There is no "my conspiracy" you liar! What I pointed you to ages ago was a group of architects and engineers who state, with scientific certainty, that what the 911 commission put out can not be true. They provide scientific models, experiments, mathematics and physics to back that position on nearly every event dealing with the 9/11 attacks. The thousands of architects and engineers, nor myself, claim to know what really happened, therefor your claim of conspiracy is a pure fabrication. The request from the scientific community is that the case be reopened to find "who done it".
You refused to review any of the scientific data, and lied repeatedly during the discussion with such gems as "we have no other plane crash data to compare the 9/11 attacks to" then refused to look at exactly that data because you claimed "it dishonors the dead to investigate".
Not only do you refuse to read and study facts, you change the definition of "conspiracy" to maintain your delusion. Now go fuck yourself and stop trolling my posts!
If not all members, and in fact very few members, have knowledge then don't pretend that Congress has oversight and authority as you falsely claimed.
I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to the first Gulf War - the one in 1991? What do you think was lied about there?
The pretenses for the first Gulf war were completely open and honest. I get that it's not as blatant as the 2nd Gulf war lies, but they are there in abundance before Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and Saudi Arabia history of diplomacy between 1980 and 1989 is very telling. No, Saddam had no right to invade Kuwait by law. He did not see much choice however as can be found in the US negotiations between Saddam and Glaspie.
Don't throw around false accusations about me distorting his speech, when you decide to quote only a portion of what was stated. President Kennedy had several very clear messages, which you decided (oh surprise) to omit in your incorrect copy. Actions like this are why even if not true, you are seen as nothing more than a shill.
Somebody directly stated that Boeing lost due to NSA despite the fact it was unattributed, and no evidence was offered.
Google is not broken shill, so your return accusation is laughable. Both US and Brazil authorities have offered spying as at a minimum a "contributing factor". The actual weight is fair to question, but to claim it has no bearing is a lie plain and simple. To deny that other companies, like CISCO have lost money due to the same cause is more lies. I provided 5 links that claim losses due to spying. Your "nuh uh" answer does not suffice to discount the facts provided.
The response to the rest of your post is "You are a Shill", followed by "more Shilling", and finally a "Fuck off Shill". Go pound some sand, and have fun doing it.
Because all members of Congress have complete knowledge of what the NSA is doing? The NSA chief is held accountable for lying to Congress? Neither of those two things are true, so you are untruthful at best.
In theory, and by our original Constitutional law, you would be correct. Our Government is not acting within their Constitutional boundaries, and has not been for quite some time. Clapper is not the only one that should be in jail as a perjurer, you have to go back quite a ways to the first Gulf war at least.
This is why what JFK said was so very important. "The very idea of secrecy in a free and democratic society is repugnant." Secrets beget more secrets, and things begin to escalate in order to protect the secrets, and the secrets that protected the secret.
And don't try and blur the lines between giving away military hardware and the acts of espionage, as you have done in the past.
Question for you - If Boeing lost because of NSA, why did the French company Dassault lose? They were bidding on the same contract in competition with Saab. Saab won. Dassault had nothing to do with NSA.
I see this question as an absurdity, but you seem to somehow believe it's valid (or since we know who the author is, we can explain the whole of your post). We realize that France has been compliant with, and complicit with, the NSA spying ring correct (as has the UK, Germany, Italy, etc..). If the NSA was the reason for Brazil to boot the US company, France would surely be held to the same level of scrutiny.
As to an "unattributed comment about Boing", are you implying that there is no source of information that you can find which spells this out very clearly? That Boeing losing the Brazil deal due to NSA spying is only speculation? I think you can search and find proof that those allegations are false, just as easy as the next person. (don't answer the questions, they are rhetorical intended to display you are a liar)
Brazil has bought $1 billion in missiles from Russia, and yet they considered Russia a target for Brazilian spying, just like they spied on the US. And certainly you don't think that Brazil is free from Russian spies. So there is a mystery. Why would they buy from Russia if Russia is spying, but not the US?
Straw man, Red Herring, Straw man, reductio ad absurdum. Nothing to see in that whole paragraph, move alone.
You don't suppose it could be simply do to the quality of goods, the business terms, and the price, do you? Nah, that wouldn't indict the US!
Denying what Brazil stated as the reason is asinine. That is beyond delusional, it is a bold faced lie.
I can see through your fallacies pretty easily, take your shilling elsewhere.
Almost, but a bit more involved.
In the US it depends on what type of clearance you get. Higher level clearances are tied to an employer, and will be suspended if you leave. A new employer can reactivate the clearance within 5 years, and of course a new more brief checking. Lower level clearances can be personal, and not tied to an employer. Those also expire in 5 years if not renewed (spend $$)
That said, the clearance by itself does not give you access to anything. Each assignment will have it's own rules, and you must be sworn in to each assignment. These assignments require X classification, but each is unique. I worked with agents at the DOD that left the room during certain times because they were not sworn on to the program. Even with a higher clearance, if they saw data on said project they would have to go through the normal debriefing process and it was reported as an incident. Incidents with DSS are not necessarily bad, and were somewhat expected during audits.
As the AC says below, this is not the only victim but the first major one to be published in detail with the exact verbiage because of the NSA. This should also make you question all of these reports claiming "economic recovery" in the US. It was reported back in June when the leaks first came out that CISCO lost numerous contracts due to the NSA. [snark]But of course we are all just crazy conspiracy theorists, so the facts below are nothing more than racist attacks against Obama [/snark]
- It has obsolete information. 0.08% BAC is the presumed "drunk" level in all 50 states, and has been for almost a decade.
That is a silly statement, because if that were true every drunk driver in CA would have an easy out if they had a California Drivers license.
The same limitations and verbiage were used in the link I provided previously as there are on the CA DMV Driving test.
No, my point was that a chemical test is NOT required for a DUI conviction. It is only required for a violation of the 0.08 law, but that is a separate offence.
The exception could be stated that a person refusing a test can be used as a confession. The chemical test is still the tool used in this case, in a very literal sense.
Go back to my original point, which stated that a Police officer simply claiming "they smelled like alcohol" is good enough for conviction is wrong. That statement is still correct.
I think you are combining two things. First is whether or not a police officer can "run your plate". "running a plate" was supposed to, and until very recently did require, probable cause. The "why" on this is because running said plate returns much more data than just "is the car stolen". IANAL and won't claim to know each State's position on this. That said, I have heard from Police in my area that even if they get a hit for expired tags you can not be pulled over without some other violation. Yeah, the cop will follow you and and get you for speeding, illegal lane change, etc.. but the "hit" is not enough alone. Could be the 3 cops I was talking to were wrong, or stating how "they do things" which may not be in line with the Law. In other words, check with a Lawyer and don't believe the conversation I had with some local Police officers.
The part where we should expect privacy is in ourselves and our persons. This does not change whether we are in a car, at home, or on the street. A police officer can request your ID, but you do not have to provide them anything unless you have committed a crime. This expectation should result in you calling law enforcement if you are being followed. If you are being followed by a law official (which has happened to me), I would pull over in a highly visible area. If the officer pulls over with you, request information on why you are being followed (helps to have video/audio recordings and inform the officer you are streaming).
In my case, the officer was cordial and courteous. They let me know why I was being followed. I returned the courtesy and waited for the officer to resolve the issue and was on my way feeling much better. (I would guess the Cop felt better also).
Many agencies don't bother with this since there are dozens (at least) of private companies that drive around with scanners. I have not taken any time to follow up on suits and laws that were being proposed to protect people, so can't say for sure where these people can no longer operate. This was easy to resolve in Michigan with no front plate requirement, I simply started backing in everywhere. In CA where front plates are required, the only protection is a cover when parked.
So the Police in Boston stopped, did the private companies stop? I don't know myself, but this is the next logical question to ask.
Before you attempt to berate your intellectual betters, you should at least attempt a basic Google search. There are hundreds of stories about Utopia. Your assertion that there is only one story demonstrates your ignorance very well. It's also interesting that you separate the Republic comment out of your own complaints, perhaps due to extreme ignorance on that subject as well.
I find it extremely boring squashing your incessant, yet pathetic, attempts at trolling my posts. Perhaps you should ask your mom for things to do in the basement so that you find something of value to pursue.
A useful site; that was where I copied the "not relevant" cites from. In fact, I delved quite deeply there, but did not see any references to "limits of impaired vs. drunk driving." Perhaps you could provide a link?
The California DMV guide for the drivers test is an easy source. It provides the definitions for 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 as impaired vs. drunken driving.
The reason I point out the pedantic issues is that you don't come out and claim "In CA it's called DUI not drunk driving like most other States", or "in CA it's called under the influence and not impaired like most other States". Perhaps that was your point, however you never communicated thatpoint. If you had communicated those thoughts I would have agreed. Numerous States have different names for the same crime.