• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

580,715 Excellent

About MiddleOfTheRoad

  • Rank
    Among the thinking people

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Biography
    57 year old, white, Catholic, male
  • Location
    Between the double yellow lines...
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,985 profile views
  1. All of those conditions have laws in place now...to virtually no avail. Tightening down on inadequate laws is pretty much the definition of nibbling at the edges.
  2. 1911A .45 Have had it for 30+ years now. Bought it for home defense, keep it for the reason. Reliable, consistent weapon.
  3. I disagree. Legislative changes will allow some nibbling at the edges of the gun control issue, but unless we are willing to take on the 2, 4 and 5 amendments and the ex post facto clause, that is as far as legislation will get us - the edges.
  4. Actually, we don’t know that it was not compromised. All that is reported is that there was no evidence, but the server has never been subjected to forensic testing.
  5. Only if one had no understanding of the risks of an unsecured server.
  6. I would only argue at this point that proper changes to the Constitution on this scale would involve a awful lot of votes, at the state level, and could be the government responding to the wishes of the people. I would have to give compliance some serious consideration.
  7. I would think the 4th as well, so let me re-phrase; the appropriate changes to the Constitution have been made in a constitutionally acceptable manner. Do you give up your weapon, move to a different country or hide the weapons, anticipating the “cold, dead hands” option?
  8. Semi, if the 2A was repealed in an appropriate, constitutional change, as well as that part referring to ex post facto law and laws were passed banning weapons, would you cede your weapons?
  9. I would add to my vote that a constitutional ban on weapons, would have to be accompanied by legislation giving the jurisdictional authorities a legal means for doing so.
  10. Great. Like I told someone else the other day, send your evidence to Mr. Mueller. Baseball season is starting up and I would like to focus on that a bit.
  11. You realize you’re only encouraging their behavior.
  12. If that offends you, don’t ever go to the Caribbean or the Philippines.
  13. I don't think I've read that the FBI has formally recommended a denial of clearance on Kushner, Carter or others. I would appreciate a link, as I agree; if the FBI has recommended denial, the clearance should be denied. Now, as defense but also as a statement of fact, the President is authorized to extend a clearance to anyone - but should be made to pay a price for doing so. Let's assume you are correct and these folks have been recommended for denial. Today they deal with highly classified information. When Clinton had TS on her unsecured, unencrypted server, surely you agree that the server was exposed to anyone with the ability to hack a server. At that time, she was exchanging emails with the POUTS on, one assume,current political events. I see no difference. This travesty alone would have made Clinton unfit for the office, a status I stated was appropriate for her and for Trump well before the election occurred.
  14. Interim clearances have been around forever and are a standard practice. My first TS was an interim, in 1985. And blackmail? Why blackmail Porter when Trump is so ripe for the picking? Or, for that matter, Clinton. And I’ve NEVER implied Trump is likeable.
  15. Let’s compare and contrast; the WH is one of the most secure places on earth, using one of the most secure networks in service. Administration staff are in the formal process of getting their clearances. Clinton has TS information, whether or not she knew it was there, on an unencrypted server in a bathroom closet. Besides, what made her unqualified was her failure as SOS. And her unlikeability. Trump was unqualified for a number of other reasons.