im really pissed with these elites purposely using the word "democracy" wrong. . for fucks sakes, democracy means people choose what they want (and to know what the people want you need to have a free exchange of ideas) not what the elites want, something is not a threat to democracy just because YOU dont like it obama.
Well what he's really saying is "The internet is messing up our "illusion of democracy that we use to control the masses and narrative" and therefore it is a threat to "our democratic system".
that empty suit got crushed in every negotiation he slunk his way into, to the point where he agreed to send iran literal piles of cash to get nothing in return
So it looks like I had it wrong. There are two different stories here. First with the signing of the JCPOA there were accounts in foreign banks, not US banks, that belonged to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) that were unfrozen, these funds were/are a part of The CBI’s reserves, not deposits of Iranian nationals. According to the US Treasury the amount unfrozen was about $50 billion (https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0144.aspx). Second there was a cash payment made by the Obama admin of $1.3 billion. The cash delivered was to settle an outstanding debt the US had with Iran. Before the Islamic revolution the Iranian government paid $400 million to the US for weapons. Once the revolution occurred the weapons were never delivered. The $1.3 billion cash payment settled the outstanding debt with interest (https://archive.is/nYq94).
Before the Islamic revolution the Iranian government paid $400 million to the US for weapons. Once the revolution occurred the weapons were never delivered. The $1.3 billion cash payment settled the outstanding debt with interest
The brass balls on the Iranians to even think to ask for this. Though it worked (and presumably, will again).
i really dont like obama but that one was so iran wouldnt build nukes wasnt it?
its still a better deal than giving israel billions every year for actually nothing in return
I agree with some of what he's saying: "The degree to which these companies are insisting that they are more like a phone company than they are like The Atlantic, I do not think is tenable. They are making editorial choices, whether they’ve buried them in algorithms or not."
That's the censorship we've been seeing across all these sites, and it's putting the tech companies in the role of a publisher.
He says democracy, but means oligarchy if he just means "the internet" but .. ... it's the way the oligarchs are using the internet that is dangerous to true democracy.
He's clearly just another one that views any argument against their narrative as totally opposite. If you just look at his points on climate change.
I can have an argument with you about what to do about climate change. I can even accept somebody making an argument that, based on what I know about human nature, it’s too late to do anything serious about this—the Chinese aren’t going to do it, the Indians aren’t going to do it—and that the best we can do is adapt. I disagree with that, but I accept that it’s a coherent argument. I don’t know what to say if you simply say, “This is a hoax that the liberals have cooked up, and the scientists are cooking the books. And that footage of glaciers dropping off the shelves of Antarctica and Greenland are all phony.” Where do I start trying to figure out where to do something?
Just look at this, the argument he considers the middle ground is pretty much, "I totally agree with climate change, but it's too late and we're already fucked." Anything further away from that instantly becomes an actual conspiracy theory hoax. There is a lot of space in between those two. Perhaps, for example, one believes the collected data (i.e. the actual facts) is valid, but the theory that these facts point to the impending apocalypse if we don't take drastic action, is invalid.
That's really the problem with their entire mindset though. Deviate from the narrative more than about 10%, and you're instantly a total nut conspiracy theorist.
im really pissed with these elites purposely using the word "democracy" wrong. . for fucks sakes, democracy means people choose what they want (and to know what the people want you need to have a free exchange of ideas) not what the elites want, something is not a threat to democracy just because YOU dont like it obama.
It's straight out of their color revolution manuals.
This is what the left does. Slowly they change the definition of words to weaponize them as tools to brainwash the masses with.
It looks like democracy is next on the chopping block.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/11Q8gs8wcz/this-is-dangerous-to-our-democra/c/
Its not an accident.
He’s not wrong in that statement. But not for the reasons he thinks.
Well what he's really saying is "The internet is messing up our "illusion of democracy that we use to control the masses and narrative" and therefore it is a threat to "our democratic system".
that empty suit got crushed in every negotiation he slunk his way into, to the point where he agreed to send iran literal piles of cash to get nothing in return
That isn't a fuck up. It's a good way to fund terrorism.
Edited: explanation below
So it looks like I had it wrong. There are two different stories here. First with the signing of the JCPOA there were accounts in foreign banks, not US banks, that belonged to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) that were unfrozen, these funds were/are a part of The CBI’s reserves, not deposits of Iranian nationals. According to the US Treasury the amount unfrozen was about $50 billion (https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0144.aspx). Second there was a cash payment made by the Obama admin of $1.3 billion. The cash delivered was to settle an outstanding debt the US had with Iran. Before the Islamic revolution the Iranian government paid $400 million to the US for weapons. Once the revolution occurred the weapons were never delivered. The $1.3 billion cash payment settled the outstanding debt with interest (https://archive.is/nYq94).
The brass balls on the Iranians to even think to ask for this. Though it worked (and presumably, will again).
So he did just arbitrarily pay them a bunch of extra money for nebulous reasons?
Always heard about those pallets of cash but never actually knew the details.
hah wow thats even worse than I thought it was
i really dont like obama but that one was so iran wouldnt build nukes wasnt it? its still a better deal than giving israel billions every year for actually nothing in return
that was to get them to "say" they wouldn't build nukes with no meaningful enforcement mechanism
The money is part of the black funds that finance terror worldwide. He knew what he was doing
Vox's take is where I stole this headline.
I agree with some of what he's saying: "The degree to which these companies are insisting that they are more like a phone company than they are like The Atlantic, I do not think is tenable. They are making editorial choices, whether they’ve buried them in algorithms or not."
That's the censorship we've been seeing across all these sites, and it's putting the tech companies in the role of a publisher.
Well, if he means 'democracy' as 'democrat rule', he might have a point.
"how dare these retarded proles catch us cheating"
A reminder that when they say "our" they are referring to Globohomo
By "our" he means "mine and my friends'", not "the people's".
He says democracy, but means oligarchy if he just means "the internet" but .. ... it's the way the oligarchs are using the internet that is dangerous to true democracy.
You know. The guy that killed tens of millions of people and fucked so hard he has millions of descendants.
He's clearly just another one that views any argument against their narrative as totally opposite. If you just look at his points on climate change.
Just look at this, the argument he considers the middle ground is pretty much, "I totally agree with climate change, but it's too late and we're already fucked." Anything further away from that instantly becomes an actual conspiracy theory hoax. There is a lot of space in between those two. Perhaps, for example, one believes the collected data (i.e. the actual facts) is valid, but the theory that these facts point to the impending apocalypse if we don't take drastic action, is invalid.
That's really the problem with their entire mindset though. Deviate from the narrative more than about 10%, and you're instantly a total nut conspiracy theorist.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
He's right though. Even this forum has potential enemies of the state