Right because only a lawyer could possibly claim that "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity" isn't covered by any of those claims even though all of them are completely unrelated to it.

Or are you arguing the US nuked Ukraine last week and nobody noticed?

Do you have an non-anecdotal evidence for your theory?

http://content.healthaffairs.o... seems to contradict your claim with actual data - though it's data is getting old, so maybe you have something newer rather than just making up theories in your head with no actual evidence for them?

Your linked source says nothing about "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity". Did you link the wrong source? Did you just make it up?

From your link:

  Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed that they would:
        1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
        2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
        3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
        4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
        5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
        6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

The US us respecting Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. The US is not threatening or using force against Ukraine. The US is not (that I've heard anyway) using economic pressure to influence Ukrainian politics. Nuclear weapons haven't been used against Ukraine so there's nothing to seek. The US hasn't used nuclear arms against Ukraine. And I'm sure the US doesn't have any questions about those commitments.

So the US is meeting all their obligations and keeping their word.

I take it you were (and would be now) perfectly happy with a Russian naval/air base in Cuba? Or Mexico?

arrested != convicted, but that's was the starting of what led to the computer fraud conviction I believe.

It's not, but it's standard "see that guy is a bad".

If he was a convicted (or even just accused) child molester you can be sure that would get a mention too.

He was convicted of computer fraud and embezzlement. There was no claim made that he was felon due anything related to content, copyright of intellectual property.

Sure, if you just ignore that when a plane you aren't on crashes that information can then be used to make the plane you fly on in the future safer. Which some people would consider a benefit of greater than ZERO.

So what?

You are distributing the microscope not the tools to make it.

their non-orbiting satellites?

If that's how you are going to account for it, then how much did facebook's shares go down in price due to this purchase?

Sure, maybe that's why I didn't make that argument.

I also didn't argue that they weren't already taxing more than a small bit of the wealth. Just that the logic used to argue that point was flawed.

You're going to have to explain for us stupid people.

How does transferring $19 billion from Facebook to 50 people with less money that Facebook possibly increase inequality?

The richer party now has less. The poorer parties now have more. Isn't that a decrease in inequality?

Given the amount of borrowing the government does in order to fund its spending you really can't make the argument that since they spend so much they must tax so much.

Because automatics don't change gears automatically or anything like that.