So for you this is a party issue.

No. I think it's political fodder regardless of the party.

For the record, I wasn't too concerned about President Bush losing 2.2 million emails either. So for me at least it is not a republican vs. democrat issue.

Now we know why you don't care about this. For some of us, this is straight up legal matter. Hillary needs to follow the same laws as all of us.

Actually according to several news sources, the regulations that were in place in 2009 did not prohibit the Hillary Clinton's use of a non-agency email system. Instead it stated:

agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.

They also point out that Hillary did turn over 50,000 pages of email to the agency in December 2014.

You introduced a fallacy that somehow I was one of the people upset about Sarah Palin's email habits. This isn't true since I am not even familiar with Sarah Palin's email usage.

If what you say about Sarah Palin is true then, to carry your logic even further, the republicans had no serious objections about how email is handled either.

So, the Bush White House had its staffers use government email for government stuff, who'da thunk it?

As far as we know, ONLY Hillary Clinton used her family email server. The rest of her staff used government mail servers. Therefore any correspondents between her and her staff or the president is recorded on an official email server anyway.

I'm not saying that I agree with her using her own personal email server, but I also don't think this "controversy" rises to the level of me really giving a rat's ass about. Actually it rises to the level of "She should have known better... but meh".

What does concern me is that the right decided to use this low grade political material so early that it will be forgotten by the time the election season actually hits full stride. So the more important question is what's going on that requires the gullible media's distraction on something as trivial as email usage by a retired secretary of state?

The SAE's only sin in the eyes of the university was to bring bad press. If the University of Oklahoma president truly meant it when he said that "we don't provide services for bigots" then the only fraternities on campus would be the ones dedicated to professions or academic achievement.

Clinton is a psychopath, and her supporters are enablers.

The problem being that all of the candidates can be painted with that very same brush. We've been voting for the lesser of two evils for a very long time. Looks like someone is frustrated that we currently see her as the lesser evil.

I noticed you used the word EXCLUSIVELY.

As a moderate, I see no difference in the two parties.

They are pretty much mirror images of each other. The only difference being that one has the appearance of exclusively catering to the wealthy corporate class while the other has the appearance of being inclusive. Which explains why the former party accuses the latter of waging class warfare. Of course this back and forth rhetoric serves no purpose but to distract the public from how much of our representatives are bought and paid for.

The point isn't whether she did something wrong or not, the point was there will be very few people talking about this in the future, regardless of her actions. The media will quite simply ignore this because they will be in the tank for Hillary the way they were for Obama in 2008 & 2012. I didn't vote for Obama, but I was actually glad that he got elected in 2008, because that meant that neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain would be president.

No the point is that her detractors have cried wolf so many times that the public doesn't believe anything they say now.

It really speaks volumes about her character (or lack of it).

The problem being that no politician has shown any indication of having character in such a long time that not having character isn't viewed as a handicap.

Wireless spectrum is limited. Right-of-way access is limited. The number of potential customers is limited. Sources of capital needed to build infrastructure is limited.

I heard your technical monopoly (artificially created by government) theory before, but I believe that when it comes to supplying "the last mile" of high speed internet there is no such thing as pure technical monopoly.

It's my humble opinion that if systemd stops you cold, you ought to be in another profession.

Why look for another profession? It is easier to look for another OS.

It's obvious you like systemd. On the other hand, I have no pressing need for systemd and am quite happy with RHEL6.

There is a good chance that your attitude is one of the reasons why systemd has met some resistance.

You are completely missing the point. Raising the minimum wage does NOT reduce the number of poor households, because most minimum wage earners are NOT poor.

I completely see your point. You've skewed the statistics (actually repeated an argument made by the conservative Heritage foundation and the collection of political bloggers) to make it look like minimum wage doesn't affect the poor. The problem with your slight of hand is that its obvious that your argument falls flat when you realize that total population of minimum wage earners is not the same as the total population of poor households.

To put it another way... You are arguing that the plurality of minimum wage earners aren't poor, instead of the more applicable argument that the overwhelming majority of poor employed households are minimum wage earners. Your argument has the convenient side effect of ignoring the current problem with encouraging people off of welfare by getting a job that pays less than what they get by simply staying home.

Someone else who hasn't bothered actually reading stuff written in support of minimum wage legislation...

Your worst fear has come true. I'm reporting the arguments given by conservatives that support the minimum wage hike. They make very credible arguments about how not raising the minimum wage to match inflation is nothing more than a government subsidy to industry that only pay their workers the minimum wage (Ron Unz made the argument when talking about the minimum wage in California) .