I'm from the right, a Trump supporter, but fuck me with a broomstick if American gun laws aren't insane. They were made when the US was a rural country and the most lethal widely available firearm was a rifled musket. To apply them in a modern urbanized setting with high population density, rampant drugs and widespread mental illness is wrong and stupid. In a town of a million people there are thousands of dipshits, numbskulls and junkies that have no qualms killing people. To allow these scum to buy fucking AK-47 and other assault weaponry is beyond insane. You Americans are fucking out of your minds and you deserve all those mass shootings that happen nearly every damn week.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-08 19:00
two words: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-08 19:03
step 1. remove guns step 2. get killed by a nigger robbing your house
great idea we should definitely ban the guns
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-08 19:09
>>2 What about people's right to not be shot by a retarded mass murderer, can that be infinged?
And what if the nigger robbing your house has a gun and shoots you? With gun control that chance would be much lower as any nigger with a gun would be taken to a vacation behind bars. Not that it's very high anyway since most robbers don't want to commit the much worse criminal offense of murder and visit your house when you're away.
Either way, unless you've got a ranch and robbers are driving around stealing your precious beets, you don't need a gun. That shit is for pre-urban, XIX century countries, not for modern cities.
You don't understand. The USA is a loose federation of 50 states each with its own government and set of traditions. If there are too many gun owners in your state, just move to California. Or move to Mexico where guns are totally illegal.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-08 19:46
JACKSON FIVE GET
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-08 20:21
>>5 The gun idiocy stems from a constitutional amendment. Repeal that amendment, and all states will have to get reasonable and stop the carnage.
>>9 Let me get this straight. You have a retarded demand that nobody else wants AND you have the ability to easily satisfy that demand. Yet instead of taking the simple actions necessary to attain your retarded demand, you have decided that whining loudly is the way to go. That, my friend, is not good enough.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-09 16:12
check my ducks 🦆🦆
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-09 21:15
>>10 It's a demand that all reasonable people have (hillbillies and gun companies not included), yet you would rather see your family on the news, shot dead by some junkie with a semi-automatic just to fulfill some obscure amendment from pre-urban times that arms makers get rich off. Just who is retarded here?
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is fake news.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-15 3:56
>>31 In the age of the Internet "telling the truth" is nothing more that shit posting: it's fake news even if there are elements of truth in it. The truth can be best seen at a neutral point of view and not covered by shit posters.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-15 16:34
>>32 Stupid leftists hate the fact people can get information from sources other than government- and corporation-controlled mass media.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-15 19:46
>>33 The government has only minimal control over mass media in the West (dictatorships like Russia and China are another story). And fringe media sites are controlled by corporations too, the only thing that sets them apart from the mass media is that they aren't subject to public scrutiny; their audience is composed almost entirely of mindless drones who won't object to them spreading fake news as long as it supports the correct narrative. Mass media may be biased, but a media outlet that is forced to at least pretend to not be biased is virtually guaranteed to be less biased than one that can get away with being openly biased.
their audience is composed almost entirely of mindless drones
You must be talking about the mass media here, as that's where most fake news and uncritical, unanimous audiences are.
but a media outlet that is forced to at least pretend to not be biased
That's not true of the vast majority of US media, as the last elections have shown. Practically all of the major outlets vere openly biased against one of the candidates and nobody 'forced' them to even pretend to not be biased.
That article uses quite a lot of words to avoid saying anything specific. And they're not subtle at all with pushing the 1984 meme.
You must be talking about the mass media here, as that's where most fake news and uncritical, unanimous audiences are.
They're unanimous only insofar as sticking so hard to the middle. Supposedly Fox News is biased towards the right and MSBNC is biased towards the left, but they try so hard to avoid offending moderates that in practice they're effectively indistinguishable.
Practically all of the major outlets vere openly biased against one of the candidates and nobody 'forced' them to even pretend to not be biased.
Are there any major (i.e. non-fringe) outlets that weren't against Trump? This isn't some profound point, Trump made himself out to be an ``anti-establishment" candidate, over having a concrete policy on anything besides immigration. Which means, most people have no particular reason to be pro-Trump (unless they really want to reduce immigration), and those who are considered part of the ``establishment" have an extra reason to be anti-Trump.
EC. 1042. Permanent authority to provide rewards through government personnel of allied forces and certain other modifications to Department of Defense program to provide rewards.
(a) In general.—Subsection (c)(3) of section 127b of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking “subparagraphs (B) and (C)” and inserting “subparagraph (B)”; and
(2) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D).
(b) Modification of reporting requirements.—Subsection (f)(2) of such section is amended—
(1) by striking subparagraph (D);
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G), as subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and
(3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by inserting before the period at the end the following: “, including in which countries the program is being operated”.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
Brennan rebuked the president-elect for comparing U.S. intelligence practices to Nazi Germany in comments that laid bare the friction between Trump and the intelligence community he has criticized and is on the verge of commanding.
In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Brennan questioned the message sent to the world if the president-elect broadcasts that he does not have confidence in the United States' own intelligence agencies.
"What I do find outrageous is equating intelligence community with Nazi Germany," Brennan said. "I do take great umbrage at that."
His comments followed a tumultuous week of finger-pointing between Trump and intelligence agency leaders over the unsubstantiated report of compromising information Moscow had collected on Trump.
Trump accused the intelligence community of leaking the compromising information, which its leaders denied. They said it was their responsibility to inform the president-elect that the allegations were being circulated.
Later on Sunday, Trump took to Twitter to berate Brennan and wrote, "Was this the leaker of Fake News?" In a separate posting, Trump scolded "those intelligence chiefs" for presenting the dossier as part of their briefing. "When people make mistakes, they should APOLOGIZE," he wrote.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-21 6:30
Don't make them apologize for giving you the incriminating evidence ya donk
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-21 6:34
They are guilty of collecting compromising material on the leader in chief with intent to blackmail
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-21 6:36
Skit em daffy
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-21 6:55
probably sent a copy to russia themselves so they could say russia had it first
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-21 13:41
These same intelligence people lied about the NSA not spying on Americans. No trusting them now.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-21 18:25
lmao these niggas really don't believe false flags in the current year 😂😂😂😂 nigga, Operation Gladio is partially declassified, it's not a secret, you can go look up any of the united Nations hearings about the operation 😂 these niggas actually think false flags are a joke 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Officially non-existant, these networks were hard for NATO/MI6/Deep state officials to control, and carried out bombings, kidnappings and assassinations to such an extent that the network was publicly exposed in Italy in the 1980s.[1] It has retrospectively called Operation Gladio/A[2], after the project was adapted as "Gladio B", using radical Moslems as a substitute enemy image for communists.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-22 2:30
NATO reacted to these revelations in November 1990 with confusion. Against a background of newspaper headlines typified by the Guardian’s ‘Bombs Used at Bologna came from NATO unit’, spokesmen first denied the stories and then denied the denials by saying it was a subject which couldn’t be discussed on grounds of military secrecy.
The revelations began to mount and a picture emerged of a NATO Clandestine Planning Committee, responsible for the Gladio armies; of protocols which actively protected right-wing extremists from pursuit since they would be useful in anti-Communist activities. The CPC was run by the US with the UK and France as junior partners, with CIA members present at their meetings. Despite numerous revelations from those who took part, the official NATO position was (and is) one of denial.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-22 2:34
A year later and another directive, the notorious, NSC 10/2 was passed which authorised the CIA to carry out covert actions anywhere in the world. Covert action was defined as activities
'which are conducted or sponsored by this government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and conducted that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorised persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them'.
Specifically this included
'propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition, and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world'.
(DG p.54)
Even though the definition seemed to include everything imaginable - including activities in countries of the ‘free world’ - Hillenkoetter’s successor claimed that by 1951 the CIA covert ops had already ‘far exceeded’ even this.
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-22 2:40
Who's this cia think it is People should be able to have communism if they want it, that's up to them
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-22 2:50
s the cold war ended, this strategy of tension was diversified to include Gladio B, which substitutes Muslims for fascists and neo-nazis. It was exposed by FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds, who revealed "Operation Gladio B" as an FBI codename adopted in 1997 for ongoing relations between US intelligence, the Pentagon and Al Qaeda.[1] Daniel Ellsberg has stated that Edmonds possesses information "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers".[2] She has stated that 9-11 was a Gladio/B Operation[2] and summarizes the objective of Gladio B as:
“projecting U.S. power in the former Soviet sphere of influence to access previously untapped strategic energy and mineral reserves for U.S. and European companies; pushing back Russian and Chinese power; and expanding the scope of lucrative criminal activities, particularly illegal arms and drugs trafficking.”
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-22 3:01
Why spend all this money fighting isis when the yanks can just call them off?
Name:
Anonymous2017-01-22 3:08
And these laws that say any evidence of the government being evil is illegal are terrible!!!!