I see you did not include actual figures. You just SPECULATE that the numbers are wrong.
I see you did not include actual figures. You just SPECULATE that the numbers are wrong.
So the system is working is proved by finding some random fool to pin a crime on? And its ok to violate due process and basic logic and reasoning just because the cops had a 1 in 1 billion shot at finding the suspect...?
I mean, this is a man that lives in New Orleans. Did they even check whether this person even came to Idaho? Has he ever been even close to Idaho?
Why did they come after him in the first place? Because they have no clue who did it and they are scrapping the bottom of the barrel. We all feel terrible about crimes like this and we all want to see the guilty suspect lynched, but I don't think finding people thousands of miles away who have never been to a certain locale are really suspects. They are the hail mary pass when every other option has been exhausted. How many times has this technique actually caught someone?
And that is the problem. There needs to be some probable cause to believe this guy could be a murderer. Not just an inkling that maybe its possible he might be.
What is truly said is how all of these topics are from actual "scientists".
i use that term loosely considering you can make bad assumptions anytime and not be a scientist, but go figure..
95% of the public won't even remember this incident come election time. And odds are more people will end up voting for her since she has no records from when she was in Government service. Its kind of hard to paint the opposite side as bad or terrible when there is no absolutely zero record of what she actually did...and you can bet that her political operators will go out of the way to find embarassing stories about her opposition....
And so as most modern liberal candidates go, she will win simply because she voted present for long enough in the pillars of power.
That is what Obama has taught us anyway. The real route to power in this country is having no records except being present, and saying the right stuff while having a surplus of charisma....and than destroying your opposition through personal attack. The end result is that everyone who is elected is nothing short of a psychopath without any morality. Everyone else gets destroyed and has their friends and families targeted by political operators. What kind of normal person would knowingly subject such attacks to their own family and friends? Yep, you guessed it. Which is what we get as a country.
And so, while we think we have the right to select candidates and to elect who we want, the truth is that the media has already decided in most cases who will win based on what stories they publish and on which page.
The American experiment therefore is to see how well psychopaths can run a country. My guess is that it will last two generations before the people finally get fed up and string whoever is in power at that time up and we than have another revolution. It will happen eventually...
Maybe just maybe they think she should be punished for the laws that she broke as written above in the summary. Did you bother to read that before you started kissing the heck out of Hillary's backside?
You applaud Hillary for breaking the rules...good for you.
That is right, leaders shouldn't have to worry about rules like "accountability" and "morality" and "laws of the land" because that would get in the way of these tinpot dictators from doing what they wish. Couldn't have that in modern politics now, could we?
Nah, real leaders just break all the rules, murder their opposition and leave no trace to what they actually did. At least that is what you are saying. Maybe you used bad wording or such, but in the end the conclusion is the same...without accountability there is no way to make sure our leaders actually follow the same laws they put on the rest of us.
She is too powerful. Powerful people tend to dislike light shown on their actions, because than rational people will see how stupid they really are and pounce on their bad actions and their bad conclusions.
This is the same for politicians throughout history....
So yea, while there might be hidden emails on some Government server somewhere, do you really think they will ever see the light of day? She would have zero issues killing them in the streets to keep them from coming out if I had to guess and this is why this is the last time we will ever hear about "no emails and breaking the rules..."
Still no word to this day on the missing 6 billion from the state department during this time.
And good luck finding that. If its not in Switzerland under the account "H. Clinton" or "H. Rodnam" than its probably under the same accounts as numbers to her friends and family...
And yea, just like the Bush's and Obama's, the Clinton's are a rich political dynasty today where what really goes on will never be known and we can only guess based on evidence. More evidence is here that all of our politicians are nothing but psychopaths and would probably throw their own mothers under the bus for political power....
They should all be in jail. I don't think one person breaking the rules is excused by a third party doing the same. Unless you are trying to say that two wrongs do make a right?
You are glad that someone as seasoned at breaking the rules in technology is doing so? That sounds like a great thing to me. Here we go, here are more Government idiots who know how to use technology and will make sure that they have zero accountability! I am glad that the monkeys at the top finally learned the basics of interwebz 101 and know how to cover their tracks. We wouldn't want our Government officials to be held accountable now, would we?
Every scientist has ingrown bias. Someone pays their salary, and in order to keep their jobs, they have to make that person happy. Otherwise, that person is not by definition a professional scientist.
Just the same as anyone else. Whether its government grants or private funding, the money comes from an employer who is biased and wants certain results, and so the pressure is on the scientist to conform or wither away without funding. To think that any scientist is completely impartial is missing the most important part of being a professional scientist: that they are being paid. After that, what else is important? Attack the science itself if you call yourself a scientist, and if you are a political hack, attack the funding like is done here.
To say that one scientist who is funded by a private individual is anymore biased than scientists who are funded by Government is sloppy thinking at best that fails to recognize that science is a system without funding and without consensus in itself.
Agreement? not at all.
The only aspect in science we care about is logic and deduction, and 99.9% of the time when a scientist is not being attacked because of their actual science, its nothing but a political witch trial that cares only about its pound of flesh.
Real scientists for instance would never point to this guys source of funding as a form of bias. They would attack the science itself and go from there. But than again, this entire piece is a witch-hunt to destroy one man who disagrees with someone. Welcome to politics, where we do not follow the scientific method and where we insult others thinking we are doing the work of science.
Is this the same Al Gore who goes around on his personal jet and has the carbon footprint of a small nation?
That is the same man we should listen to?
The man who tells us that the seas are going to rise and destroy our coastlines and than owns a beach-side mansion?
You are correct, this will happen with or without Government involvement or not.
Political backing is only required in industries that can not win on their own and so require back-up funding to exist.
As for Google , I would suggest that self-driving 18 wheelers will probably be more useful than anything else, and so transportation for individuals other than the super rich will probably stay the same (as you say.) The people might see some taxi's in large cities that are self driving, as the cost for a 100k self driving car is roughly the same as a 30k car with a 70k human (benefits plus salary)....
I don't know personally, but it would seem fun to say bye bye to drinking and driving and never worry about that again. Just my two cents anyhow.
Here is the corollary to this for those who believe in CO2 catastrophe:
Never before in the history of our planet has CO2 increase lead to catastrophe or anything as bad as that is predicted by computer models. So in essence, my point is as follows:
If CO2 is not a driver of climate as suggested by paleo data going back millions and even billions of years, why do so many people believe that this "unprecedented" event is going to happen?
It takes a belief and faith that such a thing is going to happen. We can argue about computer models about the future climate and all sorts of things about them, but the main point I am trying to make is this:
What makes TODAY so special that the climate is suddenly going to go into an irreversitable tail-spin?
Yes, because this is obviously how science is done. You know, where beliefs trump empiricism and where instead of using the boring old scientific method we simply parrot what we believe as if it is sciency.
Ok, to be serious for just a moment, are you seriously telling us that its interesting what a bunch of idiot politicians believe? That idiot politicians beliefs on a science topic are actually relevant?
Probably, because the greens are nothing but modern day Amish in love with obsolete technology like wind power.
Nothing like being told by a hypocritical Amish idiot that I should "SACRIFICE" for their beliefs. Than again, why should I sacrifice today when the Amish themselves refuse to?
Sounds kind of funny that the fringe people who believe in the end of the world want everyone else to sacrifice first....
Kind of weird that such a doomsday cult exists today and that it consists mostly of atheists...kind of like humanity needs a belief system of some type and that if you take religion out of it, its just as nutty as religions are. Ironic perhaps.
"We want to create puppets that pull their own strings." -- Ann Marion "Would this make them Marionettes?" -- Jeff Daiell