Drumpfhitler. The moustache AND the hood, while being a fascist for being a national socialist... Too many memes people. Choose one!  |
|
|
|
Could Donald Trump Bring Some Sanity to US Foreign Policy? I imagine that many of our anti-war colleagues will choke over Donald Trump's selection. Read moreA russian perspective, other than Russia Today. Nice  |
|
|
|
------------------ "We blame TRUMP for her sadistic action." _______ P.E.T.A. |
|
|
|
Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.
He will build the wall, he's a builder and a damn good one at that. His hotels are so luxurious, I love visiting them. The cost, $8 billion, will not cost a single penny out of tax payers pockets, either. It will all be funded by Mexico. Before you cry, Mexico won't pay for the wall, understand that our trade deficits with Mexico are extremely big and $8 billion is just a tiny, tiny fraction compared to what they owe to us. They will pay whether they hand us a cheque or not. Who knows.... Maybe the wall could have built in hotel rooms, swimming pools, and cycling tracks on top... |
|
|
|
I don't see the difference...
They hold the same stance in both situations... they refuse to take down the images/video until a court orders them to
If you could read, you would see that a court did order them to take down the images of Hulk Hogan. Gawker refused to obey the court order. They say they love to see famous men naked because it's something they're not supposed to see, and it is satisfying. At the same time, Gawker says that sites should remove nude pictures of women even without court orders, because they believe that being a woman grants a person automatic ownership of all images of her own body, and that her privacy should be respected. They don't even name the site hosting the pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, because people looking at naked women is wrong. Gawker refused to host those pictures on their own sites, despite the public interest being hundreds of times greater than the interest in Hulk Hogan's pictures. When it's a man, Gawker describes it as a shameful and dirty video of him "fucking", and notes that it's not even sexy despite his "ostensibly" fit body. When it's a woman, it's assumed without evidence that an evil "hacker" has "leaked" these sensitive, private photos, which feature "some of the most famous women in the world" who should be revered and respected. And plus, maybe these photos aren't even real! But they should still take them down! There is no vulgar mention of "rubbing their pussies" or "bending over and showing their assholes" or "they aren't even sexy like celebrities are supposed to be". So their stances are the complete opposite in the two similar situations, with the only obvious difference being the gender of the victims. Everyone with a half functioning neuron got the image, and your excellent explanation is accessible, even to simpleton like myself... I don't buy that crap of an attempt at explaining away they're just gay. Hmmmm... |
|
|
|
New York Street Performer Dressed As Trump Allows You to Punch Him for $5 – Pee on Him for $300
If you’ve ever wanted to beat up Donald Trump, here’s your chance.
A New York street performer dressed as the bombastic billionaire is letting passersby punch, trample and even urinate on him — for a small fee, of course....
The Donald would get a lot of laughs if he publicly offered to get this fellow on the next season of Celebrity Apprentice. Trump already gets the laughs... he's a giant oompa loompa with a dead cat on his head... comedy gold I'm okay with laughing at Trump. He can laugh at himself. That's sort of a good sign. Anyway, better a dead cat on his head than being that dead cat named Bernie. Ouch!  |
|
|
|
TRUMP still making news, people still plotting against him... Bernie? Not so much. He is cooked. No one is plotting against him. That is why there is nothing for you to push in your own thread... This is your new home now. Vote TRUMP! Stop harpy clinton |
|
|
|
I guess now I am reconsidering after reading that. That is pretty cruel for Obama to be doing that.
That is why you have to keep an open mind and to never forget everyone is someone else's D or R puppet, and has an agenda. Even me... But mine is much more obvious. |
|
|
|
I don't see the difference...
They hold the same stance in both situations... they refuse to take down the images/video until a court orders them to
If you could read, you would see that a court did order them to take down the images of Hulk Hogan. Gawker refused to obey the court order. They say they love to see famous men naked because it's something they're not supposed to see, and it is satisfying. At the same time, Gawker says that sites should remove nude pictures of women even without court orders, because they believe that being a woman grants a person automatic ownership of all images of her own body, and that her privacy should be respected. They don't even name the site hosting the pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, because people looking at naked women is wrong. Gawker refused to host those pictures on their own sites, despite the public interest being hundreds of times greater than the interest in Hulk Hogan's pictures. When it's a man, Gawker describes it as a shameful and dirty video of him "fucking", and notes that it's not even sexy despite his "ostensibly" fit body. When it's a woman, it's assumed without evidence that an evil "hacker" has "leaked" these sensitive, private photos, which feature "some of the most famous women in the world" who should be revered and respected. And plus, maybe these photos aren't even real! But they should still take them down! There is no vulgar mention of "rubbing their pussies" or "bending over and showing their assholes" or "they aren't even sexy like celebrities are supposed to be". So their stances are the complete opposite in the two similar situations, with the only obvious difference being the gender of the victims. Everyone with a half functioning neuron got the image, and your excellent explanation is accessible, even to simpleton like myself... |
|
|
|
They are planning an appeal, but they will lose, and the penalty for the damages have not been set yet, its going to get much more expensive for gawker.
Amazing. Just thinking to post this picture gives you 100 karma. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Ya knew it was coming... The FCC’s Plan To Take Over The Internet Has Begun
"It's not a government takeover of the Internet.” That was the mantra of those who backed the Federal Communication Commission’s “net neutrality” rules, which the FCC approved a little over a year ago.
“Not only are the new rules not a government takeover,” argued one supporter in Variety, “they are well in keeping with how communications have been successfully fostered and regulated in America in the past.”
The rules were only meant to keep the Internet “free and open,” advocates said. All the government was doing was blocking ISPs from discriminating against users by charging more for faster speeds.
But to impose “net neutrality,” the FCC reclassified the Internet so that it could regulate it in the same way it regulated the telephone monopolies. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler promised that — despite the fact the FCC had just granted itself wide-ranging control over ISPs — it would use a “light touch” when it came to regulating ISPs.
But now, 12 months later, the FCC tipped its heavy hand with a proposal for a new set of regulations that could, as the Morning Consult put it, “reshape the tech industry.”
The proposed new rules don’t have anything to do with “net neutrality.” They are about privacy. Now that the FCC can do so, Chairman Tom Wheeler has decided that the government should impose what it determines are the appropriate privacy protections on all Internet service providers.... http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/the-fccs-plan-to-take-over-the-internet-has-begun/And sure enough, at least one service is complaining about entangling regulations.  If you want to paint this, er, "pivot" with a broad brush, you can say that FedGov got the suckers to swallow the King's Shilling once again. But look at it with a more detail-oriented eye and you see the FCC essentially acting as muscle for one faction at the expense of another. And as is almost customary, the faction that gets the muscle has been branded as "the consumers." It's fascinating. Consumerism, if you will, is standard policy in a business country. The general maxim of business is, "The customer is always right." And yet, FedGov frequently uses its muscle on the side of "the consumer." Fascinating how the two dovetail. Are you one of those who decry consumerism? Well if so, you stand athwart not only "business" but also the federal government. I have a thread about this subject a long time ago. I could not believe bitcoiners were not following this closer but... No one cared. |
|
|
|
Live feed: Fountain Hills, Arizona Protesters Blocking Traffic *** Each time, people stuck in traffic get mad, then some change their mind about TRUMP and vote for him. |
|
|
|
Live feed: Fountain Hills, Arizona Protesters Blocking Traffic *** |
|
|
|
They are planning an appeal, but they will lose, and the penalty for the damages have not been set yet, its going to get much more expensive for gawker.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
