Your statement would be true if the information was dumped to the public, but completely false if the information was provided to a Government for the purposes of squashing dissent. The latter is the concern, not the former.

Surely you could recover if someone leaked an unfortunate browsing habit of yours. It would take some time to blow over, and of course you would be embarrassed.

On the other hand, if you had knowledge or beliefs that run counter to an administration and could be targeted with say.. planting pornographic images of children on your computer.. you are now silenced and behind bars.

The "elites" have the best education money can buy, they have the best advisers money can buy, and the free time to research what ever they need because they don't have to work 40-60 hours a week to make ends meet.

Given that little bit of information let me ask who exactly is not that smart. You or them? Just to drive the point home, lets play along with a few more questions.

How many people would an elite group have to control in order to really run the country? They don't need to control each person individually, they just need to control enough to maintain media so that they could build up or destroy a person. Nearly all media is already controlled by 3 people in the USA. It does not take manually handling politicians to control them, it takes money and errand runners. Given that the President, Congress, and Senate is less than a thousand people, you only need a few runners for each of the people in the conspiracy. They don't need to control State politics, just few Governors is all. California and New York have a big enough population to concern people, Wyoming on the other hand does not have enough population to be a concern.

Further, you don't need to direct every detail to get the result you want. Bits and pieces here and there is called compartmentalization, and we have known about this for a very long time. Agencies within the Government practice this with a high degree of precision, such as the projects that built the SR71, F117, etc... You can see it in action after the fact so you know it exists, yet you somehow want to claim that it could only work with building some of the most complex machines the world has ever seen and could not happen in politics. Come now, that's just idiocy.

As to Conspiracy in general, take the TV show Survivor. In the first series people almost immediately started conspiring with others to win. After the first series, the conspiracies became the focal point of the show. If people would conspire within a few days to win a million dollars, you don't believe it's possible that they would conspire when the stakes are much higher? This is also idiocy.

One of the most important things I ever read regarding politics was this.

In the past people have commented simply to discourage people from reading the book, so I won't be surprised to see that again. The book is from 1971 and titled "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen.

Labeling people "Conspiracy Theorist" has happened since the same years. Anytime someone brings up an uncomfortable question, label and belittle. If that does not work simply censor and ignore. (Also covered in the same book).

I believe you need to try harder to discourage people from making connections which are easy to see. Dump the Troll handbook and actually attempt to hold rational discourse and dialogue with people.

Shelling != bombing, so your pedant-ism has be returned. Your play! :)

In this case, should not the HR people and management be facing criminal charges for slavery? Forcing people to work 120hr work weeks and paying them an illegally low wage strikes me as something that should be sitting on a prosecutors desk. IANAL, but I'd be interested in hearing from one. A 120hr work week is an 18 hour day 7 days a week.

Minimum wage exists because we don't currently have a free market. I'm assuming that people are too lazy to read the books, but highly recommend them.

Really, the guy runs the whole business by himself without any help at all? Will you next you will try and tell me how he wrote all the code for his site by himself? Wholly fuck, nothing like pandering to the celebs. Do you think you are going to get a great paying job by trying to convince the world about his miraculous ability to learn part of 1 language? I really and truly hope that you try to hold your breath until that happens.

Really, you have to come up with something better than that, because that is a horrible way of trying to measure a country. DPRK has not bombed anyone since the 1950s, but in your book they are okay right?

A guy worth many billions of dollars can pay for someone to teach them a language, and has time to learn the language. Who'da thunk it possible? What a grand and glorious day for all of the people of the world.. er wait a minute...

The proceeding message was brought to you by a cynical old guy who learned to read/write and speak 2 1/4th additional languages (German, Spanish *and currently working on Russian*) on his own time without billions of dollars to do so. All while raising a kid as a single parent and working full time. Sorry, he's nothing special in terms of intelligence and definitely lacking in morals. Being high on his ego does nothing for me.. Next!

What you claim happens is absolutely false. People are not simply claiming that women should be treated like people, they are claiming that:
* Women get treated worse than everyone else on the Internet
Therefor the solution is to censor the Internet.

Due to societal pressures there is no way to prove such a claim, and it's completely not relevant to the solution. Censoring the internet would not prevent shitty people from doing shitty things. If that was true, we would have no crime in any country where a person has a home address. Yet we have lots of crime, and it does not relate directly to anonymity.

The crusade has nothing to do with protecting women's rights. In fact I'll argue that it has nothing to do with catching people that are behaving badly toward women either. If you have doubts, answer why online predators and human trafficking are either the same or worse today (in scale) than say 20 years ago before all of the laws alleging to catch on-line predators.

Many of the laws claimed to protect children have had the exact opposite effect, of protecting criminals. Meanwhile innocent people with good intentions have been harmed by these same laws.

Since we can demonstrate that the laws won't change the situation, you should be asking who benefits if laws are passed.

Absolutely nonsense. The legal definition, for the 4th time, did not change the definition of a word at all. The ruling declared that the STATE can not be sued for entrapment unless other criteria (such as coercion) exists.

This does not redefine a word in any way, shape or form. If you have doubts, read the ruling. Nowhere do they claim that the definition is wrong, or out of date, or definition 2 was not particular enough for the STATE. What they said is that the STATE can not be guilty without additional crimes.

You are arguing everything except the point. (see next)

The law is not redefining a word, clarifying a definition, or even using a different word. The ruling in 1992 stated that other criminal conditions must exist for a State agent to be guilty of entrapment. That is the point I was making from the beginning, because the "State" does not use the definition of entrapment when reviewing a claim that the "State" used entrapment.

Mythical? So Bill Clinton, Clapper, and Lerner were all found guilty of perjury? Bank executives who used strong arm robbery to seize property they did not own faced criminal charges? Cops that murder people on the street have all faced fair trials and been incarcerated for their acts of murder?

There is no myth that two forms of justice currently exist in the US, in fact there is an uncountable amount of evidence supporting that there are two forms of justice. I'd fully admit that this is not new, but the extremes we have today for protecting cronies like Lois Lerner are surely new.

Surely Britain gets more from the Monarchy than Canada or Australia, but it's no bargain. Usually there is a comparison of _some_ expenses versus all of the revenue they can possibly attribute to the Monarchy. For example, The Monarchy makes a salary of what.. 50million pounds a year in the UK (I'm pretty sure that is the Queen alone with salary + estate charges)? She buys up land and releases it to the public and claims it's charity. But without the funding from the public there would be no funding to buy land and give it away, so in reality she is a middle agent making profit and claiming "for the greater good". People fall for it.

If you consider all of the expenses for sustaining a monarchy, it's enormous! The secret service, travel costs, estate costs all over the world (separate from UK embassies and not including the enormous land holdings in the UK), salaries, clothing, the "Royal Guard", media, various positions to manage all of the royal bank accounts, etc.. etc.. etc...

What does the average citizen in the UK get in return? A parade a couple times a year? Grounds that you can look into, but you sure as hell don't get to live there like they do? A long standing tradition of someone looking down on you because of their family tree?

In other words, the Brits are getting screwed over just like other people. It is easier to justify when the person flogging you for your money actually lives within your borders.

When you want a particular solution, you continue to claim a problem exists over and over and over again until people believe it and demand the solution you want to provide. Hegalian dialectic 101, and in this case they (the State and the cronies putting people into offices) want Internet Censorship.

In fact the Government owns their own Troll armies, provides them play books, and pays them YOUR money (collected in taxes) to Troll. If we know that the US and UK Governments are doing this, we should assume that other Governments are doing the same. We also know that large corporations have hired trolls, and paid them to troll as well. What is constantly overlooked in discussions of "Trolling" is whether or not a Government/Corporate paid troll campaign is involved. It's a fair question, but our state controlled media does not ask the question.

In no way is this an attempt to claim that shitty people don't exist. The issue is, that the shitty people are not the majority and a good number of shitty people happen to be in the Government. "SJW"s are often co-opted by the Government (see COINTELPRO/Mocking Bird), and the Dunning-Kruger effect means that many of these SJWs are unwittingly behaving as agent provocateurs.

This, and countless other sources say you are wrong.

Even the Canadian Government says you are wrong, but of course they attempt to justify it and package it so that it looks like it's not only "free" but money well spent. Think really really hard about that last statement.

I remember a debate with an Auzzie not too long ago regarding the same thing. "Oh, the Queen does not make money", but then again she does and the other monarchs do as well. "It generates tourism" is probably the most common reason for giving cash to these people, who really do believe you are beneath them.

This is not a newspaper with paid writers who report to an editor prior to publishing. This is a site that runs by user submissions where "editing" is in reality "moderating".

Why would the editor be able to tell you what the submitter did with linking articles? No seriously I want you to tell me WHY ?