This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):
3 submissions to CelticMusic
2 submissions to funny
2 submissions to programming
2 submissions to news
2 submissions to videos
This user has so far shared a total of 12 links, started a total of 3 discussions and submitted a total of 208 comments.
Submissions: This user has upvoted 33 and downvoted 43 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 476 and downvoted 336 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
I hate dinner parties., submitted: 12/31/2016 12:14:19 AM, 104 points (+108|-4)
Assange's live stream of his AMA, submitted: 1/10/2017 2:28:20 PM, 56 points (+57|-1)
Infographic for choosing your first programming language, submitted: 1/8/2017 10:04:33 PM, 37 points (+41|-4)
4 Washington state electors refuse to vote for Clinton., submitted: 12/19/2016 9:08:23 PM, 30 points (+31|-1)
From DIY sailboats to transistor radios - collection of vintage plans, PDF's scanned from old books, submitted: 1/8/2017 10:28:07 PM, 28 points (+28|-0)
5 lowest rated submissions:
Hi there. I'm not an asshole but I do stink like shit. Pleased to meet you., submitted: 12/2/2016 3:44:44 AM, 2 points (+2|-0)
Newbie... Need motivation.. something "real" to sink my teeth into., submitted: 12/30/2016 6:18:41 AM, 3 points (+4|-1)
Savage... They don't write TV like they used to., submitted: 1/5/2017 2:08:30 AM, 3 points (+3|-0)
Archie Fisher - Western Island, submitted: 12/3/2016 6:46:09 PM, 5 points (+5|-0)
Proof that the left are tolerant intellectuals who enjoy civil discourse., submitted: 1/14/2017 11:42:40 AM, 5 points (+5|-0)
3 highest rated comments:
anonnynonny 1 points 43 points 44 points (+44|-1) ago
This is a trial balloon or trojan horse, and has nothing to do with the validity of the topic.
Start off censoring something that the vast majority of people find deplorable. They will get to the good stuff later, once the censorship itself is no longer news.
anonnynonny 0 points 37 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago
Putin didn't say it. A spokesman for the Putin administration (if that's the right word), Dmitry Peskov, said the following to the Japanese press:
"You need to either stop talking about it, or finally show some kind of proof. Otherwise it just looks very indecent"
So to summarize... It wasn't Putin, it wasn't said to Obama, and they didn't use the words "shut up." So literally everything in the clickbait headline is wrong.
I appreciate what zerohedge does for the most part, but paraphrasing something, putting it in quotes, and attributing it to someone else entirely is a shit thing to do IMO.
anonnynonny 0 points 35 points 35 points (+35|-0) ago
To elaborate on other's answers, I'll answer the inevitable "why is it done that way?"
The US isn't a "country" in the usual sense... It's a union of states... Seems obvious considering the name, but most people don't truly understand it these days. The Electoral College is there to ensure that all states have their say without being railroaded by others, and also to act as a stop-gap in case something really goes haywire and a "tyrant king" somehow gets the popular vote. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, etc...
On that second point, some might say the electoral college did just that this election... kept a corrupt criminal who felt entitled to power out of the office.
3 lowest rated comments:
anonnynonny 1 points -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Also, I'm not the one downvoting you.. just wanted you to know.
Not sure why an observer would think downvoting you is a valuable use of their time.
anonnynonny 2 points -1 points 1 points (+1|-2) ago
I'm not defending the redirection of funds from the original post, that's just fucked up... But I'd like to discuss something you said that is a pretty popular opinion that I have a slight issue with:
I also believe that US rights and privileges should only apply to US citizens
In some instances, specifically the privileges part, sure... but the entire fundamental logic of the constitution is that those rights are inherent by the mere fact that you are human.
The constitution itself grants no rights, it merely limits the scope of governance so that those inherent rights can't be infringed.
I'd argue that means that those "inalienable" rights are NOT applicable only to citizens, but for all humans.
Again, I'm not defending immigrants coming here illegally or saying they deserve state-provided legal defense, that's an entirely different topic.
anonnynonny 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago
the bill of rights) does indeed grant specific rights, and spell out how and when the government can infringe upon them
I disagree with that specifically. Look through the BoR. It doesn't assign or grant rights, only defines the govt's ability to affect them.
Please provide specific quotes of what you interpret as the govt granting rights.
Govt granting rights would by definition mean that the govt owns our existence, and that is far from the initial intent of its founding.
I agree about liberal policy expanding the privileges granted to those who shouldn't be afforded them, but that's not relevant to what I'm talking about.