mzw_mzw

19 ms·

121.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
So, no war crimes at all then. Yeah, figured.
122.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
"Mom, he made me do it!" isn't going to save you in a court of law. Actual non-violent protesters, whom these people are not, would have taken someone advocating arson and murder and flung them out the door.
123.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
> You've only had 4 assassinations in the USA. It's easy to name 5 internationally. The question wasn't about "internationally." It was about the USA. More specifically, it was about people assassinated by the mi
124.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
The only reason third-party isn't a meaningful vote is because of people who tell themselves that it isn't a meaningful vote.
125.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
> Politifact takes a consensus of people who are experts in the topic, and its answers are subject both to peer review and to corrections from outside sources. And who decides which experts get to join the consensus, and which outside so
126.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Yep. If you're only bothered by surveillance now , you need to ask yourself if you were ever really bothered by surveillance at all, as opposed to being bothered by who won the election.
127.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Thanks for proving that politics really is the mind-killer.
128.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
The boldest and bravest, huh? I thought we were talking about Manning. Incidentally, what are the war crimes that were specifically revealed by this leak?
129.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Maybe should have thought of that before stealing all that classified information and leaking it to hostile nations, huh? It really is bizarre how people demand, not just that they can commit crimes for political reasons, but that crimes co
130.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
> or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Yep, there we go. Thanks!
131.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
> the US gobertment directly controlling those companies in the name of security [citation needed]
132.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
I wonder if the people fed up with the slow pace of infrastructure development, to the extent that they are building their own , have made any effort to push for a less sclerotic government structure in their town? Actually, I bet I can gu
133.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Do you think that sneering at people who have an issue with PolitiFact is going to win them over to your side? Gonna be a long eight years if that's the case. Putting aside sneering, though: let's assume for the sake of argument
134.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
> work with a dedicated team of editors, like politifact, to give websites an honestyrank It turns out that PolitiFact is run by people who have their own unconscious biases and put their own thumbs on the scale. So now what?
135.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
It does suggest that perhaps the folks who were waving off the firefighters earlier don't make the best decisions.
136.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
That is to say, you voted for the surveillance state. There were other candidates running, you know.
137.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
> I think the only people who were supporting the surveillance apparatus were the same people of an authoritarian bent who are now supporting Trump. And the folks who voted and agitated for surveillance state champions Obama in '12
138.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
And yet that disappointment didn't translate into voting for other candidates -- and I'm not talking about voting for Romney or Trump, there were plenty of other options the whole time -- so in the end it is of no value.
139.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
If you're going to support the candidate no matter what, why should the candidate care what your opinions are? They have your vote already. Candidates will only care about your opinion on surveillance if you're willing to deny the
140.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
And those voices would then vote to elect and re-elect Clinton, and advocate for her every chance they get, as most of them did this year.
141.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Wait, so unaccountable billionaires pouring money into politics is now a good thing all of a sudden? Between this and the 180 on surveillance I am getting serious whiplash.
142.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Obama supporters were all for mass surveillance when it was their guy doing it. So it's more like the firefighters showed up hours ago and you told them not to put out the fire because it was only burning someone else's room.
143.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
And that is relevant because...?
144.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Whoa, whoa, whoa. We've been assured by everyone else on this topic that the CEO wasn't saying anything bad about Trump and his supporters, no how, no way, why the very idea is absurd. And now you're saying that yup, he was,
145.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Do you really think that someone who voted for Trump, and now fears for their employment in the context of a hard-left industry and hometown full of people freaking out and making wild threats, is going to carefully parse the letter in this
146.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Offending a quarter to a third of your customers doesn't sound much better, frankly. Not to mention that you're also offending Clinton voters who don't want their workplace to be infected by politics. Despite the shrill behav
147.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
[citation needed]
148.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah, some people (well, particularly including myself) are on way too much of a hair-trigger. I also un-downvoted, for whatever little that's worth.
149.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
What's wrong with building that?
150.
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
It's neat how the reaction to an authoritarian state further restricting its people's access to information from outside sources is "see, just another reason why the United States is evil, all hail Edward Snowden and the FSB.

More ›