wjag

This thread, having been active through a bunch of significant US and world events might provide interesting fodder to current and future sociologists.

I surprising have zero problem with the police delivering a bomb to blow up an assassin. I thought at the time and still do, that was a brilliant tactical decision to bring an end to a very bad and protracted situation.

The Bureau of Land Management is a nonviolent movement.... hmmm .... Never heard my government described like this before...

Term I heard from a talking head this am. Coptics... cop optics... How the cop sees things and what is seen by his optics he is wearing..

This is nucking futts. In each instance over the last three days, everyone involved in shootings in LA, MN and TX all had guns. What is you argument now Mr. Trump?

That's why they hire agents...

segue My wife and I were looking for a movie to go see the other night. Settled on Tarzan as it was the only one that fit our time slot. Not, oooh Tarzan's playing, let's go, but rather, it's Tarzan or nothing, let's go. Well it was a fantastic movie. Quite surprised and quite pleased.

The part I find interesting about the whole email process is the part they are not talking about. Someone was responsible for physically moving the email from a classified system to one that was unclassified. That is an OVERT ACT and THAT is the breech. It happened multiple times. Where is all the talk about HOW they actually got there? Some are reported to be higher than Top Secret and have Special Access codings. This doesn't happen accidentally. AGAIN THIS IS THE BREECH and that person should be held accountable. We should not be talking about whether the SoS was too stupid to recognize classified markings and information (as that is now obvious based on her testimony) but who did she co-opt to do her bidding and what pressures did she put on her staff to break the rules regarding spillage?

I think they should meet and sign him in TD Garden for full effect.

Can we also see what type of beverages they are consuming on the flight back? That might tell us what we need to know..

Like teaching a child 6 different ways to do long division. I can tell you both my children were exposed to this and neither one of them relies on their brain to do division. They grab their phone, calculator or tablet.

Let's hope they subliminally assault him with a bowl filled with only blue and gold ones.

So I don't think they know more than the next generation as the human brain is rate limited by the hours in a day. What they have access to is an interweb of networks and devices which allows them to access information that is not presently stored in their brain. We also change what we teach from generation to generation, so I learned more about New York State and its history from 1970 and before and I would venture to say that today's generation in NYS learns about NYS history from 2000 and back. The delta of those 30 years means that some of what was taught to me is probably not being taught to them.

"We don’t give other people credit for the same interior complexity we take for granted in ourselves, the same capacity for holding contradictory feelings in balance, for complexly alloyed affections, for bottomless generosity of heart and petty, capricious malice. We can’t believe that anyone could be unkind to us and still be genuinely fond of us, although we do it all the time." Author unknown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6poDuB_SexU Some of life's unscripted moments are just so amazing...

So nhl.com on its cover story says today is the day Vee-zee talks to Buffalo Edit: In Beantown, not B'lo

ad·verb ˈadˌvərb/ noun GRAMMAR a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb or a word group, expressing a relation of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, degree, etc. (e.g., gently, quite,then, there ).

After watching the weekend poli-sci shows I am convinced beyond any doubt that Tom Perez will be Clinton's Veep. His junkyard dog attacks on all things name Trump was blistering and unrelenting. Interviewer: So Tom, is the sky really blue? Perez: Not when Donald is around, he emits so much carbon dioxide when he speaks that he is single handedly responsible for global warming. Interviewer: So Tom, how about those emails? Perez: Well Donald can't even spell email, but he can tweet Interviewer: So Tom, your international qualifications appear skimpy ... Perez: Well not as skimpy as a man who runs international pageants .... Check out his MTP interview...

So I appreciate your approach, and more so your honesty, even if I can't get behind it. In my line of work, she did more than just cross a line. I can tell you without reservation, that if I did this, I would be escorted from my desk by the authorities. And that is for doing it just once!! This is not hyperbole or an exaggeration. I have a memo that informs us that this is what would happen. Zero tolerance. Nor should there be. It is not up to me to decide what rules I want to follow and what ones I don't. It's the price of admission and access. It is black and white with no shades of gray even if the FBI handled it that way yesterday. They parsed the rules to fit her narrative and it is shameful. Based on what I now know from the FBI yesterday, she had top secret banners removed from her emails and then sent around. She was directly responsible for spillage. She did it repeatedly. She co-opted others into doing it. She lied about it time and time and time again. She looked right into the cameras, much like her husband before, and flat out lied. That galls me. I was bringing myself around to her, albeit slowly. I recognize her resume has all the right credentials on it. And then she goes and does this. And her husband goes and pulls that stunt last week and all the negativity I have worked to suppress about her and him comes flooding back. How can you back someone, anyone, that looks you right in the eye and flat out lies to you? I'm a single issue voter. It comes down to trustworthiness for me and I have been presented with two of the most untrustworthy candidates in my voting lifetime. Sheesh.. I don't call them yuk and yikes for no reason

I'm not willing to go there. I think Bill's action portend what she will be facing when she is President though. I can't believe he was blind to the optics of what he did; I choose to believe he just did not care.

I agree that Petraeus and Clinton are different cases. Petraeus was beyond dumb, well beyond. That does not change the fact that the FBI said today that HRC sent around classified emails when they were actually classified. She ran an organization that is built on the premise of confidentiality, if not outright secrecy. I suspect many of you have not been inside an embassy. They are physical and electronic fortresses for a reason. And yet, she so ole'd her own communications. It defies imagination. Speculate on how many briefings she sat through where they discussed at the highest levels of government hacking by the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc and yet she goes and installs an email system outside the protective bubble that has been deliberately built to minimize (notice I did not say eliminate) friendly, enemy, casual and hacktivist hacking. It's outright hubris and seriously lacks fundamental judgement about safeguarding what needs to be safeguarded.

You take that back!

Again, makes no difference to me. She flat out lied and said repeatedly that they were not classified at the time they were sent. They were only classified retroactively. I am pretty sure that if you or I did that, our experience with the FBI would be different. That line about the prosecutor is pure BS. The FBI was in a no win situation. I get that. I am only reacting to the fact that she did in fact pass along classified information, denied it again, and again and again and will suffer no repercussions other than political. I said up thread, she is/was the very definition of an insider threat. Someone who puts themselves before the rules of the agency for personal reasons.

So cherry picking one line from Comey today: "Comey said of the 30,000 emails that Clinton's team turned over to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to have contained classified information "at the time they were sent or received," Comey said. Eight of those chains contained information considered "top secret," the highest level of classification." This directly contradicts her claims and yet, nothing will happen... Umglaublich

Jupiter Orbit Insertion began today. Trying to put aircraft withing 1.2 seconds of destination. 1.2 seconds after traveling millions of miles