What prevents them from using that super wealth to offer the country both middle fingers and move somewhere that doesn't want to reach into their wallet and take everything?
Because they're parasites. Also, stop distorting numbers. The discussion is the 0.1%.
Why does your kid have a computer, ipad, ipod, and cellphone? More specifically, why do you continue to let him have them after he's repeatedly rebelled against you? Have you tried selling all of them and disconnecting the internet from your house, then reintroducing them when he's learned to behave?
Parenting is only affective when you're consistent.
The point you disagree with them on is that society should bend over backwards to accommodate children rather than leaving it up to parents to explain adult things to their kids. If kids don't have decent parents, they have bigger problems than seeing tits.
Therein lies the irony since these are the kids that grow up to be the perverts.
Lying to a federal officer is a felony, not your local sheriff. However, lying or telling the truth to your local and state officer is likely to land you in a heap of trouble. Best not to speak at all.
"I can observe or participate in a political rally without being personally identifiable."
If you are in public, you are identifiable. This doesn't mean you have been, it just means it is possible. Remember the Boston Bombing? Those guys were "anonymous" but quickly found out that they weren't really "unknown". Pictures surfaced, faces were identified, and the search was quickly started.
You are delusional if you think that you can be anonymous in public. Unidentified is not the same thing as "not being identifiable".
Extremes. Obviously, if you live in an Orwellian state, surveillance can identify you. That wasn't the premise of my post nor TFA.
The point you missed is that one can very much participate in society with a degree of anonymity/pseudonymity without being demonized by a particular unpopular point of view. This push for "civility" online isn't consistent to the real world, nay, to democracy itself. Just like I can publish a controversial work of art without fear of prosecution or to not have it attached to my name just because I fucking feel like it.
And, yes, I can be in public without being identifiable. The simple trick is to avoid traveling to Orwellian states where people still value their privacy. The good side is that there's absolutely no reason to visit those places; a state without privacy is a state devoid of creative thought or pursuits.
They aren't. Pseudonymity/anonymity exists in the real world. I can observe or participate in a political rally without being personally identifiable. I can travel the world with only the customs officer knowing who I am.
Ideas and dialog are fostered by pseudonymity/anonymity without stigma or fear of being ostracized.
Why would they and what makes you think whomever replaces Assad will allow it? The problem here is that 2/3rds of the groups who will likely compete to replace Assad will not allow the qatar to turkey pipeline either. They either dislike the selling of the middle east resources to the west or the west entirely for their infidel ways. The goal of the pipeline in question is to join up with the Nabucco pipeline which can be done by routing through Saudi Arabia and skipping over Syria altogether. To date, Saudi has also refused to allow the pipeline also but you see no civil war there or call for military involvement.
Hey. Hello, with this post it is like I finally met your acquaintance. Seriously. You should contribute more at this level; it fosters discussion. Assad is several layers deep, I can't attempt to address at this point. The pipeline you mention isn't the pipelines in question. I was speaking about the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, Kurdistan-Syria-Turkey pipeline, Kurdistan-Syria-Israel pipeline. Kurdistan itself produces almost half the oil of all Saudi Arabia per day. The main operator in Kurdistan there is a British-Turkish firm with large investments from Chevron, Exonn-Mobil, and BP. In Turkey, the main operator is French. Kurdistan is almost sovereign in their relations with international investors-- the way U.S. likes it.
Other than the planned pipelines, Syria's real value is geopolitically.
Oh, and I don't have time to to mention that we're trying to ween Turkey off the teet of Iran. This is an important factor.
There's so much to discuss that I can't cover in a/. post. With Syria, there's so much that has transpired in the past four years-- none of which is even mentioned in U.S. media.
From this post of yours alone, you've instilled some confidence in carrying discussions.
Your talk about Obama being an amateur is kind of ridiculous and not applicable. Obama is comparable to Reagan in both domestic and foreign policy. In some ways, he's a carbon copy of Reagan. The main difference between the Obama administration and the presidents you listed is that Obama has a better job record and is not yet a war criminal.
betterprimate's daily predication: You may see some action in India too since they're buying oil from Iran without the dollar. Counter-relations will be diplomatic, of course, but it's notable to current events.
Okay. Let's relax and look at this objectively then. If this all about humanitarian efforts, why is the U.S. invested? The U.S. is exempt from international treaty. The U.S. can even commit genocide without international consequence. If it's not about controlling the flow of oil and geopolitics, then what is it? You're showing ideology, where I hadn't by using the term "evil." Corporations are amoral; there is no good or evil. They are profit driven. However, as long as human slavery, trafficking, and suffering, as long as warfare is profitable, then it does become a moral issue.
You are reading bullshit into bullshit in order to keep an inaccurate ideology alive.
That's exactly what you're doing. Everything you posted you pulled out your ass and wasn't based upon current events, facts, or a thousand years of literature, history, philosophy, and economics. You argued just to argue.
In some circles, they call that delusional.
In your first post, you justified warfare based upon the semantics of a speech given a year ago. It could have been a red line, a blue line, a black line, an invisible line. That's delusional.
From my knowledge, it has existed for 100 years but had escalated under the Kissinger era. There was a time when the U.S. government did good, but that's a long time ago and most of our good causes have been stricken from the record.
Does Lincoln get credit for curtailing Napoleon III's imperialistic pursuits? Who remembers when the U.S. intervened in the brutal and barbaric Turk invasion of Greece after women and children were pushed out of the city and into the sea to drown? There are many examples that you wouldn't even be able to find on Wikipedia; they're not longer publicly accessible knowledge.
The American people are virtuous but that is not reflected in our governments' actions. Today, corporate and elitist interests write our laws, own our land, and start and profit from our wars.
At the very least, keep being good. All things perish.
I like my conspiracies a little more colorful then that. But hey, good try.
Conspiracy theory, really? If to say our news organizations and government always bow to corporate interests is a "conspiracy theory", then I fucking nuts. Take a look around you and you will see the depressing soulless shit made manifest.
Once you understand that corporate and elitist interests are larger and more powerful than the U.S. federal government, things will be less gray for you. You will actually be able to predict what will happen next. Corporations are larger than states of the U.S. republic, how is it so it difficult to see how they're larger than feds?Fuck, they write our laws and fund our wars. That's a big elephant.
From where I stand, you are the conspiracy theorist.
England wants nothing to do with us on it as well as most of Europe.
Huh? England *very* much wants this as does all of NATO. Oh, are you talking about English citizens? They don't matter in this decision.
But maybe Parliament does matter, eh? And what other NATO nation has expressed official gung-ho endorsement of the US regime in this matter, let alone military involvment? Perhaps by "all of NATO" you mean "France". I am not up to date on France's position of the hour. I do know Hollande shot his mouth off some days ago, but the French population is not crazy about his enthusiasm for unprovoked military action against a sovereign power not belligerent to France.
I suspect, having watched both the US and British loose cannons in chief come up so far short of support, Hollande may well waver.
Parliament does matter but they're just an obstacle. Still, I was happy to hear of the labor party's defiance.
Hollande will go along with the U.S. regardless of public support. U.S. must act first, and they will. Turkey has also been drumming up for war and directly funding the destabilization of Syria since 2010. Turkey, more or less, is just a pawn.
Your pipe line concerns fail because Syria has never shown any intention of stopping them
Really? So Syria is going to open up its doors to international investors and operators (currently France, Turkey, Britain, U.S.) to allow ownership of the pipelines from Nothern Iraq and Southern Iraq to Turkey and Israel to be fed on the global market in U.S. dollars? And to compete directly with Iran and Qatar? That's news to me.
The reason we're talking about a "red line" is to drum up support for the populace. It's the same reason it's now referred to as a minor military intervention. Whatever the press can do to make you swallow that big fucking horse pill.
In all seriousness, and I will likely be modded down for this because it's a negative on Obama. But he is a rank amateur in office who was attempting to gloat in some glory and made a statement that he is trying to wiggle out of.
This has as much to do with Obama as the Iraq war had with Bush. Obama is not calling the shots.
If you think this has any relation to a "red line" remark, you've been reading far too much American media. The U.S. media has been systematically ratcheting up public support by polluting public forum with rhetoric and hijacking the narrative with prepared talking points. It's cute you still believe in free press.
Like it's been said before. This has everything to do with Syrian pipelines and geopolitics. Yes, pipelines. Multiple. The only news organizations reporting on it are The Guardian and Aljazeera.
England wants nothing to do with us on it as well as most of Europe.
Huh? England *very* much wants this as does all of NATO. Oh, are you talking about English citizens? They don't matter in this decision.
I use to be a frequent flyer with NWA before the acquisition.
With NWA, I had saved up enough miles for a round-trip ticket to anywhere I wanted (about a $1400 value) and was planning a summer getaway. When Delta purchased them, they converted my miles over to their program. That $1400 value from NWA instantly became $75.
It comes to no surprise that I will not fly Delta.
I miss NWA. They had the most helpful and friendly staff; simple attentiveness goes a long ways when you're about to be manhandled by TSA.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they're parasites. Also, stop distorting numbers. The discussion is the 0.1%.
Obviously. Because without it, they would be dead.
Why does your kid have a computer, ipad, ipod, and cellphone? More specifically, why do you continue to let him have them after he's repeatedly rebelled against you? Have you tried selling all of them and disconnecting the internet from your house, then reintroducing them when he's learned to behave?
Parenting is only affective when you're consistent.
Therein lies the irony since these are the kids that grow up to be the perverts.
This is normal. Almost all Apple announcements have been followed by a drop in the stock prices:
Precisely.
Lying to a federal officer is a felony, not your local sheriff. However, lying or telling the truth to your local and state officer is likely to land you in a heap of trouble. Best not to speak at all.
Unfortunately, you can't teach critical thinking to those who are unwilling to learn.
AM, the GP, just equated freedom of speech to terrorist bombing.
"I can observe or participate in a political rally without being personally identifiable."
If you are in public, you are identifiable. This doesn't mean you have been, it just means it is possible. Remember the Boston Bombing? Those guys were "anonymous" but quickly found out that they weren't really "unknown". Pictures surfaced, faces were identified, and the search was quickly started.
You are delusional if you think that you can be anonymous in public. Unidentified is not the same thing as "not being identifiable".
Extremes. Obviously, if you live in an Orwellian state, surveillance can identify you. That wasn't the premise of my post nor TFA.
The point you missed is that one can very much participate in society with a degree of anonymity/pseudonymity without being demonized by a particular unpopular point of view. This push for "civility" online isn't consistent to the real world, nay, to democracy itself. Just like I can publish a controversial work of art without fear of prosecution or to not have it attached to my name just because I fucking feel like it.
And, yes, I can be in public without being identifiable. The simple trick is to avoid traveling to Orwellian states where people still value their privacy. The good side is that there's absolutely no reason to visit those places; a state without privacy is a state devoid of creative thought or pursuits.
They aren't. Pseudonymity/anonymity exists in the real world. I can observe or participate in a political rally without being personally identifiable. I can travel the world with only the customs officer knowing who I am.
Ideas and dialog are fostered by pseudonymity/anonymity without stigma or fear of being ostracized.
... just a PR stunt or an investigation of espionage, might I suggest dropping 60" frankfurters on Frankfurt? Either way it's a win!
Ich bin hungrig. :(
Hey. Hello, with this post it is like I finally met your acquaintance. Seriously. You should contribute more at this level; it fosters discussion. Assad is several layers deep, I can't attempt to address at this point. The pipeline you mention isn't the pipelines in question. I was speaking about the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, Kurdistan-Syria-Turkey pipeline, Kurdistan-Syria-Israel pipeline. Kurdistan itself produces almost half the oil of all Saudi Arabia per day. The main operator in Kurdistan there is a British-Turkish firm with large investments from Chevron, Exonn-Mobil, and BP. In Turkey, the main operator is French. Kurdistan is almost sovereign in their relations with international investors-- the way U.S. likes it.
Other than the planned pipelines, Syria's real value is geopolitically.
Oh, and I don't have time to to mention that we're trying to ween Turkey off the teet of Iran. This is an important factor.
There's so much to discuss that I can't cover in a /. post. With Syria, there's so much that has transpired in the past four years-- none of which is even mentioned in U.S. media.
From this post of yours alone, you've instilled some confidence in carrying discussions.
Your talk about Obama being an amateur is kind of ridiculous and not applicable. Obama is comparable to Reagan in both domestic and foreign policy. In some ways, he's a carbon copy of Reagan. The main difference between the Obama administration and the presidents you listed is that Obama has a better job record and is not yet a war criminal.
betterprimate's daily predication: You may see some action in India too since they're buying oil from Iran without the dollar. Counter-relations will be diplomatic, of course, but it's notable to current events.
Okay. Let's relax and look at this objectively then. If this all about humanitarian efforts, why is the U.S. invested? The U.S. is exempt from international treaty. The U.S. can even commit genocide without international consequence. If it's not about controlling the flow of oil and geopolitics, then what is it? You're showing ideology, where I hadn't by using the term "evil." Corporations are amoral; there is no good or evil. They are profit driven. However, as long as human slavery, trafficking, and suffering, as long as warfare is profitable, then it does become a moral issue.
That's exactly what you're doing. Everything you posted you pulled out your ass and wasn't based upon current events, facts, or a thousand years of literature, history, philosophy, and economics. You argued just to argue.
In your first post, you justified warfare based upon the semantics of a speech given a year ago. It could have been a red line, a blue line, a black line, an invisible line. That's delusional.
And, yet, that isn't enough.
Pot, meet kettle.
LOL. Which proves greatly effective in diverting imperialist pursuits. More bickering and blind idealism, I say!
From my knowledge, it has existed for 100 years but had escalated under the Kissinger era. There was a time when the U.S. government did good, but that's a long time ago and most of our good causes have been stricken from the record.
Does Lincoln get credit for curtailing Napoleon III's imperialistic pursuits? Who remembers when the U.S. intervened in the brutal and barbaric Turk invasion of Greece after women and children were pushed out of the city and into the sea to drown? There are many examples that you wouldn't even be able to find on Wikipedia; they're not longer publicly accessible knowledge.
The American people are virtuous but that is not reflected in our governments' actions. Today, corporate and elitist interests write our laws, own our land, and start and profit from our wars.
At the very least, keep being good. All things perish.
Conspiracy theory, really? If to say our news organizations and government always bow to corporate interests is a "conspiracy theory", then I fucking nuts. Take a look around you and you will see the depressing soulless shit made manifest.
Once you understand that corporate and elitist interests are larger and more powerful than the U.S. federal government, things will be less gray for you. You will actually be able to predict what will happen next. Corporations are larger than states of the U.S. republic, how is it so it difficult to see how they're larger than feds?Fuck, they write our laws and fund our wars. That's a big elephant.
From where I stand, you are the conspiracy theorist.
But maybe Parliament does matter, eh? And what other NATO nation has expressed official gung-ho endorsement of the US regime in this matter, let alone military involvment? Perhaps by "all of NATO" you mean "France". I am not up to date on France's position of the hour. I do know Hollande shot his mouth off some days ago, but the French population is not crazy about his enthusiasm for unprovoked military action against a sovereign power not belligerent to France.
I suspect, having watched both the US and British loose cannons in chief come up so far short of support, Hollande may well waver.
Parliament does matter but they're just an obstacle. Still, I was happy to hear of the labor party's defiance.
Hollande will go along with the U.S. regardless of public support. U.S. must act first, and they will. Turkey has also been drumming up for war and directly funding the destabilization of Syria since 2010. Turkey, more or less, is just a pawn.
Really? So Syria is going to open up its doors to international investors and operators (currently France, Turkey, Britain, U.S.) to allow ownership of the pipelines from Nothern Iraq and Southern Iraq to Turkey and Israel to be fed on the global market in U.S. dollars? And to compete directly with Iran and Qatar? That's news to me.
The reason we're talking about a "red line" is to drum up support for the populace. It's the same reason it's now referred to as a minor military intervention. Whatever the press can do to make you swallow that big fucking horse pill.
Go here:
http://science.slashdot.org/
This has as much to do with Obama as the Iraq war had with Bush. Obama is not calling the shots.
If you think this has any relation to a "red line" remark, you've been reading far too much American media. The U.S. media has been systematically ratcheting up public support by polluting public forum with rhetoric and hijacking the narrative with prepared talking points. It's cute you still believe in free press.
Like it's been said before. This has everything to do with Syrian pipelines and geopolitics. Yes, pipelines. Multiple. The only news organizations reporting on it are The Guardian and Aljazeera.
Huh? England *very* much wants this as does all of NATO. Oh, are you talking about English citizens? They don't matter in this decision.
Aren't they basically the same thing?
I use to be a frequent flyer with NWA before the acquisition.
With NWA, I had saved up enough miles for a round-trip ticket to anywhere I wanted (about a $1400 value) and was planning a summer getaway. When Delta purchased them, they converted my miles over to their program. That $1400 value from NWA instantly became $75.
It comes to no surprise that I will not fly Delta.
I miss NWA. They had the most helpful and friendly staff; simple attentiveness goes a long ways when you're about to be manhandled by TSA.
I flew Ryanair once, the lavatory was out of service. 'nuff said.
Ryanair is like a chinatown bus with wings.
It would be a whole lot easier to understand you if you learned basic punctuation and grammar.