Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Watch the video - he does NOT like Russia! (Score 1) 973

Anyone running for president has NO BUSINESS making jokes about other countries engaging in acts of War against this country. That's the equivalent of making a joke about having a bomb while in line at the TSA. When they take you seriously, you deserve NO sympathy.

Wait a second...

If someone hacks my personal email server its an act of "WAR"? Sorry, but you are hopeless and confused. A personal email server means nothing at all to the government. Its a personal server. Its definitely not a government email server, and I don't own it in the legal sense of citizens owning the government. I don't have anything to do with it at all it seems, as, by the actions of our government, its officials, and Hillary herself, the contents in question are not my business (the 30,000 "personal" emails Trump was referring to). They aren't even a concern of our government. Our government hasn't asked for them forcefully. They haven't reviewed them, and they aren't planning to. Even the government emails sent and received from Hillary's personal server have been declared so innocuous that sending and receiving them did not trigger any of the provisions discussed in the briefings about classified documents. So even having access to those can't be construed as an "attack" on our government. Remember nothing marked as classified was ever sent through that email system. Might as well be quilting tips and brownie recipes, right?

None of the facts support your position. You should retract your statement as it is blatantly false.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 973

What's even more contemptible is the situation that has arisen from a civil servant's willfulness to skirt her responsibilities to the people who employ her. She created this issue. Now everyone who isn't a zombified Hillary supporter has questions about what was in those emails.

Openness and transparency was promised. Obama assured us we would have it. Instead we have secrecy, zero accountability, and willful our employees!!!. But hey, it was a personal server, and the 30,000 emails in question were only personal emails. If she wants to play it that way you can't go back and now say Trump is advocating anything having to do with government email systems, inciting harm to the government, etc. No silly "treason" accusations, no false cries of tampering with a government email system. It was a personal server, not a government server.

  And, furthermore, the contents of the entire server (with the exception of the deleted "personal" emails" that no one saw but Hillary, her inner circle, and her lawyer) were all approved by the justice department, the FBI, Loretta Lynch, and Barak Obama. No classified emails were sent. Nothing that would violate her clearance protocols at all. That server was as harmless as a kitten during her term as Secretary of State. How much less relevant are the things in there now that time has passed? Well I guess we won't ever know will we?

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 973

Even if he wasn't joking, are you really saying that this quote about hacking into someone's personal email system, to acquire personal emails, that America has been assured to have ZERO classified details in them and ZERO government affiliation, is considered "inviting them (Russia) to attack us"? Hacking into a non-government server to retrieve details about a wedding and what to wear is not "an attack." Calling it one is blatant stupidity or baldfaced partisanship.

Your political thinking cap is on waaaaay too tight, homey. Its cutting off the circulation to what's left of the rational part of your brain. You know, the part that isn't pwned by a false ideology sold to you be shysters in government garb and media shills.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 973

There's a problem with what you are saying then. Trump asked Russia to give the media copies of the 30,000 "personal" emails Hillary deleted from her home-brew personal server. The only way there would be "personal" emails from her server residing in a government server is if they weren't personal. They would be "government" emails, sent to members of the government, that she deleted for some reason. Definitely not "personal" emails.

And, furthermore, what's up with the treason accusations? Even if Trump did say to hack her email (which he didn't), the head of our justice department, Hillary, and the FBI have all declared there is nothing on her email server that was classified. No need to worry how insecure it was, or that it was a violation of policy to use it, everything there was as safe as tap water. Furthermore, it is not a government owned server. It's a personal server, so there are definitely no "treason" issues as it's not government property being talked about.

Not siding with either one of these juvenile, puerile, and corrupt imbeciles, I just want all parties to keep their heads when discussing the issues. Hyperbole and sensationalism backed by rabid self interest and self justified irrational beliefs don't help the conversation one bit. All it does is show that some people are so hopelessly wrapped up in the ideology they have been sold that they are willing to sacrifice their integrity and honesty to scratch out a couple of imaginary hash marks on the internet scoreboard of shame.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 973

Those emails were sent to other servers. Most of which are still up. And many of which are government email servers.

So you are admitting that at least some of the "personal" emails she deleted without oversight, departmental review, or third party vetting are actually not personal. Otherwise why would they be in government email servers if they weren't sent to government email addresses?

Comment Re:So that makes it OK then (Score 2) 689

So what you are saying is that its completely acceptable for a party organization to become a secret arm of the election committee of a single candidate, divert funds from all other candidates to the anointed candidate, and promise that once that candidate is in office large donors will receive political appointment in a federal government position.

As long as the candidate who gets elected doesn't offer it themselves, its acceptable. Of course that candidate will make the appointment, but they didn't offer it directly. One of their minions did, which makes is completely OK. Nothing to see, move along. Right?

Comment Re:So that makes it OK then (Score 1) 689

I heard it on NPR on the way to work this morning. Yes...that NPR. National Public Radio. The media outlet played on just about every public radio station in every major market in the United States. You know, the one that many people accuse of being left-leaning, but they listen to it anyways because it is pretty damn spot on most of the time. So, if even news organizations that are considered "left-leaning" are running this story you know for sure that the "right-leaning" ones are running it.

Where the hell do you live and what media outlets are you looking at?

Whatever you are doing, you need to mix it up a bit. The media outlets you are paying attention to are not giving you complete information and you are somehow not surprised by this. You may need to examine how your personal bias is affecting what you listen to and read. Are you cushioning and coddling your delicate sensibilities with an echo chamber of your own creation?

Try this on. Read The Huffington Post in the morning. Then read the Drudge Report at lunch. Pop over to CNN in the afternoon. Then, try on Fox News for contrast. XOR the news stories/headlines. You will might be surprised at what certain sites omit completely.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 769

remember their bureaucracy had it's reset button hit recently with the whole government collapse. It's less entrenched, has less influence, and is less effective at mucking up the machinery. Also, with a scary as fuck, I-will-arrange-your-murder-the-disappearance-of-your-family-and-the-euthanasia-of-your-parakeet, retired-or-is-he intelligence spook running the country with an iron fist and bulging pectorals, people in the bureaucracy would be downright stupid or outright suicidal to play the obstructionist card with him.

Comment Re:Ok, so what? (Score 0) 270

Just a thought...

Since their corporate value is based on consumer data, what is to say they don't take certain actions to see how their consumers react? Given a Petri dish with over one billion humans in it, who wouldn't be tempted to run some experiments, rather than just observe? They have already been caught doing experiments before. I think its simplistic to assume their actions are based on ideology only.

Slashdot Top Deals

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.