How to end abortions. Make the "father" of the fetus watch the abortion procedure.
What we need in the White is a moderate Repblican or Democrat who can in the words of Larry the Canle Guy "Get er' done." Because now is not the time for ideology, now is the time for practiciality.
What we need in the White is a moderate Repblican or Democrat who can in the words of Larry the Canle Guy "Get er' done." Because now is not the time for ideology, now is the time for practiciality.
Question: How is either party supposed to simply "Get 'er done" if one party votes/filibusters in unison against anything the other party proposes? That's pretty much what we've been seeing happen.
Ron Paul supports alternative medicine (he himself is an MD) and believes that people should have the right to drink raw milk. I know this seems minor, but as I stated above, the USDA has been the prime facilitator in perpetuating the obesity epidemic. Go to www.mercola.com and read about the things Americans have been putting into their bodies.
Anyway, this is my two cents on politics. I know I'm going to get some negative reactions, but bring it on, I guess.
You're entitiled to your opinion HalcyonFour and i respect them. But with all due respect i disgree.
Ron paul has some interesting ideas but he also has a lot of idea which economically and internationally would be disastrous for this country. I do however believe whoeevr becoomes president should hire Newt gingrich as a political advisor as the man has some good ideas that would work ecoonomically.
I also believe this. I think the PC parents groups and politicians need to get out of "Working to contain violence on T.V." Because these days they're actually doing more harm then good. If the parents and politcal fgroup want to curtail violence stop blaming T.V., movies, and video games and take more active role in their own kids' lives in teaching them good values. It's a little something called responsibility. ANd more importantly parents should talk to their kids about what they watch, again that's responsibility, and it's also a means of opening ccommunication with their kids.
I have not looked into who is running or not so personally I have no clue who those people are. I doubt Obama will get another term though, especially after operation fast and furious, which of course is receiving almost no media coverage.
That is a good point about the milk thing and I was surprised to find out a few years ago it was illegal to buy/sell unpasteurized (real) milk. I'm even more surprised on how Obama was trying to push that bill that would make it so nobody can grow their own garden anymore because you had to buy and use USDA approved fertilizer and pesticides. It is no wonder auto-immune disorders are so rampant these days...
I say I am surprised when I really shouldn't be...
I have not looked into who is running or not so personally I have no clue who those people are. I doubt Obama will get another term though, especially after operation fast and furious, which of course is receiving almost no media coverage.
That is a good point about the milk thing and I was surprised to find out a few years ago it was illegal to buy/sell unpasteurized (real) milk. I'm even more surprised on how Obama was trying to push that bill that would make it so nobody can grow their own garden anymore because you had to buy and use USDA approved fertilizer and pesticides. It is no wonder auto-immune disorders are so rampant these days...
I say I am surprised when I really shouldn't be...
Oh MY GOSH, I did not know this!!!
Have you heard about the suicide seed? Look it up, it's being developed by Monsanto. It's the scariest thing in the world; it's basically looking to create a form of plants that will produce sterile seed. This means that farmers won't even be able to save their seed if they wanted to. Can you imagine what will happen if these "suicide seeds" contaminate with normal crops?!
He who controls the food supply controls the world...
Ron Paul supports alternative medicine (he himself is an MD) and believes that people should have the right to drink raw milk. I know this seems minor, but as I stated above, the USDA has been the prime facilitator in perpetuating the obesity epidemic. Go to www.mercola.com and read about the things Americans have been putting into their bodies.
Anyway, this is my two cents on politics. I know I'm going to get some negative reactions, but bring it on, I guess.
I get the daily Mercola newsletter. xD I don't really like how everything is overhyped so much, but there is some very good info on it.
I think it's ridiculous that people cannot sell unpasteurized milk across state lines. Afaik, it's legal as long as it's in your state. Or am I wrong? :0
I have not looked into who is running or not so personally I have no clue who those people are. I doubt Obama will get another term though, especially after operation fast and furious, which of course is receiving almost no media coverage.
That is a good point about the milk thing and I was surprised to find out a few years ago it was illegal to buy/sell unpasteurized (real) milk. I'm even more surprised on how Obama was trying to push that bill that would make it so nobody can grow their own garden anymore because you had to buy and use USDA approved fertilizer and pesticides. It is no wonder auto-immune disorders are so rampant these days...
I say I am surprised when I really shouldn't be...
Oh MY GOSH, I did not know this!!!
Have you heard about the suicide seed? Look it up, it's being developed by Monsanto. It's the scariest thing in the world; it's basically looking to create a form of plants that will produce sterile seed. This means that farmers won't even be able to save their seed if they wanted to. Can you imagine what will happen if these "suicide seeds" contaminate with normal crops?!
He who controls the food supply controls the world...
I've heard of this before. It is honestly one of the most disgusting, inhumane, selfish things I have ever heard in my life. Greed at its worst.
I know, and it's kind of annoying the way that he endorses his products as the only answer.
I also find it a little bit...scary that he endorses the USDA stamp of approval so much. There have been recent findings that have shown that the USDA has actually been slacking in enforcing a lot of their organic standards. Mercola has not mentioned this in any of his articles, and I wonder why. I really hope that he is not being paid by the USDA to endorse that stamp of approval. I don't think so, but I just find it a bit odd that he has not recognized this.
It scares me to wonder whether the USDA organic stamp is going to be yet another tool of manipulation...and if it's not enforced, then really, it's useless.
The USDA does wonders- it's the reason a lot of people are alive right now.
Have you all seen Food Inc?
The USDA used to do wonders, whether they still do or not. Once upon a time, the meatpacking industry and other food producers had "convinced" the government (or at least their wallets) that it could be trusted, and the government agency nominally in charge of inspecting food was little more than a facade. To break the fallacy that food industries can be trusted to self-police, it took The Jungle and so much mass food-poisoning (aka ptomaine) that it was the leading cause of death among young adults. The USDA was created, and food got much safer than it had been in a long time.
Flash-forward a century, and the USDA doesn't even have the power to demand a recall when food starts killing people. They have to ask nicely and hope that the company will do so in a timely fashion - i.e. before 5/6th of it has already been consumed, as happened in a 2002 ConAgra incident. And their ability to even inspect food, pronounce something unsafe, or go after false claims has been whittled down to almost nothing.
Corporations around the turn of the last century pretty much ran everything, until massive outcry and popular movement forced reform. We're starting to see repeats of history all over the place - the abuses of the mortgage industry, the almost-open buying of politicians, using quasi-legal immigration to break the labor movement, the food industry scandals, etc. YMMV, but I think the Occupy movement may be the first serious sign that people have had enough.
Actually I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul and I'll tell you why a number of his policies would be disastrous.
1. Restoration of the Gold standard: Taking us back to the Gold standard would be economically disastrous because there's not enough gold on the PLANET to cover the amount of money we got floating out there.
2. Eliminate ALL taxes: Now granted a flat tax would be nice. But Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate ALL taxes which would essentially render the federal government completely peniless and unable to function.
3. Eliminate ALL Government agencies including the Bureau of Homeland security: Now how are we supposed to regulate things in this country or protect ourselves from enemies if there are no government agencies to regulate things? This is a bad idea.
4. Decentrallize our Military: Basically Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate our military and replace it with small "Civiliian militias". Are small civilian militias going to be able to stop large armies when they invade I think not..NO!
5. Negotuiate with enemies: Now Ron Paul wants to negotiate with the likes of Iran. He expects all of us to sit in a fireside circle with our enemies and sing "Kumbaya" with them? In
case no one noticed out there in the world we still have a group of unreasonaning religious psychopaths who want nothing more than to put several bullets to several nukes through our heads so they can create their own Holy Ottoman Empire. Iran's mullahs are still a threat and Achmedinijad (Sp?) has all the makings of th next Adolph Hitler. And for those of us who've read history we know what kind of damage the first one did and why we don't need a second one. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of world. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of liberty is always vigilence." and essentially Ron Paul wants us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and put our fingers in our ears. That would be a great environment for a wanabe Hitler to flourish. In short if we ignore our responsibilities evil will flourish.
6. Blantent misinterpretation of the constitution: Ron Paul actually wants to make the dollar illegal and uses a certain constitiutional amendment to state his case. The problem is I found out Ron Paul's little interpreataion was a gross misinterpretation. What this amendment says is that the individual states shall not produce their own currency. And that's sensible that promotes economic stability. That constitutional amendment does NOT say that gold and silver are the only money that shall be used. This leads to the question if Ron Paul would grossly misinterpret this amendment what else would he misinterpret if it would suit his own ends? Just a little something to think on.
If you're wondering how I got all this information, I saw a little old public cable access special that was put on by members of the Libertarian movement. And mind you in that special they also talked about all sorts of circumstantial non-existant conspiracies which I'd bet ere cooked up.
And as for this infertility seed there's one question I have. If such a thing does exist which I seriously doubt, WHY the blazes would we create something like that in the first place? We humans are many things but we're not THAT stupid. A word of advice to everyone out there it's always a good idea to not only question the information but question the people or person giving you that information or claiming that conspiracy they might (and probably do) have an ulterior agenda. Think on this folks.
Actually I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul and I'll tell you why a number of his policies would be disastrous.
1. Restoration of the Gold standard: Taking us back to the Gold standard would be economically disastrous because there's not enough gold on the PLANET to cover the amount of money we got floating out there.
While I do agree that going back to the gold standard might not be an immediate answer, let's take a look at the reason you give. The reason for the gold standard IS because there is all that money floating out there. Think about it. Would you rather have $100 in bills or $100 worth of gold? Most people would choose the gold because it is a solid store of wealth. It forces money to be tied to something concrete. If you've ever studied the history of money, you would know that historically, tying money to gold was the only way to guarantee that your wealth was saved. The process would not be immediate, we might have to revalue our system and have a floating exchange rate, but theoretically it could be done.2. Eliminate ALL taxes: Now granted a flat tax would be nice. But Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate ALL taxes which would essentially render the federal government completely peniless and unable to function.
This is false. Ron Paul is advocating for 10th amendment rights, which gives states more power. If you have less federal government, you would need less taxes to finance it. When he talks about getting rid of taxes, he is mainly pushing for less federal taxes. He does want to abolish the income and death taxes, but this does not mean we would not have a sales tax or taxes on other goods!3. Eliminate ALL Government agencies including the Bureau of Homeland security: Now how are we supposed to regulate things in this country or protect ourselves from enemies if there are no government agencies to regulate things? This is a bad idea.
Do you have ANY idea about what the Bureau of Homeland Security has done? How many rights it has taken away from us? If you are in support of civil liberties being stripped away for matters of "security" then I guess it would make sense to continue to vote for politicians who support this type of regulation.4. Decentrallize our Military: Basically Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate our military and replace it with small "Civiliian militias". Are small civilian militias going to be able to stop large armies when they invade I think not..NO!
Excuse me? Ron Paul has advocated for a strengthening of national borders. There are Ron Paul SUPPORTERS who have advocated for civilian militias, but this is because most of them believe that a police state is soon to be imposed on the American populace. Look up FEMA Camps on Google for reasons why they might believe this. If you can please provide sources for these claims, I would like to read them over.5. Negotuiate with enemies: Now Ron Paul wants to negotiate with the likes of Iran. He expects all of us to sit in a fireside circle with our enemies and sing "Kumbaya" with them? In
case no one noticed out there in the world we still have a group of unreasonaning religious psychopaths who want nothing more than to put several bullets to several nukes through our heads so they can create their own Holy Ottoman Empire. Iran's mullahs are still a threat and Achmedinijad (Sp?) has all the makings of th next Adolph Hitler. And for those of us who've read history we know what kind of damage the first one did and why we don't need a second one. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of world. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of liberty is always vigilence." and essentially Ron Paul wants us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and put our fingers in our ears. That would be a great environment for a wanabe Hitler to flourish. In short if we ignore our responsibilities evil will flourish.
Unfortunately, it seems that war propaganda has succeeded in convincing the politic of the philosophy of preemptive war strategy. When Bush went to war with Iraq, it was purportedly because of WMDs. There were none. Now the Obama administration is continuing to push for war against Iran...why? For what reason? While it may be the case that there are some Islamic extremists, I have my doubts about their ability to take on the U.S. It is precisely because of the U.S. strategies of policing the world that it has garnered so much hatred. It has nothing to do with religion, but rather social injustices and the policing of the world. It is similar to the issue with Palestine/Israel. The issue was never about religion, but land, power, and occupation.6. Blantent misinterpretation of the constitution: Ron Paul actually wants to make the dollar illegal and uses a certain constitiutional amendment to state his case. The problem is I found out Ron Paul's little interpreataion was a gross misinterpretation. What this amendment says is that the individual states shall not produce their own currency. And that's sensible that promotes economic stability. That constitutional amendment does NOT say that gold and silver are the only money that shall be used. This leads to the question if Ron Paul would grossly misinterpret this amendment what else would he misinterpret if it would suit his own ends? Just a little something to think on.
Excuse me? Make the dollar illegal? Can you please provide links to back this up? I want a quote from Ron Paul about his thoughts on this.If you're wondering how I got all this information, I saw a little old public cable access special that was put on by members of the Libertarian movement. And mind you in that special they also talked about all sorts of circumstantial non-existant conspiracies which I'd bet ere cooked up.
So you watched one biased video and formulated all of your opinions based on that. I would suggest that you look into his actual positions. This is his website: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/And as for this infertility seed there's one question I have. If such a thing does exist which I seriously doubt, WHY the blazes would we create something like that in the first place? We humans are many things but we're not THAT stupid. A word of advice to everyone out there it's always a good idea to not only question the information but question the people or person giving you that information or claiming that conspiracy they might (and probably do) have an ulterior agenda. Think on this folks.
Why? So that Monsanto can gain enormous profits and political power. If they control the food supply, they control the world. Thankfully, these seeds were made illegal, but they still created at least 20 different types of them, I believe. I wouldn't doubt that they are in the process of continuing to pursue it.
The reason why I believe that Ron Paul would make a good president is because he has tirelessly advocated for civil liberties. I don't agree with his positions on every issue; I also have qualms about the gold standard and some of his foreign policy. However, as I've been researching the Patriot Act, and the gradual deterioration of our rights as citizens, Ron Paul is the only (mainstream) candidate who has consistently advocated for these rights. You mentioned that "The price of liberty is always vigilance," well, I would like to rebut that with "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
You got to watch a lot of O' Reily and the Factor for the No Spin stuff and go to non-partisan websites to get a closer look.
Now that we've got all that out of the way I'll say this. I stand by everything I say. You got to watch a lot of O' Reily and the Factor for the No Spin stuff and go to non-partisan websites to get a closer look.
1. You say back up our money with Gold. Like I said there's not enough Gold on the Planet to cover the amount of money we got floating out there. Granted Gold and precious metals are a great investmment idea that can yield some heavy dividends if played for the long haul. But it's been proven that Ron Paul wants to return us to the Gold standard it's the No-spin truth.
2. Actually it isn't false granted we'd have fewer Government agencies but look at what Ron Paul wants to get rid of. The Federal Reserve, The Bureau Homeland Security, The Bureau Of Eductaion. The I.R.S. Those who are in charge of insuring that our nation has some measure of regulation or collect money needed for government to run it's basic services. We might be burdened by too much regulation which could be cut. But too little regulation...and the gangsters run amuck unchecked.
3. The Bureau of Homeland Security has worked quietly behind the scenes insuring that all Government agencies work together and share information to help us deal with the threat of Teerrorism which is still very real. And getting rid of the Federal reserve would cut off every American business from getting the money they need to get things done and make a profitand thusly cause our great entrepreneurial system to collpase no new businesses big or small. You can only cut so much from the Federal government before you you kill vital services. Granted the Government could stand to be shrunk but eliminate our most important agencies there's a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.
4. Ah yes, the so-called police state. People who are talking like that I say to them go to a third world dictatorship country and THEN you'll see a police state. America is many things but it is not now nor will it ever be a police state. That's a conspiracy thoery (And I don't apoliogize for saying that because that's what it is). And what happened with FEMA that was it's own fault they botched up big time.
5. War propaganda? That's a conspiracy theory pushed by the anti-war isolationist crowd. Obama has never advocated war with Iran. Granted there were no WMDs in Iraq but Saddam Hussien was a meanace that needed to be stopped in case he did. We should've gone in Iraq AFTER we killed Osama Bin Laden. But in the end it doesn't matter because we got that varmit none the less. And the so-called policing the world has caused the world to hate us...sorry that's spin by the anti-war crowd. Sorry but Ron Paul and his followers see the U.S. Army as part of the "Police state" and want to dismantle it for "Ciivilian Militias" which would spell disaster for us if another power decided to invade.
6. He would illegalize the dollar and he quotes I recall the very same Amendment which states thates the the Dollar shall be the only currecy by the U.S. or in Ron Paul's case he twists the translation to suit his own ends. People like him who twist and pervert the constitution are the sort of people who should NOT be in office.
7. I actually checked out that website. it's a known pro-Ron Paul website. I prefer to go to known, established, and respected non-partisan sites for information. Granted Bill O' Reily likes to antagonize people and I'm not exactly cool with that, I prefer Mike Huckabee's approach. Still Bill O' Reily doesn't take sides he simply lays it out and a lot of times he's right though he does have a bad habit of being anti-union while I myself am pro-union. And funny thing about Public Cable Access folks who go on those channels usually are talking to those who they think are on their side and are unafraid to tell it like it is. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, "Keep your friends close keep your opponents closer."
9. Enormous Profits and political powerr? Ahh, ahhh that's a conspiracy theory. Granted they want to make money, what business doesn't? That's the name of the game in the business world. Granted a number of big Businesses could learn to have more accountability but if we simply don't buy their products they'll get the message. Or better still go into business against them. That will drive down the price of things for the consumer, lead to better quality of customer service, and create more jobs, and more oppurtunities for all. Like I said if you don't like a company, don't accuse them of nonsensical conspiacy theories. Just don't buy their product or start making the same thing they do. And the big problem with the whole sterile seed thing is if they were to do that they'd be putting themselves in danger of going out of business and starving the human race as well with an infertile seed. And no business last time I looked ever wanted to shoot themselves in the foot so to speak.
Sorry Ron Paul only supports the constitution when it's convienient for him.
He's a constitutional lawyer, and like all lawyers he has a knack for twisting the truth when it serves his own ends.
That's the truth behind the spin. And as for Ben Franklin the ORIGINAL American playa' and patriot yes, what he said was true, but...what he also means is we have to be on the lookout for those within our system who would seek to use it as a means to gain the power they crave.
I'm sorry but Ron Paul wants to go beyond the presidency he wants to run the country for as long as he can and he'd use the constitution if he thought it could help him achieve that.
[Link] (http://vimeo.com/31100268)
This video explains PiPA in very basic terms and the same sort of idea applies to SOPA, but, (just to tell you here) in brief, the legislation, if passed, would essentially hand the Internet over to corporations, allowing them to sue and shut down any website that so much as hosts a link to copyrighted material.
Internet Service Providers could be forced to block social media sites, search engines could be required to delete results, and startups could lose their funding — all on the whim of the copyright holder.
Perhaps most distressing of all, however, is the fact that this bill, in true Orwellian fashion, does nothing to prevent actual piracy. The only thing it will succeed in doing is turning the Internet into a dystopic plutocracy where people are no longer free to share ideas and be creative for fear of running afoul of Big Business.
Despite what some would have you believe, the hearings are offensively lopsided, with pro-SOPA voices far outweighing those opposed. A slew of tech companies including Google, Yahoo!, Mozilla, Twitter, and AOL, have undersigned a full-page ad in today's New York Times opposing SOPA, but it's doubtful their voices will be heard by those who need to hear it.
That means it's up to you to get this terrifying, jobs-killing, Internet-breaking bill off the table for good.
Ahh, typical of all Ron Paul supporters, you hear the words but do not listen with your mind. Granted I did mess up with Ron paul about hsi profession, but with everything else I'm quiote clear. My good fellow for you to throw audacious comments such as that I'm a brainwahed zombie in callusion with this secret conspiracy or that secret conspiracy just goes to show why Ron paul and his ilk will nevr win. And i beg to differ my good felow I was quite clear on the issues, and note this since we've started having this discussion you've constantly been throwinga b arrage of attacks my way while I have shown discipline and risen above it.
1, Another reason being, the man is in his 70's, he's not going to be around much longer.
2. The whole "Anything that even remotely dissimiliars from our persepctive is evil and part of a conspiarcy." It's true whenever anyone disagrees with Ron Paul all the followers come out of the woodwork and scream and shout trying to silence them. This is the exact same thing that the left is trying to do. And in the end in this great country it won't work>
Sorry in the end it's going to be Mitt Romney who proverbially pins Obama for the 1...2...3 victory and starts us down the right track to getting America back on feet. And with the way Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot Mitt Romney doesn't need to do all that much just stay positive and focus on his plan.. I'm a Moderate Democrat and i say Mitt Romney is the REAL hope for this country. Why, because we need moderates who will go by practicality, not ideology.
The bill is talking about sites that offer illegal downloads of song files and the lot. SOPA doesn't do that, so it doesn't relate. That's enough reasoning right there.
SEC. 201. STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.
Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed...
by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works
The term `Internet site' means the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets...
a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if... the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code
(5) IMMUNITY... any entity served with a copy of an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order
QuoteSEC. 201. STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.
Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed...
by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works
"Digital transmission" isn't limited to illegal downloads. As the section name indicates, it includes streaming.
Section 2319 of title 18 (the law being referenced) made counterfeiting copyrighted goods (i.e. making DVDs of Titanic that are designed to look like the one being sold in stores) a felony. This bill changes that to "any copyright violation at all." In fairness, there's also a section which requires that it be more than $2500 in damages, but they added on the MPAA/RIAA's formula of "every download or view equals a lost sale". Considering how many copyrighted works an AMV usually samples, you've almost certainly committed a felony if it gets as many as 10 views. First offense, up to 5 years in prison per infringement. Second and thereafter, 10 years.
You don't even have to provide the content. All you have to do is "facilitate" it by linking to it or by being the registrant of the domain name. This opens you up to all sorts of happy fun in rem actions by the DoJ (Dep't of Justice) including having your domain seized, having search engines be forced to remove any links to you, having payment providers functionally seize your assets, etc... with no real recourse. The one site I know of that's tried to fight it has been tied up in court for several months, getting stonewalled - heaven only knows how much longer it'll take. Probably years. But if you get hit with all of the above, even if it's "only" for several months, you're functionally dead as a site - and all it takes is for someone to file a complaint with the DoJ against you. You don't have to be found guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent - after you've been sentenced.
Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.
To boot, they also wrote immunity from liability into the law so that not only the DoJ, but also payment providers will be immune from actions like the antitrust suit Wikileaks has filed in the EU against Visa et al for the blockade I described earlier. They face no penalty for unethically seizing someone's assets, but they'll be considered facilitators subject to felony charges if they don't comply "within 5 days". Even if they want to fight it on behalf of customers, they can't.
There still is the other bill, Protect IP Act.
I think random is correct. Are you in law school, random?
AMV's wouldn't apply for various reasons. For example, your getting random clips that are not in the original order. Also, the original audio files (at least for what I call "genuine" AMV's) are not in the AMV's. Therefore, the copyright laws that relate to illegal viewings doesn't apply. As for the copyright theft, if you indicate where you got the audios and visuals for the AMV, (in other words, cite the sources), then you'll be fine, assuming that you got them legally. If you got them illegally, then you've violated the law, whether you're making an AMV or not.
You don't even have to provide the content. All you have to do is "facilitate" it by linking to it or by being the registrant of the domain name. This opens you up to all sorts of happy fun in rem actions by the DoJ (Dep't of Justice) including having your domain seized, having search engines be forced to remove any links to you, having payment providers functionally seize your assets, etc... with no real recourse. The one site I know of that's tried to fight it has been tied up in court for several months, getting stonewalled - heaven only knows how much longer it'll take. Probably years. But if you get hit with all of the above, even if it's "only" for several months, you're functionally dead as a site - and all it takes is for someone to file a complaint with the DoJ against you. You don't have to be found guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent - after you've been sentenced.
Well, I can't say anything regarding the site you're talking about, since I don't know who they are, but SOPA is designed to focus on the sites that are violating copyright laws.
QuoteAuthorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.
Anyone that the Attorney General sees violating the copyright laws will be told to stop first, given time to stop, and then punished should they continue on. If anything, SOPA is a very forgiving-sounding law.
The key point I was trying to make, but I managed to bury in a sea of TLDR instead, was this: You do not have to provide content to be punished. All you have to do is link to it. That's what happened to Rojadirecta (http://torrentfreak.com/domain-seizures-does-not-violate-free-speech-110805/), despite being declared legal by the courts in its own country (Spain).
If you think about what that means for both search engines and user-generated content sites, that's really scary. And it might explain why Yahoo, Google, Facebook, and a variety of other big names in the Internet have come out strongly against SOPA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-lawmaker-opposition-grows-as-debate-heats-up/2011/11/18/gIQADBdQZN_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop).
I'm pretty sure that this is somewhat off; it says that I'm most like Pope Benedict XVI. (What does theatre and museums have to do with politics?)
...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.
My experience in my over 30 years of life has taught me this. Question all those who claim they are the savior of this country and question all information given out by those who claim they're savior incaranate. You may find some truths that you don't like.
...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.
My bad; I've never seen that show. ^^;My experience in my over 30 years of life has taught me this. Question all those who claim they are the savior of this country and question all information given out by those who claim they're savior incaranate. You may find some truths that you don't like.
I know about his loose ties with JBS; I also know about the ghostwritten newsletters, his Randian views, and his connections to Alex Jones and implied belief in globalism. As far as I'm concerned, every candidate will have imperfections. No one is perfect. As I recall, Mr. Barry Obama was praised as a champion of Change when he was elected. The man was heavily backed/funded by Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, La Raza, and the Black Panthers. It's OK to vote for a guy like him him when he's backed by these kinds of constituents, right? But it's not OK to back a strict constitutionalist ignorantly called a racist who will vote against popular laws on principle; will speak out against the the Federal Reserve; defend my rights to consume raw milk and use alternative medicine; and defend a foreign policy based on peace.
I have done plenty of research on Dr. Ron Paul, and while I do not support everything he does or stands for (I am very wary of JBS and I can't stand Ayn Rand), he is going to get my vote. I want the corporate marionettes out of office and I want my civil liberties protected.
If you disagree, I completely respect that. But thus far, you have failed to provide proper rebuttals to my arguments. You seem to be an Obama supporter. I highly encourage you to do your research as well.
...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.
I'm pretty sure that this is somewhat off; it says that I'm most like Pope Benedict XVI. (What does theatre and museums have to do with politics?)
I suppose the inference is that people on the left care more about art than people on the right, even if the art isn't economically viable. Basically, a person on the left would see a social value to supporting a museum or theater whereas someone that was more capitalist-minded would say that if it can't afford to survive on its own then it shouldn't exist.
That's just my best guess, though.
My ideal Presidential candidate would be a Black/Hispanic/Arabic lesbian transwoman, who was a secular Atheist, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and a registered Independent. Oh man. I would cry if such a woman existed and demand she lead my country.
Mitt Romney is not a marionette for anyone. He was a businessman who understands how the private sector works.
But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself esstentially president for life/dictator.
My ideal Presidential candidate would be a Black/Hispanic/Arabic lesbian transwoman, who was a secular Atheist, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and a registered Independent. Oh man. I would cry if such a woman existed and demand she lead my country.
This. One thing I always wondered about this kind of attitude. Are you a secluar atheist? An atheist preferring an atheist (in my view) is the same thing as a Christian preferring a Christian (or whatever). Both circumstances are quite understandable, we naturally tend to gravitate towards people like us. Which is why I ask whether you are a secular atheist (though that term is kind of redundant, and if you don't feel comfortable revealing this, I understand). I watched the Thanksgiving Family Forum today with most of the candidates (Romney and the other guy didn't show up) and Gingrich was talking about how he "wouldn't be comfortable with an atheist president." I'm just interested in this phenomenon. Should it matter what religion a person is, so long as they stand for what is right? What if Ron Paul was an atheist? Would his supporters think he was more crazy? Or would he have more supporters? Some of his views would probably change, though.
Just some food for thought. Hope that wasn't offensive or controversial.
Thank you for an amazingly well-spoken post. :)
"Well, I heard they're trying to decide what bank to put their money in," he said, munching on hors d'oeuvres. "It's just kind of ironic."
Oh, Christ, I thought. He’s saying the protesters are hypocrites because they’re using banks. I sighed.
"Listen," I said, "where else are you going to put three hundred thousand dollars? A shopping bag?"
"Well," he said, "it's just, their protests are all about... You know..."
"Dude," I said. "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street."
Mitt Romney is not a marionette for anyone. He was a businessman who understands how the private sector works.
I'm so glad to know you didn't vote for Barry.
As far as not being owned by anyone, well, Mitt Romney has received more money from lobbyists than any of the other candidates combined: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/mitt-romney-lobbyists_n_923323.html?ref=fb&src=sp and he is generously being doused by Wall Street money: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012
But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself esstentially president for life/dictator.
Please, enlighten me! I would love to know how a champion of the constitution (libertarian, no less) would engage in this type of behavior.
There was a lot of other stuff about Romney I was going to post, but I like to encourage people to do their own research. I can PM them to you, if you like, though.
Now make no mistake I know we're a Christian country...
You're all coherent and politically engaged! So awesome. /gold star
I thought this (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025#ixzz1c8I08H75) Matt Taibbi article on OWS was really cool. It takes a look at the movement's core complaints from a hardline economic standpoint. It's got facts and stuff! Facts are cool.
Here's a quote from the beginning to entice you into actually reading it.Quote"Well, I heard they're trying to decide what bank to put their money in," he said, munching on hors d'oeuvres. "It's just kind of ironic."
Oh, Christ, I thought. He’s saying the protesters are hypocrites because they’re using banks. I sighed.
"Listen," I said, "where else are you going to put three hundred thousand dollars? A shopping bag?"
"Well," he said, "it's just, their protests are all about... You know..."
"Dude," I said. "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street."
Other things with cool facts that everyone should consume: Miss Representation. It's a documentary which discusses the media's role in shaping the self-image, ambitions and career possibilities of women. It also talks about men, but to a lesser extent. The whole thing was pretty much bang on and made me cry actual tears of sympathetic frustration at some parts. Here's a trailer. (http://vimeo.com/28066212) It's about 8 minutes long, and has Condoleezza Rice in it. Condi Rice is totally an incentive.
Ahh grnted we have a seperation of church and state to ensure that there's no one ruling church jaqua, but let's be honest we are a nation that was founded by differring sects of Christianity. But we were founded with the idea that people should be free to believe what they will so long as those belief do not involve bringing harm to others. Those are actually based on Christian ideals. I'm not a chruch goer but I believe in the goodness of Christianity itself. Just because we're a Christian nation doesn't mean that we have to think one way or another. that's another beauty we have in this country...freedom of thought.It's really narrow to say that pluralism is explicitly Christian, especially since it's a principle that is only practiced by some Christians and really really not practiced by many others. American pluralism owes a lot to political philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. And while there may have been a lot of different Christian sects on the continent at the time, none of the framing legal documents of the United States include Christian references.
On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.
Ahh grnted we have a seperation of church and state to ensure that there's no one ruling church jaqua, but let's be honest we are a nation that was founded by differring sects of Christianity. But we were founded with the idea that people should be free to believe what they will so long as those belief do not involve bringing harm to others. Those are actually based on Christian ideals. I'm not a chruch goer but I believe in the goodness of Christianity itself. Just because we're a Christian nation doesn't mean that we have to think one way or another. that's another beauty we have in this country...freedom of thought.It's really narrow to say that pluralism is explicitly Christian, especially since it's a principle that is only practiced by some Christians and really really not practiced by many others. American pluralism owes a lot to political philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. And while there may have been a lot of different Christian sects on the continent at the time, none of the framing legal documents of the United States include Christian references.
The only possibly-related document which presupposes a god (and not even an explicitly Judeo-Christian god) is the Declaration of Independence, which is not legally binding in any way and plays no part in the legislative, executive or judicial institutions of the nation.
QuoteOn the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.
The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)
And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)
But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself esstentially president for life/dictator.
Not to mention the doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state
In fact he rationalizes his beliefs by misinterpreting the constitution yet again.
how he believes that the American Dollar should be replaced by gold and the gold standard restored. When in facact the constitutional amendment CLEARLY states that the states shall simply not prodice their own currnecy.
ANd as for Open Secrets.org it's known to be associated with CNN and ABC News, and because of that I question the numbers and information they're producing.
QuoteOn the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.
The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)
And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)
Also agreeing with a congregation's right to choose, and also agreeing that the church should not dictate marriage as a whole. A church would be a literal last resort for a location if ever I were to marry, because to me (feelings about religion aside) marriage isn't about being united in the eyes of a god, it's about trusting another person with half of your life. Not to mention the Christianity (and in fairness, other religions as well) of the past meant that marriage made your wife and her belongings your property, not your equal, and as a feminist that doesn't give me happy feelings. Obviously these practices and beliefs are outdated and no longer applicable to (most of) modern society, but it doesn't help me shake the knowledge of it.
Marriage, to me, should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, gender identity, or sexual preference. (like me and malaria wait what)
HalcyonFour: Oh but it is.
And actually I've been quite clear
But he short of it is i can tell you for a fact Ron paul will not now, nor will he EVER be president of the United States.
His ideas are too far out there
As to where i get my information I take a little from Fox and little bit from MSNBC and search for the truth between the lines. AS I've so often said an arguement is a three edged sword there's your side, his side, and then there's the truth.
QuoteOn the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.
The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)
And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)
Also agreeing with a congregation's right to choose, and also agreeing that the church should not dictate marriage as a whole. A church would be a literal last resort for a location if ever I were to marry, because to me (feelings about religion aside) marriage isn't about being united in the eyes of a god, it's about trusting another person with half of your life. Not to mention the Christianity (and in fairness, other religions as well) of the past meant that marriage made your wife and her belongings your property, not your equal, and as a feminist that doesn't give me happy feelings. Obviously these practices and beliefs are outdated and no longer applicable to (most of) modern society, but it doesn't help me shake the knowledge of it.
Marriage, to me, should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, gender identity, or sexual preference. (like me and malaria wait what)
If anyone here has read the comic book Ex Machina (and if you haven't you should, it's great) the main character has the best idea I've ever heard when it comes to marriage: stop having the government give out "marriage licenses". We need to separate legal marriage and religious marriage. Have the government give out civil unions to any pair (or more, but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) of consenting adults who want them. These unions would provide all the legal rights and obligations of marriage licenses to whoever has one. And then those people are free to get married as a religious ceremony at whatever congregation will have them. This gets rid of the religiously charged term "marriage" and focuses the debate where it should be, on the rights of individuals.
I sincerely doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but it always made sense to me.
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):
How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?
he thinks we should get rid of the Patriot ACt I happen to think it's necessary. Consider this since we created the Patriot ACt since 9/11 we have not had a single terrorist attack on our Home soil....not one.
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):
How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?
Photobucket is an option! Just put the direct web address to the image you want between [ img ] [ /img ] brackets (though obviously without the spaces).
... Except I remember when the "Underwear Bomber" was national news, are you telling me that you don't? Because that speaks more to you being out-of-touch with the news rather than me "fabricating" it. Besides, you said earlier you watch Fox News, which-- since you obviously don't know-- is EXTREMELY BIASED. It's gotten tons of flack for its outright and blatant fabrication (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+fabrications) of the very real sort (http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths).
If you're going to disregard my information as false, you should also be discarding Fox as false. Just saying. (http://foxnewslies.net/) (and I don't know why I'm even bothering to do your research for you, since you're obviously not bothering to read these links.)
Jaqua, the Democratic Underground is painfully biased. And as I said numbers and even so-called facts can be doctoreed.
Objectivity is a joke.
fabrication (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+fabrications)
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):
How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?
Photobucket is an option! Just put the direct web address to the image you want between [ img ] [ /img ] brackets (though obviously without the spaces).
Is that what you do?
fabrication (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+fabrications)
HOLY WOW, DUDE! I did NOT know about LMGTFY. Thank you SO much for this!
(https://www.kumoricon.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8411%2FFoxlive_20090727.jpg&hash=bf2470099f99e972230302350cf9c539c4f5846e)Egypt decided to switch places with Iraq for some reason?
(I feel this image keeps it relevant to the thread-- what's wrong with it, can anyone tell?)
(https://www.kumoricon.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8411%2FFoxlive_20090727.jpg&hash=bf2470099f99e972230302350cf9c539c4f5846e)Egypt decided to switch places with Iraq for some reason?
(I feel this image keeps it relevant to the thread-- what's wrong with it, can anyone tell?)
It didn't? Oh no! Are you using a direct to image link? I think on Photobucket there's a direct [ img ] link you can use, in the little popup to links under the picture.
I ran across this (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111220020) in my tumblr feed today, and I thought I would post it because it's relevant to recent discussions.
Yeah! You take your link, in this example http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg, and put it between brackets like this, [ img ] http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg [ /img ], and then you get this!
(https://www.kumoricon.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8411%2FFoxlive_20090727.jpg&hash=bf2470099f99e972230302350cf9c539c4f5846e)
Another oproblem I have with Ronn Paul I can sum up in one name, Isreal. Isreal is one of the U,.S.'s closest allies in that region. We should be working closely with them not condeming them. fifor defending themselves. If he turn our backs on Isreal that will be considered by the rest of the world probably the biggest ever schmuck move we could make. We need to maintain our close ties with Isreal up and above all else.
That's just the way i see things you don't like well...the U.s. contarary to what a lot of folks think is STILL a free-thinking country.
You're welcome to your opinions everyone but the fact still remains Ron Paul will NOT win the Republican primary norr will he EVER be president. The man has ideals that are not only too extereme but the guy is totally disinegenuous. I've read a lot of history na di knopw that tyrants and wannabe tyrants can be very appealing but when their agenda is closely scrutinized it comes out still the same. Rom paul definitely fits a lot of those categories.
And here's another reason Ron Paul won't win. His attitude concerning th Patriot act and Iran are very naive to the point of dangerous. Iran has Islamist Mullahs who are running it and AChmedinijad 9Sp) has all the makings for the next Adolph Hitler. Now if they get their hands on a nuclear device than bad things will happen I guarentee it. Islamists are not the sort of people you can sit by a fiore with a sing "Kumbaya". No Iran's people should be encouraged to ruise up against the fanatics in power that much is very true. But we also need to take a firm stance against the Iranian government. Not by negotiation but with a subtle military force amd working with Isreal. And thanks to the Patriot act as I said how many attack have there been against this country from terrorisyts since 9/11, none, nada, zip, zilch, zero. Any attem[pts made against us have been as the old cowboy expression goes "Headed off at the pass". I've heard it said often that the Patriotyt ACt is oppresive and they make mention of that one poor fellow who was nowhere near Spain at the time of the bomb attack. Granted the Patriot ACt isn't perfect, but hey that's the beauty about it, like this country the patriot act always has room for improvement.
Another oproblem I have with Ronn Paul I can sum up in one name, Isreal. Isreal is one of the U,.S.'s closest allies in that region. We should be working closely with them not condeming them. fifor defending themselves. If he turn our backs on Isreal that will be considered by the rest of the world probably the biggest ever schmuck move we could make. We need to maintain our close ties with Isreal up and above all else.
Islamists are not the sort of people you can sit by a fiore with a sing "Kumbaya".
That's just the way i see things you don't like well...the U.s. contarary to what a lot of folks think is STILL a free-thinking country.
^ Just a comment on your first point, jaqua, Islamist and Muslim are two very different terms. An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam is both a religion and a political system. Generally, (although the term is somewhat contentious) Islamists emphasize the enforcement of sharia and the elimination of non-Islamic influences (and sometimes people). It's often equated with militants and activists for Islam.
Although I would whole-heartedly agree that Fox News is anti-Islam, extremely biased, and a terrible source for information, I don't think Muslims in general were who Animeman meant here, and (assuming he's aware of the difference in the two terms) he has a somewhat valid point in this particular area.
^ Just a comment on your first point, jaqua, Islamist and Muslim are two very different terms. An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam is both a religion and a political system. Generally, (although the term is somewhat contentious) Islamists emphasize the enforcement of sharia and the elimination of non-Islamic influences (and sometimes people). It's often equated with militants and activists for Islam.
Although I would whole-heartedly agree that Fox News is anti-Islam, extremely biased, and a terrible source for information, I don't think Muslims in general were who Animeman meant here, and (assuming he's aware of the difference in the two terms) he has a somewhat valid point in this particular area.
The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.
Recently a fellow by the name of Dick morris put out a nook for kids on poltics featuring a dog. Well Dick Morris called Ron Paula nut in his book and Ron Paul told his supports to boycott the book hoping to try and hit Dick Morris in the pocket book. [...] Now if Ron Paul would do that on the compaign trail can you imagine what he would do if anyone questioned him while he was in the White HOuse. Chances are he'd use the constitution to have them eiither hanged for "The good of the nation" and he'd twist, filter, and pervert the constittution to do so.
And I can asure everyone out there the chances of Roe Vs. Wade ever being overturned are somewhere between nil to nonexistant. Because you see it's not just Democrats who support the Court upheld law, 50% of Reopublican women...yeah you heard me, Republican women believe in Abortion should be kept a matter of personal choice.
AS I've stated Abortion issue...it's the beeswax of the woman, her Doctor, and her God.
My philosophy on abortion is this. The decision is hard enough ona woman as is. Why have Government interfere...it should remain an issue between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. No if's, no ands, no buts about it.
And I can asure everyone out there the chances of Roe Vs. Wade ever being overturned are somewhere between nil to nonexistant. Because you see it's not just Democrats who support the Court upheld law, 50% of Reopublican women...yeah you heard me, Republican women believe in Abortion should be kept a matter of personal choice.
AS I've stated Abortion issue...it's the beeswax of the woman, her Doctor, and her God.
Let me ask this does anyonme out there REALLY understand what a [police state is?
Folks I know what a police state is. And consider this. If we were living in a police state don't you think the thought police would've come for you a long time ago? But they haven't, because there is none. We still have our freedom of speech.
Sorry to put a damper on the ideological trip but it's time for a moderate's reality check.Why is everything you disagree with ideology?
Sorry but the U.S. NOT attacking it's own peopleDefinitely no problems with police brutality. Not against peaceful protesters, and not in impoverished neighborhoods or neighborhoods dominated by people of color.
and that whiole the rise of FEMA and police state nonsense was cooked up by ideological groups who don't undestand the reality to the kind of world we live in.I don't have an opinion on whether or not the martial law in the FEMA camps was a symptom of a rising police state, but I find the bolded portion of your statement very boring. Security threats, real or imaginary, have historically been used by military and executive powers to accumulate power. It's sort of a given in modern historiography that war and security propaganda are used to squash dissent and reform. I, personally, am grateful to any political organization that is vigilant in regards to executive overreach. The only check on misuse of government power in a republic is an engaged citizenry. Exploring the possibility of abuse of power is the definition of civic virtue, whether you like what conclusions they're coming to or not.
I've heard how that whole Ben Franklin statem,ent about trading freedom for protection has been misused.Everyone always argues that the Ben Franklin quote is being misused when the other side is using it. It's over-quoted to the point of irrelevance, and extremely easy to rationalize its application to almost any situation ever.
Let me ask this does anyonme out there REALLY understand what a police state is?I feel like I have a fair idea. My definition of the police state would include constant surveillance without the requirement of a warrant and the ability to arrest and hold people without charges or due process or trial. Unfortunately, wiretapping and digital activity monitoring have been fairly commonplace for the last decade.
Folks I know what a police state is.Could you provide your definition? I've given you mine.
And consider this. If we were living in a police state don't you think the thought police would've come for you a long time ago? But they haven't, because there is none.The police state doesn't include literally arresting everyone. None of us are community organizers or local party leaders. People who kvetch quietly among themselves without taking action aren't a danger to the police state. Even at the height of Soviet terror, people still gossiped in their kitchens. It isn't until you try to do something (like protest corporate control of the political process in the US) that you get pepper sprayed in the face and piled onto by multiple police officers.
We still have our freedom of speech.What's freedom of speech without freedom of assembly to request redress of grievances?
A police state is a government in which the Government actively oppreses other people's thoughta and beliefs. And the U.S. has most certainly NOT become that. Anyone, in my opinion anway, who thinks otherwise is selling something.Then clearly, I am selling you an alternate definition. Lucky for me, my definition is grounded in tangible government structures and not an extremely vague term like "oppression."
And as for these so-called video I could take them tio any unbiased fact-checker out there and we could probably break down all the lies these videos are telling.Your certainty ahead of time that these videos are lying doesn't say much for your objectivity as a consumer of information.
The left is throwing a temper tantrum because they're losing control. The right is throwing a temper tantrum because the want control back.This seems like a very reductive way to look at the political climate. Despite having a Democrat for a president, the Republican party, and conservative politics in general, have been key to the American political scene for the entire last decade. The Blue Dogs, your beloved moderates, have done just as much partisan damage as any of the pro-gun or pro-human rights legislators could've dreamed. Stupak-Pitts was a Democratic amendment to the healthcare bill, after all.
Which is why I believe uit's time for us Moderates Democrat and Republican to stand up together...take botht the left and the right by the an ear, give them both a good Jethro Gibbs head slap, and set them in the corner to think about all the damage they've caused to the country while we moderates fix things.You seem really convinced that you've got an army of moderate legislators waiting to come out of the wings and do what you think is best, but if that's true, where are they in politics? The increasing polarization of our legal representatives is partly party machinations, true, but the parties wouldn't be able to operate this way if not for a dearth of other, more cooperative leadership.
The real truth is neither left nor right but down the middle moderate.I'm willing to consider any cogent opinion, and so far you haven't presented me anything even remotely convincing. Just a series of slogans, mostly.
And I for one call on the members of the silent majority to stand up and help end the petty political shinnanigans of both ideological extremes and help get this country back to the greatness for which we once stood.So you... want to re-elect Ronald Reagan?
Because where the U.S.A. is concerned...our best days are NOT behind us! Because we don't die...just multiply!Naw, we're definitely on the declining track of the Roman Empire. History's a spiral, after all, and patterns have a tendency to repeat themselves.
I really enjoyed this piece by Glenn Greenwald (he rules) called Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/).
I'm pretty dang left-wing last time I checked (voted Nader in both '04 and '08 presidential elections), and there are things I would dislike about a Ron Paul presidency.. but the guy at least strikes me as being 1) consistent 2) honest 3) willing to talk about things that no one else is talking about.
NDAA is scary.
Basically and this is my opinion everrything that's been said doesn't mmake any sense at all.
Basically and this is my opinion everrything that's been said doesn't mmake any sense at all.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but as you said, they don't have the right to force or expect others to agree with them without evidence for that opinion. Heck, they don't even have the right to force or expect others to listen when they present evidence - but pointedly or repeatedly ignoring evidence could be seen as forfeiting any expectation of being taken seriously.
(Then again, that itself is only my opinion. ;))
I'll be frank. No I'm not trolling. I do admit that lately my comments have been rather abrasive and I sincerely apologuize for that. But my opinions still remain what they are.And we would all take your opinions much more seriously if you provided evidence.
And the whole devaluation of the dollar thing is a myth another conspiracy theory. Basically, and this is my opinion everything that's been said doesn't make any sense at all. All this stuff about hidden world governments is a lie.I'm pretty sure this isn't a response to anything I said, but I really wish you could provide some evidence. Anything, really. Even a White House Press Secretary saying something like "the dollar is still strong."
This is why nothing personal but I don't understand Ron Paul or his followers at all. Nothing makes any sense to me. I'm not saying that you're insane, as a matter of fact if we met in person i imagine you'd be very sane and reasonable. Also that would be name-calling and that's wrong. What I do say is that the concepts discussed are wrong, inaccurate, and just ridiculously paranoid.I'm just gonna skip this, because I am apathetic to Ron Paul and will continue to be unless he becomes the Republican nominee for president.
I grant you this I've been a bit rash in my language perhaops, but saying things like calling me a racist because Ihave differing political views that's wrong (The action is wrong that is.),We all assumed you were racist because the term Islamist is usually employed by racists in order to further dehumanize all Muslims and Arabs. Funnily enough, that's not a mutually inclusive group of people.
and when people say things such as Americans are weak, lazy, stupid, and need a Big briother kind of guiding hand is good,When did any of us express or explicitly support that sentiment?
while saying the being patriotic by saying things such as "U.S.A. rocks" and "U.S.A.we don't die, just multiply" is comparable to the Rman Empire and ad that's wrong.Patriotism is acknowledging the faults of your nation, working to improve upon them and loving the nation regardless. I don't acknowledge those statements as patriotic. They're nationalistic.
This thread is about expressing diffferent political points of views and you're going have to face the facts that not evryone is going to agree with you or think the way you do.I don't think anyone is upset that your political views are different. We just wish you would provide some evidence, any evidence at all, to backup your opinions. Instead, you just call everything we source biased or lies.
that's the beauty of this country. You can say what you want to say, but that doesn't mean that i can' speak my mmind also. I'll do my best to mellow out the tone of words but I will say this I am a moderate Democrat, I voted for William Jefferson Clinton in my first election back in 1992. And I will ALWAYS be a Democrat and proud of it.Are you a Democrat if you don't believe in any of the positions of the party?
But I'll also say this I've met my fair share of Ron Paul supporters and well...they can get pretty mean and nasty when anyone even remotely questions their point of view.Every candidate has supporters like that. There are people who stand with you 100% who can be huuuge bigoted jerks. That doesn't delegitimize your point of view.
And the whole idea of a revolution or bringing down the forces of the "Shadow giovernment" have you ever asked yourself how that really makes people feel.I doubt that most Ron Paul supporters would present their policy aspirations quite that way on first brush with someone new. But assuming they did, could you provide some suggestions about what you think people's reactions are? I don't really understand what you're leading to here.
I'm probably one of the older dudes on this site, but I say you might want to take a trip into the rural areas of the state or into the other sstates of the country and just ask people about their perspective on things, you might be surprised. have I made myself clear?No, I'm still confused as to what you're driving at.
Everyone here says i should offer proof of who Ron Paul really is. Check out these articles:
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152192/5_reasons_progressives_should_treat_ron_paul_with_extreme_caution__cuddly_libertarian_has_some_very_dark_politics?page=entire
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread792310/pg1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darren-hutchinson/ron-paul-civil-liberty_b_1174422.html
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/
This took a great deal of time and research but I think it helps prove my point. And another thing i won't use the term islamist anymore, instead I'll use the term gangsters who have hidden behind the Muslim faith because that's exactly wheat theso-called Mullahs of Ira are.
I really enjoyed this piece by Glenn Greenwald (he rules) called Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/).
I'm pretty dang left-wing last time I checked (voted Nader in both '04 and '08 presidential elections), and there are things I would dislike about a Ron Paul presidency.. but the guy at least strikes me as being 1) consistent 2) honest 3) willing to talk about things that no one else is talking about.
NDAA is scary.Code: [Select]
Excellent, excellent article. Thanks. I liked how he compiled all the video clips at the end.
Another really great one is called "What Makes a Progressive President?" (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_president/) It's really funny because the article comments about how in every single one of these types of progressive pieces on Ron Paul, there's always a disclaimer at the beginning: I'm not endorsing him!So don't come after me.
I also voted for Nader in '08! I voted for Paul in the Republican primary, and when he dropped out I voted for Nader. Weird, I know, but they have similar opinions about various issues. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE7MHgZ7kPo) Plus, I really love Nader's consumer advocacy.
@HalcyonFour I know we've had our misunderstandings in the past and i admit I've been rather ornery (Gads maybe I take more after my Grandfather, God rest his soul, then I thought.) and do apoligize if I've seen like a troller, i get very...passionate about my plitical beliefs so much so that i get as stubborn as a mule. But if and the others here are willing to ley bygiones be bygones what do you say let's set the grief of the past aside?
@HalcyonFour I know we've had our misunderstandings in the past and i admit I've been rather ornery (Gads maybe I take more after my Grandfather, God rest his soul, then I thought.) and do apoligize if I've seen like a troller, i get very...passionate about my plitical beliefs so much so that i get as stubborn as a mule. But if and the others here are willing to ley bygiones be bygones what do you say let's set the grief of the past aside?
Of course. I understand passion in politics as well, and polite discourse is always welcome. I'm just concerned about the state of affairs of our nation.
But I still would like to continue to let people know about various issues, particularly regarding civil liberties. I'm just so concerned about stuff, it's hard for me not to talk about it. I'll also try not to be what they would call a "Paulista". If I post anything, I will try to keep it relatively neutral, but sometimes it's hard.
Sorry to double-post like this but nobody has been here ina while. SO I thought I'd put this in. People often talk about racism without even knowing what it truly was. But the Civil; Rights movement of the 60's understood. they understood all too well. I recommend everyopne here get a Histopry book on the Civil Rights Movement and/or the 60's and read up on it. And since this is the birthday of the legendaasry civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin luther King Jr. (Who to me was and always will be a true American hero.) I have a link ere that everyone sahould look at. look and listen there's a great deal to be learned from this.
http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html
Also would anyone from the moderators mind if P put the link to a petition that's being sighed against these measures, or would that be going too far? I want to know before I take any action.
...the video footage of the speech is not available online because it's copyrighted. You have to buy it if you want to see it.
Which is in fact pretty ridiculous.
Oh sorry Halcyon my bad.
And here's the link for the petition. Let's stop SOPA and it's sister because if we don't Big brother will take over the internet. And I don't want socialism taking away my internet rights in the name of "PROTECTING" copyright laws.
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-internet-control-bill-now#
...Animeman, she was referring to the fact that, as they state in the link you provided above, the video footage of the speech is not available online because it's copyrighted. You have to buy it if you want to see it.
Which is in fact pretty ridiculous.
An open post to anyone who still believes SOPA/PIPA won't be abused... even without having those laws, the RIAA and MPAA have persuaded the DoJ to arrest the founder and some employees of MegaUpload and seize their domains as "criminal copyright infringers".
No, I'm not joking. I wish I were.
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-shut-down-120119/
It's also pretty evident that Obama is a puppet.
Here's a video on the topic I watched awhile ago. It opened my eyes a bit. I really don't like the idea of telling people what to do with their bodies . . but the reality is that individuals do not live in a vacuum. We all affect each other.
The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 7): Drugs Cigarettes Alcohol...and Sugar? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWnbMnnLo5w&feature=player_embedded)
Here's a video on the topic I watched awhile ago. It opened my eyes a bit. I really don't like the idea of telling people what to do with their bodies . . but the reality is that individuals do not live in a vacuum. We all affect each other.
The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 7): Drugs Cigarettes Alcohol...and Sugar? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWnbMnnLo5w&feature=player_embedded)
With all due respect, reppy, I honestly couldn't take anything in that video seriously as soon as I heard the word "fluoride". This guy argues against the nanny state, but he is really advocating for using its disastrous results. They admit in the video themselves that the government has been telling us what to eat, and that is why we are so fat...yet they now want these same government bumblers to direct even more flawed and desperately uninformed policy? That is insanity!
One extremely important element that they do not mention AT ALL in this clip is the monstrous, disastrous government subsidies that go into sugar, dairy, corn, and other unhealthy food industries every year. These drive down their prices so low that they become a very cheap input in the production of virtually every food, a fact that the video actually mentions. The reason why sugar and high fructose corn syrup are an input in all of these industries is because they are subsidized by our tax dollars. Instead of regulating people's behavior, we should work to wean Big Agra off of these subsidies that encourage obesity!
Follow the money; I bet the folks producing this video are behind some new big pharma big agra or big pharma stunt that will protect the very industries it seemingly criticizes.
Here is my soapbox for the kennel club.
http://www.grey2kusa.org/pdf/historyOR.pdf
That racing track is an important piece of history. Yeah, they couldn't renew their lease back in 2004 because they were operating at a loss. I think it is a waste to dispose of the existing structure for a new one. It is private property so ppl can do what they want.
Also, the greyhound racers cited the reason for going out of business as tribal competition. How well are they going to be able to compete against the tribes when the tribes and non-tribal casino are not on an equal playing field?
I'll just be glad and done when the election season is over so that we can know which [SERIES OF WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN CENSORED] will be in the White House and go on with the butchering of American values and privileges...+1
I've been to Spirit Mountain and Chinook Winds those places are in my opinion doing very well in making lots of money. Not tto mention the food at Chinook Winds is terrific. XDDDD
But the fact of matters is we have an enemy out there that wants to destroy us along with killing/enslaving every man, woman, and child they can in the name of their radicalized twisted religion.Oh, and don't forget: they hang people and also throw people off buildings to to fall to their deaths, just for being ACCUSED (by others) of being gay...
Just don't mention the email scandal, unless you want me to throw a trashcan at you, or destroy your billiard table.
*destroys your billiard table anyway* ****, I forgot about those other scandals. *headdesk* Donald Trump is WAY too scary for me to vote for him. But, I'd hate for you to be unable to "cheaply" build up your machine gun collection.Just don't mention the email scandal, unless you want me to throw a trashcan at you, or destroy your billiard table.OK, instead I'll mention Whitewater, the Vincent Foster murder, shady cattle futures deals, shredding documents at the Rose law firm, falsely claiming to have been sniped at, and the double standard whereby supposed feminists have to stand by a woman who knew her husband was diddling or harassing a number of younger vulnerable women, then using her legal assets to threaten and suppress the women who tried to come forward.
Got one of them bastards!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-dem-fired-for-bragging-about-staging-violence-at-trump-rallies/article/2604861 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-dem-fired-for-bragging-about-staging-violence-at-trump-rallies/article/2604861)
DNC connected with violence at Trump rallies.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party)
Simply because it's time to oppose the real bullies.
The safe-space bullies. The anti-free-speech bullies.
The enviro-fascist-bullies.
VOTE FOR YOUR FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE FROM THE BULLIES.
- - - -
.."the socialist pretends to have glimpsed paradise on earth. Those
who decline the invitation to embrace the vision are not just
ungrateful; they are traitors to the cause of human perfection.
Dissent is therefore not mere disagreement but treachery. Treachery
is properly met not with arguments but (as circumstances permit)
the guillotine, the concentration camp, the purge."
Roger Kimball
I've been a gamer since before many gamers were born today. I love my videogames but not more than the welfare of an entire country, it's citizens and via international relations; the world.
Under normal circumstances I would never, ever suggest that anyone not have the right to vote but, well, anyone who thinks that thier videogames are more important than the rest of the world shouldn't be able to vote.
Not because I don't agree with thier opinions but because anyone like that has no concept of realiity to an alarming degree. People like that are dangerous, and, most likely, have no stake in anything that happens to the outside world.
I confess that I know many people like this. I don't feel any contempt or hatred for them more like..when they start trying to debate politics I just pat them on the head like a small child trying to get in on adult discussion to feel like a grown up. Just kind of..."this doesn't concern you, why are talking about it?" Not even in a condescending way but I feel like they only need thier stable jobs and videogame consoles. J'd appreciate it if they would not ruin it for those of us who have real stakes in what happens to the outside world."
Oh, and one quick PSA: if your response to someones concern over violence in games is to join a group which responds to everything with rape/murder threats and general outrage you aren't helping the majority of us decent gamers.
Voting for who you believe is the best suited for the job is the backbone of democracy. Compromising our beliefs and voting for a candidate we can't fully support flies in the face of democracy itself.
No, I meant the zero-shaped Obama logo.
... the violence MUST stop, before someone is seriously injured or killed.I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, but does anyone know whether the violent vandals are being keyed by outer forces to flash-mob within the protests,
As much, as I hate Donald Trump, [...], but the violence MUST stop, before someone is seriously injured or killed.He just said so ("Stop it!") in an interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes, yesterday (Sunday, 13-Nov-16)
Well, folks, I made a promise that i would talk about why dismantling the Electoral College is a bad idea, and I mean to deliver on that promise.
| Here in Portland, Oregon we've had our fair share of trouble with Antifa. 1. First there was the Anti-Trump rally where they attacked several police officers. 2. Then there was the time in late February (After Trump's inauguration) where, in protest over the police chief refusing to resign over the protest incident, they actually blocked traffic in the area of Downtown Portland around what we know as Pioneer Courthouse Square. The police had no choice but to suit up and take them down. 3. While the Berkley situation as going on The Multnomah County Republicans were planning to march in the 82nd Street Rose Parade, an annual; tradition here in my neck of the woods. However when Antifa got word they sent a letter to the parade officials basically saying they would pull the Republicans out of the parade and they had 200 members ready to go. The city and parade officials caved in and cancelled the whole event. 4. The topper was the protests in downtown Portland on May 1st. The Antifa members actually started a bonfire on 3rd and Morrison, on the MAX (Our light rail system) tracks. What concerns me more is that I attend the anime convention Kumoricon every year. My biggest worry is that Antifa might choose to show up there to beat up people and shut down the convention simply because of "Cultural appropriation" in the form of dubbed anime or the costumes. This scares me a lot because there are a lot of anime fans especially female anime fans who come to the convention. And I know, with Antifa's lack of morals, my fellow anime fans could get hurt because of these political thugs who have no sense of laughter, joy, or fun. I I genuinely wouldn't put coming after Kumoricon above these people. Based on my own thoughts, and the evidence which shows a pattern of violent behavior, it's safe to say Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department need to label these people a domestic terrorist group. Whether a person is Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Independent, Apolitical or whatever, Antifa is a genuine menace! They're bullying entitled special snowflakes who need to be put int heir place! Antifa is more than just a nuisance, they're a genuine physical threat to us all as Americans! That's my thoughts. |
^ Lucky... in a way. (I hate the heat). ;DAnd they did. Rainbow bullies, people trying to erase history, and people trying to tell you and me what kind of pronouns and grammar we can and cannot use. Exactly thy sort of people making anime cons and other fandom less fun for everyone. Who wants to go to a con and play "Corporate HR Employee Policies Handbook?" I'm out.
There was a free speech rally in the downtown Portland area that I wanted to go to, but I was sort of afraid that Antifa or some other rabid group would attack..
^ Lucky... in a way. (I hate the heat). ;DAnd they did. Rainbow bullies, people trying to erase history, and people trying to tell you and me what kind of pronouns and grammar we can and cannot use. Exactly thy sort of people making anime cons and other fandom less fun for everyone. Who wants to go to a con and play "Corporate HR Employee Policies Handbook?" I'm out.
There was a free speech rally in the downtown Portland area that I wanted to go to, but I was sort of afraid that Antifa or some other rabid group would attack..
I highly recommend The thinbkery and Sargon's main channel.
https://youtu.be/_FE3eSRnZ_4 (https://youtu.be/_FE3eSRnZ_4)
Hey, folks, I have a link to share with you. I am a HUGE fan of Judge Janine Pirro. This woman in her opening statements on her show uses no profanity. SInce it is FOX they frown on profanity. But then again Judge Janine doesn't need to curse and swear up a storm to get her point across. And this opening statement is truth to power.
https://youtu.be/xw9pDoPNaBg (https://youtu.be/xw9pDoPNaBg)
"The Gulag ArchipelagoTHAT Book changed my mind on a LOT of issues.