Lets face it the American public has actually shown themselves to be rather discerning on this issue.
Taking mental note of those posters who've used words like 'traitor' in this topic, on a site apparently populated by those generally more clued-up than the average critter, indicates otherwise.
What do you expect from a country that has a Department of Homeland Security? It sounds like something from Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. (Fatherland, motherland, homeland...)
It wouldn't be democratic to deny all those gold-bearing nazi war criminals their constitutionally-protected right to 'lobby' for their interests to be represented.
From mere curiosity - who here would feel better about the situation if the government just explicitly avoided all the weasel-words and came out to say "we've rigged the whole system, you're fucking with our corruption/lies and now we're gonna screw you big-time in a way that you have no chance of escaping" ?
Much as I disagree with the multi-level corruption, what else could they do?
The premises of the system should be self-supporting; to allow otherwise would allow the validity of the whole system to be put in doubt. Noone wants the current system to be replaced by something better; do they?
Regardless of your tinfoil suit there is no documented case of where the spying the NSA did has had a negative effect on the citizens of the USA.
You know, you're right. Please paste a link to your personal channel of the Panopticon - oh, and ensure to have your walls replaced by glass toute-de-suite
then you really have to wonder if the Presidency isn't being completely controlled by someone else.
Uhh, I'm no student of history but didn't this understanding come about at about the same time the assassinations stopped? I do actually live under a rock so I've probably missed the historical-rewrite on this one (as I did with the one about how GeeDubYah wasn't actually elected.)
'Competitive' in the sense of fighting a losing battle against a stronger opponent. 'Exciting Opportunity' means really shitty rate/wage with mind-numbing conditions. 'Market rate' == intangible amount dictated by our opinion.
I'm impressed by the many strategies used to trick initiates into looking away from salary for intangible benefits that cannot be exchanged for food.
The word 'WORK' is misleading when applied to the public sector. Standing around the coffee machine wearing sandals / stroking your beard whilst openly counting the minutes until your three-hour shift ends doesn't count as work. Just saying; a never-ending supply of free money, no competition, standards, oversight, penalties for poor performance or indeed a a requirement to complete projects does little incentivize 'staff' to wake from their dream that often.
Taking mental note of those posters who've used words like 'traitor' in this topic, on a site apparently populated by those generally more clued-up than the average critter, indicates otherwise.
I'm definitely sensing a whiff of "they're saying no but they mean yes."
Remember, No Means No.
It wouldn't be democratic to deny all those gold-bearing nazi war criminals their constitutionally-protected right to 'lobby' for their interests to be represented.
function furtherAndMoreInvasiveSurveillanceIsJustified () {
return true;
}
while (furtherAndMoreInvasiveSurveillanceIsJustified ()) {
continueAsBefore ();
}
From mere curiosity - who here would feel better about the situation if the government just explicitly avoided all the weasel-words and came out to say "we've rigged the whole system, you're fucking with our corruption/lies and now we're gonna screw you big-time in a way that you have no chance of escaping" ?
Much as I disagree with the multi-level corruption, what else could they do?
The premises of the system should be self-supporting; to allow otherwise would allow the validity of the whole system to be put in doubt. Noone wants the current system to be replaced by something better; do they?
You might have noticed that *noone* cares to think about, less-still legislate on the topic of what is right.
Shame on you for even implying that they should.
You know, you're right. Please paste a link to your personal channel of the Panopticon - oh, and ensure to have your walls replaced by glass toute-de-suite
Synesthesia much?
Uhh, I'm no student of history but didn't this understanding come about at about the same time the assassinations stopped? I do actually live under a rock so I've probably missed the historical-rewrite on this one (as I did with the one about how GeeDubYah wasn't actually elected.)
Uhh, it can - the government makes its own laws. It's a basic premise of the system: 'we are *always* in the right.'
Don't seem so surprised. These government systems evolved out of a barbarism dominated by 'might is right'.
They're local-minima / stable states on the way to something better.
Did Fox buy slashdot already?
I didn't realize that Snowden was black! wth?
In a shallow grave?
ProTip: If I go missing, you'll know it was a mistake to type this :S
Now we know where to sit when we're feeling undercooked :D
I stand corrected lol :D
A myth propagated by employers to ensure that employees are self-enslaving.
Some of my favourite weasel-words are:
'Competitive' in the sense of fighting a losing battle against a stronger opponent.
'Exciting Opportunity' means really shitty rate/wage with mind-numbing conditions.
'Market rate' == intangible amount dictated by our opinion.
I'm impressed by the many strategies used to trick initiates into looking away from salary for intangible benefits that cannot be exchanged for food.
The word 'WORK' is misleading when applied to the public sector. Standing around the coffee machine wearing sandals / stroking your beard whilst openly counting the minutes until your three-hour shift ends doesn't count as work. Just saying; a never-ending supply of free money, no competition, standards, oversight, penalties for poor performance or indeed a a requirement to complete projects does little incentivize 'staff' to wake from their dream that often.
Anyone?
I can't understand why I'm sensing an element of sarcasm with respect to something that is clearly accurate.
How do we distinguish between what you are calling intent to cause homicide and intent to cause serious upset/inconvenience using SWAT ?
Please; are they still calling it the justice system? How is schmoozing around a coffee machine making deals with other people's lives justice?
So... SWAT have such momentum that they can't be stopped easily once in their flow?