FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
A threat to American democracy

A threat to American democracy

(22:12) The numbers tell the story. Senator Bernie Sanders speaks on the Senate floor about skyrocketing income and wealth inequality, and the destruction of the middle class.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mr. Blair M. Phillip (1296 days ago)

Up in Canada we have the exact same problem. Concentrated wealth/profits to the 001%. About 8 years ago Stats Canada reported that 40% of the profits/wealth was earned and owned by 1/10th of 001% of working Canadians. The next quintel or 009% earned & owned about 70% of the profits/wealth. That left about 90% of working Canadians fighting to survive on the remaining 30% of the profits/wealth. The middle class wage earners are gone. In Canada, 90% of Canadians live one paycheck from homelessness. In my opinion, there is a direct link between the newspaper box, the ballot box, the bread box and the pine box. Capitalism is killing us all and it's nothing personal...just business.

ReplyVote up (256)down (262)
Original comment

Up in Canada we have the exact same problem. Concentrated wealth/profits to the 001%. About 8 years ago Stats Canada reported that 40% of the profits/wealth was earned and owned by 1/10th of 001% of working Canadians. The next quintel or 009% earned & owned about 70% of the profits/wealth. That left about 90% of working Canadians fighting to survive on the remaining 30% of the profits/wealth. The middle class wage earners are gone. In Canada, 90% of Canadians live one paycheck from homelessness. In my opinion, there is a direct link between the newspaper box, the ballot box, the bread box and the pine box. Capitalism is killing us all and it's nothing personal...just business.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: jechill (650 days ago)

you can thank the conservatives for that.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

you can thank the conservatives for that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1296 days ago)

Trouble is, people like the Koch brothers are making it very personal by employing the tactics they do. They don't need the extra money, so it must be about owning or controlling as much of the country as they can. That would be my guess.

ReplyVote up (283)down (282)
Original comment

Trouble is, people like the Koch brothers are making it very personal by employing the tactics they do. They don't need the extra money, so it must be about owning or controlling as much of the country as they can. That would be my guess.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1292 days ago)

Or, could it be that the Koch brothers don't have that much real money? What you know about their wealth is their net worth but how much of that is cash, you don't know. So they have to make sure whatever they have their net worth invested in continues to be stable and does not lose value.

ReplyVote up (269)down (267)
Original comment

Or, could it be that the Koch brothers don't have that much real money? What you know about their wealth is their net worth but how much of that is cash, you don't know. So they have to make sure whatever they have their net worth invested in continues to be stable and does not lose value.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1296 days ago)

Now that the NSA and billionaires controlling Congress and the Judicial and Executive branches at Federal and State levels have merged into a single conglomerate, worsening income inequality is highly predictable. The 60% and growing voting majority drink brominated water, eat processed foods, lack math skills, can barely read; and thus, have a zombie like supceptibility to media rhetoric that any government regulation and taxes on the wealthy will ruin the American dream.

Trusts and foundations make estate and gift taxes voluntary. Income shifting facilitated by treaties with tax haven countries make corporate taxes voluntary. The restraint of continuous wealth concentration over generations other developed countries have deployed to successfully prevent or slow down worsening income inequality is too late to implement in the US.

ReplyVote up (279)down (287)
Original comment

Now that the NSA and billionaires controlling Congress and the Judicial and Executive branches at Federal and State levels have merged into a single conglomerate, worsening income inequality is highly predictable. The 60% and growing voting majority drink brominated water, eat processed foods, lack math skills, can barely read; and thus, have a zombie like supceptibility to media rhetoric that any government regulation and taxes on the wealthy will ruin the American dream.

Trusts and foundations make estate and gift taxes voluntary. Income shifting facilitated by treaties with tax haven countries make corporate taxes voluntary. The restraint of continuous wealth concentration over generations other developed countries have deployed to successfully prevent or slow down worsening income inequality is too late to implement in the US.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1296 days ago)

Fascinating speech. I look forward to the informed opinions of the many Americans who frequent this site.

From an outsider's point of view and for what it's worth, I think this is an eminently sensible speech, but a voice in the wilderness, because the damage has already been done and will not easily be undone.

ReplyVote up (293)down (302)
Original comment

Fascinating speech. I look forward to the informed opinions of the many Americans who frequent this site.

From an outsider's point of view and for what it's worth, I think this is an eminently sensible speech, but a voice in the wilderness, because the damage has already been done and will not easily be undone.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1292 days ago)

Was there a specific question you had for me? That was a long speech so I'd like you to narrow it down to a couple questions.

ReplyVote up (299)down (299)
Original comment

Was there a specific question you had for me? That was a long speech so I'd like you to narrow it down to a couple questions.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1292 days ago)

when you worked for at&t phone company did you know about the nsa using this phone company to tap into phone calls/internet on usa people plus the rest of us without any court allowing then to do so???

ReplyVote up (292)down (287)
Original comment

when you worked for at&t phone company did you know about the nsa using this phone company to tap into phone calls/internet on usa people plus the rest of us without any court allowing then to do so???

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1292 days ago)

The NSA didn't exist at that time. I worked there in the 90's.

ReplyVote up (285)down (304)
Original comment

The NSA didn't exist at that time. I worked there in the 90's.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1292 days ago)

are you sure?? it was officially formed as the NSA by President Truman in 1952 so if you agree this to be true eg the nsa was formed in the 50's can you answer the first question???

ReplyVote up (272)down (269)
Original comment

are you sure?? it was officially formed as the NSA by President Truman in 1952 so if you agree this to be true eg the nsa was formed in the 50's can you answer the first question???

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1292 days ago)

You're right. Sorry, I confused that with the United States Department of Homeland Security. So to answer your question, NO.

Not sure if you know this but AT&T was a very large company when I worked there. It used to be the largest company in the world and then broke up into 7 baby bell companies in 1983. It was still the largest company in America. Since then, many other companies surpassed AT&T and took the top spot.

In 1984, AT&T was just a telephone company but after the breakup, they expanded into many other ventures. One of those ventures was in the financial industry. This is where I switched my career from retail store management into the financial sector. Although we were integrated with the larger corporation (like putting calling cards on our credit cards), our division did not have phone operators or have anything to do with phone calls.

Moving forward a couple years, in 1996 AT&T did another trivestiture and the financial business was sold to another large bank and I continued my career in the financial industry working for the buying bank.

So I was never part of the phone call business of AT&T. Sorry to disappoint you.

ReplyVote up (287)down (283)
Original comment

You're right. Sorry, I confused that with the United States Department of Homeland Security. So to answer your question, NO.

Not sure if you know this but AT&T was a very large company when I worked there. It used to be the largest company in the world and then broke up into 7 baby bell companies in 1983. It was still the largest company in America. Since then, many other companies surpassed AT&T and took the top spot.

In 1984, AT&T was just a telephone company but after the breakup, they expanded into many other ventures. One of those ventures was in the financial industry. This is where I switched my career from retail store management into the financial sector. Although we were integrated with the larger corporation (like putting calling cards on our credit cards), our division did not have phone operators or have anything to do with phone calls.

Moving forward a couple years, in 1996 AT&T did another trivestiture and the financial business was sold to another large bank and I continued my career in the financial industry working for the buying bank.

So I was never part of the phone call business of AT&T. Sorry to disappoint you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1292 days ago)

not disappointed just wondered if you new or had anything to do with narus at that time.reading a book about it at the min called the shadow factory by james bamford its the history of the nsa.i didnt know that most of the worlds phone/internet traffic goes through the usa even if you are not calling the usa this happens not so the usa can spy but because of cost and the way the phone/enternet works.i dont have a great problem with what the nsa does because most other countries do the same thing eg the u.k but i am not a great fan on the other hand.it would appear they are good at getting data but because of the amount they collect it makes the sadly quite lacking in there leads eg 911 being a good example but we will also to a point never know if it works well??

ReplyVote up (278)down (294)
Original comment

not disappointed just wondered if you new or had anything to do with narus at that time.reading a book about it at the min called the shadow factory by james bamford its the history of the nsa.i didnt know that most of the worlds phone/internet traffic goes through the usa even if you are not calling the usa this happens not so the usa can spy but because of cost and the way the phone/enternet works.i dont have a great problem with what the nsa does because most other countries do the same thing eg the u.k but i am not a great fan on the other hand.it would appear they are good at getting data but because of the amount they collect it makes the sadly quite lacking in there leads eg 911 being a good example but we will also to a point never know if it works well??

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1292 days ago)

Out of curiosity, why are you asking me questions that had nothing to do with the video?

Anyway, regarding what the NSA does, it is my understanding that it doesn't violate any laws because they get court orders to listen to actual phone calls. They only collect metadata otherwise. Metadata is the same thing your credit card company collects when you make purchases. For example, they know when and where you made a purchase and the amount but they do not know the details of which items you bought. The NSA is not collecting any more data on those calls than the phone company does for billing purposes and what some merchants do when you enter their store. You may not know it but many merchants track your movements around the store using surveillance methods which can include using your cell phone ESN. They know which isles you go down and how long you stay in particular areas.

I would be more worried about all the public cameras in the UK spying on me and recording all my actions in public than I am about the US capturing the dates and phone numbers of people I called.

ReplyVote up (288)down (273)
Original comment

Out of curiosity, why are you asking me questions that had nothing to do with the video?

Anyway, regarding what the NSA does, it is my understanding that it doesn't violate any laws because they get court orders to listen to actual phone calls. They only collect metadata otherwise. Metadata is the same thing your credit card company collects when you make purchases. For example, they know when and where you made a purchase and the amount but they do not know the details of which items you bought. The NSA is not collecting any more data on those calls than the phone company does for billing purposes and what some merchants do when you enter their store. You may not know it but many merchants track your movements around the store using surveillance methods which can include using your cell phone ESN. They know which isles you go down and how long you stay in particular areas.

I would be more worried about all the public cameras in the UK spying on me and recording all my actions in public than I am about the US capturing the dates and phone numbers of people I called.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1292 days ago)

sadly the nsa has broken laws by tapping phone/internet calls of usa people but thats the spying game (District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor concluded that NSA's warrantless surveillance program was both illegal and unconstitutional.) i dont think its peoples credit card details they are after?? i believe london to have the most cctv cameras in the world for its size and i bet gchq is doing the same as the nsa in the u.k.it will not be long before if not aleady dones will be flying over the usa so it will not be long before the usa catches up with the u.k. so we all should be worried but as you say if you are doing nothing wrong its not a problem is it?? as for the video nothing other then the first post uses the nsa as a ref and you asked for a question.data collected as with anything still needs people to go through it so still feel safe at min.do you think all this spying by the usa and u.k on its own people is a good thing or is it starting to go abit to far??

ReplyVote up (278)down (268)
Original comment

sadly the nsa has broken laws by tapping phone/internet calls of usa people but thats the spying game (District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor concluded that NSA's warrantless surveillance program was both illegal and unconstitutional.) i dont think its peoples credit card details they are after?? i believe london to have the most cctv cameras in the world for its size and i bet gchq is doing the same as the nsa in the u.k.it will not be long before if not aleady dones will be flying over the usa so it will not be long before the usa catches up with the u.k. so we all should be worried but as you say if you are doing nothing wrong its not a problem is it?? as for the video nothing other then the first post uses the nsa as a ref and you asked for a question.data collected as with anything still needs people to go through it so still feel safe at min.do you think all this spying by the usa and u.k on its own people is a good thing or is it starting to go abit to far??

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1292 days ago)

I agree that warrantless wire tapping and listening to a phone conversation is unconstitutional; however, the NSA has been on record stating that they do not do that. They do have warrants. In fact, large companies have resisted the NSA's request to tap but those companies have been forced by the courts to comply because there is a court order that allows the NSA that access. It's all legal and has already been challenged and the NSA continues to do it because it's been determined to be legal.

How about this one. Did you know that they setup cameras along the streets to capture license plate numbers of cars that drive by. They keep this information in databases so they can track the historical movements of those cars. Should that be legal or illegal? In my opinion, drivers are in a public area and anything you do in public can be public record. You have no expectation of privacy when you are in a public place with the exception of bathrooms and changing rooms.

ReplyVote up (280)down (292)
Original comment

I agree that warrantless wire tapping and listening to a phone conversation is unconstitutional; however, the NSA has been on record stating that they do not do that. They do have warrants. In fact, large companies have resisted the NSA's request to tap but those companies have been forced by the courts to comply because there is a court order that allows the NSA that access. It's all legal and has already been challenged and the NSA continues to do it because it's been determined to be legal.

How about this one. Did you know that they setup cameras along the streets to capture license plate numbers of cars that drive by. They keep this information in databases so they can track the historical movements of those cars. Should that be legal or illegal? In my opinion, drivers are in a public area and anything you do in public can be public record. You have no expectation of privacy when you are in a public place with the exception of bathrooms and changing rooms.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1291 days ago)

the nsa states that it does'nt tap usa people you can think that to be true or not we will never know so it down to who we trust.the way i look at it is the nsa states it only taps people who a a threat to the usa to me that sounds o.k but the amount of data the nsa has collected and is collecting now is a very very massive larger than you can dream.that to me is the problem are there realy that many people who are a threat to the usa or is some of that data collected about usa people who are of interest to the nsa and are not a threat at all eg the gov whats to find out about a company buy out and they have the tec to listen in do you trust then not to do that??the amount of data to me shows they may well be doing things of that nature.

as for anpr cameras and cars what you say is going on.i also believe the street cameras in london have the power to track people using there faces so they can track people not just cars around london this all came about when the i.r.a targeted london.for me its not about if it is legal or illegal its about trust do you trust your gov with this info about us they are collecting?? for me if the gov set up a web page where i could log in and see all the info they had collected/tracked on me it would go a long way in gaining trust eg its collected in pubic areas i should have access to my info.it boils down to how this data is being used so its all down to how you feel and trust your gov.did you know 911 could have been stopped (possibly) if the nsa was allowed to collect data on people without having to go to court to allow them to become legal to spy on this group of people who did this it was the laws that stopped them and allowed 911 to happen.again if people could get hold of the info held on them then the people who did 911 could have looked up this info and found out they had been found out they may not have done what they did and would now be lock up prison or put off doing what they did a very simple way of seeing what went on a know but if you are going to do something wrong and you know you have been found out you would stop going through with it.you try filming the police in a public place its not illegal but they dont like it but its o.k for them to film you again its all about trust

ReplyVote up (267)down (300)
Original comment

the nsa states that it does'nt tap usa people you can think that to be true or not we will never know so it down to who we trust.the way i look at it is the nsa states it only taps people who a a threat to the usa to me that sounds o.k but the amount of data the nsa has collected and is collecting now is a very very massive larger than you can dream.that to me is the problem are there realy that many people who are a threat to the usa or is some of that data collected about usa people who are of interest to the nsa and are not a threat at all eg the gov whats to find out about a company buy out and they have the tec to listen in do you trust then not to do that??the amount of data to me shows they may well be doing things of that nature.

as for anpr cameras and cars what you say is going on.i also believe the street cameras in london have the power to track people using there faces so they can track people not just cars around london this all came about when the i.r.a targeted london.for me its not about if it is legal or illegal its about trust do you trust your gov with this info about us they are collecting?? for me if the gov set up a web page where i could log in and see all the info they had collected/tracked on me it would go a long way in gaining trust eg its collected in pubic areas i should have access to my info.it boils down to how this data is being used so its all down to how you feel and trust your gov.did you know 911 could have been stopped (possibly) if the nsa was allowed to collect data on people without having to go to court to allow them to become legal to spy on this group of people who did this it was the laws that stopped them and allowed 911 to happen.again if people could get hold of the info held on them then the people who did 911 could have looked up this info and found out they had been found out they may not have done what they did and would now be lock up prison or put off doing what they did a very simple way of seeing what went on a know but if you are going to do something wrong and you know you have been found out you would stop going through with it.you try filming the police in a public place its not illegal but they dont like it but its o.k for them to film you again its all about trust

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1291 days ago)

If it is in the public areas, anyone should be free to collect that data. For example, if I wanted to run a video camera to film every car that drove down my street, I should have that ability. Just because it's a government agency that does it shouldn't make it illegal.

Regarding 911, I read a huge chunk of the 911 commission's report and it stated that several of the government agencies knew terrorists were planning on using the planes in this manner. They even knew it was Osama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda; however, these agencies operated in silos and did not communicate to each other and raise an alert. That was a huge fail and the reason the Department of Homeland Security was created to be the umbrella entity for all those smaller agencies.

So I ask you again, why are you asking me questions about the NSA's activities when this video was about income and wealth inequality? When I offered my opinion if someone had specific questions, I assumed people would ask questions about the video and not some random unrelated subject.

ReplyVote up (277)down (279)
Original comment

If it is in the public areas, anyone should be free to collect that data. For example, if I wanted to run a video camera to film every car that drove down my street, I should have that ability. Just because it's a government agency that does it shouldn't make it illegal.

Regarding 911, I read a huge chunk of the 911 commission's report and it stated that several of the government agencies knew terrorists were planning on using the planes in this manner. They even knew it was Osama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda; however, these agencies operated in silos and did not communicate to each other and raise an alert. That was a huge fail and the reason the Department of Homeland Security was created to be the umbrella entity for all those smaller agencies.

So I ask you again, why are you asking me questions about the NSA's activities when this video was about income and wealth inequality? When I offered my opinion if someone had specific questions, I assumed people would ask questions about the video and not some random unrelated subject.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1291 days ago)

if you dont what to answer questions on this then say so i have aleady stated it has nothing to do with the above.to me you always like to answer questions put to you in a nice manner so did'nt think you would have a problem with this like you appear to have now so let me know and we can save this for a time when the nsa is in the post??

as for 911 yes they had info on the possible attacks but it was the law that stopped them from passing on that info.all phone/internet call to the usa direct come under the law which means they have to prove there is a threat and how can you find out if its a threat if you cant listen in on it so alot of info to the usa direct was not allowed to be listen in on and laws stopped them from passing on what they had it was not as simple as that but the usa phone tapping laws stopped them from stopping 911 (we hope)

ReplyVote up (255)down (302)
Original comment

if you dont what to answer questions on this then say so i have aleady stated it has nothing to do with the above.to me you always like to answer questions put to you in a nice manner so did'nt think you would have a problem with this like you appear to have now so let me know and we can save this for a time when the nsa is in the post??

as for 911 yes they had info on the possible attacks but it was the law that stopped them from passing on that info.all phone/internet call to the usa direct come under the law which means they have to prove there is a threat and how can you find out if its a threat if you cant listen in on it so alot of info to the usa direct was not allowed to be listen in on and laws stopped them from passing on what they had it was not as simple as that but the usa phone tapping laws stopped them from stopping 911 (we hope)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1291 days ago)

I don't mind giving my opinion on this subject, was just curious where it came from. No problems.

I'm not sure what law you are referring to that stopped "them" from passing info. Not saying it didn't happen but it's possible that someone thought the handoff of information was illegal and misunderstood the legal ramifications.

According to the report (beginning on page 339), it says the failure was in 4 areas: imagination, policy, capabilities, and management. Nothing about law.

Imagination: Hard to think this kind of attack could happen.

Policy: Al Qaeda was not a country and we couldn't use standard sanctions, reprisal, deterrence, or war for acts by hostile governments against them. It was an entity with no territories or citizens or assets that could be threatened, overwhelmed, or destroyed.

Capabilities: The USA tried to solve the al Qaeda problem with the same government institutions and capabilities it had used in the Cold War and those capabilities were insufficient.

Management: This is the category I mentioned before where information wasn't shared between different government agencies. The analysis was not pooled so there were no effective operations launched to prevent the attack. This problem should now be fixed with the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security.

ReplyVote up (271)down (300)
Original comment

I don't mind giving my opinion on this subject, was just curious where it came from. No problems.

I'm not sure what law you are referring to that stopped "them" from passing info. Not saying it didn't happen but it's possible that someone thought the handoff of information was illegal and misunderstood the legal ramifications.

According to the report (beginning on page 339), it says the failure was in 4 areas: imagination, policy, capabilities, and management. Nothing about law.

Imagination: Hard to think this kind of attack could happen.

Policy: Al Qaeda was not a country and we couldn't use standard sanctions, reprisal, deterrence, or war for acts by hostile governments against them. It was an entity with no territories or citizens or assets that could be threatened, overwhelmed, or destroyed.

Capabilities: The USA tried to solve the al Qaeda problem with the same government institutions and capabilities it had used in the Cold War and those capabilities were insufficient.

Management: This is the category I mentioned before where information wasn't shared between different government agencies. The analysis was not pooled so there were no effective operations launched to prevent the attack. This problem should now be fixed with the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1291 days ago)

i believe the law was the fisa act or court anyone in the usa is classed as a usa member and if the nsa whats to spy on that person they have to go to the fisa court to get permission to spy within the law but they had to prove they had grounds to do so but as they are not allowed to spy before getting fisa court agreement in made it very hard to get the grounds that the fisa court needed.as most of the 911 attackers where in or soon to be in the usa it made it hard for the nsa to find out what they where up to within the law.thats why i think the info they had on 911 was not passed about as it should have been because sadly what they had was tec illegal.

but the point you make also played a big part eg who could think it could happen to us must have been a major part in it being missed.but thats there job to protect the usa so just because it sounds impossible should'nt have been grounds to not act on it.the sad thing is lets just say the 911 members where just plane fans and ment no harm to the usa at all if the nsa had of acted and stopped them there act in stopping them would have been illegal and they could have found themselves in court over it.which again makes no sense to me damed if you do damed if you dont.

i also think that what the nsa is doing after 911 is also mad collecting as much info as possible in the hope they find the next 911 means they are looking everywhere but sadly cant see anything.the number if false leads they have to follow up means time is being wasted and missing the real next threat.to me the boston bombings show that the nsa is missing key leads.if memory is correct the father told the fbi he had worries about his son and this was not followed up maybe because they had so much waste data to follow up on first.

also the words we have used in these posts must have flagged up something at the nsa.so hello nsa anything you would like to add to the post to help us to get the facts correct (left myself wide open for some smart ass to post on all of this )

ReplyVote up (259)down (289)
Original comment

i believe the law was the fisa act or court anyone in the usa is classed as a usa member and if the nsa whats to spy on that person they have to go to the fisa court to get permission to spy within the law but they had to prove they had grounds to do so but as they are not allowed to spy before getting fisa court agreement in made it very hard to get the grounds that the fisa court needed.as most of the 911 attackers where in or soon to be in the usa it made it hard for the nsa to find out what they where up to within the law.thats why i think the info they had on 911 was not passed about as it should have been because sadly what they had was tec illegal.

but the point you make also played a big part eg who could think it could happen to us must have been a major part in it being missed.but thats there job to protect the usa so just because it sounds impossible should'nt have been grounds to not act on it.the sad thing is lets just say the 911 members where just plane fans and ment no harm to the usa at all if the nsa had of acted and stopped them there act in stopping them would have been illegal and they could have found themselves in court over it.which again makes no sense to me damed if you do damed if you dont.

i also think that what the nsa is doing after 911 is also mad collecting as much info as possible in the hope they find the next 911 means they are looking everywhere but sadly cant see anything.the number if false leads they have to follow up means time is being wasted and missing the real next threat.to me the boston bombings show that the nsa is missing key leads.if memory is correct the father told the fbi he had worries about his son and this was not followed up maybe because they had so much waste data to follow up on first.

also the words we have used in these posts must have flagged up something at the nsa.so hello nsa anything you would like to add to the post to help us to get the facts correct (left myself wide open for some smart ass to post on all of this )

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1290 days ago)

I'm not a FISA act expert but, from my understanding, we have a 4th ammendment to our constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches. It's the reason we need a court order to tap a phone line. The FISA act provides judicial oversight to the government to make sure they are in compliance with that 4th ammendment. So I'm pretty confident that the government is abiding by the constitution because of this oversight. Also, it's been known that many companies resisted the government's request to wire tap but the courts forced them to comply because they did have the legal right to do it.

My opinion in the following doesn't really matter because it's really up to our supreme courts to decide but I believe the collection of data is not the same thing as searches and seizures. If you were pulled over for speeding and the cop searched your car without your consent and without a search warrant, then that is a violation. If he wrote down your name, driver's licence number, and car tag and put that into a database, that is not a violation of our 4th ammendment.

The amounts of data that is collected by the NSA doesn't mean anything. If they collect a single phone number, it is equivalent to collection them all. In other words, if we make it legal for one, it's legal for all. Just like it's legal for one person to paint a single painting so it's legal for them to paint a million of they want to.

Yes, there could be some false leads but that also doesn't mean it's illegal for the NSA to collect this data. They may be spending millions or even billions in this project but that also doesn't make it illegal. I would rather they try to protect our country from terrorists with this money than give it away to farmers to not grow peanuts or to subsidize the price of wheat or corn. There are many other pork barrel projects that I would be more concerned about so if I had to exert any energy in fixing our spending problems, this would be low on my priority list.

I'll leave you with a question. Our telephone companies have always, since the day of implementation, kept a record of who you called, when you called them, and the duration of those calls. I have seen those databases so I know they exist *. So why would you trust our telephone company with that information but you wouldn't trust an organization with a mission to protect our country with that same level of information?

* Note: A typical fraud attempt is to deny placing a particular phone call that appears on your bill to avoid having to pay for an expensive phone call. The techniques used by the phone company to prove they do know that person is to review the customer's call history to confirm to the customer they have called that person in the past or that person called them. They even look up the names and addresses of the destination phone number and identify they are family members. The charges are sustained when this proof is discovered and the customer's account is noted for their attempt to defraud the system in case they call back later to attempt it again.

ReplyVote up (280)down (274)
Original comment

I'm not a FISA act expert but, from my understanding, we have a 4th ammendment to our constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches. It's the reason we need a court order to tap a phone line. The FISA act provides judicial oversight to the government to make sure they are in compliance with that 4th ammendment. So I'm pretty confident that the government is abiding by the constitution because of this oversight. Also, it's been known that many companies resisted the government's request to wire tap but the courts forced them to comply because they did have the legal right to do it.

My opinion in the following doesn't really matter because it's really up to our supreme courts to decide but I believe the collection of data is not the same thing as searches and seizures. If you were pulled over for speeding and the cop searched your car without your consent and without a search warrant, then that is a violation. If he wrote down your name, driver's licence number, and car tag and put that into a database, that is not a violation of our 4th ammendment.

The amounts of data that is collected by the NSA doesn't mean anything. If they collect a single phone number, it is equivalent to collection them all. In other words, if we make it legal for one, it's legal for all. Just like it's legal for one person to paint a single painting so it's legal for them to paint a million of they want to.

Yes, there could be some false leads but that also doesn't mean it's illegal for the NSA to collect this data. They may be spending millions or even billions in this project but that also doesn't make it illegal. I would rather they try to protect our country from terrorists with this money than give it away to farmers to not grow peanuts or to subsidize the price of wheat or corn. There are many other pork barrel projects that I would be more concerned about so if I had to exert any energy in fixing our spending problems, this would be low on my priority list.

I'll leave you with a question. Our telephone companies have always, since the day of implementation, kept a record of who you called, when you called them, and the duration of those calls. I have seen those databases so I know they exist *. So why would you trust our telephone company with that information but you wouldn't trust an organization with a mission to protect our country with that same level of information?

* Note: A typical fraud attempt is to deny placing a particular phone call that appears on your bill to avoid having to pay for an expensive phone call. The techniques used by the phone company to prove they do know that person is to review the customer's call history to confirm to the customer they have called that person in the past or that person called them. They even look up the names and addresses of the destination phone number and identify they are family members. The charges are sustained when this proof is discovered and the customer's account is noted for their attempt to defraud the system in case they call back later to attempt it again.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest God (1296 days ago)

Anyone who thinks distribution has any major affect on poor peoples life is an idiot.

ReplyVote up (278)down (375)
Original comment

Anyone who thinks distribution has any major affect on poor peoples life is an idiot.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
LogicIsPower LogicIsPower (1289 days ago)

The Supreme court has lost its way, has become outdated and is filled with Judges that have no connection to the reality they affect, Scalia actually thinks the Devil is a real person!!! What kind of idiot thinks that a corporation is a person and should have the same rights? as an individual I do not have the protections and rights of being Incorporated.

I completely disagree with big money and corporations having power in Democratic elections, especially Multi National Corps. I think radically strict regulations on lobbyists are neccessary, as well as repealing Citizens United.

Further more we should force the existing Judges out of of the Supreme Court and hold a new election process.

And why not try to copy some real socialism and let us vote on real issues, some socialist countries vote 17 times a year. The only people that say America is the greatest country on Earth has obviously never been outside its borders.

ReplyVote up (267)down (290)
Original comment

The Supreme court has lost its way, has become outdated and is filled with Judges that have no connection to the reality they affect, Scalia actually thinks the Devil is a real person!!! What kind of idiot thinks that a corporation is a person and should have the same rights? as an individual I do not have the protections and rights of being Incorporated.

I completely disagree with big money and corporations having power in Democratic elections, especially Multi National Corps. I think radically strict regulations on lobbyists are neccessary, as well as repealing Citizens United.

Further more we should force the existing Judges out of of the Supreme Court and hold a new election process.

And why not try to copy some real socialism and let us vote on real issues, some socialist countries vote 17 times a year. The only people that say America is the greatest country on Earth has obviously never been outside its borders.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1288 days ago)

"What kind of idiot thinks that a corporation is a person and should have the same rights?" I believe you may have misinterpreted what the court has said. They don't really think that a corporation is a person because if they did, they would have voting rights and they don't. What it means is that a corporation is allowed to have an opinion. Having an opinion could mean that they can be a Christian corporation (like Chick-A-Filet). They are against same sex marriage. In-N-Out Burger prints religious passages on their cups. Corporations are allowed to have political views too.

So if you have an opinion, the freedom of speech allows you to tell people what your views are. So if Chick-A-Filet wants to have a commercial that tells people their views against same sex marriage, they have that right. If Walmart wants to advertise their guns (showing their support for gun rights), they have that right. If a corporation is for a particular candidate for a political office, they have the right to tell people and advertise it.

Corporations are still not allowed to donate money to a political candidate directly. The employees of the company are allowed to donate their own money to a PAC campaign that is organized by the company and then given to a political campaign.

Any money that goes into politics do not go into the pockets of those candidates for them to buy a house or a car. It goes to an account where that money can be used to fund a re-election campaign of a candidate. It's not like that candidate is getting rich off corporate donations. We have laws against that sort of thing and if you know of anyone that has accepted donations from a corporation and used it for their personal use in return for a politician voting in any particular manner, you should come forward with that information so we can deal with it.

Our supreme court justices are appointed by our President and it's set this way in our constitution so it cannot be changed unless that change is ratified by 3/4ths of our states. The supreme court's role is to interpret the constitution of the United States. They do not create law but when a law is challenged on it's constitutionality, the supreme court determines if that law is in violation or not.

"And why not try to copy some real socialism and let us vote on real issues, some socialist countries vote 17 times a year." You are confusing our political structure with an economic one. Socialism is an economic model and has nothing to do with the way people vote. A democratic society allows the people to vote on issues directly. We have a representative republic (not a democracy) so we elect politicans to vote on the issues for us. It is very rare to find a country with a direct democracy or pure democracy. Switzerland is very close but still does not pass laws based on the majority vote because it's possible the majority wants to pass a bill but at the state level the majority of the states were against the bill. So then the bill wouldn't pass.

The USA founders did not want a direct democracy because they were worried about the majority forcing their will on minorities. The representative republic protects the individual from the will of the majority.

"The only people that say America is the greatest country on Earth has obviously never been outside its borders." Your assumptions are false. I am an example against what you said. I lived in Europe for 9 years, and in case you didn't know, Europe is outside of America's borders.

ReplyVote up (291)down (275)
Original comment

"What kind of idiot thinks that a corporation is a person and should have the same rights?" I believe you may have misinterpreted what the court has said. They don't really think that a corporation is a person because if they did, they would have voting rights and they don't. What it means is that a corporation is allowed to have an opinion. Having an opinion could mean that they can be a Christian corporation (like Chick-A-Filet). They are against same sex marriage. In-N-Out Burger prints religious passages on their cups. Corporations are allowed to have political views too.

So if you have an opinion, the freedom of speech allows you to tell people what your views are. So if Chick-A-Filet wants to have a commercial that tells people their views against same sex marriage, they have that right. If Walmart wants to advertise their guns (showing their support for gun rights), they have that right. If a corporation is for a particular candidate for a political office, they have the right to tell people and advertise it.

Corporations are still not allowed to donate money to a political candidate directly. The employees of the company are allowed to donate their own money to a PAC campaign that is organized by the company and then given to a political campaign.

Any money that goes into politics do not go into the pockets of those candidates for them to buy a house or a car. It goes to an account where that money can be used to fund a re-election campaign of a candidate. It's not like that candidate is getting rich off corporate donations. We have laws against that sort of thing and if you know of anyone that has accepted donations from a corporation and used it for their personal use in return for a politician voting in any particular manner, you should come forward with that information so we can deal with it.

Our supreme court justices are appointed by our President and it's set this way in our constitution so it cannot be changed unless that change is ratified by 3/4ths of our states. The supreme court's role is to interpret the constitution of the United States. They do not create law but when a law is challenged on it's constitutionality, the supreme court determines if that law is in violation or not.

"And why not try to copy some real socialism and let us vote on real issues, some socialist countries vote 17 times a year." You are confusing our political structure with an economic one. Socialism is an economic model and has nothing to do with the way people vote. A democratic society allows the people to vote on issues directly. We have a representative republic (not a democracy) so we elect politicans to vote on the issues for us. It is very rare to find a country with a direct democracy or pure democracy. Switzerland is very close but still does not pass laws based on the majority vote because it's possible the majority wants to pass a bill but at the state level the majority of the states were against the bill. So then the bill wouldn't pass.

The USA founders did not want a direct democracy because they were worried about the majority forcing their will on minorities. The representative republic protects the individual from the will of the majority.

"The only people that say America is the greatest country on Earth has obviously never been outside its borders." Your assumptions are false. I am an example against what you said. I lived in Europe for 9 years, and in case you didn't know, Europe is outside of America's borders.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1288 days ago)

bullshit! your comment is bullshit and it's too fu*king long and you're a fu*king idiot!

you're a fu*king Cu*t and all you do is CU*t about, so fu*k you!

ReplyVote up (286)down (249)
Original comment

bullshit! your comment is bullshit and it's too fu*king long and you're a fu*king idiot!

you're a fu*king Cu*t and all you do is CU*t about, so fu*k you!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1288 days ago)

If you think it's BS then prove me wrong. The way you are going about it is an Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

ReplyVote up (358)down (264)
Original comment

If you think it's BS then prove me wrong. The way you are going about it is an Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1288 days ago)

prove you wrong you fu*K! all you do is enumarate the pretext provided to you by the right wing corporate leaders who are using these pretexts to fu*k up your country!

What does the Preamble say? "" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.""

It SAYS WE THE FU*KING PEOPLE YOU STUPID FU*K!!! everything that is decided and does not respect the will of the people and everything listed in the preamble is against the moral principles that are at the base of your constitution!!!

So you can take your pretexts, your rationalizations, your "interpreteation by the supreme court of the constitution" and all of your manipulative attempts to spin this sheit you're spewing all over the internet, and SHOVE IT UP YOOUR FEKIN ARSE, YOU STUPD CU*T!!!

You and your banker satanic friends, took the US constitution and whiped your arse with it, by funding campaigns for amoral sheit people to appoint judges at the supreme court (that say a lot of sheit) and destroy the basis of the hay day of capitalism that started right after the war (because of SOCIALIST REFORMS BY FDR) and ended in the mid 70's (BECAUSE OF FASCIST RIGHT WING REFORMS, speared ahed by milton fuken friedman, that piece of sheit)

You live in a fuken oligarchy you stupid fu*k, but your head is too far up your arse for you to figure it out.

It's been scientifically proven by piketty's book, capital in the 21st century and to argu against this is to argue against the scientific method. You'll do it anyway because you're a fuken idiot.

ReplyVote up (285)down (339)
Original comment

prove you wrong you fu*K! all you do is enumarate the pretext provided to you by the right wing corporate leaders who are using these pretexts to fu*k up your country!

What does the Preamble say? "" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.""

It SAYS WE THE FU*KING PEOPLE YOU STUPID FU*K!!! everything that is decided and does not respect the will of the people and everything listed in the preamble is against the moral principles that are at the base of your constitution!!!

So you can take your pretexts, your rationalizations, your "interpreteation by the supreme court of the constitution" and all of your manipulative attempts to spin this sheit you're spewing all over the internet, and SHOVE IT UP YOOUR FEKIN ARSE, YOU STUPD CU*T!!!

You and your banker satanic friends, took the US constitution and whiped your arse with it, by funding campaigns for amoral sheit people to appoint judges at the supreme court (that say a lot of sheit) and destroy the basis of the hay day of capitalism that started right after the war (because of SOCIALIST REFORMS BY FDR) and ended in the mid 70's (BECAUSE OF FASCIST RIGHT WING REFORMS, speared ahed by milton fuken friedman, that piece of sheit)

You live in a fuken oligarchy you stupid fu*k, but your head is too far up your arse for you to figure it out.

It's been scientifically proven by piketty's book, capital in the 21st century and to argu against this is to argue against the scientific method. You'll do it anyway because you're a fuken idiot.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1288 days ago)

"It's been scientifically proven by piketty's book" Ha, now that's a funny one.

For something you claim to provide proof of something, it certainly has received a lot of negative reviews. Today, there are 351 Amazon reviews and 111 of them are 1-star reviews. That's 32% worst possible ratings.

If Piketty really believed in his book, he would have provided it free of charge as a downloadable PDF but instead is using the capitalistic method and making loads of money off this book. Seems sort of hypocritical to me. The book is $25.09 and the electronic Kindle version is $21.99. Go Capitalism!

ReplyVote up (269)down (268)
Original comment

"It's been scientifically proven by piketty's book" Ha, now that's a funny one.

For something you claim to provide proof of something, it certainly has received a lot of negative reviews. Today, there are 351 Amazon reviews and 111 of them are 1-star reviews. That's 32% worst possible ratings.

If Piketty really believed in his book, he would have provided it free of charge as a downloadable PDF but instead is using the capitalistic method and making loads of money off this book. Seems sort of hypocritical to me. The book is $25.09 and the electronic Kindle version is $21.99. Go Capitalism!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1288 days ago)

yo're being an ass and you know it!

review trolls are gonna troll!

the fact remains that it has been scientifically proven that you're wrong and there's no point in arguing with you on any economic issue because the science is against you.

So fu*k you!

ReplyVote up (263)down (275)
Original comment

yo're being an ass and you know it!

review trolls are gonna troll!

the fact remains that it has been scientifically proven that you're wrong and there's no point in arguing with you on any economic issue because the science is against you.

So fu*k you!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1288 days ago)

Any good science welcomes the opposite point of views. If the science is accurate, it can stand up to those views. Since your position is weak, it cannot handle my arguments so your scientific method is a fail.

ReplyVote up (256)down (253)
Original comment

Any good science welcomes the opposite point of views. If the science is accurate, it can stand up to those views. Since your position is weak, it cannot handle my arguments so your scientific method is a fail.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1288 days ago)

your logic is shit and your brain is shit.

you're arguin against empirical evidence gathered in over 100 years, put in a book that is almost 700 pages, called "capital in the 21st century" written by thomas piketty. That's pretty dumb even for you.

you have no case and you're being an ass because all of your moral principles are founded on fairy tales.

Besides, you're opinion doesn't matter because you're a troll who endorses "legalised bribery", lobbying, corruption and everything that is against democracy, common sense, human nature and empathy; so go fu*k yourself you depressed codger troll! you're opinion is worth sheit!

ReplyVote up (279)down (259)
Original comment

your logic is shit and your brain is shit.

you're arguin against empirical evidence gathered in over 100 years, put in a book that is almost 700 pages, called "capital in the 21st century" written by thomas piketty. That's pretty dumb even for you.

you have no case and you're being an ass because all of your moral principles are founded on fairy tales.

Besides, you're opinion doesn't matter because you're a troll who endorses "legalised bribery", lobbying, corruption and everything that is against democracy, common sense, human nature and empathy; so go fu*k yourself you depressed codger troll! you're opinion is worth sheit!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1288 days ago)

Additional Ad Hominem attacks do not help your position. It only confirms how weak it is.

He has sold approximately 200,000 books. At $25.09 per book, that's a revenue of $5,018,000. A typical royalty is 10% or $501,800 salary so far. Not bad for a capitalist like Piketty, although he claims to be more neo-Marxist by his writings.

Interestingly, April's Amazing Spider-Man comic book sold around 700,000 copies. Goes to show what people think is more important in life.

ReplyVote up (343)down (263)
Original comment

Additional Ad Hominem attacks do not help your position. It only confirms how weak it is.

He has sold approximately 200,000 books. At $25.09 per book, that's a revenue of $5,018,000. A typical royalty is 10% or $501,800 salary so far. Not bad for a capitalist like Piketty, although he claims to be more neo-Marxist by his writings.

Interestingly, April's Amazing Spider-Man comic book sold around 700,000 copies. Goes to show what people think is more important in life.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1288 days ago)

welp, i guess you got me.

since spiderman sold more than Capital in the 21st century, i guess capitalism is better than empirical scientific evidence stating that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. So i guess capitalism and all it brings with it is prefferable to democracy. Welp, i can't argue with that logic, especially when you mentioned Ad Hominem attacks (like a fu*king 19 Year old newly converted atheist who thinks he has all the answers to life, but i digress).

Boy you sure got me good this time cengfu*k zero. you must have used all of your brain power to bring spiderman into the conversation, damn...

...I honestly don't know why i even bother to insult you anymore. You're a fu*king idiot anyway.

ReplyVote up (272)down (258)
Original comment

welp, i guess you got me.

since spiderman sold more than Capital in the 21st century, i guess capitalism is better than empirical scientific evidence stating that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. So i guess capitalism and all it brings with it is prefferable to democracy. Welp, i can't argue with that logic, especially when you mentioned Ad Hominem attacks (like a fu*king 19 Year old newly converted atheist who thinks he has all the answers to life, but i digress).

Boy you sure got me good this time cengfu*k zero. you must have used all of your brain power to bring spiderman into the conversation, damn...

...I honestly don't know why i even bother to insult you anymore. You're a fu*king idiot anyway.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1288 days ago)

You have not stated one single counter point to anything that I've said. I will take it as meaning I won this one. Have a great day.

ReplyVote up (252)down (353)
Original comment

You have not stated one single counter point to anything that I've said. I will take it as meaning I won this one. Have a great day.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1288 days ago)

you won sheit. do you really expect me to argue with you the way you want me to? you , the manipulative codger troll? that's the most idiotic thing i could ever do.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO FU*k yourself with a duck!

ReplyVote up (245)down (229)
Original comment

you won sheit. do you really expect me to argue with you the way you want me to? you , the manipulative codger troll? that's the most idiotic thing i could ever do.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO FU*k yourself with a duck!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: jechill (650 days ago)
Latest comment:

your country and its corporate leaders are ****** up.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
Latest comment:

your country and its corporate leaders are ****** up.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1289 days ago)

Switzerland is the country which has the most votes (check out the cantons), and its probably the most conservative country on earth, with laws requiring all citizens to be part of the militia and own a gun, for example

ReplyVote up (253)down (266)
Original comment

Switzerland is the country which has the most votes (check out the cantons), and its probably the most conservative country on earth, with laws requiring all citizens to be part of the militia and own a gun, for example

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1288 days ago)

fine by me, as long as they have a direct democracy, it's what the people want.

People being part of the militia and having to own a gun is not a conservative thing. It's just that they're a small country in the mountains, with a small military, and the only way for them to defend themselves from a foreign attack is by mobilizing all of it's citizens in a guerilla war. Nothing to do with being conservative.

You didn't mention their healthcare system and social security nets and the fact that they're about to vote on the Universal Basic Income in a couple of years.

ReplyVote up (232)down (247)
Original comment

fine by me, as long as they have a direct democracy, it's what the people want.

People being part of the militia and having to own a gun is not a conservative thing. It's just that they're a small country in the mountains, with a small military, and the only way for them to defend themselves from a foreign attack is by mobilizing all of it's citizens in a guerilla war. Nothing to do with being conservative.

You didn't mention their healthcare system and social security nets and the fact that they're about to vote on the Universal Basic Income in a couple of years.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Canadian doctor explains the benefits of Medicare for all
Canadian doctor explains the benefits of Medicare for all
Fact checking Hillary Clinton's latest book 'What Happened'
Fact checking Hillary Clinton's latest book 'What Happened'
Stephen Colbert - Bernie Sanders says something nice about Trump
Stephen Colbert - Bernie Sanders says something nice about Trump
Bernie Sanders on how Republicans package their message
Bernie Sanders on how Republicans package their message
Naomi Klein on the parallel between Jeremy Corbyn and  Bernie Sanders
Naomi Klein on the parallel between Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders