1. Popularity isn't always the best barometer to measure the success( and more importantly) the moral fortitude of any given leader. To use an extreme example(and by no means am I comparing the two) Hitler rose to power on a wave of high popularity, and despite losing the German presidential election to the incumbent Hindenburg, managed to finagle his way into the chancellors office and well.......we all know how that ended.

    The people "Loved" kim jon il, the people "Love" his demon spawned progeny, especially that pudgy bowlcut with a face.
    The People "Loved" Lenin, so much so they enshrined him in a permanent state of petrified repose for all the girls and boys to gawk at, the Non living embodiment of inherently flawed economic ideology.
    The people "Loved" Stalin, because of Stalinism.
    The people "Love" Putin because; Cyanide.

    The "People" "Love" a lot of things and individuals detrimental to their liberty and health.
    That doesn't make them right, it makes them stupid.
    dreed and San Goku like this.
  2. San.. tsk tsk already caving in. Disappointed I am. Either way you do not have to like the person. You just want the country and your life, family to be better as a whole and I think he is performing that job quite nicely for a lot of Americans and not just the ones who voted for him.

    Everyone has an opinion though and a right to it but it does not always mean they are wrong or right. Cannot please everyone. Trump will be re-elected anyway so maybe most of you on here won't always feel like your lives suck all those years. lol.

    See you guys in another few months in this thread respectively.
    San Goku likes this.
  3. I'm not caving in lol :)
  4. Sans Canadian.

    I cant speak for him, but something tells me his "Admiration" doesn't originate from his belief that Trump will better his country.
  5. Hey look.. this is why I do not like political threads on forums that are not political to begin with. I like my friends. I want to stay friends and I just want to talk anime, sports, music and life w/o political bs.

    So I am bowing out of this thread for good. I get it.. respectful, mature adults can handle this and I tell my friends that so much here trust me.. I just do not want to start that here anymore than I have. I like things how they are and my friends on the left or right.

    Take care ^^
  6. That's fair, after all politics and religion are topics that not everyone likes and can generate a lot of resentment.

    Personally, and I imagine for most people on this board, politics are fun to discuss and we're (probably) not going to be bearing each other grudges. Just because Trump is one of the worst people we've ever elected to office and all of his supporters are crazy doesn't mean we can't be friends :troll
  7. Remind me why and how Comey has his job still? That "mildly nauseous" comment made me laugh out loud and spit out my drink.
  8. Comey loves pushing the whole "intent" aspect to get himself out of trouble. However, the statute doesn't say anything about intent, it states negligence. You can be guilty of negligence without having criminal intent. It happens to people charged with other forms of negligence all the time. Sure you didn't intend for it to happen but you still broke the law in that you were negligent. Sure, you didn't intend for your employee to get hurt on that ladder but the fact that it was old and needed replacing but you didn't do it means you were negligent and that employee got hurt.
    San Goku likes this.
  9. According to Comey, no one has been charged with gross negligence since the statute was created and thus doing so would be a change of precedent. Given that the damage actually done by Clinton's negligence was minimal, he didn't feel that justice would be served by attempting to charge her under that statute. Essentially his argument was "she should have known better, but she didn't and while it could have been damaging, it wasn't."

    Blasting her in public I suppose was the appropriate punishment to him.

    I can get behind that to an extent, but if I had done the same thing when I was in DC I would have lost my job (she's already left hers) and lost my clearance (not sure if she still has hers). Prosecution is rare, but I believe when I looked into this earlier I found at least two instances of people getting charged for mishandling classified information.

    The real question to me is, what happens when the next person does it? Do they get a free pass too, or are they held to a higher standard now that Clinton has been blasted by Comey?

    I don't know that his decision was the right one, but I can at least see his logic in why he chose not to prosecute.
  10. I'm glad you finally came to this realization, this is what only everyone has been fuming and raging about the whole time.
  11. Give me SOME credit San... I've blasted Hillary for it from the beginning. The problem was that none of this turned up until she left her position. When the usual penalty is job termination, and the person has already left the job... there's not a huge stick to chase the person with.

    Edit: Re-reading I come off wrong. The first sentence is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, not blaming-asshole sorry.
  12. Well...this episode is bound to rustle some feathers.


    I did find one comments on the posting of this episode quite interesting:

  13. It's late and I'm tired, but hopefully this will be coherent. Net neutrality isn't a scam by any stretch of the imagination. First and foremost - data is cheap. It's not a limited resource, it's an artificially limited resource like diamonds. $25/month for Netflix based on usage is absolute bullshit, and I have no idea where he or she came up with that number.

    Net neutrality isn't about Google and Netflix. Net Neutrality is about the next Google and Netflix. What net neutrality means is that ISPs can't discriminate based on traffic content. Looking at the site you linked:

    1. If you pay $100 / month for unlimited food from a restaurant, then it should be a buffet. Giving you 2 servings then saying you're done isn't unlimited food.
    2. If you pay $100 / month to send unlimited mail, then you shouldn't have to pay another fee to send it priority or bulk.
    3. I don't even know what this question is, as it's not even directly related to the topic. No one ever said you should charge the same internet subscription price for different speeds.

    When the ISPs wanted to charge Netflix more money, they intentionally throttled Netflix's traffic. Keep in mind the ISPs are already charging twice for the same internet traffic. Your download and Netflix's upload is the same stream, and you're each paying for it. Net neutrality prevents a third fee from coming in - paid priority. This is essentially the old mob shakedown routine, but over the internet. "What? You don't want paid priority? It'd be a shame if your connectivity to all your potential customers suddenly became very slow and spotty." The ISPs say that they won't do that, and they'll only let paid content get faster. That's horseshit and logically infeasible.

    Scenario: ISP doesn't slow Netflix down when Netflix doesn't pay for priority. People get the same speed Netflix as always, Netflix wonders what the hell the ISP is doing since paid priority meant nothing at all.

    Paid priority ONLY matters when there's throttling. The other thing is that under net neutrality, an ISP can't throttle VPN traffic. Without net neutrality, an ISP can throttle the hell out of any VPN or TOR type traffic, making them unusable. That means if you want privacy from your ISP now that they can monitor and sell everything you do without your knowledge or permission, tough shit. What are you going to do, change ISPs? Good luck with that.

    Finally, I'll leave you with a gem from the comment above:

    I literally laughed out loud. There's nothing stopping ISPs from expanding across the nation. They don't want to. ISPs have entered deals with states where they must build out their infrastructure to lower populated areas (IE less money), and they've straight up ignored those parts of those deals. Yet the same states (New York is at the top of my head) keep making deals with the ISPs, because there is only a few they can choose from. ISPs have sued cities that wanted to provide municipal broadband, and had state legislatures take that ability away from the local municipalities (so much for local government is better). Look at a map of ISPs. They literally avoid areas where others are in, with one exception - Google. It's amazing how when Google comes to a city, suddenly the speeds get faster and the prices get cheaper overnight.

    ISPs are currently legal monopolies. If you're lucky, you get 2. If you're in a really big city you might have a choice of 3. I live in a condo building in downtown Chicago, and I have one provider, AT&T. They charge us out the wazoo for sub-par speeds and service. Now that Google wireless is coming for apartment and condo buildings, suddenly they're interesting in talking with us and improving things. Right.
  14. When you're not tired listen to the podcast. The comment I posted was a response to the podcast. Jason talks about net neutrality for the first 20-30 minutes and Jason is a libertarian and has very specific principles that he follows and argues from that point of view.
  15. Lulz. They've been doing it for years. http://www.zdnet.com/article/level-...-forcing-internet-traffic-into-the-slow-lane/

    For someone who claims to be as savvy as he does, you'd think he'd know that YouTube IS Google...

    He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. They run on the same internet backbones, which aren't owned or managed by ISPs. They then have their own lines.

    Is he serious? There aren't pricing wars. 10% of all Americans (including 40% of all rural Americans and 66% of those living in US territories) can't even get 25 Mbps. Unfortunately the only map I can find is a few years old: https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/connect-compete-home-broadband-coverage-map/

    Sure it's difficult, because their competitors are doing everything they can to stop them. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...o-block-google-fiber-access-to-utility-poles/

    Bullshit, unless he thinks a few years to mean a decade.. http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-subscribers-chart-2017-1
    He mentions "five years ago, very few of us had a Netflix account." Sure, 35M people is just a few. Then again, if 10% of Americans can't get reasonable internet speeds and he thinks that's a few, then yes, over 10% of the population is "a few,"

    Ok, I'm done. http://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/

    In 2016 it took 1.2 terabits per second from over hundreds of thousands of compromised devices connecting incessantly to only one DNS provider for hours to take big sites down and then the sites were only down if you were using the DNS name. The internet is massive and can handle massive loads [insert mom joke].

    Similar attacks have been fired at Amazon and Akamai and they didn't even blink.

    Let me know if he ever starts citing some sources for any of his comments. I made it to about 12'15" As far as I can tell he's just doing exactly what he chastised people for early in his podcast - hearing something and repeating it without understanding it.
  16. Correction - some do own internet backbone networks, they're just not tier 1 providers.
  17. So, trump fires Comey because of how he handled things before trump became president. Why did he not fire him on his first day?
  18. I actually thought it was a good thing not to fire him right away it shows he assessed the situation cause I was saying he should be fired right away. I guess people are going to spin this negatively if they haven't already.

    I think we can all agree that we seen this coming some how.
  19. Thinking he wanted to have his Attorney General Sessions appointed first
    dreed and San Goku like this.
  20. Yeah. Trump fired him cause officially Ag recommended that.

    I'm just curious on how they will handle the transition of power. who is going to be new boss?

    I would LOVE if Bannon was appointed

Share This Page