The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.[72][78][79]
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
The lie that Barack Obama was not born in the US has been fuelled by fringe Republicans — but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
9/11 "Truthers" are one of the ugliest plagues to curse Slashdot.
Charles Krauthammer said tonight that the Clinton campaign contradicted itself by calling Donald Trump’s request for Russia to locate Hillary’s missing e-mails a threat to national security:
Well, that was his parting shot, and it was a clever thing to plant, because it is an issue. But I do think there was something about his reference to Russia that, whether planned or not, was extremely clever. I’m not the first to point out that it set a trap that the Clinton campaign fell right into. In that statement that you showed from the Clinton campaign, it said you’re [Trump] is inviting a foreign power to invade our national security.
Now, these are the e-mails she deleted because they were supposedly private; these were the ones that were supposedly not work-related; these are the ones where she discusses her yoga lessons and wedding planning. So if that what was really in the 30,000 deleted e-mails, then there’s no national security to be involved at all. So the Clinton campaign ends up admitting that perhaps there really is work-related – if not classified – stuff in the e-mails that she deleted, which I think would be grounds for a charge of obstruction.
Whether or not he meant it seriously – it could have been sarcastic, it could have been sort of half-sarcastic as a way to plant the idea – the fact is that it leaves the Clinton campaign in a complete contradiction. If these are just private e-mails, then there is nothing to be concerned about. There is no espionage. There is no danger to national security that they will discover her yoga lesson schedule.
I'm also curious, do you credit Russia and other countries with having a time machines? If not, how do you think they will now hack into the US to get deleted emails on a server that isn't on the public internet? Or were you just trolling on Hillary's behalf?
Tell you what, why don't you start working on the Constitutional amendment to make that type of government happen and we can talk about it. Of course you would probably have to move to the US, and maybe become a citizen, so that's not happening, is it? Just as well.
The US has always been divided, right from the very start. That isn't a particularly bad thing unless you want to throw a parade to celebrate a "People's democracy" and cure weak liberalism. The US unifies when given sufficient cause, otherwise people go about their business.
In some important ways the Democratic and Republican parties are becoming more different, and agreement on some basic issues is beginning to fall apart. The Left has never really like the US, and it is going to tear the US apart.
And that somewhere better be the moon, because the Russians will listen for anything that could remotely be considered fake. And they will waste not a nanosecond to expose it, you really think they would not have jumped onto the possibility to pull your pants down?
So what you're saying is that the global elites don't always work together to screw the little guy, to pull the wool over their eyes? That is a fascinating idea, and quite counter to many posts that get made on Slashdot.
The risk alone is impossible to assess. You have thousands of people working on it, thousands you have to silence.
You make it sound like there couldn't have been a secret "inside job" conspiracy for 9/11 that could have been hidden. Interesting. Tell us more.
After this post of almost pure bullshit you are hardly the standard bearer fact and reason. I do give you credit for knowing your audience's tastes and prejudices, and playing to them.
On the other hand you might be only a step away from being a Trump supporter.
There is no WE. NASA is that space agency that is doing its shit, the US military is fighting a war somewhere, US economy is building this or that and US TV is showing yet another dumb reality show, which is, scarily enough, pretty much the only thing the average American has a chance to feel part of by participating in the freak show.
There is no WE in the US anymore.
The "WE" in the United States is "We the People," the opportunity to engage in a national ritual comes every two years, it's called voting. The US is about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, not collectivism and collectivist spectacle.
That's what makes this feat so great, not that 12 people hopped about on a moon that happens to orbit our planet. What made this a powerful achievement was the "WE did it" feeling. WE. Not "the US" but everyone really could feel that he did something for that.
No, the great achievement really was putting people on the moon, and the enormous technical, industrial, and organizational effort that took. Although Americans can feel proud their nation was able to do that, the key fact is that they did it. At least one major power other tried and failed. It wasn't a given.
You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq.
Then there is the fact that he kept attacking nations in the region - invaded Iran, invaded and tried to annex Kuwait, attacked Saudi Arabia, attacked Israel. I seem to recall there were "border issues" with some of the other neighbors.
Nor was Iraq particularly stable. There were various rebellions again Saddam, assassination attempts, and various other issues. You may recall that some of these were put down by using chemical weapons against civilian populations.
And Saddam wasn't much of an ally. The US didn't want Iran to beat Iraq and threaten the entire region beyond the danger it already posed. Just think how lovely things would be if Iraq had collapsed and Iran leveraged that into controlling not only Iran's oil, but Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's.
As far as weapons go, Saddam got something like 90% of his weapons from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, China, or other communist bloc states. Most of the rest was from France.
We now basically have a war that we can prolong infinitely. As long as we need one, they'll deliver.
So what you are really saying is that Muslims don't have their own values and goals that they pursue independently of what the US or the West does? Really?
Do you know what the general terms are for when one side in a conflict (war) ceases to defend itself? Defeat and surrender.
You may recall that 9/11 happened before the war in Iraq. Bush ran on a domestic program and war was thrust upon his administration by Bin Laden, al Qaida, and the Taliban.
"Mission Accomplished" referred to the mission performed by the aircraft carrier where that banner was displayed as it was returning home. But if you're just engaging in smear and not trying to further understanding, well then..... "Mission Accomplished."
It doesn't list Trump voters,it lists white people that killed police officers.
The author effectively says for all anyone knows they could be Trump voters. By the same token they could be Progressive Hillary voters. Either way I doubt he did the leg work to track down their voter registration, and he doesn't offer any evidence.
That piece is an attempt to deflect attention from Black Lives Matter and doesn't acknowledge the growing number of ties between it and cop killers. Nor does it acknowledge the open calls for, and celebration of, killings of police officers at various rallies and protests they have held.
More Black lives matter than just the politically useful ones that Black Lives Matter protests over.
If not a single policeman killed a single black individual anywhere in the United States for this entire year, that would not reduce the number of black homicide victims by one percent. When the mobs of protesters declare "Black lives matter," does that mean ALL black lives matter -- or only the less than one percent of black lives lost in conflicts with police? -- Random Thoughts - Thomas Sowell
Excuse me,... while your sleight of hand is impressive (and good for mod points), you aren't playing this straight. The article you link to doesn't list conservatives, it lists white people. That isn't the same. One deals with skin color, the other deals with ideas. There is nothing contradictory about being black and conservative: Clarence Thomas Thomas Sowell Herman Cain Larry Elder Sheriff David Clark Condoleezza Rice
Also note that there doesn't appear to be any common thread among the killers in that article as there is among the killings with connections to either Black Lives Matter or the New Black Panther Party.
It would be interesting to try something like this on a bigger scale. Suppose 5-10% of your taxes could be designated for public spending according to your choice. 2% - national parks, 2% - drug rehab, 2% - NASA, 2% - local police assistance, 2% - new battleship. Give people a more direct voice in spending. The technology is here. The problem is educating the voters where the problems are. Some things would be really popular, and other things would almost be ignored probably. Could be interesting though. Perhaps if they did it as, budgeted need, stretch goal, special spending. and above that it goes back to general fund.
This isn't facebook where you can post any soft of shit and people will believe it without question. People on slashdot will check sources; there are even some heretics who RTFA.
And then if the information does not support the popular view or prejudice they will often down mod the post, lie about what is there, impugn the source, or simply state that they don't care about the truth - they believe what they want to believe.
There are a lot of smart people on Slashdot, too many of which are willing to misuse their intellect to mislead, misdirect, or obscure the truth if they don't like it.
He came off as a useless trust fund baby on perpetual vacation.
That would be your projection, not his facade.
Mission Accomplished?
Ah, that line! It just never gets "old," does it? No older and not a bit more honest. Whoever turned that around was a master of duplicity.
The AWOL title really applies more to him as President than when he was consuming resources that would have been better used training someone who intended to actually work as a pilot instead of play around. If he hadn't turned up at all in that situation it probably would have been better for the country.
One of the greatest faults of the Bush administration was in not countering the lies and smears being propagated against them in the media by Democrats and the Left. It is stunning that they didn't respond to some of the attacks being made. They could have learned much from the Clinton machine (as long as the Bush administration could have kept things more honest). Their lack of response ended up severly jobbling them politically with some very unfortunate consequences. The financial melt-down might have been avoided as well as several other unfortunate outcomes if they had been more responsive.
Petraeus did "far more" than Snowden? Could you expand on that? Snowden stole thousands of Top Secret Australian defense documents and made some number of them available through intermediaries to the world. There was at least one, maybe more, serious diplomatic problems that came from that. The Australian government probably assesses everything Snowden touched as having fallen into the hands of foreign adversaries intelligence agencies as do the British and US for their respective documents that Snowden stole.
I don't recall a couple million Top Secret documents being in the wind due to David Petraus. Can you back that up?
Snowden screwed Australia, and you didn't even get a lousy windcheater out of it.
Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence office with Top Secret clearance and had served in the war zone. She used the infomation (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)
As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.
Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.
Nixon was driven from office, Carter just lost an election.
John Kerry earned the disdain of peers. America was lucky not to be stuck with such a mediocrity as president. Bush was a better student (by a nose) and likely better read as well.
Given the feckless foreign policy under Kerry's watch the US had a better Chief Executive and Commander in Chief in Bush.
If the Democrats hadn't blocked Bush administration reform efforts the financial melt-down could probably have been avoided. Where do you think ol' John Kerry was voting there? With his party perhaps?
Bush and Kerry are opposites - Bush pretended to be less than he was, and Kerry pretended to be more than he is.
Slashdot Mirror
That is misinformation.
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
You misunderstand the quote:
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.[72][78][79]
You might want to look into this:
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Introduction to PM Expanded Investigation
And maybe: The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11
Building 7's collapse defies physics outside demolitions being placed inside.
That is false.
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
Funny thing about that ....
Birther row began with Hillary Clinton - 27 Apr 2011
The lie that Barack Obama was not born in the US has been fuelled by fringe Republicans — but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.
After watching the collapse of Building 7 I have my doubts: https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU
Nope. You need to look at this:
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
You don't seem to have understood the report. The report says the reverse of what you claim.
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
Knock yourself out.
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
2 Planes managed to take out 3 buildings, with the third containing much interesting paperwork that conveniently burned up..
There is no genuine mystery here, the facts are available. Perhaps that is inconvenient for you?
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
9/11 "Truthers" are one of the ugliest plagues to curse Slashdot.
The Age of Obama's Trolls, Shills, and Kool-Aid drinkers?
The "Facts" (as reported) have an anti-Trump bias.
FTFY
. . . when one of our presidential candidates invited and approved of Russia and other countries to hack us.
That isn't actually what happened. Did you misunderstand it?
Maybe this will help:
Krauthammer’s Take: Trump’s Russia Comment 'Set a Trap That the Clinton Campaign Fell Into'
Charles Krauthammer said tonight that the Clinton campaign contradicted itself by calling Donald Trump’s request for Russia to locate Hillary’s missing e-mails a threat to national security:
Well, that was his parting shot, and it was a clever thing to plant, because it is an issue. But I do think there was something about his reference to Russia that, whether planned or not, was extremely clever. I’m not the first to point out that it set a trap that the Clinton campaign fell right into. In that statement that you showed from the Clinton campaign, it said you’re [Trump] is inviting a foreign power to invade our national security.
Now, these are the e-mails she deleted because they were supposedly private; these were the ones that were supposedly not work-related; these are the ones where she discusses her yoga lessons and wedding planning. So if that what was really in the 30,000 deleted e-mails, then there’s no national security to be involved at all. So the Clinton campaign ends up admitting that perhaps there really is work-related – if not classified – stuff in the e-mails that she deleted, which I think would be grounds for a charge of obstruction.
Whether or not he meant it seriously – it could have been sarcastic, it could have been sort of half-sarcastic as a way to plant the idea – the fact is that it leaves the Clinton campaign in a complete contradiction. If these are just private e-mails, then there is nothing to be concerned about. There is no espionage. There is no danger to national security that they will discover her yoga lesson schedule.
I'm also curious, do you credit Russia and other countries with having a time machines? If not, how do you think they will now hack into the US to get deleted emails on a server that isn't on the public internet? Or were you just trolling on Hillary's behalf?
Tell you what, why don't you start working on the Constitutional amendment to make that type of government happen and we can talk about it. Of course you would probably have to move to the US, and maybe become a citizen, so that's not happening, is it? Just as well.
The US has always been divided, right from the very start. That isn't a particularly bad thing unless you want to throw a parade to celebrate a "People's democracy" and cure weak liberalism. The US unifies when given sufficient cause, otherwise people go about their business.
In some important ways the Democratic and Republican parties are becoming more different, and agreement on some basic issues is beginning to fall apart. The Left has never really like the US, and it is going to tear the US apart.
And that somewhere better be the moon, because the Russians will listen for anything that could remotely be considered fake. And they will waste not a nanosecond to expose it, you really think they would not have jumped onto the possibility to pull your pants down?
So what you're saying is that the global elites don't always work together to screw the little guy, to pull the wool over their eyes? That is a fascinating idea, and quite counter to many posts that get made on Slashdot.
The risk alone is impossible to assess. You have thousands of people working on it, thousands you have to silence.
You make it sound like there couldn't have been a secret "inside job" conspiracy for 9/11 that could have been hidden. Interesting. Tell us more.
After this post of almost pure bullshit you are hardly the standard bearer fact and reason. I do give you credit for knowing your audience's tastes and prejudices, and playing to them.
On the other hand you might be only a step away from being a Trump supporter.
There is no WE. NASA is that space agency that is doing its shit, the US military is fighting a war somewhere, US economy is building this or that and US TV is showing yet another dumb reality show, which is, scarily enough, pretty much the only thing the average American has a chance to feel part of by participating in the freak show.
There is no WE in the US anymore.
The "WE" in the United States is "We the People," the opportunity to engage in a national ritual comes every two years, it's called voting. The US is about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, not collectivism and collectivist spectacle.
That's what makes this feat so great, not that 12 people hopped about on a moon that happens to orbit our planet. What made this a powerful achievement was the "WE did it" feeling. WE. Not "the US" but everyone really could feel that he did something for that.
No, the great achievement really was putting people on the moon, and the enormous technical, industrial, and organizational effort that took. Although Americans can feel proud their nation was able to do that, the key fact is that they did it. At least one major power other tried and failed. It wasn't a given.
If you want togetherness join a church or a club.
You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq.
Then there is the fact that he kept attacking nations in the region - invaded Iran, invaded and tried to annex Kuwait, attacked Saudi Arabia, attacked Israel. I seem to recall there were "border issues" with some of the other neighbors.
Nor was Iraq particularly stable. There were various rebellions again Saddam, assassination attempts, and various other issues. You may recall that some of these were put down by using chemical weapons against civilian populations.
And Saddam wasn't much of an ally. The US didn't want Iran to beat Iraq and threaten the entire region beyond the danger it already posed. Just think how lovely things would be if Iraq had collapsed and Iran leveraged that into controlling not only Iran's oil, but Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's.
As far as weapons go, Saddam got something like 90% of his weapons from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, China, or other communist bloc states. Most of the rest was from France.
We now basically have a war that we can prolong infinitely. As long as we need one, they'll deliver.
So what you are really saying is that Muslims don't have their own values and goals that they pursue independently of what the US or the West does? Really?
Do you know what the general terms are for when one side in a conflict (war) ceases to defend itself? Defeat and surrender.
How do you think you'd get along with your would be overlords?
You may recall that 9/11 happened before the war in Iraq. Bush ran on a domestic program and war was thrust upon his administration by Bin Laden, al Qaida, and the Taliban.
"Mission Accomplished" referred to the mission performed by the aircraft carrier where that banner was displayed as it was returning home. But if you're just engaging in smear and not trying to further understanding, well then ..... "Mission Accomplished."
It doesn't list Trump voters,it lists white people that killed police officers.
The author effectively says for all anyone knows they could be Trump voters. By the same token they could be Progressive Hillary voters. Either way I doubt he did the leg work to track down their voter registration, and he doesn't offer any evidence.
That piece is an attempt to deflect attention from Black Lives Matter and doesn't acknowledge the growing number of ties between it and cop killers. Nor does it acknowledge the open calls for, and celebration of, killings of police officers at various rallies and protests they have held.
More Black lives matter than just the politically useful ones that Black Lives Matter protests over.
If not a single policeman killed a single black individual anywhere in the United States for this entire year, that would not reduce the number of black homicide victims by one percent. When the mobs of protesters declare "Black lives matter," does that mean ALL black lives matter -- or only the less than one percent of black lives lost in conflicts with police? -- Random Thoughts - Thomas Sowell
By "recently", you must mean, "this week".
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
Excuse me, ... while your sleight of hand is impressive (and good for mod points), you aren't playing this straight. The article you link to doesn't list conservatives, it lists white people. That isn't the same. One deals with skin color, the other deals with ideas. There is nothing contradictory about being black and conservative:
Clarence Thomas
Thomas Sowell
Herman Cain
Larry Elder
Sheriff David Clark
Condoleezza Rice
Also note that there doesn't appear to be any common thread among the killers in that article as there is among the killings with connections to either Black Lives Matter or the New Black Panther Party.
Nice that the NZ government pitched in.
It would be interesting to try something like this on a bigger scale. Suppose 5-10% of your taxes could be designated for public spending according to your choice. 2% - national parks, 2% - drug rehab, 2% - NASA, 2% - local police assistance, 2% - new battleship. Give people a more direct voice in spending. The technology is here. The problem is educating the voters where the problems are. Some things would be really popular, and other things would almost be ignored probably. Could be interesting though. Perhaps if they did it as, budgeted need, stretch goal, special spending. and above that it goes back to general fund.
This isn't facebook where you can post any soft of shit and people will believe it without question. People on slashdot will check sources; there are even some heretics who RTFA.
And then if the information does not support the popular view or prejudice they will often down mod the post, lie about what is there, impugn the source, or simply state that they don't care about the truth - they believe what they want to believe.
There are a lot of smart people on Slashdot, too many of which are willing to misuse their intellect to mislead, misdirect, or obscure the truth if they don't like it.
He came off as a useless trust fund baby on perpetual vacation.
That would be your projection, not his facade.
Mission Accomplished?
Ah, that line! It just never gets "old," does it? No older and not a bit more honest. Whoever turned that around was a master of duplicity.
The AWOL title really applies more to him as President than when he was consuming resources that would have been better used training someone who intended to actually work as a pilot instead of play around. If he hadn't turned up at all in that situation it probably would have been better for the country.
As to the pilot training, not as such.
One of the greatest faults of the Bush administration was in not countering the lies and smears being propagated against them in the media by Democrats and the Left. It is stunning that they didn't respond to some of the attacks being made. They could have learned much from the Clinton machine (as long as the Bush administration could have kept things more honest). Their lack of response ended up severly jobbling them politically with some very unfortunate consequences. The financial melt-down might have been avoided as well as several other unfortunate outcomes if they had been more responsive.
Petraeus did "far more" than Snowden? Could you expand on that? Snowden stole thousands of Top Secret Australian defense documents and made some number of them available through intermediaries to the world. There was at least one, maybe more, serious diplomatic problems that came from that. The Australian government probably assesses everything Snowden touched as having fallen into the hands of foreign adversaries intelligence agencies as do the British and US for their respective documents that Snowden stole.
I don't recall a couple million Top Secret documents being in the wind due to David Petraus. Can you back that up?
Snowden screwed Australia, and you didn't even get a lousy windcheater out of it.
You might find this interesting. Or maybe not.
Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence office with Top Secret clearance and had served in the war zone. She used the infomation (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)
As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.
Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.
Here Are The 23 Classified Memos Sidney Blumenthal Sent To Hillary Clinton
Nixon was driven from office, Carter just lost an election.
John Kerry earned the disdain of peers. America was lucky not to be stuck with such a mediocrity as president. Bush was a better student (by a nose) and likely better read as well.
Given the feckless foreign policy under Kerry's watch the US had a better Chief Executive and Commander in Chief in Bush.
If the Democrats hadn't blocked Bush administration reform efforts the financial melt-down could probably have been avoided. Where do you think ol' John Kerry was voting there? With his party perhaps?
Bush and Kerry are opposites - Bush pretended to be less than he was, and Kerry pretended to be more than he is.
Denmark has a far simpler solution, and it seems to be working. (Is the lack of test tubes a turn-off?