The Chinese don't think so.

Well.... They shot him rather than hanged, but I suppose its close enough.

One of the funny stories in Egypt was the ones where a can of spray paint could defeat a multi-million dollar tank.

Actually it was a WW2 tactic where you would just throw smoke bombs at a tank and force them to unbutton, but the tactic remains the same. If a tank can't out their optic ports, they are basically blind and the only way to see where they are going is to open a hatch.

Thats when you get them.

What?! What?! What?!

Are you saying all those right winged religious persons saying its women to blame for rape don't exist? (Islam and Christian)

(Google "women to blame for rape" for your sources)

*whoosh*

Laws of intent seem rather dubious to me simply because one can craft any intention out of anything innocent.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -Cardinal Richelieu (disputed tho)

The point of this quote is that authoritarian figures can simply take anything you do or say and make a crime out of it with intent:

You bought a gun. Well, maybe you are planning to kill a politician with it?

You have a chemistry set in your house. Well, maybe you were planning to make drugs with it?

You have encryption on your computer. Well, maybe you were planning on hiding illegal activity?

See where I'm going with this. It is simply your word against theirs. No one can read your mind to see if you are telling the truth, so they are simply accusing you of something that you haven't done but could possibly do. How can you defend against that?

Crimes should be things that actually happened after the fact or in progress. Yes the cops should stop a person who is trying to commit a crime and yes they should prosecute them for the action itself, but if you can convict a person on the intent to commit a crime are basically condemning the good majority of citizens who would never in their life commit such a crime.

I wouldn't but, if you think about it, even local civil courts are an extension of the federal government (indirectly) and one could construe that when a court finds someone guilty of libel, they are in fact restricting someone freedom of speech (even if it is lies).

I mean take this phrase for example:

"The president is an idiot!"

Which you and I know is covered under the first amendment even though its not really quantifiable true (I think he's quit a smart man actually but anways...)

Whats the difference between that and:

"My neighbor is an idiot"

Why would that be wrong to publish in a newspaper and not the president one? This is more of an ethics debate I guess, but you can call someone a pedophile and believe it to be true even though there is no empirical truth to the matter. I mean people said, Micheal Jackson was a pedo, and it actually seemed socially acceptable to say this in public even though there was no truth to the mater.

Where do you draw the line? And do you want government involved especially when there is groups out there that would love to sue the pants off anyone who dare criticize them? (say Scientology libel and slander cases)

No. Which is why rich persons or corporations have been known to force people to settle out of court because they know they couldn't afford a protracted legal battle even if they won the case.

FFS! People need to stop treating Anon as some organized group.

If a flash mob helped a lady across the street in LA and another lynched a man in New York, would you consider them the same group of people?

Serioiusly, its just like old time lynchings they used to have in the old days when a bunch of people got together and doled out random justice... Often picking the wrong person to extract it on (like the time a bunch of laid of car workers in Detroit killed a Korean man because they were pissed off at Japanese carmakers in the 1980's).

I couldn't help but reword this in my head as:

"Sudetanland-Germany deal accidentally protects Poland?"

That didn't really work out that well for Poland...

BTW the UK referendum to do away with the US style of voting is happening in May.

Time for a history lesson...

In a first past the post two parties will always dominate. Doesn't matter what names or their policies are, but a 3rd party always has math against it.

Oddly enough the two oldest democracies that are still around today went with FFP because voting had never really been tried before (UK and the USA) while the more newer ones have gone with other forms such as proportional representation (like Germany and Israel). This was that as new countries were being formed or overthrowing their old monarchies, they realized that the FFP was flawed in someways as they could see how it was in the countries that had it (usually looking at the UK) and being more modern times (1890 through 1950s) they went with PR, IRV or STV (single transferable vote) in which 3rd parties get a greater voice in government and the change of a 3rd party actually becoming a 1st or 2nd party is greater (like the German Greens or the Israeli lukid).

So if you want change... Real change with 3rd parties, you need to change the constitution. Of course the vested parties won't really be too keen on that but from my understanding a few states passed STV last year in some local elections so you'll start seeing 3rd parties on grassroots levels in some places.

For more info: http://www.fairvote.org/

Its not that hard to create a fake profile on FB. Even a person of the opposite sex than you.

A really neat trick is to put yourself in a relationship with the fake person and then have fake public love conversations to make other females think you are a normal guy. Then fake your alter ego cheating on you and then set your status to single.

Then you'll get sympathy from all the real females...

Not that I know anything about this though....

But seriously, it wouldn't be too hard to fake your gender on FB. Especially in a country where everyone basically dresses the role.

One might guess similar jokes have circulated concerning other dictatorships over the years.

I'm going to loose my mod points over this, but one of my interests happens to be Eastern Block humor. (Especially the Polish Eastern bloc joke about the Bank of Moscow)

Many jokes of that time period and area were always word of mouth (for obvious reasons) and many jokes ended up being reworded for the leaders and country it involved. Since there was no official publication of the jokes (as that would be treasonous) no one knew that they were copying each other until the after the 1990's.

example

Honecker and Mielke are discussing their hobbies. (both historical persons in charge of the Stasi in East German)
Honecker: "I collect all the jokes about me that are in circulation."
Mielke: "Then we have almost the same hobby. I collect those who bring the jokes into circulation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_German_jokes

And then the Russian version:

"Comrade Brezhnev, is it true that you collect political jokes?" â" "Yes" â" "And how many have you collected so far?" â" "Three and a half labor camps."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes

So the OP is most likley right in that he heard an East German version as you hearing a Russian version seperatley.

The "point" to me sounded like a bunch of bullshit cyberspeak about how the internet is going to turn government into a big drum circle where we all join hands and sing songs of peace and love.

Believe it or not, without the internet and blackberries, the protests in Tunusia and Egypt would not have gained the traction it did.

Now it seems that you are referring to the situation in the USA, but that is a bit more complicated than going into the streets and throwing rocks as most people are invested into the system and have no need to go into the streets to throw rocks.

". The reason for Gitmo is that we are effectively capturing enemy combatants that we cannot properly give Geneva Convention protections to because they do not fight in uniform, nor do they have a sovereign entity that can guarantee punishment for their illegal activities or failing that, who will feel the need or desire to protect our own imprisoned troops in exchange for protection of their imprisoned troops."

After WWII, German officers were hanged for not giving French and Soviet resistant fighters due process under the Geneva conventions. In their defense, the Germans said "They weren't wearing uniforms."