And consider the truth behind the Chinese Moon Rover's fate. Really makes one think.

Please be trolling. Please be trolling. Please.

Let me draw your attention to the giant red X just below the image on that page, with the word "FALSE". That's really the important part. Lessons about eminent domain can sort of flow naturally from there.

EDIT: Also from the link you gave to snopes:

The attribution to President Obama of fourteen executive orders (numbered between 10990 to 11921) in the example text reproduced above is way off base as well: not a single one of those orders was issued by President Obama. The first twelve orders in the list date to the administration of President John F. Kennedy in 1962, one dates to the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966, and one dates to the administration of President Gerald R. Ford in 1976.

And for some reason he neglected to mention the worst one- order 66! Now, is that just a coincidence, or is he trying to divert our attention and hide the truth?

::rubs temples::

Goddammit, Breja....

I'm not American but
"Trump!, Trump!, Trump!"

Are they still in effect? I admit my knowledge of politics and executive orders and presidents is very much lacking.

Still, looking for ones Obama did sign, I would have to sift through a LOT of data. And a lot of orders. Too much for me.

[url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Barack_Obama/Executive_orders]https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Barack_Obama/Executive_orders[/url]
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

Hang on, hang on. Let's sum up. Then I'll cover the new question you're asking.

You made a bunch of vague claims about random things, citing an eminently unreliable source as your primary. When people demonstrated a lack of credibility, you moved on. Bringing up an unrelated topic, you tried to go with ad misericordiam to reverse the description of conspiracy. You then went on to refer to a thoroughly-debunked internet claim about irresponsible presidential activities, even going so far as to provide the proof of your own error, then doubled down, and now claim that because there's too much to learn, you're not going to learn any of it.

OK.

Are the Executive orders still in effect? Well, the Snopes article you didn't bother to read before linking actually contains links to the publicly-available descriptions of those orders. You can also search for them individually, since they're a matter of public record. I'll do the first one for you, but you need to do the rest:

Executive order 10990, of February 2 1962, is superseded by Executive Order 11612, of July 26, 1971.

So, no. Nixon signed an EO that superseded 10990. Also, the description of each executive order in the list you copied is completely wrong. 10990 established the Federal Safety Council. It didn't "allow the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports".

I'm not an expert, and looking at too much of stuff and sifting through it gives me a huge headache. I'm learning what I can. My specialty is programming and computers, not politics. If I'm wrong on the EO then fine I'm wrong.

Loosely worded documents can have huge meanings for what they cover. Still, I don't understand the full implications of most of the orders. I really don't. But I'm not really looking at the EO. I'm looking at current events and what's provided for what's been happening. Things happening this week or even today.

Yeah, I feel your pain. If I hadn't been steered into the legal side by the policy-based nature of information security in the last decade and a half, I'd probably get nosebleeds from looking at this stuff.

Such as?

Lemme address a few more of your original points. How do you feel about the Washington Post? Too left-leaning? I'll offer this link because it came up first, It's research done by a law professor at Loyola Law School, indicating an allegation of about 44 cases of fraud per 3 billion votes. A little under 1 case per 68 million. The rhetoric of voter fraud by impersonation is entirely baseless.

Your link about Russia hacking the election is Alex Jones, again, the same guy who (see earlier) made such outragous claims as fetal stem cells being used to flavor Pepsi (thanks for that link, haydenaurion), and generally is two gallons of crazy trying to fit in a one-gallon bottle.

Your greater part of argument is that, as you say, ...which, regardless of what you actually mean, just looks like you have nothing concrete to offer and are trying to make nothing appear to be not only something, but something big.

I don't even understand what your purpose was in providing three links to a politician coughing, so I'll leave it be, but you've pointed it up as being significant without making it clear what you want to say.

WikiLeaks with Hillary's emails, from her private servers (since all her emails were on the private server), and more are coming.

Her health, which is currently in a horrible state. They are speculating she's acting like she's brainwashed (and might be) and every time she starts getting iffy some black security Guy (unnamed and not part of the secret service) taps her on the shoulder and tells her things are alright, but is likely injecting her with a tranq or something. Supposedly no one EVER touches the presidential candidates, so this is odd indeed.

It was noted that she has an earpiece during the presidential forum (last night) and probably has had this for a while, in fact emails in wikileaks dated 2009 proves she's had it, so how often it's been used not sure.

The press conferences on the planes (which is doesn't have many of the press) when she isn't coughing the questions are written on oranges and rolled to her.

If it's so baseless, then why is the DHS going to be brought in? There is more here, and there is election fraud that's going to be attempted. In one of the talks/interviews one of the old service members talked in detail of exactly how it works and happens, and then those areas that are likely to have a high level of fraud will get poll watchers to spot the fraud.

From what I see, he is often misquoted intentionally, over simplifying what was said, or lying. I haven't been watching this long, but I'm trying to watch from now on. Someone did link me a video of him talking about the takeover, and he used an analogy of aliens coming down and plugging into our computers and phones and light bulbs. Remove the alien in the analogy and the point is made for what is happening.

I've said I can believe that a digital wireless electric meter can spy on you. Connected wirelessly even if it does something as simple as say give the watts average used in the last 5 seconds, the differences used between second to second can tell you a lot of information, how many TV's are on, if you used the microwave, if the AC kicked on/off, if you're home or not, etc. Every appliance won't use exact watts, they will vary, and once the variables (usually turned on/off one or two at a time) you can map out and tell what all electronics are being used as a whole at any given time.

Add that the XBone wanted a always-online system with a camera always watching you and always listening, it wouldn't be hard AT ALL to insert that it's listening AND transmitting that data. I did tests and got very good audio in about 4k a second, and that amount of data would easily be missed by anyone not looking for it.

Apparently the first link wasn't credible and debunked by default... So I had to reference something else.

I have the feeling this is a lost cause. Just give it up, dude.

Are you the writer for the next Deus Ex game?

Actually Alex Jones isn't making the claim. He says it's absurd, and there's no proof. It's Hillary and Obama claiming the Russians are hacking. Pay attention. It's an excuse to take over the election process and rig it even worse than it already is.

As for election/voting fraud, watching this I came across this just ten minutes in where they start talking about some it in more detail. 2008 dates, I'm sure I could find such entries in the public archives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGvx3UeMzPI

assuming there's 1 case in 68 million, then the sheer numbers suggest the US has something like 5 Trillion active voters then... Which isn't even possible. So if we take that, 73,000 number and multiply it to 68M, there have to be nearly 5 Trillion US Americans votes (or citizens) for that time period.

edit:quick search found https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/

Haha, I feel the same but more in a "Screaming at the top of my lungs while pointing at a Godzilla monster coming to kill us all" kind of way :)

That's...not how math works. If you're claiming that there are 73,000 fraudulent votes, then you're claiming an incidence rate much higher than 1 in 68 million. Come on, man. You'd know that, if you had bothered to, as you like to say, pay attention.

I actually watched your source, since you made a fair claim that I hadn't paid enough attention to it. If you had watched the source you linked, you'd have seen that from the beginning, Alex Jones is claiming there will be epidemics of voter fraud. At 6 minutes, in fact, there's a clip of the President saying that there was not voter fraud. But you'd have known that, if you had taken your own advice to pay attention.

I checked the link you provided in your most recent post, too. Did you even bother to go look at the article that your source used? No, of course not. Because you're not paying attention. The Heritage Foundation lists 415 cases going back over the last 16 years where voter fraud has occurred. Only 415, which is admittedly nine times the number I used, and suggests an incidence rate of more like 1 in 7.2 million votes (assuming that, as with my source which also went back to 2000, the total number of votes cast in the various elections sums to roughly 3 billion, which is reasonable). That's still so low it's essentially a rounding error. But you're just listening to their rhetoric and fearmongering, and not bothering to see if they have any facts to offer. You aren't even paying attention to the difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud, which is a very, very important distinction.

There's this legal concept where if you start with evidence that's not good, you can't use any of the things that come from using that evidence. It's part of the exclusion doctrine, called the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Your sources are poisoned. They're deliberately interchanging words and ideas in the hopes that their consumers will be too poorly educated or too inattentive to notice what they're really saying, which ends up being not much at all. Another metaphor would be, you're trying to convince me that you've baked a cake, but you didn't pay attention when you bought the ingredients and you're insisting that this pork and egg mess that you've baked for 50 minutes is a cake.

Vetting your sources is hard. Nobody can get it right all the time; I sure don't, and I really do try. You need to try, if you want to be taken seriously. As it is, it's just kind of sad. You've offered good advice on the forums for years about a variety of topics, but what you're posting today is just garbage.

EDIT: typos