DOS attacks are civil disobedience, not a plot by the Republican Party. What do you expect when you purport to force people to buy health insurance?
Now, what has the Republican party done to sabotage the law?
Except that it’s not civil disobedience. Case in point.
Kind of takes the shine off of fancying hackers as the Fighting Thoreaus now, doesn’t it?
I think this is a better analogy: the hackers are the cyber equivalent of sheet wearing folks burning crosses on the lawn.
See, the goal is to hurt/intimidate folks in general (“negros”/those without health insurance), do so anonymously (white sheets/internet), demonstrate bravery (very small penises/can’t get laid–period) and damaging property (cross burning, gunshots, bombs, lynching, etc./malware, server damage, scare people away from website, visiting porn sites cuz you can’t get a lay).
Now that I think about it, “terrorist” is a pretty apt description for these hackers.
Which leads to this startling conclusion: why do you support the terrorism, adaher?
Oh yeah, it’s scaring people, DOS attacks on a website. No, what’s actually scaring people, at least those who are aware, is the fact that the site’s security is untested and unreliable. Okay, fine, it’s not civil disobedience. It’s taking down a site that should be down until the integrity of people’s private data can be assured.
And again, it’s not organized partisan sabotage. Some people just don’t take kindly to being told what to do. Perhaps if the administration had hired a competent network security team…
Ah, you know who is doing it and why. Perhaps you’d care to share your information? What makes you so sure that you are finally not wrong about something? See it on 60 Minutes?
I don’t know who is doing it or why, beyond the fact that hackers like to attack websites that they consider threatening to their freedom, like NSA.
And exactly when did the integrity of private data become so important to you?
You have negative information, information that absorbs facts and neutralizes them.
Then maybe you’d you would like to back off the confidently stated:
“And again, it’s not organized partisan sabotage.”
I think that’s a very confident prediction. Or are you saying that it’s possible the republican Party is committing felonies?
Of course it’s possible. Nixon, anyone? There is a world of difference between “this is not ___” and “I don’t think this is ___”. My prediction, such as it is, is that it is an action of partisans but not an action of the Republican party. I could be wrong, though. When you make it a straight statement of fact, you’re an idiot, if you don’t know for sure.
Some things are so unlikely that you can comfortably dismiss them. Attacking a site that isn’t working is senseless.
Besides, both the Senate and House Intelligence Committee Chairmen said to take the site down because of the security risks. Those hackers are doing their patriotic duty.
So you’re going to hand wave away the billions and billions of dollars WASTED by the GOP in their efforts to crash ACA implementation that could have gone towards constructive things like education/ social programs/infrastructure or gasp, improved healthcare for the majority of its citizens as “civil disobedience” and “patriotic duty” ?
Goebbels would be proud of you Ads. You’re such a “patriot”.
Billions? Where does that figure come from? Heck, the GOP has saved taxpayers billions by not expanding Medicaid.
Where? I could really believe you’re that clueless but the cost of the shutdown has already been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, dumbass.
Add in all the time wasted by the GOP going to extreme lengths to cripple/harass implementation of the ACA, and the time spent by the Dems in fighting off these attacks, and yeah, it’s a huge number.
Saved money? How long is your nose? The CBA determined the Medicaid expansion would save money you lying sack of shit.
Ah, the shutdown, now I understand what you’re saying. We agree that it was incredibly stupid and counterproductive for the Republicans to do that.
This is less valid though. The GOP is in no position to cripple implementation. The bill was passed. Defunding efforts failed.
snip
Emphasis mine
Really? It passed?
Question. How many votes did the House take on repealing it after it passed? Were those votes “off the clock”( ie The House was working for free) ?
Was there not more pressing business they could have been going over? Like say, appropriate funding levels for security at embassies/diplomatic missions? Job creation strategies? Maybe even working with the Senate to get a budget approved? No?
Holding votes is not particularly expensive, and it’s kinda their job. The Democratic Senate also likes to pass bills that they know can’t pass the House. It has always been thus.
And shit stinks. It has always been thus.
Not particularly expensive? Are we talking like spare change found under the couch cushions?
So why waste the time ( And money) stepping into it forty-six times
Do you have some examples of legislation which had similar amounts of votes held on their subject?
I don’t know how politicians prioritise on what is important or not. But it seems like we could - loosely - look at how many votes had been held on a particular piece of legislation and thereby tell the importance of that legislation. Since it’s not “holding votes” that’s their job, but serving the American people. I mean, one of the duties of my job is to fill out timesheets, but if I filled out timesheets all day I think my bosses might well have a problem with that. And I certainly wouldn’t be able to say, when they talked to me, “Hey, filling out timesheets is kinda my job”.