What Republicans do

[David Horn]

(02-13-2017, 02:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 10:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 09:14 PM)Marypoza Wrote: To recap: X was wondering where our 21 century George Washington is. I have seen in other threads ppl wondering where our Roosevelt is.  I say he got sabotaged. To bring it in line with S&H: we had a chance last yr to have our own Washington/Roosevelt. The DNC shut him down. Not only that they "elevated" (their term) the Donald so that he would be the repug candidate.  So yeah, they stuck us with the Donald. & as a result this 4T is heading down a different path.

Those are facts. In black & white. Read the damn emails instead of arguing with me & anybody else here who mentions them.

I don't think Bernie had a real shot, to be perfectly frank.  He had a great message, and still does.  If it generates enough support to elect someone, it will  be someone else.  Start looking.  BS and EW are too old to be elected in 2020.  Sherrod Brown perhaps?

Sherrod is 3 1/2 years younger than Warren, who is 8 years younger than Sanders. Sherrod may be a possible winner, and has a Rust Belt advantage, but I am concerned about his ability as a speaker.

I am still waiting for David to say whether his VA governor is someone he could get behind. He may not be. But I do look at his horoscope score, and I see that he has the best chance, if he throws his hat in. He's 4 1/4 years younger than Sherrod.

I think Hillary was a weak candidate, for various reasons. Trump was vulnerable, but his better score carried the day. Someone in Hillary's range politically, but who could be a convincing speaker and good with people like Bill was, would have a good chance, whereas Hillary herself did not have as good a chance. As Trump, Reagan, JFK, and even Bill and George W. proved, show biz counts in the presidential election race.

McAuliffe might not be progressive enough for folks like Marypoza, or even myself (depending on your definition of progressive, I guess). And he does have some scandals in his background, in the tradition of the Clintons. But he might be progressive enough to get us back moving forward, and others will appear later and fill the lower ranks that could push things even further in the 2020s.

McAuliffe is wrong for the times.  There's a bloodlust in the air, and a politicrat like McAuliffe, competent as he has proven to be, is not a good fit.

[David Horn]

(02-14-2017, 01:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: This is what Republicans do.

WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - A congressional tax oversight committee will not seek U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns, despite calls from Democrats for a review to determine possible business ties to foreign countries including Russia, the panel's Republican chairman said on Monday.

"If Congress begins to use its powers to rummage around in the tax returns of the president, what prevents Congress from doing the same to average Americans?" House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady told reporters.

"Privacy and civil liberties are still important rights in this country, and (the) Ways and Means Committee is not going to start to weaken them."

The Texas Republican was responding to questions about a Feb. 1 request from Representative Bill Pascrell, a Ways and Means Democrat who asked him to obtain Trump's returns from Treasury so the committee could review them in closed session and vote on whether to release them to the public.

Defying decades of precedent, Trump has long refused to release the documents, which Democrats say could show whether his sprawling business empire poses any conflicts of interest as he moves forward with initiatives on issues ranging from tax reform to foreign relations.

Catch-22 here.  Everyone is right, so everyone is wrong.  Trump won that battle so, short of an impeachment effort, his returns are sealed.

[Eric the Green]

(02-14-2017, 12:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-13-2017, 02:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 10:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 09:14 PM)Marypoza Wrote: To recap: X was wondering where our 21 century George Washington is. I have seen in other threads ppl wondering where our Roosevelt is.  I say he got sabotaged. To bring it in line with S&H: we had a chance last yr to have our own Washington/Roosevelt. The DNC shut him down. Not only that they "elevated" (their term) the Donald so that he would be the repug candidate.  So yeah, they stuck us with the Donald. & as a result this 4T is heading down a different path.

Those are facts. In black & white. Read the damn emails instead of arguing with me & anybody else here who mentions them.

I don't think Bernie had a real shot, to be perfectly frank.  He had a great message, and still does.  If it generates enough support to elect someone, it will  be someone else.  Start looking.  BS and EW are too old to be elected in 2020.  Sherrod Brown perhaps?

Sherrod is 3 1/2 years younger than Warren, who is 8 years younger than Sanders. Sherrod may be a possible winner, and has a Rust Belt advantage, but I am concerned about his ability as a speaker.

I am still waiting for David to say whether his VA governor is someone he could get behind. He may not be. But I do look at his horoscope score, and I see that he has the best chance, if he throws his hat in. He's 4 1/4 years younger than Sherrod.

I think Hillary was a weak candidate, for various reasons. Trump was vulnerable, but his better score carried the day. Someone in Hillary's range politically, but who could be a convincing speaker and good with people like Bill was, would have a good chance, whereas Hillary herself did not have as good a chance. As Trump, Reagan, JFK, and even Bill and George W. proved, show biz counts in the presidential election race.

McAuliffe might not be progressive enough for folks like Marypoza, or even myself (depending on your definition of progressive, I guess). And he does have some scandals in his background, in the tradition of the Clintons. But he might be progressive enough to get us back moving forward, and others will appear later and fill the lower ranks that could push things even further in the 2020s.

McAuliffe is wrong for the times.  There's a bloodlust in the air, and a politicrat like McAuliffe, competent as he has proven to be, is not a good fit.

Your analysis is spot on, very likely. Glad to finally get it I have a suspicion that "right for the times" may not matter, though; the electability of the candidate (as likely indicated by my scoring system) is what will matter the most. But it would be nice to have someone more in tune with our crisis mood; less "bi-partisan" and politically-calculating in the Clinton tradition. But, perhaps he can adapt, if he decides to run. He does seem capable of laying down some tough stands too. Or, maybe "bi-partisan" will seem like a good alternative in 4 years. We'll see who emerges.

[Marypoza]

Well Eric, looks like you're right about Liz:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/t...ailsignout

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-15-2017, 04:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Well Eric, looks like you're right about Liz:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/t...ailsignout

Early days yet.  Trump really hasn't settled in.  Far too soon to guess the dynamics of 2020.

However, right now I too might go for the horse with no name.

[Ragnarök_62]

Dailycaller Wrote: 
Weekly Standard editor-at-large Bill Kristol said Tuesday afternoon that the white working class should be replaced by immigrants as they have become “decadent, lazy” and “spoiled.”
“Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” Kristol told author Charles Murray during an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute titled “It Came Apart: What’s Next for a Fractured Culture.” Murray recently wrote a book, entitled “Coming Apart,” which focuses on the cultural separation between the wealthiest and most educated white Americans and the poorest and least educated white Americans.
Before delving into his theory about replacing the white working class, Kristol said that he hopes “this thing isn’t being videotaped or ever shown anywhere. Whatever tiny, pathetic future I have is going to totally collapse.”
The event was filmed by AEI, but as of press time is marked “unlisted” on the think tank’s YouTube channel, so that it doesn’t come up in search results.
“You can make a case that America has been great because every — I think John Adams said this — basically if you are in free society, a capitalist society, after two or three generations of hard work everyone becomes kind of decadent, lazy, spoiled — whatever,” Kristol said.
“Then, luckily, you have these waves of people coming in from Italy, Ireland, Russia, and now Mexico, who really want to work hard and really want to succeed and really want their kids to live better lives than them and aren’t sort of clipping coupons or hoping that they can hang on and meanwhile grew up as spoiled kids and so forth. In that respect, I don’t know how this moment is that different from the early 20th century,” he added.
WATCH:

Tags: Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard
  Show comments

Kristol,  you're a racist and a fucking neocon. 

Fuck You!Fuck You!Fuck You!Fuck You!Fuck You!Fuck You!
Eat shit and die, motherfucker.  Go to hell and roast. Rats and roaches are far more worthy of the biomass you're wasting.  I really don't think whites have a monopoly on this behavior.  I dare you to call out any other race that has these sorts of "people".

[Marypoza]

Kristol's a shitbag

[David Horn]

(02-15-2017, 09:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Kristol's a shitbag

Unlike Trump, he's an honest shitbag.  I don't see I'm winning points on the arguments he's making, so he actually, you know, believes this shit.

[Marypoza]

(02-16-2017, 11:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-15-2017, 09:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Kristol's a shitbag

Unlike Trump, he's an honest shitbag.  I don't see I'm winning points on the arguments he's making, so he actually, you know, believes this shit.

-- & that's what makes him scary

[Eric the Green]

We all know that Jeff Sessions is the worst senator in the country, and likely about to become our worst attorney general ever. But who is the worst congressman?

I nominate this guy
https://youtu.be/xecEV4dSAXE?t=19m37s

Lamar Smith, authoritarian and science denier, gerrymandered into his district by defanging the U of Texas vote.



There has always been tension between scientists and Congress. But Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, has escalated that tension into outright war.


http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...ce-rampage

If you know the answers you want in advance, you can always find them by cherry-picking your data. That’s what climate-change deniers have tried to do in recent years in arguing that there’s been a “pause” in the global-warming trend over the past two decades—suggesting, thereby, that global warming is just a temporary anomaly unrelated to human industrial activity. Last year, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put the “climate change hiatus” myth to bed. They published a paper in Science that showed, using new and more definitive data, that the claimed “pause” hadn’t taken place.

Not long after the paper was published, something odd happened. Kathryn Sullivan, the head of N.O.A.A., received a subpoena. It came from Lamar Smith, the Texas congressman who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and it demanded that the N.O.A.A. scientists turn over records and internal communications. They had already turned over their data in response to previous requests but refused to turn over scientists’ correspondence. In a statement, Smith accused the N.O.A.A. scientists of falsifying their data:

It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want. . . . NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda.

From climate change and evolution to sex education and vaccination, there has always been tension between scientists and Congress. But Smith, who has been in Congress since 1987 and assumed the chairmanship of the Science Committee in 2013, has escalated that tension into outright war. Smith has a background in American studies and law, not science. He has, however, received more than six hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the oil-and-gas industry during his time in Congress—more than from any other single industry. With a focus that is unprecedented, he’s now using his position to attack scientists and activists who work on climate change. Under his leadership, the committee has issued more subpoenas than it had during its previous fifty-four-year history.

Smith, a Christian Scientist, has steadfastly campaigned against other scientific findings that cut against his a-priori beliefs—he’s opposed efforts to allow marijuana use for medical purposes, for example, which he has argued do not exist.

Some of his interventions seem to misunderstand the very nature of science. Last year, for example, Smith introduced legislation requiring that all scientists applying for federal grants guarantee, in a special section of their grant applications, that their work is in “the national interest.” It’s hard to know exactly what Smith means by this, but whatever it means it sets a dangerous precedent, because fundamental research should be driven by curiosity—by the simple desire to generate new knowledge—rather than by anyone’s political agenda. The real national interest is always served by the generation of new knowledge; Smith seems to think that only some knowledge is appropriate. The House passed his bill in February.

Throughout the past year, Smith has focussed his attentions on a new target: the Union of Concerned Scientists—of which I am a “card-carrying” member. The U.C.S. is not an academic science organization, per se. Instead, it’s an advocacy group. It was established in 1969, during the height of the Vietnam War, by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who were concerned about the misuse of science for military purposes. Its founders proposed “to initiate a critical and continuing examination of governmental policy in areas where science and technology are of actual or potential significance” and to create an organization to assist “scientists and engineers so that their desire for a more humane and civilized world can be translated into effective political action.” Since that time, the U.C.S. has become one of the most focussed and highest-profile organizations speaking out in favor of sound science and environmental policies based on empirical evidence.

Around eight years ago, the U.C.S. began an ambitious research project about the fossil-fuel industry. U.C.S. researchers wanted to know how long oil companies had known about climate change. In 2015, the U.C.S. published a report suggesting that, even while it knew about global warming, the fossil-fuel industry had produced public disinformation campaigns about the impact of burning fossil fuels on the climate. Since then, at least two teams of reporters, including a group at Columbia University’s journalism school and another at InsideClimate News, have uncovered evidence that ExxonMobil’s own scientists wrote internal reports warning about the impacts of carbon emissions from fossil fuels on their own business model; during that same period, the company was making the opposite case to the public and to investors. Using material obtained from the ExxonMobil Historical Collection at the University of Texas at Austin, as well as other archives and interviews with former employees, they found evidence that Exxon was monitoring CO2 concentrations as far back as 1978, and, in the nineteen-eighties, hired scientists and mathematicians and worked with outside researchers to confirm models showing that greenhouse gases would result in climate change. As a result of these reports, attorneys general from New York, Massachusetts, and the Virgin Islands have begun investigating ExxonMobil for fraud.

Beginning in May of this year, Smith began what can only be described as a campaign of intimidation against the U.C.S. and other environmental organizations involved in researching Exxon’s actions. He demanded that the president of the U.C.S. turn over his organization’s internal e-mail correspondence about the research, as well as correspondence with the attorneys general. The U.C.S. rejected his requests multiple times until, on July 13th, Smith issued a subpoena demanding the documents in question. (Smith, it’s worth pointing out, made no claims about wrongdoing by the U.C.S. or any other organization involved in these investigations.)

Smith’s subpoenas are a direct attack on the rights of scientists and others to conduct research independent of government interference. Ironically, this is precisely the issue raised in the subpoena by Smith and his colleagues. They claim that they are protecting free speech and the right to “fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.” But neither the U.C.S. nor any other group has attacked any of the scientific research conducted at Exxon; instead, they have attacked what they claim to have been a willful public distortion of that research. As Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, stated, “The First Amendment, ladies and gentleman, does not give you the right to commit fraud.”

Smith’s subpoena-happy chairmanship hasn’t come out of nowhere. It apparently depends upon a conviction that the scientific community has a liberal agenda and that, if scientific results conflict with right-wing ideas, the scientists must be lying. And it depends on new rules about subpoena power, enacted by the Republican-dominated Congress in 2015. This is the first Congress in which subpoena power has been given to the majority party without any need to inform or obtain approval from the minority party. Smith’s actions threaten to make attacks on science—or on any other kind of speech—more partisan than ever.

[Eric the Green]

Arizona Republicans shut down first and fourth amendments.

Arizona Capitol Times
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/2...-protests/

Arizona Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent
By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services February 22, 2017 , 5:11 pm


Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.
SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.

But the real heart of the legislation is what Democrats say is the guilt by association — and giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated.

And what’s worse, said Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, is that the person who may have broken a window, triggering the claim there was a riot, might actually not be a member of the group but someone from the other side.

Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix, acknowledged that sometimes what’s planned as a peaceful demonstration can go south.

“When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil, during a time of controversy, during a time of high emotions, that’s exactly when people gather as a community,’’ he said. “Sometimes they yell, sometimes they scream, sometimes they do go too far.’’

Quezada said, though, that everything that constitutes rioting already is a crime, ranging from assault to criminal damage, and those responsible can be individually prosecuted. He said the purpose of this bill appears to be designed to chill the First Amendment rights of people to decide to demonstrate in the first place for fear something could wrong.

But Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said that chilling effect is aimed at a very specific group of protesters.

“You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,’’ he said.

“A lot of them are ideologues, some of them are anarchists,’’ Kavanagh continued. “But this stuff is all planned.’’

There’s something else: By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events. And Kavanagh, a former police officer, said if there are organized groups, “I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there.’’

“Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts?’’ Kavanagh asked colleagues during debate. “Do you really want to wait until people are injuring each other, throwing Molotov cocktails, picking up barricades and smashing them through businesses in downtown Phoenix?’’

Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the new criminal laws are necessary.

“I have been heartsick with what’s been going on in our country, what young people are being encouraged to do,’’ she said.

She agreed with Quezada that there already are laws that cover overt acts. But Allen said they don’t work.

“If they get thrown in jail, somebody pays to get them out,’’ she said. “There has to be something to deter them from that.’’

Farley, however, said the legislation does far more than simply going after those who might incite people to riot, something which actually already is a crime. And he warned Republicans that such a broad law could end up being used against some of their allies.

For example, he said, a “Tea Party’’ group wanting to protest a property tax hike might get permits, publicize the event and have a peaceful demonstration.

“And one person, possibly from the other side, starts breaking the windows of a car,’’ Farley said.

“And all of a sudden the organizers of that march, the local Tea Party, are going to be under indictment from the county attorney in the county that raised those property taxes,’’ he said. “That will have a chilling effect on anybody, right or left, who wants to protest something the government has done.’’

Sen. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said the whole legislation is based on a false premise of how disturbances happen.
“This idea that people are being paid to come out and do that?’’ she said. “I’m sorry, but I think that is fake news.’’

Sen. Andrea Dalessandro, D-Green Valley, had her own concerns.

“I’m fearful that ‘riot’ is in the eyes of the beholder and that this bill will apply more strictly to minorities and people trying to have their voice heard,’’ she said.

The 17-13 party-line vote sends the bill to the House.

[gabrielle]

(02-23-2017, 08:52 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-23-2017, 07:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Arizona Republicans shut down first and fourth amendments.

Arizona Capitol Times
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/2...-protests/

Arizona Senate votes to seize assets of those who plan, participate in protests that turn violent
By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services  February 22, 2017 , 5:11 pm


Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.
SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.

But the real heart of the legislation is what Democrats say is the guilt by association — and giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated.

And what’s worse, said Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, is that the person who may have broken a window, triggering the claim there was a riot, might actually not be a member of the group but someone from the other side.

Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix, acknowledged that sometimes what’s planned as a peaceful demonstration can go south.

“When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil, during a time of controversy, during a time of high emotions, that’s exactly when people gather as a community,’’ he said. “Sometimes they yell, sometimes they scream, sometimes they do go too far.’’

Quezada said, though, that everything that constitutes rioting already is a crime, ranging from assault to criminal damage, and those responsible can be individually prosecuted. He said the purpose of this bill appears to be designed to chill the First Amendment rights of people to decide to demonstrate in the first place for fear something could wrong.

But Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said that chilling effect is aimed at a very specific group of protesters.

“You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,’’ he said.

“A lot of them are ideologues, some of them are anarchists,’’ Kavanagh continued. “But this stuff is all planned.’’

There’s something else: By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events. And Kavanagh, a former police officer, said if there are organized groups, “I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there.’’

“Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts?’’ Kavanagh asked colleagues during debate. “Do you really want to wait until people are injuring each other, throwing Molotov cocktails, picking up barricades and smashing them through businesses in downtown Phoenix?’’

Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the new criminal laws are necessary.

“I have been heartsick with what’s been going on in our country, what young people are being encouraged to do,’’ she said.

She agreed with Quezada that there already are laws that cover overt acts. But Allen said they don’t work.

“If they get thrown in jail, somebody pays to get them out,’’ she said. “There has to be something to deter them from that.’’

Farley, however, said the legislation does far more than simply going after those who might incite people to riot, something which actually already is a crime. And he warned Republicans that such a broad law could end up being used against some of their allies.

For example, he said, a “Tea Party’’ group wanting to protest a property tax hike might get permits, publicize the event and have a peaceful demonstration.

“And one person, possibly from the other side, starts breaking the windows of a car,’’ Farley said.

“And all of a sudden the organizers of that march, the local Tea Party, are going to be under indictment from the county attorney in the county that raised those property taxes,’’ he said. “That will have a chilling effect on anybody, right or left, who wants to protest something the government has done.’’

Sen. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said the whole legislation is based on a false premise of how disturbances happen.
“This idea that people are being paid to come out and do that?’’ she said. “I’m sorry, but I think that is fake news.’’

Sen. Andrea Dalessandro, D-Green Valley, had her own concerns.

“I’m fearful that ‘riot’ is in the eyes of the beholder and that this bill will apply more strictly to minorities and people trying to have their voice heard,’’ she said.

The 17-13 party-line vote sends the bill to the House.

There is this meme "Soros is paying the professional protestors."

That meme needs to be tracked to its source.

May be of foreign origin.

Ah yes, the protester "profession."

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-24-2017, 04:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: What Republicans used to do:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-on...story.html

"If the occasion was intended as a personal celebration, it also had the feel of a wake for a time in politics long passed."

Dunno,  I got this:

"Advertising revenue helps support our journalism
To read today's stories, please turn off your ad blocker or subscribe
".

I have no ad blockers.  I do however have lots of stuff in /etc/hosts which may screw stuff up....

It goes like this.  I've sent lots of stuff to /dev/null (127.0.0.1) so I don't get spied on. Public/private entities do not deserve to reap profits where I don't get a cut.  As a Taurus , I demand compensation for all things monetary valuable. OK? It works like this.  The LAtimes needs to set up an account where I get a cut of ad revenue and then and only then will I alter my /etc/hosts file to SHARE said compensation. The LAtimes needs to make arrangements with me to deposit a share of ad revenue with moi everytime I hit their site. Capice? Again, Eric has the inside track on us Tauri?

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-24-2017, 12:41 AM)gabrielle Wrote: <snip>

Ah yes, the protester "profession."

HEY!  this interview person has not covered the entire body with black apparel. In the case above, we have a ginger [red head] , eye color, and a suit!.  NO, NO, NO.
This is just such a sorry example of a black bloccer. Here's an inside scoop.  Where's the chemistry questions? Where are the questions about using butryic acid ? Fireworks?  So... I wonder if Soros would pay me, a chemistry maestro to black bloc in a professional manner? Huh? I  know lots of things to react for maximum effect.
So... Soros.  Rags can whip up lots of chemicals to make a big bang.  Besides as Eric has said, my aura is yes!  Black and Red. 

Red Aura Wrote:
[b]Red Aura: What are Red Auras and what does it mean to have red as one of the dominant colors of the Aura? The Aura color that surrounds an individual reflects their personality and point to their future destiny.
[/b]
Red Aura people are enthusiastic and energetic individuals, forever on the lookout for new adventures. They are adventurous with food, travel and sexual partners. The mantra of the Red Aura color individual is “I’ll try anything once.” Because of their devil-may-care approach to life they often find themselves in hot water.

Red Aura people are quick to anger and can lose their temper over the slightest thing. But on the upside they are generous with their time and energy when called upon for help.



They are normally strong in body and mind and do not succumb to physical or mental illness easily. Because of their robust health and fitness the Red Aura individual likes to be physical and will excel in sports. People with a predominant red Aura color can easily become bored and need to move on to different interests, projects and relationships. Because then they leave lots of unfinished ventures in their wake. But if they set their mind to a project and can stick to it, they will have remarkable success and can become extremely wealthy.

Red Aura people are direct, to the point and forthright and are not afraid to make their point of view heard. They don’t normally have hidden agendas or ulterior motives. What you see is what you get with the open and up front Red Aura individual.
Above all else the Red Aura individual needs to be number one. Their competitive nature and need to succeed will drive them towards great success in life. They are not good team players and won’t take orders from others. Because then they will prefer to run their own one man business or be in positions of authority over others.

Black aura Wrote:Best Answer:  Black is a color of protection. It is a color which can shield an individual from outside energies. When seen in the aura, it can reflect that the person is protecting himself or herself. It can also indicate that person has secrets. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not taken to extremes. Black can also indicate that a new understanding of burdens and sacrifices is going to manifest.

Black can also indicate imbalances. Physical imbalances often show up as black or darkened areas in the aura around the physical body. the location provides clues to this. In the outer edges of the aura, black can indicate holes in the auric field. I have seen this in the auras of those who were victims of child abuse and those who are or were strong substance abusers ( alcohol, drugs, tobacco etc.).

Hahahahahaha.  Rags loves tobacco.

[Marypoza]

(02-25-2017, 12:00 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 12:41 AM)gabrielle Wrote: <snip>

Ah yes, the protester "profession."

HEY!  this interview person has not covered the entire body with black apparel. In the case above, we have a ginger [red head] , eye color, and a suit!.  NO, NO, NO.
This is just such a sorry example of a black bloccer. Here's an inside scoop.  Where's the chemistry questions? Where are the questions about using butryic acid ? Fireworks?  So... I wonder if Soros would pay me, a chemistry maestro to black bloc in a professional manner? Huh? I  know lots of things to react for maximum effect.
So... Soros.  Rags can whip up lots of chemicals to make a big bang.  Besides as Eric has said, my aura is yes!  Black and Red. 

Red Aura Wrote:
[b]Red Aura: What are Red Auras and what does it mean to have red as one of the dominant colors of the Aura? The Aura color that surrounds an individual reflects their personality and point to their future destiny.
[/b]
Red Aura people are enthusiastic and energetic individuals, forever on the lookout for new adventures. They are adventurous with food, travel and sexual partners. The mantra of the Red Aura color individual is “I’ll try anything once.” Because of their devil-may-care approach to life they often find themselves in hot water.

Red Aura people are quick to anger and can lose their temper over the slightest thing. But on the upside they are generous with their time and energy when called upon for help.



They are normally strong in body and mind and do not succumb to physical or mental illness easily. Because of their robust health and fitness the Red Aura individual likes to be physical and will excel in sports. People with a predominant red Aura color can easily become bored and need to move on to different interests, projects and relationships. Because then they leave lots of unfinished ventures in their wake. But if they set their mind to a project and can stick to it, they will have remarkable success and can become extremely wealthy.

Red Aura people are direct, to the point and forthright and are not afraid to make their point of view heard. They don’t normally have hidden agendas or ulterior motives. What you see is what you get with the open and up front Red Aura individual.
Above all else the Red Aura individual needs to be number one. Their competitive nature and need to succeed will drive them towards great success in life. They are not good team players and won’t take orders from others. Because then they will prefer to run their own one man business or be in positions of authority over others.

Black aura Wrote:Best Answer:  Black is a color of protection. It is a color which can shield an individual from outside energies. When seen in the aura, it can reflect that the person is protecting himself or herself. It can also indicate that person has secrets. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not taken to extremes. Black can also indicate that a new understanding of burdens and sacrifices is going to manifest.

Black can also indicate imbalances. Physical imbalances often show up as black or darkened areas in the aura around the physical body. the location provides clues to this. In the outer edges of the aura, black can indicate holes in the auric field. I have seen this in the auras of those who were victims of child abuse and those who are or were strong substance abusers ( alcohol, drugs, tobacco etc.).

Hahahahahaha.  Rags loves tobacco.

-- wacky tobaccy (l've seen those budz )

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-25-2017, 04:32 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 12:00 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 12:41 AM)gabrielle Wrote: <snip>

Ah yes, the protester "profession."

HEY!  this interview person has not covered the entire body with black apparel. In the case above, we have a ginger [red head] , eye color, and a suit!.  NO, NO, NO.
This is just such a sorry example of a black bloccer. Here's an inside scoop.  Where's the chemistry questions? Where are the questions about using butryic acid ? Fireworks?  So... I wonder if Soros would pay me, a chemistry maestro to black bloc in a professional manner? Huh? I  know lots of things to react for maximum effect.
So... Soros.  Rags can whip up lots of chemicals to make a big bang.  Besides as Eric has said, my aura is yes!  Black and Red. 

Red Aura Wrote:
[b]Red Aura: What are Red Auras and what does it mean to have red as one of the dominant colors of the Aura? The Aura color that surrounds an individual reflects their personality and point to their future destiny.
[/b]
Red Aura people are enthusiastic and energetic individuals, forever on the lookout for new adventures. They are adventurous with food, travel and sexual partners. The mantra of the Red Aura color individual is “I’ll try anything once.” Because of their devil-may-care approach to life they often find themselves in hot water.

Red Aura people are quick to anger and can lose their temper over the slightest thing. But on the upside they are generous with their time and energy when called upon for help.



They are normally strong in body and mind and do not succumb to physical or mental illness easily. Because of their robust health and fitness the Red Aura individual likes to be physical and will excel in sports. People with a predominant red Aura color can easily become bored and need to move on to different interests, projects and relationships. Because then they leave lots of unfinished ventures in their wake. But if they set their mind to a project and can stick to it, they will have remarkable success and can become extremely wealthy.

Red Aura people are direct, to the point and forthright and are not afraid to make their point of view heard. They don’t normally have hidden agendas or ulterior motives. What you see is what you get with the open and up front Red Aura individual.
Above all else the Red Aura individual needs to be number one. Their competitive nature and need to succeed will drive them towards great success in life. They are not good team players and won’t take orders from others. Because then they will prefer to run their own one man business or be in positions of authority over others.

Black aura Wrote:Best Answer:  Black is a color of protection. It is a color which can shield an individual from outside energies. When seen in the aura, it can reflect that the person is protecting himself or herself. It can also indicate that person has secrets. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not taken to extremes. Black can also indicate that a new understanding of burdens and sacrifices is going to manifest.

Black can also indicate imbalances. Physical imbalances often show up as black or darkened areas in the aura around the physical body. the location provides clues to this. In the outer edges of the aura, black can indicate holes in the auric field. I have seen this in the auras of those who were victims of child abuse and those who are or were strong substance abusers ( alcohol, drugs, tobacco etc.).

Hahahahahaha.  Rags loves tobacco.

-- wacky tobaccy (l've seen those budz )

LOL,  Soma, man, Soma..... hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaah   , what a trip, it's awesome. LOL, she? said, "budz"  Oh yeah, lots of trichromes.

[Marypoza]

(02-25-2017, 04:39 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 04:32 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-25-2017, 12:00 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 12:41 AM)gabrielle Wrote: <snip>

Ah yes, the protester "profession."

HEY!  this interview person has not covered the entire body with black apparel. In the case above, we have a ginger [red head] , eye color, and a suit!.  NO, NO, NO.
This is just such a sorry example of a black bloccer. Here's an inside scoop.  Where's the chemistry questions? Where are the questions about using butryic acid ? Fireworks?  So... I wonder if Soros would pay me, a chemistry maestro to black bloc in a professional manner? Huh? I  know lots of things to react for maximum effect.
So... Soros.  Rags can whip up lots of chemicals to make a big bang.  Besides as Eric has said, my aura is yes!  Black and Red. 

Red Aura Wrote:
[b]Red Aura: What are Red Auras and what does it mean to have red as one of the dominant colors of the Aura? The Aura color that surrounds an individual reflects their personality and point to their future destiny.
[/b]
Red Aura people are enthusiastic and energetic individuals, forever on the lookout for new adventures. They are adventurous with food, travel and sexual partners. The mantra of the Red Aura color individual is “I’ll try anything once.” Because of their devil-may-care approach to life they often find themselves in hot water.

Red Aura people are quick to anger and can lose their temper over the slightest thing. But on the upside they are generous with their time and energy when called upon for help.



They are normally strong in body and mind and do not succumb to physical or mental illness easily. Because of their robust health and fitness the Red Aura individual likes to be physical and will excel in sports. People with a predominant red Aura color can easily become bored and need to move on to different interests, projects and relationships. Because then they leave lots of unfinished ventures in their wake. But if they set their mind to a project and can stick to it, they will have remarkable success and can become extremely wealthy.

Red Aura people are direct, to the point and forthright and are not afraid to make their point of view heard. They don’t normally have hidden agendas or ulterior motives. What you see is what you get with the open and up front Red Aura individual.
Above all else the Red Aura individual needs to be number one. Their competitive nature and need to succeed will drive them towards great success in life. They are not good team players and won’t take orders from others. Because then they will prefer to run their own one man business or be in positions of authority over others.

Black aura Wrote:Best Answer:  Black is a color of protection. It is a color which can shield an individual from outside energies. When seen in the aura, it can reflect that the person is protecting himself or herself. It can also indicate that person has secrets. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not taken to extremes. Black can also indicate that a new understanding of burdens and sacrifices is going to manifest.

Black can also indicate imbalances. Physical imbalances often show up as black or darkened areas in the aura around the physical body. the location provides clues to this. In the outer edges of the aura, black can indicate holes in the auric field. I have seen this in the auras of those who were victims of child abuse and those who are or were strong substance abusers ( alcohol, drugs, tobacco etc.).

Hahahahahaha.  Rags loves tobacco.

-- wacky tobaccy (l've seen those budz )

LOL,  Soma, man, Soma..... hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaah   , what a trip, it's awesome. LOL, she? said, "budz"  Oh yeah, lots of trichromes.

-- yeah that is a niceeeeee bud

[David Horn]

(02-24-2017, 11:45 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: ... Public/private entities do not deserve to reap profits where I don't get a cut.  As a Taurus , I demand compensation for all things monetary valuable. OK? It works like this.  The LAtimes needs to set up an account where I get a cut of ad revenue and then and only then will I alter my /etc/hosts file to SHARE said compensation. The LAtimes needs to make arrangements with me to deposit a share of ad revenue with moi everytime I hit their site. Capice? Again, Eric has the inside track on us Tauri?

The stories you read are your cut.  If that's inadequate, then feel free to not-read.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-26-2017, 07:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 11:45 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: ... Public/private entities do not deserve to reap profits where I don't get a cut.  As a Taurus , I demand compensation for all things monetary valuable. OK? It works like this.  The LAtimes needs to set up an account where I get a cut of ad revenue and then and only then will I alter my /etc/hosts file to SHARE said compensation. The LAtimes needs to make arrangements with me to deposit a share of ad revenue with moi everytime I hit their site. Capice? Again, Eric has the inside track on us Tauri?

The stories you read are your cut.  If that's inadequate, then feel free to not-read.

I wasn't clear.  I checked and there are 22 tracking sites, 2 analytic sites, along with the run of the mill ad sites. Things are getting hung up on the tracking sites, since it's those that are in the /etc/host files. So, I suppose your right, it I pay privacy in exchange for article reading.

[David Horn]

(02-26-2017, 05:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-26-2017, 07:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-24-2017, 11:45 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: ... Public/private entities do not deserve to reap profits where I don't get a cut.  As a Taurus , I demand compensation for all things monetary valuable. OK? It works like this.  The LAtimes needs to set up an account where I get a cut of ad revenue and then and only then will I alter my /etc/hosts file to SHARE said compensation. The LAtimes needs to make arrangements with me to deposit a share of ad revenue with moi everytime I hit their site. Capice? Again, Eric has the inside track on us Tauri?

The stories you read are your cut.  If that's inadequate, then feel free to not-read.

I wasn't clear.  I checked and there are 22 tracking sites, 2 analytic sites, along with the run of the mill ad sites. Things are getting hung up on the tracking sites, since it's those that are in the /etc/host files. So, I suppose your right, it I pay privacy in exchange for article reading.

FWIW, I don't think much of the arrangement either.  When the decision was made that the internet had to be free, most of this was hardwired into the model.