You don't need to be a Trump supporter to be disgusted by arguments like "Any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump", or "If you voted for Trump for any reason you're a racist."People can be disgusted all they like. If people voted for Trump, either they're racist, or they excuse racism. It's not like he kept his racism hidden.
Obama has no reason to pardon her because there is no evidence she did anything deserving of criminal charges.
And Comey has been trying to find evidence for 25 years.
Trump's appointed a neonazi as his chief strategist.
Does that help?
It was a rebellion against being told what to think and being called names for not thinking as told.A temper tantrum, then, worthy of a 2-year-old. Congratulations Toddler Nation.
Quite right. The Trump campaign wasn't just about appealing to racists. It was also about appealing to sexists, homophobes, islamphobes, and anti-Semites. Pretty much the entire neonazi platform. I'll be sure to get it right next time.
Anonymous Coward (but seriously we know who you are) wrote:
Voting for a racist no more makes you a racist than voting for a murderer makes you a murderer.You really picked a perfect example there. Just perfect. Your racist ran on the explicit promise of racist policies. His newly appointed "chief strategist and counselor" is an avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist. So your vote means you don't give a shit about the targets of those policies. Which makes you, at best, an enabler. A collaborator. To continue your analogy: You voted for the murderer whose campaign was founded on explicit promises to murder more people. You don't get a pass on that.
This is hopefully the administration that proves that the alt-right view of "limited government," i.e. "let corporations run amok and drop taxes on the people who actually have the money" is utter twaddle.That's not cause to celebrate. This isn't some abstract intellectual exercise. The cost of this proof will be huge, and will be borne disproportionately by those who can least afford it.
Admit it, Masnick, you and Google both are paid shills for Big Library.
WDS wrote:
I think it was a triple dog dare already!Which created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat.
The United States Copyright Office has completed development of a new electronic system to designate and search for agents to receive notifications of claimed infringement, as required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
I'm inclined to think the real reason for this is that their new electronic system is not designed to import data directly from the old directory.
That Anonymous Coward wrote:
I'm just 1 sociopath on twitterWho is more sociopath, you or the company that trademarked a stinky tree shape and then sued a tiny nonprofit out of existence?
Apparently, Pallante has now resigned outright.
https://twitter.com/eriqgardner/status/790976997153538048
In my book and even knowing now, he's Conservative, he belongs and needs to be seen in any list supporting Clinton. He would most likely accept $1500.00 to attend another public gathering to create chaos for the insane idiot Hilary Clinton. Considering the historical events following her, he would most likely end up dead and in a ditch somewhere.You need a new book. Perhaps one that doesn't require you to see everything through a political lens. And one that doesn't encourage embracing delusional conspiracy theories just because they reinforce your point of view.
Until or unless there is evidence to support this, all this speculation does is make people more paranoid and more like to panic at nothing.
And panicky people are dangerous. A panicked crowd is especially dangerous.
I'm inclined to think people are perfectly capable of behaving foolishly without any help from nefarious outside forces. I'm also inclined to think that's what happened here.
(Although the constant ZOMGTERRORISM encouraged by govt isn't terribly helpful either.)
That could be read a few ways...Hey now... What you do in the privacy of your own domain is your business.
And if it is allowable, could it be disallowed if he's doing it for malicious reasons? (Since his deleted tweets have been saved, they might be used to show that.)
Honestly, you'd think it would be better for him to be thought of as "James Woods the Crackhead" (which he denies) than as "James Woods the Shit Human Being" (which he's proven).
I'm going with mass hysteria as a far more likely explanation.
A fire alarm went off (accident or malfunction or someone being an idiot), someone smelled something (perfume, food, whatever), and then everyone panicked.
We cybered too hard and now we've broken the cyber.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: