amreact
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the...
For the record, Snopes does a good job explaining how Pelosi's statement was taken out of context by the right, especially when compared to Republican actions that were much more questionable regarding a somewhat (?) comparable Republican-sponsored bill called the American Health Care Act.
For example, after the Civil War in the U.S., politics got extremely bad due to the large numbers of voters who were veterans and were receiving money from the government. Things got less nasty after those people died.
The idea is that nowadays in the U.S., there are several ways large numbers of voters get money from the government: welfare, government employment, and government contractor employment. Speaking generally, the Democrats tend to have more voters on welfare and directly employed by the government, while the Republicans tend to have more voters in government contractor jobs. So, each party has policies that give more money to their constituents, which results in bitter political fighting.
I know I'm being hand-wavy but that's the general idea. Here are some links that support this idea:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/upshot/how-we-became-bitt...
Think about what it: you're asking about someone's love life. It is no business of yours. So if you're going to ask a question like that, please be respectful. For example, say "If you don't mind my asking, why did you have so many kids?"
The last paragraph is correct in context. Specifically, with regards to encryption, states are allowed to do whatever they want because the Constitution doesn't mention encryption and because of the 10th amendment, which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The last paragraph is also correct because the ex post facto law clause of the Constitution only applies to Congress, not the states [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
1. You could travel to another country where they arrest you for something unencrypted you did online in a country where it was legal. This has already happened. [1]
2. Your communications could become evidence in court that you "always had radical leanings." So while you're not convicted for what you did online, it still becomes evidence against you. I suspect this has already happened.
3. You could travel to another country where retroactive laws are allowed, and get caught because of something you said in the past in the US.
4. The US could eventually allow retroactive laws, and catch you for something you did before retroactive laws were allowed.
Note: these are just ways you could get in trouble with the law; not mentioned are things like your reputation being destroyed, death threats, identity theft, or malware due to lack of encryption. I also have not mentioned ways in which your friends could get in trouble because of something unencrypted you did online.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/middleeast/american-arrested-i...
Also, the Constitution can be amended. We can't guarantee that ex post facto laws will remain unconstitutional for the duration of your lifetime.
Also, states are technically not obliged to abide by the US constitution.
"It only gets worse as you go down the list" means "workplace quality decreases as profitability decreases."
This implies that "workplace quality increases as profitability increases."
"workplace quality increases as profitability increases" is a different way of saying "high profitability leads to better working conditions."
I think detaro understood FD3SA correctly.
PLUS is an offshoot of Time Domain, http://www.timedomain.com/. Time Domain does radar; I don't think they do any active tracking (could be wrong though). IIRC Time Domain is the company that did the see-through-walls system.