Why do you give a flying **** what the NSA are doing with your data?
Because the NSA is composed of individual people with no better morals than the average person (and usually worse, because they consider themselves to be untouchable).
I don't.
This psycho ex of yours, she's dating an NSA analyst. Not only he has access to all your data (that random link you mis-typed which turned out to be child porn), he can also manufacture some (and you won't be able to challenge the "evidence" because "National Security").
Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word al-Qaeda should be translated as "the database", and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians
Robin Cook knowsthe origin of the name better than Osama Bin Laden?
Politicians will swear anything on anything if it gets them elected. Then they will either silently ignore their promises or find excuses to justify reneging.
Come to think about it, this "democracy" (and variations thereof) is looking more and more like just a tool to stabilize government by giving people and outlet to vent their anger and an illusion of having a say instead of actually revolting against the tyranny.
"Again, voting for evil is never advisable, even if the opposition is even more evil."
Option A) Don't vote for less Evil guy; more Evil guy has an increased chance of winning Option B) Vote for less Evil guy; more Evil guy has less chance of winning.
Option C) Vote for non-Evil guy. Because the differences between the "less Evil" and "more Evil" guys are mostly cosmetic (or otherwise immaterial), and the false dichotomy exists only to perpetuate the rule of evil.
I have no problem with a woman President. I have a very BIG problem with Hillary Clinton. I'd vote for the first cockroach as President before I would vote for her.
Clinton is no better and no worse than the others. You should have been voting for cockroaches for quite a while now.
As far as the third party candidates that year, I looked at them, and didn't like any of them.
Still should have voted for one of them, for several reasons.
Firstly, to send the following message to both "major parties": Until you figure out that you have to represent the voters and their interests, I, and other like me, would rather vote for a baboon than for any of you. Moreover, we would actively campaign for the baboon, persuade others to vote for it and gleefully publish that a certain (hopefully insignificant, in time) percentage of the population would prefer a baboon over any representative that you can come up with.
Secondly, the more votes third party candidates receives, the more legitimized voting for them becomes in the public's view. This should, in time, encourage more third-party participation which will eventually result in a candidate that you will like.
Who statements from the post that should teach you everything you need to know about police:
1) Boehm's chain of command unanimously decided that the officer's use of deadly force against Barton was unreasonable 2) Boehm will not face criminal charges
He had me sitting on the side walk with my shoes off while he searched my car. {The officers that knew me were watching and trying not to laugh at the rookie}
So the other officers knew you and yet were perfectly willing to let you endure the inconvenience for the sake of laughing at their colleague?
Basically, the government can force you to do anything it wants, and there's nothing you can do about it. Strange, I remember hearing about some document that spelled out certain limitations on the governments powers, and certain rights that people had, but I must have misremembered.
No, such document indeed exists. However, there's nothing that compels the government to follow it, so it doesn't.
It's not magic, it's the rule of law: Per the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded by anything except a Constitutional Amendment. As no one has, to date, amended the Constitution to nullify the 4th Amendment, any "law" that violates the right of the People to be free from unlawful search and seizure is, in fact, not a legitimate law, no matter how many political appointees scream that it is.
A law usually has consequences for violating it. Take breaking DRM for example. The penalties can be upto $1M in fines and 10 years of imprisonment. That's pretty stiff. Makes me think that the US government thinks that breaking this law is a serious matter. Now please tell me, this "supreme law of the land" that you speak of, what are the prescribed penalties for breaking it?
If the government made a law that said it was required for every goyim to kill at least 1 Jew, and the SCOTUS supported it, would you say the murders are legitimate, legal acts?
Legal, yes - by definition. Legitimate, not so much.
So please remember: * something legal can still be illegitimate * something illegal can still be legitimate * something legitimate can, unfortunately, be -- and often is -- illegal.
Aside, the government would never pass such a law, mostly because it is grammatically incorrect ("goyim" is plural).
They can't revoke your rights to entry, they can only revoke your status as a "resident alien" ie your permission to have certain rights.
Compare it to the right of entry you have as a citizen, given that losing naturalized citizenship is very rare and losing birthright citizenship practically impossible,
Slashdot Mirror
What if you use the clean room approach where the developers of the software never play the game and therefore need not agree to the EULA/TOS?
Why do you give a flying **** what the NSA are doing with your data?
Because the NSA is composed of individual people with no better morals than the average person (and usually worse, because they consider themselves to be untouchable).
I don't.
This psycho ex of yours, she's dating an NSA analyst.
Not only he has access to all your data (that random link you mis-typed which turned out to be child porn), he can also manufacture some (and you won't be able to challenge the "evidence" because "National Security").
Still don't care?
Yes A/C it got abbreviated. Good misdirection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word al-Qaeda should be translated as "the database", and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians
Robin Cook knowsthe origin of the name better than Osama Bin Laden?
Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:
"The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed."
(Note: in many Semitic languages the words "camp" and "base" are interchangeable).
Also, some people have issues with the supposition that the legal operation actually protects anyone or anything.
Or whether it is actually legal.
Oh, she will.
Politicians will swear anything on anything if it gets them elected.
Then they will either silently ignore their promises or find excuses to justify reneging.
Because she hadn't yet received her Nobel Peace Prize.
Come to think about it, this "democracy" (and variations thereof) is looking more and more like just a tool to stabilize government by giving people and outlet to vent their anger and an illusion of having a say instead of actually revolting against the tyranny.
the reason the right lost in 2008 and 2012
Wait, I thought the right won.
Oh, I see, you mean the other right...
Option A) Don't vote for less Evil guy; more Evil guy has an increased chance of winning
Option B) Vote for less Evil guy; more Evil guy has less chance of winning.
Option C) Vote for non-Evil guy.
Because the differences between the "less Evil" and "more Evil" guys are mostly cosmetic (or otherwise immaterial), and the false dichotomy exists only to perpetuate the rule of evil.
We elected the current turd sandwich because at the time it wasn't apparent that he was a turd sandwich
Is it finally apparent that any candidate put forth by either the demoblicans or republicrats cannot be anything but a turd sandwich?
Let me know when governments in the US and UK stop changing by election.
If by "government" you refer to the figurehead, then it may never happen.
If by "government" you refer to the actual policies, then it has already happened quite some time ago.
I have no problem with a woman President. I have a very BIG problem with Hillary Clinton. I'd vote for the first cockroach as President before I would vote for her.
Clinton is no better and no worse than the others. You should have been voting for cockroaches for quite a while now.
> And all of you clueless Obama-loving lberal weenies will still vote for her next election
With alternatives like Palin and Romney one is left with little choice.
Because otherwise the wrong lizard might get in?
As far as the third party candidates that year, I looked at them, and didn't like any of them.
Still should have voted for one of them, for several reasons.
Firstly, to send the following message to both "major parties": Until you figure out that you have to represent the voters and their interests, I, and other like me, would rather vote for a baboon than for any of you. Moreover, we would actively campaign for the baboon, persuade others to vote for it and gleefully publish that a certain (hopefully insignificant, in time) percentage of the population would prefer a baboon over any representative that you can come up with.
Secondly, the more votes third party candidates receives, the more legitimized voting for them becomes in the public's view. This should, in time, encourage more third-party participation which will eventually result in a candidate that you will like.
A mostly dead cat is slightly alive.
Not according to what I know, as long as the right viscosity is used.
(Source: manuals of Nissan, Mazda and Toyota).
An automobile maker cannot require that only their own brand of gasoline (or, say, tires) is to be used by their cars.
I have been a juror on criminal trials and I am always surprised at how hard it is to tell the difference between the cops and the criminals.
The difference is a subtle but important one:
The police, contrary to other criminal organizations, are sanctioned by the state.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=45080
Who statements from the post that should teach you everything you need to know about police:
1) Boehm's chain of command unanimously decided that the officer's use of deadly force against Barton was unreasonable
2) Boehm will not face criminal charges
He had me sitting on the side walk with my shoes off while he searched my car. {The officers that knew me were watching and trying not to laugh at the rookie}
So the other officers knew you and yet were perfectly willing to let you endure the inconvenience for the sake of laughing at their colleague?
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
Because you have a quota to fill?
4) She was shot, one police officer was "injured". Not sure whether that means he was shot or not.
Probably choked on his doughnut.
Basically, the government can force you to do anything it wants, and there's nothing you can do about it. Strange, I remember hearing about some document that spelled out certain limitations on the governments powers, and certain rights that people had, but I must have misremembered.
No, such document indeed exists.
However, there's nothing that compels the government to follow it, so it doesn't.
It's not magic, it's the rule of law: Per the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded by anything except a Constitutional Amendment. As no one has, to date, amended the Constitution to nullify the 4th Amendment, any "law" that violates the right of the People to be free from unlawful search and seizure is, in fact, not a legitimate law, no matter how many political appointees scream that it is.
A law usually has consequences for violating it.
Take breaking DRM for example. The penalties can be upto $1M in fines and 10 years of imprisonment.
That's pretty stiff. Makes me think that the US government thinks that breaking this law is a serious matter.
Now please tell me, this "supreme law of the land" that you speak of, what are the prescribed penalties for breaking it?
If the government made a law that said it was required for every goyim to kill at least 1 Jew, and the SCOTUS supported it, would you say the murders are legitimate, legal acts?
Legal, yes - by definition. Legitimate, not so much.
So please remember:
* something legal can still be illegitimate
* something illegal can still be legitimate
* something legitimate can, unfortunately, be -- and often is -- illegal.
Aside, the government would never pass such a law, mostly because it is grammatically incorrect ("goyim" is plural).
They can't revoke your rights to entry, they can only revoke your status as a "resident alien" ie your permission to have certain rights.
Compare it to the right of entry you have as a citizen, given that losing naturalized citizenship is very rare and losing birthright citizenship practically impossible,