ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
According to the WSJ the move "..will formally shift authority for much of the internet's governance to a multinational stakeholder...". Two of those stakeholders are China and Russia. This is seen as a move to appease them.

Yes, it may be just for naming purposes but I have a feeling there is more to the story.

Because when I want tech information, Newsmax is my goto source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: From-the-stands
CqFiDnPVMAA6MJZ.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willy4UK
It's okay, once The Donald becomes president he will be the great eliminator of corruption, finally. Things will always be clean, righteous and above board with him in command. The country as a whole will once again become a place of complete sanctity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WildcatofNati
That was from the Wall Street Journal.

Originally. The link was to Newsmax. The US still doesn't own the internet. Doesn't "control" the internet to have any "control" to give to someone else. Domain names and naming standards are still a tech issue. The spin that this is sinister is just spin. Do you think they're going to come up with a bunch of taunting, silly names for the US domain and that we're going to wither up from shame? What exactly do you fear from a DNS standards agency?
 
It's okay, once The Donald becomes president he will be the great eliminator of corruption, finally. Things will always be clean, righteous and above board with him in command. The country as a whole will once again become a place of complete sanctity.
I don't believe that's the reason anyone actually supports him. I think it's because everyone is tired of the establishment and the government assuming what's best for everyone...after his 4 years there's an opportunity for America to get real people in there that will do something as oposed to this same non sense overy and over. Tell me again how Hillary will do anything beneficial to stop the good Ole boy network filled with career politicians running individual interests guised as this is what's best for you? I mean I know liberals just need shiny things put in front of their face and they're mesmorized at everything at face value, or to be told what they need to do..because we are all just stuck in the gutter and can't help it and the only way out is for our government to save us.

I don't like Trump...at all. I think his economic policies for one are pretty bad...but I'd never support a big government"hey this looks good at face value" policy from Hillary either or any feelings driven policy that's created in the fantasy of Democrats with solutions that aren't real solutions, at best money suckling bandaids. Basically anything with heavy government involvement is a failure. I can recognize the difference in that one person is just pushing the machine along and will do nothing to hekp people only as to say it and put some bogus plans out as if they actually care about the populous, and the other is threatening the livelihood of every career politician and their living off taxpayers bc their used to just telling people what to do...therefore collapsing the known system for real change. That's how I see it.

I've yet to hear anyone state why Hillary will be a good president without stating Trump. She's not even the most qualified so that's not an answer. Gary Johnson is way more qualified than she is...I mean to start, he's actually balanced a budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil_The_Music


That's the same thing that Mitt Romney got bashed for doing during his campaign. But now its OK in the media's eyes i guess.

Look, I have no problem with the Clintons (or anyone else) making charitable donations to their own foundation. It's their money. And it's great that they want to donate some of it. And it makes sense to donate to an organization that you trust. And the Clinton Foundation does some good things. No problem with that at all.

The problem i have is with the Clinton Foundation itself. The way it was set up, how it runs, and how it is basically used as a slush fund.
 
They're largely philosophy, history, economics, and political science. A little literature. Not a lot of tech, no.

Their lit discussions tend to be about science fiction, though. Does that count as tech?

Sure, why not? It's 2016

BTW, there's a lot of variety of topics on subjects that you listed, but tech isn't included? Hmmm.

So basically Crookedtimbers is a 18th century French support group?
 
Last edited:
Sure, why not? It's 2016

BTW, there's a lot of variety of topics on subjects that you listed, but tech isn't included? Hmmm.

So basically Crookedtimbers is a 18th century French support group?

It's a bunch of liberal liberal arts academics. So, pretty much. I first discovered it when I followed a Daniel Davies thread from somewhere else. Davies (DSquared) is some kind of English business analyst/stockbroker and has been the most accurate voice on economic issues I've found. But he rarely writes anymore.The current threads are about Hegel, Locke, etc. So, I understand nothing.
 
It's a bunch of liberal liberal arts academics. So, pretty much. I first discovered it when I followed a Daniel Davies thread from somewhere else. Davies (DSquared) is some kind of English business analyst/stockbroker and has been the most accurate voice on economic issues I've found. But he rarely writes anymore.The current threads are about Hegel, Locke, etc. So, I understand nothing.

James-Franco.gif



With a website like that. I'm not sure how their daily visitor checks their own personal biases....hmmmmm
 
  • Like
Reactions: catfaninsc
For the most part, sadly. There is a small but growing number of people who are more interested in whats right, rather than letters next to the name.
I am one of those people. The Republicans are just as bad as Democrats, maybe even worse since Republicans claim to champion liberty when they often don't. Thats why I'm a Trump guy, hes not one of them and the establishment hates him.
 
According to the WSJ the move "..will formally shift authority for much of the internet's governance to a multinational stakeholder...". Two of those stakeholders are China and Russia. This is seen as a move to appease them.

Yes, it may be just for naming purposes but I have a feeling there is more to the story.
Internet censorship will come out of it. Book it.
 
(What's an impersonal bias?) We only have one POV. You voice your take on the evidence and try to be honest.


If you're asking that. Then son, for some one who thinks they are a level above thinking of the average American, you may need to revisit Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Pay attention to the very tip of the pyramid. Moe, you aren't there yet, but you think you are. How old are you?
 
Moe's not very teachable. getting schooled by Willy but persist. you don't want this fight Moe, i'm just trying to spare you the embarrassment now.

ahh, he's older and wiser than me. He knows better. Plus he runs in circles talking about Sarte and Kierkegaard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -LEK-
If you're asking that. Then son, for some one who thinks they are a level above thinking of the average American, you may need to revisit Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Pay attention to the very tip of the pyramid. Moe, you aren't there yet, but you think you are. How old are you?

My feeling is that I'm 30-40 years older than you. Why?
 
It's okay, once The Donald becomes president he will be the great eliminator of corruption, finally. Things will always be clean, righteous and above board with him in command. The country as a whole will once again become a place of complete sanctity.
But will the oceans recede?
 
ahh, he's older and wiser than me. He knows better. Plus he runs in circles talking about Sarte and Kierkegaard.

We were talking about Crooked Timber and you took offense at something. Suddenly the whole tone changed. We don't need to talk about it & I have no idea why you brought it up.
 
Hey guys the president of UK is making a mockery of the law, much like UL, and the university 30 minutes south (EKU) is housing freshmen in hotels because they tore down useable dorms to create new ones that will have theaters, private masseuse, and a Panera Bread.

That last bit might be stretched, but, point is, as always, that we can't even check what's going on right in our front yards, so what in the piss are we going to do about Hillary or Donald? It doesn't matter. The system is broke.

Article in today's paper about MJ and Adam Edlen or whoever, starting a political non profit to help identify future leaders, or some shit.

Which is cool. My views are just complete opposite of MJ, I think...idk, he plays both sides well. For example, their group will work with people who agree to their four principles - one which was free healthcare. Idk, I forget the rest....education, transparency maybe lol, idk....but it was basically what every politician right now says. Except their thing is the system is broke, both parties suck, here give me the power to expand govt how I see fit!

Also on the news today: new microchip pill technology allows doctors, parents, whoever is on the internet to retrieve data from the microchip sitting in the patients stomach. Ok, cool. So, how much money are we gonna print to make this stuff widely available, which drugs will we monitor, and how will that increase profits?
 
Maybe AlbanyWildcat can enlighten us as to why so many Insurance companies are dropping out of the ACA? Also, be interesting as to when the others will announce their rate hikes, before or after the election. Interesting that Hilary has ALL the answers as to how to revitalize our economy, fix the ACA, put people back to work, give free college education, how to pay for it all, and yet has not bothered to tell Obama how to do it for the last 7.5 years. If I were Obama, i would be pissed at her, for keeping it secret.

Sooner we remove profits from Healthcare, the better off we all will be.

I just appreciate Bertolini making it clear as possible that Aetna will leave the exchanges if their merger with Humana is not approved by the Feds, which they believe will harm competition. Same guy who a few months earier was saying how well Aetna was doing with ACA.

It's all about the benjamins. At some point in the future, Healthcare will bankrupt our country...that is when the fun begins.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT