Jump to content

hardyaf

MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

    799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About hardyaf

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 06/19/1988

Converted

  • Location
    Houghton, MI

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not really worth engaging if you ignore sworn depositions, is it? I'll just move on. I've said my piece, you've said yours.
  2. You are allowed to make your own opinions. Not being able to use a computer is a deal breaker to me, and I think it should be for you too. But whatever.
  3. Yeah, I don't really get into putting words in peoples mouths and conspiracy theories. She said she wasn't comfortable using a computer, so that's the information I go with. I didn't really want to get into her "scandal" this was just a top of my head high profile case. I'm pretty confident theres more examples with less prominent people that are harder to find, but thats ok, this wasn't really a hill worth dieing on since it's all opinion driven.
  4. And I suspect you also know that's not the point being made. No one is saying Hilary needed to secure the computer. The point is she didn't know how to send an email from a computer so a secured computer was never an option. This isn't even about my opinion of Hilary Clinton. It's literally just easy proof that we have people that haven't owned/can't use a computer making policies in 2019. "The explanation; she was not comfortable with using a computer to read email. Lewis A. Lukens, a former State Department administrative official, said in a sworn deposition last week that after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, he had proposed accommodating her by setting up a desktop computer in her office that would not be connected to the department’s system. That would have allowed her to send and receive email on a personal account, Mr. Lukens said in the deposition, which he gave as part of a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal advocacy group."
  5. That's clearly not what the issue was. I suspect you know this.
  6. Yeah, I would expect someone who has owned a computer to be familiar with how to use it. The issue wasn't she didn't know how to secure it, its that her IT team wanted her to use a secure desktop, but she wouldn't because she didn't know how to use a computer. Sticking on whether she owned a computer or knows how to use a computer is simply semantics. She clearly can't use one, so I really don't care if she owned one and it sat in her house unused or not.
  7. Hilary is an easy high profile example of this that immediately comes to mind: From the wikipedia page about her "scandal": Setting up a secure desktop computer in her office was suggested, but Clinton was unfamiliar with their use[14]
  8. Meh, Age-ism is used constantly to disqualify younger people. In fact, its even the law that fully formed adults (21-35) can't be president. Why is that age-ism ok? (for the record, I'm fine with discriminating against young people here as well). There is no scrutiny held to the elderly about their ability to make appropriate decisions in a modern world. We have politicians making decisions on net neutrality who don't know what the internet is, testimonies by facebook where multiple congressmen can't understand how a company like that makes money. The internet has fundamentally changed the world, and we are electing people who likely never even have owned a computer. We like to discredit young people because they don't have some intangible thing called "experience". I would argue the pendulum eventually swings the other way as well, and no one who didn't grow up with modern tech has any "experience" anymore, and is equally unfit to hold office. The elderly should be held to a much higher standard, and they simply aren't. And that's wrong.
  9. Puke: Sanders: 77 Warren: 70 Biden: 76 This generation already got to ruin the world. It's ridiculous we are considering electing these people. Why does no one talk about this. This is just more of "my team" ism. Our country sucks.
  10. Is it too much to ask for a candidate who is under 70? Hard pass for me on both of these tickets.
  11. Here me out on this one: A second wall. To wall off the first wall.
  12. "Lions fanz": I wish our QB would show some heart and try to win. Also Lions fanz: "omgz did you see my qb fumble on an improv pitch on 2nd and 14 with 6 minutes left in the game while losing?" There is so much to criticize from this game, including from Stafford. If this is your take on this game, please turn off 97.1 and get a real opinion. Thanks.
  13. I've posted about this before, but at least the cost for freedom argument is honest. If all pro gun people admitted they felt this was the cost of freedom, we could have honest conversations as a country instead of faking arguments about arming teachers or pretending mental health is why there are so many guns available.
  14. I see stuff like this a lot and I think its just crap. I would wager 80% (made up number based on my interactions with people who vote) of voting Americans don't know anything about the people they vote for. That's why candidates don't actually run on policies, just sound bites. You could argue people should have known, but being ignorant is different than racist. You can pick which one is worse, I'm not sure.
  15. The real issue in all of this, is the woman's name get wiped from public record, but the man's does not. All 3 names should have been redacted once withdrawn. Accusing someone of rape, then withdrawing can haunt a person forever, even if they did nothing wrong and they don't even get a chance to defend themselves. That's not how the "innocent until proven guilty" system is supposed to work.
×
×
  • Create New...