46

The level of confiscation to my privacy by this guy seems to leave only things like a brain installed chip that can read thoughts and emotions as a room for improvement.   
I actually only relatively lately realized, through his knowledge of things about me, how much further this could have been the situation before I discovered it. That seems to take us back to  the story of Viking Systems Stock in 2010. 

45

I don't know if when a corporation speaks about itself in the privacy agreement whether itself could extend to include some shareholders and they are not considered third parties. I am trying to see if there is a legal issue preventing going after this guy for invading my privacy in everything I do over the Internet or if it is just the shameless corruption.

Even things I do outside like credit card transactions or phone calls he watches or get conveyed to him in real time or very close to that. Is that all legal? Because if it is not then for it to continue like this with all my boundaries crossed like I do not exist and for this long is beyond disgusting.
  

44

Although this Trump vs. Romney shows considerable improvement on the Trump vs. Mccain, Trump vs. Kelly and Trump vs. Hillary (the going to the restroom show) previous installments in the same sequel, it was still not that hard to be seen.

By the way they say that the President grew half an inch taller. Are they counting in nose length nowadays?      

43

I think that Trump sometimes probably gets confused and try to pass what is suitable for the general conspiracy on me, elsewhere. As if it did not appear from the beginning that he  and Sanders are the Bloomberg guy guy's, he recently appeared to have done something that strongly suggests connecting him not even through that hub but directly to the other side although it is still for the sake of that hub. According to the news, he said that he will keep mentioning the Email issue every day if /when he stands directly against Hillary. Now, think about this.Why would someone point out the repetitiveness in his action like this? Instead one would imagine that a candidate would himself state that he did not notice or care and was merely focusing on the issue if he gets questioned about such repetitiveness? What strongly seems to jump to the mind as an explanation is the showing or emphasizing the value of the free pass on that issue which Sanders gave Hillary.

By the way, I would be surprised if Sanders is really getting that much donations from regular people and not the Bloomberg guy. Although, to be fair, except for his targeting connections to Goldman Sachs, up to this point I don't remember seeing him providing direct services back to that guy like Trump.    

42

Continuing from the preceding post

A note about the translation there. Although it is relatively better, it still also suffers considerably from that problem in Arabic translation I have seen so often. That problem is related to how some translate things like delivering the news, killing the artistic expression. For example, translating that someone is glued to his chair to another language as the person does not move while may deliver the same result news wise they are not the same as an art. Even with expressions that became like a term as, for example, the Egyptians saying that someone's brain is dry which was translated directly to being stubborn, that translation could be added in parenthesis while preserving the beauty of the original expression. All that is of course in addition to other things like ignoring parts that are related to culture related things and abridging of things and skipping parts. 

In addition to that, I don't know why the word "kabob" in the title of the movie was translated to "BBQ". Another thing that could even be arguably suspicious is the translation of the salutation told to the praying guy as "you may pray in the Holy Land". The word used there is an adverb about the status of being in a sacred area. It is a common salutation like word told in Egypt to the person who have just finished a prayer and I never, and can hardly assume anybody else, took the implication to refer to something other than Mecca and Medina which is completely in line with the other salutations or titles in that culture.

By the way, there is much less probability that you could find a Muslim praying in a government office there than here but adding such thing could help make the government allow the movie. Even with all the softening and diversion included there was a text at the very beginning thanking government entities for their "understanding" to the topic of the movie.         

  

41

Speaking about how governments like that wouldn't care much not to kill the innocent in order to reach the guilty, here is an Arabic Egyptian movie (they are the main producers of that there) from 1993 (according to wikipedia) that is one of the best I have ever seen. The main event is an accident that drags into a hostage situation. Anyway, in one part of the movie the minister tells the hostage takers that nobody can twist the arms of the government and those who get killed in the middle are martyrs to their families the government would issue compensations. It is surprising to me, especially being originally from Iraq, that the government even had stopped to negotiate to begin with but the maker of the movie had to work within the limit of the freedom of expression which was probably already more than risky enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWVVlAzYtPk

(Although, I don't remember how good the translation there)  

40

Couple of days ago I saw a clip of a presidency candidate mentioning that there were no "terrorists" during Saddam's ruling on Iraq. Although, like I said before, things could have been done much better there, no body can compare that with the ease with which Saddam did his things. You know why? Because it is not a big problem to him to kill the innocent in order to reach the guilty.

However, if that speaker wants to learn lessons from Saddam, here is one that does not involve stepping on the innocent. Power there was in the hands of the government and corruption happen through external entities aligning themselves with the government not the other way around. You know what Saddam could have done to a post office man who miss delivers a court document obeying this guy in defiance to the government like what happened with my appellate brief?