search results matching tag: voluntary

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (27)     Sift Talk (9)     Blogs (6)     Comments (434)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Uh oh….don is going to have to explain why he’s illegally threatening the president with death, a violation of his bail in every trial he’s facing and a slap in the face to his own security detail, and why he’s continuing to threaten the judges daughter despite the updated gag order on Monday specifically precluding him from attacking family members.
It better be a good explanation or it could be prison time or at a minimum a total gag order, no statements at all, no “truths”, and none by his staff.

BTW - despite maga “lawyers” claiming it is, gag orders are NOT violations of first amendment rights, they are a voluntary but binding agreement a defendant makes as a condition of pre trial release, something they have no right to.

Bonus - with abortion rights on the ballot in Florida and 70% in favor of abortion rights, it becomes a swing state likely to turn blue. All democrats have to do is remind the public how many rights the right is stripping from them and who is fighting to preserve them. 😂
And Arizona just put Abortion rights on the ballot too, handing most of Arizona to Democrats.

Second bonus- Another maga racist white nationalist and anti semite, Gregg Blevins, is being recalled in Oklahoma.

Florida Police Taser Beat And Arrest Man For Walking

newtboy says...

Why can you see that here but not in the identical circumstances on the other video where dogs were released before anything?
Where the tackle was immediate with zero resistance?
Where the man who was just released from a voluntary commitment because he thought police were trying to kill him was immediately violently attacked by a dozen police with dogs because they thought he might have done something….there’s no report of any escapees or crime but he’s WWB, that’s suspicious itself, and open ended suspicion by cop is apparently a crime to you. (Hint, it’s not, and stopping someone for “suspicion” but having no idea of what is called harassment and is illegal).

bobknight33 said:

Cops have no reason to stop the guy.

They did the guy wrong.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

You were warned…

3 weeks and Twitter has closed its doors and is likely soon to be gone.
Forced loyalty pledges.
Employees locked out, the very few left that is.
Verification, gone.
Advertisers, gone.
Parody, gone.
Freedom of speech, gone.
Misinformation teams, gone….but that was the reason he bought it, to remove fact checks of conservatives.
Safety, gone.
Design teams, gone.
Functionality teams, gone.
Building maintenance teams, gone.
Twitter employees tweeted each other goodbye because they see it’s dying. Even most of the few that signed the loyalty pledge to become “hard core Twitter” say it’s temporary, they just didn’t want to lose their jobs right before the holidays. Good luck automating everything and pleasing your customers. He already drove off almost all advertising and revenue.

$45 billion of Tesla cash down the drain, down over 55% ytd and still plunging, and still burning money by the truckload, possibly into bankruptcy, and under multiple congressional investigations….OUCH!…all because Elon couldn’t stand even 2 days of free speech and started perma banning people over nonsense he created.
All in on Tesla must not be looking as bright and shiny today. You can’t say you weren’t warned.

As a bonus, Florida’s moronic infantilizing “stop woke act” law is on hold. Poor baby snowflakes might have to hear actual history for a moment, not white washed “slavery was just a voluntary migration for work just like we see on the southern border and benefited the slaves greatly” nonsense. The judge quoted 1984 in his ruling, calling the law “positively dystopian”.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson says...

Just incase you're afraid of- you know- facing reality

========================================


IQ testing and the eugenics movement in the United States

Eugenics, a set of beliefs and practices aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human population by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior,[39][40][41] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States during the Progressive Era, from the late 19th century until US involvement in World War II.[42][43]

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of the British Scientist Sir Francis Galton. In 1883, Galton first used the word eugenics to describe the biological improvement of human genes and the concept of being "well-born".[44][45] He believed that differences in a person's ability were acquired primarily through genetics and that eugenics could be implemented through selective breeding in order for the human race to improve in its overall quality, therefore allowing for humans to direct their own evolution.[46]

Goddard was a eugenicist. In 1908, he published his own version, The Binet and Simon Test of Intellectual Capacity, and cordially promoted the test. He quickly extended the use of the scale to the public schools (1913), to immigration (Ellis Island, 1914) and to a court of law (1914).[47]

Unlike Galton, who promoted eugenics through selective breeding for positive traits, Goddard went with the US eugenics movement to eliminate "undesirable" traits.[48] Goddard used the term "feeble-minded" to refer to people who did not perform well on the test. He argued that "feeble-mindedness" was caused by heredity, and thus feeble-minded people should be prevented from giving birth, either by institutional isolation or sterilization surgeries.[47] At first, sterilization targeted the disabled, but was later extended to poor people. Goddard's intelligence test was endorsed by the eugenicists to push for laws for forced sterilization. Different states adopted the sterilization laws at different paces. These laws, whose constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in their 1927 ruling Buck v. Bell, forced over 60,000 people to go through sterilization in the United States.[49]

California's sterilization program was so effective that the Nazis turned to the government for advice on how to prevent the birth of the "unfit".[50] While the US eugenics movement lost much of its momentum in the 1940s in view of the horrors of Nazi Germany, advocates of eugenics (including Nazi geneticist Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer) continued to work and promote their ideas in the United States.[50] In later decades, some eugenic principles have made a resurgence as a voluntary means of selective reproduction, with some calling them "new eugenics".[51] As it becomes possible to test for and correlate genes with IQ (and its proxies),[52] ethicists and embryonic genetic testing companies are attempting to understand the ways in which the technology can be ethically deployed.[53]

Where BLM co founder spends their money

newtboy says...

TLDW, so if she answered it in the video forgive me, but....
Are you sure it was $120k per year?
According to the Snopes article.....
Since the organization’s inception in 2013, the Foundation said Cullors received compensation totaling $120,000 for work that included serving as spokesperson and engaging in political education. Since 2019, Cullors’ role with the Foundation has been voluntary and unpaid.

Mordhaus said:

She didn't use illegal funds from BLM. She is a hypocrite of the highest order though. Of course, most rich people are, regardless of race.

1. She never took a salary from BLM: False. BLM stated they paid her 120k a year.

2. There is no proof she bought the houses or owns them: False, she admitted in interviews and statements she bought them for her family and herself. I question also that she is giving these homes to family, since she said herself that they disowned her and kicked out at 16 when she came out as queer. I can't find proof to counter that she gave them to family members, so that is just an opinion.

3. She is an avowed Marxist and Socialist, yet she is pursuing capitalist ideals hardcore. She tries to worm her way around this in her interview, but the Left themselves are criticizing her for doing this.

4. Wherever there is a white-dominant space, deep racism exists as well - no matter how progressive. If you cut too far into that progressive, if you do something that's too radical, white racism will emerge. - Patrisse Cullors: Also buys 1.4 million expansive property in Topanga Canyon district, which is 88% white and 1.8% black. Why would she want to live someplace where, per her previous quotes, deep racism exists?

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

https://videosift.com/video/Why-You-Always-Lying

Nice non sequitor, but you've got your racist trope wrong....it was never 99%. Liar.

In 2012 it was reportedly 91% black on black murders and dropping, and at the same time > 85% of whites murdered were killed by whites. The minor difference is easily explained by red lining, the real estate trick famously used by Trump of denying rental or home sales to black people, forcing black people to only live in certain "black" areas while whites may mix with any cultures they wish and live where they choose. You're just making up racist statistics to excuse your racist positions....again.

Edit: add the same amount to white on white crime that you dishonestly added to black on black crime and whites are the problem, far more likely to kill another white than a black man is to kill another black man. Turnabout is fair play...nothing is more dangerous to the white than Republican government policies and moronic and dishonest white liars like yourself. Fix the big issue of dishonest racist assholes and the Republican party will fade away.

Police killed many without shooting them, see George Floyd, so those are badly misleading statistics....and they still show a police murder rate of blacks at >1/2 that of whites even though there are 5 times more whites, because police are racist and shoot black people with far less provocation daily.....assume the unknowns are black, they shoot and murder more blacks at >5 times the per capita rate of whites. What was your point again?

And keep in mind, these are the statistics reported by police, and most don't report them. There is no national database of police shootings by design, the police don't want one and fought against every attempt to create one because they know how bad it would look, and they are on an honor system of 100% voluntary reporting by the same departments that cause them, departments with a huge incentive to lie and hide the truth, and a professional culture of lying to get what they want.

bobknight33 said:

Nothing more dangerous to the black than Democratic government policies and "enlightened" white Liberals.
99% black on Black murders 1% cop on black murders. Fix the big issue and the 1% will fade away


2018 breakdown of the 995 people shot and killed by the police.

403 were white,
210 were black,
148 were Hispanic, 3
8 were classified as other, and
199 were classified as unknown.

Out of that 995, 47 were unarmed — 23 were white, 17 were black, 5 were Hispanic, and 2 were unknown.
948 victims were armed

A Communist Christmas

moonsammy says...

I saw a couple videos of his years ago and thought they were ok, but he seems to have the SNL problem of taking a mediocre joke and running it into the ground. For a while I thought he was poking fun at people that believed in whack-a-doo bullshit nonsense (as the videos I'd seen were mostly about spirity new-agey nonsense), but I'm no longer certain.

Gotta love how "communism" has come to simply mean "something I don't like." People have not done a good enough job complying with the voluntary recommendations that were made to protect everyone, so more draconian measures ended up being necessary to keep the hospitals from being even more overrun than they already are. You know, to reduce deaths. That's not communism, it's rational domestic policy. Funny how a lot of the people bitching about this "government interference with my freedoms" have a lot of overlap with those who are vocally "pro-life." They're literally fighting against policies meant to preserve life, on the basis of not wanting to be told what to do with their bodies, while also wanting to tell half of the population what they're allowed to do with their bodies. It's like a stupidity/hypocrisy onion, it's got layers!

kir_mokum said:

this guy is a certified douche.

Let's talk about Trump going to the hospital....

newtboy says...

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score
as a 'liberal' ideal
This IS happening broadly, link to how and arguments for why it is 'good'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/03/harvard-beat-an-effort-end-its-use-race-factor-admissions-what-will-supreme-court-do/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/

-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
Specifically the day of absence was at evergreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests
Similarly reverse racist attitudes though are common enough, like chasing out a student journalist here for simply covering an event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVGtqp7usw

-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
Jordan Peterson is the biggest example, but my local uni has also banned pro-life student clubs too, so maybe I'm a little Canada biased on this?

-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
Here's the Standford course on it if you or your parents wanna enrol:
https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&catalog=&q=CSRE+32SI%3A+Whiteness&collapse=

---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
Likewise offered at Stanford, unless this is the lone critical race theory course that doesn't champion the above prejudice+power definition.
https://law.stanford.edu/courses/critical-race-theory/

---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in


And I'm out of time,

but seriously I'm a little baffled this was remotely controversial? Identity politics is a game the left has been playing at HARD for at minimum the decades since Affirmative Action was launched. The notion that the idea would eventually get national level push back should have been easy to see coming.

Doc Rivers

newtboy says...

Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Republicans said anyone over 65 would have a death panel decide if they were worth treating, a flat out lie, and miles away from suggesting maybe we wouldn't authorize a heart and lung transplant for 90 year olds, or other multimillion dollar procedures...of course nothing would stop them from paying for the procedures themselves. Now, under republican leadership, death panels are what's happening by necessity in Texas.

I guess the rest of the world is Democrats, because the rest of the world shutdown, but really shutdown not a voluntary minimal social distancing 1/2 ass shutdown where most businesses and public spaces stayed open. Where shutdowns actually happened, Covid was quickly under control. Where they weren't or where they were lifted, Covid is exploding....like America and Brazil.
150000 dead Americans citizens and counting is a nothing burger. 4 dead in Benghazi calls for shutting the government down until we lock her up.

I'll tell my politicians to follow at least minimal health guidelines and not open until two weeks of serious declines, and to make masks mandatory with large fines and jail time for repeat offenders.

If Trump had closed down and told his morons to wear masks, not incited them to gather in large groups without masks over and over, he could have been a hero, but instead he ignored the problem and encouraged the worst, most unsafe, guaranteed to extend shutdowns behavior and so we have the worst death rates on earth, with India closing fast.

Biden is good, but even he can't solve the Trump virus crisis in two months now...if he were president in Jan 2020, yeah, two months is about right.

bobknight33 said:

Obama said to the 1 person asking question that well maybe you 90 year grand mother would not get treatment under ACA.

Trump recession is caused by Democrats keeping states closed.
Covid is a nothing burger.
Its not # of cases Its about death rates.

Tell you politicians to open up.

Mask up, go to work pay your bills.

Covid is being used by Democrats to dump on Trump in hopes he he looses 2020.

IF Biden wins covid issue will be off the map within 2 months.

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

newtboy says...

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0

bcglorf said:

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

Lethal Injections: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

newtboy says...

What if it's voluntary?
Given the choice between life with no parole and death, I would take death every time....but I'm claustrophobic.

Why not use the crushinator? A 5 ton steel rod they drop on the executed's head from 10 ft. No pain, no chance of failure....gravity works every time.

president trump announces a new and better national anthem

vil says...

No, no, Bob is not Russian, and he is not a professional troll.

He is a voluntary contributor. Happy working for free.

Trump on the other hand is a professional troll and his next wife is probably going to be Serbian, the one after that Bulgarian, then across the Black sea to marry a sultry young Russian model.

And then the Russian connection will be complete and Trump will be eligible to become, after his second term as POTUS, president of the USSR. Yes it will be called that. Yes Putin will be Generalissimus.

Drachen_Jager said:

You're wrong.
@bobknight33 is not a Russian Troll.

Of Course I'm Trying To Indoctrinate You In My Beliefs

shinyblurry says...

The establishment clause was put into the constitution because of the church of England. This is why many people fled from England to America, because of religious persecution. It was to prevent a state religion, and by religion we aren't talking about Christianity versus Islam, we are talking about different Christian denominations.

Look at what George Washington said in his inaugural address:

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence."

newtboy said:

Christian Right = Daesh for fake Christians (fans of, but not students of Jesus)

America was founded on the notion that religious laws have no place in public government or law and religious freedom is a basic tenant of our system. That makes what this idiot advocates about as unAmerican as could be.

This is part of why the right defunds education....history doesn't support their claims or plans, so they believe it shouldn't be taught.

Spice Up Your Employability | Episode 1 | Col HS Walia

Sagemind says...

I don't know what happened - I swear I clicked down-vote - and then my browser crashed, when I reloaded, it had voted up.
--Trust me - not a voluntary up-vote.

eric3579 said:

Why upvote it if you think it's spam? Now it's on the front page



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon