huge government

anonymous asked:

oone of my friends was murder yesterday in a double-murder suicide thing and idk but i wanted to tell you :// its probs not going to change anything hugely, but some government officials have been take action and stands for stricter gun laws due to the situation!! it serves as an especially good example as no one involved was mentally ill, just jealous... and that the murderer hadnt received a background check before purchasing the gun as he bought it at a gun show... im sad

I’m really sorry to hear that, it’s always really shocking when things like this happen and I can’t imagine how you’re feeling :(. I think that’s really weird how you can just buy a gun in some parts of the world, they are so dangerous in the wrong hands.

I see lots of posts that talk about combating big data surveillance initiatives by just like spamming services with random data and like. that doesnt work. I think a lot of people really dont understand what they’re dealing with when it comes to these statistical approaches to AI. The properties of random data make it incredibly easy to sift it out and find the patterns you’re looking for, even with a relatively small data set (im talking in the order of only thousands of data points, less even) let alone the huge amount of data government surveillance has access to.

Brexit: EU will take UK to International Court if it refuses to pay £50bn divorce bill, 'leaked document' says

The EU will take Britain to the International Court of Justice if it tries to walk away without paying an estimated £50bn ‘divorce bill’, a leak of its negotiating strategy says.

The draft plan – obtained by a Dutch newspaper – threatens a long legal battle at The Hague to grab back what the EU regards as the UK’s liabilities for its 43-year membership.

“In that case it is: see you in The Hague!” it quotes an EU official – in response to Theresa May’s threat to leave with “no deal” if the Brexit talks cut up rough.

The threat follows growing pressure on the Prime Minister from some Conservative MPs to simply walk away if the EU insists on imposing the huge exit fee.

Government lawyers have backed a report from a House of Lords committee which argued Britain could legally leave without paying up, if it accepts no withdrawal agreement.

But, yesterday, Britain’s ambassador to the EU, Sir Tim Barrow, warned Brussels had confidence in “other legal opinions” which reached a very different conclusion.

A lengthy battle at the International Court could also hold up attempts to reach a new trade agreement with the EU, if it insists on settling the controversy over money owed first.

The leak, published by the respected De Volkskrant newspaper, says the EU strategy will also:

* Insist access to the EU single market depends upon the UK accepting the ‘four freedoms’ – including, crucially, freedom of movement of citizens, a ‘red line’ for Ms May.

* Propose a deal guaranteeing both the future rights of EU nationals in the UK and Britons in EU countries.

* Demand that the UK loses some of its existing trade advantages, as the price of leaving.

* Consider whether to insist that talks on future trade deal will only take place after agreement on the exit deal - or sequentially, as the UK wants.

The newspaper billed its story as “the secret EU Strategy for separation from the British”, based on information provided by key EU insiders.

Only six people, including Donald Tusk, the European Council President, and Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission President, have seen the ten-page draft, it claimed.

The EU’s apparent strategy was published shortly after Mr Tusk announced that EU leaders will meet to agree their strategy at a special summit on April 29.

Significantly, he vowed to make “the process of divorce the least painful for the EU” - without mentioning what pain may lie ahead for Britain.

The De Volkskrant report suggested David Cameron is partly responsible for the expected £50bn EU demand being so high.

The former prime minister demanded cuts to the EU budget for 2014-20, but - in return for spending going down in the early years - planned spending in the future rose sharply.

The EU is expected to argue that the UK is obliged to contribute to those future spending commitments, despite its plans to complete Brexit by 2019.

David Jones, a minister in the Brexit department, has suggested the legal argument that Britain can walk away without paying a fee has “not gone unnoticed in Brussels and in other European capitals”.

But, giving evidence to MPs yesterday, Sir Tim Barrow sought to dampen Brexiteer enthusiasm to quit without paying “a brass farthing” as one Conservative MP put it.

“You can imagine that counterparts have an interest in other legal opinions which have been forthcoming, which offer a different interpretation,” Sir Tim warned.

The Prompt Guy, who has confirmed he’s lived over 6 billion years, is now a subject of interest of the illuminati. At first, their attempts to take him were subtle and half hearted, but now, he’s their top priority. Every world government, huge cooperation or organization has turned a blind eye, hoping no one would notice his disappearance. Now, his loyal followers must do the unthinkable to save him: team with the Alien King.

@ilovewintersoldiersandsebastians I’m just gonna quietly direct you towards these facts:

• Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of the biggest supporters of replacing Trident in 2007, has admitted that the only purpose of maintaining the nuclear weapons system is to give Britain status.

• WoMD have no legitimate purpose: their use would be illegal under almost every conceivable circumstance, as huge numbers of civilian casualties would be unavoidable. That is why the International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the rules of international law.

• Not only are these weapons immoral, potentially genocidal and strategically irrelevant in the face of the realistic threats we face today, they are also hugely expensive. The Government’s National Security Strategy identifies international terrorism, cyber-attacks and natural hazards as greater threats than nuclear war.

• The government is in favour of replacing Trident at a cost of at least £205 billion. This money would be enough to improve the NHS by building 120 state of the art hospitals and employing 150,000 new nurses, build 3 million affordable homes, install solar panels in every home in the UK or pay the tuition fees for 8 million students.

• The argument that not renewing trident will create job losses is the height of hypocrisy, when the expense needed to renew the programme will come from public service cuts and job cuts for the underprivileged, which will subsequently leave thousands of people jobless.

• Back in 2009 Field Marshall Lord Bramell, former head of the Armed Forces, and two senior Generals wrote to The Times and denounced Trident as ‘completely useless against modern warfare’, calling instead for the money to be spent on much-needed conventional weaponry:

“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism … Our independent deterrent has become ­virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics.”
9 huge government conspiracies that actually happened
Declassified documents prove them.
By Christina Sterbenz

8. The US government sold weapons to Iran, violating an embargo, and used the money to support Nicaraguan militants.

In 1985, senior officials in the Reagan administration facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, then under embargo. The government, with the National Security Council’s Oliver North acting as a key player, later used the profits to fund the Contras, anticommunist rebels, in Nicaragua.

The whole situation began with seven American hostages taken by a hostile group in Lebanon with ties to Iran. Through an elaborate exchange involving Israel, the US planned to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the hostages’ freedom. The situation quickly derailed, although the Lebanese did release all but two hostages.

After a leak from an Iranian, the situation finally came to light in 1986. After repeatedly denying any involvement, the Reagan administration underwent 41 days of congressional hearings, according to Brown University’s research project on the scandal. They subpoenaed government documents from as early as 1981 and forced declassification of others.

Reagan’s involvement in and even knowledge of the situation remains unclear. The hearings never labeled the sale of weapons to Iran a criminal offense, but some officials faced charges for supporting the Contras. The administration, however, refused to declassify certain documents, forcing Congress to drop them.