Random Politics & Religion #00

Trying to dictate who people can marry, what gender identity they should have, what they do with their reproductive organs, etc. You've expressed support for virtually any right wing ideal that involves limiting other people's personal liberties.

Stating my thoughts on the matter is different from taking action.

But I wouldn't expect the thought police to understand that.

I believe you are either referring to Obama's first executive order or the changes to NARA, neither of which pertain to confidential communique. The only rule that applies here is the retention policies enacted in 2014.

See the problem with voting is I'm a disenfranchised youth. We don't vote round these parts !

I'm what they call a minority.

No. The requirements were in place since 2009 that electronic records be retained. The amendment you are referring to was added by Obama to explicitly name email and require that personal email be forwarded to official government email.

So I shouldn't get an absentee ballot for 2016?

I thought that was a basic constitutional right.

So telling me not to vote because I may vote for someone you don't like isn't being the social/thought police?

Not like I would anyway.

If you vote for people actively seeking to subvert the civil liberties of minority groups, I'd consider you a domestic terrorist.

he spelled "you're" wrong trying to call someone else a retard.

awesome.

But not the politicians running... wow you really do need help.

Nope, just the thought police doing their runs.

"Thought police"

If you would cite the rule you are referring to, it would be pretty useful, as the only regulations related to electronic records I can find specifically exclude confidential communique, which would include anything sent or received by the secretary of state.

36 CFR 1236 - ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT

1236.22

What she did was ethically questionable, but not uncommon or illegal.

U.S. President Barack Obama issued an executive order on Monday declaring Venezuela a national security threat, sanctioning seven individuals and expressing concern about the Venezuelan government's treatment of political opponents.

"Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption will not be welcome here, and we now have the tools to block their assets and their use of U.S. financial systems," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement.

"We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government's efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents. Venezuela's problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent," he added.

The White House said the executive order targeted people whose actions undermined democratic processes or institutions, had committed acts of violence or abuse of human rights, were involved in prohibiting or penalizing freedom of expression, or were government officials involved in public corruption.

The seven individuals named in the order would have their property and interests in the United States blocked or frozen and they would be denied entry into the United States. U.S. citizens would also be prohibited from doing business with them.

The White House called on Venezuela to release all political prisoners, including "dozens of students," and warned against blaming Washington for its problems.

"We've seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela," Earnest said in the statement.

"These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces."

Electronic mail is specifically directed to NARA to determine what and how it must be submitted, and NARA specifically excluded confidential communique until 2014.

What she did was ethically questionable, but not uncommon or illegal.

Bartender! I'll have what he's having.

And you get to decide what constitutes a man or woman?

When I have policed people's social lives?

No society does, and has. Over thousands of years. But that's just not good enough for some liberals. They seek to make the rest of us affirm a different lifestyle by forcing us to recognize a *** as belonging in the same category as a vagina, because the person it's attached too fells like they should have been born without it.

When you've refused to change how you live in order to accommodate them bro, that's how it works. I know you understand, but lets just put it out there.

"Oh you won't give me special privileges that others don't have that I feel entitled to? Then you're oppressing me."

Liberalism = Mental disorder.

"Oh you won't give me special privileges that others don't have that I feel entitled to? Then you're oppressing me."