Freeze - Froze - Frozen
Squeeze - Squoze - Squozen
Freeze - Froze - Frozen
Squeeze - Squoze - Squozen
I decried this concentration of power in every presidency going back to Reagan. What I have learned is that nothing will dissuade the American public and their elected officials from charging headlong toward their own destruction. "Measured," "reasoned," "forethought," and "circumspect" have no application to the American political beast.
That's not all we have. You left out the heartless machinations of the house and senate designed subtly manipulate the financial framework of the country and remove as much capital from the populace as possible.
EXACTLY! The fact that there are people that label themselves as "Democrats" and/or "Republicans" is the whole problem. I have never been able to understand the motivation of people to surrender their individuality and their identity as an American citizen to a party. Especially considering these parties obviously have a long list of people and institutions they are indebted and beholden to and who must be catered to before the problems and needs of the citizen are addressed.
Even worse, these people use their self determined position as a party member to make enemies of other Americans. All they need to hear is some inclination that someone is of a different party and they suddenly become sub-human.
In my carefully considered opinion, if you declare yourself as a democrat or republican, and you aren't one of the propagandist ring leaders that is elected to office on that ticket, you are the problem with America. Your mind is compromised and your partisanship completely obscures your rational judgement. You are a pre-emotional creature without access to the necessary logic and understanding that allows you to behave like a human should.
Just because lying to the American public and destroying government records without oversight is legal doesn't mean that doing it won't come with a shitload of consequences, not the least of which is you don't get to be the president.
It doesn't have to be criminal to be dishonest, immoral, deceitful, reprehensible, and unconscionable. This is the pitfall of lawyers practicing politics. They know exactly what they can get away with under the letter of the law. If they lack moral fiber they will push that line continually.
England (GB) is an island nation so the cost of many things has always been higher, American fast foods amongst them. For example compare the price of a BigMac in Hawaii or Alaska. I spent several contract terms there in the early 90's and found that the average citizen spent a larger portion of their income on basics like housing and food then in the US, even at that time. What I find odd is the currency based on sterling silver is falling in relation to a soft backed currency based on 'confidence'. Seems like someone is gaming the system. But I am not an economist so what do I know...
Signs the even FB is tired of the vapid crap that appears on social sites as video ?
Ahh but I am part of the 1%, not the 1% upper income, but the 1% who understands the implications of the lack of security and privacy. I'd assume you are as well, just by your presence on a place like
You have a point but if I was going into/in politics I might want a private firm that was perhaps bound to not share any info or quietly private to do it for me, but I would sure as hell have someone do it for me.
You would think that the first thing you would do after accepting the job as cyber security poster child would be to run out and make sure your shit was secure. Being a political appointee I would not expect Rudy J to do it himself, but at least hire someone competent to do a review for you.
But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.
Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.
If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.
I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.
In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work
Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.
We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.
You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.
In theory humans can make the choice.
Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.
Until you provide evidence, I won't believe it exists.
(See how this works?)
Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.
I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.
I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Of course not, you don't read the NYT.
So you have no examples, then. Good to know.
No, because unless there is an ear drum to interpret the pressure wave it is not a sound.
Does this mean I can now sue eBay for allowing fake goods to be sold ? Once they start vetting some doesn't that imply a liability or responsibility to verify them all ?