Not impressed. Has my address wrong, a bunch of random people as my possible associates although it has most of my family. I think that's the more dangerous thing- if they have a bunch of errors and claim you're associated with people you're not, that would be good enough for e.g. the stupidest man on the internet to claim I'm associated with one of the random people.
One of the people who's a "possible associate" is the former owner of our place, who we haven't seen in 12 years, and who's had collection notices show up at our place as one of his previous addresses.
It does really good for my past addresses. Good enough that it would have saved me trouble when I was completing forms for a background check. However, it says I have no possible associates. Which is cruel and not completely true.
It has me associated with some people I vrbo'ed from, but otherwise nails pretty much every particular. Like MH, the address list is a comprehensive trip down memory lane for me.
It's probably not as depressing for you because you've never lived in Ohio.
It's really the most efficient way I've ever found to learn about the (much more prominent) guy who has the same name and lives in the same neighborhood.
My associates include the dude my ex cheated with. Never met the guy, but apparently he's an associate.
I've removed myself from the system as best I can, but it's only a matter of time before new and less scrupulous services show up.
They're not aware of me at all.
Were you aware of them before the WP did a story?
In my quest for self-awareness through Google, I just learned that some fool in Texas has the .com for my name. He's a photographer.
6.1- I guess the algorithm is based on that exercise in middle school health class where you shake hands to demonstrate the network effect of spreading STDs.
I guess that explains why Orthodox Jewish men won't shake hands with women.
8: Yeah. Some corners of twitter got upset about it earlier this week.
Thankfully I'm not even on the first page for my state/name combination, but they're pretty accurate; all the addresses are right, and six out of eight associates. Of the two incorrect ones, one is unknown to me, the other is a person who, since I was two or three years old, collection agents would assume was me. Glad that bad data is still in the system.
I found my boss's home address and age, neither of which I knew.
All my old addresses. It finds Buck's parents and my kids, but none of my family, who are shielded by super-common-name privilege.
I looked up my dad and it has my mom and all my siblings as "possible relatives" plus my brother-in-law as a "possible associate" (though it gets his age wrong). But not me at all. I should maybe mention this to my sister.
No way is this legal. They have my previous address, which only the government and medical providers had. I am on like the fifth page, but still.
They have three names for me, all of which have significant errors, but if someone wanted to find me -- and find out about me -- this would be a good starting point.
But none of this is new. The only real innovation is that it's free.
I'm not sure about that. This has a more complete listing of my previous addresses than my credit report did the last time I checked.
It's wild to look up a celebrity. This is *such* a bad idea.
After all the HIPPA training about not looking up people for shits and giggles, it feels wrong.
I wonder how many Russian prostitutes show up as associates of Donald Trump?
Looks boringly accurate for me: me, my wife, my sister, my father, my mother, most of my previous addresses, but none of my addresses when I was living with my parents. No other relatives or associates. The curse of having a rare name. I changed it two years ago, to something slightly more common; maybe I should have changed it to something a lot more common.
It has my name and four common or plausible misspellings. It's amusing to see so many of them in the same place, and other errors. In the family and associates section it should have only one version of my last name but it actually has three. It has my sister's and my mother's names spelled differently in two different places, and two different ages for my mother. It has when I moved to a couple places, but not when I left. It doesn't have my sister's married name.
20 is right. That information has been out there for a while. Mostly sites like this charge some money and are thus less publicly visible, and either put private investigators out of business or let the more savvy PIs mark up their services a huge degree.
So opting out of this is a very small step, but if the net effect is to freak out about *all* the data brokers, that might be something.
(But I have been wrong before about the importance of the difference between "doable" and "easy" to harassers, so this could still be a big deal if every deplorable who gets it in their mind to doxx someone suddenly knows about it.)
It's got my wife & kids, ages correct but including a phantom version of my wife w/ the wrong birth date, and my previous addresses but wrongish dates for them.
Have you checked to be sure you aren't a bigamist?
It was mostly correct for me except that it had one previous address, that I think is a previous address of my wife's ex-husband.
Everybody post their income, SAT scores, and their guess as to which celeb ogged looked up in 22.
Correct about everything, right down to BOGF as a Possible Associate. Although an "associated name" is appending AB's last name to my full name, which is not a thing. Also, misses the place BOGF and I lived for 6 months right after college.
Clicking through to BOGF's page*, it seems to be missing a sibling, but she has 7, so that's not bad. Her husband is merely a "possible associate". And it has an incorrect version of the aforementioned apartment.
Also, I found out that she lives on the outskirt's of my sister's small city, which will relieve the mild anxiety I feel about running into her when I visit.
*so healthy, I know.
fwiw, it gets thrown off if you move between countries a few times.
I feel like the combination of the SAT scores and income will suggest that I didn't apply myself.
Or that I stopped applying myself too soon after high school.
Or that standardized testing is a poor foundation for meritocracy.
37 would be important if anyone was trying for a meritocracy, I suppose
I think the people that run the test are.
So, if anybody from ETS is reading this, you should either send me a check well into the six figures or re-examine your mission in life.
I scored around 900 on the SAT.
Have you considered send me a pile of money?
No, too busy reexamining mission in life, takes me forever to do that shit
Fortunately housing is so cheap that I can get by without the pile.
Also, I think there may be cake down the hall. Somebody is leaving and they were well-liked, so I get a snack.
See, your logical reasoning capabilities aren't so bad.
One of Axl Rose's associates is Tony Stark.
cartoon figures have to support each other
48: As Ben Carson said when he endorsed Donald Trump.
I started it with only my full name, found two guys with my middle name who weren't me as far as I can tell, and then realized that I was giving a full slate of info that can be connected to my ip address. If they didn't know me before, they do now, and also most of the Web sites I visit.
Opting out required too much disclosure.
who weren't me as far as I can tell
bob is so committed to collectivism that he can't always tell which people are him and which aren't.
Not a single associate except my second ex-wife.
I had a ton of associates listed. The majority I'd never heard of, but also various random people like my sister in law and the people who I bought a house from in 2003.
Spoke too soon, it did get an ex-roommate too, but that's it. And overseas moves really do screw with it.
I'm not there even though I've been in the US for ~10 years. I don't think I have a credit score either based on the searching the bank did before letting me open an account. My partner is there but neither I nor his sister appear as associates. His BIL is included though so they know the sister's last name.
I didn't even know it was possible to exist in the U.S. for ten years without getting a credit score. I figured that even Guantanamo inmates had one.
Fairly accurate for me, got my family, current mailing address, and two former apartment addresses. For associates, it listed my ex-stepfather of 2 years from 20 years ago, one of his sons, and my sister-in-law.
Yeah, it seems weird to me too. I pay bills including on the same phone number I've had since I got here. I have a SSN. I haven't just been a student. No idea.
I don't have a credit card because I ran up too much in Canada and wanted to avoid another one. But I assumed that a credit report was separate from actual credit lines?
You don't need to worry about avoiding that. There's only one Canada.
||
Gift for the day from r/anime post of 250 best shorts.
Endless Road 4 1/2 minutes
Exact idea as opening of Up executed with ten times the imagination and compassionate humanism
|>
60: There are three solitudes, and lack of understanding/acceptance of that is part of why not much headway has been made on the "two".
AMONG the solitudes are...
62: I might know what you mean, but could you say more?
It has everything else completely right, but it's really trying to pin me to some woman named Pam in Kalispell?
Maybe, per 6, my ex cheated with Pam and I just never learned about it.
You have her address right there. It's time for a threatening letter.
Highly accurate for me. The man who sexually abused me listed as a possible associate. So that's nice.
It has highly accurate information for my name and for a typo of my name. I guess I have to opt out of both?
64: People who try to frame the history and struggles of Canada as a friction between two peoples completely miss the point. It was never just about two peoples - from the beginning it was more. Later, many more. There is no meaningful history of Canada without the First Nations in a starring role also; and the communication barrier that has been built there is at least as high as the one between the French and English. More recently, there are many, many voices, and that is what makes the nation interesting.
"Interesting" is a high bar to clear.
I'm cosigning Bob's 50. Doesn't "opting out" just give them some level of verification that the particular you you opted out of is accurate? Maybe they take you off their site but they can refine the DB and use/sell it elsewhere.
Getting a little tired of this state of permanent internet/everything paranoia.
I thought about that, but it doesn't give them any new information. I mean, an IP address, yeah, but you can mask that if you're worried about it. I opted out yesterday and I already don't show up in search results.
We passed a small levy for the libraries so I feel fine with using my tax dollars to avoid having to learn how to mask my IP address.
70 - I certainly could be wrong and I didn't go through the whole removal process, but you are asked to give them your full name, State and birth year and then pick out the particular person that is associated with it thus verifying some level of correctness for that record - no?
Never mind - trying to figure out what is safe these days makes my brain hurt. You are probably right.
Maybe cancel everybody with a similar name/birth year to your own?
If you're in actual danger of being stalked, I'd say delete away. If not, it seems to me that it's something of a fools errand. The underlying data is public, and if too many people opt out of one database, another will spring up.
Most of us are really private figures, and so a stalker we might draw would be someone who could just as easily find out the information they want (address and phone) from a narrower database. If you own a home, for example, I don't think there's really any way to hide. Property ownership records might be too specialized for general marketing campaigns, but they're going to be plenty valuable for your personal stalker. Or the FBI, or whoever you don't want know what's on this website.
I rent. And I'd like to make it at least a little bit more difficult for disgruntled students to show up to my townhome.
That's actual danger of being stalked right there.
82 - Good low cunning sort of idea but I have one of the more common names in the country. Now that I think of it that's pretty good security through obscurity right there.
Better yet, band together with fifty people with your birthdate and change your names to Rembrandt Q Einstein or Chesty LaRue. Only use your real name for social purposes.
||
So my Obamacare premiums went up by nearly 50% this round and the pricks haven't yet sent me my card. I just came back from the pharmacy where I tried to pick up my meds - over $1000 for just one of them. I'm out and need it today, but they aren't responsive at all. Apparently I need to call during business hours. I just can't fucking wait until Ryan and his posse of dimwitted fascist baboons get hold of health insurance.
|>
Is the sarcasm I'm reading into 88.last correct, or are you actually expecting things to get better for you this year, togolosh?
You have an unusual ambivalence about dimwitted fascist baboons.
I'm wondering if insurance companies have started misbehaving more because they know the fox is coming to guard the henhouse. Likewise banks.
||
One State Away From Const Convention ...via Naked Cap, In These Times, righty source. ALEC is funding
"And now, they may be closer to their goal than ever. They have already passed resolutions in 28 states, and after November's elections, Republicans will hold control of both chambers in 32 states, up from 30 before the election. Conservatives also dominate in Nebraska's officially nonpartisan, single-chamber legislature, giving them 33. This puts them "just one state shy of the 34 needed to propose an Article V convention and permanently take back our government," Daniel Horowitz wrote in the Conservative Review one week after the election."
"Brush past your Trump drunk," one Convention of States spokesman said in a November 10 video address to the group's million or so Facebook followers. "If you look at demographics it doesn't look good for us," he continued. "So what we need to do is make the structural changes we can, by calling a convention of states."
"Now, they believe, is white America's last best chance to safeguard its power from what it sees as an impending "demographic time bomb." Somehow, that means crippling the world's most powerful government's ability to intervene in the private economy. A deeper look at the billionaires who have been pushing the idea behind the scenes makes it no surprise that extreme free market policies would be sold as a salve for white fear."
Yeah sure, the demographics will force the racists to surrender and we will win win win! Easy peasy! Idjuts.
Also, and why I put it here
Obama Opens Complete Unredacted NSA Archives to Anybody at All ...The Intercept, but I have seen this many places, along with Obama's New Ministry of Propaganda.
Fucker was a mole. Worst Prez ever, but real fucking good at looking good
|>
Bob, either fuck off or find a more subtle way to blame black people for white racism.
Thing is, the left center had the numbers, the 3 million wasted votes + the unregistered + maybe outreach to redstate women. They just didn't know how, or didn't want to leverage the numbers into power.
If we had moved some of those wasted votes from Cal and NYC into Texas, ten twenty years ago, we would own this country forever. But what, ewww?
Now it is too late. Welcome to America, circa 1880, fucks having learned lessons from 1880, for fucking ever. If you get 70% minority, will you get 37 states? Michigan, ewwww.
94:Blacks have been moving back to Red States, trying their best.
It is the white UMC coastal hipsters I despise, the kind to use anti-racism to deflect criticism from themselves while frankly using racism to pad their pockets.
The Obama regime can be summed up in a graph
White fucking coastals got richer while black wealth fell through the floor.
Hi, Clintons! No the above is no coincidence.
You are very literally reading Republican talking points into the comments here. Fuck off.
"But as though the median numbers for the country as a whole weren't bad enough, things look much worse in America's cities, according to a new paper from the Urban institute--even cities such as D.C. where the prevalence of public-sector jobs, a large black population, and a high share of black business owners might make it seem like a place that black families could thrive. But in Washington D.C., the median white family has a staggering 81 times as much wealth as the median black family."
I wonder how those committed anti-racists Klein & Yglesias are doing. What do you think the NYC numbers look like?
I wonder if the numbers are worse in Dallas. I know I am not 81 times as rich as my black neighbors. Moby, do you even have blacks on your block in new hipster Pitt?
Total rapacious bullshit.
"According to a 2015 National Asset Scorecard for Communities of Colors, D.C.'s racial wealth gap falls just behind Los Angeles's, where median wealth for whites was closer to 89 times as much as blacks'. In Miami it was 30 times as high; in Tulsa, 18 times."
That's a clue as to Dallas
Funny, where the loudest white anti-racists live are the worst places for blacks economically.
Exactly what kind of people want to live in places, NYC SF LA DC, where white-black wealth differentials are so much higher? (and not do what it takes to change it)
People whose symbolic anti-racism doesn't really cost them anything. People who think pink hats are politics.
How was it done, or made worse?
Finance bailout, Fed policy, austerity, no mortgage relief
Obama did it. He will be rewarded.
I don't know how to parse 88. "Obamacare premiums" don't go up: the premium for a particular plan goes up. The premium for pretty much every plan goes up, whether it's one of the Obamacare plans or not.
At any rate, my sympathies about the prescription fuck-up.
89: Yes, sarcasm.
103: The cost for plan closest to my previous one went through the roof. All the other plans also went up. I have a preexisting condition, so it was always going to be expensive, but a 50% increase is a bit much.
I'm really worried about what Trump plans to do. If he implements the Ryan plan I'm royally fucked.
98: as indeed he has been doing since last June. http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_15483.html#1894106
At some point, a more intelligent person might ask, to emulate an Onion headline, "Hey, Why Do All These Fascist Blowhards Keep Sounding Like Me?"
Note also the assumption that 90% of black people are too stupid to see where their true interest lies, and must be led and guided by an ignorant old fool from the suburbs.
Has anyone made the observation, regarding MAGA and "when does he think America was great?" that he's clearly aiming for a state of war? After all we called people who served in WWII the Greatest Generation. War offers the best opportunity for profiteering and the greatest excuse for suppression of dissent. So it's pretty clear where the NATO stuff is going. Not sure why he wants to pick a fight with Germany again- maybe figures we've beaten them before so might as well use an old standby?
Not sure why he wants to pick a fight with Germany again
Probably because Germany/the EU is the counterweight to Russia in Europe.
Relatedly, it looks like he's getting set up to sell a deal entailing a trade that recognizes Russian possession of Crimea in exchange for an agreement on nuclear weapons. I'm all for less nukes, but this is stupid because A) Russia already has obligations for arms reduction by 2018 under New START - its likely the agreement will entail Russia agreeing to do what its already agreed to do. B) Russians have always been more pro-nuke reduction than Americans have anyway - you can get there without trading Crimea. C) Because the obvious trade for Crimea is Russian recognition of Kosovo.
In any case, Germany/the EU is unlikely to go along with a Crimea deal because it undermines the sanctity of post WW2 national borders, and because it may be prelude to Russia slicing off portions of other former Soviet states. On the other hand, if the EU were to fall apart, picking up support for that kind of thing from a number of individual right wing European governments becomes a lot easier.
Agree with 107, but I'd say that a lot of it may not be that Trump consciously wants to Make Russia Great Again; he just feels much more comfortable dealing with bilateral negotiations, because then you (he thinks) can have a winner and a LOSER! rather than multilateral ones where you are trying to find a consensus that keeps everyone reasonably happy, which idea horrifies him. And the EU and NATO and UN and all the rest are multilateral organisations that treat everyone equally. What he'd like would be some sort of clear recognition that there are Great or rather Yuge Powers, ideally 2 of them, run by white men, that each have "legitimate spheres of interest", as MHPH and roger would say, made up of LOSER! states - subordinate states, weak states, dependent states, basically female states - like Poland and Mexico, in which the Yuge Power should be free to interfere as much as they like.
"I don't even wait. When you're a Yuge Power, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the Black Sea."
98
Indeed. What little entertainment value he used to have is gone now that he's started channeling Milo Yiannopoulos. If I wanted to read fascist assholes, I'd be on Breitbart.
106: the US has been at war of one sort or another for almost all of its history, so it's not a big jump to imagine that as one feature he has in mind. It doesn't really seem like a differentiator though, unless you restrict to "world war" type footing. I suppose it would be novel to cause one of those.
Yeah, it definitely fits with Trump's Theory of Change.
108 describes the world aimed at by the author of this book. Long story short, to make Russia great again you destabilize the EU, get Britain to leave, destroy NATO, annex Ukraine and so forth. The aim is to use minimal military force, relying instead on propaganda, subversion, and support of dissidents to destroy the Euro-American axis, reduce Russias neighbors to vassal status, and turn the US into an isolationist power like it was prior to WWI.
Seems to be working pretty well so far.
114: that's actually a really unsettling shopping list.
The way the new polarity is shaping up, I'm thinking the EU's arms embargo on China isn't going to last much longer.
Who goes nuclear in that case aside from the obvious (Germany, Japan)? For example, could Poland do it before Russia could stop it?
For example, could Poland do it before Russia could stop it?
Or, indeed, before the US could stop it.
Japan is the most anti-nuke country in the world... I don't see them going nuclear, and I think they will remain under the American nuclear umbrella in any case.
Germany might. When they signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, they maintained an option to weasel out of it in the event of an expansion of the nuclear club - the conditions of which have already been met, though not officially acknowledged. Also, France has offered to share nukes with Germany.
Saudi Arabia already has access to Pakistan's bomb, but they might make it official. And if they do that, Egypt is going to want one.
Poland might want one, but I'm not sure where they would get it. Maybe France?
121: You don't think Abe could do it in secret? He has publicly come out as very anti-nuclear-weapons, but if NATO actually falls apart, you have to think he might reconsider.
Not entirely sure why 121 is presidential, except that maybe the author wanted to avoid being wrong under his normal pseud.
Germany "maintained an option to weasel out of it in the event of an expansion of the nuclear club" - Germany, like every other NPT signatory, has the option of withdrawing from the treaty at 90 days' notice if it feels its national security is threatened. Is this what you mean?
"France has offered to share nukes with Germany" - has it really. That's a real [citation needed] moment there. I would be, to put it very mildly, surprised if France had offered either to transfer nuclear weapons to Germany or to give Germany shared control over French weapons. As far as I know only the US has shared nuclear weapons with Germany (and other NATO nations). The German public is, of course, extremely anti-nuclear, in terms of power and even more in terms of weapons.
What you may be thinking of is a proposal 20 years ago (20 years ago!) for France to extend its nuclear deterrent to cover Germany, which is a very different matter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/01/26/france-proposes-sharing-nuclear-umbrella-with-germany/20087ec0-c8d9-4a01-9bae-164060598c98/?utm_term=.5f4c49967950
122 is me.
The book in 108 seems like it's been overtaken by events in many respects. There's little chance of a Russia-Islam axis, for example.
There's little chance of a Russia-Islam axis, for example.
You think? What about Shia Islam? Russia-Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Iraq-Yemeni Houthi is looking pretty good right now.
121: Yes, Japan is resolutely anti-nuclear while it stays under the US umbrella. But it has maintained, quite deliberately and with everyone's full knowledge, the potential to go nuclear extremely quickly should that ever become necessary.
What could make it necessary? Removing the guarantee of American military protection, in the context of aggressive territorial expansion by China to the extent that Japan felt directly threatened (e.g. in Okinawa). So it's not going to happen immediately, but if things go completely pear-shaped in the region in a few years time I wouldn't rule it out.
Abe is a nostalgic nationalist domestically but a liberal pragmatist globally, and at the moment he's running around trying desperately (a) to shore up the status quo with the US and (b) to improve relationships with Putin, Duterte, and anyone else he thinks might be useful. Despite his right-wing, constitution-revising credentials, I would think it would be a more hard-line successor or two down the line who would actually make that decision.
It's not clear from the Wikipedia description if they meant Shia Islam or all Islam. It mentions Iran separately.
If Flynn is the key figure in the Trump-Putin collaboration, then the angle will be a ideological struggle against Islam. I don't know if an alliance with Iran could survive that.
126 is a more-informed version of my thoughts on the matter.
125: Indeed, hasn't the USSR/Russia had some degree of strategic ties with Iran since the revolution? Certainly there's been a strong alliance with the Assads* for decades.
*Who aren't personally Shia, but whatever...
Aren't the Assads members of some sect that's basically the Mormonism of Islam?
127 is also me. The Name box fails me again.
The Jehovah's Witnesses of Islam?
130: Alawites. Yeah, it's some kind of offshoot that's considered heretical by most other Muslims.
130: yes, they're Alawites, which IIRC is a very heterodox branch of Twelver Shia Islam. The selling point for the Assad regime has always been that Syria is 40% or so Sunni Arab, and if it went democratic then a Sunni Arab party would take power and immediately start genociding all the Kurds, Yazidis, Shia, Assyrian Christians, etc etc. The Assads offer or rather offered a guarantee that any mass slaughter that takes place would be strictly non-sectarian and race-blind, and also that they wouldn't just favour their own sect and shut out everyone else because there are simply not enough Alawites in Syria to fill every lucrative government post by themselves.
They've also historically dominated the armed forces (because they were viewed as a "martial race"), especially the army, though Assad Sr was actually in the air force.
A whole lot of countries have the option to go dirty bomb, I wonder if any that can't cut it in the real nuclear club might consider announcing the intention to do so as an option to raise their standing. Solves some problems as far as nuclear waste disposal, at least.
(because they were viewed as a "martial race")
The 'i' is in the wrong place, laydeez.
135: you've still got the problem of how you deliver it. Most of the countries that can't cut it in the nuclear club also are not members of the "reliable and accurate ballistic missile" club, which is probably at least as difficult to get into.
That's why I was thinking Poland. Nuking a Russian army in it's own territory (or the ability to threaten to do so) might be sufficient for deterrence.
Anyway, I wonder what it would take for the 1% to be more nervous about that kind of stuff than they are about paying taxes at the same level they paid in 1980.
114 I suppose I should plan a visit to Finland while I still can.
You think? What about Shia Islam? Russia-Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Iraq-Yemeni Houthi is looking pretty good right now.
That's about the only thing that's looking good right now. I'm hoping that Trump's coziness to Putin is what keeps the US from going to war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia already has access to Pakistan's bomb, but they might make it official.
Is there any evidence that they've actually received the goods they've paid for?
I bet February isn't the best time of the year to visit Finland.
138: hmm. A Russian army coming into Poland will be forming up either in south-western Belarus, at the end of the Military Highway around Brest, and/or possibly in the Kaliningrad Oblast. So if you irradiate it then it just drives on west, out of the irradiated area (which isn't even in Russia anyway so why do the Russians care if it's a bit glowy) and into Poland. And you can't dirty-bomb Poland because it's full of your fellow Poles.
And you need a lot of radiological material to produce an effective no-go zone, especially if you want it to be impassable by Russian forces, which have the twin advantages that a) they're buttoned up in their vehicles as they drive through and b) their commanders don't give a shit if they get irradiated as long as they can still fight for the next five to seven days. Just dropping one bomb and contaminating one staging area wouldn't do it. You'd need to do what Ridgway wanted to do in Korea and create a radiological cordon. Not really practical.
I was just thinking of a regular old nuke, the way NATO was going to stop Soviet tanks with tactical nukes.
I suppose a radiological weapon would work as a terror weapon when aimed at civilians, in, say, Kaliningrad, but a) that's grotesquely immoral and b) I don't think it would work on Russian civilians because the Russian government would simply not inform the population that they had been irradiated. (See also Sverdlovsk 1979, Chernobyl 1986, Mayak 1957, etc.)
Sorry, misreading in 144. I think I was responding to SP. Yes, a jes' reg'lar old nuke would do the trick.
I agree that a dirty bomb isn't particularly useful for anybody who is interested in defending a state.
Or maybe that was another thread. Anyway, what happens when a Trump-voter wants to free himself from political correctness.
My last name is unusual, so it picked up my parents, sister, aunt and uncle and one cousin I've e-mailed. It didn't get anyone from my mother's family. And the associates weren't people I've ever met.
Plus, there was nothing from any of the addresses I lived in as a child.
Egypt is going to want one.
Obligatory Tom Leher link.
137: Are regular old bombers easier to defend against these days? Or did you always need a lot of them to be sure of getting through?
||
My mom just got her green card. I've been sweating over this for months. I figure that with a US citizen for a kid she'd be a shoe-in but I feared the process would drag into the Trump administration and she'd be flagged as a muslim or something.
|>
In a "buying a ticket on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg" kind of way.
Glad to hear it, togolosh, and I hope things continue to go well.
Meanwhile, CNN has dug up Trump's hostile comments on Russia in 2014. The sentence "Putin has eaten Obama's lunch, therefore our lunch, for a long period of time," is cracking me up.
But in this timeline it would be anomalous.
157: Yeah, as a person who's dedicated her life to improving the lot of the poor and downtrodden she's really looking forward to Trump's America. OTOH she's a reliable Democratic vote once she gets citizenship.
We can use plenty of 160.1 as well as the votes. It must be a relief, togolosh.
160.1: It's good to be busy and Trump will make more poor and downtrodden people for her.
OT: I think the ripping back of Obama's raising the wage needed to be an "exempt" employee would be a very good issue to start hammering on. I keep reading about it in news stories (or here, because somebody's university pulled back the raises) but I don't hear any Democrats screaming about it.
You're represented in Congress by at least one Democrat, right? Might be worth a call to their office(s).