That sounds like it will depress the hell out of me.

I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think you can blame prohibition for this. Prohibition is not an excuse for enabling the rape of your child. Full blame rests with the woman, regardless of whether drugs should or should not be legal. It's just so terrible to think about the betrayal that child must feel.

I agree with this notion that we don't know enough. There is very much a lack of information to establish motive, and in that absence, the media rushes to report and connect dots. Then the more it gets reported, the more it's cemented in the public's mind. They keep bringing up his past mental state or torn up sick notes, and this draws an implicit link for motive where one may not exist. We don't know why he crashed the plane. Everything is just speculation driven by the 24/7 news cycle.

Didn't they take Silk Road owner's bitcoins? Seems if they are determined to take your stuff, they will.

This is one of the most horrifying things I've ever read: a mother offering the rape of her daughter for drugs.


More: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/03/23/ohio-attorney-general-county-prosecutor-announce-joint-prosecution/25214981/

The amount of engineering this would require relative to its utility keeps this from being a worthwhile endeavor. (In my opinion.)

The timing is interesting. No one can independently verify the army's claims atm, and there is an election just a few days away. I hope the claims are accurate and not politically motivated.

Compares his adversities to Lincoln's.    Lincoln's adversities weren't caused by fleecing constituents and stealing campaign funds.


Here's too new chapters! (Hopefully his next one involves prison stripes.)

How are demographics relevant at all? A brawl is a brawl. If it was gang members bickering at each other, they wouldn't have locked down the school either. It wasn't locked down because of the demographics of who was fighting. It was locked down because it was brawl.

Cruz is your standard liberty except for people I disagree with republican. If it's not liberty for all, it will never be good enough for me to vote for. Fiscal matters are only half the equation.

I think you're underestimating how much parachute you'd need to slow down a jetliner traveling at 600 mph. And a parachute to slow down an entire plane, assuming this was physically and mechanically feasible, would ostensibly be deployed from the cockpit, which makes this a solution that wouldn't have worked in this case, since the co-pilot locked out everyone who didn't want to crash the plane.

Actually, you're right. I guess it's perfectly avoidable if you don't sign up is a more accurate way of putting it.

Mate, I was responding point by point which I have now deleted in the hopes of finding a less hostile way to converse with you. First, I am not liberal or conservative. I have liberal values, and I have conservative values. I cannot be placed into an either/or box, no matter how convenient that is for dismissing me. Your assumptions on my age and disposition ("a young, liberal punk") are quite off though, and really seems to have colored how you respond to me, as if you can't stand to have someone you perceive to be younger/dumber than you not respect your life experience. (That's my conjecture, btw.) Taking that baggage into a conversation isn't productive. Opinions are a two-way street, but I've noticed that the more I fight with you to express mine, the more entrenched I get into them. That's also not productive for dialogue. I think more than anything else, it has to do with the brash and dismissive nature in which we both communicate with each other. I would guess based on your responses, you are the same way; that the more you express an opinion that is challenged, the more entrenched you get in forcing the other side to validate them. That's more conjecture, I suppose ultimately it's not important why these conversations aren't productive, only that they aren't.

As for this government propaganda agent, it's just ridiculous. That's fine if you're good with putting your identity on the internet. (I don't know who you are, I have no way of verifying if you actually have. Ultimately, I don't care and it's not important to me.) But I'm not inclined to do so. The thing I find revolutionary about bitcoin is the decentralized anonymity of it. I value privacy (the stripping of it, incidentally, is one of my biggest complaints against the government). I further don't see how putting your name down on the forum will have any consequence whatsoever. So what if you put your name down and are proven wrong? Is anyone going to care? Is that going to mark some shift in your life in some way because you put your name behind an idea that didn't come to fruition? It seems very odd to me that someone would ask for that. I'm not inclined to give up my anonymity, and the stated reason for me to do so is not compelling.

In any event, I don't think our interactions are productive, and I don't think that will change. I'll take an equal share of the blame on that. Hell, assign me more if you want. I honestly don't think either of us is open to considering the other person's perspective, as each of us immediately dismisses the other side, often with insults. I'll bow out for that reason.

I am on the record as saying I don't believe a global war/pandemic is likely in 2017-2019. If it comes true, come back and gloat. I'll still be here under this screen name.

From what I understand about this, which isn't much atm, there is significance in the fact that it's another Sunni-Shiite conflict, which is why Iran is protesting the attack. Is that fair? I don't understand the tensions between the two groups, other than there is a long history of abuses by each side against the other that is still prevalent in situations like this.

No, I'm asserting you conflate an opinion piece published by a reputable news organization with disreputable sources and believe them all regardless of credibility. Were you confused as to which part of your post was a conspiracy theory?


That's funny, the credible news source didn't say anything about a military coup in the US or a cyclical model predicting a global pandemic or a new world order. That was all your conspiracy theory. But I guess because you prefaced a ridiculous conjecture on an actual news report, the conclusions are completely justified!

Facebook doesn't have access to any information you don't give it. It's perfectly avoidable. I think all social media companies, that are free to use, are going to deal in information as an asset. They're businesses, and if you're not paying them, they have to sell something to someone else to operate. That happens to be your information to advertisers in most cases. Any alternative to the free model will require people to pay for the service in exchange for not selling or tracking your data while you use it. I think people will prefer the free model, which is why there is no pay-to-use alternative that will approach Facebook's ubiquity. People just need to know that it still comes at a cost.

You think one analyst can change the way the entire NSA operates? Snowden is a national hero for blowing the whistle. It's the only thing that could have changed anything. Without him, the NSA would still be operating in total secrecy, and who knows what else they'd be getting away with. It's only the public disclosure that has forced them into any kind of oversight at all.

Did you even understand the point of the article? It's not about what Facebook does with your information. It's implicit that when you put your stuff on Facebook, you consent to Facebook having access to that information. That's the trade off, that's in the TOS, that part is obvious. The point of the article is that EU safe harbor laws do not protect EU citizens from the prying eyes of the US spying agencies. You may not consent to sharing your information with the NSA, but EU laws can not protect you because the NSA is not bound by them. The point of the article is that the only way you can protect your information from the NSA is not to put it on Facebook.

I'm confused by your "updated" post. Are you satirizing, speculating, or something else?

Hold on, lemme just post my personal information for some whackadoo on the internet. 

Come at me with all your intellect bro. You're making an epic case for how superior it is with your deep reverence of conspiracy theories and your confusion of the word "shill" (noun: an enthusiastic hawker of ideas) with the word "shrill" (adjective: high pitched and piercing). URSOSMRT! Or best yet, your conclusion that anyone who doesn't agree with you or post their personally identifiable information on the internet must obviously be a government agent.  If that's the level of intellect I could expect to encounter in a debate with you, I'll gladly pass up the opportunity to waste my time.