Refuse to pursue clear, obvious mishandling of State secrets by its own SecState. Ignore the use the IRS to attack political opponents. And now threaten to seize assets of a company that has done nothing wrong. Absolute fascism on display. 2017 cannot come soon enough - and as long as it's not Hillary, I don't care - Bernie or Trump would be fine. Anyone to tear down the fascist bureaucratic facade that is the Federal Government today.
OK, what actual statement by Trump leads you to believe he's Hitler incarnate? Not "what he was rumored to have said", not "what we believe he means", actual words. Would love to hear that. In the mean time, we have a woman who claims no one died in Libya (Ambassador Stevens' family would disagree), that she never had classified information on her private server, that the IRS never targeted conservative groups - and that her husband never was a sexual predator.
SSI/Medicare is not self-funding; in fact, it's been contributing to the deficit since 2010. It's running in the red, because those funds were not promised to you, were not guaranteed to you, and were in fact used for decades to increase Federal spending. Now that withdrawals are running higher than taxes (16% on all income up to $101,000), it's adding to the deficit.
Top five spending categories: Pensions (Social Security) - $1221B, healthcare $990B, defense $829B, welfare $383B, and interest on the national debt $240B. And right now, Social Security runs in the red adding to the Federal deficit, and has done so since 2010.
Then why did the IRS apologize for targeting opponents of the President? And do you suggest they did it of their own volition, with zero input or request from the person who would benefit from such targeting?
Other papers state counter - that sea level rise is slowing. And if you look at the data I linked to, the rate of change is dropping - it's slowing down.
So to take your line of thought to it's logical conclusion, the 45% of tax returns with zero tax due are actually getting a subsidy from the Federal Government.
Measured in meters? It's already measured in meters, over a long enough timeframe. But given the fact that sea level rise is slowing down (data can be found here), we'll probably see 150-200 mm rise over the next 100 years. Less than we've seen in the past.
If you read the Constitution, you'll find that defense is one of the primary requirements for the Federal Government to provide. Funding for solar (or other power sources), not so much... In fact, defense is about 20% of Federal spending; about 70% of Federal spending is on welfare, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. Eliminating 100% of defense spending (which would be unconstitutional) would still leave us with a ~$600 billion/yr deficit.
So President Obama telling people to bring guns to knife fights, to get in their faces, that's not violent and fascist? Telling the opposition party to get to the back of the bus, the sit and be quiet is not fascist? Using the power of the State (the IRS) to penalize political opponents isn't fascist? Virtual State control over an entire industry isn't fascist? You have an interesting definition of fascism... I posted mine (a well accepted one at that); what's yours?
Oh, and about the "beating" of hecklers? Never really happened now, did it? Of course, with the media literally lying about the hooligans disrupting the rallies (those hooligans, you know, sponsored by MoveOn.org and other darlings of President Obama and SecState Clinton) it's not a surprise you're confused. You only need to ask yourself if Trump was the problem, why is the ACLU siding with him over these rally disruptions?
Sir, your commentary is enlightening and a revelation in terms of the depth of your argument and your stunning logic is flawlessly displayed. It is a masterful commentary on the intellect you possess.
Totalitarianism. One-party State. Cult of Personality. Dictatorship. Militarism. Direct Action. Mixed Economy. Third Position. New Man. Social Order. So 10 out of 13. I didn't say Nationalism, because I believe the President and former SecState both believe in a one-world Government, thus Nationalism is really Globalism. But if you expanded it to Globalism, then it would be 11 of 13.
Yep. Core tenets of fascism: Nationalism, Totalitarianism, One-party state, Personality cult, Dictatorship, Militarism, Direct action, Mixed economy, Class collaboration, Third Position, New Man, Imperialism, Social order. Most of those apply to President Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
You can reason with - perhaps even change - an "openly fascist candidate". However, we have openly fascist politicians in power right now (including the President) or in the recent past, looking to gain more (Mrs. Clinton); that's a much bigger threat IMHO.
There's a reason why Boeing doesn't just use off the shelf automobile wheels on their aircraft even though it would save them ten's or hundreds of thousands of dollars per aircraft, even though an automotive wheel is proven technology that does pretty much the same thing as an aircraft wheel.
Other than the fact the load on each tire on an aircraft is orders of magnitude higher than that of a car, and it has to maintain compliance at -50 deg C. Oh, and handle going from ~0 RPM to ~1000 RPM in the span of a second or two, whilst being heavily compressed. But other than that, they really do the same thing.
It does? The Federal Government outright owns major chunks of the large industries, exempts them from nearly all regulations, and prevents any others to enter the market via refusing to issue business licenses?
How did we ever survive prior to the EU? Was trade between countries non-existent? How does the EU trade with Switzerland, or Chile trade with South Africa? Two parties who are interested in a mutual exchange CAN and WILL work it out on their own. A 3rd party simply allows for interference, and is a great thing for the 3rd party (who assumes the power over the other two).
Actually, Mitt might have been better as his position on Corporations as people would extend full 4th Amendment rights to Apple and prevent this nonsense.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
So not only is there a concern over whether or not he was correctly titled a "professor", there is definite proof he doesn't understand the Consitution - and lied about respecting it.
It's really simple. Your phone is yours, and should do what you say.
This is where the danger in Apple's position becomes real. Because Apple believes your phone is actually theirs, and they retain right to do with it as they will. IF the Federal Government gains the power to compell a corporation to unlock a device, then Apple's position automatically makes your phone fair game.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the GOP, the group that - the minute he was elected - said could shut up and get in the back of the bus? Great way to start a relationship!
Refuse to pursue clear, obvious mishandling of State secrets by its own SecState. Ignore the use the IRS to attack political opponents. And now threaten to seize assets of a company that has done nothing wrong. Absolute fascism on display. 2017 cannot come soon enough - and as long as it's not Hillary, I don't care - Bernie or Trump would be fine. Anyone to tear down the fascist bureaucratic facade that is the Federal Government today.
OK, what actual statement by Trump leads you to believe he's Hitler incarnate? Not "what he was rumored to have said", not "what we believe he means", actual words. Would love to hear that. In the mean time, we have a woman who claims no one died in Libya (Ambassador Stevens' family would disagree), that she never had classified information on her private server, that the IRS never targeted conservative groups - and that her husband never was a sexual predator.
Maybe Clinton's not a fascist; how about a despot instead, just like President Obama?
And what has Trump said - actually said, not what's been "rumored" or "interpreted" - that is fascist?
SSI/Medicare is not self-funding; in fact, it's been contributing to the deficit since 2010. It's running in the red, because those funds were not promised to you, were not guaranteed to you, and were in fact used for decades to increase Federal spending. Now that withdrawals are running higher than taxes (16% on all income up to $101,000), it's adding to the deficit.
Top five spending categories: Pensions (Social Security) - $1221B, healthcare $990B, defense $829B, welfare $383B, and interest on the national debt $240B. And right now, Social Security runs in the red adding to the Federal deficit, and has done so since 2010.
Then why did the IRS apologize for targeting opponents of the President? And do you suggest they did it of their own volition, with zero input or request from the person who would benefit from such targeting?
Other papers state counter - that sea level rise is slowing. And if you look at the data I linked to, the rate of change is dropping - it's slowing down.
So to take your line of thought to it's logical conclusion, the 45% of tax returns with zero tax due are actually getting a subsidy from the Federal Government.
Measured in meters? It's already measured in meters, over a long enough timeframe. But given the fact that sea level rise is slowing down (data can be found here), we'll probably see 150-200 mm rise over the next 100 years. Less than we've seen in the past.
If you read the Constitution, you'll find that defense is one of the primary requirements for the Federal Government to provide. Funding for solar (or other power sources), not so much... In fact, defense is about 20% of Federal spending; about 70% of Federal spending is on welfare, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. Eliminating 100% of defense spending (which would be unconstitutional) would still leave us with a ~$600 billion/yr deficit.
So President Obama telling people to bring guns to knife fights, to get in their faces, that's not violent and fascist? Telling the opposition party to get to the back of the bus, the sit and be quiet is not fascist? Using the power of the State (the IRS) to penalize political opponents isn't fascist? Virtual State control over an entire industry isn't fascist? You have an interesting definition of fascism... I posted mine (a well accepted one at that); what's yours?
Oh, and about the "beating" of hecklers? Never really happened now, did it? Of course, with the media literally lying about the hooligans disrupting the rallies (those hooligans, you know, sponsored by MoveOn.org and other darlings of President Obama and SecState Clinton) it's not a surprise you're confused. You only need to ask yourself if Trump was the problem, why is the ACLU siding with him over these rally disruptions?
Huh. You're comparing Trump to Hitler - and I'm the one making insane comments?
Sir, your commentary is enlightening and a revelation in terms of the depth of your argument and your stunning logic is flawlessly displayed. It is a masterful commentary on the intellect you possess.
Totalitarianism. One-party State. Cult of Personality. Dictatorship. Militarism. Direct Action. Mixed Economy. Third Position. New Man. Social Order. So 10 out of 13. I didn't say Nationalism, because I believe the President and former SecState both believe in a one-world Government, thus Nationalism is really Globalism. But if you expanded it to Globalism, then it would be 11 of 13.
Yep. Core tenets of fascism: Nationalism, Totalitarianism, One-party state, Personality cult, Dictatorship, Militarism, Direct action, Mixed economy, Class collaboration, Third Position, New Man, Imperialism, Social order. Most of those apply to President Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
You can reason with - perhaps even change - an "openly fascist candidate". However, we have openly fascist politicians in power right now (including the President) or in the recent past, looking to gain more (Mrs. Clinton); that's a much bigger threat IMHO.
There's a reason why Boeing doesn't just use off the shelf automobile wheels on their aircraft even though it would save them ten's or hundreds of thousands of dollars per aircraft, even though an automotive wheel is proven technology that does pretty much the same thing as an aircraft wheel.
Other than the fact the load on each tire on an aircraft is orders of magnitude higher than that of a car, and it has to maintain compliance at -50 deg C. Oh, and handle going from ~0 RPM to ~1000 RPM in the span of a second or two, whilst being heavily compressed. But other than that, they really do the same thing.
I don't understand the comparison. Now if it was in libraries of Congress, I'd get it.
It does? The Federal Government outright owns major chunks of the large industries, exempts them from nearly all regulations, and prevents any others to enter the market via refusing to issue business licenses?
How did we ever survive prior to the EU? Was trade between countries non-existent? How does the EU trade with Switzerland, or Chile trade with South Africa? Two parties who are interested in a mutual exchange CAN and WILL work it out on their own. A 3rd party simply allows for interference, and is a great thing for the 3rd party (who assumes the power over the other two).
Dear Sir, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Actually, Mitt might have been better as his position on Corporations as people would extend full 4th Amendment rights to Apple and prevent this nonsense.
From your link:
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
So not only is there a concern over whether or not he was correctly titled a "professor", there is definite proof he doesn't understand the Consitution - and lied about respecting it.
It's really simple. Your phone is yours, and should do what you say.
This is where the danger in Apple's position becomes real. Because Apple believes your phone is actually theirs, and they retain right to do with it as they will. IF the Federal Government gains the power to compell a corporation to unlock a device, then Apple's position automatically makes your phone fair game.