 The figure is more than double the amount spent by the RNC in the 2012 election.Told of the $889 million goal, Mark McKinnon, a veteran GOP operative who has worked to rally Republican support to reduce the role of money in politics, quipped: “For that kind of money, you could buy yourself a president. Oh, right. That’s the point.”
Read more: Politico / Washington Post / New York Times |
|
|
|
It seems like we (as a society) haven't taken any steps to defund the NSA... maybe that's just a utopian fantasy anyways.
Republicans would never let that happen! Democrats had 2 years to put a bill though against the NSA. Yes, but between the two parties, the democrats are the party that will fail to change anything, and the republicans are the party that will outright block reform. Feinstein (D) is one of the biggest NSA apologists in Congress, but as a rule, republicans are the party that gets most ornery and pulls out the 'soft on terrorism' bs whenever anyone talks about curtailing the excessive reaches of the NSA or CIA. There are plenty of democrats who defend the NSA as well, but of the two parties, republicans are the ones who will obstruct reform. Dick Cheney, who isn't even a member of the government anymore, recently made the rounds on the talk shows trumping up the case for how much we need the NSA and CIA to know everything about everybody, and how public oversight is a national security threat. Hell, the republican party had a tantrum when the (bipartisan) Senate torture report was released! |
|
|
|
Another concern is the use of “secret laws, secret courts and secret interpretations of such laws” to justify mass surveillance. We have really good reasons for doing this, we just can't tell you any of them. But trust us. |
|
|
|
The drones create more terrorist than they kill.
This cartoon was published in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and it's one of my favorite cartoons of all time for its insight at a time when most people were boarding the Revenge Train.  I am surprised that was around in 2001 seems a bit early Exactly, and it's this broad lack of insight by politicians and the public that has us involved in as many wars as we're involved in right now. Drones were not well known back then neither was the knowledge we needed to fight guerrilla warfare I don't think it's necessarily about drones, just the US's belief that we can eradicate radicalism by bombing it out of existence. That is very true. I just wonder if their was another way besides drones or war. My inkling would be not to get involved in other nation's internal politics. But hindsight is 20/20, and all that jazz... The US has been trying to influence world events since the end of WWII for its own benefit (and before really, but it wasn't as influential before). Our current foreign policy is always rooted in fixing the problems that emerge from our past foreign policy. How exactly you extricate yourselves from all the problems your meddling causes is no doubt a difficult task, but continuing the current path of trying to fix our problems with bombs is a failing strategy that has been failing for a long, long time. I like Ron Paul's analogy of the Vietnam War. That was a clusterfuck of monumental proportions, and force was the only answer the US had to try and solve the "problem." Once we withdrew and conceded the loss, and enough time had passed to let them heal from our aggression, Vietnam is now a friend of ours. We trade with them, our diplomats visit, their president comes here; what we achieved in peace was unattainable in 20 years of the French and Americans attempting to achieve it through warfare. I'd like to believe this is repeatable; that peace says more about us than war. But first we need politicians who are ready to embrace peace as a worthy idea, and we currently have two parties that believe that whipping people into a state of fear and panic is a far easier path to reelection, and this informs their attitudes about using force overseas, because the public is demanding the bombs they've whipped us into believing are the answer. |
|
|
|
It seems like we (as a society) haven't taken any steps to defund the NSA... maybe that's just a utopian fantasy anyways.
Republicans would never let that happen! Democrap GOP lawmakers demand FCC make proposed Internet regs publicLeaders in Congress want the public to see new net neutrality regulations before they become law. Currently, people aren't expected to see the Federal Communications Commission's new regulations for Internet service providers such as Comcast until the agency's five commissioners vote on them on Feb. 26. That’s concerning for Republicans leaders of the House and Senate Commerce committees, especially since the regulations are expected to exert bold authority over the Web by reclassifying Internet service to treat it like a utility. “Given the significance of the matter and the strong public participation in the commission’s proceeding to date, we believe the public and industry stakeholders alike should have the opportunity to review the text of any proposed order or rules prior to commission action,” Senate committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), House committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) — the head of the House Communications Subcommittee — said in a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Thursday. “Limited access to information is beneficial to no one — not to the consumers directly affected by commission action, not to the industries regulated by the rules and not to the commissioners seeking to make information decisions taking public feedback into consideration," they added. The FCC almost never releases the text of its regulations before the agency’s five commissioners vote on them during open meetings. Wheeler does have the power to release them ahead of time, however, which the lawmakers point out. They told Wheeler that releasing the text of the new rules would make sense now, given the nearly 4 million public comments on the FCC’s rule-making process — far and away an agency record. An FCC spokeswoman, Kim Hart, said that the commission had received the letter and was reviewing it. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/230507-lawmakers-demand-feds-release-web-rules-before-vote---------------------------------------------------------  Thank god someone is trying to be more transparent to the public. Lol, no side is transparent unless it's an attempt to make the other side look bad. The argument that revolves around "the democrats are better" "no, the republicans are better" rah rah rah bs is why this country is so screwed up. Two parties means neither side has to try terribly hard, because lack of options is each party's biggest attribute. Yay democracy! Not all democracies are like that in fact in the 2012 presidential election a libertarian almost got the threshold number needed to gain media attention Gary Johnson got less than 1% of the vote. That's no where near what he needs to be treated as a viable alternative, but don't expect democrats and republicans to open up the presidential debates to anyone who can challenge their duopoly on this country. The last time the presidential debates were opened up to a third party, Ross Perot earned something like 18% of the popular vote. Both parties learned their lesson, and no third party has been invited back since. The Commission on Presidential Debates is made up entirely by democrats and republican insiders, so the exclusion is not accidental. The candidates also sign an exclusivity memorandum of understanding with the Commission agreeing that neither candidate will participate any debates not run by the Commission, so they can control the entire debate process and have an excuse never to debate any candidate from another party. The whole thing is a sham, and both parties know it because they've arranged it to be that way. The dems and repubs are more similar than they are different: big government, domestic spying, foreign engagements, deficit spending, etc. All the pageantry on everything else is to keep the public convinced it really matters which party you vote for. "Oh no, gays!" Or "oh no, class warfare!" Pfft. |
|
|
|
The drones create more terrorist than they kill.
This cartoon was published in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and it's one of my favorite cartoons of all time for its insight at a time when most people were boarding the Revenge Train. I am surprised that was around in 2001 seems a bit early Exactly, and it's this broad lack of insight by politicians and the public that has us involved in as many wars as we're involved in right now. Drones were not well known back then neither was the knowledge we needed to fight guerrilla warfare I don't think it's necessarily about drones, just the US's belief that we can eradicate radicalism by bombing it out of existence. |
|
|
|
The drones create more terrorist than they kill.
This cartoon was published in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and it's one of my favorite cartoons of all time for its insight at a time when most people were boarding the Revenge Train. I am surprised that was around in 2001 seems a bit early Exactly, and it's this broad lack of insight by politicians and the public that has us involved in as many wars as we're involved in right now. |
|
|
|
It seems like we (as a society) haven't taken any steps to defund the NSA... maybe that's just a utopian fantasy anyways.
Republicans would never let that happen! Democrap GOP lawmakers demand FCC make proposed Internet regs publicLeaders in Congress want the public to see new net neutrality regulations before they become law. Currently, people aren't expected to see the Federal Communications Commission's new regulations for Internet service providers such as Comcast until the agency's five commissioners vote on them on Feb. 26. That’s concerning for Republicans leaders of the House and Senate Commerce committees, especially since the regulations are expected to exert bold authority over the Web by reclassifying Internet service to treat it like a utility. “Given the significance of the matter and the strong public participation in the commission’s proceeding to date, we believe the public and industry stakeholders alike should have the opportunity to review the text of any proposed order or rules prior to commission action,” Senate committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), House committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) — the head of the House Communications Subcommittee — said in a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Thursday. “Limited access to information is beneficial to no one — not to the consumers directly affected by commission action, not to the industries regulated by the rules and not to the commissioners seeking to make information decisions taking public feedback into consideration," they added. The FCC almost never releases the text of its regulations before the agency’s five commissioners vote on them during open meetings. Wheeler does have the power to release them ahead of time, however, which the lawmakers point out. They told Wheeler that releasing the text of the new rules would make sense now, given the nearly 4 million public comments on the FCC’s rule-making process — far and away an agency record. An FCC spokeswoman, Kim Hart, said that the commission had received the letter and was reviewing it. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/230507-lawmakers-demand-feds-release-web-rules-before-vote--------------------------------------------------------- Thank god someone is trying to be more transparent to the public. Lol, no side is transparent unless it's an attempt to make the other side look bad. The argument that revolves around "the democrats are better" "no, the republicans are better" rah rah rah bs is why this country is so screwed up. Two parties means neither side has to try terribly hard, because lack of options is each party's biggest attribute. Yay democracy! |
|
|
|
The drones create more terrorist than they kill.
This cartoon was published in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and it's one of my favorite cartoons of all time for its insight at a time when most people were boarding the Revenge Train. |
|
|
|
Can someone tell me what has actually been the reason behind the oil price tanks and a sharp 50% decline?
Read through this thread. A lot of ideas have been posted, and truthfully, it's a little bit of all of these. There's no simple, clear-cut explanation. |
|
|
|
Gee, a bible wacko who took a bunch of quotes out of context and put them on her website to promote her radical conservative agenda. It's no wonder you love it so much! Sanger has said some reprehensible things related to race, but trying to pretend PP's intention under her direction was abortion is stretching the truth too far, and the facts don't back you up. Actually read Sanger's works, her concern above all else is access to birth control which is illegal when she gets politically involved. PP didn't get involved in abortion until after she died, and under her direction, the aim was always prophylactics and their legalization and education for the public, and especially turning social attitudes towards their acceptance, despite how hard conservatives fought on the issue (and still continue to fight on the issue). Sanger's on the record extensively as being against abortion and the taking of infant life, which is why her words in the quote in question are obviously ironic, and written for shock value, and especially to make her true intention- to make birth control available for women- more palatable by comparison. But nice try!
I wasn't talking about being against abortion I was saying her comments on minorities and American liberals acceptance of PP. Sorry, I was more responding to Wilikon, but I only quote him when the quote won't be reposting his craziest propaganda. Specifically, I was responding to the disreputable opinion he bolded so carefully in a quote he posted about Sanger and abortion of black babies, and how it's working out exactly as she intended! (Sarcastic emphasis mine.) |
|
|
|
I can understand copper and Bitcoin being down. But oil has to go back up. It literally has to 100% guaranteed. The fate of the world actually depends on that price.
You gotta flesh out the justification for that conclusion, because I don't see it. |
|
|
|
|
Gee, a bible wacko who took a bunch of quotes out of context and put them on her website to promote her radical conservative agenda. It's no wonder you love it so much! Sanger has said some reprehensible things related to race, but trying to pretend PP's intention under her direction was abortion is stretching the truth too far, and the facts don't back you up. Actually read Sanger's works, her concern above all else is access to birth control which is illegal when she gets politically involved. PP didn't get involved in abortion until after she died, and under her direction, the aim was always prophylactics and their legalization and education for the public, and especially turning social attitudes towards their acceptance, despite how hard conservatives fought on the issue (and still continue to fight on the issue). Sanger's on the record extensively as being against abortion and the taking of infant life, which is why her words in the quote in question are obviously ironic, and written for shock value, and especially to make her true intention- to make birth control available for women- more palatable by comparison. But nice try!
|
|
|
|
Wow, thanks for the great turn out! Since increasing the limit, we've doubled our daily wagered volume to between 400 and 500 BTC, and players have netted a total of 44 BTC! Well done everyone!
Netted 44 btc as in you as the site owner are down 44 btc? If so, that seems like a wild swing against you. I really like the site, and you've been a top notch and transparent operator, so I'd hate to see anything jeopardize your ability to run the game. |
|
|
|
encryption is the only protection for privacy left.
It is the only mathematically secure way to guarantee your privacy. However governments should respect your privacy even when encryption is not used The government thinks you should respect their authority and stop making unreasonable demands about being a private citizen.  If only there was some sort of constitution written to let us have freedoms hmm... Oh you mean that piece of paper enshrined behind glass at the National Archives? I think the armed guards are standing by to make it doesn't escape and wreak holy freedom on everybody. |
|
|
|
It seems like we (as a society) haven't taken any steps to defund the NSA... maybe that's just a utopian fantasy anyways.
Republicans would never let that happen! |
|
|
|
|
Where are these crazy figures coming from? The Pentagon, who has a stake in overestimating the size and capabilities of ISIS, tops out the high end of their estimate at 31,000 fighters. That's nowhere near the numbers being thrown out in this thread.
As for killing "hundreds of millions?" Dream big, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Legalized abortion is working out exactly as Margaret Sanger intended. Sanger, the founder of the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, was part of the eugenics movement back in the 1930s. Her goal was to use abortion to cull what she considered inferior races from the human gene pool. According to Sanger, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” She opened her first
Btw, Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion. Sanger's family planning advocacy always focused on contraception, rather than abortion. It was not until the mid-1960s, after Sanger's death, that the reproductive rights movement expanded its scope to include abortion rights as well as contraception. Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because they were dangerous for the mother in the early 20th century and because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception. In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote: "while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."
Historian Rodger Streitmatter concluded that Sanger's opposition to abortion stemmed from concerns for the dangers to the mother, rather than moral concerns. However, in her 1938 autobiography, Sanger noted that her opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: "[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." And in her book Family Limitation, Sanger wrote that "no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions."
The reality doesn't fit the very reconstructed history you're peddling. |
|
|
|
Aborting black AmericaThe ‘black lives matter’ slogan excludes the unborn[...] Today, on the somber anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, it’s time for black leaders to face up to the real danger threatening black lives in America. It isn’t the police. According to an anti-police brutality organization, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, 313 blacks were killed by “police, security guards and vigilantes” in 2013. It isn’t even black criminals, who, as Rudy Giuliani famously pointed out on “Meet the Press,” are responsible for 93 percent of violent deaths among blacks. Sources estimate that between 6,000 and 8,000 blacks are murdered each year. No, the greatest danger to blacks is found precisely where we ought to be safest: in our mothers’ wombs. In 2010, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 138,539 black babies were aborted. Thankfully, abortion is on the decline in America, down 3 percent between 2007 and 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Strikingly, the number of surgical abortion clinics has plummeted, from 2,176 in 1991 to 551 today. Nevertheless, the CDC report that in 2010, a staggering 765,651 abortions were performed in the United States. Black women continue to have the highest abortion rate of any ethnic group, with a gruesome 483 abortions for every 1,000 live births. The bottom line? I’ll say it again: 138,539 black babies, nearly one baby in three, were killed in the womb in 2010. According to the CDC, between 2007 and 2010, innocent black babies were victimized in nearly 36 percent of the abortion deaths in the United States, though blacks represent only 12.8 percent of the population. Some say the abortion capital of America is New York City. According to LifeSiteNews, the city’s Department of Health reported that in 2012, more black babies were aborted (31,328) than born (24,758). That’s 55.9 percent of black babies killed before birth. Blacks represented 42.4 percent of all abortions. Legalized abortion is working out exactly as Margaret Sanger intended. Sanger, the founder of the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, was part of the eugenics movement back in the 1930s. Her goal was to use abortion to cull what she considered inferior races from the human gene pool. According to Sanger, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” She opened her first abortion clinics in inner cities, and it’s no accident that even today, “79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortion facilities are located in black or minority neighborhoods.”[...] Some black leaders are still acting as Judas goats today. LifeSiteNews cites black pro-life activist Ryan Bomberger: “Back in 2005, the NAACP praised the high black abortion rate as compared to the percentage of the population at a NARAL fundraising gala. When more black babies are aborted than are born alive in NYC and the NAACP responds by supporting Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo’s radical abortion expansion via the misnamed ‘Women’s Equality Act,’ one can understand how the targeting of minorities continues unabated.” Abortion is the greatest threat to black lives in America today. People who claim to represent the black community while also abetting the black holocaust — abortion — are hypocrites. Any “civil rights leader” who genuinely believes that “black lives matter” should be working to see that every black baby is accorded the very first civil right — the right to life.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/21/j-kenneth-blackwell-black-abortions-a-crisis-in-am/ Yeah, yeah, abortion is a conspiracy to get all your precious black babies! A completely voluntary holocaust! MWA HA HA!  |
|
|
|
The government should have no involvement in marriage period, including heterosexual marriages.
what happened to separation of the church and state yet the state can force a church to wed someone if they want to or not. This has nothing to do with forcing any church to wed anyone. It applies to instances in which states issue a marriage license. I agree the state should not be in the business of regulating marriage, but if it's going to go that route, equal protection under the law means anyone can marry whatever gender they want. For red states that don't like that, stop issuing marriage licenses. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
