You jest, but are entirely right. Quoting the article quoting the Federal Review Board for something:
This applies to, for example, media that contain indecent, extremely violent, crime-inducing, anti-Semitic or racist material, also to media content that glorifies National Socialism, drugs, alcohol abuse, self-inflicted injury or suicide, to media content propagating vigilante justice and to media content that discriminates against specific groups of people.
There is no way that doesn't include Wagner.
'Who(m)ever designed this system' is a subject clause of the sentence. Within this clause, 'Who(m)ever' is the subject of design. You use whomever for subjects.
To paraphrase George Carlin, it's nonsense that something is illegal to sell that you can legally give away for free.
Like a kidney? Or a child?
These laws apply to everyone. Making 'extraterritorial surveillance' a violation of human rights would mean that no one is allowed to do it. Not the US, not the UK, not China, not fucking Burundi. American technology industries wouldn't be hurt by this, they can only be helped if the law assures their clients that their data is safe.
Anyway, the point is moot. Of the five permanent members of the security council, at least four would veto any such curbs on their surveillance programs.
OK, I now realise this applies only to the Senate confirmation process. I apologise for not having read. I will agree that filibustering the vote to fill a cabinet position is more commonly an unsportsmanlike tactic than it is a fight for the minority's rights. Nevertheless I will maintain that there are legitimate reasons for a minority to want to reject a candidate to an appointed office, and while removing the filibuster may be justified, another avenue for minority dissent should be opened. To be clear, I believe that as a tool to stand for the rights for the few against the wishes of the many, the filibuster is very poor.
No, not money. You are confusing rights with privileges. An aristocratic class enjoys rights granted to them by the law that the majority do not posses. The wealthy enjoy money, and while money might give the rich a lifestyle parallel to that which was enjoyed by the old aristocracy, being born rich gives you (in principle, we are arguing about principles) no more rights than the poor also have. Some people have called this 'equality before the law'.
You may say that the rich have many things that the poor do not. Well obviously they do. But this is qualitatively different from being born with the right to sit in the upper house of parliament because you are the son of a lord.
Economic inequality is a bad thing. The lack of social equality is a very, very bad thing.
Strawman argument. Hypocrites are hypocritical, duh. And you will see by reading your image that a filibuster does not only benefit the republicans, who are a minority in the senate now, but also have in the past benefited the democrats when they haven't had a majority.
A filibuster is a tool against the tyranny of the many. It is one of the very few institutions currently in place that allow an opinion to be counted not only by the number of people who support it but also by the force with which they hold this opinion. If a majority has a slight preference for something, but there is a minority that strongly opposes it, what should happen? Certainly a straight yes or no vote would not accurately represent the will of the voters, so when called on to vote, what should the losers do? Should they simply accept their fate? This is now what the law requires them to do, but it is certainly not just.