Now it's your turn to attempt humour. Who said that it's only him that wants to tax people? Do try to show integrity here and focus. You have no idea what you're talking about, you just have your eyes focussed on the end goal 'free stuff', whether for you or others. You didn't even attempt to address my points in an intelligent way, just the typical leftist/liberal/statist emotionally charged arguments that unless one's willing to give up whatever the state deems necessary then one hates the poor. What utter nonsense.

I see you resort to cheap shots with no basis in truth in order to try and force your baseless point through. My net worth is irrelevant to the issue. I have no desire to control the lives of others as you claim, just to be left alone by the government. My moral consistency is clear though, just as your belief in big government is equally clear. Here's a video[1] of him claiming the state has the right to steal, er, tax people at whatever level the government chooses. Politicians, especially those on the left love to use the term 'fair share' when it comes to how much people should be forced to pay. My point is that this is a very dishonest phrase to use because they always seem to leave it up to the listener to define what they think of as 'fair'. It seems to me that there are a few ways the term 'fair share' may be interpreted. Since everybody is equal in terms of inalienable rights and before the law (ie, a man or woman), everybody should pay the same flat fee, like a membership in a club. Another is a flat tax which would automatically mean everyone pays the same rate but those earning more would automatically pay more. Or, does fair share mean that those that earn more should be fleeced, er, taxed, at a higher rate than those earning less?

Nobody that chooses the third option believes in equality or private property because they believe that 'the rich' have less of a right to keep their property than those with less. The first of the three options recognises that we're all equal but would also mean the government would not be able to get much done. Before the taxation level debate is settled though, we need to discuss and figure out what we want the government to do, how much of a role we want it to have in our lives, and how much we want to be involved with it.

This seems to be something you don't seem to understand, or just not care about.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

How many are saying that about you?

Bernie Sanders in the US, just like Robyn Corbyn here in the UK oppose private property rights and support slavery, as long as the slave owners/controllers are the state. The bigger and more intrusive the state becomes the less free and poorer the people become as a result.

If you fail to plan you plan to fail. I wouldn't be surprised if the BoE had teams of people working on plans for all sorts of possibilities, some in partnership with the military. I used to think the US government and military did the same thing for all sorts of possibilities involving national security until Obama kept saying that they had no strategy for dealing with IS/ISIS/ISIL (choose your favourite initials here) and admitted they didn't see the mass influx of illegal immigrants/criminal gangs/terrorists before it happened.

The greatest danger to people in law enforcement and related areas) is not the violence they face every day (directed at them or others) but in a warped view of the world. After dealing with so many criminals it's very easy to fall into the mindset that everyone is a criminal in some way or other. What the people see as protecting their rights and liberties these people all too often see as suspicious behaviour with probable criminal intent.

Statists like Obama and Cameron don't care about the freedoms, liberties and rights of the people. We have the right to live our lives in peace and privacy and free from the intrusion of the state unless they have reasonable suspicion and probable cause of either criminal activities or the intent to carry them out. If they have that they can get a warrant from a judge to investigate further but do not have the right to monitor everything we do. Comments I may place on here or YouTube where they're open to the public are one thing but personal e-mails and text messages to another private party are another.

I hope these trains will run on a *nix/Linux system and not Windows. The security and reliability problems would be horrendous if they chose the Microsoft offering...

He doesn't say stupid things now he's dead, at least to those of us without a ouija board or those sad enough to try and contact him...

The unions will no doubt decry this as an attack on the 'working man'. I wonder how long until they go on strike over this?

Microsoft is headquartered in the US so they as an entity fall under US law.

I don't see it as an abuse of market position if it merely refuses to sell a companies products but I think it would be different if it was trying to prevent other companies from doing so. In a free market environment they have the right to sell or not to sell.

I wonder how the US would take it if a judge in another country made use of that claim for their benefit? It might be claimed that because company X chose to operate in their jurisdiction they accepted their jurisdictional boundaries. Various governments have already claimed jurisdiction in other countries for years, which is why they may claim tax on money earned by people working abroad, even though they may have done none of that work in that country...

I believe it was a reference to Global Thermonucular War from Wargames[1].

[1]: http://youtu.be/NHWjlCaIrQo

"How about a nice game of chess?"

I read they (the FBI) changed their priorities recently and no longer consider law enforcement a high priority. They instead choose to focus an increasing amount of resources towards 'National Security' and leave many crimes uninvestigated. I suppose there are always resources available to intimidate and strong-arm someone for wearing the wrong kind of glasses. I wonder how much this lunacy cost.