Enjoy the indefinite detention as you're held as a terrorist for failing to decrypt. A little "parallel construction"/perjury to trump up some charges if you don't play along.
See, non-compliant citizens will be presumed guilty and treated as a security risk. Just to be safe you understand.
Fortunately, the next elections aren't very far and we have a chance to elect somebody, who, for once, gets the modern-day issues and uses mobile devices and e-mail himself — not some dinosaur, who can't even type.
20+ posts already, and no one mentioned Global Warming yet? How could you, guys, miss this opportunity to refresh the fear in the hearts of your followers? If you keep burning fossil fuels, our planet too will become an airless desert devoid of life. Whether it will heat up or cool down is an impolite question, but something will happen, unless you install solar panels on your roof.
Gebyy zl gnvy.
WOW! I am impressed!
So, taking the cop-out, as I predicted... You could've been more graceful surrendering your position, but I'll take it.
stuff I didn't even mention!
Yes, you did mention it — when you posted the truism about taxes being unavoidable, and invited me to expand with "Let's hear it"... Well, now you heard it. Hop along.
I didn't single out corporations
Yes, you did — you are in full agreement with Dutchmaan as evidenced by your own talk of "complete control" and "gorging".
So, answer the question: are you challenging the assertion that corporations are in complete control and gorging themselves at the public trough?
This piece of rustic but still colorful rhetoric is too vague too agree or disagree with. Debating this is pointless — it will come down to trying to nail jellybeans like what constitutes "completeness" of control.
1) Obama would've gotten the vast majority of the black/poor (your cell video) vote without giving away cell phones
Not at all obvious. And, of course, it was not just the cell-phones — many people expected something: "free" healthcare, "free" college education, etcaetera. Those people "gorge themselves", as you put it, at the public trough and/or want to. That Obama got elected — despite being a junior senator (from a State famous for its corruption) without any notable accomplishment to his name — suggests rather strongly, it was that expectation of "spreading the wealth around" he promised, that helped him.
2) The cost of Obamaphones doesn't even qualify as a gnat's eyelash when compared the the largesse handed out to the corporations
Complete and utter bullshit. The single largest and dominating "hand out" given by the US government to KKKorporations (the proper spelling in the rants like yours, BTW) is for the military — planes, tanks, ships et al. It is big, but it is dwarfed by the costs of "War on Poverty", which costed the "public trough" more (inflation-adjusted), than all of the USA's real wars combined. Indeed, the much maligned Military-Industrial Complex, that Illiberals constantly complain about, constitutes "only" 13% of federal spending today less than education (14%) and healthcare (22%) (on which no tax monies should be spent at all). Now, which of these is a "gnat's eyelash"?
With both of your "clues" crumbled, I would not be surprised, if you claimed a sudden "lack of time" for debating me further. But let me answer your other questions, in case you decide to become a better human being by educating yourself quietly...
Why would I?
I don't know, why you would, but you did — by putting "confiscating the monies" into quotes.
Whatever term is your preference, government needs funds to operate.
Federal Income Tax did not exist in the US until 1913 — earlier attempts to introduce it were deemed unconstitutional by the courts. (My point here is not to question its constitutionality, but to show, how it is unnecessary.) Yes, I prefer the term "confiscate", because it is more to the point. "Collect" may apply to donations as well as willing purchases, whereas "confiscate" unmistakably refers to involuntary payments.
Yes, government needs to collect taxes, but their levels in today's Western world are outrageously high and a burden on our growth.
Let's hear it! (anarchy doesn't count)
Anarchy my behind — not forcing people to "help the poor" is not anarchy. What taxes would I approve of? Consider the following hypothetical scenario: a town facing an assault by barbarians... They need to organize fighting units, train, arm and feed them, and build fortifications — so they can confiscate money and food, disassemble wrought-iron fences to make pikes, melt church bells into cannon, conscript non-fighters into construction, and the like. In other words, taxation is justified, when the alternative is destruction and death of those taxed and most others.
But it does not have to be all about defense even — the US funded its participation in WW1 (where none of the belligerents have threatened us any more than Saddam Hussein did 90 years later) with Federal Income tax receipts of less than $100 million (less than 0.3% of the country's then-GDP) — how do you justify today's personal income tax of $1.7 trillion (8% of GDP)? You can't — not without the people (rather than corporations) voting themselves monies confiscated from others — and gorging on it.
I don't why so many in the Linux community are so hooked on ZFS.
Because it is good. In particular, it offers the only sensible way to make good use of the ephemeral storage offered by Amazon's Web Services (AWS) in a general case — the fast (SSD) storage can be used as read-cache for a ZFS stable of mount-points.
Why not just put your energy there?
Why do put any energy into reinventing the wheel? And struggle with triangular "wheels" in the process?
Or are you challenging the assertion that corporations are in complete control and gorging themselves at the public trough?
I fail to see, why you'd single-out the corporations. There is no difference between a citizen voting for a candidate to get free cell-phone and a corporation helping a candidate win in exchange for government's cheap loans and other help.
government employees "confiscating the monies"
Are you going to challenge the assertion, that the IRS' very purpose is to confiscate the taxpayers' monies?
Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society... it's not money "confiscated,"
The two aren't necessarily contradicting. You may wish to call such involuntary payments something else and comfort yourself with the thoughts of "buying civilization", but as long as you are forced to part with the money — on pain of going to prison and/or losing your possessions — the term "confiscation" most certainly applies.
a bunch of fucking idiots who like to term it that way
You fucking asshole, who you calling "idiot"?! Nice having a civilized discussion with you, crotch-stink.
Please, don't hate.
Unless you're a corporate "person" in which case it most certainly IS a magic purse.
Cute. "KKKorporations sit there in their... in their KKKorporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all KKKorporation-y... and they make money."
Nice try switching the conversation to "corporations", but the truth is, most Americans now receive government benefits of some kind. You and your kind may think, this is marvellous, but the situation does not benefit the country — the primary beneficiaries are the vast body of government employees paid for confiscating the monies (the IRS) and handing some of it out...
uber seeks to not follow the laws that in place for taxi services
Why do we need such laws?
taxi industry used every political maneuver in its arsenal to keep Uber and Lyft off the strip
The only way to keep a competitor out of "your" turf is — or ought to be — by providing superior service at lower price. Being able to use "political maneuvers" instead or even addition to that is a sign of bona fide corruption.
It does not matter, whether the politicians involved took bribes or were sincere — the government simply should not have the power to be a player. The war, that Uber, Lyft et al wage against taxis is simply the more visible of the fights, which private businesses wage every day. We can bemoan the undue influence of lobbyists all day long, but the underlying problem is that, given the number of licensing requirements and regulations, the corporations can not afford not to have a lobbyist on payroll. Instead of, or, at best, in addition to, pleasing us, the consumers, all businesses of appreciable size must be pleasing the government as well.
That's not free market capitalism, and it sucks...
When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal