if you are faced with consciousness and matter, and are wondering which one might be the illusory one
Well, there's your problem. You're starting out with a bad premise. A false dichotomy. Why does what we describe as consciousness have to be anything other than an adequately complex feature of physical processes (as seen in such things as a suitably complex neurological system, as we have)?
But, no. People who desperately need a subject for that term paper they're righting for their wackadoo professor, or who need clicks on their blog, or simply don't have the intellectual courage to admit that they're just a piece of self-aware meat and the universe really, really doesn't care about them or have a mechanism by which to care about them... opt for these sorts of silly exercises. And assertions like:
mathematics is extremely rigorous and consistent and yet all in the mind
No. 2 + 2 is going to continue to = 4 whether or not you're thinking about it just that moment, or have ever thought about it.
Hello, credible philosophers. Please note that The Force, from Star Wars, is a fictional device meant to play a role in entertaining the audience. It's not actually a thing.
They're called "teamsters" because they used to handle teams of horses to move freight. It's a good thing they didn't allow any new-fangled technology encroach on that business model!
Way to wish away the reality of the situation. Yes, extremists - like crazy lefties who want to silence speech - are definitely poisonous to a country like the US. But even though they cheer on antifa enforcers who like to beat people bloody in order to punish Wrong Think, they aren't dumping whole villages into mass graves. The sensibilities aren't very different. But there are hundreds of millions of radical Islamists and a small but powerful group of well-financed backers willing to prop up a particularly ugly core of militants and wannabes that really do delight in slaughtering people. Not just smashing coffee shop windows in an attempt to intimidate and silence insufficiently leftist students or community members at expensive colleges, but... like yesterday, killing dozens and injuring a hundred-plus more by blowing up an ambulance full of explosives. Other extremists, like your typical antifa thugs, may indeed have the turning-things-to-shit instincts, but they're total amateurs compared to the islamists, who are taking over the world through migration and sheer reproductive inertia.
Assumed you didn't need to be told, given all of your research on the subject, of any examples. Thought you were just being sarcastic, rather simply unable to use Google. How about sticking with a recent and simple example? Gen. David Petraeus. Just like Hillary Clinton, he removed and retained classified information outside of its appropriate secure environment. Hillary, of course, did this multiple times over an extended period... and UNLIKE Petraeus, she kept multiple documents on an internet-connected server readily breached by multiple foreign agencies (as opposed to Petraeus, who kept some papers in his home). The Obama administration went to great lengths to avoid prosecuting Clinton, but was happy to throw Petraeus under the legal bus for a much less serious offense. Or read up on Sandy Berger who - like Clinton - retained classified stuff for his own convenience and destroyed records (just like Clinton did). He was convicted, but got off easy. There are many more, but of course you've already read up on those.
Why? People who've done far LESS have been prosecuted, convicted, and jailed (on felony charges - losing all benefits from their federal work, and everything else that comes with being a felon). Don't even pretend you don't know this. How many people do you know who handle the sort of information she kept on her home computer, handed to her aide to keep on that person's laptop "for printing," and also duplicated onto thumb drives to hand to her non-cleared lawyer for storage in yet ANOTHER non-secure location? How about deleting tens of thousands of federal records that were under subpoena? Never mind. You know all of this.
Regardless, intent has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The specific statute she violated - unlike almost every other law - explicitly states that merely being negligent in protecting such information is a criminal act. She did that in spades. The FBI even used the words "gross negligence" in describing her actions (exactly the phrase that triggers prosecution under the law), but that phrase was changed by self proclaimed Clinton partisan at the FBI, Peter Strzok, at the last minute to: "extremely careless." Meanwhile, some sailor takes a memento snapshot of his naval workspace (where some classified hardware happens to be in the background) - absolutely zero intent in the way you're using "intent," and... off to jail he went. Felon.
The law she violated is very plainly written. Here:
If you don't feel like reading it (though you should), here's the important passage:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
And of course she wasn't merely grossly negligent in having thousands of emails (and many highly sensitive classified messages) removed from their proper place of custody on the State Department's secure system... she deliberately established a system for doing exactly that. In her house. Exposed casually to the internet, where investigators say it's highly probable that multiple foreign entities had ready access to it. Whether they did or not doesn't matter - it's her negligence in making the classified information available where and how she did that makes this a no-brainer felony conviction. Exactly the sort of thing that puts other people in jail. The sort of people she wanted to be the boss of, as chief executive.
Well, you certainly had the right people in the FBI and DoJ to make sure that your preferred candidate dodged the indictment she earned and that some phony crap aimed at what you want (as the "insurance policy" they decided they should have in place) would keep CNN and MSNBC and the NYT busy with their hair on fire... but no, you won't get your wish. Though some of the people you were hoping could make that happen may well end up in prison. Sad.
Hillary, who you've still not managed to find an actual offense
You're confusing her committing multiple federal felonies with being covered by people like Peter Strzok so she could - by his change of two words in the agency's findings - avoid a gimme indictment that anyone else would have never dodged, for doing far less. Leave it to a Hillary shill to try, as usual, to wish her actions and lies away. That urge on your part demonstrates everything we need to know about your anonymous and craven word salad.
Schumer fucking pwned him and you already lost a seat in the senate.
You're right. That's how Schumer stopped the tax bill, and stopped the removal of the Obamacare mandate. That Schumer, he's incredible! Also, the way he just got that clean DACA bill he said he'd get by threatening a shutdown - what a play! He sure got what he promised there.
Oh, right. He folded like a cheap tent, and got nothing except hatred from the hardliners in his own party. Quite the achievement! And yeah, shame about that election in Alabama. Of course, the new Senator there just voted three times in a row precisely in alignment with the GOP. That Schumer sure told HIM what to do, right? He's amazing.
I'll be the one laughing.
Yup, just like you were laughing when Clinton won and the Democrats took over the legislature last time around, as promised, right? Yeah. No wonder you post as the anonymous coward you are. So we can't just pop back and look over your equally absurd assertions then. Carry on, Shillary.
So, what you're saying is that despite being specific, above, in response to your complete misrepresentation of Schumer's bad play, you're going to change the topic in order to - once again - avoid the substance. Because you know I'm right. But I'll bite: because you think I'm wrong to speculate that you'd give Obama credit for the right-after-the-election boom in the economy, that means you agree with me. It's because of Trump. OK, I'll take that.
So you must have been HUGELY disappointed that in Obama's first year, he utterly failed to tackle the immigration issue he promised he'd handle, and despite having both houses of congress and a veto-proof majority in the senate, was into his second year before he rammed through his 100% partisan health care law based on a long chain of demonstrable lies. Go ahead, give it a run-down. Compare those two first years. While you're at it, take a look at what Trump did do: he got the government to stop using the IRS to punish people who didn't buy health insurance they can't afford and can't even use. He's rolled back a huge number of destructive regulations and positioned the country as a place that businesses might actually want to consider, once again, as a viable place to operate. I know, you're convinced that it's entirely Obama's doing that every flavor of financial indicator and confidence metric jumped through the roof the day after the election, and has been going strong ever since. Sheer coincidence that that didn't happen, previous to election day.
Come mid-terms, your boy will be castrated.
Let me guess, you also said the same thing about the election in November, right? Quite positive he would lose, weren't you? Quite positive the Democrats would regain all those governorships and both houses of congress, weren't you? After all, CNN told you that. MSNBC and the NYT assured you of that. And with powerful performances like Chuck Schumer's this week, why, the Democrat party is nothing but a unified, solid shoe-in, right? Here, I'll make a prediction: stunts like what Schumer just pulled, and the positions the far left is going to make him and his fellow senior dems in the legislature are going to be forced to take this year will guarantee that the Republicans gain seats in the senate, and likely retain control of the house.
Schumer didn't back down. He wasn't trying to get DACA passed, then and there. He just wanted a stain to mark Trump's one-year anniversary
So you're saying he was lying, and that it backfired because he lied so badly. Exactly my point.
Schumer even said that he offered Trump the wall and that Trump refused the offer, and now it's off the table.
Right. Schumer lied about that. He didn't "offer Trump the wall," he make a completely phony, disingenuous fake offer of an unusable couple billion dollars towards border security while refusing to budge on chain migration and the no-merit immigration lottery. He didn't take the wall OFF the table because he never put it on. You're falling, again, for his lies. Schumer is playing YOU, while Trump simply told him no, we're not talking any aspect of immigration until we fund the government's operations. And there's nothing Schumer can do to have it his way without once again being seen holding up things of national interest in order to pander to illegal immigrants in hopes of buying some votes from the lefty activist types. Nothing new. Except you completely misunderstanding what just happened, just as you surely misunderstood and continue to misunderstand what happened in 2016.
Oh, so you're saying we should pander to the voting of the irredeemably deplorable, huh?
No, I'm saying that people who put their political support and hundreds of millions of dollars of cash behind a candidate that tells millions of people that they're deplorable, while she personally pockets huge piles of cash (directly, or through her husband) from dictators that encourage things like throwing gay people from rooftops and treating women like farm animals... are pretty funny when they call other people deplorable.
If you think that not wanting a Supreme Court used as a surrogate legislature (see Clinton's public remarks about how she'd choose justices and why - she was very clear on her counter-constitutional sense of how to use the court in the face of what she knew would be a non-rubber-stamp actual legislature), or that not wanting to see more of the Clinton machine's endless pursuit of straight up cash-for-favors-and-access, to say nothing of her demonstrated willingness to look you in the eye and lie about her own criminal behavior surrounding the handling of classified information... if you think not endorsing her is deplorable, then you're completely not understanding why the voters she took for granted (so much so that she couldn't even trouble herself to set foot in places like Wisconsin) decided they'd had enough. She wanted to be Commander In Chief of military people that can, and have gone to prison for conduct involving sensitive material far less important than her own casual disregard for her responsibilities on such things and her non-stop lying on the matter. She has a long history of throwing people under the bus, including numerous associates who've gone to prison for things done in association with her and her husband. But you think that denying her another several years of power is deplorable, or a matter of convenience? Preventing the Clintons from regaining power (remember, she once again said that she'd be involving Bill Clinton in key matters of running the executive branch) WAS a matter of principle. Most importantly with regard to SCOTUS nominations.
Donald Trump is Chick Schumer's bitch. Schumer plays him like a violin every chance he gets to.
Ah, yes. That explains why Trump got the tax bill he wanted, despite Schumer doing everything he could to stop it. That explains why Schumer's idiotic shutdown theatrics got him exactly nowhere (other than hated even more by the far-left wing of his party). Yeah, that Schumer really is making headway with his brilliant tactics. Quite something!
Schumer's oily, phony patronizing and condescension is so transparently fake that even his own party has been recoiling from it. But sure, you keep on believing the opposite. Please do that right up through the next couple of election cycles, OK? Great! Thanks.
I can always tell when someone is uncomfortable with things like the testimony from Fusion GPS and the other related information that's right in front of them - because instead of addressing the actual facts and substance of the matter, they go right to the childish, lazy, craven "you are a moron" ad hominem in order to demonstrate their mastery of the matter. Well done! The evidence you've provided to show that the Clinton campaign, DNC, Fusion GPS, and related records available for your own perusal are in fact fiction - well, you're very compelling, I must say. I especially like your use of "ignorance" and "dumbfuck" to characterize people who didn't want to vote for the wildly corrupt, serially lying Hillary Clinton to put her and her husband back in power after they'd already enriched themselves to the tune of millions of dollars selling access while in office.
I know, you LIKED that about her. You wanted the Clintons back in power because even though they are corrupt liars, they were your kind of corrupt liars. It is funny, though, for you to be railing about sociopathy (even you can't spell it) on Trump's part, while pretending that Clinton's actual acute case of it wasn't one of the reasons that millions of two-time Obama voters turned their backs on the Democrats a year ago. But please, carry on with the vitriol, the ad hominem, and the meltdown hysterics - because that sort of fit-having and display of hatred towards others is exactly why the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, both houses of congress, most of the governorships, the White House, the Supreme Court, and a lot of good will from millions of their own party members. Please, more! You've been doing excellent work so far. Ramp it up as much as possible before the mid-terms, if you don't mind. Be sure to keep telling people they're morons - that works wonders. Pro tip: you should try telling millions of women that they're "irredeemably deplorable," too. They love that. Always makes them want to vote for the person you insist they vote for.
By all means! If you've got evidence that anything even APPROACHING the behavior on display under Obama was done by, say, Bush (like the Clinton campaign and DNC paying a British operative to compile a fictional narrative from Russian operatives to use as a phony excuse to get a FISA warrant to eavesdrop on political rivals)... then by all means, let's hear it!
Yes, the narrative that Trump was working with the Russians to "hack the election" and whatnot is, indeed, a delusion. The entire notion was trotted out as a feeble excuse for why the Democrats' insanely bad choice of candidate lost the election. You know it, we all know it, and even the highly partisan Clinton-supporting FBI guy who got her off the hook on her felony mishandling of classified information knew and said there's no there, there. Yes, fantasy delusion. The people who are still saying, "Trump's going to prison for treason with the Russians!" started out looking silly, and have been going farther off the rails ever since.
So what you're saying is that the long list of Susan Rice's unmasking targets is imaginary. That the records of self-proclaimed Clinton partisans assigned to investigate Clinton altering the language of the bureau's findings to avoid the words that trigger an indictment, along with their own words proclaiming their approval of a "path" to getting her in office, but the need for an "insurance policy" against the possibility that she might fail... those records are all imaginary. Please, carry on. Would love to see whatever you've got that has convinced you that Fox or Breitbart have secretly managed to control the minds of congressional investigators to make THEM imagine into existence the records they've gathered, and which every Democrat on the relevant committee has been insisting remain suppressed. We'll just let it all play out, and you can keep insisting none of it is true, while seeming to suggest that things for which there IS NO EVIDENCE is, somehow, true. You get the CNN gold star for the day - keep carrying that water!
You certainly sound antsy. Like you're increasingly uncomfortable with the way this whole thing is actually turning out. Even the highly partisan FBI agent who went out of his way to make sure Clinton didn't get indicted for her mishandling of classified information made it plain - after already spending considerable time on looking into Russia's decades-long disinformation/disruption campaign in the context of the 2016 election season - said he didn't there was any there there. This, from a guy with a hair-on-fire loathing, just like yours, of Trump. Your little prison fantasy probably makes you feel good, but alas it's far more likely that it's people operating at the tail end of the Obama administration that actually did illegal things. Seriously illegal things. But carry on with your fantasy, and ranting about it. Your sort of shrill delusion, screeched out loud for lots of people to hear, is a big part of why the Democrats lost all of their political power at the federal level, and most of it at the state level. Please, carry on. You're doing good work!
It's always interesting, when you're deliberately doing everything you can to ignore the facts in front of you (there's no need to unmask names like Kislyak's, because the NSA provides that in clear text for their audience - it's the US citizens associated with political rivals that Rice was gunning for) that your first reaction is to start obsessing about homosexuality. What an odd reaction on your part. I understand that you can't trouble yourself to deal with the facts, because you don't like where those facts point. But what's with your fetish, here? Have you considered getting some help with how to communicate about unrelated matters while keeping your sexual fantasies out of the conversation?
You're confused. The only people interested in screwing with you are the end-user consumers of what the NSA does. Say, Susan Rice, in Obama's White House. If your communications (or meta data about them) were collected, it would still take someone like Rice to say, "find and give me that person's name" according to her whims. Which she did at length, while digging for dirt on her boss's political rivals and in the service of greasing the skids for Hillary Clinton's pending coronation. The NSA provides tools. It's the people who choose to use those tools you need to complain about. So when you say "this government is invalid," you need to be clear that you have some reason to think there's someone pulling more Susan Rice type behavior. Otherwise, you're talking about "the previous administration," which is an important distinction.
So, now their mission as a surreptitious spy agency dealing with lots of information they can't talk about is no longer being lied about on a PR page. Good. That earlier silliness is especially ironic, given its presence during the previous administration, which appears to have been using that agency's tools against domestic political rivals. Yeah, that was all warm-and-fuzzy "being honest with one another" and "completely transparent" behavior. Unless the agency's executive branch bosses didn't like you, in which case it was the exact opposite. Not that that's the NSA's fault, as an agency - that's entirely on their then-management in the White House, and those in the White House granted the power to troll through signal intelligence and the ability to unmask citizens from their collected communications. Here's looking at you, Susan Rice.
So let's see: you can't understand the difference between social media and broadcast media, and when that's pointed out, you trot out the craven, anonymous response we'd expect from a 5 year old. Excellent work! That'll show 'em.
Slashdot Mirror
if you are faced with consciousness and matter, and are wondering which one might be the illusory one
Well, there's your problem. You're starting out with a bad premise. A false dichotomy. Why does what we describe as consciousness have to be anything other than an adequately complex feature of physical processes (as seen in such things as a suitably complex neurological system, as we have)?
... opt for these sorts of silly exercises. And assertions like:
But, no. People who desperately need a subject for that term paper they're righting for their wackadoo professor, or who need clicks on their blog, or simply don't have the intellectual courage to admit that they're just a piece of self-aware meat and the universe really, really doesn't care about them or have a mechanism by which to care about them
mathematics is extremely rigorous and consistent and yet all in the mind
No. 2 + 2 is going to continue to = 4 whether or not you're thinking about it just that moment, or have ever thought about it.
Hello, credible philosophers. Please note that The Force, from Star Wars, is a fictional device meant to play a role in entertaining the audience. It's not actually a thing.
They're called "teamsters" because they used to handle teams of horses to move freight. It's a good thing they didn't allow any new-fangled technology encroach on that business model!
Way to wish away the reality of the situation. Yes, extremists - like crazy lefties who want to silence speech - are definitely poisonous to a country like the US. But even though they cheer on antifa enforcers who like to beat people bloody in order to punish Wrong Think, they aren't dumping whole villages into mass graves. The sensibilities aren't very different. But there are hundreds of millions of radical Islamists and a small but powerful group of well-financed backers willing to prop up a particularly ugly core of militants and wannabes that really do delight in slaughtering people. Not just smashing coffee shop windows in an attempt to intimidate and silence insufficiently leftist students or community members at expensive colleges, but ... like yesterday, killing dozens and injuring a hundred-plus more by blowing up an ambulance full of explosives. Other extremists, like your typical antifa thugs, may indeed have the turning-things-to-shit instincts, but they're total amateurs compared to the islamists, who are taking over the world through migration and sheer reproductive inertia.
Assumed you didn't need to be told, given all of your research on the subject, of any examples. Thought you were just being sarcastic, rather simply unable to use Google. How about sticking with a recent and simple example? Gen. David Petraeus. Just like Hillary Clinton, he removed and retained classified information outside of its appropriate secure environment. Hillary, of course, did this multiple times over an extended period ... and UNLIKE Petraeus, she kept multiple documents on an internet-connected server readily breached by multiple foreign agencies (as opposed to Petraeus, who kept some papers in his home). The Obama administration went to great lengths to avoid prosecuting Clinton, but was happy to throw Petraeus under the legal bus for a much less serious offense. Or read up on Sandy Berger who - like Clinton - retained classified stuff for his own convenience and destroyed records (just like Clinton did). He was convicted, but got off easy. There are many more, but of course you've already read up on those.
Regardless, intent has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The specific statute she violated - unlike almost every other law - explicitly states that merely being negligent in protecting such information is a criminal act. She did that in spades. The FBI even used the words "gross negligence" in describing her actions (exactly the phrase that triggers prosecution under the law), but that phrase was changed by self proclaimed Clinton partisan at the FBI, Peter Strzok, at the last minute to: "extremely careless." Meanwhile, some sailor takes a memento snapshot of his naval workspace (where some classified hardware happens to be in the background) - absolutely zero intent in the way you're using "intent," and
The law she violated is very plainly written. Here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
If you don't feel like reading it (though you should), here's the important passage:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
And of course she wasn't merely grossly negligent in having thousands of emails (and many highly sensitive classified messages) removed from their proper place of custody on the State Department's secure system ... she deliberately established a system for doing exactly that. In her house. Exposed casually to the internet, where investigators say it's highly probable that multiple foreign entities had ready access to it. Whether they did or not doesn't matter - it's her negligence in making the classified information available where and how she did that makes this a no-brainer felony conviction. Exactly the sort of thing that puts other people in jail. The sort of people she wanted to be the boss of, as chief executive.
You really do need to ask yourself why your sexual obsessions emerge every time you talk about Trump. Is it his hair? His ties? Give it some thought.
Well, you certainly had the right people in the FBI and DoJ to make sure that your preferred candidate dodged the indictment she earned and that some phony crap aimed at what you want (as the "insurance policy" they decided they should have in place) would keep CNN and MSNBC and the NYT busy with their hair on fire ... but no, you won't get your wish. Though some of the people you were hoping could make that happen may well end up in prison. Sad.
I know. I almost chocked when I saw that.
Hillary, who you've still not managed to find an actual offense
You're confusing her committing multiple federal felonies with being covered by people like Peter Strzok so she could - by his change of two words in the agency's findings - avoid a gimme indictment that anyone else would have never dodged, for doing far less. Leave it to a Hillary shill to try, as usual, to wish her actions and lies away. That urge on your part demonstrates everything we need to know about your anonymous and craven word salad.
Schumer fucking pwned him and you already lost a seat in the senate.
You're right. That's how Schumer stopped the tax bill, and stopped the removal of the Obamacare mandate. That Schumer, he's incredible! Also, the way he just got that clean DACA bill he said he'd get by threatening a shutdown - what a play! He sure got what he promised there.
Oh, right. He folded like a cheap tent, and got nothing except hatred from the hardliners in his own party. Quite the achievement! And yeah, shame about that election in Alabama. Of course, the new Senator there just voted three times in a row precisely in alignment with the GOP. That Schumer sure told HIM what to do, right? He's amazing.
I'll be the one laughing.
Yup, just like you were laughing when Clinton won and the Democrats took over the legislature last time around, as promised, right? Yeah. No wonder you post as the anonymous coward you are. So we can't just pop back and look over your equally absurd assertions then. Carry on, Shillary.
So, what you're saying is that despite being specific, above, in response to your complete misrepresentation of Schumer's bad play, you're going to change the topic in order to - once again - avoid the substance. Because you know I'm right. But I'll bite: because you think I'm wrong to speculate that you'd give Obama credit for the right-after-the-election boom in the economy, that means you agree with me. It's because of Trump. OK, I'll take that.
Come mid-terms, your boy will be castrated.
Let me guess, you also said the same thing about the election in November, right? Quite positive he would lose, weren't you? Quite positive the Democrats would regain all those governorships and both houses of congress, weren't you? After all, CNN told you that. MSNBC and the NYT assured you of that. And with powerful performances like Chuck Schumer's this week, why, the Democrat party is nothing but a unified, solid shoe-in, right? Here, I'll make a prediction: stunts like what Schumer just pulled, and the positions the far left is going to make him and his fellow senior dems in the legislature are going to be forced to take this year will guarantee that the Republicans gain seats in the senate, and likely retain control of the house.
Schumer didn't back down. He wasn't trying to get DACA passed, then and there. He just wanted a stain to mark Trump's one-year anniversary
So you're saying he was lying, and that it backfired because he lied so badly. Exactly my point.
Schumer even said that he offered Trump the wall and that Trump refused the offer, and now it's off the table.
Right. Schumer lied about that. He didn't "offer Trump the wall," he make a completely phony, disingenuous fake offer of an unusable couple billion dollars towards border security while refusing to budge on chain migration and the no-merit immigration lottery. He didn't take the wall OFF the table because he never put it on. You're falling, again, for his lies. Schumer is playing YOU, while Trump simply told him no, we're not talking any aspect of immigration until we fund the government's operations. And there's nothing Schumer can do to have it his way without once again being seen holding up things of national interest in order to pander to illegal immigrants in hopes of buying some votes from the lefty activist types. Nothing new. Except you completely misunderstanding what just happened, just as you surely misunderstood and continue to misunderstand what happened in 2016.
Oh, so you're saying we should pander to the voting of the irredeemably deplorable, huh?
No, I'm saying that people who put their political support and hundreds of millions of dollars of cash behind a candidate that tells millions of people that they're deplorable, while she personally pockets huge piles of cash (directly, or through her husband) from dictators that encourage things like throwing gay people from rooftops and treating women like farm animals ... are pretty funny when they call other people deplorable.
... if you think not endorsing her is deplorable, then you're completely not understanding why the voters she took for granted (so much so that she couldn't even trouble herself to set foot in places like Wisconsin) decided they'd had enough. She wanted to be Commander In Chief of military people that can, and have gone to prison for conduct involving sensitive material far less important than her own casual disregard for her responsibilities on such things and her non-stop lying on the matter. She has a long history of throwing people under the bus, including numerous associates who've gone to prison for things done in association with her and her husband. But you think that denying her another several years of power is deplorable, or a matter of convenience? Preventing the Clintons from regaining power (remember, she once again said that she'd be involving Bill Clinton in key matters of running the executive branch) WAS a matter of principle. Most importantly with regard to SCOTUS nominations.
If you think that not wanting a Supreme Court used as a surrogate legislature (see Clinton's public remarks about how she'd choose justices and why - she was very clear on her counter-constitutional sense of how to use the court in the face of what she knew would be a non-rubber-stamp actual legislature), or that not wanting to see more of the Clinton machine's endless pursuit of straight up cash-for-favors-and-access, to say nothing of her demonstrated willingness to look you in the eye and lie about her own criminal behavior surrounding the handling of classified information
Donald Trump is Chick Schumer's bitch. Schumer plays him like a violin every chance he gets to.
Ah, yes. That explains why Trump got the tax bill he wanted, despite Schumer doing everything he could to stop it. That explains why Schumer's idiotic shutdown theatrics got him exactly nowhere (other than hated even more by the far-left wing of his party). Yeah, that Schumer really is making headway with his brilliant tactics. Quite something!
Schumer's oily, phony patronizing and condescension is so transparently fake that even his own party has been recoiling from it. But sure, you keep on believing the opposite. Please do that right up through the next couple of election cycles, OK? Great! Thanks.
I can always tell when someone is uncomfortable with things like the testimony from Fusion GPS and the other related information that's right in front of them - because instead of addressing the actual facts and substance of the matter, they go right to the childish, lazy, craven "you are a moron" ad hominem in order to demonstrate their mastery of the matter. Well done! The evidence you've provided to show that the Clinton campaign, DNC, Fusion GPS, and related records available for your own perusal are in fact fiction - well, you're very compelling, I must say. I especially like your use of "ignorance" and "dumbfuck" to characterize people who didn't want to vote for the wildly corrupt, serially lying Hillary Clinton to put her and her husband back in power after they'd already enriched themselves to the tune of millions of dollars selling access while in office.
I know, you LIKED that about her. You wanted the Clintons back in power because even though they are corrupt liars, they were your kind of corrupt liars. It is funny, though, for you to be railing about sociopathy (even you can't spell it) on Trump's part, while pretending that Clinton's actual acute case of it wasn't one of the reasons that millions of two-time Obama voters turned their backs on the Democrats a year ago. But please, carry on with the vitriol, the ad hominem, and the meltdown hysterics - because that sort of fit-having and display of hatred towards others is exactly why the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, both houses of congress, most of the governorships, the White House, the Supreme Court, and a lot of good will from millions of their own party members. Please, more! You've been doing excellent work so far. Ramp it up as much as possible before the mid-terms, if you don't mind. Be sure to keep telling people they're morons - that works wonders. Pro tip: you should try telling millions of women that they're "irredeemably deplorable," too. They love that. Always makes them want to vote for the person you insist they vote for.
By all means! If you've got evidence that anything even APPROACHING the behavior on display under Obama was done by, say, Bush (like the Clinton campaign and DNC paying a British operative to compile a fictional narrative from Russian operatives to use as a phony excuse to get a FISA warrant to eavesdrop on political rivals) ... then by all means, let's hear it!
Yes, the narrative that Trump was working with the Russians to "hack the election" and whatnot is, indeed, a delusion. The entire notion was trotted out as a feeble excuse for why the Democrats' insanely bad choice of candidate lost the election. You know it, we all know it, and even the highly partisan Clinton-supporting FBI guy who got her off the hook on her felony mishandling of classified information knew and said there's no there, there. Yes, fantasy delusion. The people who are still saying, "Trump's going to prison for treason with the Russians!" started out looking silly, and have been going farther off the rails ever since.
So what you're saying is that the long list of Susan Rice's unmasking targets is imaginary. That the records of self-proclaimed Clinton partisans assigned to investigate Clinton altering the language of the bureau's findings to avoid the words that trigger an indictment, along with their own words proclaiming their approval of a "path" to getting her in office, but the need for an "insurance policy" against the possibility that she might fail ... those records are all imaginary. Please, carry on. Would love to see whatever you've got that has convinced you that Fox or Breitbart have secretly managed to control the minds of congressional investigators to make THEM imagine into existence the records they've gathered, and which every Democrat on the relevant committee has been insisting remain suppressed. We'll just let it all play out, and you can keep insisting none of it is true, while seeming to suggest that things for which there IS NO EVIDENCE is, somehow, true. You get the CNN gold star for the day - keep carrying that water!
You certainly sound antsy. Like you're increasingly uncomfortable with the way this whole thing is actually turning out. Even the highly partisan FBI agent who went out of his way to make sure Clinton didn't get indicted for her mishandling of classified information made it plain - after already spending considerable time on looking into Russia's decades-long disinformation/disruption campaign in the context of the 2016 election season - said he didn't there was any there there. This, from a guy with a hair-on-fire loathing, just like yours, of Trump. Your little prison fantasy probably makes you feel good, but alas it's far more likely that it's people operating at the tail end of the Obama administration that actually did illegal things. Seriously illegal things. But carry on with your fantasy, and ranting about it. Your sort of shrill delusion, screeched out loud for lots of people to hear, is a big part of why the Democrats lost all of their political power at the federal level, and most of it at the state level. Please, carry on. You're doing good work!
It's always interesting, when you're deliberately doing everything you can to ignore the facts in front of you (there's no need to unmask names like Kislyak's, because the NSA provides that in clear text for their audience - it's the US citizens associated with political rivals that Rice was gunning for) that your first reaction is to start obsessing about homosexuality. What an odd reaction on your part. I understand that you can't trouble yourself to deal with the facts, because you don't like where those facts point. But what's with your fetish, here? Have you considered getting some help with how to communicate about unrelated matters while keeping your sexual fantasies out of the conversation?
You're confused. The only people interested in screwing with you are the end-user consumers of what the NSA does. Say, Susan Rice, in Obama's White House. If your communications (or meta data about them) were collected, it would still take someone like Rice to say, "find and give me that person's name" according to her whims. Which she did at length, while digging for dirt on her boss's political rivals and in the service of greasing the skids for Hillary Clinton's pending coronation. The NSA provides tools. It's the people who choose to use those tools you need to complain about. So when you say "this government is invalid," you need to be clear that you have some reason to think there's someone pulling more Susan Rice type behavior. Otherwise, you're talking about "the previous administration," which is an important distinction.
So, now their mission as a surreptitious spy agency dealing with lots of information they can't talk about is no longer being lied about on a PR page. Good. That earlier silliness is especially ironic, given its presence during the previous administration, which appears to have been using that agency's tools against domestic political rivals. Yeah, that was all warm-and-fuzzy "being honest with one another" and "completely transparent" behavior. Unless the agency's executive branch bosses didn't like you, in which case it was the exact opposite. Not that that's the NSA's fault, as an agency - that's entirely on their then-management in the White House, and those in the White House granted the power to troll through signal intelligence and the ability to unmask citizens from their collected communications. Here's looking at you, Susan Rice.
So let's see: you can't understand the difference between social media and broadcast media, and when that's pointed out, you trot out the craven, anonymous response we'd expect from a 5 year old. Excellent work! That'll show 'em.
Ultrasound, which works on the principle of piezoelectricity, is finding a second lease of life in medicine, Wired outlines.
Was looking forward to reading how wired outlines were going to be used in medicine. And ... the phrase is "lease on life."
No, dumb is pretending you don't get the distinction.