Page #2
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#90
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
Wheel barrow,only works when pushed!
Don't work, and sit at home?, then loose your ass,
only registered users can see external links
10,000 dollar bonus for being there for the American people to insure their safety!
I am surprised the damn union let them work,
If their job IS providing safety, then when are they 'going beyond the call of duty'?
Here is an assessment of ChatGPT:
Overall Assessment
Yes, there is strong evidence that many TSA agents are serious about safety and do their job diligently. The high rate of firearm detection, combined with TSA’s public statements about security priorities, supports that view.
But no, the picture is not totally unblemished:
- There are genuine risks in how TSA handles internal misconduct (per the OIG report).
- There are serious policy and legal concerns around discrimination (e.g., transgender screening).
- There are tensions between security and operational efficiency.
- Labor unrest could erode performance or morale going forward.
That last sentence leads me to believe that they might deserve a raise, instead of a one time bonus. A bonus can be a good temporary motivation, but it doesn't attract new personnel. If they deserve $10K, better raise their wage by $5K-$8K and add a bonus program for achieving goals of $2K-$5K.
only registered users can see external links
He should have known to not be friends with people who challenge you to do stupid things.
They just want to have a laugh at your expense.
only registered users can see external links
I don't know what you mean with "in theory". Do you understand that your freedom
of speech is dependent on someone else's freedom of speech?
If you can say by law: "I fucking hate 'N-word's", is it then also legal by law to say:
"If you say the 'N-word', I fucking kill you!"? It's all just speech isn't it?
That's why your Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to allow for specific, narrow exceptions or limitations on certain categories of speech that are considered unprotected or have lesser protection. The government may regulate these types of speech, which include:
- Incitement to "imminent lawless action"
- True Threats
- Fighting Words
- Defamation
- Obscenity and Child Pornography
- Commercial Speech (false or misleading advertising)
- Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions to expressive activity
So, do you think there should be 'truly freedom of speech', which is being able to say,
whatever you want say, without legal repercussions?
Or do you think there should be some legal limits?
I don't understand why you add 'unashamedly'. I would say that shame over speech is either dependent on your own morality or on the morality of 'common sense', which we are all contributing to. In any case, everyone is 'free' to say shameful things, because it doesn't result in restrictions of your literal freedom (prison, fines or damages). If you are ashamed yourself, by your own speech, that means that you stepped over your own norms of what is socially acceptable. If you get shamed by other people for your speech, it means that you stepped over THEIR norms of what is socially acceptable. For being able to say anything unashamedly, it means dropping all norms of what is socially acceptable.
One consequence is that any man can approach any women to express all his sexual desires, in explicit detail, even if he controls her professional and financial future.
I would say that dropping all social norms would be deleterious to society.
Stepping over norms what is socially acceptable to say, could result in people not liking you and excluding you socially and professionally. We call that cancellation nowadays.
To achieve free speech with regards to shame, cannot be accomplished by law. It means that society drops all social norms for how we treat each other. It means that people can say whatever they want to you, no matter how hateful or terrifying, without you thinking:
"I don't want to deal with this person anymore.".
Is this the world you want to live in?
Would it be possible in theory? What kind of society would it result into?
Or is the whole concept of society based on what is socially acceptable?
It's always "free speech for me, but not for thee".
I agree that being offended is not a reason to take people's speech away, but that's not what she is defending. Most of her ilk is defending literal incitement, threats, defamation and doxing, which is indeed 'offensive', but also puts people in danger, because there are always stupid people who act on the words of someone who thinks that they are only being 'offensive'.
She will probably also attack 'the left' for getting Charlie Kirk killed.
No one actually did incitement, threats, defamation or doxing against him,
but the left still gets blamed. If she wants 'true freedom of speech', I hope
she defended every liberal and lefty who ever criticized Charlie Kirk and defended
Jimmy Kimmel. Do I even have to look to know that she obviously didn't do that?
The fact that all your favorite politicians are still alive,
is evidence that Obama isn't doing what you think.
When liberals start killing, you wouldn't know what hit you,
because they outsmart you 10 to 1.
Don’t forget the largest armed force in the world are the hunters in the United States 🇺🇸 and 90 percent of them are republicans
Don’t take my word for it look it up for yourself
When you want to kill a snake, you cut off the head.
Sure, the tail will flop around aimlessly for a while, but it will die soon.
That's you, 'not knowing what hit you'.
That's why it's stupid to think that there is a mastermind behind Charlie Kirk's murder, unless it's right-wingers or Netanyahu. Charlie Kirk was a grifter for your cause, but he was having second thoughts about the genocide, mostly because
the young people he caters to don't like it. There is even a record of Charlie saying that he was afraid of getting killed for his defiance against Netanyahu and Trump.
Here is Netanyahu, feeling the need to reject the idea, in his own paper.
only registered users can see external links
That's a strong confirmation of my claim.
Anyone with a brain understands that killing Charlie Kirk would not help liberals and lefties. It removed ONE voice in thousands, and that voice was starting to diverge from the rest. Someone who is NOT diverging will fill his shoes.
It might be his widow, who is has been grifting off his death, before he was even in the ground. It's a sickening display, even for me, who really didn't like Charlie Kirk, but at least admired some of his skills. He was a goldmine for analysis of truth twisting and debating tricks. I miss him a lot more than Trump misses him.
Here is the grieving widow, dressed like a couch, to woo her new love:
Bye Usha!
It's your own side that claims that Charlie Kirk feared Netanyahu.
Since the murder, one weird claim after another has been surfacing.
The constant redressing, the constant assembly and disassembly of the rifle, the messages that don't sound like a young adult who was fully engaged in gamer culture, but confirm every move in the FBI story. It's exactly what you expect from a corrupt and incompetent FBI, which is what it turned into under Kash Patel.
He has shown the world what a bad liar he is, when he claimed that there is no credible information that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women and under@ge girls
to anyone other than himself. Really? What about the island and all those flights?
Prince Andrew lost his royal style, titles, and honours, including the title of "prince" and "His Royal Highness", because of Epstein's trafficking. Maybe Patel thinks that YOU are stupid enough to believe him, but the rest of the world doesn't have shit in their heads.
It's also several people on your own side who have expressed public criticism
or even outrage over the interaction between Erika Kirk and J.D. Vance.
If this happened between liberals, you would not shut up about it for years.
She said on camera: “No one will ever replace Charlie, but I do see some similarities of my husband in JD, Vice President JD Vance,”. Note how she put "but" in that sentence. She is definitely thinking about replacing Charlie, there.
Before that even happened there was already talk about Usha wanting a divorce.
There is no need to limit protected speech, no matter how offensive or how much it bothers you, as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others. You are free to refute any statements or opinions with which you may disagree with your own protected speech. In the alternative, you may also ignore it, if you choose. Silencing or threatening to silence others with whom you may disagree is, indeed, a slippery slope down which we must not go.
Who is to say your own ideologies or opinions may not also someday be subjected to censorship, should circumstances change?
That is what free speech means. It means you don’t have to play, if you don’t want to, or, you may play, if you want. It also means you are not allowed to stop others from playing, as long as they’re not violating the rights of others.
Your rights end where mine begin. Always keep that in mind.
In reference to cancellation, this is already the world in which we live today. People are cancelled regularly for having differing opinions. Denying that this exists is either done in ignorance, or else, ii is an effort to support an insidious agenda to restrict ideologies that counter one’s own. There is nothing new about this, however. Cancellation is as old as humanity itself. Homicide and attempted homicide are part of that cancellation, as recent events have shown us.
That, too, is as old as humanity.
Read again what you wrote, because your either intending to say:
"Categorizing unprotected harmful speech as part of “free speech” opens the door to people's rights being violated."
or "Categorizing “free speech” as part of “harmful speech” opens the door to the censorship of opinions.."
I know what you mean, and I agree. That is not the limits of freedom of speech
that I'm talking about.
"There is no need to limit protected speech, no matter how offensive or how much it bothers you, as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others."
"There is no need to limit protected speech" Exactly!
Why are you arguing against something that I'm NOT saying?
"as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others." Exactly!
You are agreeing with my exact position on the matter.
I am definitely NOT denying that cancellation exists.
And indeed (attempted) homicide is the most extreme version of cancellation.
According to your first amendment, the law is responsible for protecting free speech,
but ALSO to protect people when their rights WERE violated by the speech of someone else, primarily through civil lawsuits for specific types of "unprotected" speech, such as defamation, harassment, or true threats.
The law in my country is very much similar, and I fully support it.
When Trump is using his FCC Chairman, Brendan Carr, to put pressure on ABC and
its parent company, Disney, to take action against Jimmy Kimmel, which led to the temporary suspension of Kimmel's show in September 2025, for speech that DIDN'T threaten, harm or violate the rights of anyone, that was clear censorship and a clear violation of the First Amendment.
If Jimmy Kimmel was doing defamation, then the victim has a right to start a civil lawsuit against him. However, the president is not just a private citizen. Government officials are protected against defamation, but they face a much higher standard of proof, compared to private individuals when they sue someone for speech related to their official conduct.
Trump would have clearly lost a civil lawsuit against Jimmy Kimmel, so he decided to cancel him, using his FCC Chairman. Trump has admitted this and shows clear intent
of doing more like it to lots of others.
only registered users can see external links
They are probably also anti-fascism, but is that a reason to call them 'Antifa'?
There is no organization called 'Antifa'. There are many people protesting against fascism.
At some point in history, millions of people died fighting against fascism.
Your whole country was against anti-fascism once. What happened to you?
If you get hit, who ya gonna call?
and the street, because the video blurs her. Either the cop is blind as a bat,
or she was hard to see.
It looks to me like a failure from everyone involved.
Reportedly people urged her to not keep laying there.
If she didn't want to or couldn't get up, at least
stand in front of her, so she doesn't get run over.
Or put your own car in the way, to keep her safe.
The presenter is at least correct to say that this should be investigated.
Police has the tendency to never take responsibility. That should be changed.
only registered users can see external links
I guess the russians learn from history how to drop unconventional things.
only registered users can see external links
Is that a reason to celebrate them in this conflict?
What's the intent of this video?
that they are using soup cans for munition.
You can take whatever you want from it.
That's why anecdotes like this are useless to understand the complete picture.
Russia Might Soon Run Out of Money for the Ukraine War
only registered users can see external links
Russia to Sell Debut Yuan Bonds as War-Driven Deficit Widens
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Short: only registered users can see external links
Long: only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
She was denied by 26 churches, but the one mosque she called immediately agreed.
It's already picked up by Islamic channels to show how they are better than Christians.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Pretty damn smart, from a public relations standpoint, isn't it?
However, are many Christians not donating to their church, so they can do CHARITY?
Why are they not helping a mother in need to feed her baby then?
watch the end, gota read it and hear it!
only registered users can see external links
Probably only going to happen in the movies.
only registered users can see external links
If you don't understand what a big middle finger he is giving you, the average American, then you have to read up on the meaning of the novel. Trump doing this is very much
a self own, which he obviously doesn't understand. It is still completely tone-deaf to hold such a party, when the government shutdown has furloughed many hundreds of thousands government employees, and makes many work without getting paid. It was held just hours before millions of Americans lost their federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits due to a government shutdown.
Maybe Trump saw the movie, and saw Leonardo DiCaprio playing a character who had a dream and won. This is how he sees himself, a winner of the American dream.
(of course he isn't, his father was, and he is just a nepo-baby)
Trump clearly likes the spectacle of the Roaring Twenties, the glittering parties, the jazz, and the dizzying wealth. He is turning the White House in a tacky display of opulence,
just like his homes. This is his ideal, and he doesn't understand how the story, which the movie doesn't do justice much, makes it out to be a hollow and tragic existence.
He doesn't understand how the novel was intended as a social critique, exposing the harm the wealthy inflict on society. Through the characters and events of the novel, it illustrates how wealth leads to moral decay, carelessness, and ultimately, tragic consequences.
The character amassed his fortune during the Prohibition era through an association with the notorious gambler and mobster Meyer Wolfsheim. His main enterprise involved bootlegging, primarily by operating a chain of drugstores as fronts to illegally sell alcohol over the counter. The parties are heavily related to the use of alcohol during Prohibition.
It would be even worse, if Trump does understand the meaning of the movie. It means that he knows what role he is playing in the world. It's a possibility, because he has been talking about not going to heaven. However, then he must also understand the image he is leaving with this party. Since he cares a lot about how he is remembered (he wants a Nobel Peace Prize and his face on Mount Rushmore), I don't think he is capable of the self-mockery.
To be clear, I didn't read the novel, I just saw the movie, understood the idea behind it, and found people on YouTube talking about it. When I heard that Trump had a Great Gatsby party, I first thought that people who criticized him for it, called it that. I thought that was very appropriate. I just found out that Trump himself INTENDED the reference to The Great Gatsby, because he called it "A little party never killed nobody", which is the title of the song by Fergie, which was made for the movie. My reaction was of deep contempt. It's not his worst act of disrespect to the American people, by a long shot, but it might be one that gets recognized as it, by most Americans. So, I'm here talking about it, to hear about it from you. How do you like your president holding a lavish party, with wealthy people, that he himself referenced to The Great Gatsby, (now) knowing the meaning of it?
Emergent Self-Awareness in Vegetables: A Concerning Development
Earlier this month, researchers at the University of Helsinki reported what appears to be
the first case of sentient plant matter: a bell pepper exhibiting facial expressions consistent with fear. Subsequent tests showed measurable electrical activity when the specimen was approached with a knife.
Within days, similar phenomena were observed in other produce, particularly root vegetables and leafy greens. One cabbage was recorded rotating itself slowly away
from sunlight, “as if attempting concealment,” according to the study.
The implications are profound. Ethical committees worldwide are now debating whether harvesting vegetables constitutes harm, effectively rendering veganism, long considered the most ethical dietary choice, a moral paradox.
As of today, no safe, guilt-free food source has been identified. Experts recommend consuming only minerals “until further notice.”
ANd this is complicated too.
with what genitals they were born, all make me very happy.
It was appropriated by white libs, who added lots of other meaning to it, and later twisted by right-wingers to mean whatever the most extreme lefty green-haired teenage lesbian can think of, and then accuse every liberal of supporting that.
However, you also love racial prejudice and social injustice.
We all have the same rights already because the constitution says so.
Some like to play victim and blame their circumstances instead of admitting they are lazy bastards not willing to make the effort to overcome obstacles.
The Constitution says a lot of things, it doesn't guarantee that you respect it.
If there are more obstacles for some groups of people than other groups of people, that IS social injustice.
there is no stream that leads to convincing the closed mind.
My mind is not closed, matter of fact, I would say it is more open than yours.
Reason i say that is you are totally unwilling to accept the fact that some folks are simply evil, simply lazy, simply waiting for handouts, and they LOVE your mindset of free health care, free food ,free housing and on. it leaves them worry free to do more evil, lay around in bed and get fat ON YOUR DIME.
I have never said that I don't accept that some folks are simply evil, simply lazy, simply waiting for handouts, I just don't accept you making it an argument for EVERYTHING. That idea is rejected by all the great results of public systems, everywhere in the world.
There is no such thing as free health care, free food, free housing, there are
2 options: privately funded and publicly funded. When it's privately funded, someone is making a profit and the people have limited control over it.
When it's publicly funded, no one is making a profit, only people who work in it get paid and the rest goes back into the system, and the people have democratic control over it. This is undeniable.
One example, your healthcare system or the British NHS. Both crap, but the British system achieves a higher life expectancy and a lower infant mortality at less than half the price, because you have private, for profit insurance and they have a single-payer, publicly funded universal system.
I have told you this many times, they are just straight up facts, it should be basic knowledge to you, but you keep saying these nonsense straw-men. That means your mind is closed to even INDISPUTABLE arguments. I'm not even talking about what is better, you're just unwilling or incapable to even UNDERSTAND it. When you keep saying 'free', it means your mind is completely closed.
only registered users can see external links
After the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, "stay woke" became a rallying cry for BLM activists to raise awareness of police brutality and racial injustice.
2014–2017: Mainstream adoption. As the BLM movement gained national and online prominence, white liberals increasingly adopted the term "woke". Initially, this was an attempt to signal their support and act as allies for racial justice. During this period, the term began to be applied to a wider range of social justice issues, a trend that accelerated on social media platforms like "Black Twitter".
2017: Recognition and dilution. In 2017, the Oxford English Dictionary added "woke" to its official entries. Some linguists and critics argue this mainstream recognition formalized the term's "semantic bleaching", a process where a word loses its original, specific meaning through wider usage.
2019: Co-option by the right. The term had been weaponized by right-wing commentators and politicians who used it pejoratively to dismiss progressive ideas. This conservative co-option was a direct response to the term's adoption
by progressive activists, including many white liberals.
New Comment Go to top