Recent comments

  • Should football be banned from public schools because of injuries?   1 day 8 hours ago

    Do you believe in alternative therapies personal injury. Are you someone who believes in the interconnectedness of the mind / body / spirit? Then you want to find a degree of a doctor who shares your philosophical convictions. weight loss for men

  • $675000 For Three Speeches   1 day 8 hours ago

    All this BS about who is the most progressive candidate for the Democratic Party will give the GOP amunition if we continue being nasty about it. What we really need to do is stop any Republican from becoming POTUS. If that happens we are really up the creek. I hate seeing the progressives act just like the Retards, beating up each other with the possibility of the other side winning due to our own stupidity. If any of the GOP candidates end up winning we are screwed. We need to wake up! Everything we are spewing will be thrown right back at us.

  • Election Dirty Tricks of 2016   1 day 8 hours ago

    cointelpro-101 documents the lengths police states go too when the populace seeks civil rights, voting rights, and progress.

    '94 was when Clinton signed the first anti-lynching bill into law 135 years after the Emancipation Proclamation (an executive order btw).

    A senator from WY repesenting .21% of the US population can prevent the other 99.8% of the population from getting what they want and what is right (for 99%, but not for the 1%).

  • Election Dirty Tricks of 2016   1 day 9 hours ago

    I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Bernie and believe he can become POTUS if their is a massive turnout by young voters as happened in 2008. It is possible for progressives to win in the general elections when the turnout is big enough. When that happens the dirty tricks of the Retardlicans don't work. Their crap becomes too obvious. Eventually, their BS will become irrevelant because they just won't have the numbers to pull it off. If progressives can keep on becoming POTUS and making appointments to SCOTUS they will have control of two thirds of the branches. To take control of the last third progressives need to start voting in mass on off-year elections as well. Right now that's the only way the right-wing is maintaining any power at all. We are only hurting ourselves by not paying enough attention to local elections. In the upper left coast, progressives primarily reside west of the mountains near the Pacific while right-wingers live east of the mountains. Progressives vote and pass progressive legislation, but conservatives are able to control that legislation because they win the local elections and have a firm grip on the state legislatures.

  • Election Dirty Tricks of 2016   1 day 10 hours ago

    Quote: Gerrymandering isn't an issue when it comes to state-wide voting, and SCOTUS can only play a role in the highly unusual type of circumstance we experienced in 2000. -

    some states are considering gerrymandering the electoral count which gave PA GOP 13 seats for 47% of the vote and Democrats 5 house seats for 51% of the vote. That formula replacing winner take all gives the GOP an electoral majority with a popular minority. A challenge would go to SCOTUS, and 2000 redux the likely result.

  • $675000 For Three Speeches   1 day 10 hours ago

    Quote Art:

    It's unfortunate (for people who want so badly to smear Mrs. Clinton) that she wasn't even in Government at the time of those speeches. She was entitled to receive the going rate for a speech from a person of her stature as a former Secretary of state.

    Art, for gods sake, you swerved into the correct word. "Entitled" to totally all about the Clintons.

    Wake up and smell the graft. The $675,000 has nothing to do with anyone caring what she has to say, in fact if the text does get released I'll bet they are real snoozers.

    The $675,000 is a legal way to bribe her and collect future favors. All the bullshit about that is what they offered is as phony as all the rhetoric she pumps out during her debates.

    Support her, vote for her, but like Hartmann and all the other suckers that do so, understand she makes Obama look like a flaming communist leftie.

    You and your dog are being conned and she isn't really even good at it.

  • Degrowth   1 day 11 hours ago

    The Euro is a mess, but Iceland stood up to the bankers and told them to get the hell out while they began prosecuting them for fraud. Norway, Denmark, and Sweden did not adopt the Euro currency. Iceland learned to avoid American advice, they don't believe in fraud while the US celebrates it.

    Central America was doing well adopting the Christian Liberty doctrine (name might be wrong, but it was Christianity according to Jesus, a radical concept). Priests and Nuns were adoptind a communal/semi-socialist system that works for poor agricultural based economies. The locals owned and farmed their own natural resources. Reagan trained death squads and slaughtered Nuns, Priests, teachers, village elders, and committed genocide in Guatemala killing the indigenous indian population, similar to Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and more. Harold Pinter explains. (2 parts)

    John Perkins, "Confessions of a Corporate Hitman" is doing speeches for the right side now, while the Vulture, aka Paul Singer just underwrote Rubio. Addelsson and the Kochs are behind him too. Greg Palast has a movie coming out soon highlighting all the fraud in US elections. Thom Hartmann had him on the Big Picture in fall of '15 after Harvard ranked USA 26th worldwide for election integrity. On the bright side, it beat Mexico.

  • Degrowth   1 day 11 hours ago

    Good on ya!

  • Election Dirty Tricks of 2016   1 day 12 hours ago

    Garrett78, I agree with most of what you're saying. I argue in favor of Bernie because of his integrity, not because I believe the country is ready to adopt his ideas. Sadly, I don't think we're there yet, and I agree it has to come from the bottom up, not the top down. Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader recently had an interesting conversation about the election and the current state of affairs. You can find it on YouTube if you type in "Chris Hedges Ralph Nader Sanders Clinton". It's only about ten minutes long, but they raise some valid concerns.

    For the record, I don't think calling Hillary a "Republican-lite" is hyperbolic. Chomsky, Papantonio, Hedges, and Nader (to name a few) have all said essentially the same thing. She and the party have moved to the right, farther than Eisenhower, and are more in line with traditional conservatives. The only reason I said "lite" is because she's not nuts like Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, or Sarah Palin.

    I have no problem with someone voting Green. No one is served by a two-party system. That's essentially a dichotomy. And, as Democrats have moved to the right, it's not even much of a choice -- unless we're talking wedge issues like God, guns, gays, and abortion.

    The question is whether this is going to be an easy win for the Democrats or an uphill battle. I think when you factor in fraud and the vitriol the Republican base has against Hillary (forget Sanders supporters, which pales in comparison), it's going to be very close. I may be wrong, but I'm concerned. The DNC's strategy, or lack there of, has certainly not been very good up to this point.

  • $675000 For Three Speeches   1 day 13 hours ago

    Yeah, I get it. You're a Clinton supporter, and you're just fine with the status quo. That's cool. Just don't complain when either A) she loses because Republicans hate her and turn out in huge numbers to vote against her, while the base she failed to rally stays home or B) she becomes president and continues selling out the working class, as Obama has done such a great job of.

    Her record and affiliations are there for everyone to see. There are no secrets. You can rationalize until the cows come home, but no one can claim ignorance at this point. Personally, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would support her, other than the first female president thing, but by all means go for it. Enjoy! But in four years time I don't want to hear any Clinton supporters going "gee who'd have thought that would happen??" or "I didn't know."

    We already saw this crap with Obama, so fool me once...

  • Regarding that pesky “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment, what exactly did it mean?   1 day 13 hours ago
    Quote ulTRAX:The belief that all able bodied men capable of bearing arms = the militia is fine as a political theory. It may even exist somewhere. BUT ONCE CODIFIED BY DECREE OR LAWS OVERRIDES YOUR THEORY... THE MILITIA IS WHAT IS DEFINED IN LAW. Its those LAWS that define the militia, who must participate, the penalties not participating... who is in charge... not your theory. And there's NO shortage of such laws... all of which you seem determined to negate with the wave of your magic wand.

    "The law" explicitly states that the militia is all able-bodied men aged 18-45 capable of bearing arms. Not any system of select state militias. Also, what "the militia" was understood to be at the time is very important, and it is clear to the Founders that it consisted of all able-bodied freemen, not any select militias. That is why Hamilton states that trying to discipline the whole militia to make it equivalent to well-trained troops would be impossible and would detriment the national economy, and that in his opinion, select militia could be created to supplement it. It is why in the Virginia Ratification debates, they distinguish multiple times between "the militia" and "select militia" and state that "the militia" is "the whole people.'

    Guns don't exist in nature. The best you can claim is a right to property, and a right to self defense.

    Human is a tool-making animal. That is what we are specifically evolved to do. Human does not survive without making tools. Even the most primitive humans, what you could consider to be actual "wild humans," humans in their wilderness state, such as hunter-gatherer tribes, make tools and weapons that in comparison to other animals are far more complex. Tool use and use of weapons is essential for the human to survive. Almost none of these tools exists in nature.

    Arms are a form of tool. Whether that be a rock, a stone axe made by carving an axe head and hafting it to a wooden shaft, a spear, a knife, a bow-and arrow, or a gun, all are tools the human uses for self-defense. Denial of the tools of self-defense is a denial of the right itself. So yes there is a right to own a gun.

    Arms historically were used for two things: self-defense and hunting. And self-defense and hunting predate humanity. Politics predates humanity. Chimpanzees have politics and engage in warfare and hunting, and our ancestors were once as primitive as the chimpanzees in behavior.

    See above. Once a militia IS formally created... your theory is overridden BY LAW. AGAIN... we KNOW who is the constitutional militia of the Art1 and 2 by who historically it applied to: Those formally created state militias subject to both STATE and FEDERAL laws. Your drunken loons playing soldier in the woods ARE NOT THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA OF THE SECOND.

    There is no well regulated militia of the Second as that is merely a declarative, not a conditional, statement. And there were no formally-created state militias that the Constitution applies to. It only applies to the militia, which was understood as consisting of all able-bodied freemen. There is nothing about any formally-created state militias in the Constitution. It says nothing about "the militias" or "the state militias." Only "the militia." As I've said before, the entire states right argument depends on claiming, based on nothing, that the wording "the militia" in the Constitution refers to state militias, because otherwise the whole argument falls apart.

    The loons playing militia in the woods, under law, would be considered part of the militia, but their own little private militia force that they have formed is not a recognized militia by the government.

  • Regarding that pesky “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment, what exactly did it mean?   1 day 13 hours ago
    Quote ulTRAX:1: I've read much of this intellectually dishonest Gun Nut "research". It's laughable. It starts with a conclusion and selectively looks for what supports it. The best theory is that which explains the most... and theories like yours are massive fails.

    You must not have read much on the subject then.

    2: You can't accuse me of merely wanting to use the Militia Clause to disarm Gun Nuts. I've stated repeatedly that I'm just reading the Second AS WRITTEN... and refuse to bastardize. The protector of general liberty is the neglected NINTH... and in this regard my view is any limitation on rights that exceeds legitimate intent is an abuse of power. So, for example, my views on most drugs would be blanket prohibitions are unconstitutional. Laws must be made in ways to protect the rights of the responsible drug user. Same with guns. Like the NRA I have no problems with background checks. But it was irresponsible for them to reverse their position on the private sale loophole which allows guns to enter the illegal market. The idea that we should have more limitations on who can drive than who can own a gun is socially irresponsible.

    You misunderstand the NRA's position and the issue of private sales. For one, private sales are not a "loophole." That is a term thrown about by the gun control proponents. The background check law never was written to apply to private sales. The reason why the NRA reversed their position on the issue of private sales is because after much research, they concluded that the only known way to enforce any system of universal background checks is via the creation of a federal registry, and historically, gun registries always lead to confiscation, both in other countries and in this country.

    It wouldn't need to be even the federal government doing the confiscating, it could be the federal government making the registry available to the state governments that wanted to use it to go about confiscating certain guns by themselves, say guns that they arbitrarily label as "assault weapons." There is precedent for this given how the Obama administration is seeking to make the Terrorist Watch List available to the state governments.

    Regarding cars, there is no analogy there. For one, no one is hellbent on banning automobiles or even certain types of automobiles. But also, you actually do not need a driver's license to own or operate a car. You only need a license to own or operate a car on public grounds. So long as you keep the vehicle on private grounds, you do not need a license, registration, insurance, etc...any of that. The only analogy of driver's licenses to cars would be in carrying guns out in public.

    Driver's licenses are Shall Issue, meaning if you want one, you just have to meet the (very lenient) requirements in order to get one and they give it to you. You do not have to undergo a background check or justify to the government why they should give you a driver's license. Driver's licenses are also completely reciprocal, i.e. all states accept each other's driver's licenses. They aren't like gun licenses, where say a license to carry a gun in Pennsylvania will not be accepted in New York and a New York State license will not be accepted in New York City. There is no federal requirement for a license. You also do not need to undergo a background check to buy a car or sell a car.

    If cars were regulated like the gun control proponents want to regulate guns, you'd see things like the following:

    1) All cars limited to 50 horsepower, as no one "needs" anymore then that. Only the police and government will have the powerful cars

    2) All cars limited to top speed of 60 mph, as no one "needs" to go faster than that.

    3) All cars limited to 0-60 acceleration in no less than 14 seconds, as no one "needs" to accelerate faster than that

    4) Sports cars outlawed. They serve no utility purpose whatsoever and their only purpose is to allow the driver to go up to illegal speeds

    5) SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans outlawed unless one has a special license, which will be May Issue (i.e. the person must justify to the government why they be allowed to own one).

    6) All SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans limited to 120 horsepower.

    Now to actually do this would be rather authoritarian, don't you think?

    You've refuted nothing. You've invented a phantom militia with smoke and mirrors, and you dismiss what was actually written into law. Your argument is that of a clever 8th grader and you've deluded yourself that you hold the truth of the universe. some

    The "phantom militia" you speak of is mentioned a multitude of times by the Founders themselves. It is the state militias you speak of that no one ever talks about.

    The clause in question isn't a mere declaration... it's a MANDATE:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    The wording places limits on Congress's ability in granting intellectual property monopolies... that the protections are limited to something new, and that these monopolies will never be gifts from government but designed to last ONLY as long as they promote progress. Feel free to declare that mandate meaningless. Oh, you already have.

    It's not a conditional clause. Or else the government's ability to protect things like various music albums, movies, video games, books, magazines, etc...would be extremely limited. The prefatory clause in the Second similarly is not a conditional clause.

    ROTF... that was a matter up to the states. You can't have it both ways... even if that's the heart of your dishonest agenda. You can't say the Second is a limitation on federal power in an area it was never given direct power over. It was a limitation on the federal government's power over THE STATE MILITIAS you do and don't believe exist. And NO... it's not your bullsh*t phantom militias... BUT WELL REGULATED MILITIAS... and FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE... just as was requested by some states. We can EASILY identify these militias BY HOW THEY MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF ART 1 and 2. That militia, today, are the state national guards.

    You don't understand the anti-Federalists. The Federalists themselves would have agreed with you, and said that the Second Amendment wasn't needed because it does as you say, places a limit on a power the Constitution doesn't grant the government in the first place. As I've pointed out, that's why the Federalists didn't support a Bill of Rights. That's why Hamilton in the Federalist papers states that there is no need to write a portection of the free press as the government is granted no authority to restrain the press in the first place. And by writing such a protection, it could give the impression that the government does have the power to restrain it.

    There was only one problem with that though: The anti-Federalists didn't but it. To them, ambitious politicians could claim that if there was no explicit restraint on the government's ability to infringe on the right, then the government could infringe on it as much as it wanted. Just read the writings of the anti-Federalists. Start with Patrick Henry, a guy who found fault with nearly every aspect of the Constitution. The anti-Federalists lost in the end, but not 100% as the Federalists still needed their support for getting the Constitution ratified. So they promised to add a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was thus only added by the Founders to satisfy the anti-Federalists, not because they themselves thought it necessary.

    Your state militias argument has no support anywhere nor any historical precedent. You claim, based on nothing, that the Second was about limiting federal power over these phantom state militias that you claim existed, when the only reference ever used is to "the militia." Sometimes "the militia of the states," but never "the militias" and loads of distinctions made between "the militia" and "select militia." Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the authority to regulate the militia, but the militia itself is unregulated unless or until Congress regulates it.

    The National Guard is a system of select militia and funded by the federal government, not the state governments.

    Nope, state control of their STATE militias was ceded to the federal government in two core respects...

    1: A: that a militia could be federalized. The states did have some concerns about this, but when it came to requesting an amendment it was the fear

    B: the states could not arm or train their own militias should Congress neglect them. The Second guarantees this will not happen by placing a limitation on Congress's Art 1, sec 8 powers.

    Again, you are making up this bit about state militias. There is nothing to support it. The militia itself came under the control of the government. There was concern that the Federal government could disarm the militia and neglect the militia and form select militia, which was all a major concern of the anti-Federalists. There were no select state militias though.The Second makes a declarative statement about the importance of a well-regulated (i.e. well-functioning) militia, then explicitly protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

    As for Congress changing Madison's wording... you'll recall that Madison speculated that the state militias UNDER STATE CONTROL... might be used to restore constitutional rule to the federal government should it go rogue. The word change effectively cuts off that possibility but certainly meets the requests of the states who asked for a limit on Congress's control over state militias... FOR THEIR OWN SECURITY.

    You're making things up again. Madison speculated nothing about "state militias." Nor did any of the states ask for a limit on Congress's control over state militias. The concern was over the militia period. Madison's wording was changed because "free country" implies that a well functioning militia is only important to a free country, when historically it was all kinds of states to which a well functioning militia was important, ranging from the Italian city-states of the Middle Ages to the Greek city-states of ancient times, to England, etc...and yes the militia very much can check a federal tyranny should one form.

  • $675000 For Three Speeches   1 day 14 hours ago

    It's unfortunate (for people who want so badly to smear Mrs. Clinton) that she wasn't even in Government at the time of those speeches. She was entitled to receive the going rate for a speech from a person of her stature as a former Secretary of state. To claim that she was an "active member of the Government" seems pretty unaware to me. As a former government employee, she did not represent you or anybody. (Perhaps you are not aware of the timeline of her career). She would be a fool not to. If you are unhappy with how much prominent political people get paid for their speeches, you should be taking that up with somebody else. Simply because her speaking fees strike you as "insane" does not negate the fact that that is how much such people are offered for their speeches. They just are.

  • $675000 For Three Speeches   1 day 14 hours ago

    Oh, and Legend, Mrs. Clinton has spent the better part of her professional life, from the time she graduated from Law School , on women's and family issues. Her resume is public record. It seems pretty ridiculous to claim that she knows nothing about the needs of woman entrepreneurs.

  • If You Want to Win, Go Progressive   1 day 15 hours ago

    I don't want a moderate! I especially don't want a centrist! I want a human leader that is working for the best interest of us and the environment. It's very simple and plain. Have the integrity, guts and convictions to make a real difference and SCREW the status quo!

    Viva la revolution! Bernie Sanders 2016!

  • $675000 For Three Speeches   1 day 15 hours ago

    It's unfortunate (for people who want so badly to smear Mrs. Clinton) that she wasn't even in Government at the time of those speeches. She was entitled to receive the going rate for a speech from a person of her stature as a former Secretary of state. Hardly an "active member of the Government". As a former government employee, she did not represent you or anybody. (Perhaps you are not aware of the timeline of her career). She would be a fool not to. If you are unhappy with how much people get paid for their speeches, you should be taking that up with somebody else.

  • Election Dirty Tricks of 2016   1 day 17 hours ago
    Quote Northwest Doug:

    I keep hearing how Bernie or Hillary could win and become a democratic socialist POTUS or first woman POTUS. I truly doubt either of those are possibilities with a right-wing SCOTUS, Karl Rove lerking in the background, rigged voting machines still in place, gerrymandering, voter suppression, rigged electoral colleges in the States, and ultra-nasty smear adds funded by the Koch Brothers, plus numerous other devious tricks. Unless those issues are addressed I don't see a Democrat being POTUS no matter who gets the nomination. Good Luck!

    Election fraud and voter suppression are legitimate concerns. Still, the Democratic Party nominee only needs to win either Ohio or Florida to guarantee an easy victory, and can conceivably reach 270 without either of those states.

    Gerrymandering isn't an issue when it comes to state-wide voting, and SCOTUS can only play a role in the highly unusual type of circumstance we experienced in 2000.

  • Is HILLARY a PSYCHOPATH or just feeding RED MEAT to a SICK and TWISTED AMERICAN ELECTORATE   1 day 17 hours ago

    Robert Zubrin, an advocate for American Energy Independence from Middle East, Terrorist sponsoring dictators, has a lot of info on the incredible Saudi influence on American politics. They are even major shareholders in big US & EU mainstream media. Note the redacted pages of the 9/11 report, that corrupt politicians refuse to release to the public, that details Saudi deep involvement in the 9/11 terror attack.

    They even gave Colin Powell a brand spanking new Jaguar one week after he left office, as a gift for being such a good friend. Sort of thing they do a lot of. This sort of thing goes far, far beyond the usual campaign contributions & speaking fees. Every slimy politician knows when they get booted out of office, they "will be looked after by their friends". Including Obama.

    Achieving Energy Victory by Robert Zubrin:

    "..Saudi Arabia is the primary global financier of the Islamist terror cult. Until the Saudis started racking up billions in inflated oil revenues in the 1970s, the Wahhabi movement was regarded by Muslims the world over as little more than primitive insanity. Without rivers of treasure to feed its roots, this horrific movement could neither grow nor thrive. It is the Saudis’ unlimited funds — over $200 billion in foreign exchange earnings in 2006 — that have allowed them to buy up the faculties of the Islamic world’s leading intellectual centers; to build or take over thousands of mosques; to establish thousands of radical madrassas, pay their instructors, and provide the free daily meals necessary to entice legions of poor village boys to attend. Those boys are indoctrinated with the idea that the way to get into paradise is to murder Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, and Hindus (not to mention moderate Muslims). Graduates of these academies are today killing American soldiers in Iraq. Meanwhile, Arab oil revenues have underwritten news outlets that propagandize hatefully against the United States and the West, supported training centers for terrorists, paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers, and funded the purchase of weapons and explosives. We have been subsidizing a war against ourselves...."

    A mainstream government Saudi publication claimed US soldiers harvest organs from killed Iraq civilians and sold them on the black market. That's our ally. We finance to the tune of 100's of $billions per year. And they are largely responsible for the export of the fundamentalist Islamic religion that promotes terrorism.

  • Example Of The Old Fairness Doctrine At Work: CBS Spectrum 1972   1 day 18 hours ago
    Quote gumball:

    Why? Has it not been shown that government was the final arbiter of what a legitimate view was?

    I see you edited out the question:

    You're clinging to the idea that the government was deciding who's viewpoints were valid. If you had bothered to read the book you found, you'd see this was not the case. But they we're using their power to enforce the idea that various sides of controversial issues were aired.

    If even with the book that YOU FOUND if you have no evidence for your view... then maybe it's time you owned up for a change. The FCC simply wasn't the overlord you imply. But then you never concede anything, do you? You just do what you always do... jump to another issue.

    The book is critical of the FCC for lack of enforcement. For instance there were 3113 Equal Time complaints made to the FCC in 1976 which presumably means all other ET requests we dealt with locally. The result was only 16 Equal Time actions. 8 were "adverse ratings"... whatever that means. 6 license forfeitures and two other unstated actions. Even if the FCC was lax, how many thousands of ET requests were made and permitted WITHOUT complaints to the FCC? We have no numbers.

    Your claim is that the FCC was some big bad bogyman when it only took action in 1 of 200 formal complaints... which means the process obviously reached some satisfactory agreement in 199 of 200 cases. And you still refuse to look at all the good the FD doctrine did in encouraging some degree of fairness in covering controversial issues... and allowing equal time so the community could respond to editorials. This might never happened without some enforcement power behind the FD. Only someone who wants broadcasters to propagandize with impunity would get hysterical as you do about the FD.

  • Is HILLARY a PSYCHOPATH or just feeding RED MEAT to a SICK and TWISTED AMERICAN ELECTORATE   1 day 19 hours ago

    INSTANT i was shocked in the past when i learned of the things Gaddafi did for the people of Libya. The US media had painted the man the devil himself.

    Alice as you probably know , you wouldn't want to be a woman in Americas ally Saudi Arabia. ALL Saudi women must have a male guardian.

    If you're GAY in Saudi Arabia , male or female, consider yourself dead, because once the grim reaper known as the Religious Police catch up with you, you're as good as dead.

    Saudi women were not allowed to vote up until 2011, but even then they are only allowed to vote in minor elections.

    Saudi men wishes and demands trump all womens rights.

    Go anywhere without a chaperone

    Saudi women need to be accompanied by a male guardian known as a 'mahram' whenever they leave the house. The guardian is often a male relative and will accompany women on all of their errands, including shopping trips and visits to the doctor.

    Drive a car

    There is no official law that bans women from driving but deeply held religious beliefs prohibit it, with Saudi clerics arguing that female drivers "undermine social values".

    Wear clothes or make-up that "show off their beauty"

    The dress code for women is governed by a strict interpretation of Islamic law and is enforced to varying degrees across the country. The majority of women are forced to wear an abaya – a long black cloak – and a head scarf.

    Interact with men

    Women are required to limit the amount of time spent with men they are not related to. The majority of public buildings including offices, banks and universities have separate entrances for men and women, the Daily Telegraph reports.

  • Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror   1 day 19 hours ago

    An excellent summary of all the devious crud these ruling Bankster & Ultra-rich Globalist Elites and their crony politicians have engaged in. You just wonder what despicable plots they are engineering at present. I'm convinced they deliberately created this refugee invasion of Europe in order to create social chaos, terrorism and thereupon justify a gestapo or stazi-like police state. As has been happening in the USA.

    Does anyone ever stop to wonder how it is our politicians, media and law enforcement leadership just absolutely love terrorism? They just can't stop hyping it. And the FBI even recruits mentally handicapped or burnt out druggies who are Muslims to become showcase "terrorists".

  • If You Want to Win, Go Progressive   1 day 19 hours ago

    Ten Ways Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush Are Basically the Same Presidential Candidate:

    15 Ways Bill Clinton’s White House Failed America and the World. Many Americans do not associate Clinton with his dark legacy:

    The Dark Side Of Hillary Clinton Section 1 - Lies & Political Convenience:



  • Lloyd Blankfein\Hillary Clinton e-mail clarifies our attack on Libya was motivated to stop Libya from setting up new gold back currency that would have completed with the USD throughout Africa.   1 day 19 hours ago

    And Libya, like Iraq negotiated an end to its nuclear weapons program in return for protection from International efforts to overthrow their governments. Some foolish deal that proved to be. No wonder Iran is interested in having a nuclear umbrella. Deals signed by the EU & the USA aren't worth the paper they are written on.

    US foreign policy flowchart:

    Moral of the story, if you have any resources coveted by International Banksters or Multi-national companies, or you have thoughts of starting your own publicly owned, no-debt currency, you better start building nuclear weapons, to protect against a US or NATO led invasion. Mind you the CIA will probably just assassinate your leader like they did Chavez.

  • We pay for the uninsured already! Medicare for all will save money!   1 day 19 hours ago

    Kpax, I hear ya. They push papers for profit while people die. And talk about death panels... Don't get me started!

  • Is HILLARY a PSYCHOPATH or just feeding RED MEAT to a SICK and TWISTED AMERICAN ELECTORATE   1 day 19 hours ago

    We seem to be on the same page with this stuff, Zapdam. I have always resented the hypocrisy of corporate media, hammering at us with gruesome tales of ISIS beheadings and so on while ignoring all the beheadings, stonings ad nauseam carried out routinely in Saudi Arabia. I tell ya Zap, there is no country outside the U.S. I hold greater contempt towards than Saudi Arabia, and for more reasons than one. That certain members of our power elite have this cozy relationship with the Saudi royal family is something I’ve always found very troubling.

    As you describe the brutal regimes this country has been allies with, it has a familiar ring to it. Countries like Vietnam, Iraq and Iran are bosom buddies one year, adversaries the next, depending on what’s politically expedient to these chest thumpin’ egomaniacs at any given time.

Latest Headlines

One Iowa Caucus Delegate Comes Down To Coin Toss

The Iowa caucus convener flipped a coin. Bernie Sanders supporters called "heads" and it landed on tails.

Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by 31 points in N.H.: Poll

Sanders was at 61 percent support in the University of Massachusetts Lowell/7News poll, followed by Mrs. Clinton, at 30 percent

Martin O'Malley suspends presidential campaign after Iowa caucuses

The announcement came after O'Malley barely registered in Iowa against his better-known rivals Clinton and Sanders, failing to meet already low expectations

Corporate-Managed Trade Deals Screw America

The New Hampshire primary is now just one day away, and differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton couldn’t be clearer, especially when it comes to so-called free trade.

While Secretary Clinton’s views on corporate-managed trade have changed a lot over the years, Bernie’s haven’t.