Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Kilkrazy wrote: According to this the PATRIOT Act was brought in by a Republican, most of the dissenters were Democrats, and it was a Republican president who signed it into law.
If this is correct I am somewhat at a loss to understand your previous comments a few posts above.
"The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense." -Dianne Feinstein, 2010. Please reference the law that created the No Fly List for me.
I'll note on issues like the No Fly list, I leave out politics of who did it generally. There is enough that both sides let it go on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 16:52:16
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
You can have cheap Forge World models when you prise them from my cold dead hands!!!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
You got that right! Sadly, it's the same phenomenon that made Brexit a reality, that made Trump the GOP POTUS candidate.
A lot of the BREXIT vote was directed against the 'political elites.'
And there's no bigger political elite in the USA than the Clintons. HRC may feel like she has a bulls-eye on her back after this.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!
4:21 AM - 24 Jun 2016
This is despite the fact that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, with 62 percent of the population backing the Remain campaign.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 16:51:14
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
yes they did, but at the time the Democrats had the power
Asterios wrote: The Democrats had the power in congress, the law could not get passed without Democratic backing to a degree
Ah yes, the early 2000s, when the Democrats had the power in congress, such as
2000-2003: Congress 221 R / 212 D, Senate 50 R / 50 D, and
2003-2005: Congress 229 R / 205 D, Senate 51 R / 48 D
What a lazy, clownish lie.
I commend you on your consistency.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/24 16:52:44
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
yes they did, but at the time the Democrats had the power
Asterios wrote: The Democrats had the power in congress, the law could not get passed without Democratic backing to a degree
Ah yes, the early 2000s, when the Democrats had the power in congress, such as
2000-2003: Congress 221 R / 212 D, Senate 50 R / 50 D, and
2003-2005: Congress 229 R / 205 D, Senate 51 R / 48 D
What a lazy, clownish lie.
I commend you on your consistency.
I'm not sure if we need a facepalm gif, or a burn gif.
I remember my professor from the first Political Science class I took in college organizing a discussion about what is the greatest threat to the USA. Now bear in mind this was in the early 1980's, when there was a very real Cold War, a global arms race and the USSR were a very real threat.
We discussed nuclear war, natural disaster, communism, financial crisis...all the usual suspects...and in the end the hands down winner of what posed the biggest threat to America was an uninformed electorate.
Here we are 35 years later and we've survived a global financial crisis, the Cold War is over, communism is noise in the background, natural disasters have hit and we're still around, nuclear war hasn't happened and yet I see Trump take the GOP by storm and listen to some of the daily idiocy that spews from his mouth and I realize that we were absolutely spot on in our conclusion. Our democracy won't fail from without, but fail from the fear and stupidity within.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!
4:21 AM - 24 Jun 2016
This is despite the fact that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, with 62 percent of the population backing the Remain campaign.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.
yes they did, but at the time the Democrats had the power
Asterios wrote: The Democrats had the power in congress, the law could not get passed without Democratic backing to a degree
Ah yes, the early 2000s, when the Democrats had the power in congress, such as
2000-2003: Congress 221 R / 212 D, Senate 50 R / 50 D, and
2003-2005: Congress 229 R / 205 D, Senate 51 R / 48 D
The horror of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001— followed by the Capitol Hill anthrax attacks a month later—united the 107th Congress (2001–2003) behind a shared sense of national duty, and forged momentary bipartisanship. Though both chambers were narrowly divided between Republicans and Democrats, Congress authorized the use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, established the Homeland Security Department, and easily passed anti-terrorism legislation.
Here we are 35 years later and we've survived a global financial crisis, the Cold War is over, communism is noise in the background, natural disasters have hit and we're still around, nuclear war hasn't happened and yet I see Trump take the GOP by storm and listen to some of the daily idiocy that spews from his mouth and I realize that we were absolutely spot on in our conclusion. Our democracy won't fail from without, but fail from the fear and stupidity within.
Same could be said of Hillary. you say potato, I say potahto.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 17:11:35
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
You got that right! Sadly, it's the same phenomenon that made Brexit a reality, that made Trump the GOP POTUS candidate.
A lot of the BREXIT vote was directed against the 'political elites.'
And there's no bigger political elite in the USA than the Clintons. HRC may feel like she has a bulls-eye on her back after this.
But, at the same time, there's a lot of rancor for the corporate elite here in the US who are believed to be the ones buying off the political elite, and Trump is part of the corporate elite. So, both have tha bullseye.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
The Republican Party held the final voting share of both houses for the 107th Congress.
For starters, they had the majority caucus in the House for the entire 107th Congress and ended with a 51.5% to 48.5% majority over the Democrats.
More importantly, you didn't include the entirety of the Congress term when using your Senate numbers, you just cherry picked the brief time that the Democrats had the "majority." Speaking of which, it's a little more complicated than that: it began with an even split with the Democrats having the tie-breaker through Al Gore, then the Republicans gained the tie-breaker with Dick Cheney, then it switched to a Democrat majority when Jeffords became an independent and Wellstone died, then switched back to a Republican majority to end the term (this was not recognized until the beginning of the next session).
Maybe you should get your facts straight before you tell someone to "go back to school."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 17:42:13
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The Republican Party held the final voting share of both houses for the 107th Congress.
For starters, they had the majority caucus in the House for the entire 107th Congress and ended with a 51.5% to 48.5% majority over the Democrats.
More importantly, you didn't include the entirety of the Congress term when using your Senate numbers, you just cherry picked the brief time that the Democrats had the "majority." Speaking of which, it's a little more complicated than that: it began with an even split with the Democrats having the tie-breaker through Al Gore, then the Republicans gained the tie-breaker with Dick Cheney, then it switched to a Democrat majority when Jeffords became an independent and Wellstone died, then switched back to a Republican majority to end the term (this was not recognized until the beginning of the next session).
Maybe you should get your facts straight before you tell someone to "go back to school."
I went with who was in the house and senate when 9/11 happened and the laws were created, going outside those numbers is just trying to alter the numbers in your favor.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: I went with who was in the house and senate when 9/11 happened and the laws were created, going outside those numbers is just trying to alter the numbers in your favor.
And now you've predicitably begun moving goalposts, which you always do when people point out when you're wrong. Your consistency is commendable.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
People talk about moving goalposts, but its actually pretty hard work. Just saying.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Asterios wrote: I went with who was in the house and senate when 9/11 happened and the laws were created, going outside those numbers is just trying to alter the numbers in your favor.
And now you've predicitably begun moving goalposts, which you always do when people point out when you're wrong. Your consistency is commendable.
we were talking about when the 9/11 laws were created and the current no-fly rules, what were you talking about? or are you the one moving the goal posts to fit in with what you want?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: we were talking about when the 9/11 laws were created and the current no-fly rules
Yeah, and your line about the Democrats having "the power in Congress" isn't accurate. When the PATRIOT Act was passed, the Democrats had gained the majority when Jeffords left the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. This gave the Democrats control of the Senate 51-49. Then Paul Wellstone died in October and the Democrats had control 50-49, though in practice Mary Landrieu (D-LA) often broke with the Democratic Party (especially over the PATRIOT Act) because she was widely described as the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. In the Senate vote, it was confirmed 98-1 with the only "nay" being a Democrat and one Democrat not voting (Landrieu, ironically enough). At no time during the 107th Congress did the Democratic Party control the House, so like I've already explained to you and you've seemingly ignored, saying the Democrats "had all the power" Congress, even during the passage of the PATRIOT Act, is not a true statement.
what were you talking about?
How you're (yet again) wrong.
or are you the one moving the goal posts to fit in with what you want?
I beginning to think that you don't know what "moving goalposts" means.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 19:32:03
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
whembly wrote: Can't we just say "both" parties suck at times.
No one is saying that isn't the case.
Asterios is apparently trying to claim that the only reason the PATRIOT Act was passed is because the Democrats "had the power in Congress." As has been explained repeatedly to him, that isn't true. What is true, however, is that piece of burning dumpster fire legislation had fairly wide bipartisan support, something that pretty fething obvious given how the votes in both houses went.
At the same time, it should be noted that of the handful of senators and congressmen that dissented were primarily members of the Democratic Party: one Democrat in the Senate and sixty-two in the House with no Republicans in the Senate voting nay and only three in the Republican-controlled House voting nay.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 19:40:47
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and one of her closest aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton's BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department's spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account.
"Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible," Clinton responded to Abedin.
Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office.
The email was not among the tens of thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. Abedin, who also used a private account on Clinton's server, provided a copy from her own inbox after the State Department asked her to return any work-related emails. That copy of the email was publicly cited last month in a blistering audit by the State Department's inspector general that concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers.
"While this exchange was not part of the approximately 55,000 pages provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton, the exchange was included within the set of documents Ms. Abedin provided the department in response to our March 2015 request," State Department spokesman John Kirby told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said she provided "all potentially work-related emails" that were still in her possession when she received the 2014 request from the State Department.
"Secretary Clinton had some emails with Huma that Huma did not have, and Huma had some emails with Secretary Clinton that Secretary Clinton did not have," Fallon said.
Fallon declined to say whether Clinton deleted any work-related emails before they were reviewed by her legal team. Clinton's lead lawyer, David Kendall, did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The November 2010 email was among documents released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's service as the nation's top diplomat between 2009 and 2013. The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton, including one filed by the AP.
Before turning over her emails to the department for review and potential public release, Clinton and her lawyers withheld thousands of additional emails she said were clearly personal, such as those involving what she described as "planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations."
Clinton has never outlined in detail what criteria she and her lawyers used to determine which emails to release and which to delete, but her 2010 email with Abedin appears clearly work-related under the State Department's own criteria for agency records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
Dozens of the emails sent or received by Clinton through her private server were later determined to contain classified material. The FBI has been investigating for months whether Clinton's use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. Agents recently interviewed several of Clinton's top aides, including Abedin.
As part of the probe, Clinton turned over the hard drive from her email server to the FBI. It had been wiped clean, and Clinton has said she did not keep copies of the emails she choose to withhold.
On Wednesday, lawyers from Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization, questioned under oath Bryan Pagliano, the computer technician who set up Clinton's private server. A transcript released Thursday shows Pagliano repeatedly responded to detailed questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.
Dozens of questions Pagiliano declined to answer included who paid for the system, whether there was technical help to support its users and who else at the State Department used email accounts on it. Pagliano also would not answer whether he discussed setting up a home server with Clinton prior to her tenure as secretary of state, according to the transcript.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the November 2010 email cited in the inspector general audit was one of more than a dozen work-related emails that his group identified that Clinton sent or received but later failed to turn over the State Department.
"Contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Mrs. Clinton did not return all her government emails to the State Department," Fitton said. "Our goal is to find out what other emails Mrs. Clinton and the State Department are hiding."
Hil gots some 'splaining to do...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/24 19:42:49
