If you believe the corruption level is anywhere near as bad you simply don't remember the previous senate. Most local and state governments in all but the biggest states are inherently corrupt, with developers and other wealthy connected in direct control and lining their own pockets. Most of the smaller states legislatures don't even meet but for a few weeks a year. Senate seats were handed to the politically connected, most of the senators were there simply to get money and were held to account by no one at all.

At least now they are accountable to voters, before they were accountable to no one. Quid quo pro was so common it could have been the senate motto. Now the senate is at least accountable to the people and the seats are open elections to the entire state electorate rather than gerrymandered seats like the house. As such the senate actually has a better chance of being representative of their state than the representatives are.

Microwave is also line of sight, which means a tower and amplifier every 10 miles minimum. You know that problem with a curved planet where you microwave is straight line.

You seem to think Republicans are against the nanny state. This is a common misconception, they favor a Nanny state just like the democrats, the only difference is which issues they want to Nanny.

Doesn't matter if they do have the money, money doesn't make someone republican otherwise you need to have a talk with all those lifetime democratic wealthy Jews in New York. The problem for the republican party is the millennial generation is the most ethnically diverse generation in American history and the republican party is currently actively hostile to that diversity.

His vanilla reference was to race not as you implied. The white majority will disappear with the millennials, all races will become minorities. The largest demographic of this group is latinos, with a significant number of mixed ethnic background. The republican party is actively hostile to both groups. The latino's in particular are mostly conservative Catholics but they are being driven in waves to the democrats.

Until the republican party exorcises the racist arm of the party they adopted when they engaged their southern strategy they are looking at a future of rapidly declining potential voters as the most ethnically diverse generation in American history ages. I personally don't see the republicans tossing the racists out until long after they've declined to irrelevance.

99.9999% of the "dead" people that vote weren't dead when they voted. They die in between the vote and when someone gets their panties in a wad. There are a few bogus votes out there, jackasses that go vote for their dead parent, etc. It's not even statistically significant.

But I take conciliation in the fact that all these voter ID laws are going to do serious damage to the republican party once the bulk of the voting block (currently the average age is about 65) looses their driver licenses. It probably won't be a decade before these voter ID laws start directly hurting Republican party voting because grandma and grandpa no longer have drivers licenses and don't have the ID necessary to vote.

The tea party you speak of died with the Koch funded Tea Party Express took over. The tea party 2.0 now cares very much about social conservative issues.

The "Tea party" is dead and has been for better than 6 years now. The "tea party" was taken over by the Koch brothers tentacles (tea party express was their creation) and subsumed into the larger Koch brothers machinery. The tea party as originally founded had almost nothing to do with religion, abortion or any of the other far right social conservative causes. It was formed in opposition to the ACA (Obamacare) and "stimulus" as a grass roots rejection of the deficit spending that had spiraled out as part of the recession.

This guided the republican caucus for a few years and still has lingering effects but because of the Koch brothers tireless spending the cause has now been subsumed away from concern about spending to being used against the typical causes of the Koch brothers organizations. This includes mobilizing the social conservatives. You see this in bills going through the republican house that restore deficit spending on the military without any counter reduction in spending elsewhere. Something that would have never happened while the real tea party groups still had say.

The tea party died a long time ago. What remains, Tea Party 2.0 is an arm of the Koch groups.

Unelected senators were the reason the senate was a bastion of corruption and pay for play politics. Returning the senate to such a state would NOT be an improvement. It would be just about the only action you could take right now that would make it worse.

A better question would be "why isn't he saying he didn't?"

So you advocate for that police state where anyone arrested is obviously guilty unless they prove otherwise.

It doesn't matter why Roberts said what he said because he's not guilty of anything until he's convicted of it. He could be a blow hard, he could be a braggart, or quite simply the FBI could be taking statements out of context as Roberts has already claimed. None of it is relevant until he's charged and tried for the crime and I don't see him being tried. I see the FBI trying to strong arm him, something they are very very good at.

What I do see is a lot of people in the airline industry, the people in the know, rolling their eyes and saying he's a blowhard. And they are a people with the knowledge, not the FBI and not Roberts. From what I've seen of the description of events I also see a lot of strong arming by the FBI. According to Roberts they basically tried to force him to reveal his research to Boeing under threat of imprisonment. None of that is cool.

When the FBI is on TV claiming you are refusing to be interviewed you can answer that question.

You head that off be offering to be interviewed in your lawyers office with a recording device running. This is against FBI policy so they will automatically refuse. Now they can't claim you are refusing to be interviewed.

The FBI is notorious for taking statements out of context and using them against you, including charging you with lying when your out of context statement isn't correct. You should NEVER talk to the FBI without a lawyer and without a recording device running that records the entire conversation. The ironic thing is the FBI will actually refuse to interview you with a recording device running because they then can't use out of context statements against you.

Never ever talk to the FBI unless it's in YOUR lawyers office with a recording device running. There are plenty of videos on youtube that explain how the FBI uses these conversations against people and why you should never talk to them.

It's not a sideline, it's entirely the point. The German citizenry isn't willing to see their taxes go up again to pay Greek debt that was incurred buying votes. The again in that sentence is the important bit. Germany has already raised the taxes on their people to pay the original Greek bailout. They will NOT allow their government to do it again. And it infuriates them to no end that this happened because the Greek government lied about their spending and borrowing and used much of the proceeds to "buy votes" by raising minimum wages, increases pension plans and other electorate appeasing measures that require cash.

For example, the current Greek government refuses to lower the minimum wage. Most people don't even realize that the minimum wage in Greece is almost 50% higher than in Germany! This goes for almost all the items of the bailout under attack. The most galling thing to most Europeans is that the troika didn't even require the Greeks to cut their higher wage rates, higher pension payments and such to match their European neighbors, they only required that they reduce them partially and this is how the Greeks react?

Coming down to reality is hard, they built up a system with purchased votes that wasn't sustainable and it's a big impact to lower down to reasonable values. I personally don't agree with the austerity push, I think it's catastrophic policy with no historical backing and heavy counter demonstrations that it doesn't even work. But, I do agree with the rest of the Europeans that the EU and IMF have been extremely lenient with Greece and to have it thrown back in their face as asking too much is frankly stupid.

But that's the problem with Greece's current government. They should have attacked austerity, not the measures they are expected to undertake to re-balance their economy with the rest of Europe. Many of the Torika's requirements were real improvements that would have been long term very positive for the Greeks economy and some of those are the ones the Greeks are attacking the hardest, rather than attacking the real problem, which is this Austerity idea that you can succeed by cutting spending during a recession. The Greek economy was heavily damaged by the Austerity drive where the measures should have been more targeted towards competition and divestiture of state assets because it was those very state assets and the salaries they included that bankrupted the Greek government to begin with. And this dragging of the feet on everything and inexperience has just created an environment where everyone in the economy is running for cover. The cuts to the pensions and minimum wage levels should have been done with a permanent freeze to increases until inflation balanced them with the rest of Europe because of the direct and immediate damage a large cut would do. The biggest problem the greeks face is a general disrespect for tax collection, that's what government should be spending their time fixing.

Considering they are two completely different things you shouldn't be struggling with it.

The first, apple colluding with others, was a violation of the law. Market collusion between competitors is illegal, in this case in particular it cost hundereds of people thousands of dollars apiece.

The second, was a civil suit between companies likely for unfair competition. Apple's settlement of suit, rather than just going to court and winning indicates that Apple might have engaged in some improper behavior in acquiring those employees.

The only the first was illegal, the second very well could have opened Apple up to a civil lawsuit or they could have just settled to avoid the legal fees. Here's a tip for you, anyone can sue anyone (including themselves) for any reason. It's not till you get to court that you have to actually justify that suit and present evidence.

Except as noted 10000 times in the thread the article does not match the account within the court filing the article is based on. Apparently the journalist is a moron and you believe everything you read on the internet.

The court filing says explicitly that it was HER personal phone.