Treason is usually specifically against the state, or the sovereign. Obama has acted within the legal frameworks of the US, although in some cases, that may be in dispute. Sometimes treason can mean a betrayal of trust, but most times in context when talking about a politician, it does not.
Traitor, OTOH, primarily means the betrayal of trust and/or a cause.
Obama was supposed to represent hope and change. That asshole betrayed us with FISA, the Patriot Act, the TSA bullshit, etc. Every single time there is a decision to be made that profoundly affects the civil rights of US citizens Obama betrays us.
Everything he said to get elected the first time was a lie.
I'm not a Romney supporter either. That man truly frightens me with this religious zealotry. Obama is helping to turn us into a police state, but at least when the secret police come for us, it won't be because of our beliefs in mythical beings in the sky. It will be because of our beliefs in freedom.
Some people still have their heads so far up his ass, reveling in the smell of "hope".
As far as I am concerned Obama is a traitor in every way possible by not coming through on his promises, and basically doing everything he can to destroy freedoms and turn us into a police state.
No, ObamaCare does not make up for it, nor has anything else he has done make up for it either.
The only thing more disgusting is the fact Romney would have been far worse.
First off, there is no majority. It's "minorities" and "white" people, regardless of actual demographics. Affirmative action is not designed the protect the civil rights of caucasian people, but to abridge them. Ostensibly for the common good of all people, with the fundamental premise being that "white" people, specifically "white" males have more opportunity due to entrenched behaviors in society.
It must be a huge morale booster to a minority to know that they got there not based on their merits, but based on their skin color or gender. Likewise, it certainly creates a sense of entitlement. I deserve such and such because I am such and such, not I deserve this because I worked hard.
When push comes to shove, and there is only one position available, then the merits of the caucasian person (the only ones disadvantaged by AA), become irrelevant, and the only thing left that matters is skin color and gender.
It's racism, plain and simple. Not reverse racism, or any other play on words. It is making a decision based on one's race and gender, and will always, always be wrong in society.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Any arguments can't change that.
That being said, I do understand why it was a necessary evil at the time it was created. Genuinely racist people needed to be forced to act against their ideals to hire minorities.
This is 2012, not the early 1970s. I don't know a single racist person that is not over 70 years old and retired. Those men don't make decisions anymore anyways, and their ideals are marginalized. Everybody else I know is actually quite progressive to use that ridiculous term, and does not make decisions like that. I operate in diverse environments, where in fact, I am the only person that does not speak multiple languages.
You may have some different arguments about AA, but you damn well know that arguing about it being racist, does not make one racist. You owe that poster an apology, or at the very least some cogent arguments supporting AA, without accusations of racism.
How did he intentionally misinterpret anything? How does disagreeing with affirmative action make one racist?
Does not affirmative action demand preference towards a lower qualified minority over a better qualified caucasian person?
I understand that the argument to do so is to counteract the racism that had been present in people responsible for hiring decisions. At the time it may have been a necessary evil. Make no mistake, it was not, and still is not, a good thing to do.
Affirmative action, at its heart, is racist. It bases decisions based upon a person's race. That is wrong, and many of the same resentment and negative reactions that African Americans felt, are now being felt by caucasians. This is not an accident, and those feelings are not unreasonable. Trying to convince a person that it is required to offset transgressions that he/she never had anything to do with personally, is not only fruitless, but abhorrent.
What he mentions about test scores is absurd and equally abhorrent. Lowering the standards that are expected of a person simply due to their race is deeply insulting. We might as well go back to the days when "science" said the negro brain was substandard and we needed to make decisions accordingly.
Nobody made the claim that most people want ads. Nice strawman.
Nevertheless, it is quite relevant to the discussion at hand. If we are to talk about advertisements, and people choosing to remove them for whatever reason, than it is not irrelevant to bring up the statistics, or claims of statistics.
Look up the definition for a strawman argument - "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man")"
Nowhere have I replaced your argument, and at all times, I refuted your arguments one-by-one.
What I said (and apparently alot of people can't grasp) is that IF people want stuff FOR FREE, then ads are a part of that equation.
Not necessarily. The revenue must come from someplace else, and there are other options. I never actually disagreed with this statement, it just happens to be irrelevant because it fails to address human behavior.
One of your arguments is that a possible explanation for the people viewing ads is a gestalt understanding of the entire process which leads them to engage in a behavior they don't find desirable, but do find necessary.
Your other argument is that they actually like advertisements, and are willing to sift through two tons of shit to find a pearl. We both know that is highly unusual, certainly represents less than 5% of all people.
So instead of asking if people would chose an advertisement free platform (what a stupid question), ask them the REAL questsion.
It's hardly a stupid question, as it gets right to the heart of the matter in the most direct way. The vast majority of people don't want advertisements .
If this was an untrue statement, you would not see legislation and lawsuits attempting to prevent the use of technologies to skip advertisements. There has even been legislation, discussed on the floor of Congress, to make skipping the trailers on DVDs illegal. Why work that hard to prevent something that most people are not doing?
Since it is clearly true, then to have any reasonable discussion about advertisements you must consider this fact.
You are currently visiting website xyz, which is provided for free, supported by ads. Which of these options is true: a) I prefer xyz to remain free, even if it means advertising is displayed b) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, and would pay to access the website c) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, but would not visit the site if I had to pay
You don't seriously beleive 9/10 people would chose options b or c, do you?
I seriously believe that most people would choose option C. You asked if they would prefer it.
Perhaps better questions would be, which don't really need to be asked, are:
If xyz were to become a pay site, would you still visit it? if you were paying for xyz, and they still showed ads, would you continue to pay? In the absence of all other choices, would you continue to put up with advertisements in order to enjoy the site? If you would put up with advertisements, would you consent to technologies being used to make sure you were not bypassing them? What if these technologies were invasive and were detrimental to your privacy?
Where you went nuts, and became quite irrational and unreasonable was in two statements:
1) It is exhibiting pathological behavior to be against advertisements and use tools to remove them - Clearly bullshit. 2) Some people find ads useful, and said in such a way as to imply they don't have a vested financial interest in them.
You can scream all you want. It is stupid to continually fight human behavior. People don't want ads, and when presented with choices, will choose an ad-free experience. This will occur even if it is a Tragedy of the Commons.
The same goes for piracy, and the War on Drugs.
Instead of fighting it, which is impossible, it is far better to adapt to it.
That would kind of suck for anyone that was using the asteroids as some sort of colony, research base, seedy hotel for questionable intergalactic hook ups....
1. They understand that the web sites and services they want need money to operate, and that money comes from ads. When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist. You know why newwpapers are dying - because they are losing their major source of revenue, ads. The same thing will happen with the web. How long do you think Google, for instance, would last without advertising revenue?
So? Business models need to adapt. 99% of people don't want ads. That 1% is represented by people who have a vested interest in the ads (some sort of participation in the revenue stream), or some sort of interest of them, which is difficult to explain.
It is inarguable that 9/10 people on the street would choose an advertisement free platform, over an advertisement filled platform. You *might* save 1 or 2 people out of that group by promising actual rewards. Those being revenue sharing, enticing membership bonuses of some kind, etc. Don't underestimate just how hard you would need to work to get those people on board.
You want to spread FUD about an advertisement free Internet with your implied prophecies of doom. It's a vapid argument wholly based on fear.
2. They don't have a pathological fear of ads
I love this. Pathological is the word you went with here huh? So I am exhibiting an inappropriate adjustment, possibly derived from mental disorders, by taking control of my web browser and removing objectionable content I don't want to see?
It's telling that you use the word fear, when just before that, you use fear to compel people to allow advertisements.
I don't fear advertisements. Although, I do see them as a security risk. Websites don't often vet every single advertisement, and the code that runs them. 3rd party advertisement networks are a vector for malware, and do represent a concern for security at the very least.
3. They may find some ads actually useful
Desperation is a stinky cologne.
So you went with aggressive FUD to start with, and the very end softened it with, "Yeah, most of them suck. However, just one, may be of interest to you out of the thousands, and that makes it useful and worth the hassle of all the rest".
Stack Exchange is the most reliable. Often comes with working examples by the posters to *show* their work, and links to external sites that specifically speak about the question at hand.
This is one of the reasons why they can't compete with "piracy". Once the cat is out of the bag as far as features are concerned, you can't just tell consumers they can't have it. Some features are so ridiculously attractive to consumer that not offering it is simply not an option. You might hate it, but you can forget about fighting it.
Combine attractive features with the practically free costs and that's a battle you almost can't win.
Sony, surprise, surprise, surprise, are acting like morons again. The last thing they want is to encourage, or otherwise push, consumers towards "piracy". Once there, it is a near impossible fight to get them to be a consumer again.
Most religions believe the end of the world is nigh, not just the Mayan calendar stuff. Since a very large number of people identify themselves as belonging to religions that have those beliefs, it might not be a great idea to have a religious extremist in office during the "end times".
You sound like a fucking psychopath that believes he can, and should, control other people's behavior and bodies because of what some mythical man in the sky allegedly said through a book.
A higher purpose for humanity? Fucking wank me. You just want to enforce your particular, albeit popular, interpretations of the bible as law, no different than any Taliban extremist.
Separation of church and state, mother fucker. It's important.
As long as it is part of that woman's body, SHE gets to decide what to do with the fetus, baby, wonderful-opportunity-from-the-jesus, etc. That's the only sane way you can run a society.
People, such as yourself, that suffer from this righteous disease that allows you to justify your lust for power over other people are a danger to a free society.
That's why that nutbag lost. All the swing voters that could have been persuaded, were put off (immensely) by his religious bigotry and need to force feed religion down our throats.
What do you call it when more than one bad person cooperates on an agenda that they both find mutually beneficial? Hint, it starts with a 'c'.
Whether or not there was a true false flag operation is highly debatable. No seriously, it is.
What is not debatable is that there are clear and ever present "grand" conspiracies by those in power. Government contracts, copyright protections, intelligence community tools, military industrial complex profits, bail out corruption, LIBOR manipulation, quasi-gerrymandering via voter suppression, red light camera manipulation, mortgage fraud, rubber-stamped-evictions-via-deeds-of-trust-abuse, and on and on, and on, and on.
If there was more than one person in the government that knew of an imminent attack and deliberately obfuscated, delayed, or otherwise covered up the facts to allow it, since it would benefit certain interested parties financially, or with increased power over people, it was a conspiracy.
Considering how massively successful the last 10 years has been in eliminating civil rights, increasing and strengthening Constitution Free Zones, "educating and training" the public to accept violent intrusions into the privacy and restrictions on their freedom of movement, and the siphoning off of ludicrous amounts of wealth to the hands of the few elite............. ummm..... yeah.... I am going to stick with conspiracy.
Either that, or we are just really some unlucky bastards that kicked puppies and drowned kittens in past lives.
I have not heard Obama saying that he wants to legislate women's vaginas and the choices they want to make with them because of some popular mythology.
It's something I take seriously, so please enlighten me. Explain one policy that was motivated purely by religious views. Socialism is not generally a purely religious platform either. You can be atheist and still be a socialist.
The motives for war had nothing to do with some egotistical family revenge plot (that is pretty stupid anyways) and even less to do with the safety and security of America.
Could Al Gore have stopped the incredibly corrupt movement by very rich and powerful people to extract around 1 trillion dollars from the US over 10 years through the military industrial complex?
Call me cynical, but I think not. Call me crazy too, but 9/11 was either a true false flag op, or the US government created an opportunity out of knowing there was an imminent attack on US soil.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not say treason, I said traitor.
Treason is usually specifically against the state, or the sovereign. Obama has acted within the legal frameworks of the US, although in some cases, that may be in dispute. Sometimes treason can mean a betrayal of trust, but most times in context when talking about a politician, it does not.
Traitor, OTOH, primarily means the betrayal of trust and/or a cause.
Obama was supposed to represent hope and change. That asshole betrayed us with FISA, the Patriot Act, the TSA bullshit, etc. Every single time there is a decision to be made that profoundly affects the civil rights of US citizens Obama betrays us.
Everything he said to get elected the first time was a lie.
I'm not a Romney supporter either. That man truly frightens me with this religious zealotry. Obama is helping to turn us into a police state, but at least when the secret police come for us, it won't be because of our beliefs in mythical beings in the sky. It will be because of our beliefs in freedom.
Even so, 3 grand is a LOT for just 1 GB. For that price you can probably have your own CDN, not to mention huge levels of fail over and redundancy.
That price is the upper limit of QOS for storage and I am willing to bet that Amazon does not even have something comparably expensive.
No shit.
Some people still have their heads so far up his ass, reveling in the smell of "hope".
As far as I am concerned Obama is a traitor in every way possible by not coming through on his promises, and basically doing everything he can to destroy freedoms and turn us into a police state.
No, ObamaCare does not make up for it, nor has anything else he has done make up for it either.
The only thing more disgusting is the fact Romney would have been far worse.
Yes. Yes it does.
First off, there is no majority. It's "minorities" and "white" people, regardless of actual demographics. Affirmative action is not designed the protect the civil rights of caucasian people, but to abridge them. Ostensibly for the common good of all people, with the fundamental premise being that "white" people, specifically "white" males have more opportunity due to entrenched behaviors in society.
It must be a huge morale booster to a minority to know that they got there not based on their merits, but based on their skin color or gender. Likewise, it certainly creates a sense of entitlement. I deserve such and such because I am such and such, not I deserve this because I worked hard.
When push comes to shove, and there is only one position available, then the merits of the caucasian person (the only ones disadvantaged by AA), become irrelevant, and the only thing left that matters is skin color and gender.
It's racism, plain and simple. Not reverse racism, or any other play on words. It is making a decision based on one's race and gender, and will always, always be wrong in society.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Any arguments can't change that.
That being said, I do understand why it was a necessary evil at the time it was created. Genuinely racist people needed to be forced to act against their ideals to hire minorities.
This is 2012, not the early 1970s. I don't know a single racist person that is not over 70 years old and retired. Those men don't make decisions anymore anyways, and their ideals are marginalized. Everybody else I know is actually quite progressive to use that ridiculous term, and does not make decisions like that. I operate in diverse environments, where in fact, I am the only person that does not speak multiple languages.
You may have some different arguments about AA, but you damn well know that arguing about it being racist, does not make one racist. You owe that poster an apology, or at the very least some cogent arguments supporting AA, without accusations of racism.
How did he intentionally misinterpret anything? How does disagreeing with affirmative action make one racist?
Does not affirmative action demand preference towards a lower qualified minority over a better qualified caucasian person?
I understand that the argument to do so is to counteract the racism that had been present in people responsible for hiring decisions. At the time it may have been a necessary evil. Make no mistake, it was not, and still is not, a good thing to do.
Affirmative action, at its heart, is racist. It bases decisions based upon a person's race. That is wrong, and many of the same resentment and negative reactions that African Americans felt, are now being felt by caucasians. This is not an accident, and those feelings are not unreasonable. Trying to convince a person that it is required to offset transgressions that he/she never had anything to do with personally, is not only fruitless, but abhorrent.
What he mentions about test scores is absurd and equally abhorrent. Lowering the standards that are expected of a person simply due to their race is deeply insulting. We might as well go back to the days when "science" said the negro brain was substandard and we needed to make decisions accordingly.
Nobody made the claim that most people want ads. Nice strawman.
Nevertheless, it is quite relevant to the discussion at hand. If we are to talk about advertisements, and people choosing to remove them for whatever reason, than it is not irrelevant to bring up the statistics, or claims of statistics.
Look up the definition for a strawman argument - "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man")"
Nowhere have I replaced your argument, and at all times, I refuted your arguments one-by-one.
What I said (and apparently alot of people can't grasp) is that IF people want stuff FOR FREE, then ads are a part of that equation.
Not necessarily. The revenue must come from someplace else, and there are other options. I never actually disagreed with this statement, it just happens to be irrelevant because it fails to address human behavior.
One of your arguments is that a possible explanation for the people viewing ads is a gestalt understanding of the entire process which leads them to engage in a behavior they don't find desirable, but do find necessary.
Your other argument is that they actually like advertisements, and are willing to sift through two tons of shit to find a pearl. We both know that is highly unusual, certainly represents less than 5% of all people.
So instead of asking if people would chose an advertisement free platform (what a stupid question), ask them the REAL questsion.
It's hardly a stupid question, as it gets right to the heart of the matter in the most direct way. The vast majority of people don't want advertisements .
If this was an untrue statement, you would not see legislation and lawsuits attempting to prevent the use of technologies to skip advertisements. There has even been legislation, discussed on the floor of Congress, to make skipping the trailers on DVDs illegal. Why work that hard to prevent something that most people are not doing?
Since it is clearly true, then to have any reasonable discussion about advertisements you must consider this fact.
You are currently visiting website xyz, which is provided for free, supported by ads. Which of these options is true:
a) I prefer xyz to remain free, even if it means advertising is displayed
b) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, and would pay to access the website
c) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, but would not visit the site if I had to pay
You don't seriously beleive 9/10 people would chose options b or c, do you?
I seriously believe that most people would choose option C. You asked if they would prefer it.
Perhaps better questions would be, which don't really need to be asked, are:
If xyz were to become a pay site, would you still visit it?
if you were paying for xyz, and they still showed ads, would you continue to pay?
In the absence of all other choices, would you continue to put up with advertisements in order to enjoy the site?
If you would put up with advertisements, would you consent to technologies being used to make sure you were not bypassing them? What if these technologies were invasive and were detrimental to your privacy?
Where you went nuts, and became quite irrational and unreasonable was in two statements:
1) It is exhibiting pathological behavior to be against advertisements and use tools to remove them - Clearly bullshit.
2) Some people find ads useful, and said in such a way as to imply they don't have a vested financial interest in them.
You can scream all you want. It is stupid to continually fight human behavior. People don't want ads, and when presented with choices, will choose an ad-free experience. This will occur even if it is a Tragedy of the Commons.
The same goes for piracy, and the War on Drugs.
Instead of fighting it, which is impossible, it is far better to adapt to it.
I might have signed it, but then all of those petitions would get even less respect and taken less seriously than they already are.
As it is, the whole thing is a joke, but I am not going to cheapen the process for voting for something stupid anyways.
First, I would think yogurt is Greek.
Secondly, damn right Twinkies are American. Nothing is more fitting for the current American image than Twinkies being sold in Walmarts....
That would kind of suck for anyone that was using the asteroids as some sort of colony, research base, seedy hotel for questionable intergalactic hook ups....
I wonder if you could layer some sort of metal on to a human skeleton....
1. They understand that the web sites and services they want need money to operate, and that money comes from ads. When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist. You know why newwpapers are dying - because they are losing their major source of revenue, ads. The same thing will happen with the web. How long do you think Google, for instance, would last without advertising revenue?
So? Business models need to adapt. 99% of people don't want ads. That 1% is represented by people who have a vested interest in the ads (some sort of participation in the revenue stream), or some sort of interest of them, which is difficult to explain.
It is inarguable that 9/10 people on the street would choose an advertisement free platform, over an advertisement filled platform. You *might* save 1 or 2 people out of that group by promising actual rewards. Those being revenue sharing, enticing membership bonuses of some kind, etc. Don't underestimate just how hard you would need to work to get those people on board.
You want to spread FUD about an advertisement free Internet with your implied prophecies of doom. It's a vapid argument wholly based on fear.
2. They don't have a pathological fear of ads
I love this. Pathological is the word you went with here huh? So I am exhibiting an inappropriate adjustment, possibly derived from mental disorders, by taking control of my web browser and removing objectionable content I don't want to see?
It's telling that you use the word fear, when just before that, you use fear to compel people to allow advertisements.
I don't fear advertisements. Although, I do see them as a security risk. Websites don't often vet every single advertisement, and the code that runs them. 3rd party advertisement networks are a vector for malware, and do represent a concern for security at the very least.
3. They may find some ads actually useful
Desperation is a stinky cologne.
So you went with aggressive FUD to start with, and the very end softened it with, "Yeah, most of them suck. However, just one, may be of interest to you out of the thousands, and that makes it useful and worth the hassle of all the rest".
Stack Exchange is the most reliable. Often comes with working examples by the posters to *show* their work, and links to external sites that specifically speak about the question at hand.
This is one of the reasons why they can't compete with "piracy". Once the cat is out of the bag as far as features are concerned, you can't just tell consumers they can't have it. Some features are so ridiculously attractive to consumer that not offering it is simply not an option. You might hate it, but you can forget about fighting it.
Combine attractive features with the practically free costs and that's a battle you almost can't win.
Sony, surprise, surprise, surprise, are acting like morons again. The last thing they want is to encourage, or otherwise push, consumers towards "piracy". Once there, it is a near impossible fight to get them to be a consumer again.
I'm okay with PETA. Yes, they are mildly annoying, but they more than make up for it in sheer amusement and very compelling PSA pictures.
If I wanted the child to grow a large beard and work in a mine I would call him Gimli.
Yes, but if you wanted him to be awesome, get all the chicks, and totally rule, you would have called him Thorin.
Soooo... we are operating on the principle of "He who smelt it, dealt it" in foreign policy now?
Try some reading comprehension.
Most religions believe the end of the world is nigh, not just the Mayan calendar stuff. Since a very large number of people identify themselves as belonging to religions that have those beliefs, it might not be a great idea to have a religious extremist in office during the "end times".
You sound like a fucking psychopath that believes he can, and should, control other people's behavior and bodies because of what some mythical man in the sky allegedly said through a book.
A higher purpose for humanity? Fucking wank me. You just want to enforce your particular, albeit popular, interpretations of the bible as law, no different than any Taliban extremist.
Separation of church and state, mother fucker. It's important.
As long as it is part of that woman's body, SHE gets to decide what to do with the fetus, baby, wonderful-opportunity-from-the-jesus, etc. That's the only sane way you can run a society.
People, such as yourself, that suffer from this righteous disease that allows you to justify your lust for power over other people are a danger to a free society.
That's why that nutbag lost. All the swing voters that could have been persuaded, were put off (immensely) by his religious bigotry and need to force feed religion down our throats.
You caught that didn't you?
It was deliberate. There are no citizens anymore. Just resource units they like to refer to as "consumers".
What do you call it when more than one bad person cooperates on an agenda that they both find mutually beneficial? Hint, it starts with a 'c'.
Whether or not there was a true false flag operation is highly debatable. No seriously, it is.
What is not debatable is that there are clear and ever present "grand" conspiracies by those in power. Government contracts, copyright protections, intelligence community tools, military industrial complex profits, bail out corruption, LIBOR manipulation, quasi-gerrymandering via voter suppression, red light camera manipulation, mortgage fraud, rubber-stamped-evictions-via-deeds-of-trust-abuse, and on and on, and on, and on.
If there was more than one person in the government that knew of an imminent attack and deliberately obfuscated, delayed, or otherwise covered up the facts to allow it, since it would benefit certain interested parties financially, or with increased power over people, it was a conspiracy.
Considering how massively successful the last 10 years has been in eliminating civil rights, increasing and strengthening Constitution Free Zones, "educating and training" the public to accept violent intrusions into the privacy and restrictions on their freedom of movement, and the siphoning off of ludicrous amounts of wealth to the hands of the few elite.......... ... ummm..... yeah.... I am going to stick with conspiracy.
Either that, or we are just really some unlucky bastards that kicked puppies and drowned kittens in past lives.
Really?
I have not heard Obama saying that he wants to legislate women's vaginas and the choices they want to make with them because of some popular mythology.
It's something I take seriously, so please enlighten me. Explain one policy that was motivated purely by religious views. Socialism is not generally a purely religious platform either. You can be atheist and still be a socialist.
Geez. Anyone can list some things that they don't like and both parties do. Do you seriously generalize that to no meaningful differences at all?
Yes. Meaningful is not objective, but subjective. Those differences you speak of merely amount to either death by a knife, or death by a gun.
Either party is deeply toxic towards America with their own unique blend of anti-freedom, anti-consumer agendas.
A meaningful difference would be one that I could actually believe would result in a net positive for America. Not seeing it.
Fuck man, I would have campaigned for him....
Yes. Yes I do.
The motives for war had nothing to do with some egotistical family revenge plot (that is pretty stupid anyways) and even less to do with the safety and security of America.
Could Al Gore have stopped the incredibly corrupt movement by very rich and powerful people to extract around 1 trillion dollars from the US over 10 years through the military industrial complex?
Call me cynical, but I think not. Call me crazy too, but 9/11 was either a true false flag op, or the US government created an opportunity out of knowing there was an imminent attack on US soil.
Mod Up.
We gained nothing today. We just cut our losses with the less crazy douchenozzle being elected.