Thank you for linking this video. I meant to watch this video after watching his action movies review, but then forgot about it. |
|
|
|
Russia is not alone. Here's a few (older but still relevant) articles just regarding the USA. IMHO the world all over is becoming more fascist. Do a little research and I'm sure you'll agree. http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-us-a-fascist-society-examining-the-existence-of-fascism-in-the-united-states/5377146Friday, April 4th was the 46th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination. Although King never claimed that the US was a fascist society, he certainly was struggling with the fundamental structure of US society by the end of his life. In “Where do We Go from Here” (1967) for instance, King stated that
“ . . . more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society . . .and you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, ‘Who owns the oil?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘Who owns the iron ore?’ You begin to ask the question, ‘Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that’s two-thirds water?’”
Unsurprisingly, King’s opposition to racism, capitalism, and war placed a target on his life. The US government was found guilty of using its intelligence agencies to murder King in 1999. The murder of King was part and parcel of the US government’s crackdown on the radical left, which is now imbedded in the legal framework of this country since the institution of the “War on Terror.” King’s legacy should inspire us to dig deep into the roots of the type of society we live in and the type of society we want to live in. George Jackson’s conclusion that the US indeed is a fascist society receives little attention from the US left. Further, this article could not possibly analyze in the detail deserved every element of the US ruling order. However, there is ample evidence that we should no longer be asking the question of whether fascism exists in this country, but rather, where do we go from here. --------------------------- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/silent-military-coup-took-over-washingtonUnder the "weak" Obama, militarism has risen perhaps as never before. With not a single tank on the White House lawn, a military coup has taken place in Washington. In 2008, while his liberal devotees dried their eyes, Obama accepted the entire Pentagon of his predecessor, George Bush: its wars and war crimes. As the constitution is replaced by an emerging police state, those who destroyed Iraq with shock and awe, piled up the rubble in Afghanistan and reduced Libya to a Hobbesian nightmare, are ascendant across the US administration. Behind their beribboned facade, more former US soldiers are killing themselves than are dying on battlefields. Last year 6,500 veterans took their own lives. Put out more flags.
The historian Norman Pollack calls this "liberal fascism": "For goose-steppers substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manqué, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while." Every Tuesday the "humanitarian" Obama personally oversees a worldwide terror network of drones that "bugsplat" people, their rescuers and mourners. In the west's comfort zones, the first black leader of the land of slavery still feels good, as if his very existence represents a social advance, regardless of his trail of blood. This obeisance to a symbol has all but destroyed the US anti-war movement – Obama's singular achievement. ---------------------- http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/4/american_fascism_ralph_nader_decries_howDescribing the United States as an "advanced Third World country," longtime consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader calls for a new mass movement to challenge the power corporations have in Washington. "It is not too extreme to call our system of government now 'American fascism.' It’s the control of government by big business, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt defined in 1938 as fascism," Nader says. "We have the lowest minimum wage in the Western world. We have the greatest amount of consumer debt. We have the highest child poverty, the highest adult poverty, huge underemployment, a crumbling public works — but huge multi-billionaires and hugely profitable corporations. |
|
|
|
BTW what the heck is extremism. Can someone define that? E.g. couple of years ago back in Hungary I was considered an extremist by some when I said benefit system must not be a "giveaway" but benefit claimers should be able to show some sort of progress or should do some charity work (if possible) in exchange for the community support.
These days it seems you are considered an extremist just by having a new or uncommon opinion, or by simply having one that differs from your government.  |
|
|
|
LMFAO! Nice video clip.   "Due to massive snowfall the east coast of Canada is now... gone." "Now heading east the country goes Ontario, Quebec, Snowbank." I'm in Toronto. No trouble here. I hope you weather the storm without incident... and of course are able to dig yourself out afterwards.  |
|
|
|
 http://www.people.com/article/yoga-pants-ban-montanaRidiculous! Is the picture above indecent or somehow pornographic? In an effort to bolster his state's indecent exposure law, Moore introduced House Bill 365 in the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, reports the Billings Gazette. The bill proposes extending the law to include clothes that expose the nipples or give the appearance or simulate a person's buttocks, genitals, pelvic area or female nipple.
The proposal does not specifically name yoga pants in the text, but Moore made his feelings on the garments clear after the hearing.
"Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway," the legislator said following the committee meeting, according to the Billings Gazette. Under the current Montana indecent exposure law, a three-time violator of state public nudity laws could face a life sentence. Moore's changes would extend what clothing is defined as indecent, but would lessen the punishment to a maximum of five years in jail and a $5,000 fine. This was done to help with the bill's passage, according to Mashable. Did I read that right? You can currently receive a life sentence for public nudity?! http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbinbsmpEB1rryq1mo1_1280.jpg -NSFW |
|
|
|
https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/preventing-dissent-27efd26191a9Police and security services will have enhanced powers of surveillance, including the ability to identify the devices that send communications over the internet.
But perhaps the most outrageous element of the CTS bill is the ‘prevent duty,’ the establishment of a statutory duty on all public sector workers — teachers, lecturers, nurses, GPs and other professionals — to prevent extremism in their institutions. They will have to do that by monitoring nursery children, school children, students, patients, and so on for signs of being at risk to radicalisation.
The ‘prevent duty’ puts the Home Office’s Channel Programme, a scheme coordinated by the Metropolitan Police in certain parts of the UK, on a national legal footing. Under the programme, individuals identified as extreme, or being ‘at risk’ of extremism, must be referred to Channel, which will make an assessment to determine whether the referred individual requires an intervention to deradicalise them, and the kind of intervention they will make. In 2011, the coalition government changed its ‘Preventing Violent Extremism’ (Prevent) strategy to focus not just on terrorism, but “also non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit.”
The new definition of “extremism,” though, is so broad, it could include a range of views held widely across British society, categorised as ideas that “terrorists exploit” (especially scepticism toward British foreign policy):
“Extremism is vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
This definition, though, which was criticised last year by Greater Manchester Police chief, Sir Peter Fahy, as being so vague it had turned police into “thought police,” opens the door wide to casting suspicion on anyone raising ideas critical of British policy. Charles Shoebridge, a former British counter-terrorism intelligence officer, expressed scepticism of the new powers:
“The lack of any clear definition of ‘extremism’, and an understandable desire not to fall foul of legal obligations, are likely to mean workers erring on the side of caution and submitting reports on any adult or child expressing views not only that the worker himself considers ‘extreme’, but also that he considers anyone else might consider ‘extreme’ too. This could therefore conceivably include almost any expression of opinion not considered mainstream — and not only in relation to Islam, but to discussion of almost any aspect of political or religious discourse.” The government’s blanket equation of criticisms of government policy in the Muslim world with a propensity to violent extremism, leads experts to raise concerns about the unwarranted demonisation and criminalisation of political dissent. The Orwellian implication is that Britons who are critical of Britain’s policies in the ‘war on terror’ are extremists who must be shut down and deradicalised. Teachers in an area of London who have received recent Prevent training in preparation for the new law described the training as “very basic and vague.” One teacher told me on condition of anonymity that the criteria that was used to identify a pupil who might be “vulnerable” to extremism included watching out for issues like “social alienation, being withdrawn, or introspective,” as well as other issues like “abrupt changes in appearance.” “Referring and labeling children in nurseries and primary school as extremists, or even potential extremists, is completely opposed to British values,” he said. “This is not an evidenced-based initiative driven by real social issues. It’s a purely politicised agenda, motivated by the upcoming elections. We are sleep-walking into a police-state. Anyone who questions or challenges mainstream discourses can be labeled an extremist.” The new referral and reporting requirements would likely “swamp receiving agencies with information which, in almost every case, will be of absolutely no value in identifying or combating potential terrorist threats.” Instead, the government’s new ‘prevent duty’ will “massively increase the size of the information haystack in which the needles need to be found,” especially because “political extremism and terrorism are far from being the same thing.” The only likely beneficiary of this scheme according to Shoebridge is the “burgeoning publicly funded deradicalisation industry — the same industry that provided much of the ‘expertise’ upon which the claimed value of the legislation is predicated.” Jahan Mahmood, who for three years advised Home Office counter-terrorism czar Charles Farr on deradicalisation issues and participated in regular OSCT consultations with some of the most vulnerable members of Muslim communities up and down the country, said that the coalition government has deliberately ignored its own evidence on the root causes of radicalisation. In 2010, Mahmood was involved in an extensive Home Office research process based on interviews with vulnerable individuals, which culminated in a landmark OSCT report. The report documented three primary root causes of terrorism: first and foremost, grievances with British foreign policy; secondly, a perception of racism and Islamophobia toward Muslims in the UK; and thirdly, a profound sense of a lack of belonging to wider British society, reinforced by awareness of entrenched inequalities and poverty amongst British Muslims. But the report was removed from the Home Office website after the coalition government took power, and its recommendations buried. The incentive behind ramping up arrests of Muslims under the terrorism legislation, said Karmani, is precisely to vindicate pre-existing counter-terrorism policy. The large numbers are cited as empirical proof that the threat is real, and thus vindication of the policy and its approach. By seemingly proving the existence of an acute threat, they justify the growth of an already multi-billion pound security industry. Perhaps the strangest element of the CTS bill, though, pertains to who is exempt from ‘prevent duty.’
“The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act will make it a legal obligation on public sector workers to stop individuals from being drawn into terrorism. That is, except for the security agencies,” said Asim Qureshi, research director of the London-based human rights and advocacy group, Cage Prisoners.
Why would MI5 and MI6, the very agencies tasked with protecting British national security at home and abroad, be exempt from the statutory obligation to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism?
According to Shoebridge, there might be “sound operational reasons” for the exemption, namely the need to have human intelligence inside a terrorist group to learn more about it. But, he said, this may not be the only reason. Historians of MI5 and MI6 have documented that throughout their existence, entrapment has been a common practice used to foil plots that are to a significant extent laid out by the agencies themselves — often to target all sorts of democracy activists, from environmental protestors and antiwar campaigners, to nationalists and suffragettes.
According to Des Thomas, who during his career had investigated environmental and animal rights groups, Qureshi’s view could be correct. “The exemption of MI5 and MI6 is connected to the use of informants,” Thomas told me, in order to “infiltrate agents into organisations which contain political criminals.”
Much of this is to do with avoiding legal liability for potential consequences when the use of informants, or the effort to recruit them, backfires, as it appeared to do in the case of Lee Rigby. “There is nothing more treacherous than an informant,” said Thomas.
“Imagine if the police arrested an informant, and there was evidence that he or she had played MI5 and MI6 for mugs, and as a result had managed to perpetrate a 7/7 atrocity. In short, the exemption is a get out of jail card for those who may be guilty of poor leadership and management at MI5 and MI6.” If these experts are correct, then far from making us safer, the new law will set Britain on the road to becoming a more paranoid and polarised society, vulnerable to another terrorist attack, where political dissent and freedom of speech are criminalised as threats to public safety.
Welcome to Great Britain.
Welcome to Prevent.
Welcome to the Police State. There's nothing really I can add here. I just want to highlight the fact that, if you are a freethinker, there's no way to escape the label of being an 'extremist'.
|
|
|
|
Oh dear, the joint, I thought you knew better what the teapot really is, never mind the fsm. I'm no longer certain you studied either in detail. You wouldn't be repeating the same faulty arguments (many of which I just had to ignore in order to continue our debates) if you studied them better. Re: Russell's Teapot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot1) It does not orbit Venus as you have stated. It is in an elliptical obit between Earth and Mars. 2) You will never be able to spot it, even with the Hubble telescope, because it is extremely small. 3) It has no special abilities. It is just a teapot. If you replaced it with a miniature version of your very own coffee pot it would serve the same purpose. 4) It is not even remotely comparable to the FSM, except for the fact there is no empirical evidence of its existence. Re: The Flying Spaghetti Monster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster1) It is in fact a monotheistic god for two reasons: a) It created everything in existence. b) It is the only true god in existence, thereby making it monotheistic by default. (I really wish we could get by this. I honestly can't understand why you don't realize this.) 2) There can never be any empirical evidence for the existence of the FSM for two reasons: a) It is invisible and can pass through solid matter, thereby making it unobservable. b) It is omnipotent and will falsify any 'evidence' you attempt to attain. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem is you clearly *don't* understand the FSM argument and its implications, and neither does anyone else who believes it is valid, and the fact that you try to justify it by essentially calling the FSM a monotheistic god illustrates this point . Again, you can huff and puff all you want. There's no room for interpretation.
Constraints or the lack thereof is NOT what defines one as a monotheistic god. As evidenced by all your posts, it is you who misunderstands what a monotheistic god is and not 'everyone else'. Please take the time to research something before you decide to support or refute it. Only then will you be able to realize that the fsm analogy is infallible. (Provided you learn or is it just accept, once and for all, what a monotheistic god truly is. lol.) The persisting problem here is *you* clearly refuse to understand what exactly monotheistic means. It simply means, One God. That's it. Nothing else. Your bogus claims to any other definition thereof are truly tiresome. It is again YOU who is doing all the huffing and puffing where there truly is no room for interpretation. So here's the challenge I present to you.
Cite me ANY source that supports your claims, PLEASE. (I have tried unsuccessfully to find any supporting your claims.) If you'll notice I already cited two Wikipedia sources in this post and will cite one more for my next claim. "Monotheism = One God". Nothing more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonotheismIn the future, since you often like to bring up the FSM, the teapot and monotheism, may I suggest you research in detail what they truly are, since you continuously misrepresent them both to varying degrees, but for now let's just leave the fsm out of this and just concentrate on the SIMPLE definition of a monotheistic god, since this is most essential before we can go any further and you clearly have yet to grasp or accept that. |
|
|
|
hehe,lucky you,i broke my leg Damn, tough break. (Pardon the pun.) I hope you're not in too much pain and wish you a speedy recovery. Maybe getting someone cool artwork on your cast might cheer you up and give it some style.  |
|
|
|
lol at all the downvotes. Vimeo is often good for these "better versions". I like the channel, Sex, Drugs & Rock'n'RollThe most recent music video is, Lost in the Daylight, featuring a couple of dancing hippie girls, Alexia and Sadie. [Although I think it's just reposted to just make it seem recent. This could be the result of there being a new moderator (I think) added now.] Although (you might guess from the title) I kinda like this one a little better. Reset! & Nom De Strip - I can see boobies (Also reposted, I think. This one's 3yrs old. lol) Still, my favorite is, Played Me. This girl is smokin' hot.  |
|
|
|
I'm willing to bet there's more than a few men in here kicking themselves right now and wishing they had thought of this.  I know, I know, I'm such a killjoy. Happy Valentine's Day everyone! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
