The Department of Homeland Security plans on disposing of all the records from a 3-year-long surveillance program without letting the public have access to them.
Electing Illiberals helps materialize all of the bad things we are told to fear in case of a KKKonservative victory... Brought to you by the first President to use Blackberry — was not that sweet?
Yes, I'm sure they'd all be happier if we just left them alone. I'm feeling kind of isolationist lately anyway. We should just leave them all alone.
I often feel the same way, but then realize, I still like the sound of "Kennedy Doctrine":
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Too bad, the current smooth-talker from Chicago would not even talk the talk — much less walk the walk...
US Attracting Fewer Educated, Highly Skilled Migrants
Oh, I'm quite sure, we attract plenty. We just would not allow their education and other qualifications to help them gain entrance. Other countries use "points" systems to filter better candidates through, but the US deems the method discriminatory.
Meanwhile, the unwashed wogs keep getting through the open border — selected based on the lucky geography, rather than education or anything useful — and accommodating them takes all our energies.
It's not strictly a police thing, it's a New York government thing.
It is a government thing — fixed that for you. NYC has remained Illiberal for well over a century. They spend so much, they need a city's own income tax — in addition to Federal and the State's. The taxes and the mandates depress the economy keeping the poor in poverty, raising the crime rates. Then the solid "law-and-order" men overreact establishing the perfectly unconstitutional practices like this "stop-and-frisk". The tactics do help keep the crime low(er), so the populace supports it — Constitution be damned...
The city is a living and breathing lesson on how not to govern, but those pro-government bootlickers you mentioned would like to see the same principles applied nationwide.
Is it really "racist" to fish, where the fish are?
some racist thug
The R-word again. Do you have any proof of NYPD being racist? All I've ever seen from your kind were arrest statistics — if disproportionally more Blacks are arrested, the logic goes, the police must be racist. That the group might be committing disproportionally more crimes is like that giant chocolate elephant in the room, which everybody pretends not to notice... Do you have anything more solid this time?
Following orders which are not legal, and are unconstitutional, out of fear for personal safety means that we are literally living in a Police state.
Whether that's true or not — the exact definition of "police state" varies — you still better follow police' orders. If only to strengthen your subsequent lawsuit...
Yes we know it is illegal, but he might kill you for pointing it out to him...
No, getting killed by a policeman remains most unlikely. Whenever that happens, we see it on TV, which means, that — like mass-shootings — such incidents remain rather rare. No, you will not be killed — but you may be arrested or otherwise inconvenienced. Police don't seem to notice the bizarre circularity of the "arrested for resisting arrest" logic... Smile and follow his orders — then serve your revenge cold.
Why do people insist in posting personal details in a place like Facebook?
Here is one valid use-case for Facebook... Our kid is growing and the small army of great- and grand- parents — as well as uncles and aunts — want to see as many pictures as there can be.
I host our collection on my own computer (FiOS rulez), but it is somewhat tedious to keep the collection up to date. Facebook, on the other hand, makes it much easier to get from snapping a picture to its world-wide availability.
Now, I am unlikely to give-in and open an FB-account — I'd rather figure out, how to automate such uploads myself (ownCloud sounds promising). But I do not (any longer) blame other people, who choose the easy way out. Why would they include optional personal details — I don't know either. Maybe, because they don't realize, it is optional?
the weapons industry and new york have staged the coup detat im kiev for their respective interests
If this were true, Putin would've found actual proof of it in the materials Snowden delivered to him. Have you heard anything material, anonymous coward?
Nobody has... Because you are lying, Kremlin troll.
Soviet constitution which was the basic law of USSR.
As I already taught you in our previous history lesson, there were no provisions for anybody other than the 15 main Republics to break away. Your first argument, once again, is nonsense.
Soviet constitution clearly states that an autonomous republic can only exists within an union republic.
Nonsense (again) Soviet Constitution stated nothing of the kind — because nobody writing it could ever imagine any of the republics to actually ever leave. Their right was listed there to make it easier to pretend, members of the USSR are there volunteerely, but it was all for show. Go ahead, cite the relevant portion of Soviet Constitution — in any language.
If Ukraine is no longer a part of the union, this notion doesn't work anymore
Ukraine didn't simply leave the Union — the union itself dissolved — along with its Constitution. The 15 Republics all agreed to keep their borders.
This is what has caused the war in Abkhasia in 1992.
There were plenty of factors igniting the war in Abkhasia, but the fine (and imaginary) points of the constitution of country, that no longer existed weren't among them. Sure, Russia likes to bring that example up, but it convinces no one other than Russians themselves. Putin much?
Third, here [nytimes.com] is just one of several examples
Wrong. There is only one incident described there. That you chose to use a plural (examples) shows you as not merely ignorant, but a liar too — just what we've come to expect from pro-Russian propagandists Internet-wide. And what was the incident? That in 1995 Ukraine's Interior ministry troops disarmed an illegal private army. States the article you found:
The Ukrainian move this week came after Crimean leaders refused for months to bring local laws in line with the Ukrainian Constitution.
How long would any country tolerate unconstitutional behavior of local lords and the armed thugs in their employ? At any rate, this is not germane in the slightest to your earlier assertions that a) Crimea was entitled to sovereignty; b) Crimea voted for such sovereignty in 1991; c) Crimea's sovereignty of 1991 was "crushed" by Ukraine's military.
All three are demonstrable (indeed, already demonstrated as) falsehoods.
Let me tell you something, kiddo. [...] I went to schools and universities in several countries.
Heh-heh... Judging by your "arguments" here, you must've cheated in all of those schools. Being caught lying must be traumatizing indeed.
Well, and by the same law that has created an independent Ukraine in 1991, Crimea should have been an independent country
Which "same law" is that? There were no provisions in the Soviet Constitution for any entity other than one of the main 15 Republics to declare independence.
given that they have declared their sovereignty almost a year earlier but were basically forced to remain in Ukraine by the military threat.
Have you read your own link? The referendum of 1991 turned Crimea into an "autonomous republic" within Ukraine — no "military threats" involved — certainly not from Ukraine, which had no military of its own until after the 1992 split-up of the USSR.
Crimea retained its "autonomous republic" status until 2014 — it had its own Parliament and ran many of its own affairs. It was never sovereign, however.
just a little history lesson
You fail your history. Have your parents acknowledge your "F" by next week.
Immigrants generally flock to first world countries like the US in order to work hard and lead a better life
How would you know that, if the government deliberately does not maintain such statistics and explicitly tells applicants, they don't need to disclose their immigration status? They are poor (and I don't blame them) and they apply for the help, which is paid for with monies collected at gun-point (taxes). I would not have minded, if they weren't entitled to any government help — I would've even donated some money to a private charity (of the kind that helped my family 22 years ago). But I rather resent being forced to do it...
Yes, I do think it is self-evident, that a Man has a right to live anywhere he can afford and work for anyone, who'd pay him. As long as I don't have to subsidize neither his housing, nor his children's education should his choices of locale or employment be in error.
Those of us who feel we are entitled to jobs because we are the best person to do the job generally have nothing to fear from immigrants
We do, unfortunately. Arriving in too large a number, they will not dissolve in America's famous "melting pot" — as the Irish, Italian, German, or Ukrainian immigrant-waves did before them in the 20th century — but turn the rest of America to a side. Being from the poor countries, where the government is the primary source of wealth, and the Church (Catholic) — a very respected authority, they see nothing wrong with it being such here, thus pushing ever further from the small-government ideals we started with.
It's because you literally sound like you're on the cusp of quitting bathing and spending the rest of your life pushing a shopping cart around downtown with a cardboard sign hung around your neck that equates Obama with the antichrist.
Well, if that were really true, you would've shrugged and walked by. So, no, you don't really believe I am "on the cusp" of doing it. You chose to add your own insult to the already posted one.
And that, once again, demonstrates the reliability of my Illiberal-detection method.
Is it not possible to like America while being dissatisfied by some aspects of it?
Being dissatisfied merely with "some aspects" would not call for a fundamental change, would it?
Words, as he said himself elsewhere, have consequences. For a man, whose primary selling point was and remains his smooth-talking, using a word without meaning to would be a rather surprising gaffe. No, mean it he did...
since March has raised about $300 million from ordinary citizens
That's how it would cost Pentagon to build temporary barracks in Eastern Bumfuck.
That Ukraine — a country promised protection, when it gave up nuclear weapons, and one of America's allies (such as in Iraq) want of anything, when they now need to defend their own country is a shame.
Obama would not supply them with weapons. Even getting some blankets and helmets — a puny quantity of the so called "non-lethal" supplies — was delayed by months.
Q: How do you tell an Illiberal by his first sentence? A: An Illiberal would typically start talking with a personal attack.
Why do you think he ran for President? Because he was actively trying to sabotage the country? With what motive?
I do not know the answers to these questions and don't wish to offer you mere speculations.
But the fact that he dislikes America is evident in his — personally stated — desire to "fundamentally transform" the country.
People may agree with his assessment of the country or disagree with them, but there is no denying the fact — he did not like America as it was (before his presidency).
Seriously - the two biggest (ab)users of the H1B system are Tata and Infosys... and they're both Indian corporations.
I have very little problem with engineers — or anyone else — coming here to work. Sure, they make it harder for Americans to find work, but I never believed, Americans should be entitled to better jobs simply by birthright.
What worries me are the very bottom — the folks, who come over here knowing, that they may be able to get foodstamps and other hand-outs, that our schools and hospitals will teach and treat them for free.
And, whereas the Indians come by the mere thousands (and knowing English), the Latin Americans — even those who sincerely plan to work for a living — come in millions (and most of them knowing only one language). That they come from dirt-poor countries, where the government is the primary source of what little wealth there is, is my main fear, however — for they are likely to turn America into a government- rather than an enterprise-centric country even more than it is already, widening poverty and accelerating the loss of citizens' rights.
Sadly, you are right. And, given his dislike for America, he'll have two years to turn her into a 3rd-world country. Our only hope is that, being an incompetent nincompoop, he is unlikely to succeed simply for lack of ability. But not for lack of trying...
That may be, because I'm actually from Ukraine... But, more likely than not I did not "fail at Russian" — you are just being overly pedantic.
Russian spelling is not phonetic, there are often significant differences between what is said and what is written.
There are some exceptions, yes, but there far fewer of them, than in English. That was my point.
Writing that the distinction between "w" and "v" makes no sense is also wrong. The right answer is that Russian simply lacks the [w] phoneme (labio-velar approximant)
"Vinnie" (as in "Cousin") and "Winnie" (the Pooh) sound exactly the same to all native Russian and Ukrainian speakers (and readers) and both names are transcribed exactly the same.
uses either "v" or "u" in transcriptions of foreign texts
You'd have had a point, if we were talking about names like "Watson" or "Welles" — which are, indeed, written differently in different editions of "Sherlock Holmes" and "War of the Worlds" respectively. But "Vinnie" vs. "Winnie" — no. These two would always be written with (a Cyrillic equivalent of) "v".
The anti-tobacco fight is just about over, as is the one over asbestos/mesothelioma. The new generation of lawyers will be getting obscenely rich fighting large investment funds over their investing in fuel companies.
Pardon me, comrade — I first read about the little bear in Russian, where the writing is phonetic and the distinction between "w" and "v" makes no sense...
There was once a time when most members of congress listened to scientists and other learned minds in their fields.
Yeah? When was that?
With scientists (and the lobbyists behind them) asking for taxpayers' money, it is only proper to be skeptical. Not distrustful, no, but skeptical nonetheless.
It is the right thing to do — not much different from you being skeptical, when the car-company or a cell-phone maker try to sell you some super-duper advance, that you probably don't need...
Slashdot Mirror
Electing Illiberals helps materialize all of the bad things we are told to fear in case of a KKKonservative victory... Brought to you by the first President to use Blackberry — was not that sweet?
I often feel the same way, but then realize, I still like the sound of "Kennedy Doctrine":
Too bad, the current smooth-talker from Chicago would not even talk the talk — much less walk the walk...
Oh, I'm quite sure, we attract plenty. We just would not allow their education and other qualifications to help them gain entrance. Other countries use "points" systems to filter better candidates through, but the US deems the method discriminatory.
Meanwhile, the unwashed wogs keep getting through the open border — selected based on the lucky geography, rather than education or anything useful — and accommodating them takes all our energies.
It is a government thing — fixed that for you. NYC has remained Illiberal for well over a century. They spend so much, they need a city's own income tax — in addition to Federal and the State's. The taxes and the mandates depress the economy keeping the poor in poverty, raising the crime rates. Then the solid "law-and-order" men overreact establishing the perfectly unconstitutional practices like this "stop-and-frisk". The tactics do help keep the crime low(er), so the populace supports it — Constitution be damned...
The city is a living and breathing lesson on how not to govern, but those pro-government bootlickers you mentioned would like to see the same principles applied nationwide.
Statists gonna state. Please, don't hate.
Is it really "racist" to fish, where the fish are?
The R-word again. Do you have any proof of NYPD being racist? All I've ever seen from your kind were arrest statistics — if disproportionally more Blacks are arrested, the logic goes, the police must be racist. That the group might be committing disproportionally more crimes is like that giant chocolate elephant in the room, which everybody pretends not to notice... Do you have anything more solid this time?
Whether that's true or not — the exact definition of "police state" varies — you still better follow police' orders. If only to strengthen your subsequent lawsuit...
No, getting killed by a policeman remains most unlikely. Whenever that happens, we see it on TV, which means, that — like mass-shootings — such incidents remain rather rare. No, you will not be killed — but you may be arrested or otherwise inconvenienced. Police don't seem to notice the bizarre circularity of the "arrested for resisting arrest" logic... Smile and follow his orders — then serve your revenge cold.
Here is one valid use-case for Facebook... Our kid is growing and the small army of great- and grand- parents — as well as uncles and aunts — want to see as many pictures as there can be.
I host our collection on my own computer (FiOS rulez), but it is somewhat tedious to keep the collection up to date. Facebook, on the other hand, makes it much easier to get from snapping a picture to its world-wide availability.
Now, I am unlikely to give-in and open an FB-account — I'd rather figure out, how to automate such uploads myself (ownCloud sounds promising). But I do not (any longer) blame other people, who choose the easy way out. Why would they include optional personal details — I don't know either. Maybe, because they don't realize, it is optional?
Period... There, fixed that for ya...
If this were true, Putin would've found actual proof of it in the materials Snowden delivered to him. Have you heard anything material, anonymous coward?
Nobody has... Because you are lying, Kremlin troll.
As I already taught you in our previous history lesson, there were no provisions for anybody other than the 15 main Republics to break away. Your first argument, once again, is nonsense.
Nonsense (again) Soviet Constitution stated nothing of the kind — because nobody writing it could ever imagine any of the republics to actually ever leave. Their right was listed there to make it easier to pretend, members of the USSR are there volunteerely, but it was all for show. Go ahead, cite the relevant portion of Soviet Constitution — in any language.
Ukraine didn't simply leave the Union — the union itself dissolved — along with its Constitution. The 15 Republics all agreed to keep their borders.
There were plenty of factors igniting the war in Abkhasia, but the fine (and imaginary) points of the constitution of country, that no longer existed weren't among them. Sure, Russia likes to bring that example up, but it convinces no one other than Russians themselves. Putin much?
Wrong. There is only one incident described there. That you chose to use a plural (examples) shows you as not merely ignorant, but a liar too — just what we've come to expect from pro-Russian propagandists Internet-wide. And what was the incident? That in 1995 Ukraine's Interior ministry troops disarmed an illegal private army. States the article you found:
How long would any country tolerate unconstitutional behavior of local lords and the armed thugs in their employ? At any rate, this is not germane in the slightest to your earlier assertions that a) Crimea was entitled to sovereignty; b) Crimea voted for such sovereignty in 1991; c) Crimea's sovereignty of 1991 was "crushed" by Ukraine's military.
All three are demonstrable (indeed, already demonstrated as) falsehoods.
Heh-heh... Judging by your "arguments" here, you must've cheated in all of those schools. Being caught lying must be traumatizing indeed.
Which "same law" is that? There were no provisions in the Soviet Constitution for any entity other than one of the main 15 Republics to declare independence.
Have you read your own link? The referendum of 1991 turned Crimea into an "autonomous republic" within Ukraine — no "military threats" involved — certainly not from Ukraine, which had no military of its own until after the 1992 split-up of the USSR.
Crimea retained its "autonomous republic" status until 2014 — it had its own Parliament and ran many of its own affairs. It was never sovereign, however.
You fail your history. Have your parents acknowledge your "F" by next week.
How would you know that, if the government deliberately does not maintain such statistics and explicitly tells applicants, they don't need to disclose their immigration status? They are poor (and I don't blame them) and they apply for the help, which is paid for with monies collected at gun-point (taxes). I would not have minded, if they weren't entitled to any government help — I would've even donated some money to a private charity (of the kind that helped my family 22 years ago). But I rather resent being forced to do it...
Yes, I do think it is self-evident, that a Man has a right to live anywhere he can afford and work for anyone, who'd pay him. As long as I don't have to subsidize neither his housing, nor his children's education should his choices of locale or employment be in error.
We do, unfortunately. Arriving in too large a number, they will not dissolve in America's famous "melting pot" — as the Irish, Italian, German, or Ukrainian immigrant-waves did before them in the 20th century — but turn the rest of America to a side. Being from the poor countries, where the government is the primary source of wealth, and the Church (Catholic) — a very respected authority, they see nothing wrong with it being such here, thus pushing ever further from the small-government ideals we started with.
Well, if that were really true, you would've shrugged and walked by. So, no, you don't really believe I am "on the cusp" of doing it. You chose to add your own insult to the already posted one.
And that, once again, demonstrates the reliability of my Illiberal-detection method.
Being dissatisfied merely with "some aspects" would not call for a fundamental change, would it?
Words, as he said himself elsewhere, have consequences. For a man, whose primary selling point was and remains his smooth-talking, using a word without meaning to would be a rather surprising gaffe. No, mean it he did...
That's how it would cost Pentagon to build temporary barracks in Eastern Bumfuck.
That Ukraine — a country promised protection, when it gave up nuclear weapons, and one of America's allies (such as in Iraq) want of anything, when they now need to defend their own country is a shame.
Obama would not supply them with weapons . Even getting some blankets and helmets — a puny quantity of the so called "non-lethal" supplies — was delayed by months.
False. USSR — of which Russia and Ukraine were both parts — took it from Russia and gave to Ukraine.
Either way, that's not the claim Russia is making even now, so take your Moscow propaganda back to where Putin-TV is the source of truth.
Irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure, I said the exact opposite... Let me check... Yes, I did...
You're able to read about as good as your writing is...
Q: How do you tell an Illiberal by his first sentence? A: An Illiberal would typically start talking with a personal attack.
I do not know the answers to these questions and don't wish to offer you mere speculations.
But the fact that he dislikes America is evident in his — personally stated — desire to "fundamentally transform" the country.
People may agree with his assessment of the country or disagree with them, but there is no denying the fact — he did not like America as it was (before his presidency).
I have very little problem with engineers — or anyone else — coming here to work. Sure, they make it harder for Americans to find work, but I never believed, Americans should be entitled to better jobs simply by birthright.
What worries me are the very bottom — the folks, who come over here knowing, that they may be able to get foodstamps and other hand-outs, that our schools and hospitals will teach and treat them for free.
And, whereas the Indians come by the mere thousands (and knowing English), the Latin Americans — even those who sincerely plan to work for a living — come in millions (and most of them knowing only one language). That they come from dirt-poor countries, where the government is the primary source of what little wealth there is, is my main fear, however — for they are likely to turn America into a government- rather than an enterprise-centric country even more than it is already, widening poverty and accelerating the loss of citizens' rights.
Sadly, you are right. And, given his dislike for America, he'll have two years to turn her into a 3rd-world country. Our only hope is that, being an incompetent nincompoop, he is unlikely to succeed simply for lack of ability. But not for lack of trying...
So, instead of answering "yes it may" or "not, it is unlikely", you make it about my person? Wow...
Can the availability of these data help me — or Iran — develop a nuclear weapon faster?
That may be, because I'm actually from Ukraine... But, more likely than not I did not "fail at Russian" — you are just being overly pedantic.
There are some exceptions, yes, but there far fewer of them, than in English. That was my point.
"Vinnie" (as in "Cousin") and "Winnie" (the Pooh) sound exactly the same to all native Russian and Ukrainian speakers (and readers) and both names are transcribed exactly the same.
You'd have had a point, if we were talking about names like "Watson" or "Welles" — which are, indeed, written differently in different editions of "Sherlock Holmes" and "War of the Worlds" respectively. But "Vinnie" vs. "Winnie" — no. These two would always be written with (a Cyrillic equivalent of) "v".
The anti-tobacco fight is just about over, as is the one over asbestos/mesothelioma. The new generation of lawyers will be getting obscenely rich fighting large investment funds over their investing in fuel companies.
Pardon me, comrade — I first read about the little bear in Russian, where the writing is phonetic and the distinction between "w" and "v" makes no sense...
Yeah? When was that?
With scientists (and the lobbyists behind them) asking for taxpayers' money, it is only proper to be skeptical. Not distrustful, no, but skeptical nonetheless.
It is the right thing to do — not much different from you being skeptical, when the car-company or a cell-phone maker try to sell you some super-duper advance, that you probably don't need...