User Profile: dusanmal


Member Since: October 13, 2010


  • [1] February 22, 2016 at 3:33pm

    Thesis irrelevant part of Zuckerberg’sprogressive push. The worst part is his “humanitarian” effort to bring Internet acces to poor regions of the World for free… Sounds good?-until you realize that those people will not have acces to all and unfiltered Internet. Just to the (progressive) resources Zuckerberg approves of and controls. Mass indoctrination on a global scale, indoctrination of people who can help themselves the least to fight this off. Some governments (like India) are attempting to fight back but the whole point of this attack is to attack the weak… VR is not needed for this but the results of it could bring us to dystopia far faster.

  • [9] February 22, 2016 at 3:11pm

    The most telling bit to all Republicans, supporting Trump or not, should be:
    “You [Carson and Kasich] both express a powerful commitment to the good of your country and to its founding ideals. If you care about the future of this republic, it is time to endorse Marco Rubio,” Allen wrote
    Democratic Hilary supporter wants Rubio as opponent or at least find his politics acceptable even if Hillary loses…

  • [10] February 18, 2016 at 11:23am

    Problem is that the public, just like you, does not understand fundamentals of encryption. It does not matter if it is Apple or Fed cracking the encryption. It can’t be done “just for this one phone”. It is like saying, let’s keep this balloon of encryption safe but let Apple just poke a pinprick hole in it… That very single act would have, technologically, consequnce of general failure of crucial commerce and personal detain the whole world, from bankingto healthcare and beyond.
    Secondary problem is legal and barely mentioned inthe article. Appledoes not exist just in theUSA. Next day after Apple would do so here for this encase, Chinese would bring a truck load oftheirlegal warrants and phones of dissidents, USA helpers and the like to becracked andApple would be criminally liable toopen them now that it have shown it can. It does not end there, after being cracked , thousands of hackers would-be sent loose inthe opened phones to learn how to break in and soon every phone would be target..
    What we must learn in this digital world is that some things are just notrecoverable. Just as those terrorists could have conversed about their evil deeds in their livingroom. No warrant can recover that after the fact. Or mailed plain letters about it, no warrant can recover that content even it passed throug the very USPS…

  • [34] February 10, 2016 at 2:51pm

    Your comment must be countered as it shows exactly the progressive attitude of the demand for “country of man” instead of “country of laws”. Laws that explicitly and in great detail regulate and control what parts of firearms can or can’t be made or which require registration and which don’t and so on – EXIST in this country. They must be obeyed. By all, people and law enforcement. Whether it “…Certainly sounds like a part that should not be available to the general public…” or doesn’t is IRRELEVANT in the country of laws. Does the law consider what he made illegal to manufacture: no. Does the law require that part be registered: no. Should he than be raided, never mind prosecuted in the country of laws?…
    However, in the Progressive Nirvana, everyone is guilty if technocrat in chief decides that what they were doing does not suit his common sense or fancy at the moment. Laws are irrelevant. “Hey, that sounds as a part that should not be available, LET’S raid and PROSECUTE!” – that is totalitarian state, because if needed anything can be made criminal, and that is the idea.
    Fortunately for this man, laws regarding firearms are very, very explicit and detailed. DOJ/ATF knew that any prosecution would be futile. However, we are at that breaking point between “country of man” and “country of laws”… so they used their authority to burden and bully to the level laws allow because we gave too much authority to them already.

  • [10] January 14, 2016 at 3:34pm

    You are missing the crucial point – that the State law is blatantly unconstitutional because it does not allow exceptions for actions violating OTHER Constitutionally protected rights. This is an issue of two separate Constitutional rights colliding and as such should be pushed to the Supreme Court. Not as a narrow issue of this or that service or even just for religious beliefs exceptions.
    In this particular case it was either to be violation of prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation which is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but derived or violation of the right to observe religion of personal choice that is explicitly stated in the Constitution. That little difference should in my opinion make State law without exception for fundamental Constitutional rights to be unconstitutional.
    If not, just as seen in all other examples, this just means explicit Government prohibition to religious people to run a specific business and that is evil.

  • [1] December 22, 2015 at 1:28pm

    Partly true, partly wrong. True part: recent independent study found that on average, across the World Muslim support for terroristic Islamic extremist action is 25%. That is a lot, even if 75% is the majority. Interesting sub-data from that study (important for the rest of my answer): USA Muslim population is indeed the least terror-supporting at 7-8%. Couple of surprises, though: Indonesia is the place with most support (!) and some surprising higher-than-average include EU Muslims, Bosnia Muslims and Kosovo Muslims (that one with the highest percentage…). Terrorism flourishes in the volatile Middle East but we better be mindful as support for it there is just average…
    Now to another part of my answer. My own family experienced similar situation during early onset of the war in Bosnia. Town of Srebrenica experienced well known massacre near the end of the war, but similar reverse massacre occurred around it very early on, after Germany officially recognized Bosnia. Evil section of Muslim population from Srebrenica organized “celebration” of that event by going to the Serbian villages around Srebrenica, murdering, burning and pillaging. Several brave young Muslims from the good majority rushed on foot over hills and alerted villages further on. 9 members of my extended family were saved by this act, escaping with just their clothes on their back. Sadly,all those brave men are on the list of more famous Srebrenica massacre,…

  • [2] December 22, 2015 at 1:15pm

    Not really, see my answer to DSMike. Counterexamples: EU, Bosnia, Kosovo – non-Arab Muslims at higher than average support for terrorism.

  • [6] December 10, 2015 at 3:00pm

    This is not “common sense” even for gun control activists as it will fail the very first court challenge. You can’t deny any fundamental Constitutional rights just on suspicion, even Lefties at Supreme Court wouldn’t stand for that (because of legal consequences to some rights they like). You can limit Constitutional rights to people found guilty in a Court of Law, ex. guilty of providing support to terrorists, even after serving sentence could be prevented from weapon purchase/ownership. Just being on some list is not enough, never mind a list which content you can’t challenge in the Court. Also, lawsuit will likely be brought up by people who’d be forced to provide their info for this purpose just because they are in the gun store-you can’t Constitutionally do even that (notice that FBI background checks include only adjudicated matters, not suspicions).

  • [-1] December 9, 2015 at 2:36pm

    I’ll go in reverse order as the most important failure from you is at the very end: “Believing things on faith is bad in religion or anything ” – showing what most of our modern society suffers from – absolute lack of understanding what religion is. Religion, by definition, is about transcendental. About issues that by very definition can’t be measured and tabulated. Not because we just lack ability but about issues impossible to measure, in which you only can believe or not. Even modern science opens door for possibility of transcendental (by definition, again, it can’t prove it, but opens plausible possibility for it): ex. “what was before BigBang? (which by our best current knowledge brought to existence all matter, energy, space, time and laws that apply to them)” does NOT have rational answer. We know that we can’t ever know what was before, even term “before BigBang” is rationally nonsensical. We can’t observe it, measure it,… Nothing rational precludes this patently transcendental to be God or pink unicorns or colliding branes of string theory. It is 100% up to a belief.
    Now to “less wrong” parts. “Good for goodness sake” without transcendental moral authority is meaningless. “Good for goodness” by arbitrary atheist definition may be “kill all non-atheists”, what authority postulates differently?
    As for “non attacking”- I’d agree with you if existing symbols of religious were not used. Erase Santa image and its OK. Atheists do not believe in Santa…

  • [6] December 4, 2015 at 11:35pm

    No, but here are two facts that explain both yours and @formerly_fishbone statements:
    1) Just in last few months a worldwide study on Muslim support for extremist/radical/terrorist interpretation have been done (mentioned on TheBlaze as well). By that study average of 25% of the worldwide Muslim population supports jihadists, varying by country, with USA Muslims bearing honorable least support, still 7% of them support jihadists by their own expression. 7% of a million is a lot, an army. So far sitting army, what if given an incentive or a chance…?
    2) Worse, where @formerly_fishbone is on the right track, from the long term study of Koran (spelled as in my national origin language) – the fact is that the jihadists are indeed closest to the literal reading of it than remaining 75%. Koran condemns killing of any human… but human defined as a person who submitted to Islam, believer or submissive paying tax to Islam. If you are a person who is not submissive to Islam, by Koran – you do not count as human or have any rights. Worse, Koran calls for active human judgement of non-believers in this life and consequences to them in this life from the believers. There is no judgment by the God only in afterlife or Karma or anything in “thereafter”. Punishment and judgment in the name of God by humans in this life is explicitly required. Luckily for the World only 25% Muslims support Koran to the word.

  • November 17, 2015 at 9:20am

    What most well meaning (particularly on the Left) people are missing in the geo-political image of the modern World is that with so densely populated and so connected globe, well meaning and good moral base is not enough. Aggressive minorities (and I do not say this in USA terminology but in a sense of globally small but yet very present groups, not necessarily defined by race or nationality) have learned that they can wage passive wars of conquest using judo-like moves exploiting the goodness and morality of the big and strong. Some recent USA examples are “anchor babies” and Syrian refugees (with IS published instructional how to infiltrate refugees to gain access to the West readily available on the Web…). However, the trend is global.
    Due to my cultural background I am aware of couple decades old novel predicting exactly such World, based on the “history repeating”. Check if you wish “Dictionary of Khazars…” (at Amazon ) maybe for a deeper understanding.
    Anyway, to survive these new passive wars we must understand the enemy, understand how he wants to abuse our good morals and hearts and stand firm to the proper principles, not their abused version. Good practical example-how to help homeless but not feed his addiction, even solve it.

  • [13] November 10, 2015 at 1:02pm

    Just, this is not a conduct that is not reaching an offense status… this is Constitutionally protected conduct, inalienable RIGHT. On a public land and in the public institution, hence Govt and those who run said public institution for the Govt are expressly forbidden to limit this right and if they do so – they themselves commit a real, felonious crime of violation of a Constitutional civil right.
    If this was a private University it will have right on its own property to enforce such rules and/or use police for it if police was willing. But even than, if such conduct (expression of a fundamental right) happened outside its boundaries any action by University would again be a civil rights violation. You can’t create consequences to free speech in public. Never. Ever.

  • [82] October 6, 2015 at 9:13pm

    Sen Cruz missed excellent chance to rebut “97%” claim, probably, as most politicians, not aware of the actual source of that claim and the actual weakness of it. Please, please if you have any contact with any of these politicians (and Sen Cruz in particular) forward this actual scientific publication and its “emperor has no clothes” on “97%” quote repeated endlessly by AGW proponents: Link to IOP Science, Environmental Research Letters publication;jsessionid=C6FB97011AFBBFDBF5D1063C3BC25B9D.c1
    Title:Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, by J.Cook et al.
    Quote from the abstract related to 97%, this is THE SOURCE article for that claim:
    “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
    Translated: when just 32.6% support something, change metrics to something else (essentially eliminate 66.7% of true scientists who based on evidence, properly can’t support either opinion, because evidence is weak). Anyone repeating this false claim that 97% published climate scientists support AGW MUST be confronted with the truth in this research, without the spin: ONLY 32.6% support alarmist claim. Only. Not even a third. Never mind 97%.
    And, yes, I myself am a Scientist with a very good understanding of this issue.

    Responses (8) +
  • [12] August 31, 2015 at 8:49pm

    And here is why both you and her are in the wrong,… it is PUBLIC University. Private University would have exactly the rights she and you imply. And here is in her own words the perversion:
    “This is a public space, but within our confines we are allowed to choose what can be here, and we do that through a process of applying to be in the public space” – by the very definition of a public space, there is no and can’t be any process of applying to just be there. There is a right to control commercial activity, solicitation, sales,… By the very definition what students were doing was not that. If they were selling Constitutions – yes, she’d be correct. Just expressing themselves, free speech, there is by that very Constitution no right given to the Government or anyone else to obstruct, control, license,… free speech in a public space. None. If we had country of Laws, DOJ should have her already in custody on the serious charge of denying civil rights to these students.
    Again for you: “The university has the right to set rules and regulations about the distribution of materials, so this isn’t an issue.”-PRIVATE University, anywhere on their property yes. Public University, on public spaces- NO. My insight?-I work for a public University…

    Responses (2) +
  • [8] August 12, 2015 at 5:01pm

    You may be misunderstanding what the poll measured: performance at the debate alone. Compared with other polling about the same issue, Glenn’s poll is quite in agreement. Only significant outliers are Rand Paul, Jindal and Walker. Other polls place their performance well below Glenn’s and that likely represents Glenn audience vs general audience skew (people here tend to like particularly Paul and Walker).
    General polls show Cruz and Fiorina significantly ahead in debate performance, followed by Carson, than the close cluster of 10 others performing similarly and last four in sync with Glenn’s poll significantly down.
    Again, this is not “who would you vote for” poll (Trump is still significant leader there) but “who performed best at this particular debate”.

  • [24] May 15, 2015 at 5:34pm

    It is even not about the standards but about focus of learning. Common Core actually obstructs teachers from teaching abilities, teaching how-to, even teaching facts. Best example of it is quite bizarre drop in availability of computer programming classes in our high schools during the last decade when exactly opposite would have been expected due to the development and impact of that technology. But, that would be teaching “how-to” and that’s a big no-no for Common Core. One should teach “understanding” (typically at the completely wrong age level capability of the student), support creativity by avoiding “this-is-correct-this-is-wrong” education, everything is “correct”,… Maybe good education for some arts but nothing else.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 18, 2015 at 2:51pm

    One thing that even this article does not mention is even more crucial: free market forces, which you can fight at your own peril just as forces of gravity, establish relations between prices of goods, services, labor,… These relations, though changeable on short term from various influences (including mandates) will always, inevitably re-establish themselves. There is a fixed relation between the minimum-wage type of job price (salary) and the price of many essential goods, let’s symbolize those by the price of a pound of bread. Value of minimum wage job per hour=X times price of pound of bread. Any artificial, mandated, even voluntary shift in the hourly minimum wage will propagate in finite time to the price of general goods. If we double minimum wage,… price of bread (or anything else) will also, inevitably double. Purchasing power of those on minimum wage will inevitably remain the same. Just, now , we’ll devalue our own currency by “forced inflation”…
    One must understand these inevitable consequences even before starting deeper analysis as in this article, which is valuable but secondary. The most important bit is that you can’t cheat the forces of free market no matter how hard you try. Socialism/Communism results proved that.

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] March 30, 2015 at 6:37pm

    One must be very, very, very careful to distinguish Conservatives vs. “Conservatives”. Rubio belongs to the second based on actual actions he did in Congress. He retreated back to the conservative words after immense rating drop that followed his actions. I trust actions alone. Rubio is Bush-lite. Establishment Trojan horse. Conservative on words, Progressive in his heart.
    Hence, remove Rubio from the Conservative listing and add him where he belongs-with Bush and Christie. As confirmation – see where establishment money is going: Bush and Rubio. One of them will survive to fight one of the true conservatives. I am not as pessimistic as you for conservative field, person emerging from there will be the one showing ability to unite all aspects of Conservative block AND bring them to vote. Chances are good that by Florida primaries such candidate will crystalize and that other conservatives will support him. Chances are that Bush and Rubio will fight in Florida for survival of the establishment one.

  • [13] March 29, 2015 at 12:19pm

    The top comment, the core of the issue: modern education shifted a lot toward social engineering of the kids (and through them attempt at the same toward families) instead of teaching. Common Core is just a crown jewel of this process.

  • [12] March 23, 2015 at 4:37pm

    One important correction for all those who claim that vote cheating is not significant or frequent, the argument initial Judge also used stating only one example over years: insidious nature of voter fraud is in the fact that without voter-ID, it is almost undetectable. There is no mechanism in place to catch it. Examples are rare because it is so efficient to do fraud that way without voter-ID that no one is ever caught.
    Another item usually omitted in these discussions: fraud voting is the worst example of voter disenfranchisement because your honest vote is negated by a false vote.