Attending the session was Madiha R Tahir, a journalist studying a language course at the university. She asked the squirming recruiters a few uncomfortable questions about the activities of NSA: which countries the agency considers to be 'adversaries', and if being a good liar is a qualification for getting a job at the NSA.
Following her, others students started to put NSA employees under fire too. A recording of the session is available on Tahir's blog.
If you're going to play semantics, "Mass Destruction" is not equivalent to "Mass Murder". Hell, you don't even need 1 dead person for destruction to happen.
Something tells me the US Military is well aware of what they drop on people and what they were accusing Saddam Hussein of possessing. It wasn't merely that he was alleged to have them, but that he was alleged to have them in contravention of some treaty, wasn't it? The issue wasn't about the items, but about the treaty or punishment or whatever not being followed.
Hopefully never. I see the reality in what you're saying, I just don't want to internalize it.
To ignore them is to passively accept what they're doing. To accept a position of trust, then defy it is treason. It's a Catch-22.
Absolutely wrong.
Treason is working against your nation. He worked for this nation. The enemies of this nation are the traitors he outed.
To "his daughters mysterious disease"?
"daughters" is plural meaning more than one daughter
It's "to his daughter's mysterious disease".
The daughter has the disease. It's the daughter's disease.
Come on. This is fourth grade English. If you're old enough to use a computer, this should be second nature by now.
Don't let the lizard people here you say that.
Or the NSA...I mean New World Order people.
I know plenty of Christians who by definition (it's what makes them Christians) believe stuff that is just as wacked. But unlike Scientologists, these people mean well so they deserve a shitload of slack.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A specific Catholic might mean well, but they are still supporters of an organization which actively engages in predatory behavior. Their policies are designed toward the specific goal of increasing human suffering in order to increase the demand for their services. Anti-choice to increase the number of poor and unwanted. Lying about condoms to help spread AIDS so that they can use their victims as poster children. Raping children and then blaming the victims while protecting the rapists because if they didn't cover it up people would think they weren't good. Spreading hatred of gay people because they're not going to produce more victims, and hence aren't really people in their book.
They're the most successful business in the history of the world based on their business model of increasing human suffering and using a small part of their income to ameliorate a small portion of it.
A specific fundie nutjob might mean well...who am I kidding, they have nothing but hate.
Not everyone who is delusional, is a sociopath.
No, but almost all religious organizations *are* sociopathic. One's intentions don't matter at all if their results are consistently the opposite of their intentions and they fail to adjust their actions based upon the outcome for the benefit of a sociopathic organization.
Maybe you're talking about some specific Christians who attend some specific churches, but that has little bearing on the big picture.
Unless their church actively supports birth control, reproductive choice and is openly accepting of people who don't harm others, then they are supporters of sociopathic organizations. Actively working to increase human suffering when your stated purpose is to decrease it is a business tactic to increase demand for your services.
They can spend all day whining about their intentions, but what matters are results.
All the major religions have much more in common with Scientology than you admit.
Individual Scientologists might be decent people in their own right, they're just brainwashed and deluded like the rest of religious people. The organizations are hard to tell apart if you look past the specific details and look to the general case.
It's just a different business model.
In many countries the mainstream churches were or (as in the US) are an import social factor in the battle against poverty and much of their money is going to 'Worthy Causes' that save the community at large from a lot of grief.
Dead. Fucking. Wrong.
The churches you speak of do everything they can to create and promote those very problems so they can solicit donations and use them to ameliorate a small amount of the damage their policies intentionally cause while pocketing the profits.
Their anti-choice, anti birth control, and anti gay policies exist to *increase* poverty. They exist to ensure that there are *more* children born into poverty in a vicious circle leading to more need for their "help" in the "battle against poverty".
Now, think it through. Even if you don't understand and are unwilling to accept that that is the reason that they have such policies, it is absolutely unassailable that their policies have this effect regardless of their reasons.
If they actually give shit one about anything decent, then they would change these policies in order to attain results with a shred of decency.
But they do not. They continue applying shotgun blasts to the face of society and jump up and down claiming great moral superiority when they toss a band aid at their victims.
Yeah, and let's not forget that the *majority* of Christians support an organization that has as an official policy to aid and abet the rape of children and lie about condoms to promote the spread of AIDS.
And that's not even talking about the whack job fundies in America.
So, no, they are not "import" social factors in the battle against poverty. They're the enemy in that battle. As part of their business plan.
That depends...is it a decent beer or some of the piss water that passes for beer in the states?
Wow, Rip Van Winkle, how long is your beard? I mean you must have been asleep since the 80s
I expect to see this opinion in more than a few posts on this thread, yet I'm surprised.
I just can't imagine how spending one's time "tweeting" or maintaining a Facebook page has much to do with what kind of employee I want, unless perhaps those "tweets" particularly socially unacceptable.
Two words: Technological familiarity. Just because a person managed to get a degree and some experience doesn't mean they are good at what they do. Using more "tech" shows greater ability to adapt and learn. To a strong degree, it can also be a stronger indicator of personality traits which may help the job and also show those traits which could hurt the job. After all, someone who tweets and posts pictures about getting hammered at work (or any other imaginable bad practices) probably isn't the applicant you're looking for. It's not mentioned in the summary what kind of engineering position the submitter is looking for, so this is the best I can guess.
Contents packed by weight, not by volume. Some settling may occur during shipping.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
