Just because someone has done something before doesn't mean they are some constant boogeyman in the background. Again, everything is not Microsoft conspiracy. Just like Islamic terrorists are not behind every corner trying to blow you up.
Would you trust a recidivist drunk driver with the keys to your liquor cabinet and your Porsche?
I didn't realise I wasn't logged in, oops!
The problem with the pill that causes a direct chemical action is that the body tends to detect this sort of manipulation and develops tolerance to it.
That seems like broad brush, non-verifiable claptrap that one gets from Naturopathy
Yes, tax is an unfortunate reality of ownership of many things. One of the ways governments raise money is to tax the ownership of vehicles and property. If the government didn't tax those things then they would tax something else in stead, like petrol or bibles or babies or baby bibles. Governments do this ostensibly to pay for bombs, bomb delivery devices and uniformed marchers. If you want to have the benefit of being able to bomb who you want and have your marching people march in foreign places then you will probably need to have taxes, bombs don't build themselves you know! Uniformed marchers tend to make more uniformed marchers but they take a while to bake and some-one else has to make the uniform, usually some stinky felon who has be remanded in a lovely quiet private residence/workplace that has free food, bed and washing facilities.
Children, on the other hand, are registered so that Santa can keep track of them on his naughty/nice machine and the registry of marriages are an extension of Santa's policy of tracking children's parents to make sure they don't move to some sinful godless place like Canada, where the gays can get married, or someplace as awful as Europe, 'cause we all know its full of sinners there, Santa doesn't even stop in most of those countries.
Hell Pakistan is a hotbead of terrorism and what do you know, they are in bed with the US.
The government, yes, the people not so much!
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
So really should you trust ANY news from this media empire?
other info on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wilson_(reporter)
"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg