ROC doesn’t claim to legitimately rule China anymore. That was just KMT’s delusion, and they’re no longer in power.

79% of Americans say they want age caps for elected officials, but they keep voting for people older than those age caps, and that is the result that counts in the end.

You’ll find that a lot of people here don’t care how old Sanders is (older than McConnell). It’s his turn.

Cannabis has been found to be ineffective for most of the conditions it’s prescribed for.

No, it hasn’t.

From the very beginning of the linked article: “Medical cannabis lacks adequate scientific backing for most of the conditions it is commonly used to treat”

Reading is hard, as you say.

Cannabis has been proven to be a very effective treatment for nausea and seizures

Not “very” and not for “nausea and seizures” in general. It has shown effectiveness specifically for “chemotherapy-induced nausea” and “certain severe pediatric seizure disorders such as Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome” according to the very article that you claim to have read. For more, Dr. Chung explains

“Recently, cannabidiol (CBD) is the one that showed efficacy, but people tend to extend that into any other epilepsy… It is confined, as evidence suggests, to those 2 syndromes, but not other types of epilepsy.”

The standard of care treatment for chemotherapy induced nausea is antiemetics. More recently, Dravet Syndrome can be treated with Zorevunerson with over 90% efficacy. This is without the risk of cannabis associated psychotic symptoms. I have personally witnessed a smart kid at a top university succumb to debilitating marijuana induced schizophrenia and get banned from campus as a safety risk. That is not a side effect that patients should accept.

Regardless, cannabis has been an effective treatment for many medical issues for centuries for a reason,

Mercury was a mainstay in medicine for treating syphilis, constipation, and infections (using calomel) from the 16th to 20th centuries, often causing severe toxicity. Medical science is a relatively new concept. Doctors didn’t start sterilizing their instruments until the late 19th century.

What am I ignorant about? Are you just going to let me wallow in my ignorance? So far, I have only stated things that are true as far as I know and presented my sources. You and the other lady say that I am misinformed but don’t care to inform me.

You embarrassed yourself online because you have a weird offense to even the notion that weed can be used for medicinal purposes

Not embarrassed at all. If anything, I take offense to people being given bad medical advice. If you were prescribed cannabis, you would be among them.

What have I said that is demonstrably false? Please demonstrate. I’m all ears. What should I have researched instead of the HSA website?

Chill.

Take a chill pill. I did look up the HSA application for medicines. Cannabis and chewing gums were specifically banned, but nothing else was called out.

As far as I know, all other narcotics prescribed in the US are allowed in Singapore with an HSA approval, which is exactly my point.

You might want to get a better doctor. Cannabis has been found to be ineffective for most of the conditions it’s prescribed for. The very few that it has shown effectiveness for have better treatment options available. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/evidence-lacking-medical-cannabis-most-conditions

Calm down. You’re tired, so I’ll keep it short. I quoted Greenwald. Does Greenwald’s quote make sense after what I explained and after reading the articles I linked? Yes or no. That’s all the work you should do.

You think I’m a conspiracy theorist because you’ve read conspiracy theories in forums online. Most people get their news from sources like The NYT and The Week instead of those forums, so what I’m telling you is mainstream belief. It just happens to match the beliefs of people in the tech industry at the time like me.

His passport was revoked while he was still in Hong Kong. You don’t need a passport to be deported. He’s in Russia because Putin wants him there, not because of passport issues.

That dude was never a good investigative journalist. https://reddthat.com/comment/26181758

articles like this one

Do not support Snowden’s claim that the NSA could read any American’s emails or listen to any American’s phone calls. Greenwald (through Snowden’s insistence) thought that DITU was an NSA computer inside American Internet companies. That’s the source of the misconception, which resulted in Greenwald’s sensational claim, “But the Prism program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies’ servers.”

The article itself is a misreporting of this WaPo article that said half of the communications contained references to American residents. This makes sense of course, because the foreign accounts being surveilled were thought to have national security importance for the U.S.

In truth, entire teams of journalists from multiple outlets worked on different parts of those stories

And the ones who knew what they were talking about disparaged Greenwald’s reporting that was based solely on Snowden’s ignorance. The first newspaper to get the story right was the New York Times. Then CNET’s Declan McCullough repeatedly called Greenwald out on his poor reporting. ZDNet quite reasonably asked why neither Greenwald nor his editor bothered to consult a subject matter expert. The tech blogosphere ripped it apart at the time, to the point that Greenwald kept responding in an unhinged way to open source tech celebrities on Twitter. But you didn’t need to be in tech at the time to understand this. This got picked up in mainstream news summary sites like The Week.

You didn’t even address the fact that the US forced the plane of the president of Ecuador to land in Europe due to pressure from the US, because it flies in the face of your narrative that the US is a righteous place where you can trust the law

That’s because it was Bolivia, and each country has a right to police its own airspace. France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy can choose which planes they allow to fly over their countries, and that is their right under international law. The US didn’t unlawfully down a plane over a European country’s airspace.

You know how they got around not being able to spy on Americans? They got the brits and other countries to do it for them. That is what the Five-Eyes organization is all about

This is a conspiracy theory that isn’t supported by any documents at all, especially nothing in Snowden’s documents. This agreement started as BRUSA, which was a no-spy agreement, which Germany requested access to after the Germans and the Americans had been caught spying on each other in the early 2000s. This no-spy provision is alluded to in the WaPo article I linked to above: “At one level, the NSA shows scrupulous care in protecting the privacy of U.S. nationals and, by policy, those of its four closest intelligence allies — Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.”

Snowden claimed PRISM lets the NSA read any American’s emails and chats. Greenwald believed him because he didn’t know any better. It turned out not to be the case. Instead, the US government could request real-time copies via Section 702 orders (used for data for specific accounts belonging to non-Americans outside the US) that would be ingested by the FBI’s existing wiretap integration for requesting data for Americans under court ordered surveillance, and PRISM was just the data ingestion system that integrated with the FBI for that non-American data. It’s clearly shown in the slides, but neither Snowden nor Greenwald had enough smarts to Google the word, “DITU” on the slide and came up with wild conspiracies involving NSA computers running in Google’s data centers requesting any data they liked.

The only illegal domestic surveillance program in the entirety of the leaks was a system that collected phone metadata about who called whom when for how long. The leaks showed that it could only be queried in a very particular way. Snowden thought the NSA could listen in on any American’s phone calls and read any American’s email, but nothing of the sort showed up in his leaks.

Why should he trust US whistleblower laws? Because they work. The guy who leaked Trump’s call to Zelensky asking him to investigate Hunter Biden was protected by whistleblower laws to the point that you don’t even know his name. After he filed a whistleblower complaint and the investigation began, multiple other witnesses came forward. None of them have been prosecuted, and this was even under Trump, who is unafraid to file meritless lawsuits. If Snowden just blew the whistle on the single illegal program in his leaks, he would be in the U.S. earning royalties from his book deal.

Indeed, defenestration is making a comeback in Russia. The Prague tourism industry is in shambles. Nobody wants to see the second best.

Sorry, I updated my comment while you were responding. Please go ahead and update your response, and I’ll then cross out this comment.

You seem to be part of the first.

Absolutely not. I’m for fighting government abuse. I’m against helping antagonistic foreign dictatorships like China. You and Snowden seem to be for the latter. It is not that hard to do the former without doing the latter.

And calling Snowden simple-minded truly betrays your ignorance.

His plan to live in Hong Kong didn’t work for what to me seems obvious reasons. He completely misinterpreted the PRISM slides. He failed a very simple analyst test. He’s unironically a libertarian. He didn’t understand whistleblower laws at all and didn’t even bother to consult a lawyer. For all of these simple thinking errors, he now finds himself living under Putin’s thumb. All the available evidence points to one conclusion.

The SCMP is, as you said, a chinese newspaper. So it absolutely makes sense that they’d ask China-focussed questions like “Were there chinese systems compromised?”

And Snowden claimed to be a patriotic American. Why would he tell the Chinese about the systems that the U.S. had compromised? He also told the SCMP that he chose Hong Kong years ago, so telling them about these hacks clearly wasn’t some spur of the moment decision made with little forethought.

This is not some vast conspiracy theory requiring dozens of people to be in on some secret plan. This is a simple analysis of a single simple-minded man.

Where did I say my beliefs were from government statements? My comment only mentioned leaks. How do leaks lie? Are you implying Snowden was in on a conspiracy where he only leaked documents that made it look like the government was following the law in order to pull the wool over our eyes? I have to admit, that is a new one to me.

But you’d have to be a naive child to think they abide by the law.

If they didn’t abide by the law, surely there would be evidence for it in the massive trove of documents that Snowden released.