People have suspected the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center of being turned into political entity ever since James Hanson started using it as credentials for his global warming activism. Its no wonder why congress continues to limit funding for NASA.
Wow, when the truth and facts are a troll due to someone's preconcieved political notions that have no basis in reality, we are in seriously bad shape. The fact is, shit happens and the difference between a D or an R beside a president's name has little to do with them having to deal with it and often war is an inevitable ends to dealing with it. Although war is also seldom used in comparison to the amount of shit that happens.
If I call myself a christian but do not go to church, violate every single commandment and do not acknowledge Jesus was ever alive, am I really a christian?
Was Hilter's socialist Germany really representative of socialism or communism? Was Stalin's socialism actually socialism.
I think we are adults here and being so, we can actually be realistic in our interpretations of real world events. Fraud and stolen goods are actually against the law are they not? So you do not really think people violating the law is actually part of capitalism do you? Or do you think it is more like people trying to exploit capitalism or the people involved in it?
Yes and the FBI has always performed numerous illegal tactics, false testimony, false statements, in order to make sure bullshit cases that have really no evidence to the offending charges, can go to trial or entrap someone to make a plea deal.
So what was done here beside piling charges on and then removing them once they were challenged?
"making threats to an FBI agent and his family." what could have said did he actually threaten to kill him and his family? Or did he threaten to write up a story on him and his family to drag him thru the mud? SO its okay for the feds to do it, but not okay for someone to fight fire with fire?
It is illegal any time you threaten or retaliate unlawfully on any public employee or elected official over something they did in the course of their employment. If he just did it, it wouldn't be illegal but when he threatens because of performing a responsibility of the job, it became illegal. That's the law as it is written. It can be challenged in court but as of now, your elected representatives intended to have it law and a duly elected president signed it into law so it is the law that has to be followed until it is repealed or overturned.
He is a journalist, and was suppose to have protections, hiding the laptops protects any information either about people involved, or incriminating evidence that he knows will be used against him. Freedom of Press allows that. [it used to anyway]
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. I'm prejudging my interpretations on actually real world examples and not theory spouted as a defense or ideal.
Whether you like the guy or not, it is these types of cases that have allowed the government to take away more and more freedoms from not only the press [the mainstream press peddle government BS anyway and really are worthless] but from the people.
The only way these kind of cases can allow the government to take more and more freedoms away from the people is for it to either not come to conclusion or to have the hyperbole associated with it overwhelm the facts making it more then what it is. In the later scenario, everything will be considered fine up until the exaggerations happen which doesn't seem to have happened in this case.
Anyways, if it is as you say, then either the government can already do as it pleases or the courts will stop them and the only way for that to happen is for the courts to stop them or allow it to happen. Courts are not supposed to be subject to public opinion, only juries.
Is there any law or process to make prison rape legal?
I mean seriously, that is what we are talking about here, legal due process. Are you saying he was prison raped or something?
That is assuming that would be a goal. But if a country wanted to send spy planes to an area to spy on it without causing an uproar, this would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
However, assuming the plane itself was the intended goal, it wouldn't be that hard to get it into the air and to a destination. Few civil radar installations can actually tell the difference between the types of planes so simply filing an flight plan under a large private jet, tuning the transponders to represent that private plane, and then entering some air space following the plan would be pretty easy. A radar worker will all the sudden see the plane, look at it's transponder signal, find that there is a flight plan, ignore it.
As for the people on board, simply tell them bad weather or a volcanic eruption caused them to divert to another location, land and kill them all after they exit the craft. If it is a remote island, even if they run, there is little to worry about the likelihood of a Hollywood hero being in the mix that can Die Hard their way to foiling the plot is minimal.
James A Polk, a democrat got us into the Mexican American war
Woodrow Wilson, another democrat got us into World War 1.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, yet another democrat got us into World War 2
While Eisenhower was president when the US sent military advisers into French Indochina, it was Kennedy that tripled out presence in 1961 and again in tripling it in 1962 and started our actual intervention into the battles with US troops instead of collaborating with the south on strategy and training it's military.
Your comment should read only modern democrat presidents issue warnings. You might also say they fail to back them up when someone crosses their red lines and all but that is probably going overboard.
I think you missed his point in your rush to judge him. He says it's got to be one of them because the Military industrial complex is running out of money.
Or in other words, it can be anyone in his mind, because one of those two will get the blame in order to generate revenue for a couple companies.
No, i am not lost.
I would think writing it as it is spoken would be the most unambiguous format possible. To insist otherwise is a lot like demanding 3 be pronounced as two or cat instead of as three.
Exactly which is why the GP's point is just as valid as any in base 10 or base 2. Its an arbitrary point of reference.
Despite that being a hoax, biblical pi is about the same as pi itself once you realize the wall of the bowl had thickness to it
Only if you ignore all the computers and calculators from befor electronics. Yes, i mean the people that used to fill calculation rooms and compute complexed math problems for sales drones, business processes, and loan officers.
Its not like the term computer was born in the 70s.
Not really. It would be common to say on march 3rd 1980 something happened. Its more condensed then saying on the 3rd of march, 1980 something happened.
Liar, you don't have a girlfriend and even if you did, i specifically heard you say "if i cannot fry it, i aint eating it" just the other day.