Speedom of Freech
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
@blakeyrat said in Speedom of Freech:
People oppose the oil pipeline because they oppose oil.
Which is ironic because that's a great description of @Fox.
Also @masonwheeler. Are we sure that they are not alts?
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
@Polygeekery said in Speedom of Freech:
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
You do realize that oil reserves, in the US and worldwide, are at record levels, right? We are swimming in already-extracted oil. We could shut down every rig in the entire world and get by just fine for a good while.
You've lost your fucking mind.
It doesn't even pass the sniff test. If that were true, then why would the oil industry be bothering to buy anything from the people pumping it out of the ground?
Or maybe "a good while" was just a few weeks.
A "good while" is long enough for Elon Musk to save us all. Hell, his interns could do it, and it would only take them 60 days.
-
Yes. Yes. More downvotes. @masonwheeler, let the hate flow through you.
-
Muting this thread, as it's been overrun by morons.
-
masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
Muting this thread, as it's been overrun by morons.
But it just got better!
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
Muting this thread, as it's been overrun by morons.
There will be excess capacity as soon as you leave. No worries.
-
@Polygeekery Maybe we should give him his own thread like SpectateSwamp has where he can be as kooky as he likes and where everyone humors him.
-
Funny, he seems allergic to people asking for his sources. Maybe he doesn't have any? <displays shocked face>
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Speedom of Freech:
Funny, he seems allergic to people asking for his sources. Maybe he doesn't have any? <displays shocked face>
The guy believes in vacuum trains.
Also, to be fair, it is probably hard to form a coherent argument with Elon Musk's cock in his mouth.
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
@Polygeekery Maybe we should give him his own thread like SpectateSwamp has where he can be as kooky as he likes and where everyone humors him.
Would I have to be nice in this proposed thread?
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
You just have to pick at every nit, don't you? While avoiding facing the argument?
Fine: substitute for "company" the phrase "publicly traded corporations".
@Polygeekery said in Speedom of Freech:
Also @masonwheeler. Are we sure that they are not alts?
I hadn't thought of that, but now that you mention it...
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
If a company has 100,000 investors and spends $10,000,000 on political speech, it reduces every investor's dividend by $100.
No. Flat wrong. They could decide to give every investor an additional $100 in dividends. Or they could simply leave that money in their company bank accounts.
And since you already said to skip the point that they're supposed to invest money in ways that will ultimately improve their bottom line, I won't mention that.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
Muting this thread, as I ran into people that know how to debate properly, and I don't like my strongly-held assertions being challenged.
FTFY
-
@anotherusername said in Speedom of Freech:
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
If a company has 100,000 investors and spends $10,000,000 on political speech, it reduces every investor's dividend by $100.
No. Flat wrong. They could decide to give every investor an additional $100 in dividends. Or they could simply leave that money in their company bank accounts.
And since you already said to skip the point that they're supposed to invest money in ways that will ultimately improve their bottom line, I won't mention that.
The union could decide to reduce dues, or leave the $100 in a bank account.
It has been asserted that unions should not be allowed to speak, using member dues, at minimum without the permission of each member; because its speech may not conform to the desires of it's voluntary member.
In the case at least of publicly traded corporations, the company and its profit belong to the investors. Any money expended on political speech is a direct reduction in investor value in an immediate and real sense.
The company speaking infringes the investor right of free speech in exactly the same sense and to the same degree as when a union speaks on behalf of its members. Assertions by the company or union that the infringed right is to the investor's/member's benefit likewise seem to have similar merit.
As far as I can see, there has been no proffer of a ground for restricting union free speech and not corporate free speech. Beyond, of course, the usual, "WE LOVE CORPORATIONS AND HATE UNIONS!"
Likewise, the other argument I was pursuing, PACs vs web, yields a similar, "WE LOVE PACS AND HATE LIBERAL BLOGGERS!" Therefore, rights for Citizens United; bloggers not so much.
How can such disparate treatments be defensible under the First Amendment?
-
@CoyneTheDup I already explained why those are totally different scenarios. It's about 60 posts up:
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
In the case at least of publicly traded corporations, the company and its profit belong to the investors. Any money expended on political speech is a direct reduction in investor value in an immediate and real sense.
No, it is not.
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
How can such disparate treatments be defensible under the First Amendment?
I don't know. I try not to argue with strawmen.
-
@anotherusername said in Speedom of Freech:
@CoyneTheDup I already explained why those are totally different scenarios. It's about 60 posts up:
That is a hand wave. The union member doesn't have to belong to any "protection racket" any more than anyone must invest in a company.
And your use of "protection racket' clearly shows your bias against unions.
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
@anotherusername said in Speedom of Freech:
@CoyneTheDup I already explained why those are totally different scenarios. It's about 60 posts up:
That is a hand wave. The union member doesn't have to belong to any "protection racket" any more than anyone must invest in a company.
And your use of "protection racket' clearly shows your bias against unions.
Yeah, unions are more like organized blackmail and extortion.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
They didn't vote for Trump so much as against Clinton.
<ΒΏporque_no_los_dos?.jif>
-
@Fox said in Speedom of Freech:
Trump was worse than Hillary on every single issue,
Do we really need to go through all of them?
Also, you can pick and choose sound bites from one of them even during just the 2016 campaigns that shows that one flip-flopping on issues, depending on their audience at the time. You might argue that the other has changed his (oops, I gave it away
) opinion, but I'd also point out that some people's views change as they get more mature and actually start looking at issues.including insulting the voter base supporting their opponent.
[Citation nee... Oh, wait, you mean illegal immigrants? Are you admitting that the Democratic Party encouraged illegal voting in order to stack the vote in their favor?
I can't think of anything else that you could be referring to. Trump has been consistently saying that he wants to "Make America Great Again" for all Americans.
-
@antiquarian said in Speedom of Freech:
@Polygeekery said in Speedom of Freech:
Also @masonwheeler. Are we sure that they are not alts?
I hadn't thought of that, but now that you mention it...
I'm pretty sure they're not. Their ideas about one religion in particular differ enough, and I think they've mentioned where they live in
, and those are completely different as well.
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
It has been asserted that unions should not be allowed to speak, using member dues, at minimum without the permission of each member; because its speech may not conform to the desires of it's voluntary member.
ITYM "involuntary members"
Voluntary members chose to join the union (and so would be agreeing with the union's views/policies in general).
Involuntary members join because they have to (and might not agree with the union at all).
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
@anotherusername said in Speedom of Freech:
@CoyneTheDup I already explained why those are totally different scenarios. It's about 60 posts up:
That is a hand wave. The union member doesn't have to belong to any "protection racket" any more than anyone must invest in a company.
In theory. In practice, they don't actually have a choice. In some states, their options are "join the union" or "find a different job in a completely different industry". And even in states where you can't be mandatoried into a union, your other option is "don't join a union at all and be that guy who management can dump on without worrying about the union".
It'd be like your city requiring you to make regular donations to the local Catholic church in order to be hooked up to the electric utility. Oh, you don't want to donate to the Catholic church? That's fine, just move, or do without electricity. Same thing.
And I call them a "protection racket" because I'm biased against them when they're operated like one.
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
It has been asserted that unions should not be allowed to speak, using member dues, at minimum without the permission of each member; because its speech may not conform to the desires of it's voluntary member.
Close, but still pretty far. It's the dues taking that was decried, not the speech. I can understand how this could seem petty but it's a massively different thing compared to them having the right to political speech.
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
The company speaking infringes the investor right of free speech in exactly the same sense and to the same degree as when a union speaks on behalf of its members.
Yes, which is to say, not at all, assuming the union isn't using money that the member wasn't forced to pay to the union.
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
As far as I can see, there has been no proffer of a ground for restricting union free speech and not corporate free speech. Beyond, of course, the usual, "WE LOVE CORPORATIONS AND HATE UNIONS!"
Actually, the only person here saying that unions shouldn't have freedom of speech was @masonwheeler, and he said the same thing about corporations. The rest is just your strawaliens.
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
Likewise, the other argument I was pursuing, PACs vs web, yields a similar, "WE LOVE PACS AND HATE LIBERAL BLOGGERS!" Therefore, rights for Citizens United; bloggers not so much.
I agree, very likewise: Shit you made up.
@CoyneTheDup said in Speedom of Freech:
How can such disparate treatments be defensible under the First Amendment?
I have been arguing for no disparate treatment.
-
@djls45 said in Speedom of Freech:
Do we really need to go through all of them?
Also, you can pick and choose sound bites from one of them even during just the 2016 campaigns that shows that one flip-flopping on issues, depending on their audience at the time. You might argue that the other has changed his (oops, I gave it away ) opinion, but I'd also point out that some people's views change as they get more mature and actually start looking at issues.Donald got whiplash from the speed with which he flip-flopped (promising to support homophobia then #AskTheGays), and Donald's corruption was much more thorough than Hillary's.
@djls45 said in Speedom of Freech:Oh, wait, you mean illegal immigrants? Are you admitting that the Democratic Party encouraged illegal voting in order to stack the vote in their favor?
I can't think of anything else that you could be referring to. Trump has been consistently saying that he wants to "Make America Great Again" for all Americans.Bullshit. He's consistently attacked women and almost every class of minority. He even has gone so far as to redefine "American" to exclude non-white immigrants.
-
@Fox said in Speedom of Freech:
He's consistently attacked women and almost every class of minority. He even has gone so far as to redefine "American" to exclude non-white immigrants.
No. None of this has happened. Take off the tinfoil hat.
-
@Fox said in Speedom of Freech:
and Donald's corruption was much more thorough than Hillary's.
@Fox said in Speedom of Freech:
He even has gone so far as to redefine "American" to exclude non-white immigrants.
-
@Fox said in Speedom of Freech:
@djls45 said in Speedom of Freech:
Do we really need to go through all of them?
Also, you can pick and choose sound bites from one of them even during just the 2016 campaigns that shows that one flip-flopping on issues, depending on their audience at the time. You might argue that the other has changed his (oops, I gave it away ) opinion, but I'd also point out that some people's views change as they get more mature and actually start looking at issues.Donald got whiplash from the speed with which he flip-flopped (promising to support homophobia then #AskTheGays),
I'll grant you that one, maybe. But why are you upset that he changed to support your views there?
Do you have others?
Shall we count Hillary's?
and Donald's corruption was much more thorough than Hillary's.
How so? What corruption?
@djls45 said in Speedom of Freech:
Oh, wait, you mean illegal immigrants? Are you admitting that the Democratic Party encouraged illegal voting in order to stack the vote in their favor?
I can't think of anything else that you could be referring to. Trump has been consistently saying that he wants to "Make America Great Again" for all Americans.Bullshit. He's consistently attacked women
Consistently? He made one comment in poor taste in what he thought was a private conversation "among the guys", and that's consistent?
and almost every class of minority.
Again, how so?
He even has gone so far as to redefine "American" to exclude non-white immigrants.
Uh... wat? Care to elucidate, maybe with an example or two?
-
@djls45 said in Speedom of Freech:
and Donald's corruption was much more thorough than Hillary's.
How so? What corruption?
I think you have to watch Rachel Maddow's show to find out.
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
I think you have to watch Rachel Maddow's show to find out.
Can I skip the 34 minutes of nonsense monologue and get right to the 7 minutes of "news"?
-
@Polygeekery No one has ever managed that, but I suppose you could try.
-
I call this one "Going full
":
-
@Polygeekery Could be more accurately finished, "...and honesty has no place in debates or laws."
-
@boomzilla Apparently knowing what bourgeois means (if you're in a position to be posting on Twitter, you probably qualify) has no place in debates or laws either.
-
@antiquarian said in Speedom of Freech:
@boomzilla Apparently knowing what bourgeois means (if you're in a position to be posting on Twitter, you probably qualify) has no place in debates or laws either.
Or bourgeoisie, even.
-
Somehow I don't think this is going to succeed:
Twitter users demand Trump stop blocking them for calling him names
The president's personal Twitter account has blocked several anti-Trump people, including one who said the first lady wanted to be a 'widow.' A 1st Amendment organization is demanding he stop.
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
Somehow I don't think this is going to succeed:
And they seem like petulant children. FFS, one of the accounts that is complaining said that his wife wished she were a widow.
-
Also the fact that @VerifiedLiberalJournalist got blocked is simply a way to appeal to the weak-minded. If you were to rephrase it so that it were honest, no one should be surprised or outraged.
A Twitter account claiming to be a "verified liberal journalist" was blocked on Twitter.
"This is outrageous! He is trying to silence the news organizations!"
"This is how fascism starts!"
"Unbelievable! Trump is ruining our country!!"The Twitter account that was set up simply to troll the President was blocked by him on Twitter.
"Well of course it was."
"Why wouldn't it be? They did it just to be dickweeds."
"I would block them also. That was extremely childish of them."
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
Twitter users demand Trump stop blocking them for calling him names
- White House press secretary Sean Spicer acknowledged Tuesday that Trump's tweets are 'official statements by the President of the United States'
- That disagrees with another high-profile aide who said Monday morning that 'a hundred characters is not policy.... it's social media'
Bahaha! Um, no. Those two statements do not disagree. The State of the Union address is one example of an official statement of the president that is neither policy nor executive order.
-
@djls45 You're debating the meaning of wordsβ½ At a time like this? But...TRUMP!
It cracks me up. An old friend of mine continues to post stuff on ο° about how the end of Trump's Presidency is right around the corner. Today's sign of the Trumpacolypse is that a former prosecutor who prosecuted some big name mafiosos has joined the special counsel team.
-
@masonwheeler said in Speedom of Freech:
better but less well-financed speech.
People tell me I have the best speech.
-
@boomzilla said in Speedom of Freech:
You're debating the meaning of wordsβ½ At a time like this? But...TRUMP!
"There are literally immutable Nazis in the White House!!"
-
@JazzyJosh I'm still entertained that people made fun of 'I have the best words' to the point where they're immortal. Like many other things he's said and are now said or thought by lots of people daily, because they get blown around the news so much.
My friend calls this 'meme magic'
-
Well, at least SCOTUS still believes in free speech.
SCOTUS Unanimously Rejects Law Banning Sex Offenders From Social Media
The justices say the law's "unprecedented" and "staggering" scope violates the First Amendment.
and
both 8-0 decisions in favor of free speech.
-
Sadly, Canada feels differently.
-
@dragoon is it ok to punch a Canuck?
-
Damnit congress.
-
@dragoon TFB:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720
Its heart is in the right place, but seems pretty clearly unconstitutional to me. Then again, I don't have a problem with understanding the words "shall make no law," so what do I know?
Matal v. Tam
