Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment (Score 1) 268

I don't dispute that the Obama Administration fought against total release of the logs, and the court agreed. There is nothing that I can see in their arguments that tied to "uselessness" or "inaccuracy", and you provide no evidence to support your assertion. I hope you can agree that fighting for the right to redact and then releasing the vast majority of the logs is wildly different than the Trump Administration's standard of releasing NOTHING.

It is not a question of "hypocrisy" because you're comparing apples to oranges. Obama released most logs but reserved the right to redact in specific cases; Trump is releasing nothing.

As for the IRS "scandal", while I'm glad you conceded your previous point by diverting and changing the subject, puhlease. The IRS absolutely SHOULD have gone after political groups posing as non profits because it's illegal and that was their job. The hearings proved that the IRS went after groups on the left in about the same percentage as groups on the right, but there were simply many more groups on the right. The hearings demonstrated the IRS applying the law as written, and no charges were filed nor did Congress elect to change to any policies. Lois Lerner plead the 5th because she isn't stupid and she knew a witch hunt when she saw one and that was the advice of her counsel -- and it would have been the advice of yours as well, and you would have done the same thing. Apparently to people like you, witch hunts in which no witches are discovered prove the existence of witchcraft.

Comment (Score 1) 268

Your claim that the "O admin kept telling us those logs were useless and inaccurate" in no way agrees with what you just cited.

  • The Department of Justice made the argument -- not "He" (i.e. President Obama).
  • The argument did not state "those logs were useless and inaccurate.
  • The argument was not repeatedly made (i.e. he did not "keep telling us".
  • The court found that the records were not subject to the FOIA. The court's decision had nothing whatsoever to so with the accuracy or usefulness of the logs
  • Nevertheless, the Obama Administration DID release volumes and volumes of the logs. He reserved the right to determine which logs were released.
  • President Trump is using the same ruling to release NO logs whatsoever (under the guise of "terrorism!")

Pro Tip: before you utter condescending snarky remarks like "maybe you just forgot", be sure you are not in fact, full of shit.

Comment (Score 1) 268

The O admin kept telling us those logs were useless and inaccurate anyhow.

Ignoring stupidity of the "two wrongs make a right" premise of your statement, perhaps you might provide a citation for your bullshit rationalization of Trump's decision to hide the visitor logs? Specifically when did the Obama Administration state that the visitor logs were useless?

Comment Re:Why shop at Walmart (Score 1) 467

If however, people choose to buy those products, then it looks to me like they value price over quality. At that point, who am I to disagree with their decisions?

Why, you're you of course. Except now you are a you with only a single option: "shit product for a bargain price" -- soon to be "shit product for the same price I used to pay for a decent product".

Comment Re: So 60 Minutes... (Score 1) 470

But sir, they are not charged with FRAUD. It's 14 counts of recording people without telling them and 1 count of conspiracy to record people without telling them...

First of all, I'm a ma'am, thank you. I said they committed fraud, and gave you the 5 point legal test. I didn't assert that fraud was in the indictment. If you think they didn't commit fraud, simply point out which point of the 5 point test fails. Go ahead, I'll wait. Just because the indictment doesn't include a fraud charge doesn't mean they didn't commit fraud. Indictments often do not contain all of the crimes committed, but the charges the AG thinks he can win. Al Capone didn't go to jail for murder -- even though he committed many of them. He went to jail for tax evasion.

You *do* know that the DA that charged them took campaign money from Planed Parenthood right?

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the enormity of the bias you feel that would drive you to make such an irrelevant and incorrect statement. Let's break it down, to whit:

    1. - Our Attorney General was *appointed* to fill a seat vacated by the recent elections. Thus, there WAS no campaign to which PP might have contributed.
    1. - Xavier Beccera's campaign contributions for his most recent Congressional Campaign are a matter of public record. Planned Parenthood does not appear anywhere in the list of 550 donors.
    1. - Let's say for the sake of humoring an obviously partisan person that Planned Parenthood DID contribute? So what? How is that relevant to this discussion? You are implying that he is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood. Don't imply. Assert -- if you have the evidence. Otherwise, why make such a statement?

So here is what I *do* know: you pulled an irrelevant assertion out of your ass without verifying it. Why would you do this without basic fact checking unless you're biased to see the AG as a big bad boogeyman persecuting poor, poor political operatives for the anti-abortion movement because he's in the pocket of Godless Abortionists?

It's common for one who has not thought through all sides of a debate but holds a specific view based on their emotional perspective to attack the person rather than the issue being debated. Since the last presidential election we've seen this in riots and violence from the radical left in unprecedented amounts. You seem to be engaged in a personal attack, at least in part even though you don't know me from Adam...

You seem to be confused about the difference between noting bias and a "personal attack". Noting that you are displaying a level of bias so high that it not only causes you to make irrational arguments, but it causes you to lie to advance your position is not a "personal attack". It's an evaluation based on observation -- and so I *do* know you from Adam. I have observed your behavior across several posts. Now, to be charitable, it's possible that perhaps you simply read somewhere that PP donated to our AG, so in that case it isn't a lie, since you didn't knowingly tell a falsehood. In that case, it's your bias causing you to fail to check basic facts before you put your name behind them. In that case, you're merely a tool.

I haven't called you a poopyhead or a moron. If you feel "attacked" by a basic review of facts, that's your conscience bothering you.

Comment Re: So 60 Minutes... (Score 1) 470

Huh. How convenient it must be for you to ignore the things you cannot refute like the credit card fraud and illegal access to email systems and try to hang your argument on making bogus claims like...

They just made up new names to use when talking to people and created a company to further the deception.

In the real world that the rest of us live in, we call that "fraud". Here's the legal test:

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

All five of the above elements exist. Oops. Illegal. Now, I'm not going to do something as stupid as, say, predicting the future like you have and say that "the whole think likely won't make it to court" (especially since now that charges have been filed, it IS in court), but the facts of the case are undisputed and clear, and Xavier Becerra, the Attorney General was just appointed and inherited the case from his predecessor and isn't up for re-election until 2018. So much for your latest round of doubt and speculation.

As I said, you have no interest in an honest discovery of fact. You want to push your agenda.

Comment Re: So 60 Minutes... (Score 1) 470

Faking a government issued ID (Driver's license, Passport and the like) IS a crime, but is that what these folks actually did?

Seriously? More concern trolling?

Gosh! No, I'm sure the ID they faked is a Monopoly Banker ID Card with a picture of Monopoly Man on it, and that's what they presented to Planned Parenthood to prove their identities, and they accepted it because they're stoopid, and the DA filed 15 felony counts because he's pissed at PP for being so stoopid, not because they broken any laws.

Also, the separate indictments by a Grand Jury in Texas -- TEXAS -- that indicted the pair on the same charges were clearly under the influence of Satan.

Also, the fact that these guys used a stolen password to access an email system they weren't authorized to use can't POSSIBLY have happened.

Since they can't POSSIBLY have logged into an email system, they obviously did not send several emails fraudulently pretending to be other people.

They can't POSSIBLY have fraudulently used someone else's credit card to pay a $325 registration fee.

Sure. It's all fake news generated by a liberal media and a overzealous prosecutor just trying to make his bones in that Liberaltopia of California.

Hey. Here's an idea. Go read the indictment and educate yourself. But then, it's pretty obvious you have no interest in educating yourself; your interest is in sowing doubt.

Comment Re: So 60 Minutes... (Score 2) 470

Imagine, a judge that thinks he's bound to rule based on what the law says and not on how he feels about it... Judges like him will end this kind of political prosecution....

And here's where we see that your previous posts were concern trolling. You can't have it both ways. In your first sentence you SAY you want judges to rule based on the law, and in your second sentence, you call this prosecution politically motivated, even though the fraud charges in particular are cut and dried. They FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS. There's no room for "feels" there.

Comment Re:let me help you out (Score 1) 233

You guys on the political left do not understand that every damned thing you just said about Trump is just as true of Obama from the perspectve of conservatives. Obama forged a political sword of hate and shoved it down our throats for eight years as he divided the nation by race, gender, etc all for his political gain. He heaped mountains of snark, arrogance, and sarcasm onto anybody who disagreed with him and labelled any opponent of his policies a racist. The man was the single most evil and bile-filled troll to ever operate in American politics.

If this is truly the "perspective of conservatives", then from the perspective of this moderate Independent, you're all fucking insane, truly living in a fiction of your own creation. Let's examine:

"mountains of snark, arrogance, and sarcasm"? Seriously?

"labelled any opponent of his policies a racist" Fucking seriously? What fucking planet are you living on and where do they keep your meds?

Comment Re:also in the news ... (Score 1) 476

Not every single job out there is one meant to make a career and living from, when did this thinking come about?

Goodness! You sure took that straw man out for a rant! Perhaps you failed to realize that nobody is claiming that "every single job out there is one meant to make a career and living from"? Perhaps "that thinking came about" from your reactionary amygdala?

But trying to do fiver or lyft or the like for a living just shows a person that isn't thinking straight.

Considering you're passing arm-chair judgement of people you don't even know the first thing about (ok, you know one thing: they're taking gig jobs), I'm a bit astonished at the hubris you must posses to judge that these people "aren't thinking straight". Maybe if you walked a mile in their shoes -- you know, working a couple minimum wage jobs and still not paying the rent or feeding the kids -- you might be less eager to pass judgement on people you don't know and more willing to look at the larger picture, or even consider that the words in the summary might have some merit?

an individual working himself to death is evidence of a flawed economic system.

Here's an interesting thought: Do you think our economic system might be a bit flawed, even IF, as you claim, that gig jobs "are not meant" to be enough to live off of? Here's another interesting thought: If I consider that I, on my comfortable salary which IS enough to live on, would never even think of taking a gig job beating my car up for $7 an hour, that maybe it's reasonable to assert that the ONLY people who WOULD take such low paying jobs are the ones that have no other choice? (and by extension, are desperate enough to take whatever shitty offer is made to them)

Slashdot Top Deals

panic: kernel trap (ignored)