That's not what the cops were told. They showed up at a scene of a murder/hostage scenario. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
No one was threatening harm.
The caller said he'd just killed someone, and that he was considering killing the rest of the family. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
There was no family.
The caller told police he'd just killed one family member and was holding more of them hostage, and may burn the house down. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
There was no gun.
Handguns are portable, and easily stuffed in the waistline or sometimes simply hard to see even when in the hand. The caller said he'd just used his to kill someone. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise? Likewise with the rest of your deliberate misrepresentations.
You must verify that a crime is being committed before acting.
No, you must act according to the information you have, and make snap decisions on the fly, especially when you think you're dealing with imminent loss of more innocent lives. Cops have to deal with that kind of problem every day, and are remarkably good at it. This is a tragic case of someone deliberately poisoning the well of available information to cause grief. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
No one in this story had just used a gun to kill someone.
And yet cops show up on the scene of murder-just-committed situations all the time, and encounter exactly the armed/crazy/threatening people that they're told to expect, and some cops die in the process. They had every reason to expect that the guy who told them he'd just killed someone and was armed and threatening others should be considered to be exactly as represented until they had information to the contrary. Because usually that information is correct, and they and others sometimes die responding to such situations even when they DO have that information in advance. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
That's no excuse for participating in a SWATting.
You're right. Next time the cops get a call about a violent person (which happens thousands of times a day) they should just stay home and tell the people calling 911 that it's probably just that one in a million scenario where a malicious hoaxer is screwing with somebody, and too bad.
The victim did absolutely nothing wrong here
I agree. And the cop made a call that turned out to be wrong. The problem is you seem to be implying that their mistake was in "participating" (showing up in the first place) because they should have magic knowledge about situations that most of the time are real, dire, and involve things like murderers with actual weapons and a willingness to kill people. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
Racist trollbag detected
Ah, yet another holier-than-thou, I'm-smarter-than-you person who can't grasp the difference between language and skin color. Right out of the toxic SJW playbook.
they are killing us in record numbers
This is factually incorrect. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
The preventative care measures in particular would do just that over time
Sure, but of course you don't get to USE such things. Because all of your monthly disposable income is now consumed by your 500% higher premiums, preventing you from having any money to spend at a doctor's office. Because even after you spend a fortune every month for ACA-compliant insurance, your deductible also went up by several hundred percent, and so a typical couple might have to spend close to $30,000 before they get ANY benefit from their shiny new health insurance, EVERY YEAR.
But the bill got passed because Obama promised that your monthly cost would be about the same as a mobile phone bill. That most families would save over $2500 a year. You know, complete lies. We have the team of people working for him and Reid and Pelosi on the record saying they knew that the only way the bill would pass was if they lied about the costs and benefits. Or in this case, the loss of benefits, and the crippling new costs.
Had the GOP not deliberately destablized the markets
The "markets" were state-by-state from day one. And your theory doesn't explain why solidly blue states (legislatively, and executively) have insurers fleeing and residents getting stuck with enormous increases in their premiums and deductibles. It has to be repealed so that the partisan Democrats who rammed through the first version - which is nothing but a tax-and-redistribute mechanism - might have to actually face reality instead of lying again.
Don't move. If you are a stone and aren't fidgeting, you'll be far better off. Because the guy who wants you to lie down WILL yell it again, but won't feel threatened if you're absolutely still the way the other guy told you to be. On the other hand, the guy who doesn't want you to move may misinterpret your movement.
No, armed man responds to site of ongoing threat from armed murderer who's threatening harm to other people, including the prospect of tossing a lighter into the fuel he said he'd spread over the house, to burn his family alive.
yells incomprehensible instructions
I suppose it's possible that, like you, English is not the poor guy's native tongue. Another argument for immigrants being functional in English before setting up shop in the US. Oh, right, the poor guy probably heard the instructions just fine (like any of us who listened to the recording) but wasn't aware, in the stress of having been set up by this asshat gamer, of how his sudden movement would be interpreted, given the fact that he was presumed to be standing there with the gun he'd just used to kill someone.
Sounds like murder to me.
Sounds more like you've never actually talked to anyone who's dealt with such a situation. Maybe you could start by making a phone call to the surviving family members of the two cops who were killed today.
the hard part about being "the good guys" is that you don't get to shoot first
Except, of course, thanks to the jackass gamer who set this in motion, the cops believed the man himself had already TOLD them that he'd shot first (and killed someone with a handgun in his possession) and that he was willing to kill more people, and that he'd soaked the home - with people still in it - with gas and was thinking of torching it. And then, alas, made a sharp move when told not to do that exact thing, because he's (according to what police believed was the man himself) probably armed with the same handgun that he'd supposedly just used to kill someone and threaten more.
"were we a force for good that night?"
Yes, they were. Because they saddled up to go to a situation where death was already a factor and where someone willing to kill would - as often happens - possibly skew towards taking one of their lives. Just like a cop can get in a fatal (for someone else) car accident, her willingness to go out every day for crappy pay and risk her neck for your sake IS being a force for good. Shit happens.
explaining how they will change their response so that never happens again
You're asking them to lie. Why would you do that? No cop could or would promise to you that they'll never again encounter a situation that leads them to believe that an armed, violent, and probably unhinged person who's just killed someone else might - on a split second's turn of events, cross the perceived threshold requiring the use of force. Your expectation that cops be willing to die (as another two of them just did today) is absurd, and you know it.
For my blockchainfast this morning, I blockchained up some scrambled blockchain with a side of fried blockchaing, and fresh-blockchained some blockchain juice so I would be sure to get my Vitamin B(lockchain). While I was blockchaining my blockchain, I read the Blockchain Post before hailing a blockchain for a ride to my downtown blockchain where we blockchained a meeting about the week's blockchain strategy and blockchained some references to blockchain into our corporate blockchain statement. Then off to blockchain for a three-blockchain lunch and a blockchained blockchain before heading to our blockchained client's blockchain to implement some blockchain in their blockchain.
Whew! What a blockchain of a day. Happy to be home in my blockchain so I can pop open a blockchain and sit down to blockchain Game Of Blockchains on the blockchain, and maybe play a little first-person blockchain VR, or get online and duke it out in World Of Blockchains before I turn in for a good night's blockchain.
No, Hillary told us that the destructive fiasco that is the ACA was just fine as it was, and she would do everything necessary to keep it as it was. Of course she was just pandering to the demographic (generally Democrat voters) who are on the receiving end of that massive tax-and-transfer law, so it's hardly surprising that she'd continue telling the lies that got it passed in the first place. It's a financial disaster, exactly as it was designed to be. It had nothing whatsoever to do with health care, let alone actually providing any or making it in some way less expensive. It was simply a way to tax higher-earning people and distribute that money to likely Democrat voters. Nothing more or less. The presumption was that it was going to help the Democrats hold power. Of course it immediately cost them the legislature and the good will of millions of people who saw their premiums do exactly what the law's opponents said would happen.
What? It's the people shilling for NN that are doing the handful of big corporations a favor. And you're still doing it, right now. Just like Comcast and Verizon like it. You're the one applauding an Obama-era rule that favored them and punished the little guys trying to compete. Quit lying about it, and be honest for a change.
You can always tell when you're on to something accurate when the people who complain want to attack the messenger but can't muster the energy to trot out a single word addressing the substance of the matter. Like this. Pointing out that companies like Comcast LOVE high compliance costs and complex regulations because they have the corporate infrastructure to deal with it while smaller companies don't... isn't trolling. Or astroturf. Astroturfing is a bunch of uninformed scaremongers parroting talking points that companies like Comcast LOVE. Like all the people who seem to think the internet was some unusable horror show of traffic shaping back in the bad old days of 2015. Hilarious.
Quit pretending that's something I've done so you can anonymously bitch about something without actually addressing the substance of the matter. A sure sign that you know you don't have anything constructive or even relevant to say.
When Comcast is the only cable provider and high speed internet provider in your county/state, they are a monopoly.
No, they are not a monopoly. They have competitors more than willing to step in. You're confusing the behavior of your local politicians as they prevent existing competitors from bidding for your business with there being a monopoly.
We got sold out when those welfare programs were first designed with baked-in insolvency as their inevitable end. Changing the age at which you start getting other people's money isn't "selling out," it's being grown ups and doing something about the inherently flawed and unsustainable phony delusion that it's possible to give benefits to young-ish retired people through the labors of a dwindling ratio of working people. If you were even awake for the last 30 years you'd recognize that the "rude awakening" happened to rational people decades ago. If this is just now dawning on people, it's because they've been consuming lefty propaganda for their entire lives and don't want to be bothered with things like the staggeringly simple math of the situation. If you're really troubled by a trillion and a half of new debt, you must have been furious about the far huger amounts racked up by Obama.
And AT&T was willing to GIVE that one-time bonus under those conditions because they knew they'd be getting some of that promised tax relief. The maneuver was also calculated to make sure that they weren't conspicuous by their absence when several other very large employers were doing exactly the same thing.
now thatbthis administration has completely bent over backwards to the likes of Comcast
You're, of course, getting it exactly backwards. Companies like Comcast (which you're oddly confusing with being a "monopoly"... despite the fact that are only one provider of such services out of multiple) - especially the big ones like them, Verizon, etc - LIKED Obama's rule. Because it made things harder on smaller, competing providers. Stop pretending you actually believe the crap you're spewing, and stop being a phony troll who's actually shilling for companies like Comcast. They wanted the more complex regulator environment in place, not stripped away. And you know that, and are simply lying with your childish-sounding theatrics.
So, if Comcast doesn't profit from the end of Net Neutrality, that's just incompetence.
Really, you're not fooling anyone with this BS. Comcast will LOSE market influence when things return to the way they were two years ago. Which you know, and are pretending (through things like your phony game of acting like you don't know how to use an apostrophe - that's a nice touch!) that you're too dumb to understand. Because you're just a righteous grass-roots resister! Power to the people! Except your troll is too juvenile to wash in a place like this. You need some fresh talking points from your employer - you're not coming across like a sincere enough useful idiot type.
So quoted snarky 'analysis' provides us with extrapolation and no evidence of whether the company's expenditure were going to match some past pattern, and provides no insight into exactly what the money would have (if indeed it would have been) spent on.
Using this poster's approved logic, we can also say that since Obama's NN rule wasn't in place back in the horrid, unusable internet days of 2015 when everyone's postings here on/. were silenced by evil ISPs whenever the conversation turned to bashing ISPs... oh, right, that didn't happen. But since we can use patterns and trends and extrapolation to assert things as if we actually knew what the executives at Comcast were planning to do, we can safely say that since Obama's late-in-the-game flirtation with non-legislative control over private networks has come and gone without it really making a bit of difference, then it didn't matter if it was in place anyway. Just like the tax cut doesn't matter (well, other than the bonuses they're giving out to employees... those don't matter anyway, so the employees should probably give those back since the 5-year trend was to not have those, right?).
His father was not a citizen. The constitution requires a "natural born citizen" to be president. The debate surrounds whether or not (as it plainly did, once) require both parents to be natural citizens. It was intended to reduce the prospects of foreign influence/loyalty. The framers recognized how often European leadership was influenced by family ties to foreign governments.
If you've ever actually made some sausage yourself (say, with some venison and pork fat, or turkey or whatever recipe you prefer) you'd know that the real problem is people who make overly broad platitudinous generalizations.
You're just proving his point. You failed to compete or carve out a niche in which to succeed, and so you've adopted the "businesses are evil" narrative so you can turn to some Elizabeth-Warren-type savior who will make you prosperous again by tearing down other businesses. Because, the only reason you're not prosperous is because other people are, right?
No, not that. You're the one focused on that detail, because you're fascinated by it. You might want to talk that out with a grown up.
The rational people, though, ARE focused on the web of connections between Fusion GPS, Clinton-machine money, employees at DoJ/FBI (and their spouses), and messages involving some of those folks who are on the record as partisan Clinton supporters and who are plainly talking about what they can do to prevent Trump from becoming president. Your own obsession with fabricated hooker stories is your own thing.
That's because linux users aren't as likely to kill anyone, and they're much less fun to punch.
The good news is that the imaginary armies of killer Nazis roaming your neighborhoods don't actually exist. The bad news is that violent leftist thugs actually do form groups specifically to go out and hurt people and destroy things, and then actually do it, and get applauded by their sponsors for doing it.
The other good news is that people are waking up to the reality of the situation's phony narratives. The bad news is that you approve of preemptive violent assault as a form of political expression.
One last chance to hack foreigners' devices on their way out of the country, when they're burned out, less attentive, anxious to connect to the outside world, and jumping right into checking email and other communications. Gee, I wonder why they'd try this.
And when someone rips off a DVD's content and spreads it around, then it's "on the internet" and the people who spent money to create that material no longer have any claim to it, right? What are you, 8 years old?
Slashdot Mirror
It was not the site of an ongoing threat.
That's not what the cops were told. They showed up at a scene of a murder/hostage scenario. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
No one was threatening harm.
The caller said he'd just killed someone, and that he was considering killing the rest of the family. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
There was no family.
The caller told police he'd just killed one family member and was holding more of them hostage, and may burn the house down. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
There was no gun.
Handguns are portable, and easily stuffed in the waistline or sometimes simply hard to see even when in the hand. The caller said he'd just used his to kill someone. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise? Likewise with the rest of your deliberate misrepresentations.
You must verify that a crime is being committed before acting.
No, you must act according to the information you have, and make snap decisions on the fly, especially when you think you're dealing with imminent loss of more innocent lives. Cops have to deal with that kind of problem every day, and are remarkably good at it. This is a tragic case of someone deliberately poisoning the well of available information to cause grief. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
No one in this story had just used a gun to kill someone.
And yet cops show up on the scene of murder-just-committed situations all the time, and encounter exactly the armed/crazy/threatening people that they're told to expect, and some cops die in the process. They had every reason to expect that the guy who told them he'd just killed someone and was armed and threatening others should be considered to be exactly as represented until they had information to the contrary. Because usually that information is correct, and they and others sometimes die responding to such situations even when they DO have that information in advance. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
That's no excuse for participating in a SWATting.
You're right. Next time the cops get a call about a violent person (which happens thousands of times a day) they should just stay home and tell the people calling 911 that it's probably just that one in a million scenario where a malicious hoaxer is screwing with somebody, and too bad.
The victim did absolutely nothing wrong here
I agree. And the cop made a call that turned out to be wrong. The problem is you seem to be implying that their mistake was in "participating" (showing up in the first place) because they should have magic knowledge about situations that most of the time are real, dire, and involve things like murderers with actual weapons and a willingness to kill people. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
Racist trollbag detected
Ah, yet another holier-than-thou, I'm-smarter-than-you person who can't grasp the difference between language and skin color. Right out of the toxic SJW playbook.
they are killing us in record numbers
This is factually incorrect. Which you know. Why are you pretending otherwise?
The preventative care measures in particular would do just that over time
Sure, but of course you don't get to USE such things. Because all of your monthly disposable income is now consumed by your 500% higher premiums, preventing you from having any money to spend at a doctor's office. Because even after you spend a fortune every month for ACA-compliant insurance, your deductible also went up by several hundred percent, and so a typical couple might have to spend close to $30,000 before they get ANY benefit from their shiny new health insurance, EVERY YEAR.
But the bill got passed because Obama promised that your monthly cost would be about the same as a mobile phone bill. That most families would save over $2500 a year. You know, complete lies. We have the team of people working for him and Reid and Pelosi on the record saying they knew that the only way the bill would pass was if they lied about the costs and benefits. Or in this case, the loss of benefits, and the crippling new costs.
Had the GOP not deliberately destablized the markets
The "markets" were state-by-state from day one. And your theory doesn't explain why solidly blue states (legislatively, and executively) have insurers fleeing and residents getting stuck with enormous increases in their premiums and deductibles. It has to be repealed so that the partisan Democrats who rammed through the first version - which is nothing but a tax-and-redistribute mechanism - might have to actually face reality instead of lying again.
Don't move. If you are a stone and aren't fidgeting, you'll be far better off. Because the guy who wants you to lie down WILL yell it again, but won't feel threatened if you're absolutely still the way the other guy told you to be. On the other hand, the guy who doesn't want you to move may misinterpret your movement.
Armed man sets up ambush outside man's house
No, armed man responds to site of ongoing threat from armed murderer who's threatening harm to other people, including the prospect of tossing a lighter into the fuel he said he'd spread over the house, to burn his family alive.
yells incomprehensible instructions
I suppose it's possible that, like you, English is not the poor guy's native tongue. Another argument for immigrants being functional in English before setting up shop in the US. Oh, right, the poor guy probably heard the instructions just fine (like any of us who listened to the recording) but wasn't aware, in the stress of having been set up by this asshat gamer, of how his sudden movement would be interpreted, given the fact that he was presumed to be standing there with the gun he'd just used to kill someone.
Sounds like murder to me.
Sounds more like you've never actually talked to anyone who's dealt with such a situation. Maybe you could start by making a phone call to the surviving family members of the two cops who were killed today.
the hard part about being "the good guys" is that you don't get to shoot first
Except, of course, thanks to the jackass gamer who set this in motion, the cops believed the man himself had already TOLD them that he'd shot first (and killed someone with a handgun in his possession) and that he was willing to kill more people, and that he'd soaked the home - with people still in it - with gas and was thinking of torching it. And then, alas, made a sharp move when told not to do that exact thing, because he's (according to what police believed was the man himself) probably armed with the same handgun that he'd supposedly just used to kill someone and threaten more.
"were we a force for good that night?"
Yes, they were. Because they saddled up to go to a situation where death was already a factor and where someone willing to kill would - as often happens - possibly skew towards taking one of their lives. Just like a cop can get in a fatal (for someone else) car accident, her willingness to go out every day for crappy pay and risk her neck for your sake IS being a force for good. Shit happens.
explaining how they will change their response so that never happens again
You're asking them to lie. Why would you do that? No cop could or would promise to you that they'll never again encounter a situation that leads them to believe that an armed, violent, and probably unhinged person who's just killed someone else might - on a split second's turn of events, cross the perceived threshold requiring the use of force. Your expectation that cops be willing to die (as another two of them just did today) is absurd, and you know it.
For my blockchainfast this morning, I blockchained up some scrambled blockchain with a side of fried blockchaing, and fresh-blockchained some blockchain juice so I would be sure to get my Vitamin B(lockchain). While I was blockchaining my blockchain, I read the Blockchain Post before hailing a blockchain for a ride to my downtown blockchain where we blockchained a meeting about the week's blockchain strategy and blockchained some references to blockchain into our corporate blockchain statement. Then off to blockchain for a three-blockchain lunch and a blockchained blockchain before heading to our blockchained client's blockchain to implement some blockchain in their blockchain.
Whew! What a blockchain of a day. Happy to be home in my blockchain so I can pop open a blockchain and sit down to blockchain Game Of Blockchains on the blockchain, and maybe play a little first-person blockchain VR, or get online and duke it out in World Of Blockchains before I turn in for a good night's blockchain.
Hillary Was Going To Save It.
No, Hillary told us that the destructive fiasco that is the ACA was just fine as it was, and she would do everything necessary to keep it as it was. Of course she was just pandering to the demographic (generally Democrat voters) who are on the receiving end of that massive tax-and-transfer law, so it's hardly surprising that she'd continue telling the lies that got it passed in the first place. It's a financial disaster, exactly as it was designed to be. It had nothing whatsoever to do with health care, let alone actually providing any or making it in some way less expensive. It was simply a way to tax higher-earning people and distribute that money to likely Democrat voters. Nothing more or less. The presumption was that it was going to help the Democrats hold power. Of course it immediately cost them the legislature and the good will of millions of people who saw their premiums do exactly what the law's opponents said would happen.
What? It's the people shilling for NN that are doing the handful of big corporations a favor. And you're still doing it, right now. Just like Comcast and Verizon like it. You're the one applauding an Obama-era rule that favored them and punished the little guys trying to compete. Quit lying about it, and be honest for a change.
Begone troll! Your foul astroturf is no use here!
You can always tell when you're on to something accurate when the people who complain want to attack the messenger but can't muster the energy to trot out a single word addressing the substance of the matter. Like this. Pointing out that companies like Comcast LOVE high compliance costs and complex regulations because they have the corporate infrastructure to deal with it while smaller companies don't ... isn't trolling. Or astroturf. Astroturfing is a bunch of uninformed scaremongers parroting talking points that companies like Comcast LOVE. Like all the people who seem to think the internet was some unusable horror show of traffic shaping back in the bad old days of 2015. Hilarious.
Quit pretending that's something I've done so you can anonymously bitch about something without actually addressing the substance of the matter. A sure sign that you know you don't have anything constructive or even relevant to say.
When Comcast is the only cable provider and high speed internet provider in your county/state, they are a monopoly.
No, they are not a monopoly. They have competitors more than willing to step in. You're confusing the behavior of your local politicians as they prevent existing competitors from bidding for your business with there being a monopoly.
We got sold out.
We got sold out when those welfare programs were first designed with baked-in insolvency as their inevitable end. Changing the age at which you start getting other people's money isn't "selling out," it's being grown ups and doing something about the inherently flawed and unsustainable phony delusion that it's possible to give benefits to young-ish retired people through the labors of a dwindling ratio of working people. If you were even awake for the last 30 years you'd recognize that the "rude awakening" happened to rational people decades ago. If this is just now dawning on people, it's because they've been consuming lefty propaganda for their entire lives and don't want to be bothered with things like the staggeringly simple math of the situation. If you're really troubled by a trillion and a half of new debt, you must have been furious about the far huger amounts racked up by Obama.
And AT&T was willing to GIVE that one-time bonus under those conditions because they knew they'd be getting some of that promised tax relief. The maneuver was also calculated to make sure that they weren't conspicuous by their absence when several other very large employers were doing exactly the same thing.
now thatbthis administration has completely bent over backwards to the likes of Comcast
You're, of course, getting it exactly backwards. Companies like Comcast (which you're oddly confusing with being a "monopoly" ... despite the fact that are only one provider of such services out of multiple) - especially the big ones like them, Verizon, etc - LIKED Obama's rule. Because it made things harder on smaller, competing providers. Stop pretending you actually believe the crap you're spewing, and stop being a phony troll who's actually shilling for companies like Comcast. They wanted the more complex regulator environment in place, not stripped away. And you know that, and are simply lying with your childish-sounding theatrics.
So, if Comcast doesn't profit from the end of Net Neutrality, that's just incompetence.
Really, you're not fooling anyone with this BS. Comcast will LOSE market influence when things return to the way they were two years ago. Which you know, and are pretending (through things like your phony game of acting like you don't know how to use an apostrophe - that's a nice touch!) that you're too dumb to understand. Because you're just a righteous grass-roots resister! Power to the people! Except your troll is too juvenile to wash in a place like this. You need some fresh talking points from your employer - you're not coming across like a sincere enough useful idiot type.
"Continuing to spend at that rate, even if...
So quoted snarky 'analysis' provides us with extrapolation and no evidence of whether the company's expenditure were going to match some past pattern, and provides no insight into exactly what the money would have (if indeed it would have been) spent on.
/. were silenced by evil ISPs whenever the conversation turned to bashing ISPs ... oh, right, that didn't happen. But since we can use patterns and trends and extrapolation to assert things as if we actually knew what the executives at Comcast were planning to do, we can safely say that since Obama's late-in-the-game flirtation with non-legislative control over private networks has come and gone without it really making a bit of difference, then it didn't matter if it was in place anyway. Just like the tax cut doesn't matter (well, other than the bonuses they're giving out to employees ... those don't matter anyway, so the employees should probably give those back since the 5-year trend was to not have those, right?).
Using this poster's approved logic, we can also say that since Obama's NN rule wasn't in place back in the horrid, unusable internet days of 2015 when everyone's postings here on
Hmmm. You also seem strangely obsessed with male genitalia. Does that actually impact how you think about politics? Strange.
His father was not a citizen. The constitution requires a "natural born citizen" to be president. The debate surrounds whether or not (as it plainly did, once) require both parents to be natural citizens. It was intended to reduce the prospects of foreign influence/loyalty. The framers recognized how often European leadership was influenced by family ties to foreign governments.
If you've ever actually made some sausage yourself (say, with some venison and pork fat, or turkey or whatever recipe you prefer) you'd know that the real problem is people who make overly broad platitudinous generalizations.
You're just proving his point. You failed to compete or carve out a niche in which to succeed, and so you've adopted the "businesses are evil" narrative so you can turn to some Elizabeth-Warren-type savior who will make you prosperous again by tearing down other businesses. Because, the only reason you're not prosperous is because other people are, right?
No, not that. You're the one focused on that detail, because you're fascinated by it. You might want to talk that out with a grown up.
The rational people, though, ARE focused on the web of connections between Fusion GPS, Clinton-machine money, employees at DoJ/FBI (and their spouses), and messages involving some of those folks who are on the record as partisan Clinton supporters and who are plainly talking about what they can do to prevent Trump from becoming president. Your own obsession with fabricated hooker stories is your own thing.
what difference could possibly explain the different reactions?
Parental citizenship. But I know, you'd rather race-bait.
That's because linux users aren't as likely to kill anyone, and they're much less fun to punch.
The good news is that the imaginary armies of killer Nazis roaming your neighborhoods don't actually exist. The bad news is that violent leftist thugs actually do form groups specifically to go out and hurt people and destroy things, and then actually do it, and get applauded by their sponsors for doing it.
The other good news is that people are waking up to the reality of the situation's phony narratives. The bad news is that you approve of preemptive violent assault as a form of political expression.
One last chance to hack foreigners' devices on their way out of the country, when they're burned out, less attentive, anxious to connect to the outside world, and jumping right into checking email and other communications. Gee, I wonder why they'd try this.
And when someone rips off a DVD's content and spreads it around, then it's "on the internet" and the people who spent money to create that material no longer have any claim to it, right? What are you, 8 years old?
Or maybe it's ripping off terabytes of other people's intellectual property that's the bad idea.