Things Noticeable this week

[Devius]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

According to two of our national papers, Samsung are helping MI6 to spy on us with their smart tv's, well I am sure the legal folk of Samsung are having otgasms at the thought of the damages, and the sales and marketing folk are leaving brown stains in their underwear!

Sorry about the misspelling of Samsung, but I do not have an upside down v! Check it out folks, there is no A in Samsung! God I am sad for noticing that!

Someone on another forum once told me some years ago that I should apply gaffer tape on any built-in webcams I have on my computers, and avoid spending money on "smart" TVs and other "smart" electronic equipment. At the time I thought he was just being paranoid.

Not any more.......

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

According to two of our national papers, Samsung are helping MI5 to spy on us with their smart tv's, well I am sure the legal folk of Samsung are having otgasms at the thought of the damages, and the sales and marketing folk are leaving brown stains in their underwear!

Sorry about the misspelling of Samsung, but I do not have an upside down v! Check it out folks, there is no A in Samsung! God I am sad for noticing that!

I heard this few years back, I thought it was nonsense but it put me off buying a new TV at that time. I have a Samsung but it's an old set and great quality, that story put me off upgrading to a Smart TV

[vannax]

Originally Posted by ballyhoo

"Breitbart Berry" ?

Whatever.
The historical facts are that the democrats opposed civil rights movements, the Democrats were the party of jim crow, the Democrats had high-ranking KKK members (or ex-KKK members) in their party until 2010, the democrats run all the places where black-on-black crime is endemic, the democrats said "we'll have the niggers voting for us for the next 200 years", whereas the Republicans went to war against the Democrats to end slavery, the Republicans championed the civil rights movement against the democrats, and the republicans don't like the soft slavery of Affirmative Action that also helps keep the blacks down by subjecting them to lower expectations.
All of these are historically verifiable quite easily.
Also, the republicans have more black people in their party than the Democrats. Lastly, all the birther rumors about Obama were started by Hillary, and it was not the Dem party that put Obama in power, it was the people, although the people realized their mistake, thus Trump.

All this is public knowledge, but hey, if it makes all the media-programmed drones feel better to call trump, who has created 30 000 jobs, lets homeless black folk live in his hotels, created a couple hundred millionaires, has golf clubs that never stopped black folk from being members, etc, a racist, knock yourselves out, just try to stop vandalizing, rioting and looting, eh?

[HugoHackenbush]

Originally Posted by vannax

Whatever.
The historical facts are that the democrats opposed civil rights movements, the Democrats were the party of jim crow, the Democrats had high-ranking KKK members (or ex-KKK members) in their party until 2010, the democrats run all the places where black-on-black crime is endemic, the democrats said "we'll have the niggers voting for us for the next 200 years", whereas the Republicans went to war against the Democrats to end slavery, the Republicans championed the civil rights movement against the democrats, and the republicans don't like the soft slavery of Affirmative Action that also helps keep the blacks down by subjecting them to lower expectations.
All of these are historically verifiable quite easily.

Then take your own advice. Please go back and read up on the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They were passed during the Adminstration of Lyndon Johnson (a southern Democratic Party member) with a Congress that was overwhelmingly Democratic. It's was the opposition to these laws that pushed the southern state Democratic Party members over to the Republican Party, paving the way for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. From the end of the Johnson administration to the start of the Clinton Adminstration the Republican Party held the White House for 20 out of 24 years.

Your claim that the Republicans "championed" the civil rights "against" the Democratic Party is simply made up non-sense.

[vannax]

Originally Posted by HugoHackenbush

Then take your own advice. Please go back and read up on the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They were passed during the Adminstration of Lyndon Johnson (a southern Democratic Party member) with a Congress that was overwhelmingly Democratic. It's was the opposition to these laws that pushed the southern state Democratic Party members over to the Republican Party, paving the way for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. From the end of the Johnson administration to the start of the Clinton Adminstration the Republican Party held the White House for 20 out of 24 years.

Your claim that the Republicans "championed" the civil rights "against" the Democratic Party is simply made up non-sense.

***sigh***
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...ster_Ended.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

[HugoHackenbush]

Originally Posted by vannax

***sigh***
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...ster_Ended.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The article you posted confirms what I have already posted. These acts were passed out of a Congress over-whelmingly controlled by The Democratic Party. Let's take the companion bill the Voting Rights Act.

The final vote shapes up like this:

House Democrats: 217-54
House Republicans: 111-20

Senate Democrats: 49-17
Senate Republicans: 30-1

This means that the Democratic Party had a commanding majority of 2-1 in both Houses of Congress. If the Democratic Party was as opposed as you say it was, the legislation has no chance of passage. Yet somehow it does pass, with an over whelming majority in favor. In fact if all the Republicans vote against it, and all the Democrats who voted against it are added together, the measure still passes.

The House version was introduced by a Democrat. The Senate version was co-sponsored by a Republican and Democrat. The bill is passed and signed by Democratic President.

As the numbers show, your account is flat out wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voti...ts_Act_of_1965

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by vannax

***sigh***
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...ster_Ended.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

***sigh***
Lee Atwater explaining the Southern Strategy

Story about former RNC Chair Michael Steele talking about the party employing the same strategy for over 40 years.

You know your argument is weak when it has past its expiration date by a couple of decades...

[Devius]

Just announced on CNN & BBC that South Korean President Park Geun-hye has been permanently removed from office...

Details:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39202936

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by Devius

Just announced on CNN & BBC that South Korean President Park Geun-hye has been permanently removed from office...

Park has been put out to grass.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by The Washington Post

Tens of thousands of immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were forced to work for $1 day, or for nothing at all — a violation of federal anti-slavery laws — a lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit, filed in 2014 against one of the largest private prison companies in the country, reached class-action status this week after a federal judge’s ruling. That means the case could involve as many as 60,000 immigrants who have been detained.

You hope the detainees win this. It would set a terrible precedent if they do not.
Source