Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Talent - didn't the Intercept force her hand though? You have a plausible theory that may have happened, but it also plausible that Feinstein did want to respect her unwillingness to come forward but somebody else in the chain of command leaked the info. She wasn't the first one with letter.

I have no idea what the truth is, but I do think he is a sketchy character and his behavior in the Starr investigation is a big clue. He'll get confirmed and he will not show any independence on the court because he will be indebted to the hard right. You will get everything you want.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Talent- To be clear, I know you're not making these arguments. It's the Alt Right goofballs. They demanded the govt end net neutrality mainly because it would trigger the libs. Maybe they felt they would benefit somehow. I dunno.

Now private companies are making private business decisions on what to publish on privately-owned servers and because they find themselves personally being harmed, the Alt Right crowd demands the government intervene and order these private firms to publish content dictated to them by the government.

And yeah, like you say, just about every corporation in America is open to the possibility of govt seizure and control if accepting their 'protection' is some sort of contract.

[Kapture1]

Talent - didn't the Intercept force her hand though? You have a plausible theory that may have happened, but it also plausible that Feinstein did want to respect her unwillingness to come forward but somebody else in the chain of command leaked the info. She wasn't the first one with letter.

I have no idea what the truth is, but I do think he is a sketchy character and his behavior in the Starr investigation is a big clue. He'll get confirmed and he will not show any independence on the court because he will be indebted to the hard right. You will get everything you want.

the problem is the only people that knew of the existence of the letter were Feinstein, Ford, her lawyer, and a handful of Feinstein's staff. Ford already stated she did not want to go public. that narrows it down to Feinstein and her few underlings. perhaps a Chinese spy or two.

do you think what has happened to him over the last week makes him more or less likely to be "indebted" to the far right? i wasn't thrilled with Trump's pick, i wanted Amy Barrett because she's much further right. kavanaugh was a Bush establishment type guy. i don't think that will be the case any longer.

[Kapture1]

Talent- To be clear, I know you're not making these arguments. It's the Alt Right goofballs. They demanded the govt end net neutrality mainly because it would trigger the libs. Maybe they felt they would benefit somehow. I dunno.

Now private companies are making private business decisions on what to publish on privately-owned servers and because they find themselves personally being harmed, the Alt Right crowd demands the government intervene and order these private firms to publish content dictated to them by the government.

And yeah, like you say, just about every corporation in America is open to the possibility of govt seizure and control if accepting their 'protection' is some sort of contract.

jokes on you. all I'm saying is remove their federal protection, let them be what they are being... a publisher.

that's not asking for more regulation.

[iam416]

[iam416]

hardly. these are women that have known Kavanaugh since he was 12 and throughout his life. they were paying attention because that's what you do when one of your lifelong friends is about to be confirmed to the highest court in the land. what would it take to get 65 friends to put their names to a statement under the circumstances? an hour?

id say an hour, tops.

[hack]

I didn't call you anything.

[iam416]

I guess not, hack. Just that my thinking is unprincipled. You should ask DSL what I think about Vince Foster.

[hack]

Well you do go on ad nauseum about the democratic process, but only for certain outcomes. And in others you laud outcomes that were the result of ignoring the democratic process. I certainly regret ever making this clear by saying it here. Maybe even more than when I struck a nerve calling OP gay that one time.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Talent thinks Vince Foster killed Ron Brown then got killed by Hillary. Or maybe Ron Brown killed Vince Foster. I don't remember which one was first.

Oh and also that native Kenyan Barack Obama had regular blowjobs from convicted fraudster Larry Sinclair. BTW, right-wing sites appear to keep reporting that this dude is dead, always under 'mysterious circumstances', but here he is popping up again in 2018 to blabber about Stormy/Trump

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/obama-sex-accuser-panned-as-a-liar-urges-stormy-daniels-scrutiny

https://www.vice.com/sv/article/5gavex/this-man-has-proof-that-obama-is-gay

I'm pleased to note that Jerome Corsi, when the well was running dry at WorldNetDaily (one of puterbac's favorite websites circa 2004), was able to land with Alex Jones and totally keep covering the important hard-hitting stories. Nice to see a solid reporter landing on his two feet. He's even testifying in the Mueller investigation!

[Hannibal]

Remember when Liberals said that we needed Net Neutrality to keep the internet open and free? Now the internet is being aggressively censored by the people who said that we needed Net Neutrality to keep the internet open and free. Welcome, folks, to the Twilight Zone, alternate reality, fantasy world of the Liberal, where up is down and inside is out Where Liberals are the "open-minded" and "tolerant" ones, and not the easily triggered censors of free speech that they are here in the real world. They aren't even making smart, cynical business decisions when they choose to censor.. They are actively destroying wealth by doing it.

Talent -- don't fall for the bullshit "free markets/idelogical consistency" argument that Liberals like DSLare trying to deflect with. It's an old trick. These people will always demand ideological purity out of you but never offer a smidgeon of ideological consistency in return. This is literally out of the "Rules for Radicals"" playbook

"4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

They will absolutely never meet you halfway. Never even a quarter of the way. If the government were to break up Google then it would mean that about .1% of the regulatory scope of the government would be deployed for some sort of cause that Conservatives want. That's hardly hypocritical. After 50 years of being denied the workings of the free market, you're entitled to let that trend work in your favor for once. If people like DSL are OK with rolling back 50 years of encroaching Socialism, then we can talk about how hypocritical it is that Conservatives think that the government should step in in the event that they are being censored by a natural monopoly. But they are never going to do that, so don't be a sap. They will continue to live in an Orwellian parallel reality where they ban books at the same time that they tell you want a bunch of intolerant Neanderthals the Nazis were for banning books. There's not even a tinge of discomfort there.

Don't forget that people like DSL have been insisting since the 1990s that all of the credit for the internet is due the government anyways, and that was always going to be the pretense to regulating it. It shouldn't even be a free market according to them.

Regulation of monopolies is something that dates back more than 100 years, and youtube and Twitter are just as easily considered monopolies as Big Steel, Big Oil, Big Telephone, and any other big business that was ever considered a monopoly in the old days. Big Finance is not a free market by any stretch, so you can't say that MasterCard refusing to allow payments to Conservatives is the free market at work. And it's not as if we only regulate monopolies. We regulate every single business in the country in the name of "fairness" and not even in service of the public interest.. And I personally think that using the power of the government to ensure a free flow of ideas on the internet better serves the public interest than, say, forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings (people like DSL obviously disagree).

So yeah, hopefully, Trump will bring the fuckin' hammer. His political future likely depends on it since the only way to counter Liberal lies on any kind of massive scale is for Conservatives to be able to exist on Social media. Liberals know this. They are wise to censor. It's what they always have done and will continue to do. Legislation is unlikely. It's Executive Order time. I'm at least mildly optimistic on this since Trump has shown that he is not averse to abusing the EO the way that Obama did. I'm still disappointed though that he hasn't yet weaponized the IRS. (Baby steps).

[WingsFan]

[Hannibal]

Rules for Radicals Rule #4:

"4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

[iam416]

[iam416]

Your point is well-taken, Hannibal. And remarkably timely given the efforts to ignore my substantive point under some sort of delusional belief in lack of purity. Perfect timing, really.