Warrant issued to force teen to pose nude for cops

From TFA:

A Prince William County judge allowed the 17-year-old to leave the area without the warrant being served or the pictures being taken — yet.

Evidently, the submitter can't read...

you pretentious turd with a persecution complex

Thank you. Your racism will make me stronger.

Thoughts are irrelevant.

Racism, which you proposed to ban earlier is exactly that — a thought... To avoid such semantic problems in the future, do try to use more precise terms.

And in civilised countries racist actions are already banned.

And the Blacks only seem to be worse off over the decades. It is not anybody's "racist action", that causes residents of government housing projects (affectionately known as "ghettos") to pee in the stairwells...

Black racism consists of the assumption that they are criminal, violent and or stupid. Theses are not the assumptions about Asians or Jews.

I'm not exactly sure, what beef American Blacks have with the Asians, but, being myself a European Jew, I do know, what anti-semites claim: we are, supposedly, thieves and cheaters (whom nobody should be hiring, of course), constantly scheming to undermine the nations we happen to live in for the sake of Israel (thus should not be hired into government either). Oh, and we use the blood of Christian babies to make matzos...

Are you going to sincerely claim, such accusations don't affect "employment opportunities"?

Which means they don't suffer the same disadvantages in the employment market that blacks do.

Nonsense. Of course, the disadvantages are the same — or worse. In Russia, for example, there were official limits on how many Jews can enter universities, how many could live outside specially-set areas. Certain trades were closed off completely. Yet, somehow, that didn't prevent the Jews from doing well back then. USSR dispensed with the official racism of the Tsars, but the sentiment remained: my own father, for example, had to go to a different city's university — in the late 1960ies — because Kyiv State University was famous for anti-Semitic admission officers. Yet, that didn't prevent him from succeeding — even he remained sufficiently bitter to move his family to the US upon the first opportunity.

Post-Soviet Russia today remains anti-Semitic (though the other ex-Soviet republics no so much), but Jews manage to strive anyway: there are industrialists (of Russian kind) and politicians in addition to the customary lawyers, doctors, and engineers. Perhaps, that's because nobody tried to be condescending to them — the way American Illiberals are towards Blacks...

That statement was asserted (by you) out of context.

This was a good opportunity for you to provide the surrounding context, but you missed it for some reason...

Which is an altogether different matter.

Is it different? When the same person believes, "the unfit" should be either encouraged to not procreate or simply prohibited from procreating, goes on and establishes a network of abortion clinics, can it really be denied, that the belief and the act are rather connected to each other? Of course, they are...

They were not at all a small operation. That makes your counterpoints a red herring.

Ok, who were the milkmen?

You skipped the whole HMO thing even though it is the most on-target example.

The health insurance in this country is so screwed-up, it does not make a good example for anything other than itself.

Then you could get a discount if you drove a sedan with a smaller engine. Now that 'discount' has turned into a hefty surcharge on cars with a smaller engine than what we used to consider a regular car had.

I don't really see a difference here. The prices for everything are going up — because of the inflation, costs of regulations, and rising taxes — it sucks, but it is not a conspiracy to defraud us (not on the part of the insurers).

I smell frog soup.

Oh, yes, of course. But we aren't being boiled by the "corporations". It is the politicians — who've assumed so much control over us, that Congress can't even deal with it all, which forces them to offload their responsibilities to the giant (and unelected) government bureaucracies. It is bad and is getting worse — but private auto-insurers aren't the problem...

Remember the milkman?

I do not, actually, but there may be better explanations for his disappearance — and that of other conveniences, than the evil elite's plot to remove the services we like without lowering the prices on what's left. The milkman, for example, was killed by a combination of increased mobility of the customers (who can all go to a supermarket, when they please), and government regulations concerning both keeping of the cows and processing the milk. You just can't do it any more — not on a small scale. Even when people try to do it as a co-op (such as to have milk to processed a certain way), the government fights them tooth-and-nail.

Yes, some rather expensive cars include rather expensive insurance.

The car being overall expensive, will increase its insurance cost, yes. But I was talking about another aspect — an otherwise inexpensive machine with "overly" powerful engine will cost more to insure. People are buying them anyway... Point is, different models do cost slightly different to insure — which cars, that are easier to fix costing less, for example.

Auto insurance compete a lot on branding and somewhat on extras, but a lot less on price/service than they would have you believe.

That depends on the state. Collectivist places like Massachusetts dictate, what insurance is to cost — leaving the companies to compete on the service-quality only. In other places you may be able to get a different quote from a different company. There is still competition and, as I said, as long as the buyers are the actual users themselves (rather than employers), we are Ok.

Guess who lobbied for the seat belt laws!

Whoever it was, they are not lobbying for the "spies" being mandatory.

This case should not have anything to do with religion in the first place, people that run businesses must not be abused by the government and having their freedoms revoked just because they are running a business.

Government must not have any authority to dictate to people what type of compensation the employer and the employee agree upon. Government must not have any authority to dictate that compensation must be provided in a form of insurance or contraceptives or in form of any other product or currency that goes against the agreement between the actual 2 parties involved - a person buying labour and a person selling labour.

This is a win for freedom but not completely, because it mentions religion in the first place. Religion has nothing to do with this, it's about INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

I was around when they passed the seat belt laws.

The law made them compulsory. Not the insurance companies.

The premiums *never* went down.

Maybe, they did not rise as fast as inflation during those few years? Or, maybe, the belts aren't really reducing the costs for the insurers — could even be the opposite, in fact. If you die on the spot, that's a tragedy, but it is relatively cheap for the insurers. On the other hand, if the belt saved your life, but now you need expensive treatment...

But requiring us to buy health insurance is fine.

No, it is not. There was even a lawsuit filed against this requirement. It survived only because the government contented, the requirement was, actually, a tax... Thus giving new life to the argument, that "taxation is slavery".

Tomorrow, rate hikes will consume the entire discount and without the discount will be barely affordable at all

Do you have examples from history to back up this prediction?

The day after, the rate penalty for not using the device will be unaffordable to most motorists

There are already insurance penalties for certain kinds of cars — such as those with very powerful engines. People are still buying them — willing to pay extra. Others buy the cars designed to fit just under the limit.

Your predictions are too gloomy.. As long as auto-insurance companies compete with each other and sell directly to car-owners (rather than through employers), we are fine...

It would result in a miserable micromanaged society.

Why? You aren't told not to eat ice-cream... You are just discouraged from it. So, why are you cursing?

But you know, it's okay because they get a discount and it's not the government doing it (*eyeroll*).

As long as it is not compulsory (which it would be, if government did it), it really may be Ok — for some people.

then I realize that the rest of us will get dinged for NOT opting-in, so damnit, stop that you idiots!

Then the rates will be slightly higher for all — with people willing to trade privacy for a discount subsidizing those like you (and me), who are not. Why do you think, such an outcome it is fair or desirable?

Of course, so do "conservatives" in the US these days.

Other than abortions, I can't think of a freedom, Conservatives are try to remove. And even that one comes from a (mistaken but sincere) belief, that fetus is a human being no less worthy of the State's protection from killing than any other citizen — a respectable opinion, even if you disagree with it.

And even if Conservatives prevail and manage to outlaw abortions, I'll be able to pay for a trip to Canada, should my daughter ever needs the procedure. But, if obamas are allowed to continue ravaging the country, in 10 more years we'll all be so poor, having a free abortion clinic next door will be of little consolation.