motyak wrote:
We aren't interested in it. Neither is this thread. You had a thread almost all to yourself for that, and it's gone now, lost to the mists of time. Don't start to drag this thread there as well.

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:
We aren't interested in it. Neither is this thread. You had a thread almost all to yourself for that, and it's gone now, lost to the mists of time. Don't start to drag this thread there as well.

Hey man... it's political now.

Okay... okay, I'll stop.

Still waiting to hear from BrotherGecko why he thinks why Carson is a "potential dictator". I mean... I guess any President *could* go that route... but, meh... Carson?

 whembly wrote:

Still waiting to hear from BrotherGecko why he thinks Carson is a "potential dictator". I mean... I guess any President *could* go that route... but, meh... Carson?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Still waiting to hear from BrotherGecko why he thinks Carson is a "potential dictator". I mean... I guess any President *could* go that route... but, meh... Carson?

I have posed numerous question to you, and you failed to respond to most of them.

Why is that?

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:
We aren't interested in it. Neither is this thread. You had a thread almost all to yourself for that, and it's gone now, lost to the mists of time. Don't start to drag this thread there as well.

Hey man... it's political now.

Okay... okay, I'll stop.

Still waiting to hear from BrotherGecko why he thinks why Carson is a "potential dictator". I mean... I guess any President *could* go that route... but, meh... Carson?

Its the way he refers to the media, bible based economics and how he would "deal" with immigration. There are also his mannerisms when he talks. It was funny when I thought of him as ole grandpa Carson, but as I have now paid more attention to him they are just off putting.

Partially its the feeling he gives off but also his policies. For being a man that saved lives he has an odd lack of empathy. He refers to the media as not telling the truth (or rather his truth) and not representing real America (who ever that is). It sounds of a man that would silence media decent and supplement his own propaganda as justification for 'protecting' us. His bible economics is theocratic at minimum which is about as anti-American as you can get. An his immigration ideas are as fethed as it can get.

Its all very 'Putineque' to me.

Now I don't think we would allow him to become a dictator but rather I see him as having the potential if given the room. He has a manner that says I know best for every one with deaf ears to disagreement.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Did you want to know my opinion and reasoning to just blow it off?

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Did you want to know my opinion and reasoning to just blow it off?

Sure I wanted to know it... I think most of the criticism are a little weak. About the only thing he could be truly ding'ed is how "green" this guy is.

Just like Trump...

But to say Carson will be in danger of being dictatorial is a wee bit hyperbolic. But, with respect to his mannerism... you're not the first person to point that out and I really don't have anything to say other than it doesn't bother me. It's like a nervous tick of some sort.

 whembly wrote:

What questions? I've responded to you in these last few pages...

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Did you want to know my opinion and reasoning to just blow it off?

Sure I wanted to know it... I think most of the criticism are a little weak. About the only thing he could be truly ding'ed is how "green" this guy is.

Just like Trump...

But to say Carson will be in danger of being dictatorial is a wee bit hyperbolic. But, with respect to his mannerism... you're not the first person to point that out and I really don't have anything to say other than it doesn't bother me. It's like a nervous tick of some sort.

Well its an opinion of mine weighted by observations of him and how I see his policies. I'm not attempting to convince anybody here but I see something in him that I don't see as no big deal.

Given the wider politics of the growing reactionary culture of America (and Europe) and the masses calling for a leader like Putin in America lately. I can see a dictator slipping under the radar.

Still it is only what I think, is what I am observing.

 motyak wrote:
Shut the feth up with this kind of guns discussion now. Not the place for it. Any more gets you 2 months no OT forum

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What questions? I've responded to you in these last few pages...

Historically you try to ignore inconvenient questions.

Here's an exchange from Bernie Sanders's appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sunday:

CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist? @BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.

— Meet the Press (@meetthepress) October 11, 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

In addition, a recent Gallup poll showed that half of Americans said they would not vote for a socialist. It was, in fact, the least acceptable characteristic tested, behind Muslim and atheist.


Yes, I am aware that some more recent polling — Internet-based, it's worth noting — suggests that socialism is getting more and more popular, particularly among young people. And that, as a recent New Yorker profile of Sanders makes clear, many of his supporters are drawn to his unwillingness to abandon the term. Here's a key passage:

Sanders has been known as a democratic socialist for decades. This didn’t matter much to Kiley or York, or to most other Sanders supporters I met during the next few weeks; mainly, they were impressed that he hadn’t shed the term. York thought that, because of Sanders and his “social-media-driven fans,” socialism was “getting a bit of a P.R. makeover.” She noted that sites like Reddit and Twitter were circulating videos of “Bernie explaining why he identifies as a socialist, and what it means to him, in a really positive light.” She added, “The word had a retro connection to Communism and was originally thrown at him as a damning label by his opponents. But for his supporters it isn’t a deterrent.”

But even in that Internet survey and even among millennials, the group most inclined to see socialism favorably, capitalism is still preferred by more people. And, people who are drawn to Sanders — at least so far — aren't even a majority of Democrats, much less the entire country.

The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

 whembly wrote:

Query for everyone: Can an avowed Socialist be President?

Nein says this guy:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I want him to just bust onto the stage, while their doing introductions.

"I'm back bitches!" *guitar solo starts playing*

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Socialist had become a scary word in this country, despite most people not really knowing what it means. I mean, we are a socialist country for heaven's sake. It's just that most people seem to think communist for some reason.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
We are a socialist country, specifically a socialist-capitalist mix, just almost every other country on earth. We just happen to lean far more capitalist than most 'western" countries. There are very few fully socialist countries on earth.

I agree completely on the second part though. You have to control everything to make changes on that scale. And you can be sure that the R's will be out in full force if a self-described socialist is on the ticket. And Bernie's plan is extremely overzealous, IMO. The things he wants to implement would probably take far more than 2 terms, and he might not even get that if he was elected.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I want him to just bust onto the stage, while their doing introductions.

"I'm back bitches!" *guitar solo starts playing*

This. Do this Biden and I will vote for you, simply because you'll have entertained me more than any Democrat in the last 20 years

WASHINGTON (AP) — The private email server running in Hillary Rodham Clinton's home basement when she was secretary of state was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers, according to data and documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012. Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.

Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua, New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet. One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities, known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.

The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary of state for all work messages. Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

Some emails on Clinton's server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included confidential or sensitive information. Clinton has said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but she has yet to explain how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.

Clinton has apologized for running her homebrew server, and President Barack Obama said during a "60 Minutes" interview Sunday it was "a mistake." Obama said national security wasn't endangered, although the FBI still has yet to complete its review of Clinton's server for evidence of hacking.

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said late Monday that "this report, like others before it, lacks any evidence of an actual breach, let alone one specifically targeting Hillary Clinton. The Justice Department is conducting a review of the security of the server, and we are cooperating in full."

The AP exclusively reviewed numerous records from an Internet "census" by an anonymous hacker-researcher, who three years ago used unsecured devices to scan hundreds of millions of Internet Protocol addresses for accessible doors, called "ports." Using a computer in Serbia, the hacker scanned Clinton's basement server in Chappaqua at least twice, in August and December 2012. It was unclear whether the hacker was aware the server belonged to Clinton, although it identified itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com. The results are widely available online.

Remote-access software allows users to control another computer from afar. The programs are usually operated through an encrypted connection — called a virtual private network, or VPN. But Clinton's system appeared to accept commands directly from the Internet without such protections.

"That's total amateur hour," said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies. He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. "Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this," he said.

The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks.

"An attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability," said the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server was scanned.

Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas.

The findings suggest Clinton's server "violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet," said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity.

Clinton's email server at one point also was operating software necessary to publish websites, although it was not believed to have been used for this purpose. Traditional security practices dictate shutting off all a server's unnecessary functions to prevent hackers from exploiting design flaws in them.

In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports on three devices, including her email system. Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace it to her home.

Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote desktop would have been vulnerable. Those risks — such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine — were "clearly serious" and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called "back doors."

The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I want him to just bust onto the stage, while their doing introductions.

"I'm back bitches!" *guitar solo starts playing*

This. Do this Biden and I will vote for you, simply because you'll have entertained me more than any Democrat in the last 20 years

He needs to ride onto the stage on his harley while being escorted by hot biker chicks.

 d-usa wrote:
"We are not socialist, we have rights" may be the most American argument that I have heard in a while.