What basis in reality is there for your comment? Republican candidates have actually endorsed the idea of rounding up Muslims and branding them like the NSDAP did in Germany in WWII.
When has Hillary suggested anything about suing manufactures over terrorism? That idea comes from Manhattan's District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who isn't running for president.
Cyrus and Hillary had a thing back when she was Senator.
I find it quite interesting that the same institutions that now ask for new laws enabling them to break the encryption in fear of terrorists are basically the same ones that helped establishing the terrorism in the first place.
What basis in reality is there for your comment? Republican candidates have actually endorsed the idea of rounding up Muslims and branding them like the NSDAP did in Germany in WWII.
When has Hillary suggested anything about suing manufactures over terrorism? That idea comes from Manhattan's District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who isn't running for president.
Candidates? Since you used the plural how about you name some names besides Donald Trump? Good luck because you won't find any. But we do know the Japanese internment camps happened under Democrat Frankilin Roosevelt. And we know one of Hillary Clinton's heroes, Margaret Sanger, was a proponent of eugenics.
Shouldn't the terrorists see Tim Cook and Apple as enemies? I mean, this is a very profitable company led by a gay American. Why would they trust him when he says that Apple doesn't have the ability to decrypt iMessage? Isn't that kind of like the Germans buying message encryption machines from an English company during WW2?
To paraphrase Alan Kay, people who are serious about war and terrorism should really do their own encryption.
Shouldn't the terrorists see Tim Cook and Apple as enemies? I mean, this is a very profitable company led by a gay American. Why would they trust him when he says that Apple doesn't have the ability to decrypt iMessage? Isn't that kind of like the Germans buying message encryption machines from an English company during WW2?
To paraphrase Alan Kay, people who are serious about war and terrorism should really do their own encryption.
I would paraphrase it to "...should really do their own religion". Where the term religion is actually the paradigm of values one deeply cherishes. Could be a god. Or power. Or cash. Or a combination.
Interesting title. So they copy another manual, but because it's ISIS it is worth a few million or so clicks. The click bait slant on the reporting here is getting a bit out of hand.
I don't like Trump at all, but the media lied on this one (as usual).
nope. he agreed to it; if he hadn't trump of all people would sue for slander. but here from your own article:
Maddow did not hear back from Trump, but after an event in Iowa, an MSNBC reporter asked a clearly distracted Trump on a ropeline, "Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims here in this country?" Trump again beat around the bush, but later in the interview ended up agreeing. In another brief encounter around the same time, with CNN, Trump noted that he had never said anything about a database in the Yahoo interview and declined to engage on the issue.
Trump's offhand decision to tell MSNBC he would implement a database was an enormously stupid thing to do. And by Friday afternoon, Trump tweeted, "I didn't suggest a database -- a reporter did. We must defeat Islamic terrorism & have surveillance, including a watch list, to protect America.
Candidates? Since you used the plural how about you name some names besides Donald Trump? Good luck because you won't find any. But we do know the Japanese internment camps happened under Democrat Frankilin Roosevelt. And we know one of Hillary Clinton's heroes, Margaret Sanger, was a proponent of eugenics.
if even only the forerunner GOP candidate said he'd consider a national database of Muslims, it's enough -- it shows the GOP is a party of fear mongering fools and idiots. Rubio also made some comments about shutting down cafes and Internet sites.
I don't care about FDR because he's not running for president.
there is no way a privacy-loving citizen can support Trump for president. or Rubio.
The "Islamic State" is not a state. Using this qualification is misleading (and is a concession to these people).
Go over to the Middle East and tell the locals outside their territory that ISIS isn't a state. They'll laugh at you. They just refer to them as IS these days.
ISIS is a state, and it is Islamic. To claim anything else is lunacy. They wanted a caliphate, and they have it.
Best part is we had the leader in custody at one point. Oops.
if even only the forerunner GOP candidate said he'd consider a national database of Muslims, it's enough -- it shows the GOP is a party of fear mongering fools and idiots.
I don't care about FDR because he's not running for president in the present.
Lets take a look at the real issue that started this recent "OMG I can't believe Trump said that!"
So you're saying you wouldn't track a group of people seeking to enter the United States from an area of the world known to support terrorism?
The president told us each refugee would be vetted before allowed access to the United States. How is this vetting occurring? How is the information being recorded? How is their background being researched for that matter? You think its all done with a notepad and pencil? (Actually with this regime it might be...)
Both the democrats and republicans need to be reeled in and taught a few lessons. General Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing his notes with his biographer and was rightly removed from office. Hillary exposed national secrets on the internet from her own server, located at her house, and people are tripping over themselves to make her the next president! That doesn't make you think WTF is going on?
You better grow up fast and get that poison out of your mind. Both parties are full of "fear mongering fools and idiots" and you're one of them if you think otherwise...
And in regards to "I don't care about FDR because he's not running for president in the present." sorry, you don't get to selectively ignore facts that don't support your argument.
What basis in reality is there for your comment? Republican candidates have actually endorsed the idea of rounding up Muslims and branding them like the NSDAP did in Germany in WWII.
When has Hillary suggested anything about suing manufactures over terrorism? That idea comes from Manhattan's District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who isn't running for president.
I think it's interesting how Al Qaeda had stopped using technology (like satellite phones) because it could be tracked, and went back to using human couriers for communications, while ISIS has done the opposite, and is uses tech and the Internet aggressively.
(Sorry for being on topic. I didn't mean to interrupt your Trump v Hillary thread)
Comments
The problem is that you’re mistaking us for being a nation of laws. We haven’t been for a good long while now.
Actually, it's "When privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy." Think about it. This is what the three-letter agencies want.
The "Islamic State" is not a state. Using this qualification is misleading (and is a concession to these people).
Right like guns for example.
Candidates? Since you used the plural how about you name some names besides Donald Trump? Good luck because you won't find any. But we do know the Japanese internment camps happened under Democrat Frankilin Roosevelt. And we know one of Hillary Clinton's heroes, Margaret Sanger, was a proponent of eugenics.
Shouldn't the terrorists see Tim Cook and Apple as enemies? I mean, this is a very profitable company led by a gay American. Why would they trust him when he says that Apple doesn't have the ability to decrypt iMessage? Isn't that kind of like the Germans buying message encryption machines from an English company during WW2?
To paraphrase Alan Kay, people who are serious about war and terrorism should really do their own encryption.
I would paraphrase it to "...should really do their own religion". Where the term religion is actually the paradigm of values one deeply cherishes. Could be a god. Or power. Or cash. Or a combination.
Interesting title. So they copy another manual, but because it's ISIS it is worth a few million or so clicks. The click bait slant on the reporting here is getting a bit out of hand.
doesn't matter. killing is also a legitimate job to be done. a tool is a tool. the tool can be used by those in the right, and those in he wrong.
nope. he agreed to it; if he hadn't trump of all people would sue for slander. but here from your own article:
if even only the forerunner GOP candidate said he'd consider a national database of Muslims, it's enough -- it shows the GOP is a party of fear mongering fools and idiots. Rubio also made some comments about shutting down cafes and Internet sites.
I don't care about FDR because he's not running for president.
there is no way a privacy-loving citizen can support Trump for president. or Rubio.
Go over to the Middle East and tell the locals outside their territory that ISIS isn't a state. They'll laugh at you. They just refer to them as IS these days.
ISIS is a state, and it is Islamic. To claim anything else is lunacy. They wanted a caliphate, and they have it.
Best part is we had the leader in custody at one point. Oops.
if even only the forerunner GOP candidate said he'd consider a national database of Muslims, it's enough -- it shows the GOP is a party of fear mongering fools and idiots.
I don't care about FDR because he's not running for president in the present.
Lets take a look at the real issue that started this recent "OMG I can't believe Trump said that!"
So you're saying you wouldn't track a group of people seeking to enter the United States from an area of the world known to support terrorism?
The president told us each refugee would be vetted before allowed access to the United States. How is this vetting occurring? How is the information being recorded? How is their background being researched for that matter? You think its all done with a notepad and pencil? (Actually with this regime it might be...)
Both the democrats and republicans need to be reeled in and taught a few lessons. General Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing his notes with his biographer and was rightly removed from office. Hillary exposed national secrets on the internet from her own server, located at her house, and people are tripping over themselves to make her the next president! That doesn't make you think WTF is going on?
You better grow up fast and get that poison out of your mind. Both parties are full of "fear mongering fools and idiots" and you're one of them if you think otherwise...
And in regards to "I don't care about FDR because he's not running for president in the present." sorry, you don't get to selectively ignore facts that don't support your argument.
What basis in reality is there for your comment? Republican candidates have actually endorsed the idea of rounding up Muslims and branding them like the NSDAP did in Germany in WWII.
When has Hillary suggested anything about suing manufactures over terrorism? That idea comes from Manhattan's District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who isn't running for president.
I think the reference comes from Hillary wanting to be able to sue gun manufacturers for violence perpetrated by those who use guns. http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/hillary-clinton-gun/
(Sorry for being on topic. I didn't mean to interrupt your Trump v Hillary thread)