You can celebrate on Christmas, even if it's not your birthday.
I can't for the life of me figure out why I should give a rat's ass if two particular adults want to marry each other, as long as they're not biologically related. As Jefferson would say, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.
The people who should really be happy about this are the lawyers. More divorces and custody cases for them.
I assume that decomposition has a negative effect on your typing skills.
The difference between Snowden and an actual whistleblower is that whistleblowers are willing to face the consequences of their actions. The fact that people make Snowden and Assange out to be heroes makes me want to projectile vomit on them.
Besides, this isn't ignorance. When you're provided the information, and you still reject it in favor of your own fantasies, you've moved from ignorance to obstinacy.
Can we just take all the anti-vaccine people and put them on an island, and wait for them to die out? Antarctica is a research area, right?
Still, it's quite important, politically; nobody believes anything he says anymore, and certainly not denial of spying or knowledge. However, in the political world, from sovereign leader to sovereign leader, you can't just *say* the other one is lying. At least not if you're allies, even if one of them isn't taking the whole ally thing too seriously.
Well said. There's a serious credibility gap that seems to grow every day.
Healthcare enrollment website has massive problems, well yeah, I'm sure the President knew as much from press reports as the rest of us. But I'm guessing that his subordinates at several levels down the chain were minimizing the problem so what at the level of the people directly responsible for working on the problem looked like a total nightmare was regarded with decreasing severity at each level up the chain. Like this:
webmasters: Website is fucked. Needs basic redesign that will take months to fix.
direct managers: Website has major problems. Some elements will need to be overhauled.
middle managers: Website has significantly underperformed. Some changes will be needed before it performs as expected.
Who hasn't seen pretty much this same scenario play out in their own organizations?
The problem I have with this scenario is that this is the president's baby. I don't see why he wouldn't demand regular progress reports and/or demos to people he trusted.
I've been involved in a few website roll-outs. I've mostly done UAT testing and bug hunting. Why wasn't the site sufficiently stress-tested? Why were their multiple companies being dealt with, rather than the government simply picking a Web designer and saying, "Build this site"? And how did it happen that they picked a vendor so shady that they would hide major problems with the website rather than saying, "Look, we need more time"? It's not as if Web projects always run on schedule. The website being delayed would be the most ordinary thing in the world.
It just seems to me like the administration left it up to HHS, and HHS didn't exercise any diligence at all - let alone due diligence.
Who the hell would want to spy on Obama? He isn't exactly hot grits...
I can't really imagine the NSA spying on him, but I could certainly imagine political enemies wanting to do it.