Don't listen to food adverts. Broccoli doesn't have a marketing budget.
Open office is 10x better than personal cubicles
Can't have a safe harbor and ownership.
if your motives are uncertain with regards to established procedure,
In Snowden and Manning's cases it is clear established procedure is inadequate. There is no uncertainty.
If you support one vigilante, there is reasonable suspicion you'll support another.
Or you can (attempt to) change the system so that vigilantism is not required.
You fuck one goat, and you're marked as a goatfucker. Doesn't matter how many walls and docks you build, and it doesn't matter how sexy the goat was.
Tulsi didn't fuck a goat. She was arguing that no-one should be getting fucked.
doesn't change the fact that ...
Proceeds to give an opinion
if the sheriff supports a vigilante, they're an unreliable sheriff.
The sheriff wants a lawful process to exist, not vigilantism
you are signaling to your superiors that you may well allow the next breach, even if it isn't justified.
This is your opinion. Not fact.
There's a reason vigilantism is illegal. Sure, sometimes the result might be justified, but the method has no accountability.
Tulsi has moved into the seat of accountability. The sheriff can't be a vigilante.
Especially given her shady history with Russia
Clinton has been in more shady Russian deals than Tulsi. Her accusations are pure projection.
She very heavily implied it was for bioweapons. Why else would having laboratories be justification for war?
No, she called for an immediate ceasefire at the laboratories as they could spread dangerous pathogens. The World Health Organization made a similar call. Are they all Russian assets too?
She 100% supports letting Russia bulldoze Ukraine.
[Citation needed]
She's only anti-war where war is against Russia's interests.
[Citation needed]
It sounds like you are regurgitating propaganda without having confirmed any details yourself.
Agree with all of that. What annoys me is when properties of the normal distribution are used as "facts" about human intelligence.
I'm sure there are more people with 200+ IQ than with <0.
Reread my original statement and see if you still disagree
You should look up exactly what was said, not what others insinuate.
she started saying the US was behind terrorist attacks in Syria
Well, the United States was propping up radical elements with Syria’s anti-Assad rebels. Fighters posed as Free Syrian Army “moderate rebels” to obtain U.S. weapons before promptly defecting to al-Nusra.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/id-take-tulsis-record-in-syria-over-the-cias/
she accused the US of helping Ukraine develop bioweapons
No, she said there are 25 to 30 American-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine. This is true, and public knowledge.
She served in the Army and is now very anti war. War hawks on all sides have a vested interest in painting her as a Russian Asset.
even after 11 years?
Yep. Is Snowden allowed back into the US? No? Then he is still an embarrassment.
he has valuable information on how the US reacts
Nothing that he wouldn't have already given up 11 years ago. He can't provide anything new.
This is repeating the same confusion.
Calculating values from the normal distribution tells you nothing about the tail properties of human intelligence.