“I must stay on the court in order to prevent the Bolsheviki from getting control.” Chief Justice William Howard Taft, 1929
It must have been no small peril as the Chief Justice could utter such words.
On the other hand there are those who trivialize the matter using the phrase “red scare,” blaming people such as Chief Justice Taft for irrationality.
The record of Communist parties’ participation in coalition governments in European countries (like France) remains unscrutinized. What you’ll find is their consistent voting for the curtailment of fundamental freedoms.
In June 1919 the Overman Committee of the U.S. Senate concluded that Communism in Russia was “a reign of terror unparalleled in the history of modern civilization.“
“Since 2011, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has excluded the Chinese government and China-affiliated organisations from its activities, including using funds to host Chinese visitors at NASA facilities.” (Wkpd: China exclusion policy of NASA)
In 1943 the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, or Magnuson Act, repealed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, allowing for an annual quota of 105 Chinese immigrants, at the same time maintaining the ban against ownership of property and businesses by ethnic Chinese.
For those who think hate speech is unprotected, please read Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). The Supreme Court held that the WBC [Westboro Baptist Church]’s hateful picketing was protected speech. And Wikipedia correctly cites me as the source of the protection. ([a Twitter user named] The First Amendment)
“Hate speech” is a name found by those willing to shield group lobbying from people’s scrutiny. To those who’d retort that using the n-word and other such words isn’t “scrutinizing group lobbying,” I have this to say: “One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” (Justice John Marshall Harlan)
Les émissions littéraires et les écrivains qui se rendent sur ces plateaux sont à la littérature ce que la télé-réalité est à la réalité : de la « télé-littérature ».
En France nous avons eu des ministres communistes et nous avons toujours des parlementaires communistes mais demander la même liberté d’expression qu’aux États-Unis est impensable.
Invasive Moderation (Part 3)
The Corporate Frankenstein
Twitter is going wild with their flags, trying hard to suppress even the truth. Just shows how dangerous they are, purposely stifling free speech. Very dangerous for our Country. Does Congress know that this is how Communism starts? Cancel Culture at its worst. (Pres. Donald Trump, Dec 24, 2020)
Twitter’s flags are Twitter’s free speech. But sure go with “free speech is how communism starts” and see how far that gets you. (The First Amendment)
As a few tech companies today have the power to stifle the “free flow of information and ideas” that the First Amendment’s aim is to ensure, to do nothing about it is to make fun of the Amendment rather than to pay it due respect.
To compare Twitter’s policy with an individual’s speech is bogus. A company follows a predefined corporate purpose. At best its speech should be construed as “commercial speech,” with limited protection only.
(Nota Bene: As in the next tweets I speak of the political speech of corporations, it should be clear to you that the statement here is about what corporations are in essentia according to me, like the “End Corporate Personhood!” message on the placard there [Middle Tennessee State University’s First Amendment Encyclopedia: Corporate Speech].)
Commercial speech has only limited protection: “For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.” (Central Hudson Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission ). And in the earlier state of affairs commercial speech wasn’t protected by the First Amendment at all: see Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942). – An individual’s speech isn’t subject to these conditions.
As to corporations’ so-called “political speech,” since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) it gets broad protection but the decision deals with “political speech in the form of contributions and expenditures on behalf of candidates and political issues,” not in the form of internet moderation affecting the free flow of information and ideas. Twitter Inc. has the First Amendment right to contribute financially to the campaign trail of a candidate, that’s all, there’s nothing about First Amendment protection for flagging other candidates’ tweets in the bargain.
Next time I’ll comment on Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968): “Logan dealt with right to use private property as ‘equivalent’ of public space.“
A corporation isn’t the government. The First Am. is applicable against the government or private entities acting under color of state law ONLY. And Twitter ain’t that. (Ava)
As the First Amendment cannot ensure the free flow of information and ideas against private encroachments, a statute is needed. I am arguing that that statute will be upheld against the private companies’ claim that it violates their First Amendment right.
Indeed, corporate speech has not as strong a status as citizens’ speech, all this ultimately deriving from the common law, where property is no source of absolute discretionary power.
The Supreme Court of the United States has to balance on one hand the free marketplace of ideas, which a statute will maintain, and on the other hand the rights of trustlike corporations, which a statute will regulate for the good of the commonwealth just as numerous statutes do already.
Corporate speech is twofold: commercial and political. Conceding that corporations’ political speech is equally protected (since Citizens United), that’s not the case of their commercial speech. This alone enables one to say that corporations have less First Amendment rights than individuals. => 1>.5+.2
But wait… how can you argue with… MATHEMATICS!??!?! (Allen)
Algebra is as good a form of logical thinking as another.
At least according to Bertrand Russell.
But a true algebraic formula here would be: 1>.5+x 0<x<.5 or 1>1/2+x 0<x<1/2
Given different >levels< of scrutiny by courts, one could easily translate the whole thing into algebraic formulae.
Because of Citizens United, courts will apply strict scrutiny on the bill I envision (as moderation by internet platforms such as Twitter would be deemed corporate political rather than commercial speech, and so receive full rather than limited protection). Precisely! I’m arguing that in any case the compelling interest called for by strict scrutiny exists, as it is about guaranteeing the free flow of information and ideas.
The First Amendment is a means to an end: the free flow. When people complain about private platforms not respecting the First Amendment, technically they’re wrong –correct– because they mistake the means for the end but in fact they are complaining about impediments to the flow.
Those who complain about platform moderation invoking the First Amendment mistake the means for the end but those who deny them the right to complain make the same mistake. It’s 1A for the sake of it; that is called fetish worship.
Commercial speech is speech that has a commercial purpose. Even an individual can produce commercial speech, and if so, is also subject to government regulations on commercial speech. i.e. commercial speech != [different from] speech by corporations. (Bob)
The difference is that there’s no corporation without commercial speech, without a part of it devoted to that sort of speech that was not even considered to be speech until the 1970s.
Think about it : “corporate-political-speech.” Where until Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) corporations’ commercial speech wasn’t even considered to be speech at all!
“The McConnell decision [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)] largely rested on Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which permitted bans on corporate speech.” (From comment on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission  in John R. Vile, Essential Supreme Court Decisions, 2018).
For 20 years corporate political speech was no speech at all in the United States.
“The Austin decision identified ‘an antidistortion interest’ in limiting political speech based on an attempt to prevent the effects of accumulated wealth.” That was the rationale.
Justice Stevens’s dissent on Citizens United is brilliant. Quotes (J. R. Vile 2018):
Restrictions on corporate expenditures date back to the Tillman Act of 1907. … The decision in Austin has not shown itself to be as flawed as the majority suggests.
The Court has long approved ‘the authority of legislatures to enact viewpoint-neutral regulations based on content and identity.’
The Framers had a much narrower view of the rights of corporations than the majority, and the original understanding has been substantiated by the history of regulation in this area.
The Constitution does, in fact, permit numerous ‘restrictions on the speech of some in order to prevent a few from drowning out the many.
The laws at issue are legitimate measures to prevent corruption and to protect shareholders from expenditures they do not support.
They [corporations] are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
Just like about 40 years ago commercial speech emerged as speech, 30 years later, that is ten years ago, corporate political speech became speech. For what purposes have these sinister Frankenstein creatures been invented?
The (1) of Section 230 seems intended to prevent its (2), it protects providers from liability for content on their platforms, so providers have no reason to remove content –if they’re for free speech– as nothing can happen to them for content, 230(1) speaking.
I grant you immunity for any sort of content (1) and, whereas you should be content with that, I also grant you immunity for (bona fide) content removal (2). It’s called to have your cake and eat it too. Completely unbalanced. As they’re free to remove content, why can’t I hold them responsible for content they don’t remove?
You’re perfectly free to sue the person posting the offending tweet. (J_Rex)
Wouldn’t suing an anonymous user depend on Twitter’s will to disclose information about the user?
If you don’t like Twitter’s or Facebook’s rules you are perfectly free to create your own platform with whatever idiosyncratic rules you want. In fact, there are such platforms, notably Parler. (J_Rex)
I’m free to leave but at a cost (among other things in terms of audience) and Twitter, which, as one of the first movers, has an undue trustlike position on the market due to its millions of users, should partake in the cost. If such laissez-faire views were accepted, Twitter could staff its moderation office with lunatics and that would be just as good. It can and perhaps it does.
Advocacy of Illegal Conduct Is Lawful
In a previous lesson I told Diane, who had said “no speech is protected if it incites violence,” that she was wrong. She was wrong, but even competent persons make the same error: “These cases illustrate that the First Amendment applies to all groups so long as their intent is not to intimidate or incite violence.” (First Amendment Encyclopedia: American Nazi Party and Related Groups x)
When such conclusion isn’t from lack of knowledge, it’s lack of logical thinking. “Incite violence” isn’t the same as “incite imminent lawless action” (including violence) and therefore it is lawful to incite non-imminent violence.
“In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that an economic boycott constitutes a form of constitutionally protected expression akin to traditional means of communication, such as speaking and writing, even if violence is threatened as a means of achieving group goals.” (First Amendment Encyclopedia : Boycotts)
I think the courts have held (properly) that there is a tight rope to be walked between allowing someone who is simply pissed off to vent their anger and someone who is actually intending harm. (Diane)
I’m sorry to disagree again. People who “threaten violence,” like in the Clairborne decision, “actually intend harm” (at least conditionally: if… then) and yet it is protected speech.
But Diane is probably thinking of the “true threat” doctrine. So I add that except for the unusual 2003 decision on cross burning that can be a true threat, generally speaking in case law a threat has to be kind of very clear, present, imminent, lawless and all to be (a bit) “true.”
If the courts want to be consistent with Virginia v. Black (2003) on cross burning and the vague notion of intimidation, they will have to smash down the very doctrine of true threat, even Brandenburg v. Ohio (on lawless imminent action) and the whole edifice of First Amendment law. The Supreme Court made a mistake.
The true meaning of the American First Amendement, its truly distinctive nature lie in the words “Advocacy of illegal conduct.” This distinctly American right is what makes all other peoples beside conscious Americans look like phantoms or trembling mice keeping close to the wall.
In Cleveland v. United States (1946), “Justice Francis W. Murphy dissented, largely based on anthropological analysis, arguing that polygamy differed from promiscuity.” #Mormon
Porn often promotes “plots” based on racism, incest, rape, sexism, or violence, and then says these themes are okay in porn because they’re “fantasy.” Why are we sexualizing scenarios that are never acceptable in reality? (FTND: Fight the New Drug)
On a First Amendment Encyclopedia I read of criticism of porn films… in the sense of literary criticism. So, as you talk of “plots,” that alone could be construed as “redeeming value” (which protects some explicit material from prosecution for obscenity). As there’s a plot, that’s a work of the mind, a work of art.
But let me ask, then. What if someone cuts up the sex scenes from the film and uploads them piecemeal? The public will inevitably miss the dialogues, the acting, the story, the plot, all the redeeming value, they will only be… watching porn.
On a marketplace there must be antitrust laws. What are the antitrust laws on the “marketplace of ideas”?
The marketplace of ideas is about speech and counterspeech but some are defining it as speech and speech-canceling.
After first Tweet Anthology (here), this is a selection of my tweets from Dec 2016 up to now. When I reply to another tweet, the person’s tweet is in italics.
I ran in California and I won easily because I was an outsider at that time and they looked for an outsider. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)
Europe is looking for an outsider, let’s make Arnold President of the United States of Europe (see here).
The #MEGA Schwarzenegger will Make Europe Great Again.
Lisa Bickels approves.
In How the Other Half Lives (1890), an early sociology of New York City, J. Riis (Danish-American: see here) said Jewtown and Little Italy were dirty but black neighborhoods were clean.
Supposed outpouring of online hatred against Jo Cox, a murdered MP, was exaggerated. (The Economist)
The deliberate exaggeration could not even prevent Brexit.
Sweden public broadcaster aired as “science” claims women shorter than men because parents subconsciously feed girls less. (Kevin MacDonald) – Not even Swedes could be this stupid, could they?
Many Swedes are paid by their government to be stupid.
It takes a lot of work to get there. But they’ve made a success of it.
A typical Swedish success story.
But immigrants will help Sweden be a more balanced country.
Most gays are bisexual (cf, among others, Dr Robin Baker). They get sex training with guys, then apply their training with girls.
They’re learning with their male companions good techniques with which yours (a straight guy’s) can’t compare.
Gays learn with men to overcome shyness with women in every circumstance.
It’s easier to learn with men because men are sex-crazed. Gays get a crash course while you take the long way, but time is money.
Why a liberal arts degree holds value in the second machine age. – Skills that make all workers valuable –even those in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) careers– are boosted, not diminished, by a liberal arts education. (Michigan Future Inc.)
Companies have been praising liberal arts degrees for 50 years. Just talking.
Think in terms of motivation. Why would these students want to work for a company? They’re taking liberal arts degrees because they hate the idea of working for business.
Kevin MacDonald: Ethnocentrism is normal and rational.
In fact, women are xenophiles since chimp females have been mating outside their group. [So that makes men acceptive of female foreigners too.]
And high-status men do not care about immigration because it does not affect their fitness. [Actually, business benefits from low-wage immigration.]
Ethnocentrism is normal for low-status men.
If I see myself as a Conservative, then I see my public as unbookish. You don’t sell books to people who don’t read.
A Nation of Suckers: Everybody with Deepthroat to regenerate American public life!
Woodward should have taken the opportunity [a recent interview] to apologize for the pseudo ‘Deepthroat.’ It’s not too late. [Deepthroat was Mark Felt, but who gave him that name, and if Mark Felt gave it to himself why did the journos have to take it?]
Morocco bans production and sale of burqas. (Saudi Gazette)
Moroccans have no class.
Each time I’m looking for a Conservative girl, she’s got tranny friends…
Each time I’m looking for a Conservative girl, she’s posing with black men…
I know a vocal Conservative white girl who’s so concerned she may be labelled a racist that she’s only dating black boys.
There’s nothing a black boy can’t obtain from a Conservative white girl who’s concerned about being labelled a racist.
Remember Rachel Corrie.
Even the Chinese had stopped their tanks on Tian An Men.
Saudi Arabia has an economic interest in allowing women to drive. (Brookings Institute)
Saudi Arabia has an economic interest in allowing hardcore pornography. So what?
Self-driving cars are already there, waiting to be used. Saudi women will be driving cars when there are no more cars to drive, only self-driving cars.
[Nobody ever thought of Saudi women’s right to drive cars before self-driving cars made that right utterly pointless.]
Saudi Arabia’s strict religious rules cost its economy tens of billions every year. (Voxdotcom)
They can afford it, don’t you worry.
On the other hand Christians would not sacrifice a cent for their religion’s sake.
[God is obviously with those who can afford gratuitous acts, not with those who must devote the whole of their activity to being kept afloat.]
The difference between a Conservative and his Muslim foes is that Muslims are Conservatives.
Bernie Sanders is eating Maine lobster and gulf shrimp with saffron just now, sipping 2013 arroyo vista chardonnay.
Now Bernie Sanders is enjoying seven hills angus beef with chocolate and juniper jus and gratin, with a glass of black stallion 2012 limited release cabernet sauvignon. (All these things Bernie’s supporters have no idea of…)
Keep tuned to know the exact time Bernie Sanders will be enjoying chocolate soufflé with Korbel special cuvée champagne.
There is no such thing as #subliminal #advertising #suckers
The reason women in Israel have less problems with rape than women living in Angela Merkel’s destroyed Germany [tweeted as caption to a picture showing Israeli women in military uniform and with guns].
The lack of sexiness of their accoutrement would repel the most accomplished rapist anyway.
a/Jeynie J: So what you’re saying is, discerning rapists only target fashionably dressed women? Do tell us more.
You don’t have to be fashionable to be sexy.
I thought you were going to tell us more about how rapists choose their victims. I’m waiting to be educated.
First thing, they choose them so as to be able to perform or commit the act physiologically.
Up-thread you snarked that the ugly uniforms of the Israeli women would deter a rapist. Are you implying that a rape victim bears responsibility for her (or his) plight? The classic “she asked for it”??
Do you see another explanation?
What would you think if you learnt most rape victims wore miniskirts when they were raped by a stranger?
I’d think I’d need to see your statistics and the source from which they came.
You’d learn rape from a familiar person (family rape or date rape) is the most frequent by far.
But yes, I do see another explanation: the rapist. No victim ever bears responsibility, regardless of dress.
Of course the rapist goes to jail when caught. I may even agree he should be executed.
What does a rapist’s sentence have to do with his motivation?
Stepfathers are the greatest rapists. For them it doesn’t matter what you wear.
[I give myself the last word in this interesting conversation, as the last words of my female contender were words of abuse and I do not wish to displease my reader with these.
I apologize for having no experience in rape and forced sex and for talking from books and conjecture. I admit that I fail to see, now that I think of it, how I could have an erection trying to rape a stranger as sexual predators do but I also acknowledge that there surely are techniques to get aroused in such circumstances or to perform full-penetration rape without full erection –which makes my argument about an alleged required sexiness of the victim specious. However, albeit I don’t rely on police or judicial records, the fact that generally speaking victims of rape are scantily clothed when they are raped must be true, for according to studies 1/rape is conducive to pregnancy more often than consensual sex and 2/ovulating women wear scantier clothing than on average. In my mind it makes no doubt that 2 is the cause of 1 and that sexual predators choose scantily clothed victims, whether it be because they are aroused by them or not.]
b/ Mr W.: Not real good with strong women, pajama boy?
Your girlfriend carries the guns, all right, so what are you doing? Patching your petticoat, petticoat?
c/ Dan G.: Are these beauties good enough for ya? [adding another picture of Israeli female soldiers. I take the opportunity to stress here that women in the Israeli army, although they receive some military training, are not due to fighting on the battlefield.]
They were all raped by Israeli starred officers and some by Israeli politicians into the bargain. [The reason for this reply will be apparent from the next discussion, below.]
I’m guessing you don’t like women very much, eh?
Not when they’re damaged goods.
d/ Julie F.: It take a rapist to know a rapist. How many women have you raped?
If you know what I am, you must like me, then. How many have you?
It takes a rapist to know “it take a rapist to know a rapist.” You’re a darn rapist and I’ll let your neighbors know.
The reason women in Israel have less problems with rape than women living in Angela Merkel’s destroyed Germany [This is another discussion starting from the same throught which, by the way, was tweeted by Hollywood actor and staunch Trump supporter James Woods.]
I’m told women in Saudi Arabia don’t have too much problem with rape either.
Indeed there’s a lot of raping in Israel.
[Here I’m compelled to rely on my memory as my contender eventually blocked me, making it impossible for me to retrieve his tweets any more. The great thing is that, after I had said a lot of rapes occurred in Israel, he came with the rather unexpected estimate, found by him on Internet, of one out of three women being raped. Then, as he felt he had given me ammunition in the argument, he claimed these rapes were all (literally) made by black immigrants and that Israel had the same problem as Germany and other European countries with an alleged rape wave caused by immigrants (in spite of Israeli women’s carrying big guns, by the way). To which I made the following remarks.]
Ridiculous. 4M women [Israel’s population is 8M]=>about 1.3M women raped. 85,000 Africans, let’s say 50,000 males. That makes 26 Israeli women for each African. If half of them are rapists, it’s ~50 women raped by each rapist. If one fifth of African males are rapists, each rapists rapes ~130 women. If one tenth of the African Israeli male population are rapists, each rapist rapes more than 250 women.
Senate Democrats to Stage All-Night Talkathon against Betsy DeVos.
These fellows have no consideration for the Senate’s staff.
‘People Who Read Breitbart’ Targeted in £60 Million Government Propaganda War on ‘Far Right’ by Saatchi & Saatchi. (Kevin MacDonald)
Look for embedded subliminal penises, fellatios, pedophilia and bestiality in the campaign billboards. You’ll find.
World leaders come in one of two flavors: Zionist Sycophant or Absolute COWARD. They both taste horrible.
May I add a third: those who are Zionist sycophants because they’re absolute cowards.
Fans of Elizabeth Warren Play the Sexist Card One More Time.
When you’ve got only one card to play, you’ve got to play it.
My advice to Conservatives, stop saying to the Libs “you’re the real racists,” just say “racists.” Victory is achieved by those who call their opponents racist more than their opponents call them racist. The time it takes to tell your opponents “you’re the real racists,” they can call you a racist twice.
I used to come out as a gay so the men would lower their guard and I was very successful with their girlfriends. Try it.
If you think you’re safe because your mate’s friends are gays you’re badly mistaken, pal.
Your gay friend won’t take your mate away, correct…
90% of gays are bi. Being gay is the way you impregnate women at no (or minimal) cost.
Valentine, the one saint known by Protestant America. They only take those who help make money/sell.
Why should Muslims, but even Protestants, partake in the worship of this saint? [In reply to users who objected to Valentine Day being banned in some Muslim countries like Pakistan]
Protestantism is based on the rejection of the worship of saints. Valentine Day shows how deep marketing brainwashing goes.
Can you be my Valentine for one day?
I guess it’s asking too much. Even for just one day…
I don’t like the way she’s wearing her veil, it’s like she’s wearing no veil at all.
“Christians are oppressed and persecuted in USA”. Makes sense: after all, they are an endangered minority of only 83%. (Richard Dawkins) [According to another user, the actual figure is more like 70%.]
The truth of the statement does not depend on that figure alone but also on the relative status of the 83% majority.
If your status is higher than a Christian and you abuse him for his faith, then you are an oppressor.
It’s a fact that Christians (those who care) are oppressed, because they’re low status and status difference is oppressive.
Israel interferes in our politics all the time, and it’s never a scandal. (Kevin MacDonald)
You mean that people are afraid to speak out? Some people speak out and these may be more acceptive of Muslim, anti-Zionist immigration. Immigration as bulletproof jacket.
We’ll get all the Muslims it takes to restore free speech, I will see to it.
Here To Love They Neighbor. [A comment on the so-called ‘’Muslim Ban’’]
They’ve got to love their “neighbor”: she’s their cleaning lady.
All Muslims are not terrorists, they’re also cleaning ladies and dustmen.
God made Obama president, yes. Even God makes mistakes. Pfff…
Attila was the Scourge of God. Obama is the Mistake of God.
Let me know how I can do more for the basic income movement.
You can share your income with me.
As long as you’re not at basic-level income, you don’t know what basic income is. Share.
If you share, you’ll get a share. In this world I can’t promise, but in the next, brother!
Could we imagine a world where the machine work for us while we just enjoy life?
Many people can’t. They see their wife at home and: thank god there’s work, to be out!
What did you promise the Russians in exchange for their hacking the election? (Laura P., ‘’Democratic political consultant,’’ to Donald Trump. I quote from memory as she blocked me after the following reply)
He promised you would help Russia with your lights.
It is important to remember, when engaging in paleontology, that there’s a risk it make you dry as a bone.
The FAKE NEWS media is the enemy of the American people (President Trump). – That’s great, Donald, but the last time a U.S. president told me who my enemy was, 600,000 Iraqis died for no reason.
It won’t take troops against these, a good spanking will suffice.
Did the teachers from Trump University participate [in parent-teacher conference listening session]? (Kristina Wong)
University is a ship of fools: Erasmus.
I talked to an American professor-doctor, he said to me he can’t speak German. And he’s not from Trump University! [Needless to say, I tweet under my real name.]
He was defending the media against Trump. Yet neither the media nor the university have taught this professor the difference.
Freedom of the press: the press is not free from private interests.
The privately owned press, that is, some private interests, call themselves the pillar of democracy. Sheeps agree.
The press is controlled by undemocratic, private interests that are far more powerful than states.
People know what I’m saying here is true, but they dare not articulate it, for labelling power’s not theirs.
The people repress the obvious about the nature of media. They dream a life of two hundred years ago.
They obscurely feel that escaping the dream is dangerous, and it is, as it goes across powerful vested interests and would in any case estrange them from the herd.
I believe there was no porn videos in Osama Bin Laden’s house and that they said so in order to make him look like an a**hole.
Bill Gates: Job-stealing robots should pay income taxes.
Disagree. If robots can do these jobs, they are inhuman jobs and robots are our liberators.
To think that there are still people who’re doing robots’ jobs gives me the shivers.
Why has the Iranian regime become so fond of tourism in Albania? + link (Iran Freedom)
That someone got fond of tourism in Albania was long overdue.
Robots are going to replace most jobs. How are people going to get money to live on?
Shoplifting has long ceased to be a heinous crime.
When does a robot have personality? When he hates humans.
…find the leakers within the FBI itself. Classified information is being given to media that could have a devastating effect on U.S. FIND NOW. (Donald Trump)
For a long time U.S. services have set up a whole system of leaks from U.S. to Israel. Read They Dare To Speak Out by Paul Findley.
American spies have spied on their own land for decades on Israel’s behalf.
Leaking stuff is what they’re best at, after all these years spying on their own land for Israel.
(To a Dr somebody making policical comments) One day doctors will find out they were speaking in the name of science like children.
In response to Trump’s dissing of Mexico, Mexicans are boycotting Starbucks and other U.S. chains.
So funny knowing Starbucks’s CEO did the best he could to appear as anti Trump.
Calling the press scoundrels, which they are, is not restricting the press.
As far as I know freedom of speech extends to the president as well. Journalists want to shut him up.
Grant the president free speech for a change. The press can’t handle criticism.
(In reply to the outrage raised by Trump’s announcement that he would not attend the White House Correspondents’ Association this year)
The president has no mandate to attend and waste his time with bores.
Try giving your opinion diplomatically instead of attacking and attempting to take down an American business. (A tweet to President Trump about the New York Times)
The president has no mandate to spare the susceptibility of scoundrels.
Treason – google it, Donald Trump (Rosie)
When I start typing “treason” on Google, Google completes with “treacle on my p*ssy, lick it.” Why?