Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

You have pointedly ignored how that vote on the margins which delivered the electoral college to the 45th President may have been swayed by the blizzard of negative social media that originated in Russia with the full approval, maybe the co-ordination of the Republicans. It remains to be seen if the 2016 election violated the law, and thus did not produce a legitimate result.
.

---

-The election was already swayed when Sally Wasserman and the DNC slanted the primaries in favor of Hillary over Sanders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lester316

.....As stated I'm done with arguing with you.....

---

If five out of ten people call somebody an asshole, that doesn't mean five people are seeing another through their own inadequacies, it means five people are too polite to call that person an asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

If five out of ten people call somebody an asshole, that doesn't mean five people are seeing another through their own inadequacies, it means five people are too polite to call that person an asshole.

---

Or that 10 people can have different opinions. Sometimes it's easier to say what you mean succinctly rather than using fortune cookie vernacular...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Hopefully keeping this thread rocketing off course...........
In theory, I would have loved to seen Bernie take it all.
But only in theory.
I can only imagine America voted like a wounded trapped animal, .....so many parts of the country are seeing not only no more jobs, you can't even sell your house at a profit and move out . Desperation move for a new kind of Republican. That theory is wilder that electing a Communist President.



Hillary is not a likable person, who gives a shit?

https://preview.ibb.co/n7s2k6/00.jpg
gif upload 20mb

---

You should read Thomas Frank’s Listen, Liberal. It explains 2016 perfectly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

-The election was already swayed when Sally Wasserman and the DNC slanted the primaries in favor of Hillary over Sanders.

---

So, yet again, you can't even manage to type the word 'Russian' -whatever weaknesses there were in the Democrat campaign, what about the broader Presidential campaign once the nominees were selected -what did it mean when one of the candidates, in public, pleaded with a foreign government to help him defeat his fellow American?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

So, yet again, you can't even manage to type the word 'Russian' -whatever weaknesses there were in the Democrat campaign, what about the broader Presidential campaign once the nominees were selected -what did it mean when one of the candidates, in public, pleaded with a foreign government to help him defeat his fellow American?

---

Okay.
The Obama administration while still in office was notified of Russian activity - but did nothing.

Not sure what you're insinuating but I'm not a Republican...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Bring the rational arguments on then. I don't see Stavros's "And it is precisely because it causes harm that the websites I referred to have been shut down(...)" as logical thinking. To address your need for specific examples, here you go:
Where it reads at the very beginning: "The global forum had 70,000 followers at its height, leading to 4,000 intelligence reports being sent to police across 30 countries" Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat.

---

The point being that by isolating these websites from the open internet, it was easier for law enforcement to infiltrate them and if you read your own link it states quite clearly-

However, child abuse investigators, including a team from Ceop, had already infiltrated the network and were posing as paedophiles to gather intelligence.

So when you write, Who do you think were sending those 4k reports to the police? - Cos it was certainly not people who had been "protected" from accessing the site by your laws you twat

-I refer you back to the evidence -law enforcement, infiltrating the website, gathered information on its members, and sent it to police forces around the world. It really is quite easy to understand is does not need to be smeared with juvenile insults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

So, yet again, you can't even manage to type the word 'Russian' -whatever weaknesses there were in the Democrat campaign, what about the broader Presidential campaign once the nominees were selected -what did it mean when one of the candidates, in public, pleaded with a foreign government to help him defeat his fellow American?

---

Even though the Russians most likely interfered in the U.S. election, that's not the reason why Hillary lost the election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

I have watched a documentary on how Rockefeller's Standard emerged and I see that it was not until John. D. Rockefeller started implementing communist methods, like getting into secret alliances with railways that led to forming South Improvement Company, which I assume were not operating on free-makreting rules, that his monopoly started emerging. This is proof that Rockefeller would not have been able to create his empire without resorting to communist means. Those included laws later on. As Karl Marks predicted, communism grows best in capitalistic countries. All this means that whoever is in charge of the country, should not regulate economy with any laws.

If you think that the mob from the film I linked are capable of choosing the right person to run a country, then I think I can just applaud you. You are a moron.

---

It is always the case that people who believe there are too many people in the world never include themselves in the figures, just as people who dismiss voters as morons never define themselves as a moron when they vote.

If indeed you have learned anything about the career of John D. Rockefeller, or Cornelius Vanderbilt, or Andrew Carnegie and John Pierpoint Morgan, then you will have learned something about the way in which capitalism developed in the USA from the end of the Civil War to the onset of global war in 1914.
But I doubt it, as you do not read to learn, it seems, but to reinforce your interpretation of the world in which anyone who does not abide by your definition of free markets is by definition a communist. In this way you dismiss the evidence that unregulated capitalism creates monopolies, and having stated in an earlier post it was caused by the state now it seems monopoly capitalism is the fault of communism, a remark so ignorant I am surprised you even thought of it But by one of those amusing tricks that unmasks the inner harlequin, you end up supporting one of Karl Marx's weakest arguments -namely, that as feudalism gave way to capitalism, so capitalism will give way to communism, give or take a class struggle or two, or three in this triunal world. Marx saw it as an iron law of history, and you seem to agree. Maybe growing up in Poland in the 1980s has had a more profound impact on your view of the world than you realise.

And, as usual, the core argument of the thread has been diverted into something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Even though the Russians most likely interfered in the U.S. election, that's not the reason why Hillary lost the election.

---

That's what I've saying to him for the last 7 or so posting of mine....