Recommended Posts

Back in the early 90s I was living in a weee remote northern town that had a basic, and really crappy cable package.(and was not cheap) so I bought a satallite system that was mostly American and some international channels and even a few Canadian ones.  About 9 months later the Canadian government banned the service because there was not enough “Canadian content”  so with the flick of a switch all my channels were blocked.  No compensation, nothing.  I guess I was not spending enough on taxed Canadian crap to keep Rita McNeil in enough donuts.

Talk about infringing on a persons rights to actually excercise choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, one of the people on the left who can't stand Alex Jones (and President Trump, for that matter), Jimmy Dore, is one of Alex's most vocal defenders--and he's doing it in the name of moral principles in a way I have a hard time finding in O-Land anymore.

It would be interesting to go through this video and list all of the principles Jimmy talks about, including the nuanced differentiation between free speech (enlightenment ideal) and freedom of speech (a right guaranteed in the constitution). Jimmy nailed several principles in a manner Rand could not improve on--and all of them fundamental principles.

People in O-Land are supposed to be talking like this, not a leftie, for God's sake.

Also, if these principles mean anything in O-Land, when people--including Jimmy--talk about legally defining the Internet as a public utility, O-Landers (including libertarians, some conservatives, etc.) have to be able to counter it in the language of principles (moral and otherwise).

So far, the only counter I have heard is the principle that giant tech companies have property rights, but that comes with a total blank-out of all other principles (moral or otherwise) being violated and rights being infringed by them.

That approach is not going to win the principles argument. It will win approval from crony corporatists, though.

What's worse, this approach will allow the left (the wing of the left represented by people like Jimmy Dore and those he agrees with) to win the principles argument, not because they argue principles better, they are simply talking in the way people in O-Land used to, but because O-Landers walked away from talking about principles (except the property rights of cronies) when the name Alex Jones came up.

If you don't defend people you dislike against authoritarians, don't be surprised when the authoritarians crush the people you do like.

Jimmy gets this. He's a leftie and I disagree with him on much, but he gets this. That's one of the reasons I like him.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2018 at 8:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This bullying will inevitably lead to regulation of the Internet in some form--through antitrust laws, declaring social media platforms a public utility, etc., all of which have enough grounds in law to happen. Maybe even racketeering. It all depends on what prosecutors, disgruntled people with lawyers, and politicians can dream up.

Here is a good start of what I am talking about.

Note, President Trump is not an ideologue disconnected from reality. He's a fixer of problems and a builder--all in reality. If he has to choose between fixing a problem or watching a situation degenerate until all is lost just so he can peg his inaction to a story in his mind, he will act and fix the problem.

So be careful what you wish for. Reality might have a different opinion...

 

 

At least, if the social media giants don't stop, the Trump administration will probably start by canceling or chopping up government contracts with social media giants, getting rid of government employees who formerly came from social media giants, cutting access of social media giants to the underbelly of the government's informatics infrastructure, and things like that. Thing about those juicy Pentagon connections...

We can probably expect to see some of the head honchos of the social media giants head to Washington for a powwow with the President soon.

Tim Cook was just there. I wonder if the things he was promised are suddenly being reconsidered... Leverage and all...

But if that doesn't work, and I mean before the midterms, I have little doubt President Trump's legal advisors are ready, willing and able to craft legal approaches and even bills for Congress to fix this out-of-control assault on Alex Jones and, now, on countless conservative voices, some as benign as PragerU.

If ever there were a time for principled voices from our end to speak up about something other than the rights of elitist crony corporatists, that time is now.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is a good start of what I am talking about.

Note, President Trump is not an ideologue disconnected from reality. He's a fixer of problems and a builder--all in reality. If he has to choose between fixing a problem or watching a situation degenerate until all is lost just so he can peg his inaction to a story in his mind, he will act and fix the problem.

So be careful what you wish for. Reality might have a different opinion...

 

 

At least, if the social media giants don't stop, the Trump administration will probably start by canceling or chopping up government contracts with social media giants, getting rid of government employees who formerly came from social media giants, cutting access of social media giants to the underbelly of the government's informatics infrastructure, and things like that. Thing about those juicy Pentagon connections...

 

We can probably expect to see some of the head honchos of the social media giants head to Washington for a powwow with the President soon.

 

Tim Cook was just there. I wonder if the things he was promised are suddenly being reconsidered... Leverage and all...

 

But if that doesn't work, and I mean before the midterms, I have little doubt President Trump's legal advisors are ready, willing and able to craft legal approaches and even bills for Congress to fix this out-of-control assault on Alex Jones and, now, on countless conservative voices, some as benign as PragerU.

 

If ever there were a time for principled voices from our end to speak up about something other than the rights of elitist crony corporatists, that time is now.

 

Michael

 

I agree that Trump is not an ideologue. He fixes problems and he built.

But now?What  does he fix and build?   He is the president now, and the problems he fixes are those he is used to fixing, by suing, firing, and refusing to accept any liability for anything until his opponents are worn down and out  by his financial bullying.

The problems are  his perceived personal enemies. International coevals will just have to learn, it's his way or the Trans=Siberian highway. 

And what has he built? Two years is not a lot of time, but he must have made a tremendous material, financial impact on the average American's life. He has said he has, and his fans at his fund-raising tent revivals know in their hearts he has saved them from  penury and raised them into prosperity.

Or at least, he has reduced to penury those who did not deserve prosperity., not being born God's Americans such as themselves. That seems to be enough for" 'the base'".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, caroljane said:

What  does he fix and build?

Carol,

That's easy.

He's fixing the holy mess that the elitists made and he is Building America Great Again.

Kinda obvious...

:) 

I mean, come on. Do you want discussion of ideas or dueling talking points so you can insult a politician you don't like, feel good about sticking your tongue out at him, and not have to worry about substance? 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

That's easy.

He's fixing the holy mess that the elitists made and he is Building America Great Again.

Kinda obvious...

:) 

I mean, come on. Do you want discussion of ideas or dueling talking points so you can insult a politician you don't like, feel good about sticking your tongue out at him, and not have to worry about substance? 

Michael

I hate to admit it Michael, but I do kind of like dueillng talking points about a politician I don't like.

Try to keep tongue firmly in mouth.

kissing as ever, cousin C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2018 at 9:35 PM, Jules Troy said:

Back in the early 90s I was living in a weee remote northern town that had a basic, and really crappy cable package.(and was not cheap) so I bought a satallite system that was mostly American and some international channels and even a few Canadian ones.  About 9 months later the Canadian government banned the service because there was not enough “Canadian content”  so with the flick of a switch all my channels were blocked.  No compensation, nothing.  I guess I was not spending enough on taxed Canadian crap to keep Rita McNeil in enough donuts.

Talk about infringing on a persons rights to actually excercise choice.

Talk about ain't that too bad?

When you can sing as good as Rita, then start whining.She needed those doughnuts.

She even helped harvest the Nova Scotia cannabis crop (although not wilingly) but what have you done to advance the natlon''s well-being?

As a Maritimer I demand an apology!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 2:34 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But if that doesn't work, and I mean before the midterms, I have little doubt President Trump's legal advisors are ready, willing and able to craft legal approaches and even bills for Congress to fix this out-of-control assault on Alex Jones and, now, on countless conservative voices, some as benign as PragerU.

That was quick:

Except Prager has only been talking about PragerU's banning and shadowbanning issues on Facebook for a couple of months or longer.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, caroljane said:

She [WSS added: Rita McNeil] even helped harvest the Nova Scotia cannabis crop

Re the Nova Scotia cannabis harvest on the Trailer Park Boys:

 

Edited by william.scherk
Added tag line to ID content for the index

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2018 at 1:21 AM, Darrell Hougen said:

Anthony,

I don't think that principles are out-of-context absolutes, even for an individual. Context always matters. For example, Ayn Rand held honesty to be a virtue. However, it is a virtue in the context of peaceful coexistence. As Tara Smith has pointed out, it is even a virtue when the person one is dealing with isn't entirely rational in his reasoning. On the other hand, it isn't hard to construct scenarios involving criminals or acts of war in which it is perfectly reasonable to lie --- where, in fact, honesty would be foolish. So honesty is a virtue within a particular context.

...the right to life.

The right to liberty is not an out-of-context absolute. The only way that ARI and other objectivists can justify open borders is through massive context dropping. In the full context of human existence, it seems imminently reasonable to put limits on immigration.

Darrell

 

 

Yes totally, "principles are not out-of-context absolutes" _especially and only _ "for an individual". I was saying: we have to work with what we've got. Real things, and real principles abstracted from real things

Recalls AR: "He who...[something]...the future, lives it in it today" (I forget Rand's complete words). Since now and here is all one has, reality and one's adherence to reason and the good life, can't be put in abeyance until things improve drastically on the political (individual rights) front. And in our own lifetimes that's uncertain to improbable. I think the rationalism observed sometimes from Objectivists is all tied up with ambivalent, a priori ideas of perfection and perfectibility. Perhaps a hangover from initial religious influences - as if Rand and Objectivism would and could magically make oneself and the world instantly perfect. I.E, simply, by being put "out there" (by ARI, etc.) - or by one reading and theoretically understanding what Objectivism is (without following up with assiduous action, application and much further thinking).

"Perfection" in objective terms (as if there were anything else, in reality), I think, is of one making the maximum commitment to what one is - in capacity and capability - according to and derived from what the identity of man is. The disappointment I've come across in Objectivism circles about a. the apparently "unheroic" outcomes in one's life and b. bitterness about one's imperfect society and nations (and less-than-"perfect" leaders...) can be explained and averted by understanding that the mind of man can aspire to be perfect  - up to its boundaries in reality, and possible only for oneself. A wide and deep range of boundaries, which one hasn't a conception of until one begins discovering and pushing them. 'Beyond' reality lies (neo) mysticism, rationalism and intrinsicism. For everyone else around, one cannot know their minds nor control them, and here too, with others, one should not let 'the perfect' be the enemy of the good, as the saying goes..

Recalls another quote: "...and the wisdom to know the difference." Between what one can change and what one can't. Between one's own life-sphere and the public sphere. Happiness depends upon knowing the distinction. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 4:50 PM, caroljane said:

Talk about ain't that too bad?

When you can sing as good as Rita, then start whining.She needed those doughnuts.

She even helped harvest the Nova Scotia cannabis crop (although not wilingly) but what have you done to advance the natlon''s well-being?

As a Maritimer I demand an apology!

 

As an Albertan what have I done?  Contributed to the Alberta economy which for years fueled and payed billions in transfer payments that have been squandered by prettty much every eastern province including yours that contributed nothing that’s what I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hillary Clinton died next Tuesday, would her tentacles still be able to grip, crush, squeeze and kill?

On 8/14/2018 at 4:03 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is all about the midterms.

During the past presidential election, Hillary Clinton complained about Alex Jones by name. Also, Clinton's poodle, Mueller is currently targeting Roger Stone in a Hail Mary attempt to make his investigation relevant and influence the upcoming elections. Roger co-hosts his own show on Infowars. Do you believe in coincidences like that? 

If Clinton were run over by a committee of benghazi ... would Mueller, her 'poodle,' still be able to throw a football?

There are no coincidences, only hidden plots, a lot of people are saying.  A lot of people don't know that. 

Anyway, 'rat-fucker' Number One, Roger Stone, does indeed seem to be attracting the interest of the big Poodle with Subpoena Paws.  One of his flunkies was given immunity from poodle bites...

From the faked-news channel CNN.  The few details about immunity are likely true, whereas the rest is just gross abuse of the airwaves by the  enemies of the people, or so some dog metaphors might say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If Clinton were run over by a committee of benghazi ... would Mueller, her 'poodle,' still be able to throw a football?

There are no coincidences, only hidden plots, a lot of people are saying.  A lot of people don't know that. 

Anyway, 'rat-fucker' Number One, Roger Stone, does indeed seem to be attracting the interest of the big Poodle with Subpoena Paws.  One of his flunkies was given immunity from poodle bites...

From the faked-news channel CNN.  The few details about immunity are likely true, whereas the rest is just gross abuse of the airwaves by the  enemies of the people, or so some dog metaphors might say.

William,

I feel your pain.

Losing to Trump's a bitch when you thought it was in the tank again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Still, I would do the embittered drunken rant routine after the elections, not before

Who knows? The horse might laugh in the end...

:evil:  :) 

Michael

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If Hillary Clinton died next Tuesday, would her tentacles still be able to grip, crush, squeeze and kill? 

Hillary dindu nuffin!  She's an angel. Sweet, and innocent, and honest. If she were unintentionally guilty of anything, first of all, she'd admit to it right away, because that's how honest she is, and, second, if she somehow accidentally didn't admit to it, she would've been caught, charged, tried, and convincted, because that's how much integrity that democrats and Obama's Justice Depaetment and investigative and law enforcement agencies had! It's just silly nonsense to imagine that the Clintons had a powerful political machine and abused anyone. That kind of stuff doesn't happen in reality. Conspiracy theory kookiness. You're stupid if you've bought onto the vast right wing conspiracy lie that Hillary is anything less that a saint.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Hillary dindu nuffin!  She's an angel. Sweet, and innocent, and honest. If she were unintentionally guilty of anything, first of all, she'd admit to it right away, because that's how honest she is, and, second, if she somehow accidentally didn't admit to it, she would've been caught, charged, tried, and convincted, because that's how much integrity that democrats and Obama's Justice Depaetment and investigative and law enforcement agencies had! It's just silly nonsense to imagine that the Clintons had a powerful political machine and abused anyone. That kind of stuff doesn't happen in reality. Conspiracy theory kookiness. You're stupid if you've bought onto the vast right wing conspiracy lie that Hillary is anything less that a saint.

You have captured the brain-dead subtext of his every post perfectly. Very well done. You have my compliments.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun times on Capitol Hill: Marco Rubio and Alex Jones Throw Down in Heated Exchange Outside Senate Hearing.

All right, nobody cares to loiter through a Daily Beast story. Just give me a video. 

Shoot, dang video won't embed, we'll have to give them Will freaking Sommer quoting himself quoting Cassandra Fairbanks. Hey, isn't she running for Mayor of Toronto or something?

Edited by william.scherk
Period

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Fun times on Capitol Hill: Marco Rubio and Alex Jones Throw Down in Heated Exchange Outside Senate Hearing.

All right, nobody cares to loiter through a Daily Beast story. Just give me a video. 

Shoot, dang video won't embed, we'll have to give them Will freaking Sommer quoting himself quoting Cassandra Fairbanks. Hey, isn't she running for Mayor of Toronto or something?

Hey, I thought yon meant Tessa on the Young and the Restless! But this is pretty good too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, wasn't this thread supposed to be about Alex and the Bullying Establishment, yet here he is bullying Rubio on video, where Rubio had nothing to do with Alex's bans?   hhmmmmm.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Alex hurt Rubio's feelings, poor thing?

:)

Maybe Rubio shouldn't be involved in the Deep State so deeply, fucking up people's lives. If you deep dive into shit, you smell like shit and the smell lasts.

All Alex does is say, in front of the camera, "Hey, you're stinking, dude."

Alex doesn't kill people. Nor does he tell anybody to go kill people.

The Deep State does.

That, to me, is real bullying.

(Many Deep Staters like to have sex with babies, too, but that's another matter.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the main stream fake news media so afraid of?

(batting eyes and asking innocently...)

:) 

Just look at them.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the way Rubio does it:

After waxing poetic about all the rights we enjoy here in America, being the same rights that allow the social media giants Rubio was addressing to exist, he then says:

From the transcript (starting at about 0:42). My bold.

Quote

... we've learned the hard way that social media, that was largely seen as a tool for incredible good, also... what makes it good can be manipulated by bad actors to do harm. And that's what's happened. We've all learned that the hard way. And so what we're asking you to do, and I think what you've agreed to do, is to use the powers that you have within your platforms to crack down on certain users who are hostile actors, who are using disinformation or misinformation or hate speech for the purposes of sowing discord or interfering in our internal affairs. And that's a positive.

Wait a minute. What was that about freedom? I must have missed something in the translation.

So let me translate.

Rubio was talking about the social media giants shutting down Alex Jones. And others like him.

To use Rubio's own words to show just what he thinks, "And that's a positive."

In other words, here in America, censorship is OK so long as it represents what he thinks.

But he goes on:

Quote

Here's the problem, though. And we have to start thinking about what happens when an authoritarian regime asks you to do that. Because their definition of disinformation or misinformation could actually be the truth. Their discord or what they define as discord would be things like defending human rights. Interfering in their internal affairs they would define as advocating for democracy.

Man, that sounds inspiring. Let's think about an example...

Hmmmm... 

Is Rubio talking about an authoritarian regime shutting down pro-Trump drain-the-swamp voices?

Actually, no.

Like he himself said, that's "a positive" to him.

He's talking about Internet giants kowtowing to Chinese censorship and things like that (just watch the video a little more and this becomes clear). And, being a politician, we all know this comes with a different story underneath. It is nothing but a prelude to blah blah blah before sponsoring some law or other saying it's a good thing for Google, etc., to kowtow to Chinese censorship. Rubio (and his cronies) will use other words and obscure forms, of course, but that will be the meaning. Politicians always do that, too. They lead with the opposite as a smokescreen to deflect from what they really want done.

How do I know that Rubio is doing that in this case? I don't for sure. But the fact that he thinks social media censorship is OK in America (when he likes it, I mean, we can't have "discord," right?) but not OK abroad leads me to believe that he thinks social media censorship is OK in general. It's just a matter of timing and how you sell it.

So I wonder, I wonder... What's worse? Being an in-your-face clod who rudely insults his target right to his face, or a dirty rotten low-down weasel who lies to those who elect him so he can be in the crony elitist club?

Who is the real bully?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think any speech regardless of how vile it may be should be censored including so called hate speech.  It is up to people to attend or not attend.  To agree or strongly disagree.  People do not have the right to not be offended....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...