|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Emergency workers from Australia and New Zealand are travelling to the western United States to help fight raging wildfires in five states including Washington, where Barack Obama has declared a state of emergency as massive fires are burning out of control.
Obama’s order authorizes the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate disaster relief efforts. It covers 11 counties in central and eastern Washington as well as the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Spokane Tribe of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation.
The specialists from New Zealand and Australia will join the nearly 29,000 firefighters working in Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho and California to combat daunting blazes that have overtaken the region.
“The crews being deployed are very experienced in dealing with large wildfires having handled fires on similar terrain across Australia,” Craig Lapsley, emergency management commissioner for the Australian state of Victoria, said in a statement.
The crew from across the Pacific includes 56 people from Australia and 15 from New Zealand. They are set to arrive in Boise, Idaho, for a briefing over the weekend before being dispatched across the western US.
The US Department of Defense sent more than 200 active-duty soldiers to fight fires in the region, the first time the Boise-based fire agency has used that option since 2006.
Source
|
On August 22 2015 07:41 Kickstart wrote: The fact that the government doesnt seem to have some sort of 'IT security' is pretty ridiculous tbh, any major corporation would be grossly irresponsible not to so the fact that officials are left to set things up on their own seems absurd. That said, from everything we know Hillary did nothing that wasn't commonplace among government officials (even those at that level). I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Clinton's are just shady to begin with, and we know for a fact that Bill is a raging sociopath of the worst kind. But still, some of the shit against Hillary is ridiculous and blatantly holding her to a different standard than anyone else.
If anyone in the military did anything resembling what Hillary did, they'd be charged under the UCMJ and court-martialled. She violated every tenent of OPSEC and COMSEC. I should know, as that was one of my primary duties when I was in the service (handling, storage, and security of classified information). It's like if she ended up putting SIPRNET on her home computer - that would be beyond stupid and illegal. But, of course, because she is an elite and a politician, the laws and standards of this country do not apply to her, or those like her.
|
Kickstart -> the government does have IT security, its just not that good; but it is passable. Hillary was supposed to use the State department email system/servers. When you violate IT safety rules, someone from IT needs to go up to people who may be their boss, and who are at any rate much higher than them in the government, and tell them they're doing it wrong and it needs fixing and they'll help fix it.
|
Yeah that is my point generally. If you've ever had to deal with IT security anywhere, you are used to being told 'no you can't do that'. More of that needs to be happening in the government apparently .
|
Yeah, it's just especially hard to get your boss to follow the rules, as they feel they can ignore you. I wonder who in State department IT should be blamed for not making sure Hillary follow proper safety procedures?
|
Yep, in every business there is always a conflict between IT security and upper management because upper management for whatever reason believes the rules aren't there for them but for everyone else. I don't know if holding someone at the state dept responsible would be wise because lets face it, no one there would be in a position to tell the secretary of state what to do. Its actually an interesting problem in general but really the higher ups need to understand that security rules are in place for a reason and apply to everyone, and then someone has to have the authority to enforce them against everyone.
|
On August 22 2015 07:59 zlefin wrote: Yeah, it's just especially hard to get your boss to follow the rules, as they feel they can ignore you. I wonder who in State department IT should be blamed for not making sure Hillary follow proper safety procedures? If your boss doesn't follow important procedure and they ignore you, you go to someone higher up.
|
On August 22 2015 07:49 Kickstart wrote: Unabashed socialism is different from moderate socialism. Our country is already a mixed economy anyways (that is, it is both capitalist and socialist). People just get all up in arms and most of them (not accusing any one here of this) don't even know what socialism is, or what communism is, or the difference, nor much about anything that they just get all worked up about. You're continuing the mixup in terms by misunderstanding the point. Back in the day, you would be dead in the water overtly calling yourself a socialist and supporting the goals. If you agreed with socialism, you called yourself a liberal, progressive, moderate Democrat, and supported that agenda with waves to how compassion drove your support. Now, Bernie is an unabashed socialist that is unafraid of the boogeyman, where his predecessors would dodge the label like the plague.
|
On August 22 2015 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 07:59 zlefin wrote: Yeah, it's just especially hard to get your boss to follow the rules, as they feel they can ignore you. I wonder who in State department IT should be blamed for not making sure Hillary follow proper safety procedures? If your boss doesn't follow important procedure and they ignore you, you go to someone higher up. Higher up than the Secretary of State? That would be an episode of the IT Crowd I would die to see.
"Mr. President? Err? Sir? Obama? Mrs. Clinton won't follow our security protocols, could you please tell her to do so?"
|
On August 22 2015 08:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2015 07:59 zlefin wrote: Yeah, it's just especially hard to get your boss to follow the rules, as they feel they can ignore you. I wonder who in State department IT should be blamed for not making sure Hillary follow proper safety procedures? If your boss doesn't follow important procedure and they ignore you, you go to someone higher up. Higher up than the Secretary of State? That would be an episode of the IT Crowd I would die to see. "Mr. President? Err? Sir? Obama? Mrs. Clinton won't follow our security protocols, could you please tell her to do so?" When your dealing with high level classified materials yes, that is what you should do if its needed.
|
On August 22 2015 08:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 08:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 22 2015 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2015 07:59 zlefin wrote: Yeah, it's just especially hard to get your boss to follow the rules, as they feel they can ignore you. I wonder who in State department IT should be blamed for not making sure Hillary follow proper safety procedures? If your boss doesn't follow important procedure and they ignore you, you go to someone higher up. Higher up than the Secretary of State? That would be an episode of the IT Crowd I would die to see. "Mr. President? Err? Sir? Obama? Mrs. Clinton won't follow our security protocols, could you please tell her to do so?" When your dealing with high level classified materials yes, that is what you should do if its needed. Except Obama clearly doesn't really care. They have been slow-walking the investigation. Now, possibly that is because she knows things that means only a Republican administration can hold her accountable, but it more plausibly is because he thinks no other Democrat will hold the White House.
|
So two(?) unarmed Marines on a train in France took down a guy armed with a knife, handgun and a Kalashnikov with over 300 rounds of ammo. Is it really easy to get that stuff onto a train? Also, Marines.
|
On August 22 2015 08:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 08:16 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2015 08:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 22 2015 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2015 07:59 zlefin wrote: Yeah, it's just especially hard to get your boss to follow the rules, as they feel they can ignore you. I wonder who in State department IT should be blamed for not making sure Hillary follow proper safety procedures? If your boss doesn't follow important procedure and they ignore you, you go to someone higher up. Higher up than the Secretary of State? That would be an episode of the IT Crowd I would die to see. "Mr. President? Err? Sir? Obama? Mrs. Clinton won't follow our security protocols, could you please tell her to do so?" When your dealing with high level classified materials yes, that is what you should do if its needed. Except Obama clearly doesn't really care. They have been slow-walking the investigation. Now, possibly that is because she knows things that means only a Republican administration can hold her accountable, but it more plausibly is because he thinks no other Democrat will hold the White House. There is a difference tho. Where it is now scandal in the open it would have been a simple internal matter if it was acted upon from the very start. The goal being to stop a potential leak before it happens, not after.
|
Or it's much to do about nothing and nothing was leaked.
|
|
United States42803 Posts
On August 22 2015 08:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 07:49 Kickstart wrote: Unabashed socialism is different from moderate socialism. Our country is already a mixed economy anyways (that is, it is both capitalist and socialist). People just get all up in arms and most of them (not accusing any one here of this) don't even know what socialism is, or what communism is, or the difference, nor much about anything that they just get all worked up about. You're continuing the mixup in terms by misunderstanding the point. Back in the day, you would be dead in the water overtly calling yourself a socialist and supporting the goals. If you agreed with socialism, you called yourself a liberal, progressive, moderate Democrat, and supported that agenda with waves to how compassion drove your support. Now, Bernie is an unabashed socialist that is unafraid of the boogeyman, where his predecessors would dodge the label like the plague. I think in most of our dictionaries an unabashed socialist would be committed to worker control of the means of production. Whereas a moderate socialist would recognize the need for public ownership of some industries which they believe are not best served by market forces, such as the army, education, healthcare and so forth, while at the same time treating market forces as the best tool we have for getting consumer goods to where they should be and for driving innovation.
America has always had a mixed economy and honestly you could probably actually nationalize healthcare and still increase the proportion of the economy in private sector simply by cutting military spending at the same time.
|
A Florida judge will draw up new maps for the state's 27 congressional districts. After meeting in a two-week special session, Florida's House and Senate adjourned without agreeing on what the maps, ordered by the State Supreme Court, should look like.
This was the Florida Legislature's third attempt to draw congressional maps that comply with the state Constitution. Under an amendment adopted by voters in 2010, Florida's Legislature must compile maps for congressional and legislative districts that don't protect incumbents or political parties.
But although Florida's House and Senate are both controlled by Republicans, the two bodies were unable to come to an agreement. They adjourned amid acrimony between House and Senate leaders. It was an atmosphere similar to that when the regular session ended in April with an impasse over whether to expand Medicaid. Republican leaders denied that feud carried over into this special session.
With the failure of the Legislature to produce new maps, the job of shaping Florida's 27 congressional districts now falls to state Judge Terry Lewis, who has ordered hearings in September.
Even though finalized congressional maps are still at least a month away, redistricting has already shaken up next year's races in Florida. After the State Supreme Court said Florida's 13th Congressional was one of several to be redrawn, Republican Rep. David Jolly announced he would not run for re-election. Instead, he joined the race for the seat being vacated by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. When it's redrawn, Jolly's district is expected to lean Democratic. Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Democrat who lives in the district, now says he's likely to run.
Source
|
Yeah you are still trying to paint Sanders as a die-hard socialist who will try to transform the way our government fundamentally works or something. Maybe he does think complete socialism would work best, though I doubt it. But even then, you would have to say he would try and push the country towards an entirely socialist model, and that is pretty absurd to think. To me, you are the one conflating things by continuously saying he is an 'unabashed socialist'.
|
Unabashed just means that he's not embarrassed or ashamed to call himself a socialist, and that's 100% accurate because he's never shied away from using that term (although sometimes he'll qualify it a bit more by saying Democratic Socialist).
Being unabashed doesn't say anything about the place on the spectrum a person lands in terms of severity of opinion though. It just means he's not embarrassed to use a specific label.
Therefore, I agree with Danglars on the use of the term "unabashed" for Bernie Sanders. He's owning that label of socialist, and he's doing it surprisingly well (unlike the previous generation). That has nothing to do with "how severely/ entirely" socialist he is, however.
|
On August 22 2015 09:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Unabashed just means that he's not embarrassed or ashamed to call himself a socialist, and that's 100% accurate because he's never shied away from using that term (although sometimes he'll qualify it a bit more by saying Democratic Socialist).
Being unabashed doesn't say anything about the place on the spectrum a person lands in terms of severity of opinion though. It just means he's not embarrassed to use a specific label.
Therefore, I agree with Danglars on the use of the term "unabashed" for Bernie Sanders. He's owning that label of socialist, and he's doing it surprisingly well (unlike the previous generation).
I see. Agreed.
Actually Dangalr's point about how people will perceive someone who openly admits to having socialist ideas is interesting. We saw it here a few pages ago when the guy went on about 'evil socialists' that people have extreme negative connotations when they (probably) don't even know what socialism means. I think people would be hard pressed to say some socialist ideas are bad if they actually knew what some were.
|
|
|
|