Germany was initially only limited to their own immediate neighborhood in Europe back in World War 2, right? How did that work out last time? China has a huge population that needs more resources. And this being a small planet, your resources are eventually on the menu, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.

I will grant that your analysis is correct as things stand currently. But that kind of short-term thinking is the problem in the first place, isn't it? Intertwined dependent economies just mean that your ability to protect your interests in Asia is heavily compromised. If you actually took any real action whatsoever against China, your economy is toast. They will survive without you regardless, even if they will damage themselves too in the process. I mean isn't this exactly what happened in World war 2? USA was actually supplying Germany for its war machinery and let it grow unchecked. It just stood by and watched, till Germany actually became a serious potential threat. And now you want to do the same thing all over again with China. I mean most of the countries in Asia are already aligned to China, with exception of India, Japan and Korea. And if China starts a war against either, your only real option left is now to either do a Kamikaze with your economy or just let China do whatever it want, in order to buy some more time, at end of which USA status will simply be same as that of Japan, in relation to USA... an unofficial province/lackey. The real solution was to play the good guy card to marshal world support against China, and to shield your economy from Chinese influence. And you guys have already failed on both ends. You do have the option to wait till the end. But problem is that it will by then, be too late and just that for you... the end.

Interpretation is fine. It is the execution that is different. They can indeed classify him as a terrorist in same category as Al-Qaeda and Taliban and yet opt not do anything about him. There is such a thing called world-opinion that determines what you can and cannot do. Plus USA won't DARE to try out stunts that a rival power like China then can try against it. Imagine China declaring the rich and powerful in USA its own enemy of states, using the logic that their patents and policies harm "Chinese interest", and then launching their own drone strikes. Seems unreal? Sure. For now. Thing about tricks and weapons however is, that if they are seen to work, your enemies start using them too. If you are seen as a good guy, who has simply been doing the right thing, the world sides with you. But if it seems like two equally bad bullies duking it out, world simply gets some popcorn and watches. And USA has long since lost the power advantage it used to enjoy. Hell, they are pretty much China's pet dog by now. If you stop giving a damn about "political consequences", you squander the last bit of good will you might have ever had. And USA in its current state could sure as hell, use any good will it has still got left.

If so, then what exactly is the USA case again Assange? He is neither subject to US laws, nor is he as a non-citizen, non-resident owed anything to USA to protect its so-called secrets, since it is a country he owes no allegiance to. Please decide if you want to have your cake or whether you want to eat it.

Yup. They must be very rabid. That is why not only the minority muslims are allowed to have their own set of special laws, *defined by mulims* for them, but they even get special quotas in schools/universities as well as jobs. The hindus are so intoolerant, that they elected muslims to be Presidents repeatedly. The mumbai riots recently carried by Indian muslims were for protesting the prosecution of mulims *outside* India, and for supporting their "brother" illegal muslim immigrant invaders from neighbouring country who were rioting in north-east region and attacking actual Indian citizens. They desecrated Indian equivalent of US air force memorial. The people they targeted in these riots were by the way, non-muslims. Treason is apparently just a "perceived" offense.

GP is right. As an Indian I can tell you that for being majority, Hindus *usually* tend to be surprisingly tolerant of other communities. Not even USA comes close. I mean check out the plight of non-muslims in almost any Muslim-majority nation for example. Minorities, including muslims get reserved quotas in schools/universities and Jobs. Muslims have been even Presidents. And how the muslim usually repay this all, is by going hair-trigger every time they can get the remotest chance to do so. In this case, the illegal muslim immigrants from neighbouring Bangaladesh sneaked in the north-east region and started harassing the native local Bodo populace. Eventually the local populace retaliated, ending in riots. All well and good. You would think that Indian muslims would side with their own country against this wave of illegal invaders. But they actually carried out riots in mumbai to protest prosescution of muslims in Burma(India has nothing to do with this) and of their "brother muslims" in north-east. They would readily put their religion over their country and openly support treason. And the flaw of Hindus is to tolerate this nuisance and allow the minority muslims to have their own special laws and even protect their rights.

I will assume that by nice you mean rational and the competent. Unlike the very top, mid high-level positions are ones filled with people who are actually good at what they do. And these are the guys who left. The ones stepping in, will quite likely be less competent by definition. And you are assuming that the new guy has exactly the same vision, idea and team-relationship. These are people, not cogs. You cannot just pick up the next guy in queue, and fill up the position and expect to have things go on same as before, normally. Normally organizations are designed to deal with occasional such hiccups. But several of these at once, would be the equivalent of multiple cardiac arrests at once. You might pretty much assume that the top management knew something we didn't and decided to cash in, while going was good, since they decided that after that point things would only go downhill. There is no other explanation for the entire IPO fiasco.

The exodus of high level leaders at same time, however can definitely kill a company. Think of it this way, if several generals or even majors of an army quit at the same time, it leads the army directionless for a fair bit. If the competition is shrewd, this will be the perfect time to throw in some innovative twists and come up with something new. And if that happens, cash, which essentially comes from advts. will dry up instantly. And that will lead to even more mass exodus. One way to beat vicious cycles is to not to get into one.

To clarify, it is perfectly okay for people to lobby in terms of vote. Lobbying by corporations in terms of campaign donations, and bribes(e.g. future job offers post-office) should be illegal and should mean dissolution of the corporation if it was sanctioned by board of directors, or serious punishment crime amounting to life imprisonment.

No it doesn't. What democracy actually is supposed to do is fool people into thinking they have any options or alternatives, and guaranteeing the physical safety and lives of ruling elites. Think of it this way. The french revolution was pretty much two power-hungry factions vying for control. One faction used the common people for this. However this involved the other faction having their necks chopped. And people will occasionally grow too angry and discontent, and will want to replace the rulers. Democracy is really a way to avoid the bloodshed of over-thrown elites in such case. Both sides get to loot the people, and grow rich in turns without any actual risk of life and limb. There are not really any options here, if you think honestly about it. Take USA as example. Having no anti-lobbying laws in USA, no proper limits on campaign donations pretty much ensures that USA can never be a democracy in any sense of the word, except as a mere meaningless label.

Which allows you to call the police and get him arrested for trespassing. It still does not however allow you to assault someone.

So are you perp#1 or perp#2?

Right! So if I don't like something you are doing(even if it is completely legal), I and my friends can jump you and kick the shit out of you and damage your stuff? Good to know.

Dear idiot, he was "recording" from the beginning, so as to speak. If McDonald has a policy against it, they could only enforce it *before* they took his money. So you are a jerk, who is fine with the "recording" till the point you take my money, and *then* you kick me out without even allowing me to finish eating? It makes you sound like nothing more than a thief and a first class jerk! And irrespective of what your "policy" may be, as a public business place you are only allowed to call the police. You cannot physically assault customers.

Or perhaps people just did not like your juvenile defense of illegal physical assault? What is wrong with just politely asking the guy to leave, instead of tearing off his documents and trying to grab his glasses forcibly?