And clearly, you discarded my response because yours was in some magical way vastly superior.

In other words thank you for no rebuttal whatsoever.

I will go ahead and repeat what I said earlier:

In other words, your malarkey about the tea party being somehow in pursuit of "fiscal accountability" is malarkey at best. Your party wants only to bring more wealth to their favored class, which is frankly astonishing as it is only a further acceleration of where the vast overwhelming majority of this country's wealth already accumulates.

How can you conclude that without reading it? Just because you assume (sans fact, as per your most favored m.o.) that communism is TEH EEEEVIL, doesn't mean that the book written by Marx on the matter is actually connected to any of your assumptions on the matter.

This seems counter to your oft-repeated bits about people "scaling" (or not). Why would you read the writings of one man - who mind you was well past dead long before Lenin lead the Soviets in a strange contortion (and eventual complete discard) of his theories - and pretend that it represents accurately the beliefs of vastly more people? Even more so, why would you be so arrogant to fake the reading to begin with?

I'm not sure what you could possibly be reading that would resemble the re-election of the country's most conservative executive in history over a waffling man who wrote the bill that was very much the model of the bill whose nickname bears the name of the former.

So long as you don't blame it on Tesla, Bitcoin, or Starts with a Bang, everyone here will cool with it.

When you approach something with hatred and disdain you will almost certainly walk away from it the same.

What did you want to gain from it, and why are you not gaining it? The answer to the latter is in your mirror. The answer to the former I'm not sure even you know.

How is it not?

No, you cannot.

Amping up the regressive nature of the most regressive taxation system in the world is not even close to the same as "fiscal accountability". I would suggest you try again but you haven't really tried once.

FWIW, windmills and skyscrapers kill a lot of birds too.

And automobiles, for that matter.

Why not skip all the expensive equipment and just use birds for fuel?

It's my understanding that speedometers are not allowed to under report your speed.
The manufacturing tolerances are such that the speed can show you going faster than you are, but never slower.

Instead of playing with theoretical situations, it's easier to focus on the basic tenets of the law:

If you can see it from a "normal" location, it's not an invasion of privacy.
If you use a R/C to look over a fence, it's like using a ladder to look over the fence.
It's not a viewpoint the average person has, therefore you're invading their privacy.

TFA talks about how they propose to "reasonably legislate"
I'd encourage you to read it.

Oh, come on. You can't tell me that the late-hitting backronym "taxed enough already" is not a direct result of worshiping the dollar. Add to that the fact that most of your party's ambitions relate to accelerating the distribution of shiny stones...

That was pretty much a rehash of what you were saying weeks ago when you were still proud of not reading The Communist Manifesto. In other words you are supporting the hypothesis that at the very least if you did read it you gained absolutely nothing from it (and hence did not comprehend the document in the slightest) or perhaps did not actually read it at all.

The whole reason they made noise was the leak. It was public, so they had to Do Something(tm), There was no real surprise at spying allegations, just a public show.

So guilt does not apply. It is to determine responsibility, not guilt. There is a major legal difference, and trials proceed differently. Hence you can have OJ Simpson found innocent of a murder, but civilly responsible for causing wrongful death of the same individual.

You forgot one: I definitely would NOT hit it. Just look at those sharp knees. She is way below my standar|

Fark doesn't spare anyone. Even its own privileged white males.

The OnePlus One is 3 GB Ram 64 GB Storage for $349. Has two cameras, GPS, WiFi .... Not $600 nor $800. And newer phones will start coming with 4GB ram this fall.

Does that change your mind?