HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Maraya1969 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 46 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Oct 12, 2004, 10:32 PM
Number of posts: 11,898

Journal Archives

NYT Practical way to cut down fake news!


How to Destroy the Business Model of Breitbart and Fake News

One day in late November, an earth and environmental science professor named Nathan Phillips visited Breitbart News for the first time. Mr. Phillips had heard about the hateful headlines on the site — like “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy” — and wondered what kind of companies would support such messages with their ad dollars. When he clicked on the site, he was shocked to discover ads for universities, including one for the graduate school where he’d received his own degree — Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “That was a punch in the stomach,” he said.

Why would an environmental science program want to be promoted on a site that denies the existence of climate change? Mr. Phillips figured — correctly — that Duke officials did not know where their ads were appearing, so he sent a tweet to Duke about its association with the “sexist racist” site. Eventually, after a flurry of communication with the environment department, he received a satisfying resolution — an assurance that its ads would no longer show up on Breitbart.

Mr. Phillips had just engaged in a new form of consumer activism, one that is rewriting the rules of online advertising. In the past month and a half, thousands of activists have started to push companies to take a stand on what you might call “hate news” — a toxic mix of lies, white-supremacist content and bullying that can inspire attacks on Muslims, gay people, women, African-Americans and others.

In mid-November, a Twitter group called Sleeping Giants became the hub of the new movement. The Giants and their followers have communicated with more than 1,000 companies and nonprofit groups whose ads appeared on Breitbart, and about 400 of those organizations have promised to remove the site from future ad buys.

Lobelia herb or "Indian tobacco" can help you stop smoking and heal your lungs.

I was actually looking for things for asthma my search lead me to 2 herbs that I have now bought. I am smoking the Lobilia herb. (The other herb Khella I bought in a tincture and it actually is working really great. So much that I've not smoked the Lobelia that much. But when I do I find that I like holding the smoke in my lungs. It kind of "feels good" as you will understand if you read that article)

I think the reason they say that it won't hurt you but don't encourage smoking of it is just because smoking is considered, "bad" all the time now. But from what I am reading smoking it might be great because the benefits go directly in to your lungs. And that they speak of Native Americans smoking it an never having any bad side effects. Either way it may be a good substitute for cigarettes and help your lungs at the same time!

Here it is:


Lobelia, or sometimes called Indian tobacco, has been used by herbalists to help get smokers off cigarettes and heal their lungs. Not necessarily by smoking it, but dispensed as tinctures, tablets, or “vaped” (inhaled through a vaporizer).

This despite the fact that a stigma is attached to lobelia because it was once banned by the FDA, the same bunch who continue allowing Pfizer’s somewhat ineffective smoking cessation drug Chantix to be sold with side effects that include heart attacks, suicides, and even homicides. The same organization that raids raw milk providers, allows suicide-linked antidepressants to stay on the market, and supports organ-disrupting GMOs.

Medical Herbalist and Naturopath, Dr. Richard Schulze, has used lobelia on many of his patients who were desperate to quit smoking cigarettes and/or to heal their lungs. He also described how the FDA ban had stigmatized lobelia’s use. Now it’s legal and some practitioners are returning to prescribing it, but many are still afraid of using it for fear of bureaucratic medical groups hassling them if a patient has any reaction.

Lobelia is considered one of the strongest herbs in the world. It contains 14 alkaloids, one of which is lobeline, which is similar to the nicotine found in common tobacco. Dr. Schulze advocates the gradual approach of smoking one less cigarette each day and taking lobelia when the urge to smoke becomes impossible to resist. He has had many kick the nicotine habit, and he has helped patients get over chronic lung problems with lobelia.

More at link:

Joy Ann Reid's tweet about talking points this week

Joy Reid ‏@JoyAnnReid 17h17 hours ago

Any Republican who goes on television this week should be asked, repeatedly until they answer, about the gutting of the ethics office.

(My question would be, "What do you hope to achieve by gutting the ethic's office?"

"What is the reason you want to disable the office of ethics?"

"Can you be specific?"

We really need a group to call out the news companies each time they treat Trump like he is not

a fucking dickhead.

I cannot find the post, it is on here and I think it is on the Greatest Page but it was about one of the big news companies reporting how Trump decided to not charge Hillary.

Did they even mention that there was nothing he could charge her with? Did they even ask?

I suck at organizing but I have no problem calling companies or sending emails and I believe that if we are going to change our fucked up news system we need to start calling them out and keep calling them out!

Please someone figure out how to do this!

And remember what the group, "Flush Rush" accomplished

Just thought of this song and how it always gave me hope. Maybe it's right for now.

Not exactly the same but the gist is.

This is the portrait of Donald Trump that his charity bought for $20,000

In 2007, Donald Trump bought a six-foot-tall portrait of himself at a fundraiser auction, and paid with $20,000 from his namesake charity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

In recent weeks, The Washington Post has reported other instances in which Trump may have violated those rules.
He used $258,000 from the foundation to pay off legal settlements that involved his for-profit businesses. He spent $12,000 from the charity's coffers to buy a football helmet signed by then-Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow.

And he spent $10,000 to buy another portrait of himself in 2014. In that case, Trump paid $10,000 for the portrait. It was later found hanging on the wall of a sports bar at Trump's Doral golf resort.


So I go to the lawyer with my mom who has Aphasia to try and take care of this trust issue

that has been a problem between me and my brother for 4 years now. That is when since she gave him power of attorney after her stroke. I don't want money, just transparency which my brother completely refused for about 3 years and then, after this lawyer sent him a letter he gives me bits and pieces of information and there are always things missing.

So I asked my mom if we could change something legally to force him to keep everything transparent.

That is why we went to the attorney today.

So we go in and mom talks but then has trouble so I tell him the issue and then he says he thinks that she needs to get a note from her doctor saying she is capable of making this decision and then he says it is to make sure I am not manipulating her.

She has APHASIA! She is not stupid. She understands everything that is said!

She still works at her church thrift store on Saturdays and she still plays Bridge. She lives alone, cooks, drives and just made another knitted Christmas stocking for her newest grand baby.

And this asshole wants her to go to her doctor to get a note saying she has enough marbles to make a fucking decision!

I've read about people treating people with disabilities and if they are dumb or mentally challenged.

So we left, kind of with the agreement that she will see a doctor to get a fucking note.

We both were upset about him asking her to get a note saying the she was capable of making a decision!

I want to write and email but I'm not sure how to go about it. God forbid the asshole thinks I am trying to manipulate anything!

Serial killers and trophy hunters like TRUMP'S KIDS are " terrifyingly similar" Please tell people!


(EDIT: - This article is about TROPHY hunters. It is not about people hunting deer or anything else that is hunted for food. I see a huge difference between the two and the article specifically talks about the ones that fly to exotic lands to kill for the sake of killing. I do not judge people for hunting like my grandfather's hunted and I realize that if you eat meat you are eating something that has been killed. THIS ARTICLE IS IS ABOUT SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!)

Serial killing and trophy hunting are terrifyingly similar. As wildlife researcher and author Gareth Patterson* points out, both types of killers often immerse themselves in violent imagery. Hunting magazines are designed to titillate hunters and help fuel violent fantasies of stalking and killing prey. They are full of pictures of hunters standing victoriously over animals they have slain, the obvious message: Kill something—or, rather, someone—and you, too, can achieve greatness.

Patterson notes that both types of killers enjoy the excitement of planning their kills and building anticipation while they stalk their eventual victims more than the actual act of killing. And how many times have you heard hunters say, “It’s more about the hunt than the kill”? They describe in detail their love of being outdoors, seeing their intended prey for the first time, tracking them down, cornering them and conquering them. Perhaps, like many serial killers, they’ve actually become addicted to the adrenalin rush they get from controlling their victims’ fates.

According to John Douglas, one of the FBI’s first criminal profilers, serial killers who take souvenirs from their victims do so to prolong their violent fantasies. Some take jewelry or locks of hair, while others take photographs or body parts. Trophy hunters proudly display their victims’ severed animal heads on their walls and share photos of themselves on social media grinning beside their corpses. Like serial killers, trophy hunters are compelled to prove their status as a person who has power over life and death. Between hunts, both value their souvenirs as a way to remember the power they once held over another living being.

It is disgusting what trump's people are saying out loud. Warming this is offensive


Trump's N.Y. co-chair causes outrage with Obama comments

I'm not going to put the comments here. What is important is people are saying these repulsive things out in the open now that asshole elect is "leader" I'm sure people like this have said this crap in private before

I can't believe the worms are crawling through the woodwork.

I specifically remember watching Wisconsin taking a vote to abolish unions without

the Democrats who had left the state specifically to stop the vote. What the republicans did was illegal and unconstitutional and yet they got away with it. I am speaking of a different situation where the senate has not fulfilled their duties, (regarding the Merritt Garland nomination) and the possible remedies for that non-action.

EDIT to add that I found the law that they ignored in a NPR article

"Republicans hold a 19-14 majority in the state Senate, but they need at least one Democrat to be present before taking a vote on the bill."


The WI senate took the vote anyway, while one of the members was reading aloud about the illegality of it! They just ignored that and voted anyway. And that vote took and no one fought about the illegality of it afterward

Can anyone find this video? It may have been on a live feed. I've looked but found nothing

Also, there are others who agree with me that the president has the right constitutionally to appoint a Supreme court judge if the Senate refuses to act.


Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

"The Constitution glories in its ambiguities, however, and it is possible to read its language to deny the Senate the right to pocket veto the president’s nominations. Start with the appointments clause of the Constitution. It provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” Note that the president has two powers: the power to “nominate” and the separate power to “appoint.” In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing?

In most respects, the meaning of the “Advice and Consent” clause is obvious. The Senate can always grant or withhold consent by voting on the nominee. The narrower question, starkly presented by the Garland nomination, is what to make of things when the Senate simply fails to perform its constitutional duty.

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ”

The reason is this thread where every keep telling me that the president cannot appoint a Supreme Court justice without the consent and advise of the senate. I say that they have given their advise and consent by ignoring it and refusing to vote on it. It may be a stretch but if someone can find that video of those WI state reps voting illegally to abolish unions it will show that republicans do this shit all the time and why the hell can't we? This Supreme Court appointment is so vital considering what can happen in the next 4 years I believe certain rules need to be viewed at a different angle.

If the interpretation of the constitution may not be that a stone walled senate gives permission for the president to appoint the nominee then let the 2017 supreme court vote on it.


EDIT - I have ADD and when I don't take my medicine for a while I write things that are obviously not clear and give the wrong impression. I apologize. Please bear with me. BUT I must add that my ideas are not new or different from others much more qualified than me. I may have not explained them as clearly as I could but nevertheless they are founded on good principle.

I am trying to make the point that the new 2017 Supreme court will immediately be broken down if President Obama cannot appoint Merrick Garland because trump will put up some narcissist and the republicans will immediately confirm him. Therefore I think in these unusual and dangerous circumstance that the constitution can and should be viewed from a different angle. Even if they can remove the justice after 2017 it will create a problem for them and stall them from appointment another justice.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 46 Next »