a horrible choice they made in a candidate, and how their general take on things has cost them a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and indirectly the Supreme Court. To say nothing of the millions of two-time Obama voters they ran off with their unhinged vitriol. Pointing out that their self-perception as the smartest people in the room is in danger because they've turned out to be not only total suckers for the Clinton Machine's manipulations but also shown themselves willing to be led around by the nose by Russian trolls is so painful that all they can do is sputter about how much a racist you probably are for pointing it out.
So you disagree, but can't trouble yourself to explain why. Meaning, what... you think that Russians buying a few tens of thousands of dollars of social media ads (compared to the tens of millions Hillary bought) cost her the election? Is that really what you think? Then say so.
Be the smartass all you like, the indictments are real and the net is closing.
It's true. The actions of a handful of partisan law-breakers fairly high up the food chain in multiple agencies, trying their best to make sure the Clinton machine regained its cash-printing political power, is definitely getting more sunlight by the week. The indictments of Russians trying to make you angry so you'll dish out more toxic, low-information vitriol are appropriate, but do the exact opposite of your dearly held wish - they demonstrate, again, the lack of any collusion by the Trump campaign, and point out, again, the lack of any impact on the actual election results. But please, continue to anonymously post your delusions. It's quite humorous, really.
But even so, you can't muster the intellectual honesty or energy to actually address the substance of the matter. Which would be pretty typical of a Russian troll like yourself, I guess. Carry on, Ivan.
How about this: it's a cesspool of ideologically driven, self-aggrandizing SJW types who use the wikipedia platform to keyboard-warrior their way along as they so love to do. They pollute almost everything they touch, and it alienates a lot of people (though not nearly as many as it should). Is that specific enough for you?
No, the right to bear arms was included in the British Bill of RIghts in the year 1680.
Funny how that manifested itself as the British taking away their American colonists' guns (and swords, for that matter), and making it a crime for them to have them. You do remember that part, right? No? I see.
Br
No. Our biggest cyberthreat is from people who know they can take advantage of people who aren't paranoid enough to think twice before falling for every phishing scheme that wanders by. The biggest threats come from compromised credentials, and OS vulnerabilities are only a small fraction of how that happens.
Oh, and as a case-in-point follow up, liberals are holding rallies now, led by Democrat legislators, calling for the confiscation of all guns. "No more guns!" goes the chant, coupled with calls for election victories to that end, and please send money to help us do that, blah blah blah. Your sense that liberals don't care about gun ownership is incredibly, fantastically the opposite of the truth. They are calling for an end to the protections of the 2nd amendment, and the removal of guns from private ownership - and this is being uncritically nodded to by those in the media that carry that liberal political water. So, please stop pretending you don't know this, and attempting to keep that agenda in stealth mode. This is exactly what the NRA talks about, of course: liberals do, literally, want to take away people's guns. Period. So quit playing coy about it, and just own up to the Democrat position on this.
Slashdot Mirror
And the fact that the felonies they decided to commit clearly came with the penalties to their liberties and finances as well as the future trust their fellow Floridians were willing to put in them to help run the state were already well established. If you choose to commit a felony in Florida, you know that you risk losing your liberty for the duration of your prison sentence, and permanently losing the trust of your fellow voters. Just like you permanently lose that state's willingness to endorse your purchase of a gun.
Cuba is doing poorly because they are not allowed to trade with practically anyone
By "practically anyone" you mean, not with the US. I'm sure that all of those Europeans and central and south Americans who do regular trade with Cuba would be amused to find that you think they don't count as anyone.
Or, you could just read some history, and recognize that I didn't have to pinpoint anything, because people have been conveniently pointing things like this out for centuries. The Romans themselves explained it to you, not that you've probably troubled yourself to digest any of that.
Right. And even when you use territorial invasion and slavery to try to prop that up, it still doesn't work. When there's no other substantial regional power to challenge an empire like that, even when it's rotting from within, it eventually fails. It was retracting LONG before those 900 years were up.
So what you're saying is that you're completely unequipped, intellectually, to even speak coherently on this subject.
No, Rome fell because they abandoned their Republican framework and went for a dictatorial cult of personality model instead. It's why Cuba is poorer than Chile. It's why North Korea is a gulag-infested hell hole resorting to threats of violence to bully for food. It's why Venezuela is eating itself alive. It's the difference between, say, Obama waving his pen to make immigration look the way he feels it needs to to preserve some of his party's political power, vs Trump insisting that the issue be tackled legislatively, by the congress.
The irony of you lecturing others about ignorance and lack of wisdom is hilarious.
economies based on bartering never actually existed
Right. You can't build a large, thriving, productive economy based on primitive trade techniques. People (like the GP) who confuse "greed" with "money" are going out of their way to display their ignorance and/or their intellectual dishonesty.
Money is the necessary evil
Oh, brother. Let me guess ... you'd be happy if we went back to bartering so that no Eeeeevil Money was involved. Because you can't wrap your head around the fact that a society that uses money (instead of trade goods) is wildly more efficient for everybody and is a central part of the prosperity that has even very poor people in the US living better than 99.9% of the people centuries ago.
But even so, I'm sure you'd tell the person who's invested the time to breed, raise, feed and protect a really nice egg laying chicken that they're being greedy if they value that chicken more than the crappy chicken some other guy his trying to use to barter for the same farm implement. Greed works. It's what causes people to breed better chickens. You want everybody to have crappy chickens because you feel entitled to a chicken and value your laziness more than egg quality. You personally embody a big part of what's wrong with contemporary society. That you can't even grasp that money is a wildly more efficient stand-in for trade goods and bartered services suggests that you don't have the intellectual development to do things possibly dangerous to other people, like voting. Please don't do that - you're not ready.
Yes indeed, a cute little fanboy, desperate for interaction. I especially like the way you use "we."
Comey's letter to Congress on Oct 28th most certainly cost Clinton votes and quite possibly the election.
So, you're probably quite pleased that Trump fired him. Regardless, the ONLY reason that the FBI had to act again was because Clinton assured them that her staff had turned over every existing record, storage device, and copy of all such emails. Of course she'd already wiped tens of thousands of them off of her personal non-secure server, literally had mobile devices smashed with hammers after SIM cards were removed, etc. And then her staff - who had to negotiate immunity agreements before they'd even talk - promised the FBI had everything. Including Huma. Who, of course, it turns out had NOT done what she said. She had a huge trove of Clinton's mails, including more classified documents, on her personal laptop at home, shared with her reckless pedo husband.
But why did Comey tell congress about the re-opened investigation? Because some of the Clinton-supporting fans in the FBI had found those emails OVER A MONTH EARLIER and hadn't told him anything. When he finally became aware of the existence of all of that new evidence and the underlying false statements that it represents, his agency had been - for partisan reasons - sitting on that little fact for a month. He knew that if it came out later that his people had been trying to protect her for over a month before the election, he'd be rightly accused of trying to giver her political cover.
Of course you know all of this.
Who cares if their internal costs were a million dollars or a billions dollars a month? It's that much more hilarious if they ran a situation that inefficient and still spent most what they actually deployed in the real world AFTER the election, and what they spent during the entire election was an amount so small that Hillary's operation out-spent that amount every day. And, of course, only some portion of what they spent was aimed at her - they spent it on every front, in self-contradictory ads. Which you know. How about YOU read the whole indictment, including the part where they address the actual amount of money spent making things (hardly at all) visible to the public?
Hey, look! The coward automatically loses the non-debate he's engaged in by once again stamping his little feet and dishing out lazy ad hominem without even once addressing the subject matter. Such a cute little fanboy you are.
They didn't want Trump. They didn't want Clinton. They wanted discord and wow did they ever get it.
More importantly, they were sure (just like the Democrats, all of the media, most of the pollsters, and pretty much every foreign government) that Clinton was going to win. Their modest pot-stirring prior to the election was simply meant to chip away at any wider national support behind her when she took office, making it harder for the US to act cohesively against Russian shenanigans elsewhere in the world. When she lost, the troll operation simply realigned itself towards trying to stir up liberal haters against the incoming Trump administration.
How is telling the truth about when and how an insignificant number of Russian-bought pot-stirring social media ads were purchased "currying favor?"
If he'd remained silent and allowed the left to continue to mischaracterize the situation, THAT would have been an example of currying favor - with the politically liberal monoculture that runs his entire industry.
The left has this entire narrative either muddled and wrong, or sometimes precisely backwards. And they're hanging onto their inverted interpretation of reality because they simply cannot accept what a horrible choice they made in a candidate, and how their general take on things has cost them a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and indirectly the Supreme Court. To say nothing of the millions of two-time Obama voters they ran off with their unhinged vitriol. Pointing out that their self-perception as the smartest people in the room is in danger because they've turned out to be not only total suckers for the Clinton Machine's manipulations but also shown themselves willing to be led around by the nose by Russian trolls is so painful that all they can do is sputter about how much a racist you probably are for pointing it out.
So you disagree, but can't trouble yourself to explain why. Meaning, what ... you think that Russians buying a few tens of thousands of dollars of social media ads (compared to the tens of millions Hillary bought) cost her the election? Is that really what you think? Then say so.
Be the smartass all you like, the indictments are real and the net is closing.
It's true. The actions of a handful of partisan law-breakers fairly high up the food chain in multiple agencies, trying their best to make sure the Clinton machine regained its cash-printing political power, is definitely getting more sunlight by the week. The indictments of Russians trying to make you angry so you'll dish out more toxic, low-information vitriol are appropriate, but do the exact opposite of your dearly held wish - they demonstrate, again, the lack of any collusion by the Trump campaign, and point out, again, the lack of any impact on the actual election results. But please, continue to anonymously post your delusions. It's quite humorous, really.
It's weird, I go months without coming on here
Hey, look! An obvious lie.
But even so, you can't muster the intellectual honesty or energy to actually address the substance of the matter. Which would be pretty typical of a Russian troll like yourself, I guess. Carry on, Ivan.
Care to justify yourself?
How about this: it's a cesspool of ideologically driven, self-aggrandizing SJW types who use the wikipedia platform to keyboard-warrior their way along as they so love to do. They pollute almost everything they touch, and it alienates a lot of people (though not nearly as many as it should). Is that specific enough for you?
No, the right to bear arms was included in the British Bill of RIghts in the year 1680.
Funny how that manifested itself as the British taking away their American colonists' guns (and swords, for that matter), and making it a crime for them to have them. You do remember that part, right? No? I see.
Our biggest cyberthreat is Windows
Br No. Our biggest cyberthreat is from people who know they can take advantage of people who aren't paranoid enough to think twice before falling for every phishing scheme that wanders by. The biggest threats come from compromised credentials, and OS vulnerabilities are only a small fraction of how that happens.
You can always tell when the Shillaries are lying because they post as the cowards they are.
Aren't you up past your bedtime? Did your mom tuck you in yet? Be sure to check under your bed for Russians.
Liberals don't care about what guns you own.
Oh, and as a case-in-point follow up, liberals are holding rallies now, led by Democrat legislators, calling for the confiscation of all guns. "No more guns!" goes the chant, coupled with calls for election victories to that end, and please send money to help us do that, blah blah blah. Your sense that liberals don't care about gun ownership is incredibly, fantastically the opposite of the truth. They are calling for an end to the protections of the 2nd amendment, and the removal of guns from private ownership - and this is being uncritically nodded to by those in the media that carry that liberal political water. So, please stop pretending you don't know this, and attempting to keep that agenda in stealth mode. This is exactly what the NRA talks about, of course: liberals do, literally, want to take away people's guns. Period. So quit playing coy about it, and just own up to the Democrat position on this.
That WOULD be funny you weren't simply lying, like liberals do when they have nothing useful to say.