TakeYouToTasker

This is fine.

What better a choice to reform an agency than an individual who offered that the entire department could be done away with? Honestly, for that reason alone it's a good choice.

James Comey, who went out of his way to not recommend indictment, even though he concluded that anyone else would/should have been indicted with the same evidence, was anything but a shill for Republicans. The FBI was working well within it's purview, and were Comey trying to harm Clinton's campaign, he already stated that he had enough evidence to recommend indicting prior to anything related to Anthony Weiner.

Not a bad choice.

So your argument is that the CIA, who doesn't have the infrastructure to determine if cyber crimes have been committed, is claiming not only that cyber crimes have been committed, but they have been committed exclusively against the Democratic Party, for the purpose of influencing the election. This argument asks us to accept the following premises without evidence: 1) The Wikileaks documents leaked were provided by the Russians. (a claim Wikileaks denies) 2) Only the Democratic Party was hacked, and that the Republican party was either not attempted to be hacked, or not successfully hacked. OR 3) Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party were hacked, but only the Democratic Party's dirty laundry was aired, without making way for the possibility that there was no damning information located on Republican Party servers. (the Republican Party claims it was not hacked, while the CIA makes specific charges that it was) 4) That James Clapper, a political appointee of the current President, who perjured himself before Congress, has no political motivations for his claims. 5) That John Brennan, a political appointee of the current President, who has voted for Communist Party candidates, and was caught hacking into US government databases in the past, has no political motivations for his claims. 6) That the CIA, who does not have the infrastructure to investigate cyber crimes, or mandate to pursue charges for cyber crimes; has both investigated cyber crimes and is legitimately prescribing actions related to alleged cyber crimes. 7) That the CIA, a highly politicized agency, whose major role in US operations has been to illigitimize, destabilize, topple, and overthrow governments isn't attempting to do exactly that. To me, that is an absurd ask. The second leg of your argument is that the FBI should not have followed it's clear mandate to investigate clear evidence of criminal activity because it was politically inconvenient for Democrats. What then, is the purpose of the FBI if not to investigate such activity? The United States is currently under the strains of an attempted bloodless coup to overthrow the government-elect. This should be the scariest moment of your lives.

That's the point. That's exactly what the CIA is fermenting.

Only bad if it results in the end of America's peaceful transition of legitimate government to legitimate government.

Yes, if the CIA interferes with the legitimate transition of power it's an attempted coup. What the FBI did was investigate possible crimes, which is within it's purview.

Do you think it is the legitimate roll of the CIA to execute a coup?

I wish you long life, prosperity, good health, and love. I also wish you were the coach of another team.

... The CIA, or at least some of it's current and/or former operatives, are suggesting that the election should be decertified. They are doing this in opposition to the FBI, who actually has the apparatus to investigate cyber crime, while they do not. None of this has anything to do with the Electoral College, unless of course you believe that our intelligence agencies have legitimate standing to tamper with our election process. That's what needed clarification.

I'm going to attempt to clarify this for you with an allegory: I asked you, "When was 13th Amendment was ratified, and who proclaimed it's adoption?" You answered "The letter 9"

Again, what is the distinct feature of a republic, when compared to a democracy, which prescribes that an intelligence agency, at political odds with another intelligence agency, attempts to invalidate the results of an election?

Please enlighten us: what is the distinct feature of a republic, when compared to a democracy, which prescribes that an intelligence agency, at political odds with another intelligence agency, attempts to invalidate the results of an election?

It's an owl god. An owl. This is exactly why we don't invite you.

I wouldn't worry about it. If reports are true, that's actually fairly standard usage of a government computer. You're likely tripping a search screen by not doing exactly that.

Best avatar in the building.

I love his big arm, his anticipation throws, his ability to feel pressure and create time in the pocket, and his ability to make pre-snap reads and line checks. I think he has the potential to be the real deal in the NFL.

I would love to see Kizer on this team.

My favorite version of the song as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d-4aOi3AzQ

There will be riots in the streets.

Spot on.

My Le'veon Bell? Slavery is so 1865 dude.

Well, at least we know what Tyrod's TBD screen name is now.