Is there some reason to think you and Obama are on the same side vis a vis the NSA? Is there some reason to think President Trump (oh my!) is less on your side than President Obama?
How funny that a Canadian organization thinks it's well known enough by Americans that Americans will think of them when they see something kinda sorta similar.
Most Americans can't even name the Premier, and we're supposed to automatically think of some corporate entity that owns a hockey team when we see a common word with a slightly wrong spelling?
That's not surprising--the FBI is doing what it is in the nature of bureaucracies to do. And we, unfortunately, have to remain ever vigilant against it.
On a side note: "Long before Sarah Palin was keeping an eye on pesky Russians from the governor's mansion..."
Sarah Palin never said that, Tina Fey said that while playing Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live. I do wish you people would get off the politics. Your thing is technology issues from a somewhat libertarian perspective. Every time you venture into partisan politics, you reveal yourselves to be ignorant and stupid.
As I often say, "we're all on the spectrum." Yes, Asberger's is a mostly made up condition.
Is that how it works? You are welcome to argue that that is how it SHOULD work, but if it's not how it works, then you should respectfully return all those misguided "insightful" clicks.
Agreed, that is a much closer call than anyone would guess from reading this thread. If he said "if" instead of "when," he'd have a stronger complaint. But he didn't. He said "when."
Repeat after me: "Malthusians are always wrong. Always."
"There is, at least, a strong argument of fair use here"
"in an electoral climate where voting against your best self interests is the new sexy"
Don't presume to know what is in my self-interest. You're not that smart.
Thanks to Anonymous Coward, below, Politifact, not Politico. I like Politico. Sorry for slandering you, Politico.
As any politico reader knows, if Trump accurately says other NATO nations aren't pulling their weight, but also says he had bacon and eggs for breakfast when really he just had eggs, while Clinton correctly says her dress is white and then lies about taking bribes while secretary of state, then they are both 50% honest.
And if Trump goes on to say he drives the speed limit when he was clocked doing 66 in a 65 zone while Hillary says nothing while her campaign pays people to go to Trump rallies and start fights so the press can write about violence at Trump rallies, then Hillary is, statistically speaking, more honest than Trump.
That went through my mind too--that fact could use a fact check. But it will never get one.
By the way, last week I accepted four free weeks from the New York Times with no obligation to buy. Am I counted as a new subscription? I bet I am.
I'm going to go ahead and score that one a win for Trump. (Note their recent 96% drop in profits.)
Almost everyone hates political correctness in the abstract, but almost everyone has their sacred cows that must be protected. You can tell someone's true level of support for free speech by how they react when you gore their ox.
(Is that a mixed metaphor? Or close enough for government work?)
Fact checking itself is a biased business with a problematic history. (Most fact-checking outlets are rightfully seen as shading their judgments to benefit a particular candidate or party.) If Facebook gets into that game, they will undermine themselves without adding a meaningful benefit to their audience.
Best to let people fight it out among themselves.
Living in a free society, where citizens have rights necessarily entails making things harder for law enforcement. The KGB, the Stasi, they had it made. But that doesn't create any great desire in me to go commie. I'm fine with a police force that has to do a bit of extra leg work and occasionally can't close case. That's a trade off I'll happily take.
Fuel surcharges on airplanes (because apparently the airline didn't anticipate needing fuel when it set its prices), half a dozen line items on your phone bill, your cable bill. Buying a car? Good luck getting it for the agreed-upon price. Dealer delivery fee? Seriously?
Hidden charges are everywhere. Supposedly we have laws against false advertising, but one would never know it doing business in this country.
"First off, eliminate all emails not having Clinton on the recievnig end."
Why? What possible reason could there be to focus on emails sent to Clinton? If Clinton had to be involved, it should be as sender. But there's no reason for that limiter either. It should be all emails from or to Huma where the other party is in any way associated with the Clinton campaign. Anyone who gave a number is making it up out of whole cloth.
There's something wrong with judging police by different standards than Syrian refugees? Really?
That's an argument so dumb it's impossible to believe that even the person making it believes it. And that's your choice for insightful?
Re:
I live in Toronto and I never even noticed that Leafs is spelled wrong. Not that I don't know how to spell, just that their "distinctiveness" is too insignificant to think about.