I understand that you're being facetious, but unfortunately, that doesn't even seem to hold a phantom truth. I seem to hear as much about jobs that pay a livable wage being cut as I hear about job creation. That's the pony show they trot out every time they are attacked, but it's really starting to be a facade. Especially considering that real wages have dropped over the last couple of decades.
It amazes me that protesters can be watched like terrorist suspects and "cases built against them". Yet these nazis don't do a damn thing about the corporate execs who have caused way more trouble for thousands of people all over the country.
The license plate reader image from the article shows a category for "other" along with "tax scofflaw". "Other" says nothing but fishing expedition to me. Unbelievable.
Since when has the NSA given a whit about boundaries? Or laws? As a matter of fact, now that the data is "foreign", it seems to fall more into their jurisdiction. At least that's the way I imagine those felons view the issue. Legally or not, the NSA will get the data if they want it.
A lot of _regular_people_ believe that the govt should do whatever it takes to get the bad guys. Every little crime is the end of the civilized world and every stranger is out to take what's theirs. They want protection from any possible threat. This works to the govt's advantage as it sucks up more power every day.
"CSE finds some 350 “interesting” downloads each month, the presentation notes, a number that amounts to less than 0.0001 per cent of the total collected data."
Given that result, it seems that CSE (and all other TLAs) demonstrate first-hand the overbroad and unjustified power they've given themselves.
That word stopped having any kind of positive connotation to me after the Sept. 11th attacks.
... But later this year, several cases have the potential to force a Supreme Court ruling on the NSA, whether they like it or not.
Whether the SCOTUS "likes it or not"? Does one really think that the majority of the court would be uncomfortable or somehow put out with substantiating the gov't's abuses of power? The only party likely to be uncomfortable with these court cases is the small percentage of regular folks who pay attention to and care about these issues when they see the SCOTUS rule in favor of spying and "parallel construction" and every other dirty trick the agents of the State use against non-agents of the State.
The article does not say that the farmer or farming itself causes weaker bones. The article implicates the societal impact of farming, i.e. food being more available and thus no need for the vigorous activity associated with hunting and capturing food, led to more people being more sedentary than before and thus loosing bone density in subsequent generations.
Why do you think that cops were more accountable 30 or 40 years ago? Do you think the mindset that cops are above the law only recently developed in police forces?
To which conservatives would probably reply, '11 trillion according to scientists? What do they know? The market will fix this in no time and come in at half that amount' or some such bullshit.
A "kingdom", you say? Then you should be taxed royally!
So do you mean people who live in a river valley, for example, will all vote the same way?
A "court-based justice system" is useless if the real crimes aren't publicized and investigated.
Just imagine the pure exhilaration of the petty revenge that a guy who is sitting in the top management of a powerful government agency, thus having a great deal of power or access to power and other relevant benefits of his position, gets out of pointing out the abuse in that same agency. Truly, he seems to have acted out of self-interest and only to his benefit.
Yah, but, politicians especially aren't allowed to change their opinions on topics.