The NSA was listening to our conversations, examining our emails, texts, website posts, etc.  A big reason why I don't do Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.
[...]
Opinions?

The NSA surveillance bot cannot get through the Pilot Spin defenses - we're good! They'd never think to intercept the non-encrypted access to a low traffic site like pilotspin.com!

(I pretty much assumed that while I was traveling and using public Wifi in airports and other such venues that my access to pilotspin.com and purpleboard.com, neither of which is set up to use https (TLS/SSL), that the passwords for those accounts would be immediately compromised.)

If any business does this and their defense is  the 'special person' exemption, they are just shit out of luck.

What if non-business people engage in discriminatory behavior? E.g. gay customers favoring gay owned businesses or straight customers favoring straight owned businesses.

A protected class exists because we still have moronic neanderthals can't accept the fact that we have multiple ethnicities, genders, and sexually oriented folks that all deserve the same exact rights and equal treatment.

I'm here to tell you that the only way to establish "same exact rights and equal treatment" in such cases requires obliteration of liberties, not protection of them. I'm not kosher (ahem) with that at all.

I've noticed that moronic behavior is its own "reward" and sacrificing freedom of association is not only not necessary, but counter-productive to the evolution of civil society. But tiresomely, people like yourself just don't believe that despite clear evidence to the contrary.

The goal of "same exact rights" in this case required an invention of a concept, "public accommodation," that has a definition that differs depending on what law is in play. Colorado has one, the ADA another, and the Civil Rights Act had yet another. People in the "public accommodation" class are arbitrarily getting their right to associate obliterated while others are not. Consider:

If a straight couple went to a gay baker and asked for a wedding cake and the baker declined, saying "Sorry, I don't do wedding cakes that support breeders," I presume that the straight couple is also a protected class, correct? [First heard a lesbian at a party refer to us straights as "breeders" about 25 years ago. Not sure how prevalent the term still is.]

If a couple of sexual orientation X puts an ad in the newspaper asking for bids from bakers to bake them a cake, but says bakers of sexual orientation Y need not apply, are they within their rights? How and why would your answer change if they privately made a decision not to take their business to such bakers? Why are their neanderthals actions not being prohibited? If there were a way to know when that private discrimination occurs, would you want it to be used by government so as to ensure "same exact rights"? I just want to know how consistent you are and how wedded you are to that goal?

Substituting "transgender" for "gay" in the following speech would seem to me would not upset Goldwater, were he still around:

From:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html

Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable
By Barry M. Goldwater

The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater's commentary on the military gay ban that appeared this week in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut"

When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in congress think I'm wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that's just stupid.

Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I among them - we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it's high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy like "Don't ask, don't tell." That compromise doesn't deal with the issue - it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It's time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It's time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It's time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

(Arizona Republican Barry M. Goldwater retired from the Senate in 1987)

Privatization (outsourcing) doesn't scare me nearly as much a having a user fee based system.  I am all for paying my "fair share", but that will incentivize pilots to NOT use ATC.  That is a bad thing.

The current bill essentially makes airlines foot 100% of ATC. It explicitly excludes everyone else from having to pay user fees. And it requires the ATC corporation to make its services available to all users of the U.S. air system - even those who aren't required to pay.

The airlines do not seem to object to any of this (except Delta, last I heard) because ultimately they must believe that even under those conditions they would see cost reductions via lower ATC user fees. Even if GA went away, the need for most of the ATC infrastructure and operational costs would still persist.

I thought this was amusing enough to share. Concise and to the point.

Language isn't an inherited trait, it is a learned one, like learning how to play baseball.
Everyone who claimed racism is showing profound stupidity. Stupid people tend to "double down" on their stupidity, so they will not now or ever say "Oops, good point, I made a mistake."

Yes, this is the same thing they did to Bush for eight years. It's really tiresome. Does the left or media have ANY critical thinking skills? Or do they just follow the same simple flow diagram leading to whatever President isn't their pick.

If a Libertarian party candidate is ever elected president, then according to that flow chart MSM news would stop entirely because they'd have entered an infinite loop.
Cool. Hopefully the flow chart is correct in that sense.