“We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions-bound together by a single unity, the unity of freedom and equality. Whoever seeks to set one nationality against another, seeks to degrade all nationalities.” ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

I got a letter in the mail just the other day that a software company that manages my medical data had a data breach that potentially compromised my SS, DOB, driver’s license number, patient id, medical history, address, phone number, and basically anything else that could be stored by a hospital on its patients.

I got to a section of the letter that said in a subtitle “What are we doing about it?” followed with and im paraphrasing cause I don’t have the letter on hand…‘We contacted law enforcement and our security system is now more secure than ever before’

Cool thanks. Now can you do that before all my info is leaked next time? And maybe offer more than just 2 years of complimentary identity theft monitoring.

Edit: Keep in mind that I had no choice in whether this company got to handle my data. The hospital I am essentially forced to go to because of insurance coverage uses them for storing patient data. The next hospital closest to me that my employer provided insurance covers is 60 miles away.

Probably made for a good day at work. I know I wouldn’t mind if I knew it was a neo-nazi

Probably made for a good day at work. I know I wouldn’t mind if I knew it was a neo-nazi

If we don’t ever get to see the families of Sandy Hook take his money, I would at the very least hope to see Alex Jones incarcerated with no ability to reach a public audience. That’s not all though. His only source of news should be restricted to daily governmental briefings on what democratic elected officials are doing and left-leaning news organizations coverage. One more thing. We give him a recording session of 1 hour every month so everyone gets their dose of schadenfreud.

Excuse my faux pas. In the context of the argument, the ethnicity of the citizens living in those countries would be classified as minority ethnicities in America. Not that they are minorities in their own country. I would hope that anyone who’s first language is English could make that assumption. But you’re right.

I was only focused on the countries listed in the graphic, but Yugoslavia being left out shows that this graphic is serving a bias.

1. Bosnia is mostly white.

2. The only countries most people would consider to be “white” are western European countries that are geopolitically stable. We have treaties with those countries and most (read all) are aligned with NATO.

Sure, you can argue that the United States is bombing the countries in this graphic to try to kill ethnic minorities, but that’s an argument in bad faith and you know it. Is the US trying to take advantage of arms sales and profiteer from resources in those countries? Yes. Are they also trying to come to the aid of foreign governments battling terror organizations and leaders with dictatorial ambitions? Also yes. Geopolitics and foreign policy don’t fall neatly into good/bad actions. Switzerland is famously neutral when it comes to warring nations, but they also allowed their banks to profit and enable the Nazis during WW2. Inaction can be just as damaging as action if not more so.

Because Tyreek Hill isn’t going to shoot a police officer during a traffic stop on the day of a game?

Because an 8 part youtube series with 7 parts detailing their monthly budget and giving the update, “yeah, they still own the house” doesn’t get views or make money?

Maybe if it’s just me, but if you’re unable to do the research to become financially literate after being gifted a $200k investment for free… I’m not really going to turn your problems into ill will for the person that gave it to you. Library’s are free.

But also very ironic since the man doesn’t know the word ‘hallowed’ is different than ‘hollowed’

You’re not wrong but it doesn’t even matter what the shareholders want. Company executives are legally obligated to secure profits if they’re publicly traded.

Fucking liar. No one washes their car before driving on 44. Now if you said you were going to get a ball peen hammer and put a few cracks in the windshield of your Nissan Altima, some heavy dents in the body, remove the quarter panel on the passenger side, and smash in one of the two headlights…then I would believe you. But you would also need to be driving with a temp tag and merge without looking while going 87 in a 55.

What is there to really dislike about Pokemon? I didn’t realize that it was intrusive enough on those that don’t play or watch it to trigger such strong feelings.

It seems like we mostly agree then. I only disagree with the term “murder” when it’s applied to Obama’s authorization of the strike that killed Anwar Al Awlaqi. That carries with it the presumption of unjust killing that was being pushed by Republicans in the run-up to a 2016 election. It ended up being one of the few criticisms of Obama’s time in office(in my opinion). Would I have liked him to take a more hardline stance on his Supreme Court appointment in 2016 and pressured RBG to step down prior to 2016? Yes. And would I have wanted him to put the nails to Republicans to get ACA though with minimal changes? Yes. But overall I felt that in the 8 years he was president we moved forward as a society.

Its not a perfect system, I’m aware. I actually wish that the SC would have taken up the case so we could have a ruling, but I do believe that this particular closed-door meeting constitutes due process. I think its an unfortunate concession to feel more protected from terroristic action, but necessary. I would feel way more comfortable if the term “public danger” could only be applied to specific individuals rather than broad descriptions(like the one you referenced from Trump). And could only be applied by a committee of legacy members of the federal government shielded from presidential or political appointments. Then any killing carried out should be subject to increased investigation and review to confirm the justification. Any deaths or casualties deemed unnecessary can then trigger criminal actions against those that authorized them.

It seems like we mostly agree then. I only disagree with the term “murder” when it’s applied to Obama’s authorization of the strike that killed Anwar Al Awlaqi. That carries with it the presumption of unjust killing that was being pushed by Republicans in the run-up to a 2016 election. It ended up being one of the few criticisms of Obama’s time in office(in my opinion). Would I have liked him to take a more hardline stance on his Supreme Court appointment in 2016 and pressured RBG to step down prior to 2016? Yes. And would I have wanted him to put the nails to Republicans to get ACA though with minimal changes? Yes. But overall I felt that in the 8 years he was president we moved forward as a society.

Its not a perfect system, I’m aware. I actually wish that the SC would have taken up the case so we could have a ruling, but I do believe that this particular closed-door meeting constitutes due process. I think its an unfortunate concession to feel more protected from terroristic action, but necessary. I would feel way more comfortable if the term “public danger” could only be applied to specific individuals rather than broad descriptions(like the one you referenced from Trump). And could only be applied by a committee of legacy members of the federal government shielded from presidential or political appointments. Then any killing carried out should be subject to increased investigation and review to confirm the justification. Any deaths or casualties deemed unnecessary can then trigger criminal actions against those that authorized them.

Fair enough. I just feel as though there are extenuating circumstances surrounding his specific case. I believe that his due process was rather not denied, but expedited due to his own behavior. His due process took place in a briefing room of national security advisors discussing what violence he could be capable of before international police were able to capture him. I believe that he knew that his status as a US citizen would shield him from military action for some time and would be willing to use that time to orchestrate further attacks on western civilians for as long as possible.

I liken it to a hostage situation at a bank. A group of people commit armed robbery and 2 of the 3 have killed civilians. So in response they were killed by a SWAT team. The ring leader is the only one left and is holding hostages in a room with no windows, but is able to communicate with a negotiator. The orchestrator tells the negotiator that he has no intention of killing people but is holding hostages to ensure his safety. There’s already been lives lost so how willing are you to allow him to negotiate an arrest without further casualties? He’s holding hostages with the threat of violence but hasn’t killed anyone yet. Eventually he is killed without incident by law enforcement and the hostages are brought to safety. Is that situation a denial of due process by a court of law?

Up until the recent Supreme Court decision there was already oversight. Al Awlaqi was deemed to be an imminent threat and his killing was authorized by the National Security Council which would include 10-20 other individuals with access to superior knowledge of Al Awlaqi’s actions and includes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Homeland Security advisor. All people tasked with positively identifying imminent national security threats. The country he was seeking refuge in had even ordered him to be captured dead or alive. And if you’re questioning his involvement in al-Qaeda, he appeared in a video bearing al-Qaeda’s emblem praising the two prior mentioned terrorists and called them students of his.

You’re asking this question for no reason as the answer is clearly no.

And I don’t really think you’ll garner much sympathy for Anwar Al-Awlaqi’s “murder”. He left the United States and was orchestrating terroristic plots to murder innocent civilians in the United States. He was involved in two high profile incidents of terrorism as a commander for al Queda. Nidal Hasan’s mass shooting at Fort Hood and an attempted bombing of an intentional flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.