I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

It's not called propaganda, it's called stating the obvious, stating the facts. And I don't need to post any kind of propaganda at all - I make do sticking to verifiable truth.

For the quote above, that you designate as propaganda, please study the following articles:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine
http://fortruss.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/ukraine-we-target-civilians-separatists.html

In conjunction they factually cover my statement pretty well.

But once we are on the topic of propaganda, can you, please, point out exactly the other cases of it in my post - you sound as if it's full of it.

This is it.

If the US accepted the reality that a few years of lean spending would allow the debt to be brought under control and would benefit the country for the very long term. The President who could do that would be seen (after many years) as a hero, a father of the country.

Unfortunately most of today's politicians only care about themselves and what their "work" impacts today.

Free energy is supposed to take electricity from static in the air. So how much of it getting consumed by the network afterwards probably won't be a concern like it is with burning oil or coal.

So you're a supporter of the repeal?

The same can be said about Christianity, it always staggers me how otherwise nice people can believe in this kind of bullshit, I know having this kind of attitude pisses off religious people but it does baffle me, the least you could do is form your own religion without all this crap, I'd support such a move, I couldn't care if people worship the flying spaghetti monster as long as it was done peacefully but when you try to use an invisible unproven god to justify murder and the orpression of other people you're just lunatics.

Take out the parts of killing infidels, homosexuality being a sin and the treatment of women and all the other crap that goes against common knowledge then we have a deal on a new religion.

The catholics were really enlighted on womens rights. As early as the sixth century the bishops voted in favor of yes in the debate about "Are Women Human?" (32 yes and 31 no) .

The judge had stacked the rules against him from the get-go so it was inevitable in my mind that he'd get convicted of something, if not the whole bag. If my back was against the wall like this and knew how things were going, I'd definitely take a chance and hop on the stand to defend myself. Can't do any worse at that point.

Silk Road Mastermind Ross Ulbricht Convicted of All 7 Charges

A jury has spoken, and the mask is off: Ross Ulbricht has been convicted of being the Dread Pirate Roberts, secret mastermind of the Silk Road online narcotics empire.

On Wednesday, less than a month after his trial began in a downtown Manhattan courtroom, 30-year-old Ulbricht was convicted of all seven crimes he was charged with, including narcotics and money laundering conspiracies and a “kingpin” charge usually reserved for mafia dons and drug cartel leaders. It took the jury only 3.5 hours to return a verdict. Ulbricht faces a minimum of 30 years in prison; the maximum is life. But Ulbricht’s legal team has said it will appeal the decision, and cited its frequent calls for a mistrial and protests against the judge’s decisions throughout the case.

The New York complaint charges Ulbricht with three crimes:

1. A conspiracy to traffic in narcotics in violation of Title 21, United States Code, section 846. That charge requires proof that (1) that two or more persons agreed to distribute drugs in violation of federal law, and (2) the defendant knew of the agreement, and (3) the defendant intentionally joined the agreement.

2. A "computer hacking conspiracy" in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1030(a)(2).2 That charge requires proof that (1) there was an agreement intentionally to access a "protected computer"3 without authorization or in excess of authorization and get information from the "protected computer," (2) the defendant knew about the agreement, (3) the defendant intentionally joined the agreement, (4) somebody committed an "overt act" — some affirmative step — in support of the agreement.4

3. A conspiracy to launder money in violation of Title 18, United States Code, sections 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (a)(1)(B)(i). That charge requires proof that (1) the defendant conducted a transaction with money, (2) the money was the proceeds of an unlawful activity specified in the statute (including, for instance, drug trafficking), (3) the defendant knew that the money was the proceeds of that specified unlawful activity, and (4) the defendant intended that the transaction promote the activity or conceal the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the money.

The Maryland indictment charges Ulrich with three crimes:

1. A narcotics trafficking conspiracy, under the same statute discussed above.

2. Attempted murder of a federal witness in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1512. That charge requires proof that the defendant (1) attempted to kill a person (2) intending to prevent the person (3) from communicating to federal law enforcement or a federal judge (4) about the commission of a federal crime. The indictment charges Ulbricht as someone who aided and abetted this crime under Title 18, United States Code, section 2; under that theory, if another person commits a federal crime, the defendant is equally guilty if the defendant intentionally "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" the commission of the crime.

3. Use of interstate commerce facilities to procure murder-for-hire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1958. That charge requires proof that the defendant(1) used or caused another to use any facility of interstate or foreign commerce (like the internet); (2) with the intent that a murder be committed; (3) in exchange for something of value.

FCC chief prepares to overrule state Web laws



The head of the Federal Communications Commissionis urging his fellow commissioners to block state laws that would prevent cities and towns from building out their own government-run Internet services.

Chairman Tom Wheeler this week will circulate a draft decision to nullify laws in Tennessee and North Carolina, after receiving a request from towns in each of those states.

Cities across the country “should be able to make their own decisions about building the networks they need to thrive,” Wheeler said in a statement on Monday.

“After looking carefully at petitions by two community broadband providers asking the FCC to preempt provisions of state laws preventing expansion of their very successful networks, I recommend approval by the commission so that these two forward-thinking cities can serve the many citizens clamoring for a better broadband future.”
The move to preempt state laws limiting municipal broadband was long expected, and comes amid a broader effort by Wheeler to exert federal authority over people’s access to the Internet.



http://thehill.com/policy/technology/231422-fcc-will-move-to-block-state-laws

In Illinois, concealed carry of guns has quiet first year; expansion sought

Keith Hearn was getting out of his car in front of his home in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood when, as he tells it, police pulled up and told him he had committed a minor traffic offense.

Hearn, 34, has a concealed-carry license and said he voluntarily told the officers he had a handgun on him. Nonetheless, he said officers arrested him and took him to their station, claiming his gun was partly showing. After checking, he said, police found the concealed-carry law allows a gun to be "mostly" concealed, and let him go without charges.

"I was disgusted," Hearn said. "Why was I arrested, handcuffed in front of my neighborhood, when I didn't break any laws?"

Hearn is among about 92,000 people who got licenses to carry a hidden gun in public last year in Illinois — the last state in the union to legalize "concealed carry," as it's called. Since it went into effect more than a year ago, the law has prompted neither the rash of shootings that opponents feared, nor a wave of crimes prevented through the intervention of armed citizens.

Instead, there are ongoing disputes over who should be allowed to carry a gun, and where. Those battles are being played out in the courts and occasionally, on the streets, as in Hearn's account, which Chicago police would not comment on or confirm.

Some citizens who were turned down for concealed-carry permits say they are being denied their constitutional right by a secretive state licensing board. Yet some law enforcement officials warn that dangerous people are being allowed to walk around with loaded weapons.

Problems have occasionally cropped up involving concealed carriers. In July, a man with a concealed-carry permit tried to foil an armed robbery by shooting at the fleeing robber in Crestwood, forcing a police officer to duck for cover, according to Tribune reports. No one was hurt, but firearms trainers said gun carriers who try to intervene when police are already on the scene can pose a serious danger. In another incident, a member of the military who had a license to carry a gun shot and wounded an armed man who had fired into a crowd on Chicago's Far South Side.

But in general, there have been relatively few problems implementing the law,according to several law enforcement officials.

Fred Hayes, chief of police in Elwood and president of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, said he was "pleasantly surprised" that the rollout has gone so quietly. Hayes previously opposed the law but said fears of increased shootings have "not materialized."

For years, the association opposed the measure but chose to support its passage in 2013. Attitudes toward the law were split geographically, Hayes said, with downstate officers more supportive, and those in the Chicago area more opposed, due largely to the differing amount of gun crime in each region.

Arlington Heights Police Chief Gerald Mourning also said he had expected an adjustment period with the new law, but that problems have been virtually non-existent.

"We have dealt with it so infrequently that we simply haven't had any difficulties. I am surprised by it. I thought for sure we would encounter issues on a more regular basis," Mourning said. "It has not been an issue for us at all in terms of confrontations or misunderstandings."

In Aurora, police Cmdr. Paul Nelson said officers routinely ask during traffic stops if a subject possesses a firearm. If so, the officer will then request to see the concealed-carry license to determine if the weapon is legal, and then ask the subject not to touch the weapon during the traffic stop.

"When you look at it, we were the last of 50 states to implement this law. We act like this was some big new deal. In reality, everyone else had been doing it for many years, and there just haven't been any problems," Nelson said. "There was no reason for us to expect that it would be different in Illinois."

Martha Rosenberg, of the National Gun Victims Action Council, said the effect of the law was not as bad as she feared, but had a different theory as to why.

"Even though, legally, people can bring firearms out, there's a lot of places where they can't bring it," she said. "So the law is going well because the carriers aren't all over the place."

Gun advocates see the matter just the opposite way. Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said concealed carry helped Chicago see its lowest homicide rate in nearly 50 years last year. He argued for expanding the law to allow guns on public transportation, for instance, to reduce the number of robberies there.

Under the law, there are more than 25 types of establishments where guns are banned, including schools, government buildings, airports, parks, bars, casinos, zoos and libraries. Businesses that don't want guns must post a state police "no guns allowed" sign.

The most active battleground over gun rights is in the courts, where about 300 lawsuits have been filed against the state by people denied licenses. Some applications submitted by those who have sued have been sent back to the state for review and been awarded, while others are pending.

Previously, denials had to be appealed in court. As a result of changes to the process made last summer, applicants are notified of a police objection against them and can appeal directly to the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, which decides whether to award the license.

Under the law, county sheriffs, state's attorneys, local police and the attorney general can raise objections "based on reasonable suspicion" if an applicant appears to be a danger to himself or herself or others. The board reviews these objections and makes a final decision. Convicted felons and convicted domestic abusers are also denied the license.

Attorney Joe Obenberger represents several plaintiffs challenging their denials. He said many cases are based on arrests, not convictions, so the applicants should be presumed innocent. He also noted that the review board is made up mainly of law enforcement officials.

Despite the rule changes, Obenberger says applicants still aren't given the evidence against them beyond a summary objection and can't get an in-person hearing.

"Good and honorable, decent people are being denied left and right," he said.

The board has considered about 3,100 police objections and denied licenses to about 2,400 of them.

Claudia Castro, legal counsel for the board, said things are running much better since the rule changes.

"The board is much less conservative now," Castro said. "I think with time and experience and becoming more familiar with the applicants, they are becoming more flexible with their decision-making."

That board will now need to be reconstituted, though, as Gov. Bruce Rauner did not retain its members after taking office.

One group also trying to assess the impact of the new law is the business community.

Members of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce haven't run into any major problems with the law, spokeswoman Andree Dolan said.

Still, some local Chicago businesses feared that posting the sign would alienate potential customers or make the community uncomfortable. Eric Williams, owner of the Silver Room in Chicago, said he was hesitant about posting the no-carry sign in the window, despite not supporting the law.

"You have a big picture of a gun on the door," he said. "I don't want it there. Plus, I think it is silly to think that someone who has a concealed gun will not bring it into a store because of a tiny sign."

Chris Connelly, the manager of Reckless Records in Chicago's Wicker Park, pasted the sign in the window of his business immediately after the law was passed. He said that in Scotland, where he is from, guns hardly exist.

"Daily life really shouldn't involve becoming Clint Eastwood all of a sudden," Connelly said. "There have been no issues at all and zero reactions. For 99.9 percent of my customers, it doesn't affect their life."

Gun advocates hope to change the law to cut back on the number of places where guns are prohibited.

There may be support for tightening the law from the governor's mansion. During the campaign, Rauner reportedly said he supported the law, but it was too confusing for gun owners to know where they couldn't carry a gun.

Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart warned that dangerous people are getting guns. His office objected to more than 2,000 applicants, about half of whom had arrests for domestic abuse or orders of protection, and 18 murder suspects arrested but not convicted.

Dart called for having the law specify grounds for objections, such as prior arrests, but is not optimistic about changing the law. As a former lawmaker himself, he said, legislators don't want to revisit the issue because it's too controversial.

Well, at least I'll give you props for helping out in the primary. I vote for lots of LP candidate each election but when there's a demonstrably proven libertarian-leaning republican running for federal office that maintains stances in favor of civil liberties and a restrained foreign policy then it's up to me as a Libertarian to lend that candidate (that has a way better chance of winning than the LP candidate) my vote, activism and maybe even my money. In a situation of practicality like this, the good is not the enemy of the perfect.

Bullshit, un was formed to create a world army for the elites once again. You really need stop sipping the cool aid and look and think for yourself because all media as been controlled by the mafia since 1940s when they brought it all up. You've lived all your life in a era where its all controlled and I mean all. Nothing you see or read or programmed at school is true. Its all double speak!

Have a look and think for yourself what the un as done in the past and is pushing for! Its not peace! And they are the one with the armies that go into all these war zones in the guise of bringing peace! Army's do not bring peace! Wake up and smell the roses and stop drinking the bullshit coolaid!

This is all probably too heavy for the people here because your obviously nowhere near opening your eyes to the truth. But remember, even in a minority of 1, the truth is still the truth! Also remember when your thinking about these things, even if your not thinking completely correctly, your still a danger to the few at the top because you are thinking!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BHc8cdL9xQk

Snap out of the daze your all under! So sad that this site is swamped by people who don't understand the importance of block chain technology! No government! Period is the only answer! People power! Otherwise, we are all fucked! No matter where your from if these sick fucks get what they want!

But you changed what I said without indicating that you had done so.  Would have been nice if you'd just indicated you were making a change to what you thought.  

From Wikipedia-
Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly, obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

This shows the blond lady talking, and the microphone being rudely taken away from here.
How very rude!  She didn't push or shove anyone, and they denied her freedom of speech!

Anti-sharia legislation is certainly constitutional.

Unless the aim of fomenting that quarrel over the last 25+ years by use of various American "democracy-promoting" grants, was exactly to start a WW3... In which case I can see US going in full monty, as they are are doing now.

---

The following bit of the OP article is still conformant to the mainstream Western propaganda line:


The real intellectual break-through in the West will be when they realise that Russia is not present in Ukraine and is not at war with Ukraine. Rather Ukraine is in an imaginary war with Russia. So there is no Russia to retreat in the first place.

What we have in Donbass, are people, who have lived there for centuries, and who have nowhere to go. Yes, they are Russian by ethnicity, so yes, what Kiev-nazis do with US support is in effect an ethnic cleansing. But the people of Donbass are fighting back for their own land and for their right to live, not for Russia.

The "outrageous" actions by Russia so far include: peace brokerage, several hundred thousand tonnes of humanitarian aide, split over 13 convoys, being host to close to a million refugees from the war-zone, and now taking in thousands of young men from Ukraine of conscript age, who don't want to die in a war, imposed on them by Western-backed Nazis.

what Kiev-nazis do with US support is in effect an ethnic cleansing.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality


Federal Communication Commission(FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler waits for a hearing at the FCC
December 11, 2014 in Washington, DC.  Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.

The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.

Companies such as AOL were able to grow in the early days of home computing because these modems gave them access to the open telephone network.

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second—hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. “We used to worry about you a lot,” Case told me years later.

But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.

While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.

The phone network’s openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America’s broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.

Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.

Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.

The internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I’ve heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the internet age. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.

Isn't this what the United Nations is for?

Calling it Government will guarantee that it never happens. We don't need a world governed by one administration. We need a world were all administrations have committed to following the same high-level of select standards.