Sounds to me like you're the dumb ass.
If that was on purpose, you appear to be somewhat uninformed with respect to the charter and organizational structure of the Social Security Administration. You really should read up on it, as over your lifetime you and the people you work for will be pouring a lot of money into it.
No I won't. I'm not paying another dime toward you and your government masters' pet scams. Fuck you and everything you stand for, you God damned thieving coward.
"Yes, but it is more rational to disbelieve in that which, by definition, can never be proven, than to believe in the same. That is, at least, if you believe in rational thought."
You keep using this word "rational." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Not everything that is known, or can be known, can be proven.
Stop worshipping science.
You think voting changes anything? HAHAHA. Voting is what got us where we ARE!
No, but the government taking people's money at gunpoint and giving it to the banks certainly does, cretin.
And yes, technically the charges would come after Assange is next interrogated by the Swedes due to the procedures of their legal system. That is a sequence shared by other EU countries.
If you don't understand that the "charges" against Assange were drummed up by the "authorities" in order to destroy his character, then you are dumber than a fucking rock. Look in the mirror: you are a "useful idiot." Or a paid NSA shill; the jury's still out.
It might work for selective education for the higher aptitude schools, but for comprehensive schools or the lower aptitude schools it's just going to demotivate those battling genetics and losing.
Sounds like you already lost.
Stop being a fucking coward.
Right. That's why they're a hundred million dollar company, and you're nobody.
I'm not a "Valve fanboy." I am a Valve fan, however, because Valve has consistently released amazing titles. HL2 was far better than Doom 3. If you disagree, it's probably because you have poor taste.
I don't know if this is an honest question or not,
And that's your problem.
Why in the world you would think it's a "dishonest" question?
What about the question, or the explanation I gave, led you in any way to think I was being "dishonest"?
but trolling is just that, a fishing term. Your objective is to catch one, proven bait is religion, and politics; those can really pull them in. Then a troll has their way with them, whatever their objective.
Right. And I'm not a troll. So why do people keep calling me one? Just because someone chooses to discuss religion or politics, and has the nerve to make a statement which some people might not agree with, doesn't mean they're a damn troll!
Seems like any time I comment on a discussion and have the nerve to express an opinion that is contrary to the prevailing groupthink, there's always some douchebag who calls me a troll. And here I was thinking that a "troll" is somebody who says things in a carefully crafted manner specifically designed to piss people off. Nowadays it means "anyone who says anything my huge overblown ego doesn't want to hear."
That 4 million dollars wasn't "lost". I'm sure whoever was on the receiving end, probably Washington lawyers, are very pleased with the way things played out.
I'll see your lame excuse and raise you a broken window fallacy.
Driving is a RIGHT, NOT a privilege. It can never be a privilege any more than breathing can be considered a privilege. Stop mindlessly repeating government propaganda.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938,
Shapiro v. Thompson, 398 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322
A citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon... is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty... It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon."" Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274.
It's all about balance. As someone who has been through a country with no rule of law on the road count yourself lucky that you live in the land you do.
Why should I feel lucky to live in a police state? Why and how is a country with corrupted laws better than a country with no laws?
Your and perhaps my temporary inconvenience is a small price to pay for having someone actually enforce the rules that come with the privilege of powering a 1 tonne hunk of dangerous metal down the road.
Driving is NOT a privilege. It's a right.
I actually like living in a world where disobeying the rules is met with heavy penalties[...]
Of course you do. That's because you have a slave mentality.
[...] when the opposite alternative is having to take a moment to pray you will safely arrive at your destination due to drunks, drugos, unsafe cars, people who don't know their limits or the limits of their vehicles and general idiots who think they actually own the road and can do what they want.
Right--because none of those people exist today, thanks to the wonderful "rules" we've made against it.
Don't want to participate? The option is yours not to
Look in the mirror. If YOU don't want to be in danger from dangerous drivers, the option is YOURS not to drive.
Voting doesn't work. Therefore voters are stupid. Or just naive.