Can't disagree with that, especially in developing countries like China, where it was very easy to get a driving license, but today the laws have been tightened, and any provisional driver has to pass a series of tests, all with rigid ID inspections, sadly the actual tests are simple and easy to pass, but a move in the right direction.
Looking at some of the recent threads, it crossed my mind that maybe time has come to not exactly censure the internet, I am against that. But maybe users should be required to pass a test to ensure they fully understand both the good and bad use of this medium. A provisional license could be issued that allows access to most sites, but restricts access to sites where there isa cross section of public users, such as facebook, twitter, CS etc. Basically any form of social media where real interaction can take place. To gain a full license the user needs to demonstrate an ability not to take everything at face value, they understand that people have different opinions, they understand that because someone disagrees on one point, it does not mean they automatically support the opposite argument. Maybe there could be different levels of license, based on activity and tolerance? The license holder would be downgraded if shown to spread hatred, lies or blatant false news.
Just wondering what other would think of such a policy.
My tolerance level changes depending on the circumstances, I don't tolerate tardiness for example, but when dealing with bureaucracy as I have grown older so my tolerance has increased, I realise that I have no power to change a bureaucratic system, so why get angry? I have zero tolerance to those who should know better but act stupid.
I love most sea food especially Rollmop Herrings; The very best British breakfast is Kedgeree, using smoked white fish, usually haddock with rice and eggs. It is based on the Indian Hindi Khichri and comes from the Victorian days of the Raj.
4 large fresh free-range eggs 6 oz. rice (Basmati works well)/175 g 1/2 pint of cold water Salt and pepper to taste 2 0z. butter/55 g 2 large onions (peeled and finely sliced) 1 lb smoked haddock/450 g 7 fl oz. milk/200 ml 4 teaspoon curry powder6 Cardamom pods 2 bay leaves Juice of 1/2 a lemon 1/2 oz./15 g flat leaf parsley (finely chopped)
All countries have good and bad, to isolate and cherry pick only certain points, just shows that beneath the actual debate is an agenda designed to give misinformation and twisted "facts".
The credibility many people on CS has dropped so far that if certain members here said the grass was green, I would still need to check for myself and even then keep an open mind.
All over before it started, just as expected. Trump never intended to have the meeting, all publicity to try and boost his dismal ratings. "Donald Trump cancels summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un"
Must be something lost in the translation, but I have read and re-read my post and cannot see any sentence that says "I don't see this as a problem", maybe you are assuming something that has not been stated?
I am sure you have links showing these "lies", but the question that comes to me is when was Europe not multicultural And please correct me if I am wrong, but was not the USA created by multicultural people
If that is true why are they not in prison? Could it possibly be that protesting against an unjust war is NOT a traitorous act I think Fonda tried to stop what she thought was wrong, her naivety and lack of knowledge led her down the wrong path, and she did more harm than good. The way many soldiers, returning from Vietnam, were treated by American citizens was, in my opinion, far worse than some young actress trying to stop a war. Simply put, the Vietnam conflict should never have happened. To accuse those who tried to stop it as Traitors is somewhat misplaced, IMO.
What Jane Fonda did as a naive 20 year old was without doubt stupid and ill advised, but this story has been hugely embellished and includes lies. "An e-mail titled “Never Forgive a Traitor” says that President Barack Obama will be honoring Jane Fonda as one of the Women of the Century. Is this true?
The claim about Obama in this chain e-mail is false.
In actuality, Fonda was one of many women featured in a Barbara Walters special for ABC News called “A Celebration: 100 Years of Great Women,” according to Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan fact-finding project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The special, which aired on April 30, 1999, looked at the “most inspiring, intriguing and entertaining” women of the 20th century and was based on a list of the “100 Most Important Women of the 20th Century” selected by a panel for the Ladies Home Journal magazine, FactCheck.org reports.
Right after the Walters special aired, versions of the chain e-mail started appearing. In the most recent versions, the Obama references have been added. The e-mails also contain inaccuracies about Fonda.
What is true: The actress/fitness guru/activist did travel to Hanoi, North Vietnam, in 1972 to protest the Vietnam War.
She broadcast on Radio Hanoi, criticizing American military and political leaders, according to numerous media accounts. She said it was “laughable” that U.S. soldiers were tortured and called them “war criminals.” Photographers captured her smiling and applauding North Vietnamese soldiers at an anti-aircraft gun site. She was thereafter known by war veterans and others as “Hanoi Jane.”
Media accounts do report that some American soldiers did suffer as a result of Fonda’s visit. But as FactCheck.org and Snopes.com report, specific mentions in the e-mail were debunked years ago by the very people supposedly involved.
It isn’t true, FactCheck.org reports, that former Vietnam POW Jerry Driscoll suffered career-ending double vision from a beating said to be imposed by his North Vietnamese captors after Fonda visited.
Driscoll has said that he never met Fonda and he has denied for years that the beating scenario ever happened.
“Totally false. It did not happen,” Driscoll told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis in a May 25, 2005 article.
Driscoll has negative feelings about Fonda, but he wasn’t beaten because of her and can see just fine. He flies corporate jets now, after retiring as a pilot from the Air Force and American Airlines, the story said.
Another inaccuracy is that Fonda gave North Vietnamese guards pieces of paper - some with Social Security numbers - slipped to her from American POWs and that resulted in the beating of former POW Larry Carrigan and the beating deaths of three others.
Carrigan has been quoted in media reports: “It’s a figment of somebody’s imagination.”
Mike McGrath, a former POW and director and historian of the Nam-POWs, also disclaimed the story, saying “I have spoken to all the parties named ... They all state that this particular Internet story is a hoax and they wish to disassociate their names from the false story.”
In your opinion, which is worthless against the opinion of several heads of state who accepted the deal. And the only reason he had to do it that way was because the Rep party would have voted against anything put forward by Obama, much like the Dems are doing to Trump Whichever way you look at it, the opposition party to the incumbent Potus are screwing the American people rather than doing the right thing, American politics has gone to the wall, the result will bring the USA to its knees unless someone can be found to get BOTH parties working together for the betterment of the country, rather lining their pockets as is happening right now.
Yes of course, but then I never said Trump couldn't step away from it, you twisted the discussion to Obama not getting it ratified. I was pointing out that most of the peaceful world are dismayed by Trumps action and that this action is because Trump hates anything Obama did. Rather than look at the bigger picture, he is stirring up Iran and the ME to spite Obama, Trump would be better off dealing with USA problems.
You obviously don't understand American Political decision making. Understandable for someone living in a confused part of Europe. "WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats delivered a major victory to President Obama when they blocked a Republican resolution to reject a six-nation nuclear accord with Iran on Thursday, ensuring the landmark deal will take effect without a veto showdown between Congress and the White House.
A procedural vote fell two short of the 60 needed to break a Democratic filibuster. It culminated hours of debate in the Senate and capped weeks of discord since the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China announced the agreement with Iran in July.
The debate divided Democrats between their loyalties to the president and to their constituents, animated the antiwar movement on the left and exposed the diminishing power of the Israeli lobbying force that spent tens of millions of dollars to prevent the accord.
“Regardless of how one feels about the agreement,” Senator Chuck Schumer, one of four Democrats to vote against Mr. Obama, said on the Senate floor, “fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the president’s strong achievements in combating and containing Iran.”
Image Senator Mitch McConnell, who vowed to continue fighting to scuttle the deal.CreditAlex Wong/Getty Images Acknowledging the tortured road he and other skeptical Democrats traveled, Mr. Schumer said, “I also have a great deal of respect for the careful thought and deliberation my colleagues went through,” adding, “I recognize for them that this is a vote of conscience just as it is for me.”
Mr. Obama’s triumph in securing the deal — without the support of a single member of the party now in control of Congress — is refashioning the definition of victory for a waning presidency in the era of divided government."
"Imagine the president of the United States of America sitting in the White House Situation Room with his top national security advisers and deciding that there are not enough threats to US national security. There are not enough wars and humanitarian crises around the world. The United States is bored. Imagine the president deciding to manufacture a new national security crisis that will directly threaten America, its allies and the world.
Sounds like the work of fiction, right? Unfortunately, not. President Trump announced his decision for the United States to violate the diplomatic agreement that is currently preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – and with that decision Trump produced a new, unnecessary crisis."
It would seem his hatred for Obama is clouding his judgement, he will destroy everything Obama did in office without checking to see if maybe some things Obama did actually benefits the USA and the world.
Comparing London to Afganistan is hardly credible, Yes the level of violent crimes in CERTAIN areas of CERTAIN cities has indeed increased, unlike CERTAIN countries, the UK government are looking into ways to control and rectify these horrendous murders, unlike those same countries, the UK government is not being controlled by gun supporting agencies or any other powerful lobbies, that run certain countries. You also need to understand the rules governing how statistics are made up seeing as the UK statistic for deaths also include infanticide, suicide and accidental deaths, the crime level in London is comparative to those in New York, a city with a similar population. It is indeed very sad that London has now the same crime rate as New York, but the outcome will be that the UK will find a solution whereas, regarding New York, little is being done to reduce the number of murders each month. it is just accepted.
not a Chinese source but OHIO. Just about all media in China talked about Xi's claim to lifelong leadership, some positive quite a lot with reservations. Time will tell if he made a sensible choice, but there is a strong undertow of suspicion by the common people and that is now bothering the central government, he may be forced to change his mind but impossible to know if or when.
The UK government is completing Brexit, the EU government is doing all it can to hinder/destroy that exit plan. So no second vote is required!! The people in the UK have a very strong tool to use when they disagree with the seated government, it is called an election, we don't need guns to elect a different leader or government. the UK is a democratic country and unlike the USA each individual vote is counted towards a final outcome. Interesting I read today in a Chinese paper that certain parts of America are now reassessing the role of the electoral College overruling the popular vote, so maybe by the time the next USA election occurs a new and fairer system will be in place.
1) Not one person has suggested that a person with a legal gun license shoots up in Chicago, you can twist and lie as much as you like but none will override the truth. Because there are so many people with guns. it makes it easy for those whom the law is trying to stop, to get possession of weapons, either by theft, or by buying illegally, if there were fewer guns then fewer would be available to the irresponsible. 2) Hoplophobe, American firearms expert and retired Marine colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word in 1962 to denigrate and anger proponents of gun control by implying that their thoughts were "aberrant" and unreasoning: Just as you are doing, belittling those who have an opposing opinion 3) "The Right to Selfdefense is a fundamental Right,which Europe and also the United Nations have nixed!" fake news Conrad, everone in the EU still has the right to defend themselves even if it causes death, as long as the intent was to stop the perpetrator with no more than sufficient violence. "At common law the defence of self-defence operates in three spheres. It allows a person to use reasonable force to:
(a) Defend himself from an attack.
(b) Prevent an attack on another person, eg R v Rose (1884) 15 Cox 540, where the defendant who had shot dead his father whilst the latter was launching a murderous attack on the defendant's mother, was acquitted of murder on the grounds of self-defence.
The acid crimes in the UK is indeed very new and bad, but then the UK being a civilised country, has already reduced that specific crime and also reduced knife crime. Maybe the USA can learn from its old parents rather than run around like delinquent teenage cowboys?
rizlared Forum Posts (5,588)
Should there be a license to use the internet?
Can't disagree with that, especially in developing countries like China, where it was very easy to get a driving license, but today the laws have been tightened, and any provisional driver has to pass a series of tests, all with rigid ID inspections, sadly the actual tests are simple and easy to pass, but a move in the right direction.