Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - D.W.

Pages: 1 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50
Unless the Pope, the Elders or the Divine him/herself chime in with, "This guy's got it right.  They are the paragon of what it means to be X religion.", who cares?  It's such a ridiculous argument I'm a bit surprised you guys are stretching it out. 

When you are talking about faith it is an amazingly personal thing.  Maybe when we got mind reading down pat we can determine if someone is "really" X religion or not.  Until then it's about as productive as arguing which religion is correct or if God or gods exist.

Then again, I enjoy arguing about silly things too, so... carry on, I guess.

Anyone's opinions shift after last night?  The reporting seemed to indicate there was more substance to the debate once a certain someone was absent.  However, most of the reporting was commenting on that absence or how the other candidates addressed it.   ::)

How is it different?  Wasn't the intent of the fake ID's to make them more likely to speak candidly?  You know, reveal their OBVIOUSLY nefarious plans and activities to someone "in on it" rather than the general public they laugh at behind closed doors?  :)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 29, 2016, 09:55:01 AM »
One of the other witnesses said that.  It was the direct contrast to the, "Just shot him when he had his hands up"  witness statement. 

Then again, that could have been taken out of context.  From what I heard he did try to get away again in the car after the initial stop.  An agent/state trooper was in the car's path.  This COULD BE construed as "charging them"... I guess. 

Mostly the lesson is don't believe what anyone says.  Give even LESS weight to the first reports you hear.  If you see video, the shorter it is, the higher the probability additional context may change the obvious interpretation of events you were shown.

Out of curiosity, have they suggested they are pushing for the maximum sentence?  Was this just a case of, "This is serious and could be sentenced with up to 20 years."  Did TV give me (another) skewed concept of law enforcement when it suggests that you frequently threaten a maximum sentence of a higher charge as part of a process to get them to plea guilty to a lesser charge or lesser sentence?

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 29, 2016, 09:14:34 AM »
So it sounds like they released the video of the arrest and shooting.  At first I thought to myself, "Good for them.  If they sat on it this would just get worse and conspiracy theories will build."  Then after a moment it occurred to me how disturbing this would be for relatives and friends of the man.  Clean shoot or not, this means seeing someone you know killed on screen.  The national stage no less. 

I wonder if our desire for oversight and/or mistrust for authority threatens to make us forget to take into account those beyond the suspects and officers/agents involved.  We (myself included) were already wondering when/if the footage would be released before they even officially released the deceased's name.  They may very well have been trying to contact his family before doing so yet we all (or at least some of us) jump to the "something to hide" line of thinking.

Our relationship with "news" today is a strange thing.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 28, 2016, 10:01:56 AM »
Or cutting off their communication.  That they were permitted to plead for reinforcements to murder their way in if necessary boggles the mind.  I guess that even those who challenge the government to a shootout and solicit murder are entitled to free speech? 

Hopefully we don't see repeats of this.  (not sure it's resolved entirely)
There will be lots of people disappointed that the civil war was so short lived...

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 27, 2016, 11:07:25 PM »
Don't know on the guns yet.   That they took them on the road, to me demonstrates a great desire to minimize risk of violence.   Apparently that wasn't enough.   

You see the law enforcement officers as responsible if things go wrong.   I see every arrest without harm as a victory but consider every one of the suspects as volatile possibly homicidal and suicidal.  They could always surrender.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 27, 2016, 09:14:28 PM »
Ammon Bundy said:

" "To those remaining at the refuge, I love you. Let us take this fight from here. Please stand down. Go home and hug your families. This fight is ours for now in the courts. Please go home."

Wow, sounds like a really *dangerous* guy.

He got a man killed and himself shot.   I think that's plenty dangerous.   At least he has enough honor to try and talk some of his companions back from the ledge.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility they were "sure" of PP's guilt and we're willing to fabricate any "proof" required to convince others. 

*I* think their motivations were dishonorable, but they likely would lose no sleep doing whatever it takes to stop PP.  People constantly do despicable things in the name of honor.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 27, 2016, 10:15:49 AM »
Well Pete, social media is making good on some of your points.  A disturbing (to me at least) amount of people commenting "about time!" mashing "Like" buttons and in general celebrating this action and even the loss of life.

So, while I still don't appreciate it being suggested people here are bloodthirsty, the kool-aid out there on social media has a distinctive coppery taste.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 26, 2016, 10:27:41 PM »
Sounds like 1 dead and 1 injured in arrest made of the Oregon wildlife refuge occupiers.


Yet I get a pass on "got to"?

I think the car would have less passengers.   I got to believe dignity prevents some from conceding while Trump is still in the running.

It's not like they are ever going to face 20 years for this.  I'd kinda be shocked if they spent any time in the can.  It's either just to send a message to others and the charges will be dropped, or they are trying to get them to plea guilty and just hit them with a fine / community service of some sort.

The desire to "teach them a lesson" is a bit dangerous as the journalism shield they tried to hide behind, really could be damaged by going too hard on them.  At least from this lay person's perspective.

That seems like another charge that I don't see sticking.  This would be as if someone tried to purchase drugs in order to preform a citizen's arrest.  The cops (if they believed you) would be very cross, but I don't know as if they would follow through on the charges.  They may proceed with it a bit to scare you off from doing something so bone headed again... but that's probably it.

In case this comes across as a defense of these idiots, I like the way this was handled.  :P

Eww... I thought that part of the charges (was half awake alarm clock radio when I heard it) was "attempted" procurement. 

You make a good point on what isn't race(ism).  However you then go on to point out exactly why the issue becomes a gray area for some.

If you can be born into it, "by definition" it sure quacks like a duck.

I think it was faking an ID of some sort.
It sounded like kinda a not too terribly serious charge.  I expect the "undercover journalists do this too!" argument may get them out of some of this.

It sounded very much like a, "don't waste our F'ing time with this" decision to me.

With a nickname like "T-bone" he can't be all bad. 

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 25, 2016, 03:46:13 PM »
The reason you are having problems responding to me is that I'm not debating anything.  I am stating that the investigation and media persecution, going on this long, and the lack of any actual legal traction tells me all I need to know.

If she broke the law, she should be prosecuted.  I have no love for the woman or think that she would be so amazing a president that I would dismiss this issue. 

So tell me, do the wheels of justice move so slowly that they can't even move on the openly admitted to facts which you claim was not an "option"?  Nobody stopped her.  Nobody has prosecuted her for this after it became common knowledge she took that option.

I'm not burring my head in the sand.  I'm saying strait out, this is a boy who cried wolf scenario.  Wake me up if the wolf actually eats someone and the hunters put her down.  The torches and pitchforks got old months ago. 

Also you will note, I did not argue the server met any security requirement.  I in fact, suggested/asked if there may not be an entirely separate mechanism to transmit top secret documents.  Do you KNOW the answer?

I'll say one more time.  I think it was a stupid decision.  It was possibly a self serving one.  It may even be illegal (I don't know) but if it IS illegal, and provable, and there is no doubt she did something wrong...

The only conclusion is that the republican party is trying to time their "justice bombs" to do the most possible damage to their political opponents and they don't give a poop about the rule of law.

So it's either pure theater to rile up their base or more reason to vote for any Democrat that isn't behind bars instead of them.  So, I don't know how you respond to me either.  I'm stating opinion.  You can state yours but I'm not really giving you anything to debate.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 25, 2016, 03:00:07 PM »
Explain the "logic" behind redirecting emails as the Secretary of State that you know at some times will contain information that is classified to a server outside of the government's network?
I don’t KNOW that.  Maybe she did?  Again, if it’s not only a possibility, but a given, how is there even an option to host your own server?  Thus far, all the media attention has been catching a slip up.  Not in saying the existence of the server itself is the illegal act. 
In what way?
See the sentences in the paragraph my quote was cut from?  That way.  I guess.  Or ask a more specific question.
No.  But if you told someone to send you a top secret document on your google account you should be charged under the existing law.
If the law says receiving top secret documents on a google account is illegal, I agree.  Is what she set up legally equivalent to a google account?  Did she do this?  Do we have proof she did this?  If so, are those pressing the issue dragging this out to hope to exploit it at the last possible moment to win an election giving their opponents no other options?  (Too late, I think Bernie would be a solid “plan B”) 
You're taking a huge risk if you receive such an email and don't report it.
Agreed.  Did she receive anything which was indisputably obviously top secret and failed to report it?  Not “she should have known” but something that anyone would know.  Again, if this is the case, why hold their fire?  Just playing politics?
No, I think it was an ill-considered attempt at parody.
I was trivializing the situation because I don’t take it seriously.  I was not attempting parody because I don’t believe it required any help from me to be absurd. 

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 25, 2016, 01:50:38 PM »
In addition to it opening the doors to self-interested sick behavior I think it reveals a level of contempt or superiority towards the voters.  You should be able to say,
"I'm YOUR candidate and will not let my personal views get in the way of running this country for ALL of its citizenry.  I understand that a majority of votes is not a mandate to trample on the desires of the minority."

But we don't live in that world.  And people aren't smart enough to appreciate anyone who would be willing to say (let alone believe) that.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 25, 2016, 11:45:01 AM »
Maybe people are sick of politicians who don't speak from the heart and whose statements are more manufactured product than human being.
This is defiantly true but something I don't understand.  In a government system where consensus building and representing a vast array of interests IS our ideal, why do people hate someone for playing to the crowd and co-opting trends? 

To those of us who don't fit neatly into a "party brand" or long for "the good ol' days" a politician who moves with the weather of the day is not necessarily a bad thing.  Now if their only interest is power consolidation and wealth they may be a danger if they are just using what is popular to achieve it.  But the act of changing one's opinion and going with the popular is NOT a bad trait by itself.

You may argue that a president doesn't have all the power we like to pin on them while assigning blame.  I tend to agree.  However a genuine personality who speaks their mind makes for a diplomat that is beyond worthless, they are down right dangerous to our national interests.  Oh sure we may be lucky enough that the person's private views are what you believe our nation needs right now.  Odds are however that you want someone in the chair who listens to their advisers and takes them self out of the equation.  Then sets the tone and delivers what is best for the nation.  A powerless figurehead (which is far from this situation) is still important.  You may question how much a figurehead can actually achieve but I don't think many disagree that they can certainly sabotage things the rest of the government is trying to achieve.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 25, 2016, 11:24:52 AM »
WTF are you doing in our waters?!
Umm, sorry, mechanical failure.
Oh... OK, on your way then.

Thanks Obama!

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 22, 2016, 02:50:23 PM »
Am I the only one who thinks there is likely an entirely, and intentionally, divorced from typical day to day business channel that top secret / classified information is transmitted electronically?  If it must be transmitted that way at all (I envision a lot of couriers hand delivering *censored* much to the dismay of tree huggers) there is probably someone who's job it is to put the time sensitive info in front of her face.  Or at least notify her that there is an "eye's only" notification she should go check out on the magical secret box on it's own hard line to... wherever.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 22, 2016, 02:36:22 PM »
The perception of wrong doing IS a danger.  I'm convinced that there is no danger of indictment though.

Again, if what you lay out (that the only possible path of top secret communication is through an unsecured / unapproved email server) then this wouldn't have happened.

There is obviously (to me at least) another channel used for top secret communication.  If that was not the case, there would be a hard and fast rule against a private server.  It wouldn't exist in this gray area of "really bad idea, yet technically legal".  Now that said, it IS a really bad idea because you can't guarantee nobody will make a mistake and use this channel.  If the typical setup is a safety net to guard against this very thing (improperly channeled information) then, to me at least, she made a gamble she shouldn't have.

And because I don't like to attribute jaw dropping stupidity to all politicians (I like to throw in self serving deviousness now and then) I expect she thought that the benefits of going without that safety net was worth whatever convenience or advantage she gained by hosting her own servers.  This IS a strike against her IMO.  First for trying to game the system to her own advantage by taking a potential risk (unless even that is B.S. and there is no tangible risk) and second by loosing the bet.  If it went beyond a smear campaign I don't believe the GOP could keep it in their pants this long.

They are hoping their fairy godmother (or manly and hetero God-father?) delivers them a miracle and their opposition self destructs before their eyes if only they believe... really hard.  Click your heels together 3 times and repeat benghazi & emails until the general election is over.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 22, 2016, 02:05:55 PM »
Maybe they should give Microsoft, Google and Apple a backdoor into the federal and private use government servers.  I'm sure they can craft some sort of top secret spam filter.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 22, 2016, 01:56:34 PM »
Until charges are brought, I assume it's all BS politicking.  Not a catch all, but it saves a lot of energy.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 22, 2016, 01:08:50 PM »
For me, it breaks down on if there was a legal method of handling being the recipient of an obviously top secret document.  What responsibility, as a recipient, does she have to safeguard those communications?

If there is a responsibility to do so (not only obey the rules but prevent others from breaking them in your presence) how is operating a private server not concretely prohibited?  I know a lot of things can get messy in a bureaucracy, but really?  This seems like the kind of thing even technologically illiterate old men could have foreseen and written into law.

As it was not, either the whole system is full of idiots (plausible I guess) or she didn't do anything wrong.  (likely) 

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 21, 2016, 09:11:42 PM »
You may be onto something to explain why they prefer to overreach and just hope the vague "something bad went down and you can't trust them" sticks.

The crap part is "something bad" probably did go down,  but my negative reaction to the ploy is stronger than the reaction I have to the shocking theory politicians treat rules and law as a game to be played.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 21, 2016, 08:17:12 PM »
I'd agree with you Pete.   The accusations seem to avoid that type of low hanging fruit.  Because of this,  I infer / assume she likely did...  That,  or the line on what is top secret / classified is not always obvious.   So much so that someone is sending it and she is reading it and it's obvious to neither.

Now because this may be the case,  the whole scenario shouldn't fall into a gray zone.  It was a DUMB way to... do whatever shady or misguided efficiency scheme she had in mind.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 21, 2016, 06:03:43 PM »
I've blown off this issue ages ago but let me see if I've got the logic right Lloyd.

If someone emails you top secret documents that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using the official government email servers, No harm no foul?  Like forgetting to use the official office stationary when sending out a cover letter on a business proposal?

If someone emails you a top secret document that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using a personal email server (something otherwise legal), you should be burned at the stake?  Like if someone emailed and got you to open child pornography you should then be locked for receiving them?

Is that a grossly simplified version of the thinking?

There's also the possibility Trump would just resign immediately after being sworn in and tell America he just "punked" us all and we should be ashamed.  See how easy it was for a wealthy media personality to steal an election?

Fair enough.  I read it as the other option.  We disagree with the law, we are unable to change it at present, we'll ignore it because we don't like it.  This came off (to me) as a comedic light bulb over the head moment of, "We've found our loophole!" 

Messaging matters as well.
Well get to you eventually.
We will ignore it until it's not illegal.

General Comments / Re: The "white" Oscars
« on: January 21, 2016, 11:35:24 AM »
I tend to agree.  :(

I would say that you missed the last step, getting people to go see the movies.  Even if miraculously the studios were even handed about giving all types of stories and acting roles a shot, we still need the public to go watch them.

Exploring the demographics for who's asses are in the seats at the theaters can't be overlooked.  No matter how inward facing Oscar nominations often are...

General Comments / Re: The "white" Oscars
« on: January 21, 2016, 11:04:04 AM »
I'm sure Fenring is correct for the logic behind dividing the categories.  I think the question is would lumping them together, and seeing the obvious results it would cause, do anything positive to shift the problem the division is trying to correct for? 

Would snubbing women consistently for the Oscars best actor promote changes to the industry?  Does snubbing non-white actors promote changes to the industry?

My other gripe is the, "so and so deserves to finally win this year" argument.  The score should be zeroed out for every performance.  Save the rest of the nonsense for some lifetime achievement award and stop whining. 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 21, 2016, 10:04:22 AM »
Thanks for clarifying what part of my statement you found silly.
Now I can just disagree.  Instead of wonder what the hell was causing the breakdown in communication.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 21, 2016, 10:02:51 AM »
I am not offended at being called silly Pete.  I'm bringing it up because it appears I'm being called silly for endorsing the polar opposite of my views.

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: January 21, 2016, 10:01:30 AM »
In related news on Trump, GOP strategist Rick Wilson:
I think that there is definitely still a very significant portion of the party that is a limited government conservatism based faction of the overall coalition. Now the screamers and the crazy people on the all-right as they call it, you know, who love Donald Trump, who have plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons and names...
 … who think Donald Trump is the greatest thing. Oh, it's something. But the fact of the matter is most of them are childless, single men who masturbate to Anime. They're not real political players. These are not people who matter in the overall course of humanity.
Does anyone listen to this guy's strategies?  I would think the first suggestion would be, "Do not repeat any of what I'm about to tell you to a reporter."   :-\

It seems a little shady to see large gains in executive power, or at least attempts to consolidate that power, then see the genie put back into the bottle before the opposition gets the chance to take their wishes...

Seeing PotUS flipping the bird to the "do nothing congress" did feel good in the short term, but right away I worried this would cause more grief that it was worth down the road.

On the tentacle,
On the other pseudopod,
I think I'm going to steal these like an apathetic teen doing a last minute book report.  :)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 21, 2016, 09:35:57 AM »
Pete, I don't need to run a search.  I don't need to try and sway you or support an argument that you think I'm making.  Why?  Because I didn't make it in the first place.  I DO NOT THINK that the bad actions of one, or a small group, soils the cause they champion.  They may make it easier to scapegoat or dismiss by some, but I don't think so.

My point of contention, that probably isn't even a point of contention, is that the ends do not justify the means.  You do not excuse the actions (illegal actions at that) of some actors because their hearts were in the right place.  You do not break laws you don't like, you seek to get them changed.

That sentiment may make me a "silly boy", but I'd at least like to be poked fun at for my actual beliefs rather than having my words used as your sock puppet antagonist.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 19, 2016, 08:05:04 PM »
So by cracking down on these law breakers, you settle the issue(s) they champion?  That's exactly what you've been saying?   Or was that the exact opposite?

As to the armed stand off definition, give me a better label if you want.   This would be over if not for the guns.    Do you disagree?

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 19, 2016, 05:23:02 PM »
When I'm not lighting black candles in the name of Obama I sometimes like to post things that sound reprehensible when taken out of context.  It's a hobby.

General Comments / Re: The "white" Oscars
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:20:56 PM »
I think you are ahead of the outrage by one or two years.  We'll get around to that soon enough. 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:14:17 PM »
This whole line of discussion would be if I said the BLM movement was wrong to shut down malls or airports and suddenly I was accused of being dismissive of the movement. 

These guys aren't on their ranch.  They aren't even on the adjacent property of their ranch.  They created an armed standoff to generate publicity and are still trying to find a narrative that clicks with a wider audience after the cause that brought them there, asked them to go away.  Then the locals did the same.

At this point, I don't even care if the cause they are (currently) promoting is lawful and just and any opposition to that position makes you a Disney villain.  They instigated an armed confrontation as a tool of getting attention.  For me, it starts and stops there.  The nuance doesn't mean much to me.  They crossed a line. 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 19, 2016, 03:46:13 PM »
Neither side (here anyhow) believes we should walk away and let them have the run of the joint, nor do they think we should kill them all for daring to... dare us to stop them.  It isn't all that productive to pretend anyone to one side or the other of your comfort zone is one of those extremes. 

I know I'm closer to the "kill them all and let God sort them out" side of the spectrum than you are Pete.  That doesn't mean I find the suggestion to do exactly that monstrous. 

You don't accuse your roommate of trying to give you all food poisoning by TRYING to spoil the milk just because you want your other beverages to be a bit more frosty.  You buy him a beer cozy with some witty cartoon characters on it so his widdle hands don't get too cold and tell him to STFU.  Like any mature adult would.  :)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 19, 2016, 03:28:59 PM »
Protesting that the laws are not being applied equally falls under what I consider a "good cause".  Not liberal or conservative cause.

Protesting that the laws don't apply to you because you were allowed to break them without interference previously, or because the divine said he was cool with it, makes you a "yahoo".  Not liberal or conservative.

Passive resistance and refusing to leave and being dragged off by the law does not erase that you are (may be) breaking a law to make a political point, but is a "legitimate tactic".  Not a liberal or conservative tactic.

Armed resistance and a "try and stop us" attitude makes you a "yahoo" and a threat.  Not a liberal or conservative.

To complete the exercise, replace yahoo with thug.

Pages: 1 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50