as a libertarian who leans more conservative on spending issues but more liberal on some social ones, I am troubled that the the phrase 'news-media activism' has a definition at all. Those 2 things should never appear even in the same paragraph let alone the same sentence. Unfortunately this is why the phrase fake-news came about initially. It wasn't the Republicans that invented this phrase, it was us, the regular Joe's of the world that have been watching news shift into ad revenue driving click-bait. This shit started happening around the time of 24hr news reporting such as Headline News and CNN. Before we had 24hr news channels we simply had news segments and they were mostly just news. These 24hr news channels hosts shows that are not about reporting at all. Whether its Rachael Maddow, Sally Kohn, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reily. These shows they hosts take a piece of news and they talk about it, and bring in people to defend or attack it. When that is done on a NEWS CHANNEL that creates a blurring of fact and fiction, or fact and opinion, that the viewer is misled into thinking everything they hear is 100% true. Yet these shows are always about opinions, views, etc. Walter Cronkite would have walked out of the studio if this shit went down when he was king of the hill.
even a broken clock is right twice a day. I happened to enjoy reading the articles Camille Paglia wrote. Even though she tends to vote more liberal, she was always brutally honest about people like Killary and Obummer's shortcomings. Any journalist that will set aside personal wishes to report accurately as to someones shortcomings has my respect. I see way too much of this 'well we just wont say anything since it will make our guy/gal look bad' crap. That has no place in journalism.
Its probably true, but Snopes is no longer a reliable source. They compromised integrity for partisanship a couple years ago and its going to take a long time to regain credibility. Snopes is supposed to call out misinformation. Deciding to rank certain and provable false claims as a 'we arent sure, its possible but we just dont know' for DNC related stuff was a stupid ass move. If your going to call out misinformation, you have to have a religious level of commitment to the truth, regardless where it leads you. Using influence to sway opinion was never what the site was intended for. Thats an abuse of trust that is hard to regain. I have never seen them call a truth a lie, but I have seen them abuse the in-between-ratings and thats poor journalism if you ask me.
Because the flu vaccine is incubated in eggs, or was, the risk of getting GBS was real. People elect not to get the flu vaccine all the time. I did get both pnemonia vaccines. I often skip the flu vax because it never seemed to keep me from getting the flu. Instead i just make sure that i always have mucinex-d on hand as well as a nebulizer with albuterol. I got the neb online w/o a script and my doc wrote me a script for albuterol after explaining its first aid usefulness. The health risk from the flu is entirely respiratory. Keeping your airway open is flu first aid 101.
The problem is justifyjng censorship. If you justify it for any reason then it can easily be justified for all reasons. Facebook wants to pretend that they are not a media company. They sell ad space. In my opinion that squarely puts them in the media business. That means that they should probably have disclaimers saying “the views expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the station and yada yada yada”. Instead of hiding the search results, they were apparently good at identifying the kind of content already, why don’t they just produce a mixed bag of both sides of the issue? That solves the echo chamber problem without resulting to flat out censorship. If somebody was on the fence then showing all sides of an argument is the best thing you can do. For those that had already made up their mind what difference does it make whether they see an echo chamber or not they already bought the bag of goods.
Sorry to hear about your childhood. My wife was teaching during the weeks following 9/11. Many children were led to believe that hundreds of buildings were being struck by planes because the frequency of the footage being shown. The reason people call these media companies ‘fake news’ is precisely because of this sort of paychological manipulation that has no business in reporting the news. It is no cooincidense that CNN is running a special on the nixon years right now. Deliberate warfare technique of softening the target. Its not so subtle and they think we dont see through it. So not only are they trying to play us like puppets, they insult our intelligence by thinking we are too stupid to notice.
That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. The president should not be making laws to begin with. Executive orders suck. Ever hear of COBRA? FMLA? FCRA? HIPAA? Are you starting to see a trend here? If any of those were an executive order they would ebb and flow from one president to the next, constantly changing or disappearing entirely. It was congress’ goddamn job to pass this thing to begin with. They need to stop fucking blaming the president when it was their fucking failure to get it done in the first place. They had total control of both the House and the Senate., and if it is as popular as this article suggests that should not matter. However, they seem to think we’re electing a fucking king not a president. It takes a lot of nerve to cover up dropping the ball, and then turn around and spin it as if theyre some kind a fucking hero for doing the job they should’ve done in the first fucking place. I said the exact same thing about the deffered deportation policy. When something becomes a law it takes a body of people to overturn or change it. When it’s an executive order the whims of a single person can change anything at will. This is citizenship fundamentals 101.
Not at all. But silencing the group will not stop the problem. Theres a really old saying ‘keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer’. Silencing them does the exact opposite of the goal of saving lives. I dont want to know whats going on in the shadows. Its hard to see and there is too much slight of hand. Give them a stage so you know what to expect. Getting you to trigger into wanting to silence them is how they get you to give up your freedoms. Its small. Its not like youre hit with a binary decision of freedom | no freedom. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. They bombard us with this shit so they can take our freedom one bite at a time. This problem can easily be disolved without censorship. Censorship isnt even the most productive means. But of all the possible solutions, censorship advances a side effect that pertains nothing to the problem at hand. It is the preverbial two birds with one stone.
Believe me, im pretty pro vaccine, but im not willing to cross that line in the sand to make my point. Someones right to not agree with me is that line in the sand. I would rather be able to spot people that disagree with me than never know what goes on in the shadows. Maybe they wore a big red ballcap. I am less stressed knowing people are free to identify themselves than have to guess who conspires when I am not around.
there is some truth to that. Imagine this going on 30 years ago. Anyone suggesting butter was OK and margarine wasnt could face censorship and public humiliation. Don't even get me started on eggs. 5 times the government changed their stances on eggs. Milk? Remember 'Milk, it does the body good' or 'Got milk?' Now we know that Holstein cows have an enzyme the suppresses the burning of fat. This whole shit started over climate change. Someone decided it was OK to deny voices to anyone offering a scientific alternative postulate to climate change. Once it was seen as socially acceptable to violate the very principle science is founded on, well the door was left open for every other venue. Just rince-and-repeat. Now I hear it about youtube channels that teach firearms safety, I hear it about anti vaxxers, I hear it about that jones guy that ran infowars, every time I turn around its another group that needs to be silenced.
in order to do that you would also have to homeschool your child. Daycares and schools are not allowed to accept non-vaccinated students. So the risk is fairly mitigated without having to suppress free speech.
censorship. Its a preamble to "lets block content to anything we don't want you to see". This group is insane, we have to censor them or they will brainwash millions. Its total bullshit. Only stupid people are susceptible. Censorship is a slippery slope. Once you justify one exception, the next will follow. After a handful of exceptions, the rate at which they arrive will be exponential. The very first exception was the fire in a crowded theater ruling. The time between exceptions being made get reduced each time. Its already happening in the loose way they define hate speech, which turns out to only be hate speech spoken by a far-right group, far left groups get free passes for the exact same rhetoric, for now. Anything someone doesn't agree with is instantly labeled hate speech. Don't like the idea of a guy pretending to be transgende, 'identifies' with women, and gets to use the bathroom to spy on your teenage daughter? hate speech the second you voice a concern. Its not like you stood up and rally a bunch of people to go hang a bunch of transgenders (which really would be hate speech). Mere the idea of disagreeing with anything 'politically correct' is now defined as hate speech and worthy of censorship. What happens when the PC comes for your porn? Don't bother to speak out against porn censorship, you'll be labeled a hate-speech loon and shut down instantly. This is a very dangerous genie to let out of a bottle.
You dont have to shut down the speech. Schools already refuse admission without proof of vaccination. Problem solved. Either home school your kid in a bubble or get him vaccinated.
don't you see? Its the same narrative over and over.... create the crisis, exploit peoples emotions, step in to _protect_ everyone by infringing on a right. Insert your villian here: Terrorists, Child molesters, Gun Owners, Anti Vaxers, Russian bots, Hate speech.... There is always some reason to suppress your rights. IMO this happens way too frequently that its most likely false-flag propaganda just to kick the can down the road as we march toward enslavement.
Morpheous: We dont know who struck first, but we do know we were the ones to blacken the sky.
Aside from the issue of wanting to harness solar power, dont clouds also trap heat? The clearest winter skies are usually the coldest.
At one point city planners brought in a bunch of hawks to deal with a pigeon problem. Apparently this has created a new problem of attacks on small pets. Not enough influence and you do not get the desired effect. Too much influence and your likely to overshoot and create new unforseen problems. Its a delicate balance that we as a species do not seem particularly good at. It reminds me of all the other calls to action that made things worse; like margarine, or many drugs that eventually get pulled off the shelf because side effects are so much worse than what they treat. We overreach because we are not patient enough to wait the amount of time for our changes to fully reach true equilibrium. So we up the changes for faster perceived results. An ecosystem is not a simple linear relationship.
Yet another hypothetical and baseless study. The account limits the number of simultaneous streams based on a monthly price. If three people in my house want to stream 3 different shows 24/7 my account allows for this. They arent ‘losing’ money if by me doing this still results in a peofit. They just arent making as much money as theyd preferr. There is a difference. It seems like no group anymore that conduct statistical analysis is capable of doing so without adding political spin. I don’t mean the type of politics at the national level, but rather a financial politics based on public perception. If I’m traveling on business and I decide to watch Netflix on a tablet at the same time someone else in my house is watching TV, again they’re not losing money and my contract allows this. It would be different if hundreds of simultaneous streams were going on. Apparently they came to the number three as a fair use value.
Now if you were to tell me that they arrived at this number of loss due to the number of people who were watching the content from a pirated site or torrent, and not Netflix, I would be more inclined to agree. I however, find it difficult to trust a study that uses the phrase “as many as“. Obviously nobody’s going to raise their hand and say yes I’m pirating Netflix. So how do we know it’s not really one in 20? That’s like seeing those advertisements that say “as low as“. We know damn well that we’re never getting out of there for that price. It’s from the same psychology that $14.99 sounds cheaper than $15. Or why gasoline is still priced at 9/10 of a cent.
Learn to read. They are more polite because they are trained in preventing escalation. When a cop KNOWS your defenseless he tends to go overboard being a complete dick. Not every cop but that environment is a bully magnet. Ive lived in 6 different states while in the military. Cops tend to not want to risk having someone pull a gun on them so they dont immediately set out to piss off the person they are questioning. In my citizens police academy course one class covered police getting shot. They showed footage of dash cams where the cop was fatally shot. Sometimes the cop was all by himself in a wooded area. They didnt find him for a couple days. Its totally not worth the risk when all you have to do is treat the person with respect and stop assuming every single stop is a mass murderer. That sherrif deputy would still have been alive to see his kid graduate. If you dont believe me, try living here. You would probably never want to live anywhere else again.
Citation? I clearly said it was my personal experience. I have been stationed in many states. In order of residence
Orlando, FL Windsor, CT Boston, MA Almeda, CA Hayward, CA Bremerton, WA San Leandro, CA Chattanooga, TN Lexington, KY I realize reading is didficult for you and spelling is worse. You made a spelling error
I'm a liberal, and pretend to be a gun owner. I couldnt fight my way out of a paper bag and 100% behind turning my town into a police state. Obviously I suffer TDS and blame the Russians for everything. My last name is McCarthy.
In what universe does killed by cops equate to being a bully and an asshole? Bullies dont kill their victims, it ruins the whole power trip. I thought this was a form for thinkers? Surely you can see this right? Try living somewhere where the vast majority the population is armed. You will find some very polite police officers.
I find the areas with the strictest gun control have the most asshole, abusive cops. Where I live we have very few restrictions, about to pass constitutional carry, and most people already have a CCDW permit. In fact it shows up when they run a plate that the owner has a ccdw. The result is we have some of the most polite law enforcement around. Our state troopers have a reputation for being able to talk someone into a set of handcuffs. Whenever you have a system of one group of people, put in charge to police another group of people, and the balance of power is so far shifted to the extent it is in those places, you create a breeding ground for bullies.
Its California, it makes no sense. My favorite rebuttal to their gun control debate is: Wait, you think the police are racist, excessive force, bullys on a power trip; politicians are corrupt; and the military does the bidding of mega corporations. Yet you insist they are tge only ones who should get to have guns?
Btw most readers use an IR based technology. Buy this product called VEIL G5 and protect yourself from both LIDAR and plate readers.
I am guessing you've never been in the military. The armed population is why there has never been an incursion since the days of the Alamo. Consider the rifle behind every blade of grass comment from Admiral Yamamoto. The number of armed people is a LOT higher than CNN and WaPo tries to claim. For example, they estimate that there are 393 Million guns in the US based on manufacturing reports and background checks performed. This is fundamentally flawed for so many reasons.
1. Serialization and reporting was not a requirement before the Gun Control Act of 1968. Anything manufactured prior to that did not require such things with the exception of items classified under the NFA and registered with the BATFE.
2. the GCA of 1968 allows you to make a firearm and not serialize it as long as you are not making them for other people. This has been a booming industry for over a decade. Look up 80% lower receivers, 80% glock frames, 80% 1911 frames, and AKM receiver flats. There are probably a few million of these as well, at least!
3. These numbers are also based on a CENSUS and POLL information. I'm sorry but when someone calls my house asking if I have any guns my response is "its none of your goddamn business! why dont you try breaking in and see for yourself? If you make it out alive, I guess you didn't get shot". There are a lot of people that don't tell anyone they have a gun. They are fairly liberal people and fear backlash from their 'peers' but not to the point they would sacrifice their personal safety. A lot of young women who live alone.
4. Private sales are not reported and therefore did not count toward this survey
5. Criminals are still part of an armed populus and also not likely counted in the survey
6. Even taking the 400 million at face value, there is not a military force in the world that can stand against 400 million armed guerrilla combatants, even if the police were added to the military numbers. Our armed services is just 1.3million and its unlikely they would ALL turn on their citizens.
those 'surveys' you read about are always paid for and promoted by people with agendas. They're full of shit. Just like the more likely to be killed with a gun bullshit disproven one. What is indisputable are FBI statistics and you need to look up how many times an armed victim successfully defended their life.
you honestly think that there was NO erosion of liberties before 2017? Were you born yesterday? Or just under a rock? its been break-neck speed since the signing of the Patriot Act. You might want to look into which members voted for that. Actually just go find which ones voted against it, its a _much_ shorter list.
The swamp is far from drained. Maybe an inch or two siphoned off the surface at most. Keep in mind that this has been slowly building up since Eisenhower left office. It scared the crap out of him, he even warned everyone is a publicly televised broadcast. If he even had a clue how big and dangerous it was going to grow, he probably would have taken a bigger stance. At the time he saw mechanations of involving the US in foreign conflicts in order to secure purchases of weapons, technology, and equipment for self enrichment. It is a lot more complex than just weapons manufacturers getting rich now, not that that aspect diminished. The biggest concern I have right now, is that people are being misled into believing this is a one-party problem. The erosion of freedom continues to march on regardless of who holds office(s).
There is a book that’s now at a print that you should find and read called radio warfare. Before reading that book I was not aware that during World War II George Orwell worked in psychological operations or PsyOps. They quickly realized it was a lot easier to run propaganda against their own people than it was the enemy. The book 1984 was not a fictional imagination of a dark future, it was the only way to get the word out about a roadmap. Slowly, patiently, like a snowball gaining momentum, that’s how that drum beat from World War II to the year 2000. Once there was the world trade Tower attack in 2001, things picked up pace abruptly. If you were to measure the rate at which privacy was a rotated since that event, you would notice that it’s far less linear. A snowball is a really good analogy. Once they get to the point where they’ve taken enough of your liberties away they go all in and throw all the chips on the table.
It is the single reason why the defenders of the Second Amendment here are so vehemently opposed to any sort of restriction. The day the road that liberty will be the day with in a year that you see a sweeping police state rise from the shadows.
I was under the impression that London had more CCTV cameras then just about every city combined. Of course I read that article in the MSM, so it could be entirely fucking bogus. But no you’re kidding yourself if you think that you’re protected from small quiet erosions of liberty. That’s exactly how they do it. It’s the same playbook over and over and over again
Think about the children Its to protect us We only want to spy on the really bad people
The shit goes way back. USS Maine. HMS Lusitania, Pearl harbor. Between deliberately allowing bad things to happen and flat out faults flag operations, liberty is always eroded
Why would you assume that? Its not like from 2008 - 216 we didnt see sweeping erosion of our privacy. Vault 7, the snowden files, project Prism, NDAA, need I go on? Prettymuch every political party except libertarian is marching straight toward an Orwellian future.
The whole Drain The Swamp mantra did not start with Donald Trump. He just latched onto it. Its a serious issue. The swamp has no particular party affiliation. It is an unelected mob of puppet masters working behind the scenes to orchestrate an agenda.
If I lived in Arizona I would change my religious affiliation to Wiccan. I would then claim my first amendment right was being violated by witholding a necessity to extort my DNA, something that could be used to cast curses upon me.
I want to know why the fucking ACLU is not involved. Why are they mysteriously quiet?
beginRant/ Most of these hollywood elitists are self prescribed, Bernie Sanders Socialists. Universal income, distribution of wealth, blah blah. What better example of a distribution of wealth than by providing a way for me to save $10/mo and subsequently deprive those elitists assholes $10/mo by getting these shows for free. Reap what you sew you fucking hypocritical assholes. I hope you chew on it./endRant
Slashdot Mirror
as a libertarian who leans more conservative on spending issues but more liberal on some social ones, I am troubled that the the phrase 'news-media activism' has a definition at all. Those 2 things should never appear even in the same paragraph let alone the same sentence. Unfortunately this is why the phrase fake-news came about initially. It wasn't the Republicans that invented this phrase, it was us, the regular Joe's of the world that have been watching news shift into ad revenue driving click-bait. This shit started happening around the time of 24hr news reporting such as Headline News and CNN. Before we had 24hr news channels we simply had news segments and they were mostly just news. These 24hr news channels hosts shows that are not about reporting at all. Whether its Rachael Maddow, Sally Kohn, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reily. These shows they hosts take a piece of news and they talk about it, and bring in people to defend or attack it. When that is done on a NEWS CHANNEL that creates a blurring of fact and fiction, or fact and opinion, that the viewer is misled into thinking everything they hear is 100% true. Yet these shows are always about opinions, views, etc. Walter Cronkite would have walked out of the studio if this shit went down when he was king of the hill.
even a broken clock is right twice a day. I happened to enjoy reading the articles Camille Paglia wrote. Even though she tends to vote more liberal, she was always brutally honest about people like Killary and Obummer's shortcomings. Any journalist that will set aside personal wishes to report accurately as to someones shortcomings has my respect. I see way too much of this 'well we just wont say anything since it will make our guy/gal look bad' crap. That has no place in journalism.
Its probably true, but Snopes is no longer a reliable source. They compromised integrity for partisanship a couple years ago and its going to take a long time to regain credibility. Snopes is supposed to call out misinformation. Deciding to rank certain and provable false claims as a 'we arent sure, its possible but we just dont know' for DNC related stuff was a stupid ass move. If your going to call out misinformation, you have to have a religious level of commitment to the truth, regardless where it leads you. Using influence to sway opinion was never what the site was intended for. Thats an abuse of trust that is hard to regain. I have never seen them call a truth a lie, but I have seen them abuse the in-between-ratings and thats poor journalism if you ask me.
Because the flu vaccine is incubated in eggs, or was, the risk of getting GBS was real. People elect not to get the flu vaccine all the time. I did get both pnemonia vaccines. I often skip the flu vax because it never seemed to keep me from getting the flu. Instead i just make sure that i always have mucinex-d on hand as well as a nebulizer with albuterol. I got the neb online w/o a script and my doc wrote me a script for albuterol after explaining its first aid usefulness. The health risk from the flu is entirely respiratory. Keeping your airway open is flu first aid 101.
The problem is justifyjng censorship. If you justify it for any reason then it can easily be justified for all reasons. Facebook wants to pretend that they are not a media company. They sell ad space. In my opinion that squarely puts them in the media business. That means that they should probably have disclaimers saying “the views expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the station and yada yada yada”. Instead of hiding the search results, they were apparently good at identifying the kind of content already, why don’t they just produce a mixed bag of both sides of the issue? That solves the echo chamber problem without resulting to flat out censorship. If somebody was on the fence then showing all sides of an argument is the best thing you can do. For those that had already made up their mind what difference does it make whether they see an echo chamber or not they already bought the bag of goods.
Sorry to hear about your childhood. My wife was teaching during the weeks following 9/11. Many children were led to believe that hundreds of buildings were being struck by planes because the frequency of the footage being shown. The reason people call these media companies ‘fake news’ is precisely because of this sort of paychological manipulation that has no business in reporting the news. It is no cooincidense that CNN is running a special on the nixon years right now. Deliberate warfare technique of softening the target. Its not so subtle and they think we dont see through it. So not only are they trying to play us like puppets, they insult our intelligence by thinking we are too stupid to notice.
That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. The president should not be making laws to begin with. Executive orders suck. Ever hear of COBRA? FMLA? FCRA? HIPAA? Are you starting to see a trend here? If any of those were an executive order they would ebb and flow from one president to the next, constantly changing or disappearing entirely. It was congress’ goddamn job to pass this thing to begin with. They need to stop fucking blaming the president when it was their fucking failure to get it done in the first place. They had total control of both the House and the Senate., and if it is as popular as this article suggests that should not matter. However, they seem to think we’re electing a fucking king not a president. It takes a lot of nerve to cover up dropping the ball, and then turn around and spin it as if theyre some kind a fucking hero for doing the job they should’ve done in the first fucking place. I said the exact same thing about the deffered deportation policy. When something becomes a law it takes a body of people to overturn or change it. When it’s an executive order the whims of a single person can change anything at will. This is citizenship fundamentals 101.
Not at all. But silencing the group will not stop the problem. Theres a really old saying ‘keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer’. Silencing them does the exact opposite of the goal of saving lives. I dont want to know whats going on in the shadows. Its hard to see and there is too much slight of hand. Give them a stage so you know what to expect. Getting you to trigger into wanting to silence them is how they get you to give up your freedoms. Its small. Its not like youre hit with a binary decision of freedom | no freedom. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. They bombard us with this shit so they can take our freedom one bite at a time. This problem can easily be disolved without censorship. Censorship isnt even the most productive means. But of all the possible solutions, censorship advances a side effect that pertains nothing to the problem at hand. It is the preverbial two birds with one stone.
Believe me, im pretty pro vaccine, but im not willing to cross that line in the sand to make my point. Someones right to not agree with me is that line in the sand. I would rather be able to spot people that disagree with me than never know what goes on in the shadows. Maybe they wore a big red ballcap. I am less stressed knowing people are free to identify themselves than have to guess who conspires when I am not around.
there is some truth to that. Imagine this going on 30 years ago. Anyone suggesting butter was OK and margarine wasnt could face censorship and public humiliation. Don't even get me started on eggs. 5 times the government changed their stances on eggs. Milk? Remember 'Milk, it does the body good' or 'Got milk?' Now we know that Holstein cows have an enzyme the suppresses the burning of fat. This whole shit started over climate change. Someone decided it was OK to deny voices to anyone offering a scientific alternative postulate to climate change. Once it was seen as socially acceptable to violate the very principle science is founded on, well the door was left open for every other venue. Just rince-and-repeat. Now I hear it about youtube channels that teach firearms safety, I hear it about anti vaxxers, I hear it about that jones guy that ran infowars, every time I turn around its another group that needs to be silenced.
in order to do that you would also have to homeschool your child. Daycares and schools are not allowed to accept non-vaccinated students. So the risk is fairly mitigated without having to suppress free speech.
censorship. Its a preamble to "lets block content to anything we don't want you to see". This group is insane, we have to censor them or they will brainwash millions. Its total bullshit. Only stupid people are susceptible. Censorship is a slippery slope. Once you justify one exception, the next will follow. After a handful of exceptions, the rate at which they arrive will be exponential. The very first exception was the fire in a crowded theater ruling. The time between exceptions being made get reduced each time. Its already happening in the loose way they define hate speech, which turns out to only be hate speech spoken by a far-right group, far left groups get free passes for the exact same rhetoric, for now. Anything someone doesn't agree with is instantly labeled hate speech. Don't like the idea of a guy pretending to be transgende, 'identifies' with women, and gets to use the bathroom to spy on your teenage daughter? hate speech the second you voice a concern. Its not like you stood up and rally a bunch of people to go hang a bunch of transgenders (which really would be hate speech). Mere the idea of disagreeing with anything 'politically correct' is now defined as hate speech and worthy of censorship. What happens when the PC comes for your porn? Don't bother to speak out against porn censorship, you'll be labeled a hate-speech loon and shut down instantly. This is a very dangerous genie to let out of a bottle.
You dont have to shut down the speech. Schools already refuse admission without proof of vaccination. Problem solved. Either home school your kid in a bubble or get him vaccinated.
don't you see? Its the same narrative over and over.... create the crisis, exploit peoples emotions, step in to _protect_ everyone by infringing on a right. Insert your villian here: Terrorists, Child molesters, Gun Owners, Anti Vaxers, Russian bots, Hate speech.... There is always some reason to suppress your rights. IMO this happens way too frequently that its most likely false-flag propaganda just to kick the can down the road as we march toward enslavement.
Morpheous: We dont know who struck first, but we do know we were the ones to blacken the sky.
Aside from the issue of wanting to harness solar power, dont clouds also trap heat? The clearest winter skies are usually the coldest.
At one point city planners brought in a bunch of hawks to deal with a pigeon problem. Apparently this has created a new problem of attacks on small pets. Not enough influence and you do not get the desired effect. Too much influence and your likely to overshoot and create new unforseen problems. Its a delicate balance that we as a species do not seem particularly good at. It reminds me of all the other calls to action that made things worse; like margarine, or many drugs that eventually get pulled off the shelf because side effects are so much worse than what they treat. We overreach because we are not patient enough to wait the amount of time for our changes to fully reach true equilibrium. So we up the changes for faster perceived results. An ecosystem is not a simple linear relationship.
Yet another hypothetical and baseless study. The account limits the number of simultaneous streams based on a monthly price. If three people in my house want to stream 3 different shows 24/7 my account allows for this. They arent ‘losing’ money if by me doing this still results in a peofit. They just arent making as much money as theyd preferr. There is a difference. It seems like no group anymore that conduct statistical analysis is capable of doing so without adding political spin. I don’t mean the type of politics at the national level, but rather a financial politics based on public perception. If I’m traveling on business and I decide to watch Netflix on a tablet at the same time someone else in my house is watching TV, again they’re not losing money and my contract allows this. It would be different if hundreds of simultaneous streams were going on. Apparently they came to the number three as a fair use value.
Now if you were to tell me that they arrived at this number of loss due to the number of people who were watching the content from a pirated site or torrent, and not Netflix, I would be more inclined to agree. I however, find it difficult to trust a study that uses the phrase “as many as“. Obviously nobody’s going to raise their hand and say yes I’m pirating Netflix. So how do we know it’s not really one in 20? That’s like seeing those advertisements that say “as low as“. We know damn well that we’re never getting out of there for that price. It’s from the same psychology that $14.99 sounds cheaper than $15. Or why gasoline is still priced at 9/10 of a cent.
Learn to read. They are more polite because they are trained in preventing escalation. When a cop KNOWS your defenseless he tends to go overboard being a complete dick. Not every cop but that environment is a bully magnet. Ive lived in 6 different states while in the military. Cops tend to not want to risk having someone pull a gun on them so they dont immediately set out to piss off the person they are questioning. In my citizens police academy course one class covered police getting shot. They showed footage of dash cams where the cop was fatally shot. Sometimes the cop was all by himself in a wooded area. They didnt find him for a couple days. Its totally not worth the risk when all you have to do is treat the person with respect and stop assuming every single stop is a mass murderer. That sherrif deputy would still have been alive to see his kid graduate. If you dont believe me, try living here. You would probably never want to live anywhere else again.
Citation? I clearly said it was my personal experience. I have been stationed in many states. In order of residence
Orlando, FL
Windsor, CT
Boston, MA
Almeda, CA
Hayward, CA
Bremerton, WA
San Leandro, CA
Chattanooga, TN
Lexington, KY
I realize reading is didficult for you and spelling is worse. You made a spelling error
I'm a liberal, and pretend to be a gun owner. I couldnt fight my way out of a paper bag and 100% behind turning my town into a police state. Obviously I suffer TDS and blame the Russians for everything. My last name is McCarthy.
Fixed that for you
In what universe does killed by cops equate to being a bully and an asshole? Bullies dont kill their victims, it ruins the whole power trip. I thought this was a form for thinkers? Surely you can see this right? Try living somewhere where the vast majority the population is armed. You will find some very polite police officers.
I find the areas with the strictest gun control have the most asshole, abusive cops. Where I live we have very few restrictions, about to pass constitutional carry, and most people already have a CCDW permit. In fact it shows up when they run a plate that the owner has a ccdw. The result is we have some of the most polite law enforcement around. Our state troopers have a reputation for being able to talk someone into a set of handcuffs. Whenever you have a system of one group of people, put in charge to police another group of people, and the balance of power is so far shifted to the extent it is in those places, you create a breeding ground for bullies.
Its California, it makes no sense. My favorite rebuttal to their gun control debate is: Wait, you think the police are racist, excessive force, bullys on a power trip; politicians are corrupt; and the military does the bidding of mega corporations. Yet you insist they are tge only ones who should get to have guns?
Btw most readers use an IR based technology. Buy this product called VEIL G5 and protect yourself from both LIDAR and plate readers.
I am guessing you've never been in the military. The armed population is why there has never been an incursion since the days of the Alamo. Consider the rifle behind every blade of grass comment from Admiral Yamamoto. The number of armed people is a LOT higher than CNN and WaPo tries to claim. For example, they estimate that there are 393 Million guns in the US based on manufacturing reports and background checks performed. This is fundamentally flawed for so many reasons.
1. Serialization and reporting was not a requirement before the Gun Control Act of 1968. Anything manufactured prior to that did not require such things with the exception of items classified under the NFA and registered with the BATFE.
2. the GCA of 1968 allows you to make a firearm and not serialize it as long as you are not making them for other people. This has been a booming industry for over a decade. Look up 80% lower receivers, 80% glock frames, 80% 1911 frames, and AKM receiver flats. There are probably a few million of these as well, at least!
3. These numbers are also based on a CENSUS and POLL information. I'm sorry but when someone calls my house asking if I have any guns my response is "its none of your goddamn business! why dont you try breaking in and see for yourself? If you make it out alive, I guess you didn't get shot". There are a lot of people that don't tell anyone they have a gun. They are fairly liberal people and fear backlash from their 'peers' but not to the point they would sacrifice their personal safety. A lot of young women who live alone.
4. Private sales are not reported and therefore did not count toward this survey
5. Criminals are still part of an armed populus and also not likely counted in the survey
6. Even taking the 400 million at face value, there is not a military force in the world that can stand against 400 million armed guerrilla combatants, even if the police were added to the military numbers. Our armed services is just 1.3million and its unlikely they would ALL turn on their citizens.
those 'surveys' you read about are always paid for and promoted by people with agendas. They're full of shit. Just like the more likely to be killed with a gun bullshit disproven one. What is indisputable are FBI statistics and you need to look up how many times an armed victim successfully defended their life.
you honestly think that there was NO erosion of liberties before 2017? Were you born yesterday? Or just under a rock? its been break-neck speed since the signing of the Patriot Act. You might want to look into which members voted for that. Actually just go find which ones voted against it, its a _much_ shorter list.
The swamp is far from drained. Maybe an inch or two siphoned off the surface at most. Keep in mind that this has been slowly building up since Eisenhower left office. It scared the crap out of him, he even warned everyone is a publicly televised broadcast. If he even had a clue how big and dangerous it was going to grow, he probably would have taken a bigger stance. At the time he saw mechanations of involving the US in foreign conflicts in order to secure purchases of weapons, technology, and equipment for self enrichment. It is a lot more complex than just weapons manufacturers getting rich now, not that that aspect diminished. The biggest concern I have right now, is that people are being misled into believing this is a one-party problem. The erosion of freedom continues to march on regardless of who holds office(s).
There is a book that’s now at a print that you should find and read called radio warfare. Before reading that book I was not aware that during World War II George Orwell worked in psychological operations or PsyOps. They quickly realized it was a lot easier to run propaganda against their own people than it was the enemy. The book 1984 was not a fictional imagination of a dark future, it was the only way to get the word out about a roadmap. Slowly, patiently, like a snowball gaining momentum, that’s how that drum beat from World War II to the year 2000. Once there was the world trade Tower attack in 2001, things picked up pace abruptly. If you were to measure the rate at which privacy was a rotated since that event, you would notice that it’s far less linear. A snowball is a really good analogy. Once they get to the point where they’ve taken enough of your liberties away they go all in and throw all the chips on the table.
It is the single reason why the defenders of the Second Amendment here are so vehemently opposed to any sort of restriction. The day the road that liberty will be the day with in a year that you see a sweeping police state rise from the shadows.
I was under the impression that London had more CCTV cameras then just about every city combined. Of course I read that article in the MSM, so it could be entirely fucking bogus. But no you’re kidding yourself if you think that you’re protected from small quiet erosions of liberty. That’s exactly how they do it. It’s the same playbook over and over and over again
Think about the children
Its to protect us
We only want to spy on the really bad people
The shit goes way back. USS Maine. HMS Lusitania, Pearl harbor. Between deliberately allowing bad things to happen and flat out faults flag operations, liberty is always eroded
Why would you assume that? Its not like from 2008 - 216 we didnt see sweeping erosion of our privacy. Vault 7, the snowden files, project Prism, NDAA, need I go on? Prettymuch every political party except libertarian is marching straight toward an Orwellian future.
The whole Drain The Swamp mantra did not start with Donald Trump. He just latched onto it. Its a serious issue. The swamp has no particular party affiliation. It is an unelected mob of puppet masters working behind the scenes to orchestrate an agenda.
If I lived in Arizona I would change my religious affiliation to Wiccan. I would then claim my first amendment right was being violated by witholding a necessity to extort my DNA, something that could be used to cast curses upon me.
I want to know why the fucking ACLU is not involved. Why are they mysteriously quiet?
beginRant/ /endRant
Most of these hollywood elitists are self prescribed, Bernie Sanders Socialists. Universal income, distribution of wealth, blah blah. What better example of a distribution of wealth than by providing a way for me to save $10/mo and subsequently deprive those elitists assholes $10/mo by getting these shows for free. Reap what you sew you fucking hypocritical assholes. I hope you chew on it.