They should just write a program that checks all possible passwords. Getting the hardware that can support that is the state's obligation. Hopefully it will find the password before the sun explodes.

That would be from my favorite Shakespeare :

The Tragedy of Julius Casear, Act 1, Scene 2, Cassius persuading Brutus that Caesar has become so popular that Rome and the citizens suffer

"For the luls" takes on a whole new meaning then...

Best Turder? Why can't we have such awesome words in English?

I, for one, welcome our new E-Mag spectrum overlords.

Your idea of freedom is incredibly remedial, and I would appreciate if you don't attempt to impose that definition of freedom on anyone else.

Btw, the problem with outlawing shouting "fire" in a movie theatre is that is bases a law on actions rather than intent. That is always a mistake. Always. But it is a very insidious way to create "exceptions" to constitutional rights. And quite effective, because I am stuck in a world where no one can reason that far.

That has got to be one of the stupidest recurring phrase n use. It's ambiguous enough that any attempt to point out the idiocy of the phrase would be met with "well that's not what I really meant"; however, all interpretations are stupid. Just because you seem to be having trouble, I'll suggest some phrases to help you understand:

You are free to kill whoever you want, but it might have consequences.

You are free to steal whatever you want, but it might have consequences.

You are free to be as stupid as you want, but it might have consequences.

+5 interesting for this crap. What world am I living in?

You can say that again. I think the monopoly that is television is the biggest obstacle to 3rd party candidates.

You are not "a republican". You are not "a democrat". Those are abbreviations for political parties. Unless you actually see yourself as strongly advocating for republican or democratic forms of government, you are not what you say.

You might say you support the XXX party. But don't delude yourself, they don't support you, and you are not them.

Republican party is not a philosophy. Democrat party is not a philosophy. You can't even agree or disagree with them. They are corporations (literally) that buy and sell elections. And you know the saying, if you aren't the customer, then you are the product. You aren't buying an election from them? Then you are the product.

He could have just joined the government. People always assume that government workers are angels and that the rest of the citizens are not to be trusted.

Really, if it is too dangerous for the general population to know, then it is too dangerous for a government worker to know. If it scares you that a random journalist got a list of every single firearms license holder, then it should scare you just as much that random government workers have access to that same information.

In principle, unless everyone is safe to know it, then then government cannot be allowed to know either. Do you really trust that bonehead bully that became a cop? Do you really trust your senators with inside legislative information (think insider trading) who won't publicize their private policy meetings? Everyone or no one.

You mean the libertarian bias against the "War on Drugs"?

You mean the libertarian bias against constantly invading other countries, usually multiple at the same time?

You mean the libertarian bias against the Patriot Act?

You mean the libertarian bias against trusting the NSA?

You mean the libertarian bias for allowing congress to audit the Federal Reserve?

You mean the libertarian bias against sexual orientation laws?

You mean the libertarian bias against bailouts, and other programs giving citizens legal privilege over others?

You mean the libertarian bias against government programs designed to raise consumer prices?

You mean the libertarian bias for strictly enforcing constitutional rights and constitutional restrictions on powers?

Damn. Those libertarians. So biased.

...biased against the honest because liars will say whatever they want.
 
...biased against the hard working because thieves will steal whatever they want.
 
...biased against the peaceful because the aggressive will injure to obtain what they want.

Really, I don't think that line of reasoning is one that survives generalization.

Why is it statists believe that because they memorized all the popular bumper stickers that they somehow have obtained "understanding" ?

It was my understanding that wikipedia was attempting to position itself as a reliable source of references.

I guarantee you that height is more correlated to fights than gayness. No one can look at you and see that you are gay, but any drunk meat-head in a bar looking to impress some airhead girl can look at someone and see that they are short.

Height is, in my opinion, the greatest discriminatory stereotype of all of them. There is a reason presidents are usually the taller candidate, and that midgets are used as comic relief. Humanity will probably never overcome height discrimination, gayness doesn't even come close.