Because they want to remain a sovereign nation going their own way and don't confirm with whatever path the globalists of everythings destruction want to take.
Why the fuck the rest of the European leaders don't go the same way as Russia I have no fucking clue.
Sweden is destroyed. Germany is destroyed. I guess UK and France also are. Yay!
You mean like invading other countries? You understand that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union in some form right? You understand the amount of waste and environmental damage that the cold war caused the world right? You understand the loss of freedoms both in the former Soviet Union and in the USA / Europe was pretty extreme right? All these countries would imprison you if you showed any dissidence (at their worst state of paranoia) or would have you under a microscope...
So we have my country (US) already invading other countries and maintaining a military force, Russia has been doing this too and appears to be ratcheting it up. Yup... another cold war on the way. The only difference is now China gets to throw its cards in to the mix. Awesome. Just fracking awesome.
And I agree with the post below, how the hell is Sweden and Germany destroyed?
Wage slave here. Recently changed jobs (moved) and new company gives only 8 days a year vacation+Personal Holiday+mandatory holiday. I would love to work less... My wife and I are still discussing if we could afford for me to be Mr. Mom and her to work (she does make 2x what I make)... Lately I have been working the actual hours I get paid for, and have even been taking all of the breaks I am entitled to, but nobody ever takes, and my life satisfaction has gone way up. It's not that most americans are addicted to their job, it's that they are made to feel that if they don't work 120% of the hours they are "paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go.
Exactly. My company just changed its performance evaluations (i.e. read: we want to screw you on bonus potential and salary increase). If you get exceeds expectations two years in a row, that becomes your new "meets" expectations. Or to put another way, our job description has a clause, "Requires the occasional overtime.", so if you are being forced to work a lot of OT to meet unrealistic project demands and you meet them and your quality is excellent, but the only way you accomplished that was long hours at work? Guess what, you better hope you do not exceed expectations two years in a row, else do not expect a bonus or raise the following year and if your productivity drops, you will get "does not meet expectations."
This of course has been sold under the, "We want employees to strive for excellence and be challenged and not get bored." right after telling us that last year due to salary increases and bonuses, our labor costs have gone up a million... yup. Either our CIO is an idiot and let stuff slipped, or our CIO is brilliant and just planted the seeds of discontent so more people senior people with families leave (no severance paid out.) so they can bring in cheaper college grads or offshore.
Welcome to America, where no body gives a fuck about anyone else... and you know what? My attitude over the last year or so has been going down hill, I used to care about my job and other people, but right now I do not care about my career (there is always another job out there) and only care about my family. I've come to the conclusion that, this is the way our elites want it... divided and miserable.
Except the White House/State Department told her she could set up her own server.
And the fact that past administrations did the same damn thing. Shit, I still want those 22 million Bush era emails back.Nay, the email situation, the Benghazi attacks (another right wing hack job) stems from decades of mismanagement and unfortunately the old saying holds true: "Here is the new boss, who is the same as the old boss".
I would take the Clinton email situation a little more seriously if The Congress didn't target her specifically to take down and give previous administrations free passes. Seriously, Clinton is a result of what the "oversight" committees have let run loose and wild for decades. The entire point of the three branches of government were controls and oversights, so we have 13 embassy attacks with 60 dead prior to Benghazi, ZERO, ZERO investigations or people held accountable, status-quo oh well, more peons where they came from. We have the Bush administration using RNC servers for government correspondence to avoid FOI too and contrary to what you all may believe, the RNC is not the government, it is simply a political organization (you can start one too if you wanted!), nothing done or said, no one held accountable.
If you think Trump is an outsider and will not fall victim to the above you would be mistaken; Trump did not get to where he is without rubbing elbows with the political and financial elite; I mean shit, Trump by his own admissions is one of the financial elite as he says he is worth billions of dollars (definitely got a taxpayer bail out, by not paying nearly a billion dollars in taxes, sounds like an elitist to me). If we have learned anything over the last decade and a half (thank you Mr. Snowden) that the elite think they can do whatever they want. Trump is a prime example of this (as is Clinton).
Trump also claims that he is the best at everything because he hires the best people; this email server may contain nothing that can be used against Trump (whether publicly of privately), but it does show a lack of critical thinking. Out of one side of his mouth he is taking Hillary to task about her insecure email environment that was compromised with sensitive material on it, and the other side of his mouth he is so arrogant he has not even tried to clean his own house...
Bottom line: If Trump gets in, we are totally and utterly fucked, if Hillary gets in, we are a lot less fucked, but still fucked...
Not many believe Trump is clean, and quite frankly very few care. They only care that Hillary is much dirtier, and the establishment is out of control with corruption.
Can you provide irrefutable evidence that Clinton is dirtier? Trump has a lot of skeletons in his closest and David Cay Johnston addresses some of this in his book "The Making of Donald Trump" (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GYPLR1U/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1).
Well worth reading if you intend to vote for Trump...
There was no rigged election. The Democrats have a system built explicitly to prevent people like Sanders from winning.
You managed to contradict yourself within the first two sentences. Yes, the democrats have a system -- a rigged system. But, please, describe what you mean by "people like Sanders". In this case, the definition was: people who aren't Hillary.
Or you do not understand how the democrat system works? I disagree with the super delegate system, but it exists in the democrat rules. Hardly "rigging" of a system, since Bernie ran in the democrat primary, which means he obviously accepted the rules of the game.
Shut up and stop making sense. Everybody knows that Russians did it because Russians are bad and they like Trump, therefore Trump and Russians are in league with each other to destroy America. That's all the evidence we need!
Sure, we laughed at Mitt Romney 4 years ago when he said Russia was our enemy, but then again we elected an inexperienced non-insider candidate then. Now we say that the country CAN'T have an inexperienced outsider candidate, because that's not what ours is. A Wall Street endorsed 1% candidate is what's best.
Are you kidding me? Both are Wall Street endorsed, lol. Trump is connected to Wall Street as is Hillary. To think that Trump does not rub elbows with the same people as hillary is naive in the extreme. You do not get to both of their levels in our society with out this happening, do you actually think there are different entities interacting with politicians based on how they emerged? Nope. They are the same, one is cold and a liar (Hillary) and one is a sociopath and a lies more than the other (Trump) and is a sexual pervert, but both coordinate with Wall Street.
As for the hacking, Russia has been on our top 2 threat list to our country for over a decade; in this day in age most countries are trying to hack others (even friends). Shit, our own CIA spied on our own Senate. This is not a false flag by the Clinton campaign in coordination with our government, this is Julian Assange coordinating with Russia (to what degree, who knows). In my opinion Julian is scared, he is running out of time since the current Ecuadorian president does not plan to run again (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/23/ecuador-correa-wont-run-again-in-2017/) and that pretty much is his last friend. He hates Hillary and she hates him, so he is probably hoping that Trump will either ignore him, or pardon him.
Again, this is my $0.02 but Hillary has supported President Obama's intention to bring Snowden and Assange to trial here in the US. And again my $0.02 a Trump presidency is a presidency built on arrogance and incompetence and that is easily exploitable by Putin, in addition, a Trump presidency means that congress and the administration will be at odds, again four years of getting nothing done, so that is great for Russia too.
Putin plays the long game, we tend to play the short game here which is why we are fucked.
Interesting post. I'll assume the knave is clinton and the fool is trump for this post.
One of the reasons I would prefer trump is accountability. Hear me out.
I know damn well that if trump made a mistake as president, the media would not hesitate to nail his ass to the wall, and impeach him if possible. Clinton, not so much.
I heard you out and I disagree; Trump has ZERO personal accountability, he airs some weak apologies and his body language demonstrates he does not believe what he is apologizing for. His opinions are based on his ego and very loose connection to reality (47% of the time, 53% some made up reality). Trump dragged out Bill's sexual encounters and wanted to put them in his family box until he was told no and they will be escorted out. He has been married _three_ times and has a worst history of being a sexual predator than Bill Clinton (who quite frankly, has been accused of rape, but not proven and has proven to cheat on his wife and use his position to influence women to sleep with him and Trump steps in to an even worse category...). He has a history of Miss. Universe contestants complaining he would show up unannounced in their dressing rooms while they were changing and often naked. He calls women fat pigs, he calls entire religions untrustworthy, he makes blanket claims he is the best at everything even when his own prior hired employees contradict him on these claims.
Trump to paraphrase when talking about our system wants to "Rip it out" and start again; he told Clinton he would have gotten more done last night if he were a senator than her and will make all these broad sweeping changes as president, which in itself seems like he thinks he is going to turn our country in to the Trump dynasty and make former President Bushes, "I am the decider" seem modest in comparison. He has ZERO idea of the cost of his proposals, ripping it out _is_expensive and he has yet to even provide a shred of supportable academic evidence that he is a) a great businessman, b) his proposals would actually help the country. He has ZERO idea the cost of his tax proposals and the lower-end of the spectrum families will actually see an increase in their tax burden and we will increase the deficit. He thinks when he is president that he is going to somehow make Clinton end up in jail (your papers please?) which is a pretty bold statement which has basically no basis in reality. He talks about Aleppo as if he is an expert and quite frankly I would this debate full of fluff, none of the moderators questioned Trump or Clinton on even basis demographics about Aleppo to gauge whether they even prepared for this debate. Trump still hangs on the claim that the Obama Administration created ISIS or allowed it to grow, when in fact ISIS has an organization grew out of the ashes of Iraq and the prior administrations invasion, which also made claims of, "All you gotta do, is introduce democracy to these countries and watch them flourish." Trump has taken that simply down to, "All you gotta do is elect me President and I will destroy ISIS."
You also may know damn well that the Media would nail his ass if he made a mistake? Sure okay, like President Bush? He got a free pass _alot_ from both congress and the media. Look at what Obama has had to endure? Hell, look at what Clinton has had to endure for some mistakes that were repeats of the previous administration basically, she got dragged _over_ the coals by the media and the congress. No, Trump will use his executive privilege if he were elected to hide his mistakes, it would make the Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations look like a glass house, everything apparent and open to the public.
Trump is a disgusting individual -- Hillary is cold and an unapologetic liar but she also has a history of getting things done and actually helping "the little people" whereas Trump has a history of screwing over the little people and with an unapologetic response, "It's business, I am a good businessman." which is a very good indicatio
These Wikileaks releases do seem pretty one-sided. Is it just a function of what they do and don't have (it's surprising they didn't have that Trump recording)? But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past. However it's not surprising there's lots of skeletons in either candidate's closet... but again, why doesn't Assange have any of Trump's?
Problem is, from what I've seen over the past few months on Slashdot - it's obviously going to be hard to have a rational discussion on these questions here right now. People are way too ready to overlook their preferred candidate's foibles.
I find it interesting the connection between WikiLeaks and Russia add on top of that the business connections and announced respect that Donald Trump has for Putin. Yes, it could all be very coincidental and perhaps WikiLeaks / Russia is playing to the gaffes of Trump (and he keeps falling for it and fueling the fire, which is a problem in of it self). Add on his business history is less than stellar, the losses he has had, the very disgusting comments he has made about women, minorities etc and you get a very odd looking if not ugly looking picture.
I hate to bring this election down to Hillary vs. Trump -- unfortunately at the presidential level that is it. 3rd parties at this point are not going to win the White House, but obtaining senate and house seats both at the federal and state levels is very possible. Gear up folks, spend the next couple of years finding indies that are not batshit crazy and lets try to change the system for us.
The real reason? Simple: people are lazy as shit. If you give them a chance to slack off, they will. And that's far more likely at home than at work where a pointy-haired boss can tell you something else that needs doing.
All the rest is just hand-wavy bullshit. And it's right. I personally think "working from home" is *never* as efficient as a dedicated, isolated workspace. If you do it, it should be a level of trust you EARN from a company, certainly not start with. Plus, I think if you work from home you should get paid less, because working from home is so desirable and convenient.
And I personally have the full choice of working from home, or at my office; I've worked for the firm for 23 years, they couldn't care less. But generally, I work from the office.
Utter bullshit. Sorry, I work from home 2 - 3 days a week and dealing with a new CIO that thinks the same way as you do. Home workers are less productive, rahrah... it all comes down to the CIO's personal opinion and when I challenged them on it, ha! No analysis to back it up. Sorry, but if you are making decisions based on opinions at that level and not hard data you need the boot. In addition, I have a _DEDICATED_ isolated office in my house - which is the key. A prior company I worked for, there was a rule, "I heard a crying child, I heard an animal in the background." whoops, you get three strikes. "Ohhh, you are behind on your work? Why?" peer reviewed reasons, "whoops, two strikes." fail anyone of those and you are back in the office for six months. On the next failure you lose the work from home permanently.
I also find I am _more_ productive working from home. My 75 mile commute becomes my work time (family is asleep anyway) and I spend _way_ less time interacting with peers just BS'ing (yeah I recorded the amount of peer engaged BS and wasted time in face to face meetings after the conference call was disconnected and sitting at my desk and it amounted to anywhere from 8 - 12 hours a week...). Quite frankly while I am a pleasant person and people often like to talk to me, I go to work... to you know? Work? If I wanted to interact with you on a social level, I would after hours.
It is also very likely you suck at working from home - it is nothing to be shamed of as some people thrive at home and some thrive in the office. Each of us are different and our skills and individual abilities are what makes a workplace productive. You also should be commended, you have determined that being in the office works for you and not at home and I have determined that working from home is more productive for me.
This entire one size fits all mentality that a lot of leadership has is a very good example of bad leadership skills.
vote trump or lose your guns with just 911 to hopefully make it in time to save you
It is about time you people stop using the tired old rhetoric that some jackbooted individual is just going to turn up one day and take your guns away out of the blue due to no fault of your own. It ain't going to happen. There are enough of us progressive / liberal types that are gun owners (I own multiple) that believe in our 2nd amendment to keep our party in check.
Painfully ignorant. Do you understand that nuclear power works in exactly the same as coal except instead of trucking in tons of coal you simply put a pile of fissile material under the water and let it sit there for a very long time before you need to refuel ? The only expense is the initial refining of the U235 but after that you can breed more fuel.
Beyond these relatively small fixed costs, nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need. One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying. But it is completely wrong to argue that nuclear is intrinsically more expensive than paying to dig up and cart around thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of coal.
Hold on a second "nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need." yes we do. Do you care to identify the safety regulations that you think we do not need that is adding to the cost of nuke?
Also: "One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying." -- yes, I agree that is the major concern for me. Breeder reactors are generally frowned upon because of their refinement proliferation potential and our direct allies have also shutdown their breeder programs. The only states still operating them are proliferation states. The additional downside to breeder reactors is the increased nuclear waste and higher potential for radiation exposure. These are not marginal concerns, these are quite frankly life altering and life ending concerns.
My reasons for opposing nuclear power is not because of the science (I understand the science) my concern is I do not trust corporations to operate in the common good. Davis-Besse which is not far from where I live is one of the major concerns I have. You state that increased safety regulations have increased the cost of nuclear power, yes it has, but the operational negligence of operators over the years have required increased safety requirements and Davis-Besse is a prime example of a major lapse in safety culture.
Other than the safety issues reactor design has come along way since the old 1950->1980's era reactors (for those that disagree ask the US Navy) and modern designs are a lot safer and more reliable. The sticking point is the safety culture surrounding them.
Let's just make the market fair by imposing similar restrictions on coal, petroleum and gas. Coal is a radioactive substance too.
Yes you are correct, but the potential of a nuclear plant releasing highly concentrated deadly amounts of radiation in to the atmosphere in quick succession is higher than that of coal. While I agree coal has a lasting effect on the environment and human health and can lead to chronic health issues, acute radiation poisoning in the short can lead to death and in the long, lead to increased cancer risks and other related health issues.
One additional item; my post was also directed at the unqualified to own a firearm... I was buying a.308 bolt action last year and a head of me was a lady buying what looked like a.38 special. She had zero clue how to hold it safely, was handed a firearm and just assumed it was not loaded and did not know the difference between target and defense rounds.That scares me. I understand her right to defend herself, but I do not understand her right to use a weapon she could kill my wife, child, family member, friends or even myself with because she doesn't want to spend a hundred or so hours at a range learning how to be effective?
How do I know she was going to go to the range? Because when the clerk looked at me and saw my facial expressions he asked and I quote: "Ma'am, do you plan to head to range to learn how to safely use it?" her response, "Inaaah.... do not have time for that."
The issue isn't 'gun violence,' the issue is 'violence.' Somebody wants to massacre a room full of whoever, they're going to massacre a room full of whoever, guns or no guns. Chainsaw, propane tank, backpack full of molotovs (mix in egg whites in the right proportion for simple napalm,) cube van, diesel/fertilizer bomb, baseball bat, whatever.
Whaddup back at'ya!:)
True. But out of everything you just said a firearm is the most effective and quite frankly easiest by a magnitude to get a high body count for your average joe. Shoot, I've lost count the times I've made napalm and thermite as a kid, but by far a gun was easier. But you are 100% right the issue is violence, guns are the easiest form to commit it.
Unfortunately there is the side of me that goes: Okay, we prevent individual x from getting a gun.,.. when does he come back with diesel and fertilizer as an alternative to get the job done? Are we forcing these people to more extreme measures?
So you're trying mighty hard to ignore the repeated questions (about Clinton's statements) put to the director, asking if her statements were true. His repeated answers: "That was untrue."
Again you claimed the director she said she lied:
"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."
Comey also said that there were some emails that were insufficiently marked and there were no basis to conclude that Clinton lied to the FBI about her email practices.
Clinton asserting that Comey said her public statements were true may have been a stretch by Clinton, but his lack of damnation and making the comment he is not qualified to comment on them is not affirmation she lied.
Funny thing about that, the whole birther controversy was started by the Clinton campaign in 2008, when she was running against Obama for the presidential nomination. I guess that means her credibility is even worse than the right-wing's, right?
Funny thing is that it was NOT. There were a lot of questions thrown around by both the left and the right; most of the questions were whether he was a Muslim or not (who cares anyway) and a few Clinton supporters and surrogates repeated anonymous emails asking, "Is he an American?" in a desperate attempt to keep her campaign afloat, but it was dropped by these individuals pretty quickly. Cue the right (who already were involved) running with it, in fact foaming at the mouth with it.
Now if we step back to 2004, Andy Martin accused Barack Obama of being a complete fraud and who had lied about his heritage" in his memoir. So this was the actual start of accusations Barack Obama was lying. Cue 1st Obama presidential cycle when a post on freerepublic.com commented on him being sworn in on the Koran for his senate seat and not being naturally born and it took off from there where Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant and Trump etc all foaming at the mouth and screaming he was not naturally born.
Nobody has cared for years. Now it's just a handy red herring for the left.
No, it is not a handy red herring it is a great insight in to the opinions of a man running for president. Past comments and opinions DO MATTER no matter how inconvenient it is for your candidate.
I know, how about we let the FBI director explain to you that she lied repeatedly about her efforts to avoid public scrutiny of her public records and her casual mis-handling of extremely sensitive classified material? She's on the record lying about it from the day the coverage of that mess started, and she's still doing it today - though she's learned to spend eight months at a time without a single press conference in order to avoid digging that hole any deeper.
Comey Let's quote him shall we?
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked Comey at the July 7 congressional hearing, "Did she lie to the public?" Comey responded, "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said in a July 5 statement.
Comey also said that there were some emails that were insufficiently marked and there were no basis to conclude that Clinton lied to the FBI about her email practices.
So here are the issues:
1) Did Clinton lie to the public? If so why? Was it to cover it up, or was there material and reasons that we as the public and not security authorized to know and she took the best approach she could? BTW YOU and I are not qualified to answer that beyond offering an opinion (and they are like assholes...).
The ONLY thing we can go on here is the integrity of the FBI Director and the Justice Department; the fact they are NOT intending to press criminal charges implies a) they are corrupt (again, please prove it) b) or the wrong doing was not sufficient enough to constitute criminal negligence or intent.
2) Now the remaining issues of her operating a private email server stem back many administrations as Colin Powell has provided a glance in to himself. Also, the Bush administration would routinely use an RNC email server for correspondence and have committed massive intentional email purges. All of which has NEVER came under any congressional scrutiny like Hillary Clinton's has.
Why is it that we have a culture in our government that thinks they can do whatever they want? Why is it we have a culture in our government that think they can spend our tax dollars targeting one person for their parties gain? If you think Trump will be any different you are totally wrong. He has shown zero transparency AT ALL during his campaign (worse than Clinton, which quite frankly is shocking) and his distinct lack of answering any questions directly or producing any solid and concrete details in his "policies" is just dumbfounding.
This entire situation is a freaking mess and anyone that thinks it comes down to one person (Hillary) is quite frankly so stupid they need their internet access revoked. If the right actually wanted to help the country, they would not have been focusing solely on Clinton during Benghazi or this email situation they would have broadened the scope of the inquiry to include decades of Embassy security issues (including deaths) and decades of operating informational sources outside of government control and oversight, and the amount if information security breaches of existing government systems, instead, it is all about stopping Hillary Clinton... great...
Predicted response: "Won't someone think of the children! Guns kill people, encryption doesn't!"
Alas when it comes to proponents of gun control, you don't often encounter honest or thoughtful people. They have a single goal in mind and ignore all of the existing regulation on the books today.
Hi, I am Tesen and I am a thoughtful person. I am all for gun control, but not targeted at guns, but people. The amount of accidental shootings in our country is incredible (including accidental discharge by adults and children with access to unsecured firearms). In Ohio, unless you are going for concealed carry the only "regulation" that is required is if you want to hunt, but you can attest that you have undergone a hunter safety class before (I attested, since I went through two as a child and young adult but no longer had paper proof that I did). The concealed carry classes are quite frankly pathetic.
All my progressive and liberal friends (I am progressive) do not want to ban guns (though we often wonder why people want tactical / military looking weaponry, whatever though, their choice) but we would like more training before a person is able to take a firearm home. Unfortunately there are far to many individuals that lack common sense, so in order for them to be safe, they need extensive training. Yes I know, it does punish those of us that are well trained and safe, but this could be a new law, that first time gun buyers must complete a training course and gun range safety / exercises or prove that they have. As time progresses training and safety improves.
To me my gun's are like my chainsaw, my SUV etc... all tools that have a correct and a "wrong and dangerous" way to be used.
To be honest I am getting sick of people claiming those of us that want some kind of firearms control are unthoughtful; I hunt and will NEVER give up my firearms, but that does not mean we can;t improve safety, improve background checks etc.
Perhaps I'm a special snowflake, but I also don't discuss my workouts or diet etc. with anybody, except for cases like this. Heck, each device brand gives different estimations on calories burned. My fitbit shows an extra 300 calories a day burned versus the same time last year for the same routine. Software updates.
I wouldn't say a false sense of accomplishment but poor accuracy/bad math can cause poor results.
Exactly. I used the app "Lose It" to drop huge amounts of weight several years ago to track calorie/carb count and with reasonable exercise; due to meds and health reasons I have put on weight again and are back at the point to lose it. If I compare Fitbit vs. Lose It calorie estimates on food, waaaay different. I am about to switch back to Lose It, but then I lose the combined steps, heart rate and calorie intake in one place... which sucks.
I also use http://nutritiondata.self.com/ a lot last time to help plan meals in advance etc; instead of putting random ingredients I think I know stats about in my food, I plan my meals around using that site last time for nutrient tracking (understand it is just a guide).
Slashdot Mirror
Because they want to remain a sovereign nation going their own way and don't confirm with whatever path the globalists of everythings destruction want to take.
Why the fuck the rest of the European leaders don't go the same way as Russia I have no fucking clue.
Sweden is destroyed. Germany is destroyed. I guess UK and France also are. Yay!
You mean like invading other countries? You understand that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union in some form right? You understand the amount of waste and environmental damage that the cold war caused the world right? You understand the loss of freedoms both in the former Soviet Union and in the USA / Europe was pretty extreme right? All these countries would imprison you if you showed any dissidence (at their worst state of paranoia) or would have you under a microscope...
So we have my country (US) already invading other countries and maintaining a military force, Russia has been doing this too and appears to be ratcheting it up. Yup... another cold war on the way. The only difference is now China gets to throw its cards in to the mix. Awesome. Just fracking awesome.
And I agree with the post below, how the hell is Sweden and Germany destroyed?
Wage slave here. Recently changed jobs (moved) and new company gives only 8 days a year vacation+Personal Holiday+mandatory holiday. I would love to work less... My wife and I are still discussing if we could afford for me to be Mr. Mom and her to work (she does make 2x what I make)... Lately I have been working the actual hours I get paid for, and have even been taking all of the breaks I am entitled to, but nobody ever takes, and my life satisfaction has gone way up. It's not that most americans are addicted to their job, it's that they are made to feel that if they don't work 120% of the hours they are "paid to work" then they will look like slackers and be let go.
Exactly. My company just changed its performance evaluations (i.e. read: we want to screw you on bonus potential and salary increase). If you get exceeds expectations two years in a row, that becomes your new "meets" expectations. Or to put another way, our job description has a clause, "Requires the occasional overtime.", so if you are being forced to work a lot of OT to meet unrealistic project demands and you meet them and your quality is excellent, but the only way you accomplished that was long hours at work? Guess what, you better hope you do not exceed expectations two years in a row, else do not expect a bonus or raise the following year and if your productivity drops, you will get "does not meet expectations."
This of course has been sold under the, "We want employees to strive for excellence and be challenged and not get bored." right after telling us that last year due to salary increases and bonuses, our labor costs have gone up a million... yup. Either our CIO is an idiot and let stuff slipped, or our CIO is brilliant and just planted the seeds of discontent so more people senior people with families leave (no severance paid out.) so they can bring in cheaper college grads or offshore.
Welcome to America, where no body gives a fuck about anyone else... and you know what? My attitude over the last year or so has been going down hill, I used to care about my job and other people, but right now I do not care about my career (there is always another job out there) and only care about my family. I've come to the conclusion that, this is the way our elites want it... divided and miserable.
Except the White House/State Department told her she could set up her own server.
And the fact that past administrations did the same damn thing. Shit, I still want those 22 million Bush era emails back.Nay, the email situation, the Benghazi attacks (another right wing hack job) stems from decades of mismanagement and unfortunately the old saying holds true: "Here is the new boss, who is the same as the old boss".
I would take the Clinton email situation a little more seriously if The Congress didn't target her specifically to take down and give previous administrations free passes. Seriously, Clinton is a result of what the "oversight" committees have let run loose and wild for decades. The entire point of the three branches of government were controls and oversights, so we have 13 embassy attacks with 60 dead prior to Benghazi, ZERO, ZERO investigations or people held accountable, status-quo oh well, more peons where they came from. We have the Bush administration using RNC servers for government correspondence to avoid FOI too and contrary to what you all may believe, the RNC is not the government, it is simply a political organization (you can start one too if you wanted!), nothing done or said, no one held accountable.
If you think Trump is an outsider and will not fall victim to the above you would be mistaken; Trump did not get to where he is without rubbing elbows with the political and financial elite; I mean shit, Trump by his own admissions is one of the financial elite as he says he is worth billions of dollars (definitely got a taxpayer bail out, by not paying nearly a billion dollars in taxes, sounds like an elitist to me). If we have learned anything over the last decade and a half (thank you Mr. Snowden) that the elite think they can do whatever they want. Trump is a prime example of this (as is Clinton).
Trump also claims that he is the best at everything because he hires the best people; this email server may contain nothing that can be used against Trump (whether publicly of privately), but it does show a lack of critical thinking. Out of one side of his mouth he is taking Hillary to task about her insecure email environment that was compromised with sensitive material on it, and the other side of his mouth he is so arrogant he has not even tried to clean his own house...
Bottom line: If Trump gets in, we are totally and utterly fucked, if Hillary gets in, we are a lot less fucked, but still fucked...
Reach around anyone?
Not many believe Trump is clean, and quite frankly very few care. They only care that Hillary is much dirtier, and the establishment is out of control with corruption.
Can you provide irrefutable evidence that Clinton is dirtier? Trump has a lot of skeletons in his closest and David Cay Johnston addresses some of this in his book "The Making of Donald Trump" (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GYPLR1U/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1).
Well worth reading if you intend to vote for Trump...
You managed to contradict yourself within the first two sentences. Yes, the democrats have a system -- a rigged system. But, please, describe what you mean by "people like Sanders". In this case, the definition was: people who aren't Hillary.
Or you do not understand how the democrat system works? I disagree with the super delegate system, but it exists in the democrat rules. Hardly "rigging" of a system, since Bernie ran in the democrat primary, which means he obviously accepted the rules of the game.
Putin has no long game. You fucking computer geeks act like you know everything.
I am sure it is not your fault you are dumb.
Shut up and stop making sense. Everybody knows that Russians did it because Russians are bad and they like Trump, therefore Trump and Russians are in league with each other to destroy America. That's all the evidence we need!
Sure, we laughed at Mitt Romney 4 years ago when he said Russia was our enemy, but then again we elected an inexperienced non-insider candidate then. Now we say that the country CAN'T have an inexperienced outsider candidate, because that's not what ours is. A Wall Street endorsed 1% candidate is what's best.
Are you kidding me? Both are Wall Street endorsed, lol. Trump is connected to Wall Street as is Hillary. To think that Trump does not rub elbows with the same people as hillary is naive in the extreme. You do not get to both of their levels in our society with out this happening, do you actually think there are different entities interacting with politicians based on how they emerged? Nope. They are the same, one is cold and a liar (Hillary) and one is a sociopath and a lies more than the other (Trump) and is a sexual pervert, but both coordinate with Wall Street.
As for the hacking, Russia has been on our top 2 threat list to our country for over a decade; in this day in age most countries are trying to hack others (even friends). Shit, our own CIA spied on our own Senate. This is not a false flag by the Clinton campaign in coordination with our government, this is Julian Assange coordinating with Russia (to what degree, who knows). In my opinion Julian is scared, he is running out of time since the current Ecuadorian president does not plan to run again (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/23/ecuador-correa-wont-run-again-in-2017/) and that pretty much is his last friend. He hates Hillary and she hates him, so he is probably hoping that Trump will either ignore him, or pardon him.
Again, this is my $0.02 but Hillary has supported President Obama's intention to bring Snowden and Assange to trial here in the US. And again my $0.02 a Trump presidency is a presidency built on arrogance and incompetence and that is easily exploitable by Putin, in addition, a Trump presidency means that congress and the administration will be at odds, again four years of getting nothing done, so that is great for Russia too.
Putin plays the long game, we tend to play the short game here which is why we are fucked.
Proof? Citations?
Interesting post. I'll assume the knave is clinton and the fool is trump for this post.
One of the reasons I would prefer trump is accountability. Hear me out.
I know damn well that if trump made a mistake as president, the media would not hesitate to nail his ass to the wall, and impeach him if possible. Clinton, not so much.
I heard you out and I disagree; Trump has ZERO personal accountability, he airs some weak apologies and his body language demonstrates he does not believe what he is apologizing for. His opinions are based on his ego and very loose connection to reality (47% of the time, 53% some made up reality). Trump dragged out Bill's sexual encounters and wanted to put them in his family box until he was told no and they will be escorted out. He has been married _three_ times and has a worst history of being a sexual predator than Bill Clinton (who quite frankly, has been accused of rape, but not proven and has proven to cheat on his wife and use his position to influence women to sleep with him and Trump steps in to an even worse category...). He has a history of Miss. Universe contestants complaining he would show up unannounced in their dressing rooms while they were changing and often naked. He calls women fat pigs, he calls entire religions untrustworthy, he makes blanket claims he is the best at everything even when his own prior hired employees contradict him on these claims.
Trump to paraphrase when talking about our system wants to "Rip it out" and start again; he told Clinton he would have gotten more done last night if he were a senator than her and will make all these broad sweeping changes as president, which in itself seems like he thinks he is going to turn our country in to the Trump dynasty and make former President Bushes, "I am the decider" seem modest in comparison. He has ZERO idea of the cost of his proposals, ripping it out _is_expensive and he has yet to even provide a shred of supportable academic evidence that he is a) a great businessman, b) his proposals would actually help the country. He has ZERO idea the cost of his tax proposals and the lower-end of the spectrum families will actually see an increase in their tax burden and we will increase the deficit. He thinks when he is president that he is going to somehow make Clinton end up in jail (your papers please?) which is a pretty bold statement which has basically no basis in reality. He talks about Aleppo as if he is an expert and quite frankly I would this debate full of fluff, none of the moderators questioned Trump or Clinton on even basis demographics about Aleppo to gauge whether they even prepared for this debate. Trump still hangs on the claim that the Obama Administration created ISIS or allowed it to grow, when in fact ISIS has an organization grew out of the ashes of Iraq and the prior administrations invasion, which also made claims of, "All you gotta do, is introduce democracy to these countries and watch them flourish." Trump has taken that simply down to, "All you gotta do is elect me President and I will destroy ISIS."
You also may know damn well that the Media would nail his ass if he made a mistake? Sure okay, like President Bush? He got a free pass _alot_ from both congress and the media. Look at what Obama has had to endure? Hell, look at what Clinton has had to endure for some mistakes that were repeats of the previous administration basically, she got dragged _over_ the coals by the media and the congress. No, Trump will use his executive privilege if he were elected to hide his mistakes, it would make the Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations look like a glass house, everything apparent and open to the public.
Trump is a disgusting individual -- Hillary is cold and an unapologetic liar but she also has a history of getting things done and actually helping "the little people" whereas Trump has a history of screwing over the little people and with an unapologetic response, "It's business, I am a good businessman." which is a very good indicatio
These Wikileaks releases do seem pretty one-sided. Is it just a function of what they do and don't have (it's surprising they didn't have that Trump recording)? But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past. However it's not surprising there's lots of skeletons in either candidate's closet... but again, why doesn't Assange have any of Trump's?
Problem is, from what I've seen over the past few months on Slashdot - it's obviously going to be hard to have a rational discussion on these questions here right now. People are way too ready to overlook their preferred candidate's foibles.
I find it interesting the connection between WikiLeaks and Russia add on top of that the business connections and announced respect that Donald Trump has for Putin. Yes, it could all be very coincidental and perhaps WikiLeaks / Russia is playing to the gaffes of Trump (and he keeps falling for it and fueling the fire, which is a problem in of it self). Add on his business history is less than stellar, the losses he has had, the very disgusting comments he has made about women, minorities etc and you get a very odd looking if not ugly looking picture.
I hate to bring this election down to Hillary vs. Trump -- unfortunately at the presidential level that is it. 3rd parties at this point are not going to win the White House, but obtaining senate and house seats both at the federal and state levels is very possible. Gear up folks, spend the next couple of years finding indies that are not batshit crazy and lets try to change the system for us.
The real reason? Simple: people are lazy as shit. If you give them a chance to slack off, they will. And that's far more likely at home than at work where a pointy-haired boss can tell you something else that needs doing.
All the rest is just hand-wavy bullshit. And it's right. I personally think "working from home" is *never* as efficient as a dedicated, isolated workspace. If you do it, it should be a level of trust you EARN from a company, certainly not start with. Plus, I think if you work from home you should get paid less, because working from home is so desirable and convenient.
And I personally have the full choice of working from home, or at my office; I've worked for the firm for 23 years, they couldn't care less. But generally, I work from the office.
Utter bullshit. Sorry, I work from home 2 - 3 days a week and dealing with a new CIO that thinks the same way as you do. Home workers are less productive, rahrah... it all comes down to the CIO's personal opinion and when I challenged them on it, ha! No analysis to back it up. Sorry, but if you are making decisions based on opinions at that level and not hard data you need the boot. In addition, I have a _DEDICATED_ isolated office in my house - which is the key. A prior company I worked for, there was a rule, "I heard a crying child, I heard an animal in the background." whoops, you get three strikes. "Ohhh, you are behind on your work? Why?" peer reviewed reasons, "whoops, two strikes." fail anyone of those and you are back in the office for six months. On the next failure you lose the work from home permanently.
I also find I am _more_ productive working from home. My 75 mile commute becomes my work time (family is asleep anyway) and I spend _way_ less time interacting with peers just BS'ing (yeah I recorded the amount of peer engaged BS and wasted time in face to face meetings after the conference call was disconnected and sitting at my desk and it amounted to anywhere from 8 - 12 hours a week...). Quite frankly while I am a pleasant person and people often like to talk to me, I go to work... to you know? Work? If I wanted to interact with you on a social level, I would after hours.
It is also very likely you suck at working from home - it is nothing to be shamed of as some people thrive at home and some thrive in the office. Each of us are different and our skills and individual abilities are what makes a workplace productive. You also should be commended, you have determined that being in the office works for you and not at home and I have determined that working from home is more productive for me.
This entire one size fits all mentality that a lot of leadership has is a very good example of bad leadership skills.
vote trump or lose your guns with just 911 to hopefully make it in time to save you
It is about time you people stop using the tired old rhetoric that some jackbooted individual is just going to turn up one day and take your guns away out of the blue due to no fault of your own. It ain't going to happen. There are enough of us progressive / liberal types that are gun owners (I own multiple) that believe in our 2nd amendment to keep our party in check.
Just install Norton AV on it, and add McAfee to be sure. Then, even a botnet wouldn't want to anymore run on that device
Don't forget Sophos to really finish it off ;-)
What consequences exactly?
Yeah I am waiting for that myself; I run services on Azure quite fine with out any consequences.
Painfully ignorant. Do you understand that nuclear power works in exactly the same as coal except instead of trucking in tons of coal you simply put a pile of fissile material under the water and let it sit there for a very long time before you need to refuel ? The only expense is the initial refining of the U235 but after that you can breed more fuel.
Beyond these relatively small fixed costs, nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need. One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying. But it is completely wrong to argue that nuclear is intrinsically more expensive than paying to dig up and cart around thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of coal.
Hold on a second "nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need." yes we do. Do you care to identify the safety regulations that you think we do not need that is adding to the cost of nuke?
Also: "One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying." -- yes, I agree that is the major concern for me. Breeder reactors are generally frowned upon because of their refinement proliferation potential and our direct allies have also shutdown their breeder programs. The only states still operating them are proliferation states. The additional downside to breeder reactors is the increased nuclear waste and higher potential for radiation exposure. These are not marginal concerns, these are quite frankly life altering and life ending concerns.
My reasons for opposing nuclear power is not because of the science (I understand the science) my concern is I do not trust corporations to operate in the common good. Davis-Besse which is not far from where I live is one of the major concerns I have. You state that increased safety regulations have increased the cost of nuclear power, yes it has, but the operational negligence of operators over the years have required increased safety requirements and Davis-Besse is a prime example of a major lapse in safety culture.
Other than the safety issues reactor design has come along way since the old 1950->1980's era reactors (for those that disagree ask the US Navy) and modern designs are a lot safer and more reliable. The sticking point is the safety culture surrounding them.
Let's just make the market fair by imposing similar restrictions on coal, petroleum and gas. Coal is a radioactive substance too.
Yes you are correct, but the potential of a nuclear plant releasing highly concentrated deadly amounts of radiation in to the atmosphere in quick succession is higher than that of coal. While I agree coal has a lasting effect on the environment and human health and can lead to chronic health issues, acute radiation poisoning in the short can lead to death and in the long, lead to increased cancer risks and other related health issues.
One additional item; my post was also directed at the unqualified to own a firearm... I was buying a .308 bolt action last year and a head of me was a lady buying what looked like a .38 special. She had zero clue how to hold it safely, was handed a firearm and just assumed it was not loaded and did not know the difference between target and defense rounds.That scares me. I understand her right to defend herself, but I do not understand her right to use a weapon she could kill my wife, child, family member, friends or even myself with because she doesn't want to spend a hundred or so hours at a range learning how to be effective?
How do I know she was going to go to the range? Because when the clerk looked at me and saw my facial expressions he asked and I quote: "Ma'am, do you plan to head to range to learn how to safely use it?" her response, "Inaaah.... do not have time for that."
Whaddup, fellow liberal gunny?
The issue isn't 'gun violence,' the issue is 'violence.' Somebody wants to massacre a room full of whoever, they're going to massacre a room full of whoever, guns or no guns. Chainsaw, propane tank, backpack full of molotovs (mix in egg whites in the right proportion for simple napalm,) cube van, diesel/fertilizer bomb, baseball bat, whatever.
Whaddup back at'ya! :)
True. But out of everything you just said a firearm is the most effective and quite frankly easiest by a magnitude to get a high body count for your average joe. Shoot, I've lost count the times I've made napalm and thermite as a kid, but by far a gun was easier. But you are 100% right the issue is violence, guns are the easiest form to commit it.
Unfortunately there is the side of me that goes: Okay, we prevent individual x from getting a gun.,.. when does he come back with diesel and fertilizer as an alternative to get the job done? Are we forcing these people to more extreme measures?
So you're trying mighty hard to ignore the repeated questions (about Clinton's statements) put to the director, asking if her statements were true. His repeated answers: "That was untrue."
Again you claimed the director she said she lied:
"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."
Comey also said that there were some emails that were insufficiently marked and there were no basis to conclude that Clinton lied to the FBI about her email practices.
Clinton asserting that Comey said her public statements were true may have been a stretch by Clinton, but his lack of damnation and making the comment he is not qualified to comment on them is not affirmation she lied.
Truth does not require trying hard...
Funny thing about that, the whole birther controversy was started by the Clinton campaign in 2008, when she was running against Obama for the presidential nomination. I guess that means her credibility is even worse than the right-wing's, right?
Funny thing is that it was NOT. There were a lot of questions thrown around by both the left and the right; most of the questions were whether he was a Muslim or not (who cares anyway) and a few Clinton supporters and surrogates repeated anonymous emails asking, "Is he an American?" in a desperate attempt to keep her campaign afloat, but it was dropped by these individuals pretty quickly. Cue the right (who already were involved) running with it, in fact foaming at the mouth with it.
Now if we step back to 2004, Andy Martin accused Barack Obama of being a complete fraud and who had lied about his heritage" in his memoir. So this was the actual start of accusations Barack Obama was lying. Cue 1st Obama presidential cycle when a post on freerepublic.com commented on him being sworn in on the Koran for his senate seat and not being naturally born and it took off from there where Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant and Trump etc all foaming at the mouth and screaming he was not naturally born.
Nobody has cared for years. Now it's just a handy red herring for the left.
No, it is not a handy red herring it is a great insight in to the opinions of a man running for president. Past comments and opinions DO MATTER no matter how inconvenient it is for your candidate.
I know, how about we let the FBI director explain to you that she lied repeatedly about her efforts to avoid public scrutiny of her public records and her casual mis-handling of extremely sensitive classified material? She's on the record lying about it from the day the coverage of that mess started, and she's still doing it today - though she's learned to spend eight months at a time without a single press conference in order to avoid digging that hole any deeper.
Comey Let's quote him shall we?
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked Comey at the July 7 congressional hearing, "Did she lie to the public?"
Comey responded, "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said in a July 5 statement.
Comey also said that there were some emails that were insufficiently marked and there were no basis to conclude that Clinton lied to the FBI about her email practices.
So here are the issues:
1) Did Clinton lie to the public? If so why? Was it to cover it up, or was there material and reasons that we as the public and not security authorized to know and she took the best approach she could? BTW YOU and I are not qualified to answer that beyond offering an opinion (and they are like assholes...).
The ONLY thing we can go on here is the integrity of the FBI Director and the Justice Department; the fact they are NOT intending to press criminal charges implies a) they are corrupt (again, please prove it) b) or the wrong doing was not sufficient enough to constitute criminal negligence or intent.
2) Now the remaining issues of her operating a private email server stem back many administrations as Colin Powell has provided a glance in to himself. Also, the Bush administration would routinely use an RNC email server for correspondence and have committed massive intentional email purges. All of which has NEVER came under any congressional scrutiny like Hillary Clinton's has.
Why is it that we have a culture in our government that thinks they can do whatever they want? Why is it we have a culture in our government that think they can spend our tax dollars targeting one person for their parties gain? If you think Trump will be any different you are totally wrong. He has shown zero transparency AT ALL during his campaign (worse than Clinton, which quite frankly is shocking) and his distinct lack of answering any questions directly or producing any solid and concrete details in his "policies" is just dumbfounding.
This entire situation is a freaking mess and anyone that thinks it comes down to one person (Hillary) is quite frankly so stupid they need their internet access revoked. If the right actually wanted to help the country, they would not have been focusing solely on Clinton during Benghazi or this email situation they would have broadened the scope of the inquiry to include decades of Embassy security issues (including deaths) and decades of operating informational sources outside of government control and oversight, and the amount if information security breaches of existing government systems, instead, it is all about stopping Hillary Clinton... great...
Predicted response: "Won't someone think of the children! Guns kill people, encryption doesn't!"
Alas when it comes to proponents of gun control, you don't often encounter honest or thoughtful people. They have a single goal in mind and ignore all of the existing regulation on the books today.
Hi, I am Tesen and I am a thoughtful person. I am all for gun control, but not targeted at guns, but people. The amount of accidental shootings in our country is incredible (including accidental discharge by adults and children with access to unsecured firearms). In Ohio, unless you are going for concealed carry the only "regulation" that is required is if you want to hunt, but you can attest that you have undergone a hunter safety class before (I attested, since I went through two as a child and young adult but no longer had paper proof that I did). The concealed carry classes are quite frankly pathetic.
All my progressive and liberal friends (I am progressive) do not want to ban guns (though we often wonder why people want tactical / military looking weaponry, whatever though, their choice) but we would like more training before a person is able to take a firearm home. Unfortunately there are far to many individuals that lack common sense, so in order for them to be safe, they need extensive training. Yes I know, it does punish those of us that are well trained and safe, but this could be a new law, that first time gun buyers must complete a training course and gun range safety / exercises or prove that they have. As time progresses training and safety improves.
To me my gun's are like my chainsaw, my SUV etc... all tools that have a correct and a "wrong and dangerous" way to be used.
To be honest I am getting sick of people claiming those of us that want some kind of firearms control are unthoughtful; I hunt and will NEVER give up my firearms, but that does not mean we can;t improve safety, improve background checks etc.
Or apparently no critical thinking needed when everything can be written off as a vast Clinton conspiracy.
I am so sick of the tinfoil hats that humanity likes to wear. Prove or get off the pot.
Perhaps I'm a special snowflake, but I also don't discuss my workouts or diet etc. with anybody, except for cases like this. Heck, each device brand gives different estimations on calories burned. My fitbit shows an extra 300 calories a day burned versus the same time last year for the same routine. Software updates.
I wouldn't say a false sense of accomplishment but poor accuracy /bad math can cause poor results.
Exactly. I used the app "Lose It" to drop huge amounts of weight several years ago to track calorie/carb count and with reasonable exercise; due to meds and health reasons I have put on weight again and are back at the point to lose it. If I compare Fitbit vs. Lose It calorie estimates on food, waaaay different. I am about to switch back to Lose It, but then I lose the combined steps, heart rate and calorie intake in one place... which sucks.
I also use http://nutritiondata.self.com/ a lot last time to help plan meals in advance etc; instead of putting random ingredients I think I know stats about in my food, I plan my meals around using that site last time for nutrient tracking (understand it is just a guide).