Just got an email - America is changing for the better! Now, it's the matter of when, I think... Best of luck!!!
It seems to be happening, after all... https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/arti...socialist-revolution-is-happening-very-slowly
Also sprach an enlightened millionaire: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/17/16647544/patriotic-millionaires-taxes
As opposed to eejut billionaires: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...erm=254128&subid=20906735&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2 Madre mia...
"Over the objections of 83% of Americans, the @FCC has voted to gift control of the internet to natural monopoly corporations." https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/...afbe597488878&uid=917878446&nid=244 293670913 Nice "conservative" law... not!!!
Reality check time: http://ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22533&LangID=E https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/15/extreme-poverty-america-un-special-monitor-report
Now, this is just a little bit more proof that "if you are paranoid does not automatically mean they are not after you"... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...gs-tool-target-black-people-article-1.2573832 "The “War on Drugs” was actually a political tool to crush leftist protesters and black people, a former Nixon White House adviser admitted in a decades-old interview published Tuesday. John Ehrlichman, who served as President Richard Nixon’s domestic policy chief, laid bare the sinister use of his boss’ controversial policy in a 1994 interview with journalist Dan Baum that the writer revisited in a new article for Harper’s magazine. KING: WHY THE WAR ON DRUGS IS REALLY A WAR ON BLACK PEOPLE “You want to know what this was really all about,” Ehrlichman, who died in 1999, said in the interview after Baum asked him about Nixon’s harsh anti-drug policies. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying,” Ehrlichman continued. “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”" No humour can turn this into a light-hearted issue, though: suppression of dissent in democracy?!? Seriously, in its cupboards the USofA has loads of political prisoners, nasty destruction of third parties, framing of innocent individuals or groups.........
Yeah, very "funny" and "humorous"... Only an extremely uneducated and uninformed person would think that... Because if you differ and dare - it's you, too, no matter if you're an Amurican: https://www.wikitribune.com/story/2...leaks-in-conversation-with-jimmy-wales/26810/ "JW: People seem to think that monitoring individuals is a recent development. But history has shown us that the U.S. government has long investigated those individuals it has deemed threats. ES: Two days after Martin Luther King gave his “I have a dream” speech, the FBI’s director of domestic intelligence made the judgment that Martin Luther King Jr. was the greatest national security threat facing the United States. This happened in secret. We didn’t find it out until years later in the Church Committee (The Washington Post). But this is the natural progression of unchecked, unrestrained intelligence agencies in any country. This is not a uniquely American problem. We’ve seen it happen in other countries before. So the question is, again, how do we do this? We need to have a system of checks and balances. So the idea of this grand bargain was they would create a secret court that would basically issue warrants for intelligence investigations, like they did for traditional criminal investigations. This would be a specialized court that would understand all the difficulties here. They would all have clearances. There would be no fears of leaks and, for a time, that worked. But the problem is, from the 1970s, when the applications that went to this court were few and they were very serious applications, these rule-breaking agencies started to figure out how to abuse the system of rules and the secret court went along with it. JW: What, if any, role does Congress play in all of this? ES: Many of the largest critics of surveillance in Congress now aren’t allowed to sit in the intelligence-oversight hearings. We have 535 members of Congress, but only roughly 20 of these folks are allowed to actually be briefed on these kind of domestic surveillance programs, and this is the central problem. You have an executive, a president who doesn’t want to be checked and again, this isn’t because they’re evil. That’s because that’s what every president does. They don’t want the senators sniffing around what they’re doing. They don’t want courts telling them what they can and can’t do. We see this quite recently with Donald Trump’s Muslim ban, which as soon as the courts got wind of it, and had a role and could say, “we have a role to play here,” said “look, we understand what you’re trying to do here, but it’s a violation of the Constitution and you can’t.” So presidents want to cut people out. The courts increasingly have gone, as long as the government’s said “it’s a secret and you can’t prove it’s actually happening,” sorry, we can’t help you. And the Congress has been trained over decades to think the best thing for you to do in your re-election campaign is to not look too closely and to open your pockets. [This has] resulted in a system that allowed more than a decade of operation of an unconstitutional domestic dragnet."
@gorkski. quote Only an extremely uneducated and uninformed person unquote. please dont say that to a fellow member. it aint polite. -thank you.
Interesting. My sense of humour would try to direct the sting of the humour elsewhere, not at the messenger but OK... It takes all kinds...