tsotha

61 ms·

631.
by tsotha 11y ago
>Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Okay, and who makes the laws?
632.
by tsotha 11y ago
We have fourteen separate agencies that do overlapping intelligence gathering of one sort or another. We don't need the NSA.
633.
by tsotha 11y ago
Congress isn't above lying about this. Pelosi was dumb enough to contradict herself on that score (I could have stopped that sentence after three words). They knew. They just didn't want anyone to know they knew when the cat
634.
by tsotha 11y ago
Because there was public support for it when it was enacted.
635.
by tsotha 11y ago
How the agency views itself is irrelevant. Congress knows what they're doing and has always known. What you're seeing right now is the system working.
636.
by tsotha 11y ago
That's not the case as I understand it. Portions of USA Patriot have sunset provisions - all Congress has to do to make them go away is nothing. They're not acting to stop anything.
637.
by tsotha 11y ago
What they have to do is prepare to do their jobs in the absence of the kind of programs that will no longer be authorized. Most likely what that means is they're going to do things like hire a bunch of lawyers to handle an increase in
638.
by tsotha 11y ago
I'm not sure where you're getting this. The NSA is not a military organization. And all organs of the executive branch are bound by law and the Constitution. They may get away with illegal behavior for a time, but that doesn&#x2
639.
by tsotha 11y ago
As a relative pointed out, you can put "artisanal" in front of anything and charge more for it.
640.
by tsotha 11y ago
If the option is do nothing or do things I don't like, I'll take the former.
641.
by tsotha 11y ago
But this isn't a binary choice between the USA Freedom Act and the Patriot Act. From what I can see the best thing to do would be to let the Patriot Act expire and replace it with nothing . The government is very short on evidence t
642.
by tsotha 11y ago
I don't see that anyone is being exploited here. Pre-2008 in my area rents were far below the equivalent house payment because there were more people who wanted to own property and rent it out than there were people who wanted to rent
643.
by tsotha 11y ago
If your argument is the government should be far less involved in housing and stop monkeying with the currency so much, then I'm with you. But unless you're an absolute dictator you have to live in the environment in which you fin
644.
by tsotha 11y ago
>Retired in his 30s to have a family. Must be nice especially if you have a family slaving away in your rental houses for you so you can capture all their labour. I will never understand this kind of thinking. A rental agreement is bene
645.
by tsotha 11y ago
Would you enter a contract with a small business when you knew the sole proprietor was actively looking for a buyer?
646.
by tsotha 11y ago
Bitcoin production gets more difficult as time goes on, and there's a hard limit to the eventual number of bitcoins. Honestly, I don't follow your logic at all. Clearly governments can't be trusted with money. They prove it
647.
by tsotha 11y ago
Nope. The last thing you want is a government monkeying around with your currency. If I could stop the USG from inflating away my savings I would.
648.
by tsotha 11y ago
Must be easy to win debates when you provide both sides. Some of your points aren't deficiencies, and some of them afflict real world currencies as well.
649.
by tsotha 11y ago
That's a feature, not a bug.
650.
by tsotha 11y ago
I agree with everything you've written here. It's not unreasonable to look at large groups of people with something in common and draw statistical conclusions about them. What's unreasonable is to look and a single person
651.
by tsotha 11y ago
So would I. Basically all you're doing in 99% of these things is signing away any rights to have a say in what happens to your data.
652.
by tsotha 11y ago
The ability of the company to modify the agreement without your approval or knowledge is written into the agreement. It basically does nothing at all from a legal perspective.
653.
by tsotha 11y ago
Heh heh. Would anyone fly if it wasn't?
654.
by tsotha 11y ago
This seems like nonsense from start to finish. The idea that somehow tracked vehicles are worse than wheeled vehicles is sort of silly. The army's newest brigades are comprised of Strykers, after all, which are wheeled. Police depar
655.
by tsotha 11y ago
You're most likely correct in that they would rule it illegal, though I don't think we should underestimate the court's ability to produce convoluted decisions to support the status quo . See Gonzales v Raich .
656.
by tsotha 11y ago
That's a good point. The criminals will always find a way around it. They'll do business in stacks of euros or dollars. You can get rid of the official currency, but there will always be people using some kind of currency. Cu
657.
by tsotha 11y ago
Why wouldn't you just transfer your money offshore? Are capital controls part of the policy as well? If it were me I'd start hoarding euros.
658.
by tsotha 11y ago
There are just a handful of public transportation systems that aren't subsidized with tax money. The Tokyo subway system is a good example, but even there it's probably only profitable because the subway lines own prime real esta
659.
by tsotha 11y ago
No. All that would do is make a diploma worthless. Employers would find some other way of determining where you went to school and how well you performed there.
660.
by tsotha 11y ago
Nah, I meant the second person plural. We should have stayed with thou/ye instead of you/you. It was more clear.

More ›