I agree with your main point, btw.

However, both on paper and from real-world experience, I dare to say that the judicative is the least troubled arm.

In most of Europe, the legislative and executive are pretty much identical and that bothers me to no end. Parliament passes laws and parliament elects the executive, and all the executives (ministers, etc.) are also members of parliament. These two arms are not seperated at all. The USA has the better system there, even though it is still imperfect in that the same parties exist in both.

If I were to re-write the political rules, I'd seperate the arms completely and make a law that political parties can be active in either the executive or the legistlative election processes, but not in both and any attempt to do so leads to immediate dissolution of the party in question with all assets seized and distributed to the poor.

Let me repeat that: It is absolutely technically possible to filter based on source IP address country.

Yes, you can also do various trickery to cloak your real source behind another source. That doesn't invalidate the point.

Highly unlikely. Putin is beloved by the majority of russians, because under his government economy and internal security have improved dramatically. Most russians remember the 1990s when people were shot in the streets regularily, the way you only see in some old movies about when the Mafia ruled in some US cities. Compared to that time, they live in paradise now, and many attribute this change to Putin. Don't expect him to be out of power anytime soon. As for the russian elite, a lot of them own their fortune to this change. Never mistake criticism for opposition. Especially among politicians and the rich, it is fairly common to complain loudly about someone and still support them when it matters, because all the complaining and seeming hostility is simply an attempt to move them on certain topics.

You should update your propaganda-driven beliefs. I've got a russian girlfriend and I've been to Russia myself. At least for where I was (St. Petersburg), it looks much like any european city, except more beautiful (but that's a St. Petersburg special, they made very sure to keep all the old palaces and buildings in shape).

Crime was horrible in the 1990s, my girlfriend says, but here's why most russians actually love Putin: Since he became the top dog, things have been continuously improving. Crime is low, economy is good, of course nothing is perfect, but compared to previous times, they're pretty great.

From what I've seen in daily life, I don't see anything that would make them jealous of a random EU member country. Supermarkets are full of basically the same products I can buy here, everyone has a car, public transport is better than in some european cities, the streets are in good condition and clean, I felt safe both at day and at night.

Of course Putin doesn't want Ukraine to join the EU. But that they will all be able to suddenly buy bananas and thus run away from communism is 1990s stuff and long since outdated.

FRY: This is a great, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus. ... I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all. FRY: Oh. What's it called now? PROFESSOR FARNSWORTH: Urectum.

Keynesian nonsense. Real demand is not fuelled by fake money. Fake money only steals and misallocates scarce resources. If the Keynesian nonsensical idiotic moronic irrational ignorant ideas were anywhere near the ballpark even, Zimbabwe would have been the most prosperous country in the world and then every other country that ran its currency into hyperinflationary mode.

Inflation is destructive to the economy, not constructive. The most productive era in USA history was during a slightly deflationary period of time, before IRS and Fed existed. You wouldn't know any of it for a very simple reason: you don't know anything about history whatsoever, public "education", you see.

the people that believe that are wrong for many reasons. Freedom being one, actually creating a moral hazard is another, eventual destruction of the economy due to government running things into the ground and then requiring more and more taxes and borrowing is third, inflation caused by printing to satisfy all that excessive spending is fourth, just pushing prices up for no reason by destroying normal competitive forces to set up government sponsored monopolies is fifth and I can go on.

If there is a conspirancy here, it is the conspirancy of stupidity. Every couple of years the government actually posts information about the changes to the inflation calculations and what is counted toward the gdp. If inflation in the 1970s was counted the way it is "counted" today, it would have been negative, yet at the time Nixon imposed price controls to "fight inflation". It was the wrong thing to do, but at least the numbers were not fudged yet. As I said, the measuring stick is changing, yet idiots keep pretending or actually believing that nothing changed. They change definitions and you straight out buy the propaganda. It is actually out in the open, posted for everyone's consumption, but you choose ignorance. See, that is a conspiracy, conspiracg of willful ignorance by denying facts. Now, if you do not actually follow anything, you are not paying attention to the changes in the gdp and inflation accounting, though it is not done in any secrecy whatsoever, then it is a conspiracy of ignorance, but then stop pretending with me here. Use your willful ignorance of the facts, posted, public facts with somebody else, agreed?

There is no productivity increase when you produce nothing that you consume.

You mean like the typically politically motivated appointment of the judges of the supreme court? Oh wait, that's in the USA...

Legislative. Get your facts straight before you argue.

Well, since it is my own business that I am running, a business that I started, I wonder how could I possibly "over promote" myself, but carry on.

Amount of total dollars in existance does nothing to increase total productivity (well, inflation does cause shift of capital and plenty of misallocation, so the more they print the less productive output is created, but that is beside the main point). Number of dollars is like number of units on a clock or a thermometer face. Sure, you can increase the number used to measure something, you can split anything you are measuring into smaller and smaller units. You can even pretend that the smaller units you are measuring something in have not changed because of that change (inflation) but it does not change the item you are measuring.

So printing a ton more of dollars, you are reducing the size of the unit (dollar) that you are measuring in, but what you are measuring did not change because of it. 100 dollars in existance becomes 10000 dollars in existance by printing (or virtual printing). This does not increase the economy, it only increases prices and shifts purchasing power from those who produced and saved to those who got their hands on the newly printed, counterfeit currency. Inflation is theft, redistribution from the productive and frugal to the unproductive and wasteful.

Real money is created by work, real money measures productive output. Fake money eliminates productivity by misalocating scarce resources, by stealing from the productive and subsidising the wasteful and useless.

Let me guess, you're american and you didn't pay attention in school, so you think "Europe" is some small country somewhere on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, yes?

The EU is larger than the USA in people, economic power and basically every other metric except prison population. Blackhole the EU if you want. We may or may not come over to save the sorry remains of your economy in a couple years.

The trade volume between the USA and the EU is about 60 billion US$ monthly . However, the USA imports a lot more, while the import/export balance of the EU is almost balanced (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/). Make a guess who would suffer more.

You've heard of this thing they call "Separation of Powers"? Maybe the news hasn't reached you yet, after all it's only been around for some 350 years.

Searching and speaking are really not the same thing. Once again, you can say they are related and one requires the other and so on, but all of that only means that yes, there really is no "right to search", you can only construct it from other rights.

Is a right in itself and maybe you can derive a "right to search" from it, but in doing so you would only prove my point that a "right to search" by itself is nowhere in the law books.