Pendrokar

It might have been that when it was first set up. But in order to survive it has become a fascist country. I don't get it, did the Zionists have a deathwish? I have more respect for those that did not follow these religious zealots who used a prophecy to lure people into what was, pretty much, hell at the time. On topic, then again, this might be the safest time to be drafted as the Arab Spring is still ongoing, making the Islamic world forget about Israel. Except Iran, which it hasn't affected and is not on your border. Unless you get sent to Golan heights, where according to this map is bordering with an Islamic State pocket. As IS falls, those within the pocket might feel that going kamikaze on other Muslims might not be as fruitful as going against the Israeli army. Though your physical situation seems dire that I would not understand IDF willing to take you on board. You wouldn't want to be in a situation like what happened to Edward Snowden, who had to leave the army on crutches.

I just have to say: No one gave an answer to the question in the original post. WasatchMan asked Netflix about "Dear White People movie" And twinklingwinter did not check the date of supposed writer's tweet when he said: "He tweeted this after getting criticism about the trailer." C'mon people, put some effort in what you do.

While we are at it and since 'research' is mentioned and valued. At 3:38 Stefan quotes a non-existant quote. It is made up to quickly abbreviate Gandhi's life:

Ahh but you well into their trap. It is a symbol of France and/or French people, so they can switch their choice around to whatever suits them. However there are still criticism from others regarding the Facebook filter. Like the people of Kenya, who did not have such a filter when there was a massacre of around the same measure there.

True, but which side do you think is more organized to lessen such incidents from happening? But once again I sense bias. What made you arrive at the conclusion that it is more likely that Ukrainian government shot it down rather than the rebels? I know about the whole point of Ukraine govt being western backed, fascist, created crisis... That is not an argument. That is bias.

Obviosly there is a chance. There is also a third government. No not the US. Government = State = An organization which self-justifies having a monopoly on violence => Ukraine, Russia and the rebels(Donesk/Luhansk) Then again I doubt the crew of such high tech weaponry would be receive orders from rebel commanders. Where have you been for the last few years? Sophisticated multiple artillery positions in rebel territory, rebels having military equipment that Ukraine did not have or store in rebel positions, captured Russian soldiers on Ukraine soil, captured Russian tactical ops operatives, photos of a Buk in rebel territory and it leaving eastward seemingly with a missing missile. No troops? Even Russia itself disagrees with that statement as they have said there are Russian soldiers, with the excuse that they are 'volunteers'. I think most of this is common knowledge, but if it all sounds new to you I can reference the sources. You are changing the subject. The subject is who downed MH-17, not what was the intended target. It is far fetched, because that would cause a full-on Russian invasion of Ukraine to not only secure the crash site, but force a regime change in Ukraine. In short, it would be suicide for Ukrainian government to do so.

MrCapitalism did not claim they didn't. But since the rebels don't have an air force, the army had no reason to deploy BUKs so close to the front lines, which I doubt they did. Even if they feared the scenario of Russian planes invading the airspace, they still wouldn't be that close. The chances of the Ukraine army shooting it down are very slim. Conspiracy theory slim. The targeting system of the BUK would have to be reconfigured to have the same result that the report arrived at, that is take a long way around. Interesting that there was a storm during that time. I guess rebels got spooked. Such a mistake is more likely to happen to a more disorganized force, which are the rebels. I sense bias, as the Ukrainian government is western backed.

By the way, notice that the judge did not believe that Silk Road was a free market entity: Yes Ms. Forrest, but unlike what you are part of, there is a choice between Silk Road 1/2/3/4 ad infinitum with each having different rules and even common ones. They were definitely not laws as the only enforcement was being banned from using the website.

Nah, Ulbricht is not the tragic part. The tragic part is that he was jailed for profiting from others making black market deals, while the state sees no problem profiting from those profits. On 6th November the US government will sell the last bitcoins they seized from Silk Road. http://www.coindesk.com/us-government-to-sell-44000-btc-in-final-silk-road-auction/ Isn't it the position of the US that Bitcoins are used for illegal deals and therefore they should be destroyed? They don't want to increase the value of XBT I guess.

Tell me about it. I still remember when she said the following: Not anymore. Thanks Merkel! Source - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559682

Offtopic(vaccines): That's not their intent. I don't see anyone here pointing out the distinction between a vaccine and a cure. A vaccine is not intended to cure a disease after contracting it, rather to prevent the disease from being contracted. You do not cure a disease with a vaccine. So yes. Vaccines do not act as cures for diseases.

Thank you all for your input. As I have never worked at a business in which this issue may arise. The sense is that you lose by strengthening the pockets of your competition with a questionable(lack of a study) gain on your side. Also, are your employers fine with you doing that? NotDarkYet said that a mutual cooperation with the other hotel was established. ChrisK said that the original stance was to discourage this kind of behavior giving his thoughts of why it was detrimental but not if the stance actually changed. The lack of trust in general is a good question, all it takes is to look at reviews. However the "trust in government" is questionable. The source for this criticism comes from Jacque Fresco(wiki) of The Venus Project(TVP). While Jacque has always been a designer and an architect, so has never really worked in retail, these comments cannot be so easily overlooked when there are over 200'000+ followers(facebook page). Here is the quote: Regarding the lamp. I am pretty sure he is taking the stance that it is not a lamp that he made. If it was, he would be admitting purposely making and selling bad lamps. So his point is that if he wanted to make and provide the best lamps, the free market would not allow him to do so because of the argument given.

Critics of the Free Market bring up the point that sounds true, in theory. A staff member of a general store will not refer the client to another store which may have the described or better product in question, as doing so does not make a profit for the store, worst it makes competitor's store stronger. A brand store is a different story. But I have had encounters where time and time again staff members do it. I'm unsure if it is against store's policy. How often have any of you also encountered situations where shop staff refer to third party shops in cases of my preferred product not being available in their store? Sometimes they do say "I'll be nice" before referring to a another store that may have the product I prefer/describe. Implying that it is bad for business to do so. It seems the incentive to do so is that you would still go to adviser's store first in the future. Therefore having a loyal customer, which would lead to future profits, even with the contradiction of the action itself. But such a point is a claim that requires a research study.

Nations with mandatory/compulsory voting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting Perhaps someone here from those nations could enlighten us how it works. Democracy - "Let's decide by voting", whoever has the most votes, has the authority to proceed with their decision as mandated by all voters. This is something that voters miss when saying "I didn't vote for that, I voted for something else". This isn't about mob rule, its about the activity itself. Modern democracies require a specific amount of turnout(votes) for an election/referendum to be valid. So any vote cast supports the winner. We can take Weimar Republic/German Reich example. There were those that did not vote for the National Socialist(Nazi) party, yet voted for someone else. In turn giving support for the Nazi party to rule over them. That is what the voting was about!

Reporting on the situation of Lithuania's northern neighbor Latvia, as I am a citizen of it and living in the capital city. The levels of paranoia in the Latvian population are high. I also believe it is paranoia because Russia would not dare to attack a NATO member. People are still paranoid about it because they do not believe NATO would keep their agreement, while not realizing that most smaller member nations of NATO would leave the alliance if that happened. Why pay them, if they wouldn't do their job? There are no considerations for a military drawn only a plan to increase the amount of soldiers. Probably by increasing wages for soldiers. Russia would fail if they tried the same tactics as in Eastern Ukraine, ~30% population of Latvia are ethnically Russian, while 40% of those Russians are located in the capital city. While the eastern part of Latvia consists of Latgalians, which might want independence, there is no chance they would work with Russia to achieve it. That doesn't mean I am not getting worried about the prospect of a war between NATO and Russia. I feel the tensions will only rise. Historically plenty of countries went to war when they were greatly in debt. In truth, I was interested in Nazi Germany supposed economic miracle until I found out it was done by getting into debt with the only way to get rid of it by conquering other nations and stealing their wealth. I see no reason for USA to become an exception. Worst thoughts are the Baltics being involved in a nuclear war . Russia would lose in a war with NATO. So what would leaders termed as "war criminals" do? Last resort to contain their power, nuclear weapons. Just like Assad in Syria is not giving up, because they will do anything to keep their power and therefore survive.

@prolixYeah I thought about that. That a state/private contract would involve/reference other laws and therefore I agree to a net of laws, perhaps even all of them.Of course I have personally signed the driver's license contract.

@VoIT,By posting an update to the previous topic in a different thread, you bring the possibility of the same discussion being unnecessarily split between threads, don't you agree? My suggestion, post this in that same topic, or add a link to the first post to the update.And regarding your opinion on the matter. It depends on your intentions. Are you posting news from other websites to inform this community or to get thoughts from others on the matter? If it is the latter, it is common for the initiator to share his views.

At least VolT has no opinion on the matter, so he posts practically the same topic once again.Nato plans east European bases to counter Russian threat

I can comment the view of the situation from my homeland of Latvia, which is one of the Baltic states is a member of NATO with a direct border with Russia. Poland, a NATO member, also has a border with Russia, but only through the isolated Kaliningrad Oblast region. When the Russian uprising started and Crimea got annexed in Ukraine, notable amount Latvian citizens feared the same might happen within our Russian population. There were also worries that even if Russia made an invasion into Latvia under the pretext of "protecting Russian citizens" like in country of Georgia, NATO would not declare war on Russia. I still think that is a silly thought, since most smaller members of NATO would leave the military alliance if NATO would not act even in that scenario. I don't much care about the sides fighting in Ukraine. Their actions are appalling. Yet, the NATO General-Secretary recently said something very worrisome and raised my suspicions on the West. The General-Secretary wants to push forward the inclusion of Ukraine as a NATO member state, which it currently is not. Now? Of all times... now? The timing couldn't be worse when there is an active war. I do realize Russia is trying to expand Geopolitical influence against just the same kind of influence of the USA, the latter of which are driven to do so by their insurmountable debts. Just like Nazi Germany did.

I think not, I already stated the reason in my first post: If I were to travel to a different country that doesn't require a visa, then they also don't ask me to follow the law. Foreign refugees also don't get asked that. Recently one of my brothers wanted to bring up some specific law, but before he could finish I stated that I didn't sign to uphold any of the state's laws. They of course got confused, first saying this same "But you were born here", which doesn't imply signature. Then again bringing the notion of "not reading doesn't free from responsibility" and "not everything has to be a contract". Then brought up silly examples of "a burglar won't give you a contract to sign". In the end we at least got to the consent that the state has power and uses force because it feels justified to do so, no matter if anyone agreed. Of course they still think a state is the only thing that can bring about order, but that is a different topic. [edit] Also if anyone would not agree to follow rule of law, I guess the state would have to deport that person. That would be the least amount of force. But since any other state would ask to do the same about their laws, a non-compliant persons would be thrown in international waters, without a lifeboat.

Isn't it the belief of statesmen that law is justice. Therefore just/truth. If it is, allow me to sign it. The state probably views it as unnecessary. I bet there would be an uproar from the populace if all of them were asked to agree to all laws that are already being applied to every individual without their consent.Not long ago there was an article about people being deemed insane in the USSR, we treated them in same manner in some former republics of the USSR, even though in USSR some were deemed so because they were not following the law. Only an insane person would not follow the law, right? And I guess a signature on "Agree to all laws of USSR" from such a person would be deemed invalid.

I think it is interesting that I have never agreed to follow the rules that apply to me from the state, and that the state has never asked me to review its laws and then sign that I agree to them. Of course the common argument is "Not knowing is irresponsible". Did my parents do that, I don't think so... they did vote to be separated from the USSR, last years of which I was born in. So Latvia once again gained independence with laws based on the old state and inclusion of some from LSR(Latvian Socialist Republic). Still does that imply agreement to following the rules of the land? I guess only state employees have signed to uphold the rules, but I am not really sure, as I have never applied for a state employee job.Probably the problem is that I am looking at this from a view of citizenship even though rule of law applies to any human being that is located on state's property. So the state feels justified to apply the law.Seems the notion of "State property" was not a product of Communism and is still in effect.