|
|
Well none of the people I know even have a gun so I'm pretty safe there.
I bet you're wrong. I was surprised to find out who owns guns in the place I work. The topic never came up, but when it did, I found out a lot of them do.
A better question is, are you willing to bet your child's life that they don't?
I've even tried changing my pronunciation from "Zed" to "Zee"
Perhaps the problem is that you were using "z" as a number?
So people cannot handle criminal cases without central gov't so is central gov't made of Martians?
You're so far out in left field as to what was said that the hot dog vendors don't even come by.
People don't need government, especially central gov't to carry out justice for criminal acts.
Yeah, that vigilante justice system works so well and protects the innocent just fine.
They even named the courts after an Aussie mammal: kangaroos.
You don't get this.
You're the one who isn't getting it. I know where the "problem" originated. I'm pointing out that it is quite possible that some people will find the "autocomplete" suggestions offensive no matter what they are, and you might as well point this out to Google by notifying them about every possible word. The implication, which I'll spell out for the slow ones, is that I would write a perl script that would go through the online dictionary and submit every word as offensive.
So the API is: Type your name into the Google search field
That's not the API I asked for, so you really don't get it at all.
So if the board of directors decides to fund Politician Bob (tax cuts for corporations) from the corporate treasury while the majority of their employees, who also happen to be on minimum wage, would rather fund Politician Joe (minimum wage increases), whose speech is it?
The people who own the company who hired the directors. You certainly don't think the money belongs to the employees just because they work there, do you?
If the company is majority foreign-owned, whose speech is it?
The foreigners, who are then falling afoul of existing campaign finance laws.
(I am also reminded that the guillotine was once considered a marvel of humane efficiency).
I'm sure you could come up with 100 more irrelevancies to comment on.
Your hatred
You are projecting again, Basil.
I fail to see how someone can think that giving politicians money is a good thing.
Ergo, giving a politician money is a good thing.
Can't you see that that leads to you thinking that your "vote" should count more inherently by virtue of you giving more money?
Can't you see that I was making a point in reference to someone saying that it was unethical to give money to politicians?
Just sit back, look at it rationally and wonder about these things you take for granted. Please.
Just sit back and stop making rash assumptions about other people. Please.
I have perl.
What's the API for the "notify Google of offensive autocomplete words"?
Because the point is, with or without a warrant the tapping of the phones of journalists on this scale is terrifying.
Had there been tapping, that would have been terrible. Perhaps you meant to say "with or without warrant the outright murder and torture of journalists on this scale is terrifying"? That would be a much better escalation of the matter into the hyperbolic.
This is the same sort of thinking that makes it legal to record the headers of email messages but not the text bodies.
No, it is the thinking that makes it legal to record the SMTP "MAIL FROM" and "RCPT TO" transactions for email, since that is the closest analogy to "what number was called from where and when". Email headers have a lot more information than that, such as "Subject", "In Reply To", etc...
By the way, every mail server I have records the SMTP info. Illegal should this be?
Maybe we should also be asking what compelled the director of one of the most powerful intelligence organizations in the country to feel he had to tell his fellow citizens something that was so important, he was willing to risk his career and his freedom to do.
Apparently nothing, but a good attempt at smearing someone. From TFA:
In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."
Maybe we should also be asking him if he's stopped beating his wife?
As for the "seized" phone records that the AP "wants back", should we point out that they are just copies of the information and that the AP didn't actually have any physical object taken from them. It's just a copy of information.
And perhaps we should point out that an investigation is just an investigation and not harassment and they didn't lose any rights. After all, all they may have to do is pay taxes
Should we not compare the allegedly illegal antics of one branch of the executive with another? If it's ok for one, why not the other?
You don't seem to realise that that's the point at which you crossed the line into bribery.
So you really do think that contributing to Obama's campaign for "hope and change" was actual bribery? That is obviously the reference I was making when talking about "hope and change". Thank God I didn't contribute, you'd probably want me to go to prison. But ok, everyone who did donate to Obama should go, I'll agree to that.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?