Collecting freely available information doesn't require a warrant any more then it requires a warrant to look your name up in a phone book and then write it down in a log.
Private phone calls aren't "freely available information". Your private email and Facebook messages are not "freely available information". The government has massively tapped the former, and can get the latter merely by sending a "national security letter", also without a warrant.
Anyway, you're responding by being even more irrational. That's fine. Children sometimes do that it never works to plead with them to be sensible.
If you're going to start throwing stones on rationality, how rational is it to justify police state tactics when you have a greater chance of dying after a fall in your bathtub than in a terrorist attack? How rational is it to make crazy slippery slope arguments while ignoring the recent history of mass warrantless wiretapping, military detentions without trials, torture, and assassinations? Which, unlike your mask wearing, bomb planting protesters, has actually happened?
Children sometimes put their fingers in their their ears and chant "la la la la" rather than deal with facts they don't like.
Please protest and if you get so angry that you feel the need to plant a bomb or deface property... remember we're watching and we know your name.:-)
Please not that I will still defend your civil liberties, your increasing attempts at obnoxious condescension notwithstanding.
As to the fed, no... Fannie and Freddie were on the hook for them.
And again, the vast majority of subprime loans had nothing to do with Fannie or Freddie.
As to my friends lying to me. Yes, I take your word over theirs. Not only do you know less then them but you also have no credibility beyond the common courtesy I extend to anyone. I'm afraid no one trusts a random person on the street over a trusted friend who is also a professional expert in the field. No one does that. That you would expect me to do that is frankly odd.
Government regulations prevented redlining or the practice of giving higher interest rates to borrows based not on their debt or income, but on who they were or where they lived.
Meaning: if a white assistant manager of a Burger King made $40k a year and qualified for a 4% rate with xyz outstanding debt, banks wouldn't be able to charge a 7% rate to a black assistant manager making the same wage with the same credit rating.
Conservatives and banking apologists have tried to twist that into a "government forced banks to hand out loans" storyline. They are lying.
See above. Feel free to stop spreading this Big Lie at any time.
My friends were not wrong or lying to me. They simply knew what they were talking about unlike you. I don't take kindly to people calling my friends liars especially when they're full of crap. So if you feel insulted, understand that you earned it. The anger or offense you might feel is something you should turn upon yourself and not upon me.
Too damned bad. Your "friends" are lying to you, as I've just proven. Feel free to deal with that fact at any time as well.
Stay on topic, uberhah. Your tactic to misdirect the subject won't work here.
Your transparent attempts at projection wont work here. The subject is bankruptcy, the point is consistency. If student loans are accountable for the loans they choose to sign, should businesses not be held to the same standard: yes or no.
No one forced the students to sign a student loan agreement. It was done of their free will. If they can no longer afford to pay the loan, they can file for bankruptcy. It is called being a mature adult and accepting responsibility for your choices.
Those students entered into those agreement under the false illusion that a college degree will grant them riches beyond their dreams, illusions preached by the left. And now blah blah blah blah
Should the same standard used for business debt: yes or no?
this is so fucking stupid, it shows the level of ignorance on basic economic principles.
You mean: you're so fucking poutraged that your fucking moranic Thatcher quote was thrown back in your face. And, of course, you shouldn't throw ignorant stones in glass houses:
The rich create the money that exist in the economy, they don't take it, they actually produce it.
Wrong! The rich don't create money, debtors do when they take out loans from banks and repay them with interest. Basic economic principle taught in grade school. These debtors can either be consumers or businesses - but they do not have to be rich.
Why don't you try explaining why the CEO of Wal-Mart deserves to make more money in one month than the average Wal-Mart employee does in his or her entire lifetime.
Why don't you try explaining what Larry Ellison does for Oracle for $200 million a year that he wouldn't do for one million a year.
Why don't you try explaining why we had a booming middle class and infrastructure with a 91% marginal tax rate, but a stagnant or falling middle class since the Reagan years and low taxes on the rich.
"demonizing adjectives" - I remember the Contract with America, which most thinking people thought was past due.
Non sequitur.
I remember Clinton not remembering a damned thing.
Hand waving.
I remember what the meaning of "is" is.
I remember Republicans spending over 60 million dollars to come up with any reason, any reason at all, to attack a sitting president. How much did Democrats spend to investigate Harken Energy? Bush going AWOL from his Air Guard commitments? Let alone torture and lying us into a war.
Were you even alive then?
Were you? Remember the investigations and re-investigations into Vince Foster and Whitewater when they was zero probable cause that the Clintons did anything illegal?
Then lets get back to Gingrich and his (long) list of ways to demean his political opponents. Suck on it, wingnut, suck it long, suck it hard:
Contrasting Words
Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.
abuse of power anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs betray bizarre bosses bureaucracy cheat coercion "compassion" is not enough collapse(ing) consequences corrupt corruption criminal rights crisis cynicism decay deeper destroy destructive devour disgrace endanger excuses failure (fail) greed hypocrisy ideological impose incompetent insecure insensitive intolerant liberal lie limit(s) machine mandate(s) obsolete pathetic patronage permissive attitude pessimistic punish (poor...) radical red tape self-serving selfish sensationalists shallow shame sick spend(ing) stagnation status quo steal taxes they/them threaten traitors unionized urgent (cy) waste welfare
But pointing to the number of top universities is still a non sequitur when measuring the quality of education. More so when you're comparing a nation of 300+ million people (USA) to a nation of 5 million people (Finland).
Dude, average US IQ levels are only 98, compared with Germany, Italy, and Netherlands at 102, and the UK at 100. So you know, we're going to be a little slow! But seriously, the percentage of 25- to 64-year-Olds with an Associate Degree or Higher in 2007 was 40.3% in the US, higher than any other EU country. The closest is Finland with 36.4%.
Doesn't your second factoid conflict just a bit with the first? And what's the student loan debt for all of Europe compare to that of the United States - which is now higher than it's total credit card debt?
All the subprime loans are were backed by the feds ultimately.
Only because the feds choose to bail out the banks and the bankers. Instead of doing what they should have done: break up the banks and send the bankers to jail for fraud and perjury.
And I know from several friends in the banking business that prior to the bubble bursting they were being pushed very hard by the government to make those subprime loans.
Then your friends are lying to you, as the government did nothing to force banks to offer good loans to bad debtors. What the government did do was force banks not to discriminate against home-buyers because of their race or because they lived in the "wrong" part of town.
As to passing a law capping the cost of education, you have no right to tell a school especially a private school what they can and cannot charge.
Non sequitur. The government wouldn't be telling private universities how much they could charge for tuition, it would be telling all universities how they could charge if they want to receive student loan money. Randian U would be perfectly free to go on charging $50000 a semester, they would just have to forgo federal student loan money to do so.
So, why does the canned conservative response of "if you don't like it, do without" not apply in this instance?
Easy, the "couteracting force of competition" is far outweighed by the "easy money" factor. And I don't know why you'd act as if market forces being the "be-all and end-all" is controversial or in question. Of course market forces are exactly the end-all be-all for the market in anything. It's a fucking tautology.
You mean your fucking projection on why costs have continued to rise - the only tautology in the room?
If this is all about the government messing with "market forces", it might explain a temporary explosion in the cost of tuition. Otherwise, more people would start more schools to get at this supposedly easy supply of money. Eventually, there would be so many schools that they would have to start competing for students. And there's only too ways to do that: offer a better education, or offer cheaper tuition.
Basic high school economics.
So I'm saying your should be able to declare bankruptcy on your student loans.
Then I'm saying you're putting the cart before the horse, and obviously so. Ending student loans without providing some alternative funding mechanism in their place would end the possibility of higher education for the vast majority of the population. Of course, that would be a feature, not a bug, for the Randians bloviating throughout this story.
Having a file on someone isn't a violation of their rights
How very authoritarian of you, to support investigations when one is suspected of committing no crime. And of course there are rights violations if one shred of that evidence was obtained without a warrant when it should have been.
and if you're protesting in front of city hall we have an interest in knowing who was there
For merely exercising your first amendment rights? How unbelievably authoritarian of you.
And they do get ugly sometimes. Sometimes protesters plant bombs. I'm sorry but we need to know.
I'm sorry but you're talking straight up nonsense now. How many bombs have been planted by OWS? By the Tea Party? You have a greater chance of dying in your own bathtub because you slipped and fell than you have of dying in a terrorist attack.
And this isn't a f'ing third world country where you need to worry about the secret police disappearing you.
Unless you're last name is Padila or Manning, of course. And then there's all the people the U.S. government has kidnapped and sometimes tortured. Your "crazy hypotheticals" have already happened.
I find it unacceptable that masks are allowed at such events. Agree they're not allowed and I'll agree to very reasonable consequences such as a warning followed by a small fine if they don't stop it. But if you're going to be unreasonable then I'm going to be unreasonable.
Go right ahead and list all the bombs planted by mask wearing OWS protestors before you start throwing stones on unreasonableness, you good little authoritarian you.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. You're talking about the same Republicans that were for giant bank bailouts before they were against them, and who still happily vote for huge ag and oil subsidies and over a trillion dollars a year in military spending. And now $6 billion is going to break the bank?
Laughable.
I noticed you didn't bother with the "job killing taxes on small businesses" crap - because you gave up, or because you remembered that when Republicans say "small business", they don't mean mom & pop operations. They mean Koch fucking Industries because by "small business" they don't mean small as in profits or small as in number of employees, but small in the number of owners.
So....either you're handwaving, or you need to look up the definition of "payola", because it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.
Students can work off debt by jumping hoops over the course of ten years? Whoop de freaking do. A fatcat can declare Chapter 11 for his corporation and discharge all his debts on the spot - something the student can't do. Said fatcat could also declare personal bankruptcy, and have it expunged from his record in 7 years. Three years before the student could finish working it off.
First, they have you on camera? So? Only a problem if you do something illegal.
Eh? Did you really just make the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be worried about" argument?
Second, if people wear masks they're going to feel like they can get away with things. It encourages violence and mob behavior.
And if people are allowed to own handguns, it will just encourage violence and mob behavior. Sorry, but this seems to be a bit of a tautology.
Third, you see people wearing masks at protests in third world countries where they worry about a secret police tracking them. This is not a reasonable concern in the first world.
The first world that has FBI files on nonviolent actresses and civil rights activists? The first world where undercover agents go so far as to impregnate the nonviolent activists they are spying on? The first world that constantly uses entrapment to prosecute "terror" cases? The first world which has recently passed both laws allowing military detentions of citizens and criminalizing "disrupting events" where someone is under Secret Service protection?
Lets say you decide to protest a Bank of America shareholder meeting at a convention center. You're peacefully protesting in the street and the parking lot, but totally unknown to you, Jill Biden was quietly on her way to meet some Democratic donors in another room at the convention center.
But she was a few minutes late getting past the crowd, so you and your fellow protesters "disrupted an event" where the Secret Service was protecting someone. That spiffy new spy center in Nevada runs CCTV footage through their facial recognition software, and not only picks you out of a crowd, but is able to cross-reverence your location with a warrantless wiretap on your cell phone. Presto, you receive a summons in the mail a few weeks later.
Because in your world, everyone can sign up for Medicare and Medicaid, but that does nothing to explain why health care costs have skyrocketed for those 18 to 65 back on planet Earth.
The sad part is that you really believe that education in those countries is free.
It IS free.
It's as free as your public library or the public sidewalk you use to get there. Free means free to use, not "free lunch". But you knew that already.
They might not have $50k of debt when they graduate, but they pay for more in taxes over their lifetime for this "free" service and keep less of their own money.
Low taxes have extraordinarily high costs. And all that money you are "keeping"? It's going straight into the pockets of bankers and health insurance companies. But enjoy retiring at 70 just to maintain a decent lifestyle, whereas the French retire at 62.
They're facts, deal with them. The memos were never proven to be forgeries. The memos were authenticated for the accuracy of their content. Thanks for providing another example of a right wing hack who sticks to his storyline no matter the facts.
Finally Brietbart released the unedited videos.
Obvious non-response is obvious. And dishonest.
How many Fox reporters were fired for airing the edited video?
But in the west it's at best creepy and at worst facilitates mob behavior.
Creepy in the age of mass CCTV and government surveillance? Not so much. Before, the FBI would just keep a file on you if you were a nonviolent protester. Now they can keep permanent databases filled with CCTV footage filtered through facial recognition software.
Yes, it's obvious you're still not answering the question:
Imagine this scenario, if you will: A large group of citizens are walking across a bridge holding signs, singing songs, and chanting. When they get to the end of the bridge, an empty bottle comes flying out of the crowd. Police attack the crowd, ostensibly to protect themselves from the bottle. Chaos ensues, many protesters are beaten and arrested, some are trampled while the crowd is trying to flee.
Whether the bottle comes flying from the hands of an agent provocateur or an actual violent troublemaker is kinda beside the point: that police could assault the crowd in order to "defend themselves" from the bottle thrower and, after the ensuing chaos, arrest everyone for rioting.
Even though 9,999 of the 10,000 protesters were acting perfectly peacefully beforehand.
Oh please, the false flag theories are being thrown around so often and carelessly on Slashdot that this is starting to turn into a conspiracy nut site.
Nevermind how often they're proven to be accurate, of course. How how many poor Muslims are sent to jail after a informant or undercover officer encouraged them to plan an attack, then provided them with pretend bombs and weapons with which to carry it out.
No, that's up to a jury. I'm wondering if you're arguing this out of naivete or out of authoritarianism. As if cops don't already use ordinances like "disorderly conduct" as a catch-all reason to arrest whoever they want to arrest.
This story is for Canada, but legislation just made it's way through Congress making it an offense to "disrupt" an event where someone was under Secret Service protection. So, you could be protesting a BOA shareholder meeting in the parking lot of a convention center, and be charged because Jill Biden was at another event in a different room.
This is a story about actual bias in scientists which is affecting the quality of their research.
The hell it is - this "story" is straight up concern trolling. Even if there is some bias in scientific experiences and journals - on what planet does the American public follow them closely enough to turn around and distrust science in general? The American public where the majority can't even name a single Supreme Court justice?
And you completely gloss over that to take issue with Fox, which is no more ore less biased than msnbc, et al...
The hell they aren't. How many stories did NBC or CNN run on Wienergate by identifying Rep. Wiener as a Republican? Dan Rather was fired by CBS, the NBC producer that edited the George Zimmerman tapes was fired - how many reporters at Fox were fired for mixing up footage at Glenn Beck rallies or for showing Brietbart's hit video on Acorn?
How many channels where showing 5 year old pictures of Martin? How is that not lying?
Were they pictures of some other kid put in his place? Then were was the lie?
Edited 911 tapes? How is that not lying?
And the people responsible were promptly fired when NBC found out. How many people at Fox were fired for airing Brietbarts edited videos?
Who was it that took a proportional typed (produced by Word) document as being produced in 1968? How many people fell on their swords trying to defend these lies? 'Fake but accurate'?
Guard memos have never been proven to have been forgeries. Never. Typewriters possessed by the military at the time were capable of that level of typography. And more importantly, the memos WERE verified - for the accuracy of their content. As in: even if the letters were forged, someone forged the truth.
And then there's the fact that the Rather standards has never ever ever been applied to anyone but Dan Rather - who was fired, along with the producer. How many typography experts does Fox News employ again? How many Fox reporters were fired for airing the Acorn hit video again?
Are you illiterate? The story wasn't lies. They allowed Monsanto to respond to the allegations levied against them. The reporter who wrote the story against Monsanto called Monsanto's response lies and refused to report it. See, that's the difference. FoxNews allows the accused to respond. They report both sides of the story.
Are you? Monsanto objected to the story, and the reporters were fired. Fox successfully argued in court that it had no responsibility to tell the truth. The parent is correct, and you are spouting right wing propaganda.
As usual.
How many news organizations report false stories? Here's a hint; ALL OF THEM.
Here's a hint: we all see your lame false equivalence and lack of proportion. It's like saying that a guy 50 pounds overweight (NBC) and a guy 70 pounds overweight (CNN) are on the same level as a guy 600 pounds overweight (Fox) because they're all obese.
How many Fox reporters were fired for showing summer footage of an old Glenn Beck rally and pretending it was new, so it would look like more people showed up?
Slashdot Mirror
Private phone calls aren't "freely available information". Your private email and Facebook messages are not "freely available information". The government has massively tapped the former, and can get the latter merely by sending a "national security letter", also without a warrant.
If you're going to start throwing stones on rationality, how rational is it to justify police state tactics when you have a greater chance of dying after a fall in your bathtub than in a terrorist attack? How rational is it to make crazy slippery slope arguments while ignoring the recent history of mass warrantless wiretapping, military detentions without trials, torture, and assassinations? Which, unlike your mask wearing, bomb planting protesters, has actually happened?
Children sometimes put their fingers in their their ears and chant "la la la la" rather than deal with facts they don't like.
Please not that I will still defend your civil liberties, your increasing attempts at obnoxious condescension notwithstanding.
And again, the vast majority of subprime loans had nothing to do with Fannie or Freddie.
Government regulations prevented redlining or the practice of giving higher interest rates to borrows based not on their debt or income, but on who they were or where they lived.
Meaning: if a white assistant manager of a Burger King made $40k a year and qualified for a 4% rate with xyz outstanding debt, banks wouldn't be able to charge a 7% rate to a black assistant manager making the same wage with the same credit rating.
Conservatives and banking apologists have tried to twist that into a "government forced banks to hand out loans" storyline. They are lying.
See above. Feel free to stop spreading this Big Lie at any time.
Too damned bad. Your "friends" are lying to you, as I've just proven. Feel free to deal with that fact at any time as well.
Your transparent attempts at projection wont work here. The subject is bankruptcy, the point is consistency. If student loans are accountable for the loans they choose to sign, should businesses not be held to the same standard: yes or no.
Should the same standard used for business debt: yes or no?
You mean: you're so fucking poutraged that your fucking moranic Thatcher quote was thrown back in your face. And, of course, you shouldn't throw ignorant stones in glass houses:
Wrong! The rich don't create money, debtors do when they take out loans from banks and repay them with interest. Basic economic principle taught in grade school. These debtors can either be consumers or businesses - but they do not have to be rich.
Why don't you try explaining why the CEO of Wal-Mart deserves to make more money in one month than the average Wal-Mart employee does in his or her entire lifetime.
Why don't you try explaining what Larry Ellison does for Oracle for $200 million a year that he wouldn't do for one million a year.
Why don't you try explaining why we had a booming middle class and infrastructure with a 91% marginal tax rate, but a stagnant or falling middle class since the Reagan years and low taxes on the rich.
Non sequitur.
Hand waving.
I remember Republicans spending over 60 million dollars to come up with any reason, any reason at all, to attack a sitting president. How much did Democrats spend to investigate Harken Energy? Bush going AWOL from his Air Guard commitments? Let alone torture and lying us into a war.
Were you? Remember the investigations and re-investigations into Vince Foster and Whitewater when they was zero probable cause that the Clintons did anything illegal?
Then lets get back to Gingrich and his (long) list of ways to demean his political opponents. Suck on it, wingnut, suck it long, suck it hard:
But pointing to the number of top universities is still a non sequitur when measuring the quality of education. More so when you're comparing a nation of 300+ million people (USA) to a nation of 5 million people (Finland).
Doesn't your second factoid conflict just a bit with the first? And what's the student loan debt for all of Europe compare to that of the United States - which is now higher than it's total credit card debt?
Only because the feds choose to bail out the banks and the bankers. Instead of doing what they should have done: break up the banks and send the bankers to jail for fraud and perjury.
Then your friends are lying to you, as the government did nothing to force banks to offer good loans to bad debtors. What the government did do was force banks not to discriminate against home-buyers because of their race or because they lived in the "wrong" part of town.
Non sequitur. The government wouldn't be telling private universities how much they could charge for tuition, it would be telling all universities how they could charge if they want to receive student loan money. Randian U would be perfectly free to go on charging $50000 a semester, they would just have to forgo federal student loan money to do so.
So, why does the canned conservative response of "if you don't like it, do without" not apply in this instance?
You mean your fucking projection on why costs have continued to rise - the only tautology in the room?
If this is all about the government messing with "market forces", it might explain a temporary explosion in the cost of tuition. Otherwise, more people would start more schools to get at this supposedly easy supply of money. Eventually, there would be so many schools that they would have to start competing for students. And there's only too ways to do that: offer a better education, or offer cheaper tuition.
Basic high school economics.
Then I'm saying you're putting the cart before the horse, and obviously so. Ending student loans without providing some alternative funding mechanism in their place would end the possibility of higher education for the vast majority of the population. Of course, that would be a feature, not a bug, for the Randians bloviating throughout this story.
How very authoritarian of you, to support investigations when one is suspected of committing no crime. And of course there are rights violations if one shred of that evidence was obtained without a warrant when it should have been.
For merely exercising your first amendment rights? How unbelievably authoritarian of you.
I'm sorry but you're talking straight up nonsense now. How many bombs have been planted by OWS? By the Tea Party? You have a greater chance of dying in your own bathtub because you slipped and fell than you have of dying in a terrorist attack.
Unless you're last name is Padila or Manning, of course. And then there's all the people the U.S. government has kidnapped and sometimes tortured. Your "crazy hypotheticals" have already happened.
Go right ahead and list all the bombs planted by mask wearing OWS protestors before you start throwing stones on unreasonableness, you good little authoritarian you.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. You're talking about the same Republicans that were for giant bank bailouts before they were against them, and who still happily vote for huge ag and oil subsidies and over a trillion dollars a year in military spending. And now $6 billion is going to break the bank?
Laughable.
I noticed you didn't bother with the "job killing taxes on small businesses" crap - because you gave up, or because you remembered that when Republicans say "small business", they don't mean mom & pop operations. They mean Koch fucking Industries because by "small business" they don't mean small as in profits or small as in number of employees, but small in the number of owners.
So....either you're handwaving, or you need to look up the definition of "payola", because it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.
Students can work off debt by jumping hoops over the course of ten years? Whoop de freaking do. A fatcat can declare Chapter 11 for his corporation and discharge all his debts on the spot - something the student can't do. Said fatcat could also declare personal bankruptcy, and have it expunged from his record in 7 years. Three years before the student could finish working it off.
Eh? Did you really just make the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be worried about" argument?
And if people are allowed to own handguns, it will just encourage violence and mob behavior. Sorry, but this seems to be a bit of a tautology.
The first world that has FBI files on nonviolent actresses and civil rights activists?
The first world where undercover agents go so far as to impregnate the nonviolent activists they are spying on?
The first world that constantly uses entrapment to prosecute "terror" cases?
The first world which has recently passed both laws allowing military detentions of citizens and criminalizing "disrupting events" where someone is under Secret Service protection?
Lets say you decide to protest a Bank of America shareholder meeting at a convention center. You're peacefully protesting in the street and the parking lot, but totally unknown to you, Jill Biden was quietly on her way to meet some Democratic donors in another room at the convention center.
But she was a few minutes late getting past the crowd, so you and your fellow protesters "disrupted an event" where the Secret Service was protecting someone. That spiffy new spy center in Nevada runs CCTV footage through their facial recognition software, and not only picks you out of a crowd, but is able to cross-reverence your location with a warrantless wiretap on your cell phone. Presto, you receive a summons in the mail a few weeks later.
It'll be the new speed camera fine-by-mail.
Because in your world, everyone can sign up for Medicare and Medicaid, but that does nothing to explain why health care costs have skyrocketed for those 18 to 65 back on planet Earth.
It IS free.
It's as free as your public library or the public sidewalk you use to get there. Free means free to use, not "free lunch". But you knew that already.
Low taxes have extraordinarily high costs. And all that money you are "keeping"? It's going straight into the pockets of bankers and health insurance companies. But enjoy retiring at 70 just to maintain a decent lifestyle, whereas the French retire at 62.
They're facts, deal with them. The memos were never proven to be forgeries. The memos were authenticated for the accuracy of their content. Thanks for providing another example of a right wing hack who sticks to his storyline no matter the facts.
Obvious non-response is obvious. And dishonest.
How many Fox reporters were fired for airing the edited video?
Creepy in the age of mass CCTV and government surveillance? Not so much. Before, the FBI would just keep a file on you if you were a nonviolent protester. Now they can keep permanent databases filled with CCTV footage filtered through facial recognition software.
Yes, it's obvious you're still not answering the question:
Whether the bottle comes flying from the hands of an agent provocateur or an actual violent troublemaker is kinda beside the point: that police could assault the crowd in order to "defend themselves" from the bottle thrower and, after the ensuing chaos, arrest everyone for rioting.
Even though 9,999 of the 10,000 protesters were acting perfectly peacefully beforehand.
Nevermind how often they're proven to be accurate, of course. How how many poor Muslims are sent to jail after a informant or undercover officer encouraged them to plan an attack, then provided them with pretend bombs and weapons with which to carry it out.
You responded to his question, but you sure didn't answer it.
No, that's up to a jury. I'm wondering if you're arguing this out of naivete or out of authoritarianism. As if cops don't already use ordinances like "disorderly conduct" as a catch-all reason to arrest whoever they want to arrest.
This story is for Canada, but legislation just made it's way through Congress making it an offense to "disrupt" an event where someone was under Secret Service protection. So, you could be protesting a BOA shareholder meeting in the parking lot of a convention center, and be charged because Jill Biden was at another event in a different room.
Stranger things have happened.
The hell it is - this "story" is straight up concern trolling. Even if there is some bias in scientific experiences and journals - on what planet does the American public follow them closely enough to turn around and distrust science in general? The American public where the majority can't even name a single Supreme Court justice?
The hell they aren't. How many stories did NBC or CNN run on Wienergate by identifying Rep. Wiener as a Republican? Dan Rather was fired by CBS, the NBC producer that edited the George Zimmerman tapes was fired - how many reporters at Fox were fired for mixing up footage at Glenn Beck rallies or for showing Brietbart's hit video on Acorn?
Were they pictures of some other kid put in his place? Then were was the lie?
And the people responsible were promptly fired when NBC found out. How many people at Fox were fired for airing Brietbarts edited videos?
Guard memos have never been proven to have been forgeries. Never. Typewriters possessed by the military at the time were capable of that level of typography. And more importantly, the memos WERE verified - for the accuracy of their content. As in: even if the letters were forged, someone forged the truth.
And then there's the fact that the Rather standards has never ever ever been applied to anyone but Dan Rather - who was fired, along with the producer. How many typography experts does Fox News employ again? How many Fox reporters were fired for airing the Acorn hit video again?
Are you? Monsanto objected to the story, and the reporters were fired. Fox successfully argued in court that it had no responsibility to tell the truth. The parent is correct, and you are spouting right wing propaganda.
As usual.
Here's a hint: we all see your lame false equivalence and lack of proportion. It's like saying that a guy 50 pounds overweight (NBC) and a guy 70 pounds overweight (CNN) are on the same level as a guy 600 pounds overweight (Fox) because they're all obese.
How many Fox reporters were fired for showing summer footage of an old Glenn Beck rally and pretending it was new, so it would look like more people showed up?
We know. It's obvious that you are very, very, concerned.
So they can blame it on the guy who's in charge. Here's your sign....