Don't know why you think it's God's domain. The article doesn't pretend that they are alive. It's not any different than the G.I. Joe dolls or even the merchandise Hollywood puts out resembling movie characters.

In these situations, I'm not entirely sure collateral damage is of a primary concern. The image of either building being damaged or destroyed or the threat to elected representatives likely presents a worse impact than collateral damage might. Its like all the special protections they already have. For instance, punch your neighbor and face a misdemeanor, punch a senator or the president and it is not only a felony but a serious one at that. Kill someone in an auto accident and it can be a charge with less than 10 years but run over a police dog and you face life for killing an officer of the law.

Our system has said they are special and more protected than most people for quite a while now.

Anything is possible but they have helicopter rides at the county fair around my neck of the woods. They take off and land right next to the fair way with an area about 30 yards roped off. Of course they approach and leave from the far side and away from the rides but its usually still over a parking lot.

I'm not sure I would be overly excited about his landing. Still some concerns but likely not dangerous.

There is a surface to air missile battery on the capital building and white house. Likely in other areas around there to.

Because of his slow speed and open cockpit they had the opportunity to watch him instead of just reacting. If he got closer or appearedt to be threatening to the white house he likely would have been shot down.

Nobody can say anything definitive becaus because we do not have all the facts yet. It is suspicious when congress asks for all the correspondents over benghazi and hers were missing just to find out she used an outside server and email and decided to purge anything she didn't want congress to see. Whether that purge contained anything pertinent to state or not is still being determined.

As for 2008, she would have lost by a significant amount. People like to say Obama was elected because he is black but the truth is that people were sick of the same old shit which after Bush, a Clinton would have been no different. Obama won because he was new and not a legacy. He offered change simply by not being related to previous administrations. I do agree it was Bill who lost it but not in the way you think.

Or, rig 3 phones in advance, wait until it looks like your guy is going to lose, drop off a phone in each stall he used, give the signal and have your guy complain. Then go about proclaiming how shocked you are and how guilty he has to be.

If i was to frame someone, that's what I would do.

Or maybe it's for the same reasons he always turns door knobs to the right or pats his pockets whenever leaving a building or that some baseball players don't change socks until the end of season. People have all sorts of quirks that doesn't mean they are guilty. For years I used to wait until the ace of hearts came up when playing solidare before I would put any aces in the slot.

But some patterns are obvious enough that they could be used to do whatever - like accuse someone of cheating and point to the behavior as proof.

My plan is coming together nicely. Now with him out of the way, nobody can beat me.

Seriously, if I was going to set someone up, this is likely how I would do it. Its sort of like a cop throwing a weapon on the guy he just shot.

What they should have done was turned the sound up and watch for him to go in then listen from the next stall. If they heard the phone, call the number and ask him to step out of the stall.

It was political whim. The FCC has never taken the position other than internet was information services or the equivalent. They have looked at it and took that position since the 1970s- until recently.

Surprisingly, in order for the FCC to defend any challenges to the move, They will have to explain why every version of it before got it wrong and how at least two of reports on universal access was wrong in their determination that congress did not intend the internet to be regulated and how congress copied their determination from the computers II working paper.

Lol.. bad laws, abuses of authority but you see no problem because the outcome is something you want. Of course you feel the same way about the NSA spying because they are doing their jobs using the tools they were given. But wait - isn't there a constitutional thing in all this? That's right, in both situations. One giving congress the power to create law and the other restricting unreasonable searches.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, this review process is part of the tools congress gave the FCC. I don't see how you can object to that. In fact, the FCC was even warned about it before they acted.

The 1996 act defines the internet as an information service along the lines of the FCC computers II working paper. The second report to congress in 1998 on accessibility even says as much and points to how it is not an information service.

Because there is a principle involved where a government agency has reversed a position it has held since the 1970s and without any congressional interaction changed regulation and basically confiscated large portions of the economy for the political whims of some. Its not necessarily what happened but how it happened.

I'm not against net neutrality but I am against the way it happened and all the restrictions with it.

Here you have a government agency who completely reversed their position on the internet being an information services not subject to title II regulation that they have held since the 1970s and in effect creating regulation with the effect of legislation without any input or action from the only constitutionally approved processes or elected representatives. I don't care who you are, that should scare the hell out of anyone whether they support net neutrality or not. Well at least if democracy is in any way important.

Please read the entire link as that is not the only thing discussed.

I get it. You have some infinitely for her and don't want to think she did anything wrong. But what you want and reality can be different and this may be one of those times. You simply cannot say nothing was illegal until everything is known.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsal...

Its not as cut and dry as you present it. Note that I posted a link to a site that most would say is favorable to Mrs Clinton.