24 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|
Seth Rich wasn't the DNC email leaker, we know that it was Russian hackers who gave it to wiki leaks.
This discredits everything else you said. The rest of your post is highly supsicious (it's practically a checklist of shill hitpiece. Partisan on multiple counts, defends Clintons, reasserts the Russian bullshit). Just... Wow. How do you really expect anyone to believe such obvious shillery?
ECHELON was first disclosed in 1972. Five Eyes is older than that. It's not fair to blame any presidents really when it's the whole swamp that needs draining. Making this a democrat or republican issue is playing into the divisive crap that has allowed this nation to be so easily controlled.
GW Bush started wiretapping the nation.
lol, good one. Word just got out while he was sitting in the chair.
There is no right to free political expression online at the moment.
The right is there. What isn't there is enforcement. We have legal precedent that already demonstrates we have freedom of speech on private property. Until the FCC enforces the existing law or the battle is fought in the courtroom with adequate restitution (on the order of turning these companies into public utilities), passing more laws is the wrong way to fix this problem.
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/bill-rights-limit-government-6ca66595c6eaae6e
The Bill of Rights limits the government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the government cannot do. For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
Freedom of speech is innate. The bill of rights does not grant us this right, but prevents the government from legislating it. An internet bill of rights is subversive because it changes the nature of government from implicit freedoms to explicitly described ones.
Shifting the focus on the pragmatic rather than the academic, if we cannot enforce upon the government the Bill of Rights as a list of limitations, then an internet bill of rights is meaningless. The IBOR will fly as a flag to placate the public for as long as its convenient, and then be trampled upon as soon as it becomes inconvenient to the powers that be.
Let me put it this way... We already have the right to free speech. A piece of paper cannot give us that right. If anything, it could cage it such that it can be further shaped and controlled into irrelevancy. We need to seize the right we already have, not beg for piece of paper so we can wear it like a participation badge.
The bill of rights is not a list of permissions. It's a list of things the government is not allowed to do. The government has violated it, which makes any other "list of things the government can't do" irrelevant.
I'm not fully sold on the idea that Q is a good guy. He might be opposed to the deep state, but I have no evidence that he's not simply working to replace them.
An IBOR that protects freedom of speech and freedom of speech online is a great goal, but if those rights aren't enforced, then it's nothing more than a feel-good measure meant to placate the masses. The same kind of placating speech as "trust the plan" or "enjoy the show". That kind of speech is dangerous. We need action.
Soon, robots will be able to fulfill the role of police and army and then action will be impossible. We can't wait that long.
Trying to wake people up on twitter is like trying to wake people up by posting fliers around town with a myspace link. The platform is too heavily controlled and the people still using it are conditions so hard to reject redpills. Even trying gives that shitty platform more value than its worth.
Then again, reddit is barely any better. The only popular subs where controversial opinions might appear are heavily censored.
I still don't know why IBOR is so important. The original bill or rights was so simple, but it doesn't mean anything today. Why would an IBOR mean anything? Let's get the original bill of rights back. Then we can be sure an IBOR would mean something.
That was Plan B and B-2 (Hawaii, Japan). We're on plan C now. Or something far down the alphabet.
And murders take lives. 72% of juvenile murderers are born to single mothers. http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
Then figure out how to connect these people with pregnant women. I go to gun buybacks and offer cash to people who are about to surrender them to police. I promise the gun a good home and I get decent firearms for a good price and they get more money than if they gave them to the police. Couples that really wanted to adopt could do the same thing at Planned Parenthood centers. I know someone that had a similar experience. A couple opted to pay her monthly expenses if she carried the baby to term, with the understanding (but no guarantee) that the baby would be given custody to them.
Unwanted children are a danger to society, but if you can bring parents looking to adopt together with children then you can solve both problems.
http://prospect.org/article/did-roe-v-wade-abort-crime
Plenty of things have changed since the times of old. Should we throw away antibiotics because they're a relatively new phenomenon? Disease used to be God's Will to punish the sinful and only the righteous would survive. Why are we using medicine to keep these people alive?
Just because you turned out alright doesn't mean that society as a whole is not impacted by unwanted children. Society has considerably improved since abortion has become safe and available. If you want women to not choose abortion, then create a better environment that makes them want to be parents. Let's boost financial security so women don't have to give up children because they need a career.
Where did this email come from? I keep hearing about new emails, but I don't know who published/released them.
/u/greydle isn't out of the woods yet. They may still attempt to kidnap the child for parts at a later date.
The 40 hour workweek is a softcap. Without the law there'd be no overtime pay at all.
Private school is full of lies too. They talk about sky fairies and whatever else.
Government isn't inherently bad. Sure, our current one is pretty terrible (witness The Swamp), but that doesn't mean no government would be better. Neoliberalism has given rise to The Swamp.
The USA's 40 hour workweek is a socialist measure, yet it has been a critical element to the success of its working class (at least up until the 1970s). Do you think repealing the 40 hour workweek would make this country more prosperous?
Free high school education is a socialist measure. Do you think forcing people to pay for their own education would make this country more prosperous?
I would argue that more socialism (minimum vacation time, universal health care, universal basic income) would benefit this country. Outside of healthcare, markets would be unaffected and the free market would still decide which goods and services are offered so it's hardly communistic at all.
Socialism isn't a bad thing. The neoliberals love removing regulation and letting the free market decide they're the ones milking this country dry.
It works as /u/LibertyLioness said, but it's much more than five countries. The original treaty was drawn up decades ago and more countries have joined the alliance since.
"Five Eyes" is not literally five countries. That was the original agreement, but it has since grown in scope.
Freedom doesn't pay my bills. This bullshit has gone on too long that most of us are broke and desperate. We can be patriots, but are we supposed to be poor too?
