Well, ok.
In that "Christianity" can actually be separated into a thousand different religions, sure. You're right.
But it's largest single denomination absolutely believes what God's representative on Earth decrees- and that is that the Pop and his Bishops are uniquely vested in the authority to interpret the scripture.
Sure, as the various sects have liberalized post-reformation, the idea of universal priesthood has gained a lot of ground, but it's still hard to argue that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the concept of the Magisterium, ranging back to the time of the early church isn't a central tenet, is frankly, fucking boneheaded.
Well, it said that one glacier out of the tens of thousands measured grew instead of shrunk. But ya, I can see how a complete fucking moron would interpret that as a reversal of the trend. Carry on, soldier. Keep fighting that good fight.
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
Even post-reformational Christianity puts immense pressure on the average adherent to accept the opinion of an intraorganizational plant over any kind of independent thought you may have about the content.
I'm an atheist, but I was raised Christian.
The older I've gotten, the less forgivable it seems to me that these people peddle this snake oil.
Planck's quote isn't a refutation of the parent's claim.
Advances in science are often complicated by the fact that the old theory was usually pretty good, and thus has lots of evidence for it.
I'm going to have to rate your logic skills zero stars.
In many ways a scientist that is an atheist is the worst scientist of all because they take the non-existence of any superior beings on faith alone.
That's pure nonsense.
He takes it on a lack of evidence.
Does he deny the possibility of there being one? Na. The atheist scientist doesn't. He just laughs when you tell them it's possible we live in an electric universe and doesn't feel like playing the "refute every single one of my crack pot ideas" game with you.
It really saddens me that people like you have grown up to be so blind.
It looks to me like you've taken the conclusions of climate science, and formed a religious thought pattern around them. They certainly aren't doing that.
How strange of you.
Sadly you wasted them, because the AC was an idiot.
He goes through all this trouble of saying that consensus is not science, while using a single data point in a population to refute the whole. You know what's worse than taking something for granted simply because there's consensus? Assuming the consensus is wrong because you are woefully ignorant.
She did, indeed. The previous administration "lost" emails too. I'm sure this one will as well.
Who knows what's on them? Standard political wheeling and dealing, I imagine.
I'm sure they would have liked to have deleted more, but alas, they couldn't. There's no evidence of some vast conspiracy. What is it *you* think they were covering up?
That article is a hit piece, btw. Surely you can see that?
Look at the language it uses. It's designed to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. The author also happens to be a publish, rabid Trump supporter.
Oh, the as to "why there was intent" hinges upon the fact that Cohen said there was.
Whether or not that is credible is another story, but assuming it factual, that constitutes a criminal offense.
I never said I believed one way or another. I was simply dispelling some incorrect information about whether or not it could *be* a criminal offense.
Hide her actions?
You're so transparently partisan.
What she did, was communicate confidential information over insecure channels that she actually had the technical authority to deem secure (though they were not) to people who she had every right to communicate them to, as the Secretary of State.
Loretta Lynch was optically compromised, and was thus not involved in the decision, which led to this whole mess with Comey. The claim that the Obama Administration interfered with the investigation and had them remove language is patently false. Those decisions were made by the FBI.
Clinton paid the reasonable price for her actions- political shit flinging that stuck. Trying to go beyond that is rabid.
Mueller failed to find evidence of direct collusion, (supposedly), but also (supposedly) found tons of evidence of Russians interacting with the Trump campaign and trying to influence the direction.
So really, that means the entire thing was justified, no?
You know what it's called when a foreign government attempts to change the government of your government? Regime change.
To claim that the Russians weren't trying to change the outcome of that election is pure willful ignorance. Nothing credible has come close to casting any doubt on that conclusion.
I'm curious why you're so invested in seeing them exonerated?
Then please forgive my tone.
That particular argument is one I've seen disseminated with the passion of people trying to change reality in the minds of people who don't care to know better.
Wasn't sure if you were one of those folks, or not.
I think my argument more-so, is that member of the Cabinet have a certain amount of immunity for being retarded.
Again, I'm not justifying it... I just think it's a little bit insane to think that criminal prosecution is going to be launched against a cabinet member for a mea culpa on the handling of confidential information.
You missed the point again. You have to prove intent.
They could not prove intent with Edwards. Between you and I? Of course there was intent. But proving it is difficult.
You are correct that the law didn't specifically require mens rea.
However, you taking that thread and running with it all the way to prosecutorial misconduct is ridiculous.
I once ran afoul of the law when I was 17.
I was allowed to agree to stipulations in lieu of a criminal conviction, because the prosecutor knew it would be difficult to win the case lacking mens rea.
All the FBI did was acknowledge the difficulty of securing a criminal conviction in this instance without mens rea.
You're letting your partisanship cloud your better judgement.
A CEO has full authority to fire a secretary.
However, if he fires her because she made a sexual harassment charge against him, he has run afoul of the law.
This is of course hard to prove, because it require proving intent.
Most CEOs aren't stupid enough to clearly state their intent- as Trump did.
Obstruction of Justice is a matter of intent.
He had full authority to fire Comey. Comey wouldn't deny that, because unlike you, he's neither ignorant or dishonest. Perhaps unwise, but that's somewhat understandable given the complexity of the situation.
Where the sitting President can run afoul of the law, is to fire someone he has the authority to fire- to *Obstruct Justice*
I figured you'd appreciate the distinction between evidence and proof.
I'm not even arguing that she didn't go seriously afoul of the statute in its strictest interpretation.
But evidence of a crime is not a crime. If it were, Trump would be strung up at the gallows. Use your better judgement. Quit being a fucking shill.
You are transparently applying standards to one side that you wouldn't apply to the other. It's sickening.
I have no love for Tough Love. He's a first order gas lighting attack dog for anything he feels emotionally or financially invested in, regardless of merit.
That being said, he's not wrong.
Mueller didn't explicitly state anything. Mueller filed a report, which was summarized by the Trump-appointed AG.
That's simply a fact.
Correction: A guilty plea is in fact a conviction.
Do you really not know this?
Do you think that people who plead guilty aren't convicts?
A conviction is any determination of guilty by a party with the authority to do so. A Judge accepting a defendant's guilty plea results in a conviction from the Judge.
The Judge can also refuse to accept the defendant's guilty plea, staying the conviction until decided by a Jury.
What's your angle? Grasping for straws to defend your guy, or what?
It's also pretty clear you don't know the actual definition of that term.
Yes, he's as crooked as they come, working for... an actual fucking pathological liar.
What in the name of the fucking almighty makes you think his boss is more credible than him?
Its only a campaign contribution if can convince a jury "but for his presidential campaign, the hush money would not have been paid."
You're close, but not quite there.
All they have to prove is that there was any intent, whatsoever, to affect the optics of the campaign by paying money to hide the affair.
What's important is that they have intent. Whether he would have paid or not is entirely irrelevant. They simply had to know it was important to the campaign.
Put another way: Lying about use of money to pay for a networking trip to Vegas doesn't become legal once you can convince a Jury you would have done it even if you weren't running.
However, there's a problem here - that's not a crime,
I am so tired of you fuckwits parroting this horse shit. You either know it's false, and are trying to manipulate public opinion, or you're too fucking stupid to look it up yourself.
A campaign finance violation is a lot like a tax code violation. In itself, not typically a criminal violation. However, there's a clear line that can be crossed on both that turns it into a criminal violation- provable intent.
When the feds catch you talking about your scheme to avoid disclosure, you've nailed intent, and this moves from a fine to a criminal prosecution.
I still don't quite get the hubbub over this.
The Secretary of State mishandled classified information, at a level that would have gotten an ordinary employee either fired, or severely sanctioned.
I highly doubt she's the only one. Those rules are draconian for good reason, and heads of departments have a long and glorified history of playing fast and loose with them.
I'm not justifying it, I just don't get why you think it's as earth shattering as you do.
I have a CVE in the NVD.
It targets a piece of the linux kernel that was modified by Google for Android.
I used it for a while to push through some unlocking exploits for Android phones with read-only eMMC ships.
The thing is- the problem isn't language specific at all, and not even Rust would have saved them. It was entirely procedural.
I suspect the distribution closely follows "extant lines of code"
Slashdot Mirror
Well, ok.
In that "Christianity" can actually be separated into a thousand different religions, sure. You're right.
But it's largest single denomination absolutely believes what God's representative on Earth decrees- and that is that the Pop and his Bishops are uniquely vested in the authority to interpret the scripture.
Sure, as the various sects have liberalized post-reformation, the idea of universal priesthood has gained a lot of ground, but it's still hard to argue that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the concept of the Magisterium, ranging back to the time of the early church isn't a central tenet, is frankly, fucking boneheaded.
Well, it said that one glacier out of the tens of thousands measured grew instead of shrunk. But ya, I can see how a complete fucking moron would interpret that as a reversal of the trend. Carry on, soldier. Keep fighting that good fight.
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
Oh. From his telling, I didn't think he could win any more bigly
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
Even post-reformational Christianity puts immense pressure on the average adherent to accept the opinion of an intraorganizational plant over any kind of independent thought you may have about the content.
I'm an atheist, but I was raised Christian.
The older I've gotten, the less forgivable it seems to me that these people peddle this snake oil.
Advances in science are often complicated by the fact that the old theory was usually pretty good, and thus has lots of evidence for it.
I'm going to have to rate your logic skills zero stars.
In many ways a scientist that is an atheist is the worst scientist of all because they take the non-existence of any superior beings on faith alone.
That's pure nonsense.
He takes it on a lack of evidence.
Does he deny the possibility of there being one? Na. The atheist scientist doesn't. He just laughs when you tell them it's possible we live in an electric universe and doesn't feel like playing the "refute every single one of my crack pot ideas" game with you.
It really saddens me that people like you have grown up to be so blind.
It looks to me like you've taken the conclusions of climate science, and formed a religious thought pattern around them. They certainly aren't doing that.
How strange of you.
Sadly you wasted them, because the AC was an idiot.
He goes through all this trouble of saying that consensus is not science, while using a single data point in a population to refute the whole. You know what's worse than taking something for granted simply because there's consensus? Assuming the consensus is wrong because you are woefully ignorant.
She did, indeed. The previous administration "lost" emails too. I'm sure this one will as well.
Who knows what's on them? Standard political wheeling and dealing, I imagine.
I'm sure they would have liked to have deleted more, but alas, they couldn't. There's no evidence of some vast conspiracy. What is it *you* think they were covering up?
That article is a hit piece, btw. Surely you can see that?
Look at the language it uses. It's designed to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. The author also happens to be a publish, rabid Trump supporter.
Come on, dude.
Oh, the as to "why there was intent" hinges upon the fact that Cohen said there was.
Whether or not that is credible is another story, but assuming it factual, that constitutes a criminal offense.
I never said I believed one way or another. I was simply dispelling some incorrect information about whether or not it could *be* a criminal offense.
He said in order for there to be a criminal violation of campaign finance law, one must prove there was a "knowing and willful" violation.
Von Spakovsky believes that's a tough case to prove.
Weird. It's like I said... pretty much exactly that.
Why are you full of shit? What is it you're trying to accomplish?
Hide her actions?
You're so transparently partisan.
What she did, was communicate confidential information over insecure channels that she actually had the technical authority to deem secure (though they were not) to people who she had every right to communicate them to, as the Secretary of State.
Loretta Lynch was optically compromised, and was thus not involved in the decision, which led to this whole mess with Comey. The claim that the Obama Administration interfered with the investigation and had them remove language is patently false. Those decisions were made by the FBI.
Clinton paid the reasonable price for her actions- political shit flinging that stuck. Trying to go beyond that is rabid.
Mueller failed to find evidence of direct collusion, (supposedly), but also (supposedly) found tons of evidence of Russians interacting with the Trump campaign and trying to influence the direction.
So really, that means the entire thing was justified, no?
You know what it's called when a foreign government attempts to change the government of your government? Regime change.
To claim that the Russians weren't trying to change the outcome of that election is pure willful ignorance. Nothing credible has come close to casting any doubt on that conclusion.
I'm curious why you're so invested in seeing them exonerated?
Then please forgive my tone.
That particular argument is one I've seen disseminated with the passion of people trying to change reality in the minds of people who don't care to know better.
Wasn't sure if you were one of those folks, or not.
I think my argument more-so, is that member of the Cabinet have a certain amount of immunity for being retarded.
Again, I'm not justifying it... I just think it's a little bit insane to think that criminal prosecution is going to be launched against a cabinet member for a mea culpa on the handling of confidential information.
You missed the point again. You have to prove intent.
They could not prove intent with Edwards. Between you and I? Of course there was intent. But proving it is difficult.
You are correct that the law didn't specifically require mens rea.
However, you taking that thread and running with it all the way to prosecutorial misconduct is ridiculous.
I once ran afoul of the law when I was 17.
I was allowed to agree to stipulations in lieu of a criminal conviction, because the prosecutor knew it would be difficult to win the case lacking mens rea.
All the FBI did was acknowledge the difficulty of securing a criminal conviction in this instance without mens rea.
You're letting your partisanship cloud your better judgement.
Argh. There's no limit to your fucking ignorance.
A CEO has full authority to fire a secretary.
However, if he fires her because she made a sexual harassment charge against him, he has run afoul of the law.
This is of course hard to prove, because it require proving intent.
Most CEOs aren't stupid enough to clearly state their intent- as Trump did.
Obstruction of Justice is a matter of intent.
He had full authority to fire Comey. Comey wouldn't deny that, because unlike you, he's neither ignorant or dishonest. Perhaps unwise, but that's somewhat understandable given the complexity of the situation.
Where the sitting President can run afoul of the law, is to fire someone he has the authority to fire- to *Obstruct Justice*
I figured you'd appreciate the distinction between evidence and proof.
I'm not even arguing that she didn't go seriously afoul of the statute in its strictest interpretation.
But evidence of a crime is not a crime. If it were, Trump would be strung up at the gallows. Use your better judgement. Quit being a fucking shill.
You are transparently applying standards to one side that you wouldn't apply to the other. It's sickening.
I have no love for Tough Love. He's a first order gas lighting attack dog for anything he feels emotionally or financially invested in, regardless of merit.
That being said, he's not wrong.
Mueller didn't explicitly state anything. Mueller filed a report, which was summarized by the Trump-appointed AG.
That's simply a fact.
Correction: A guilty plea is in fact a conviction.
Do you really not know this?
Do you think that people who plead guilty aren't convicts?
A conviction is any determination of guilty by a party with the authority to do so. A Judge accepting a defendant's guilty plea results in a conviction from the Judge.
The Judge can also refuse to accept the defendant's guilty plea, staying the conviction until decided by a Jury.
What's your angle? Grasping for straws to defend your guy, or what?
he's a pathological liar
It's also pretty clear you don't know the actual definition of that term.
Yes, he's as crooked as they come, working for... an actual fucking pathological liar.
What in the name of the fucking almighty makes you think his boss is more credible than him?
Its only a campaign contribution if can convince a jury "but for his presidential campaign, the hush money would not have been paid."
You're close, but not quite there.
All they have to prove is that there was any intent, whatsoever, to affect the optics of the campaign by paying money to hide the affair.
What's important is that they have intent. Whether he would have paid or not is entirely irrelevant. They simply had to know it was important to the campaign.
Put another way: Lying about use of money to pay for a networking trip to Vegas doesn't become legal once you can convince a Jury you would have done it even if you weren't running.
However, there's a problem here - that's not a crime,
I am so tired of you fuckwits parroting this horse shit. You either know it's false, and are trying to manipulate public opinion, or you're too fucking stupid to look it up yourself.
A campaign finance violation is a lot like a tax code violation. In itself, not typically a criminal violation. However, there's a clear line that can be crossed on both that turns it into a criminal violation- provable intent.
When the feds catch you talking about your scheme to avoid disclosure, you've nailed intent, and this moves from a fine to a criminal prosecution.
I still don't quite get the hubbub over this.
The Secretary of State mishandled classified information, at a level that would have gotten an ordinary employee either fired, or severely sanctioned.
I highly doubt she's the only one. Those rules are draconian for good reason, and heads of departments have a long and glorified history of playing fast and loose with them.
I'm not justifying it, I just don't get why you think it's as earth shattering as you do.
I have a CVE in the NVD.
It targets a piece of the linux kernel that was modified by Google for Android.
I used it for a while to push through some unlocking exploits for Android phones with read-only eMMC ships.
The thing is- the problem isn't language specific at all, and not even Rust would have saved them. It was entirely procedural.
I suspect the distribution closely follows "extant lines of code"