Cheer Up. He will eventually retire. He is 71. So unless the world ends in 6 yrs there is still time. (unless he is right). The proposed solution will destroy the economy because our economy is too weak because of both parties and greedy people. This isn't just the US. this is all industrialized world. So there is two solutions. All the scientists are wrong (that believe it) and in 100 years we have the same or better weather because hey we still don't understand the climate. The other is he is wrong. If he's wrong then he are effectively too late already. So honestly would you rather have your children live worse than you or hope that Sen Inhofe is correct and the scientists, Like numerous consensus before them, are wrong because they don't understand the info.
Remember, the consensus murdered scientists who declared: The world was round.
The earth revolved the sun and
Tomatoes are eatable.
The most important thing is: You wont be alive when it happens.
Ulbricht was not very smart. He bought fake IDs off his own website and had them shipped to his actual home address. The IDs were intercepted in the mail. and this clued the FBI in on his activities. Then he managed his servers using a direct VPN connection. Once the FBI traced the VPN endpoint he was done. They coerced the hosting company to allow them access and they could collect all the information they needed to build a case from that point on.
I imagine this Defcon guy did something similarly dumb.
To do this right:
1. Find a VM hosting company offshore that accepts bitcoins and doesn't ask for identity.
2. Buy some bitcoins, use one of the many tumbler services to wash them, and pay for the services that way
3. Never manage or otherwise connect to your VM directly. Always use TOR. SSH works great over TOR.
4. Don't buy shit off your own website and have it shipped to your damn house.
Actually, he brought the IDs from a person in Canada and Canada inspects packages purchased from Canadians and shipped to people outside of Canada. That's how he got caught. Canada narked on him. It was an idiot move. As for Defcon, also an idiot move. he didn't vet everyone in who has admin credentials. FBI placed a mole in TOR who Defcon hired to help run the back end according to Ars and other sources. Silk road is too obvious anyway.
What should be evident is that if the law doesn't pass, it really isn't that necessary and not favored heavily enough by enough people.
In fantasy, sure. In reality, there are political forces much greater than what people favor. There are countless polls, not only about particular issues where the public and the Congress are tragically out of step, but where voters say they don't think either party represents them. (Happy to provide links if you care and doubt it... I have done a ton of research on this, but I won't bother unless the conversation remains relatively engaging.) Voters simply don't have much leverage.
If a congressman refuses to vote in favor of a thing that his or her electorate feels is critical, he will be removed upon the next election.
Even in fantasy, this would be unlikely. Voters often compromise on things they consider critical, in order to protect other things they consider critical.
If his electorate is so intellectually bankrupt (as oh so many Americans are), then they will leave that person in Congress to continue failing to do things that are critical. The former is a check on the system; those failing to represent those who elected him is removed. The latter is not a symptom of dysfunction in Congress. It's a symptom of the dysfunction of the voters.
This is cartoonishly simplistic. Suppose, for example, a person finds climate change critical. The vast majority of voters have no credible option available to express this, even if they were willing to compromise other critical issues. Organizing credible options is a task beyond the vast majority of citizens' means; organizing it over time requires far more political acumen than your "if you don't like it vote differently" picture, but rather a world class marketing effort with essentially no misstep. This is beyond the reach of the voting public as a whole. And even if it could be mustered, it would almost certainly come at the cost of other critical issues.
We were never supposed to have a government that built an ever-growing catalogue of all things we citizens cannot do. They were never intended to prevent us from being offended, or uncomfortable. They were meant to defend our borders, settle disputes between states, and very little else. They (and the plethora of activists) have taken it upon themselves to try to govern how we think, act, drive, read, are entertained, eat, sleep, breath... They have changed the foundation of our system from innocent until proven guilty at which time you'll be punished, to attempting to prevent us from ever becoming guilty by forcing the behavior they desire.
I tried to respond to the previous bits in good faith, despite realizing this was coming. I hope you'll agree that I made a reasonable effort there. But this... most of what you're describing is first a caricature of the Constitution and second a caricature of liberalism. Your efforts to describe a constitutional ideal are undermined by this. There is real over-regulation, but it is mostly a product of powerful business interests.
There is an actual need for regulation, though. I need to be sure that my drinking water isn't dangerous. I need to be sure I can make an educated decision about my nutrition and health. I need to be sure that if a neighbor in my apartment building starts a fire, I have an otherwise unobstructed path out of the building. I need to be sure that my employer will actually produce a valid check for the amount I was promised in exchange for my labor. Quoth the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I considered adding emphasis, but I would have emphasized nearly the entire quote.
This is why we have a representative Oligarchy now and not a republic like the founders designed.
You seem to be confused. 8 years ago, Congress was controlled by Democrats and the president was a republican. So are you suggesting they return to policies implemented when Pelosi was Speaker. Policies that Reid as the current Democratic majority leader continues?
Well, I am against people murdering babies who can't defend themselves. I am also against people being murdered who aren't given a chance to defend themselves. I think both sets of murders deserve the punishment they mete out. That's fairness. However, life isn't that black and white so while its fairly obvious who murders the unborn its not always obvious who murders the others.
Death penalty is a simple solution. Once all those who want no criminals to die have to support all those living criminals via their own money and no one else, they will reach a point that they either can't afford to support them or they will change their mind.
Agreed. However, while you and your friend might be democrat and republican, the bulk of washington is neither. Its Progressive. Its progressive donkey or or progressive elephant. So what is progressive?
"The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.
Some Progressives were prominent journalists such as Herbert Croly (co-founder of The New Republic), some were distinguished professors such as John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson (president of Princeton before he was President of the U.S.), and many were political leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette. Progressives could be found in both political parties: Wilson was a Democrat, Roosevelt was a Republican.
The Progressives were united in their contempt for what they called the “individualism” of the Founding. Instead of a government that protects natural rights through limited, decentralized powers, they envisioned an expansive government, a “living” and evolving Constitution, and the rule of “experts” in nationally centralized administrative agencies." First Principles essay by Thomas G. West and William A. Schambra “The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics.”
We will never get back to the vision of what the founders wanted (a limited REPUBLIC governed by its citizens) until we dispense with progressivism and the belief that we are democracy. A democrary by definition is mob rule. A democracy is American idol. Of course you have gridlock. We sent people who are the best liars, who want to promote their agenda in Washington.
You know the Benjamin Rush one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was against the death penalty? That he helped Paine write Common sense? He suggested that the citizen who could vote nominate those from their community to serve as representatives and if anyone steps up of their own accord they should be disqualified for that reason.
While I agree the document should be discussed on its merits. I believe it has little merits. 83 people is not enough of a representation to be meaningful. Its.000028% of our population. Thanks.
"What you gonna do in a few decades, memorize 100 different words for "astronaut"?"
There's going to be only one : unemployed. There's no future in space for people. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.
"'I think there is a world market for about five computers' —Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943".
At a computer trade show in 1981, Bill Gates uttered this statement, in defense of the just-introduced IBM PC's 640KB usable RAM limit: "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Thought I would post a few people who said things as incredibly shortsighted things as well.
I am amused at how little you know about how much stuf have been gained by space. So go one keep believing what you believe. Watson died in his belief. Gates was forced to change his mind and it affects Microsoft to this day.
Um, I have no objection to the use of Taikonauts. Because honestly, there are no astronauts right now except retired ones. Once the space station is decomisioned, there will only be 'Taikonauts'
HBO will have a online component next year that will be ala carte. As for ESPN, the south will keep it alive. Also those of you who believe that christian programming will die are also in for a surprise. Those channels are actually the most profitable, Here in Houston, Joel Osten Ministries owns the former 18,000 seat compaq center. Thats 110 million there. So if cable does indeed so the death spiral its A&E QVC, TLC and SYFY that will go south. Not Espn or TBN
why buy it https://www.youtube.com/watch?... shows its still available. just search on Youtube. AS for Cable, I pay to one reason: It avoids those annoying notices you get. Thats it. In 9 years, I have downloaded over 10 terabytes of movies and shows and I am clean. I personally never liked Netflix or Hulu so I don't have them.
People who were prune to motion sickness will be worse off without the windows since they are cut off from the last piece of sensory information that tells them that they are moving.
And that is why I refuse to use those new-fangled elevators without windows.
Me I love Elevators without windows. Getting a BSOD at the 89 floor is scary.
The Weyland-Yutani Corporation has had several different origins in various media. While it was not the first to be portrayed, the origin established in Prometheus is now considered the canonical version. In the film, the company is preceded by Weyland Corp, established by Peter Weyland on October 11, 2012.
If you want a libertarian Utopia, fuck off to Somalia. You'll be allowed to play with your guns there.
So a country half controlled by Muslim terrorists and the other familial warlords and real pirates is a libertarian Utopia? Hitting the pipe a bit too hard, eh?
Its all about not going to a country that will extradite him to the US over a trumped up security issue. Assange does not have the legal rights an American citizen has. He can be put into Guantanamo, or any other black ops prison, because the US does not respect universal notions of due process. If the US did, Guantanamo couldn't exist.
Wrong. Guantanamo exists because others insist on bringing their insanity here so they can "rule the world'. If the US actually didn't respect universal notions of due process there wouldn't be ANY prisons outside the US, we would simply execute our problems. Russian and Chinese rendition camps exist because they DON"T respect due process. They don't have those problems because they are known for killing their enemies of state. Why is Snowden in Russia? So he can't go to Guantanamo? NO. So he's can;t be killed by one of our NSA agents? Not entirely. He's there because Putin enjoys poking at Our administration. If the next works with him, Snowden's visa won't be renewed, If Snowden had done to them what he did to us, we would have never hard of him, he'd be dead.
TL;DR We don't kill our problems like Russia and China, hense Guantanamo.
Circa 2004-5 a couple of scholarly types looked at the issue of the US getting involved in military actions to "make the world safe for democracy." That is one of the phrases usually trotted out whenever we send the troops in, and it was one of the phrases trotted out to justify sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention outright lies about Sadaam's weapons of mass destruction.
What these scientist concluded was, post WWII the US had been involved in about 25 conflicts. (I think I'm more up on the news that the average American, and I couldn't remember half as many). We helped establish democracy in exactly one country, Columbia. Since then, you can add Iraq and Afghanistan, although in a few years it's possible that they won't last.
I got to thinking. How many democracies has the US toppled? Iran, 1951, several in Central America shortly after, etc. etc. I'm not expert, but I could easily come up with at least 10. Then if you start adding in covert actions and cold-war, low violence actions against fellow democracies, you add in mortal enemies like Australia. Australia? The US sent operatives to run a smear campaign against the President running for re-election in the early 1970's. Eventually the US even gave and official apology.
Btw, guess how many times the US worked to topple the government of any right wing leaders?
ps. my source on the scholarly report; I heard on the radio. I'm going by memory and my number or 25 may be off by one or two, but the establishment of one democracy between the end of WWII until Post 9/11 I'll stand by.
A reminder: our govt WAS founded as a republic. While it has become an representative oligarchy , it is nor ever has been a democrary/ This is the biggest fallacy that people have engaged in.
Here is some quotes about Democracy from Our Founders:
"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
“But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.” Henry David Thoreau
Like Rome before us, we have transformed into something else. This is why we topple democracies. Because they are one step from dictatorship.
So you are saying that this is the solution: My name is Oliver Queen. After five years in hell, I have come home with only one goal- to save my city. Now others have joined my crusade, to them I'm Oliver Queen. To the rest of Starling City I am someone else. I am something else.
No this isnt a troll people. A lot of people including our own govt want to see Assange dead. The NSA is working on it and if it they succeed, you won't know. The fact that you still see him around means they haven't yet.
It is when you are paid to entertain. See I don't care about your life or what you do. I suppose the same would be for you about me. However, when a gal or guy says 'Hey, I want 12 bucks of your money. I do have a right to as what I am getting. If they say, 'I'll pretend to be mystique and my buddies will pretend to be the other x-men and we will act out the comics." I can still say that well if you are going to be naked can I see it. If she says no and I still pay but she decides to be naked for others (even if they are 'boyfriend') its hypocrisy.
The moment you decide to entertain the public everything changes. You sacrifice certain things that the rest of us keep. Don't want to give those up? They quit being in public. There are thousands of jobs that don't involve the public.
Apple, on the otherhand...who knows what & why they're collecting data in a released OS...
Seriously? They are collecting the info for the Next fappening. Yes that sounds snarky and evil but Hollywood is lazy. People want to see naked celebs especially those who are hypocrites (ie those who take private nudes but won't green light a movie where they are naked) Apparently, Apple is in on it. Why else do they need the info? Its good for spying, and marketing. If they say #2 they are lying or incompetent.
Actually, No this isn't off-topic. Here is why: The fappening. The whole reason this happened is not just because celebrities were lazy to allow Icloud to upload their pics that wanted to take, its because apple feels this is the new normal. Linux (which is android is a flavor) is a valid optiion who doesn't immediately phone home to its maker. Mind you, Google can and will monitor android but this CAN be disabled with out harm, unlike apple.
I actually had the same thought. Her assumption that if he;s not looking at her, he's fapping at porn shows more about what she's thinks about men in general that her indigation about the pics. Good news though: for the next bf, pics of her = porn
Slashdot Mirror
Cheer Up. He will eventually retire. He is 71. So unless the world ends in 6 yrs there is still time. (unless he is right). The proposed solution will destroy the economy because our economy is too weak because of both parties and greedy people. This isn't just the US. this is all industrialized world.
So there is two solutions.
All the scientists are wrong (that believe it) and in 100 years we have the same or better weather because hey we still don't understand the climate.
The other is he is wrong. If he's wrong then he are effectively too late already. So honestly would you rather have your children live worse than you or hope that Sen Inhofe is correct and the scientists, Like numerous consensus before them, are wrong because they don't understand the info.
Remember, the consensus murdered scientists who declared: The world was round.
The earth revolved the sun
and Tomatoes are eatable. The most important thing is: You wont be alive when it happens.
Mod OP up.
It's completely possible.
Ulbricht was not very smart. He bought fake IDs off his own website and had them shipped to his actual home address. The IDs were intercepted in the mail. and this clued the FBI in on his activities. Then he managed his servers using a direct VPN connection. Once the FBI traced the VPN endpoint he was done. They coerced the hosting company to allow them access and they could collect all the information they needed to build a case from that point on.
I imagine this Defcon guy did something similarly dumb.
To do this right:
1. Find a VM hosting company offshore that accepts bitcoins and doesn't ask for identity.
2. Buy some bitcoins, use one of the many tumbler services to wash them, and pay for the services that way
3. Never manage or otherwise connect to your VM directly. Always use TOR. SSH works great over TOR.
4. Don't buy shit off your own website and have it shipped to your damn house.
Actually, he brought the IDs from a person in Canada and Canada inspects packages purchased from Canadians and shipped to people outside of Canada. That's how he got caught. Canada narked on him. It was an idiot move. As for Defcon, also an idiot move. he didn't vet everyone in who has admin credentials. FBI placed a mole in TOR who Defcon hired to help run the back end according to Ars and other sources. Silk road is too obvious anyway.
a bullet to the forehead is more expensive than room and board for years? That kind of math is why the country is so much trouble.
What should be evident is that if the law doesn't pass, it really isn't that necessary and not favored heavily enough by enough people.
In fantasy, sure. In reality, there are political forces much greater than what people favor. There are countless polls, not only about particular issues where the public and the Congress are tragically out of step, but where voters say they don't think either party represents them. (Happy to provide links if you care and doubt it... I have done a ton of research on this, but I won't bother unless the conversation remains relatively engaging.) Voters simply don't have much leverage.
If a congressman refuses to vote in favor of a thing that his or her electorate feels is critical, he will be removed upon the next election.
Even in fantasy, this would be unlikely. Voters often compromise on things they consider critical, in order to protect other things they consider critical.
If his electorate is so intellectually bankrupt (as oh so many Americans are), then they will leave that person in Congress to continue failing to do things that are critical. The former is a check on the system; those failing to represent those who elected him is removed. The latter is not a symptom of dysfunction in Congress. It's a symptom of the dysfunction of the voters.
This is cartoonishly simplistic. Suppose, for example, a person finds climate change critical. The vast majority of voters have no credible option available to express this, even if they were willing to compromise other critical issues. Organizing credible options is a task beyond the vast majority of citizens' means; organizing it over time requires far more political acumen than your "if you don't like it vote differently" picture, but rather a world class marketing effort with essentially no misstep. This is beyond the reach of the voting public as a whole. And even if it could be mustered, it would almost certainly come at the cost of other critical issues.
We were never supposed to have a government that built an ever-growing catalogue of all things we citizens cannot do. They were never intended to prevent us from being offended, or uncomfortable. They were meant to defend our borders, settle disputes between states, and very little else. They (and the plethora of activists) have taken it upon themselves to try to govern how we think, act, drive, read, are entertained, eat, sleep, breath... They have changed the foundation of our system from innocent until proven guilty at which time you'll be punished, to attempting to prevent us from ever becoming guilty by forcing the behavior they desire.
I tried to respond to the previous bits in good faith, despite realizing this was coming. I hope you'll agree that I made a reasonable effort there. But this... most of what you're describing is first a caricature of the Constitution and second a caricature of liberalism. Your efforts to describe a constitutional ideal are undermined by this. There is real over-regulation, but it is mostly a product of powerful business interests.
There is an actual need for regulation, though. I need to be sure that my drinking water isn't dangerous. I need to be sure I can make an educated decision about my nutrition and health. I need to be sure that if a neighbor in my apartment building starts a fire, I have an otherwise unobstructed path out of the building. I need to be sure that my employer will actually produce a valid check for the amount I was promised in exchange for my labor. Quoth the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I considered adding emphasis, but I would have emphasized nearly the entire quote.
This is why we have a representative Oligarchy now and not a republic like the founders designed.
You seem to be confused. 8 years ago, Congress was controlled by Democrats and the president was a republican. So are you suggesting they return to policies implemented when Pelosi was Speaker. Policies that Reid as the current Democratic majority leader continues?
Well, I am against people murdering babies who can't defend themselves. I am also against people being murdered who aren't given a chance to defend themselves. I think both sets of murders deserve the punishment they mete out. That's fairness. However, life isn't that black and white so while its fairly obvious who murders the unborn its not always obvious who murders the others. Death penalty is a simple solution. Once all those who want no criminals to die have to support all those living criminals via their own money and no one else, they will reach a point that they either can't afford to support them or they will change their mind.
"The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism. Some Progressives were prominent journalists such as Herbert Croly (co-founder of The New Republic), some were distinguished professors such as John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson (president of Princeton before he was President of the U.S.), and many were political leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette. Progressives could be found in both political parties: Wilson was a Democrat, Roosevelt was a Republican. The Progressives were united in their contempt for what they called the “individualism” of the Founding. Instead of a government that protects natural rights through limited, decentralized powers, they envisioned an expansive government, a “living” and evolving Constitution, and the rule of “experts” in nationally centralized administrative agencies." First Principles essay by Thomas G. West and William A. Schambra “The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics.”
We will never get back to the vision of what the founders wanted (a limited REPUBLIC governed by its citizens) until we dispense with progressivism and the belief that we are democracy. A democrary by definition is mob rule. A democracy is American idol. Of course you have gridlock. We sent people who are the best liars, who want to promote their agenda in Washington. .000028% of our population. Thanks.
You know the Benjamin Rush one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was against the death penalty? That he helped Paine write Common sense? He suggested that the citizen who could vote nominate those from their community to serve as representatives and if anyone steps up of their own accord they should be disqualified for that reason.
While I agree the document should be discussed on its merits. I believe it has little merits. 83 people is not enough of a representation to be meaningful. Its
"What you gonna do in a few decades, memorize 100 different words for "astronaut"?"
There's going to be only one : unemployed. There's no future in space for people. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.
"'I think there is a world market for about five computers' —Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943". At a computer trade show in 1981, Bill Gates uttered this statement, in defense of the just-introduced IBM PC's 640KB usable RAM limit: "640K ought to be enough for anybody." Thought I would post a few people who said things as incredibly shortsighted things as well. I am amused at how little you know about how much stuf have been gained by space. So go one keep believing what you believe. Watson died in his belief. Gates was forced to change his mind and it affects Microsoft to this day.
Um, I have no objection to the use of Taikonauts. Because honestly, there are no astronauts right now except retired ones. Once the space station is decomisioned, there will only be 'Taikonauts'
HBO will have a online component next year that will be ala carte. As for ESPN, the south will keep it alive. Also those of you who believe that christian programming will die are also in for a surprise. Those channels are actually the most profitable, Here in Houston, Joel Osten Ministries owns the former 18,000 seat compaq center. Thats 110 million there. So if cable does indeed so the death spiral its A&E QVC, TLC and SYFY that will go south. Not Espn or TBN
why buy it https://www.youtube.com/watch?... shows its still available. just search on Youtube. AS for Cable, I pay to one reason: It avoids those annoying notices you get. Thats it. In 9 years, I have downloaded over 10 terabytes of movies and shows and I am clean. I personally never liked Netflix or Hulu so I don't have them.
... with a certain probability of kitty in each... Still can't figure out if the cat is alive or dead since's it's both.
So its a Necromonger Kitty?
People who were prune to motion sickness will be worse off without the windows since they are cut off from the last piece of sensory information that tells them that they are moving.
And that is why I refuse to use those new-fangled elevators without windows.
Me I love Elevators without windows. Getting a BSOD at the 89 floor is scary.
The Weyland-Yutani Corporation has had several different origins in various media. While it was not the first to be portrayed, the origin established in Prometheus is now considered the canonical version. In the film, the company is preceded by Weyland Corp, established by Peter Weyland on October 11, 2012.
You're welcome.
If you want a libertarian Utopia, fuck off to Somalia. You'll be allowed to play with your guns there.
So a country half controlled by Muslim terrorists and the other familial warlords and real pirates is a libertarian Utopia? Hitting the pipe a bit too hard, eh?
Its all about not going to a country that will extradite him to the US over a trumped up security issue. Assange does not have the legal rights an American citizen has. He can be put into Guantanamo, or any other black ops prison, because the US does not respect universal notions of due process. If the US did, Guantanamo couldn't exist.
Wrong. Guantanamo exists because others insist on bringing their insanity here so they can "rule the world'. If the US actually didn't respect universal notions of due process there wouldn't be ANY prisons outside the US, we would simply execute our problems. Russian and Chinese rendition camps exist because they DON"T respect due process. They don't have those problems because they are known for killing their enemies of state. Why is Snowden in Russia? So he can't go to Guantanamo? NO. So he's can;t be killed by one of our NSA agents? Not entirely. He's there because Putin enjoys poking at Our administration. If the next works with him, Snowden's visa won't be renewed, If Snowden had done to them what he did to us, we would have never hard of him, he'd be dead. TL;DR We don't kill our problems like Russia and China, hense Guantanamo.
Circa 2004-5 a couple of scholarly types looked at the issue of the US getting involved in military actions to "make the world safe for democracy." That is one of the phrases usually trotted out whenever we send the troops in, and it was one of the phrases trotted out to justify sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention outright lies about Sadaam's weapons of mass destruction.
What these scientist concluded was, post WWII the US had been involved in about 25 conflicts. (I think I'm more up on the news that the average American, and I couldn't remember half as many). We helped establish democracy in exactly one country, Columbia. Since then, you can add Iraq and Afghanistan, although in a few years it's possible that they won't last.
I got to thinking. How many democracies has the US toppled? Iran, 1951, several in Central America shortly after, etc. etc. I'm not expert, but I could easily come up with at least 10. Then if you start adding in covert actions and cold-war, low violence actions against fellow democracies, you add in mortal enemies like Australia. Australia? The US sent operatives to run a smear campaign against the President running for re-election in the early 1970's. Eventually the US even gave and official apology.
Btw, guess how many times the US worked to topple the government of any right wing leaders?
ps. my source on the scholarly report; I heard on the radio. I'm going by memory and my number or 25 may be off by one or two, but the establishment of one democracy between the end of WWII until Post 9/11 I'll stand by.
A reminder: our govt WAS founded as a republic. While it has become an representative oligarchy , it is nor ever has been a democrary/ This is the biggest fallacy that people have engaged in.
Here is some quotes about Democracy from Our Founders:
"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
“But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.” Henry David Thoreau
Like Rome before us, we have transformed into something else. This is why we topple democracies. Because they are one step from dictatorship.
So you are saying that this is the solution: My name is Oliver Queen. After five years in hell, I have come home with only one goal- to save my city. Now others have joined my crusade, to them I'm Oliver Queen. To the rest of Starling City I am someone else. I am something else.
No this isnt a troll people. A lot of people including our own govt want to see Assange dead. The NSA is working on it and if it they succeed, you won't know. The fact that you still see him around means they haven't yet.
It is when you are paid to entertain. See I don't care about your life or what you do. I suppose the same would be for you about me. However, when a gal or guy says 'Hey, I want 12 bucks of your money. I do have a right to as what I am getting. If they say, 'I'll pretend to be mystique and my buddies will pretend to be the other x-men and we will act out the comics." I can still say that well if you are going to be naked can I see it. If she says no and I still pay but she decides to be naked for others (even if they are 'boyfriend') its hypocrisy. The moment you decide to entertain the public everything changes. You sacrifice certain things that the rest of us keep. Don't want to give those up? They quit being in public. There are thousands of jobs that don't involve the public.
Apple, on the otherhand...who knows what & why they're collecting data in a released OS...
Seriously? They are collecting the info for the Next fappening.
Yes that sounds snarky and evil but Hollywood is lazy. People want to see naked celebs especially those who are hypocrites (ie those who take private nudes but won't green light a movie where they are naked) Apparently, Apple is in on it. Why else do they need the info? Its good for spying, and marketing. If they say #2 they are lying or incompetent.
please do not feed the troll everyone
What troll? I see no troll other than you.
2015 will the the year of Desktop Linux!
Actually, No this isn't off-topic. Here is why: The fappening . The whole reason this happened is not just because celebrities were lazy to allow Icloud to upload their pics that wanted to take, its because apple feels this is the new normal. Linux (which is android is a flavor) is a valid optiion who doesn't immediately phone home to its maker. Mind you, Google can and will monitor android but this CAN be disabled with out harm, unlike apple.
I actually had the same thought. Her assumption that if he;s not looking at her, he's fapping at porn shows more about what she's thinks about men in general that her indigation about the pics. Good news though: for the next bf, pics of her = porn