Doesn't that put them dangerously close to criminal like the guys that sell zero days to the Russian mob?

I'm thinking yes but it will be ignored because their customers include bad guys within the U.S. government.

The proper conclusion is that SOME combination of rampant surveillance by the government, totalitarianism, socialism, and poverty in East Germany lead to a greater willingness to lie and cheat. They have not even attempted to control for the confounding factors sufficiently to pin it on socialism.

Honestly, were I to make a guess, I would rank socialism as the least likely among those conditions to be the actual cause of the measured difference. I would place the fact that the Stasi employed a full third of the population to tattle on the other two thirds near the top of the list. Why not lie to someone who is 33% likely to report you to the authorities if you tell the truth?

If they really want to draw a solid conclusion, they need to compare with other populations as well.

So in other words, they very much care who I am.

Getting targeted ads is creepy. It's like having my own 24/7 personal stalker. I notice the advertisers often aren't that anxious to share their own details with me. Too often, they can't even manage to be honest about the products they're advertising.

I would rather get ads for irrelevant products and services. Or just ads that are relevant in a generic sort of way based on a few demographic observations.

That's not true.

This is how congress used to work.

2000's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370 to 20 (192D, 177R, 1 I voted yes)
10 republicans and 10 democrats voted no.

1990's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
370-37
Mixture of both parties for.

1980's
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
313-70 (47 abs)
Mixture of both parties for, against, and abstaining.

https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
269-62 (83 not voting- members of both parties)
173D, 96R voting for. Some D and R both voting against.

This is how it has worked since Cantor and the republican party decided to vote no to everything.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
214-218- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D voting against.

Defense appropriations..
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
235 to 193- not a single yes vote by republicans.
All R and a small number of D (17) voting against.

---

As I quote above- the republicans we already quoted as intending to vote no to everything. To be against everything the president was for.

The republicans are not negotiating.

In the budget fight, the republicans asked for 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. The democrats offered 87% spending cuts, 17% tax increases. The republicans then counter proposed 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases, rejecting their OWN budget proposals for christ's sake.

It's insane. It is not the way the country was run from 1978 to 2008.

If you sincerely believe this- then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.

So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.

Then you listed the congressional site and I responded with additional support showing bi partisan voting prior to 2008. It's your choice to process them or ignore them.

Cheers.

With a Pringles can.

That makes no sense. Minimum wage labor is only a portion of the actual cost of anything. That is the only part that went up due to minimum wage increases. Any other rise in price would have happened anyway. So unless businesses illegally collude to raise prices in a big FU to the state, it won't absorb all of the increase in income.

And those corporations are also welfare recipients. As for sources, take your pick. Forbes is probably good.

I never admitted such a thing. I dared them to sue [insert name they called for].

That's just it. Slippery slope is often NOT a fallacy. Anywhere where precedent is followed, such as law, permits a logical argument behind the slippery slope. Anything involving human psychology (boiling the frog) likewise.

So now it just needs to describe particular things to be to be seized. Everything is too broad.

You also need to describe what you are searching for. It needn't be an EXACT description, but should be as narrowly constrained as possible. For example, you might search for 'the object that bludgeoned john doe", a bloody baseball bat, a handgun, etc.

Aye. I use the product. What I'm saying is that on some sites, I've started getting messages... "You are using adblock. Please disable it to see the content".

That would be fine, but what they actually asked for was the email account. Item to search for: Every email ever sent or received.