I doubt if most here run Windows servers. Neither do we distribute documentation exclusively in PDF format. I suppose if it were common for servers to have a GUI then we might consider a PDF reader to be necessary. However, my file manager is capable of browsing foreign servers and allowing me to open documents located on those servers, and it's possible that Microsoft has managed to duplicate this functionality as well.

Then it's a good thing that the term "anti-gravity" barely escapes being a complete oxymoron in the context of modern physics. It's about as sensible as an "anti-geometry" device.

Please stop ascribing positions to me.

Again, whether the action is authorized is irrelevant to whether or not it can be considered obstruction.

I think that your predictions are mostly good, except that they neglect the scenario in which Trump is actually guilty of something. I'm sure it's an oversight. However, I also suspect that someone on the D team will find it politically expedient to attempt impeachment regardless of the results of either the elections or the Mueller investigation.

Legally, it's not relevant whether the act was legal, as long as it had the effect of impeding the investigation, or was done with that motivation. Obstruction of justice charges were brought against Clinton under circumstances which were at least as dubious. I'm not actually suggesting any claims other than that charges will likely be presented; it's just as likely as not that this will be done by one of the Congressional probes if it's not a direct result of the Mueller investigation. Whether the charge would be justified is a question beyond my competence, and as I said, at the moment I doubt a conviction.

Trump cannot directly fire Mueller according to the law. He would have to either get Rosenstein to do this, or fire Rosenstein and get the new deputy AG to do it. This would probably not go unnoticed -- you may recall a certain "Saturday Night Massacre" which got some press attention. If Trump were to directly fire Mueller, it's just as likely as not that this would be upheld in a court of law, but it would also trigger an immediate Congressional reaction, and it's unlikely that the legality of the action would be directly examined.

As you seem to have said, there can be obstruction. Whether or not there was, is a question which neither of us can guess.

Clinton did not have any authority to deny that trade deal. Uranium One isn't even an American company. For a couple years, some uranium was exported to Canada for processing, and returned to the US. Due to how that works, it can technically be said that some uranium mined in the US in that brief period was exported to Japan and western Europe. No one in the US sold a damn thing.

You are a liar.

Firing Comey is entirely likely to result in an obstruction of justice charge, regardless of the results of the probe. I think that at the moment, the odds are against conviction. I would like to think that a charge of treason would be impossible regardless of any actions taken, given that we are not in a declared war, but apparently we have a bad history of ignoring that provision.

No, you have not presented any empirical evidence. You even admitted that you could not provide any. You can't seem to keep your lies straight. Feel free to present any peer-reviewed paper you think might support your views. Calling you out as being a lying bigot does not rise to the level of dogma, I'm afraid.

Numbers. Evidence. Measurements. Prove your assertions using these. You're not exempt from having to back up your words because your cause is just, especially because it's actually morally abhorrent.

It's not necessary to have such large updates, or to reboot during updates. Microsoft explicitly and deliberately forced that upon the world, and have consequently been responsible for more wasted man-hours than really bear contemplation. This happened some decades ago, however, and it's generally widely known. So if you are choosing to run this software, you are signing up for the upgrade hassle, and various viruses, and (in the modern era) some degree of surveillance. If you are regretting that decision, you might seek alternatives. You're probably not going to get much sympathy for your problems, however.

You're focusing on the insult, which happens to be valid, and asserting that your ideas are not being believed, without bothering to support them. You do not get to simply lie and say that you know best, despite being admittedly incapable of providing empirical evidence. You cannot prove a word of what you say, including the link to school shootings. Your motivations are expressly bigoted, and you are not honest.

Your remark about religiously dogmatic views was quite funny, however. Did you forget that you were arguing on the basis of religiously-influenced tradition, and saying that you have no evidence for your beliefs? How convenient.

You are fundamentally assuming that your chosen societal model is better, and offering nothing but fairly bald and circular lies in support. Fortunately, the existence of birth control is not up for debate, so your unhappiness is your own concern.

If you want to avoid being called a bigot, don't be one. Until then, may I suggest attempting to redress the population problem in your own person?

Hand-waving proves nothing. If you admit that you can't possibly isolate an effect, then clearly it's not consequential, waffling about "the test of time" notwithstanding.

What you are saying is that societies where young females control their own sexuality have lower birth rates. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. We have this thing called "birth control", so we don't need to try to use social pressure to do that, especially not when it reduces women to the role of breeding stock.

Note that disguising your bigotry by talking about "those from outside" does not change its essential character.

Oh, good, you admit that this is all about controlling young female sexuality. Now why don't you prove a causal link between forms of marriage and "stability", however defined, and also find some empirical evidence which suggests that this will always be true. Good luck.

Alternately, you could abandon the idea of trying to control other people's sex lives based on Bronze Age mythology.

Polyandry and polygamy also predate the Bible. There isn't just one workable societal structure. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

Overwriting it once is good enough. There's no evidence that anyone has ever pulled off an real-world attack such as Gutmann described, and the people who have tried this under ideal situations (very old drive, never previously written, target data was the only thing on the drive, overwritten once) only managed to recover a few characters. In this century, recovering overwritten data is impossible, and the odds are that it was never practical to begin with.

Funny, that's not how the INS tells it. First sentence: "Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s." If I were to apologize for you, I would say that you're projecting modern ideas of citizenship, nationality, and law enforcement onto a society with very different beliefs and practices.

Dear, whether or not your values match the ones that this country was founded upon is the matter under argument. Virtue signaling on the other hand would include making random statements about what a good person you are. Let's stop before tu quoque, okay?