Monday morning links

Potty training: The transgender movement wants to change your bathroom habits

Read at your own peril. There are some really gross side-effects from gender transformation. That I really didn't want to know.

#1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2022-09-19 08:00 (Reply)

US Appeals Court Rejects Big Tech's Right to Regulate Online Speech

In a fit of pique, look for the Big Tech to emphasize and advocate behind the scenes the most vile and violent stuff that comes their way. If they can't censor the way they want to protect their politics, I guarantee they will try to turn those platforms into the biggest shitshow you can imagine. Then they'll come back and tell us "See what you made us do?"

Of course, some of the most vile stuff they allow now is right in line with their politics.

#2 ruralcounsel on 2022-09-19 09:23 (Reply)

ruralcounsel: In a fit of pique, look for the Big Tech to emphasize and advocate behind the scenes the most vile and violent stuff that comes their way.

The ruling flips the First Amendment on its head. If Facebook wants to create a forum for the discussion of knitting, they have to also allow "Death to America," "Meet your Slovenian wife today," and "Crochet Rules!"

#2.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 09:44 (Reply)

You mean they don't allow that now?

#2.1.1 Don on 2022-09-19 09:51 (Reply)

Don: You mean they don't allow that now?

That's up to them.
https://www.facebook.com/KnittingClub/
https://twitter.com/hashtag/knitting

What the law says is that someone from Russia can set up a page looking like some place in America pushing racist or election propaganda.

#2.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 10:15 (Reply)

An alternative view is that the law was being flipped on its head, but now has been righted. The course of history suggests this is the more accurate interpretation.

We're grownups, and don't need a nanny to screen or censor for us, nor do we accept a faceless, arbitrary self-imposed authority to do it. We are capable of daring to read scary, disgusting things - or choosing not to. And the people that print scary, disgusting things can be ignored for their words, and shunned. But what is not acceptable, is a faceless authority that arbitrarily takes action on some, but ignores other identical infractions except with differing ideology. That is politically-driven censorship and it is not allowed.

#2.1.2.1 Aggie on 2022-09-19 10:24 (Reply)

Aggie: The course of history suggests this is the more accurate interpretation.

The course of history is that private forums, such as newspapers and bulletin boards, can decide what can be posted.

Aggie: We're grownups, and don't need a nanny to screen or censor for us, nor do we accept a faceless, arbitrary self-imposed authority to do it.

Again, that's up to you. Without moderation, all forums eventually become flooded with spam and pornography. However, you are free to join those forums. That's what the First Amendment is all about.

#2.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 10:33 (Reply)

No. The court has decided and that is where it presently stands.

Whine more, cry harder.

#2.1.2.2.1 Aggie on 2022-09-19 11:15 (Reply)

Aggie: No. The court has decided and that is where it presently stands.

In the one jurisdiction only. Notably, you ignored our response about why it's a bad decision for free speech.

#2.1.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 11:47 (Reply)

They are being designated as a utility. They will be treated like an electric, phone, or water service. I always felt that the states should regulate them as such and it is finally happening.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 12:22 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: They are being designated as a utility.

Facebook is not a utility. They sell advertising. To do so, they regulate the forum to make it conducive to selling advertising. Are you saying Nazis should be able to organize on Facebook against the wishes of the business? Against the wishes of the advertisers? What about penis enlargement testimonials flooding the forum?

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 12:27 (Reply)

It doesn't matter if Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media want to be designated as utilities. They WILL be designated as utilities.
Nazis(fascists) and Marxists(communists) can already communicate through the telephone or through the mails. So what? They can be monitored by the government just as they monitor all media.
Advertisers make a choice of where to advertise. They will still have that choice to advertise or not.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 12:42 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: It doesn't matter if Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media want to be designated as utilities. They WILL be designated as utilities.

What the heck are you talking about? They are social media companies that sell advertising, not utilities.

indyjonesouthere: They will still have that choice to advertise or not.

No, because under the law, every large social media company will be forced by the government to allow Nazis, Russian propaganda, and penis enlargement testimonials.

Keep this in mind when conservatives claim they are for limited government.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 12:53 (Reply)

Any state can designate them to be a utility and they WILL be a utility. It is NOT your decision, it is the state's decision to make it so.
And just to please the progressives they could even be allowed to advertise abortions if they can find a local provider in their state that wishes to advertise.
What a deal. And no one in the state is censored by the fascist government/corporatist complex like they are now.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 13:10 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Any state can designate them to be a utility and they WILL be a utility.

That's not how free speech works. You can't just say they're a utility and remove a fundamental right. Keep in mind that you are arguing a private company should be forced by the government to allow Nazis to publicly organize on their forum.

Keep this in mind when conservatives claim they are for limited government.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 13:13 (Reply)

You have free speech in the mails. You have free speech on the phone. The only reason you dislike the "utility" feature is that you can no longer censor speech that you dislike and prefer to call hate speech. You much prefer the fascist solution to control speech.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 13:19 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You have free speech in the mails. You have free speech on the phone.

And newspapers and other forums have the free speech right to publish or not publish.

indyjonesouthere: You much prefer the fascist solution to control speech.

You are advocating forcing private companies to publish Nazi hate speech and Russian propaganda.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 14:27 (Reply)

At one time, private companies did, and a few still do, run electric, water, cable and phone companies. Most states made them utilities and regulate them. They even force them to have licenses and permits.

There is no reason not to do the same with social media. It will be the will of each state's citizens to determine if social media should be regulated.

Making social media a utility simply keeps the government/corporatist at bay and unable to censor ideas.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 15:07 (Reply)

Rather than continue arguing, please just fuck off and die.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2 Publius Americanus on 2022-09-19 15:08 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Most states made them utilities and regulate them.

Sure. However, regulating the electric company doesn't impact free speech rights. However, forcing a newspaper to print Nazi propaganda would. Ignoring the point doesn't make it go away.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 15:29 (Reply)

Regulating a phone company does not impact free speech either. You have to think outside the Fascist box and outside the Marxist box. Try the liberty box.

If you are still confused over social media just think of it as a local movie theatre. It doesn't produce movies or other events and it doesn't mandate you going to the event. It allows you to ban or block yourself from having to go to the event. It even gives ratings to events such as G or perhaps XXX. Yet that has no effect on you. You may attend or not. Social media is simply a platform (a theatre), like a phone or electricity or water that you can partake in or not.

What it DISALLOWS is for a corporatist to follow government advice (FASCISM) and BAN topics or events. It even DISALLOWS government advising government institutions (MARXISM) to ban topics or events.

It is a basic utility.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 16:19 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: If you are still confused over social media just think of it as a local movie theatre. It doesn't produce movies or other events and it doesn't mandate you going to the event.

According to your position, movie theaters would not be able to decide what movies to show, but would have to show Nazi propaganda on an equal footing with rom-coms.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 16:28 (Reply)

Movie theatres provide what the customer wants. If they don't, they go woke and broke. If the production companies don't make the movies that the customer wants, then they go woke and broke. That is quite evident in the filing of bankruptcies.

The same with newspapers.

Utilities are not allowed to fail and are bailed out. Customers need water, power, etc. Flint, Michigan ring a bell? States find it in their benefit to regulate necessary utilities. Social media is a utility. I will vote to make it a utility just as I voted to support those wanting to end abortion in my state. It is a state issue and not a federal issue.

Those in my state do not find newspapers or movies to be necessary utilities.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 16:49 (Reply)

Newspapers supply their own content. Buy it or not.

Social media companies are platforms for outside content. They are not the same. It is a utility for however you choose to use it.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 16:36 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Newspapers supply their own content.

Newspapers also publish freelance articles and letters to the editor. They don't have to publish whatever is submitted. They can choose whatever matches their vision or goals.

indyjonesouthere: It is a utility for however you choose to use it.

Social media are not a utility. You don't pay to post. Social media companies sell advertising. They want to create an environment conducive to selling ads. They don't want Nazis and penis enlargement testimonials creating an environment that pushes away advertisers. Regardless, they have the right to create a forum of their own choosing. They don't have to tolerate anti-Semitic rants.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 16:48 (Reply)

As I said, they provide their own content for the paper.

You pay to post in that they sell your information to advertisers and as we find out they also read our confidential information and give it to the Feds. Or may even sell it to the Feds.

They desperately need regulation by the states. If they don't like doing business in my state, then they can end their business here just like any other business. If you don't like doing business in California or New York, then you move your business to Florida. And guess what's happening.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 16:58 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You pay to post in that they sell your information to advertisers

You click the terms of service, which represents the contract. There is no renumeration.

indyjonesouthere: They desperately need regulation by the states.

So much for small government conservatism.

There are all sorts of legitimate regulations, including FTC regulations. For instance, they can't promise one thing and then do something else. However, they can change their terms of service any time they want. But forcing them to publish something is contrary to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 17:18 (Reply)

The terms of service allow them to sell your information to advertisers for compensation. When they sell your communications to the Feds that is rather devious and censorship is rather devious as it calls information they don't like "disinformation". As we know, the CDC, NIH, and Fauci deceived the public but were not censored. Social media became a useful idiot in the censorship game between government and social media. That is the fascism you alway condemn. The government also conspired with government agencies to censor experts that were not part of the government complex. That is marxist communism at its best. States will correct those colluders.

You don't have to approve of states treating social media as a utility, but it does protect the citizen from the government colluding with business or other government agencies in its desperate attempt to censor under the banner of fascism or communism.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 21:08 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The terms of service allow them to sell your information to advertisers for compensation.

That's right.

indyjonesouthere: As we know, the CDC, NIH, and Fauci deceived the public but were not censored.

No, we don't know that. While they made a number of missteps, the fact is that they warned that COVID was a serious threat to the American public, and a million Americans deaths due to COVID justifies their concern.

indyjonesouthere: You don't have to approve of states treating social media as a utility

It would be a violation of free speech. If you don't believe in free speech, then sure, regulate them however you like. But forums can't function without moderation.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-20 08:59 (Reply)

So they do receive compensation as I stated.

You call them missteps. What a hoot. No, they outright lied and knew they lied. It is their MOA. It was incremental, step by step deception. It started with 2 weeks to stop the spread.

I like free speech. Social media does not like free speech. They like "approved" speech. Any other speech is hate speech or disinformation. Authoritarians use censorship to rid the stage of any "unapproved" speech.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-20 12:13 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: So they do receive compensation as I stated.

That is not what is meant by paying for the service. And they can change the terms of service at any time with a simple popup.

Notably, you ignored virtually every point we raised having to do with free speech and with the impracticality of unmoderated forums.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-20 12:18 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Social media does not like free speech.

Social media are moderated forums. Free speech protects their right to create a forum of their own choosing. Free speech means the government can't force them to carry Nazi organizers or penis enlargement testimonials. But this is exactly what you would do.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3 Zachriel on 2022-09-20 12:34 (Reply)

In Zach world the word "moderated" means censored. The fascists determine what is truth. Fauci was mandating what was truth. We find out he was not so truthy. How many people did he get killed over being truthy? That question is being determined by the experts he got censored. Social media along with government will also be judged for its collusion.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-20 12:51 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: the word "moderated" means censored.

That's the most common form of moderation. A moderator, for instance, may censor spam, pornography, bad language, hate speech, or personal attacks. Or, a moderator on a knitting forum might censor comments about politics or crochet.

That's not fascism. That's what protects free speech. You are advocating no censorship, which means penis enlargement testimonials will overrun each and every forum, and free speech dies. Try to respond to the point instead of avoiding it.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-20 13:00 (Reply)

It is fascism because it is the government colluding with private social media to censor any idea or expert outside government control. Control the speech to control and manipulate the population. Fauci, CDC, and NIH feared that people would not get the Vaxx if they could see the reality of the Vaxx. The Vaxx kills.

Making social media a utility disallows the censorship. All can speak at the forum.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-20 13:15 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: It is fascism because it is the government colluding with private social media to censor any idea or expert outside government control.

It's only a threat to free speech if the government exerts coercion or force. Cooperating with the government to disseminate information is not inconsistent with free speech. Indeed, agreeing with the government is protected speech, just as rejecting the government's message is protected speech. Examples were provided above, but you ignored them.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-20 15:00 (Reply)

The government has been doing just that. And to properly close the discussion do read the 5th circuit decision making. Especially the concurrence of Edith Jones.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/19/federal-court-deals-major-blow-to-big-tech-and-sets-up-scotus-to-restore-free-speech/

This will spread like wildfire as it does not suppress social media free speech or mandate social media speech. SCOTUS will like the logic.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-20 15:43 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The government has been doing just that.

Don't see where your link supports the claim.

indyjonesouthere: This will spread like wildfire as it does not suppress social media free speech or mandate social media speech.

Of course it does. Have you even read the bill? It's nonsensical. It was written by people who have no idea how social media works.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-20 16:10 (Reply)

You didn't really read it did you. It gives the 5 precedents that they used to show no infringement of the freedom of speech. Now go read the link I gave you instead of pretending you read it.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-20 18:31 (Reply)

The claim was the government was forcing “private social media to censor any idea or expert outside government control.”

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-21 06:58 (Reply)

Keep in mind you are arguing that forums, such as Maggie's Farm, have to give equal access to pro-Nazi as to anti-Nazi speech.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2.2.3 Zachriel on 2022-09-21 09:19 (Reply)

They do that already. I have seen nothing censored here yet.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.3.3.1.1.1.2.3.2.2.2.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-21 14:41 (Reply)

“We have to turn down the capability of these conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences. They are extremely radical, and pushing extremely radical views,”

Alex Stamos, former Chief Security Officer of Facebook and the former Chief Information Security Officer at Yahoo.

Keep this in mind when leftists claim they are for free speech and the open dissemination of ideas.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.3 SK on 2022-09-19 15:18 (Reply)

SK: Keep this in mind when leftists claim they are for free speech and the open dissemination of ideas.

There's a difference between decrying policies of social media companies, and using the government to force them to allow any speech on a private forum regardless of how repugnant. Nazis have the right to free speech, but newspapers and social media companies also have the right to create forums conducive to their own visions and goals.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2.3.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 15:34 (Reply)

It is always my option to ignore what you say, you boob. You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to either my agreement, or even my attention.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.3 Aggie on 2022-09-19 12:55 (Reply)

Aggie: It is always my option to ignore what you say

Sure, but you didn't. You had argued that you don't need a nanny. However, that's not the issue, but the right of a private business to regulate their own forum.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 13:08 (Reply)

And whether the government should have the power to force a private company to allow Nazis to organize publicly on their forum.

#2.1.2.2.1.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 13:10 (Reply)

"That's up to them."

Just imagine if Ma Bell listened to all your calls and muted those they didn't like and you will understand the harm that the social media Czars have done.

#2.1.2.3 OneGuy on 2022-09-19 10:39 (Reply)

OneGuy: Just imagine if Ma Bell listened to all your calls and muted those they didn't like

That a different situation, as phone calls are one-to-one. Social media are generally public, so that requires at least some moderation. It's more akin to a private newspaper or bulletin board. Imagine you set up a bulletin board at your business meant for local charities, but then the government forced you to allow anyone to post messages, even those that were hateful or of a sexual nature.

Keep this in mind when conservatives claim they are for limited government.

#2.1.2.3.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 10:46 (Reply)

You don't remember "party lines" do you.

#2.1.2.3.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 12:24 (Reply)

So than, if the social media choose to censor everything related to LGBQT, BLM, CRT, trans and Antifa, and Democrats while allowing MAGA and ultra MAGA you would be OK with that?

#2.1.2.3.1.2 OneGuy on 2022-09-19 12:25 (Reply)

OneGuy: So than, if the social media choose to censor everything related to LGBQT, BLM, CRT, trans and Antifa, and Democrats while allowing MAGA and ultra MAGA you would be OK with that?

We wouldn't be "OK" with it, but it is their right to moderate their own forum.

#2.1.2.3.1.3 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 12:31 (Reply)

To be clear, Nazis have the right to free speech. If they want to set up a social network, FascismSocial, they have the right to do so. However, the government shouldn't be able to force Facebook to host Nazis.

#2.1.2.3.1.4 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 12:36 (Reply)

"What the law says is that someone from Russia can set up a page looking like some place in America pushing racist or election propaganda."

That's fine.

#2.1.2.4 Eeyore on 2022-09-19 11:41 (Reply)

Eeyore: That's fine.

What you're saying is that a private business can be forced by the U.S. government to carry Russian propaganda, and, effectively, advertisers forced to subsidize them.

Keep this in mind when conservatives claim they are for limited government.

#2.1.2.4.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 11:49 (Reply)

If Facebook wants to create a forum

Which is not what happens and not how FaceBook or any other social media platform presents its services, and you know it.

#2.1.3 Christopher B on 2022-09-19 10:50 (Reply)

Christopher B: Which is not what happens and not how FaceBook or any other social media platform presents its services, and you know it.

In a free society, that's up to them. There are a number of different ways social media works. While Nazis have the right to express their opinion, the Texas law requires Facebook, a private business, to allow Nazis to openly and publicly organize on their forum right next to family-oriented advertisers that Facebook is trying to attract. Do movie theaters have to show Nazi propaganda, too?

Keep this in mind when conservatives claim they are for limited government.

#2.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 11:00 (Reply)

Exaggerate much?
Or rather (((Quibble-Dick))) much?

#2.1.3.1.1 Zachinoff on 2022-09-19 11:46 (Reply)

You are misrepresenting how social media companies present their services to users and to regulators.

#2.1.3.1.2 Christopher B on 2022-09-19 12:20 (Reply)

Christopher B: You are misrepresenting how social media companies present their services to users and to regulators.

This is where you explain how they present their services and how it relates to free speech rights. Are you saying Nazis should be able to organize on Facebook against the wishes of the business?

#2.1.3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 12:23 (Reply)

Being vague and accusatory is not a valid argument.
Trying to see what sticks, hey (((Quibble-DickZ)))???

#2.1.3.1.2.1.1 Zachinoff on 2022-09-19 19:04 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Martha’s Vineyard’s meltdown illustrates the efficacy of a few of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.

The difference, of course, is that Alinsky was trying to help the weak to exercise power, while DeSantis is punching down by using migrants fleeing communism seeking asylum.

#3 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 09:49 (Reply)

Mexico is communist?

I would imagine that a governor or mayor would have more legal right to bus illegals out of their jurisdiction then a president does to traffic them across the border. Prove me wrong. The presidents job is to stop illegal immigration not to participate in it.

#3.1 OneGuy on 2022-09-19 10:41 (Reply)

OneGuy: Mexico is communist?

The migrants sent to Martha's Vineyard were mostly from Venezuela.

OneGuy: I would imagine that a governor or mayor would have more legal right to bus illegals out of their jurisdiction then a president does to traffic them across the border.

The U.S. is not trafficking migrants across the border, but there is a huge influx of migrants from Latin America. Many are economic migrants, but others are political refugees with the right to apply for asylum. While in process, they have to be housed or paroled.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 10:54 (Reply)

"The U.S. is not trafficking migrants across the border"

But of course they are. There was a reasonable and legal policy in effect when Biden was placed in office and he ended those practices immediately and joined forces with the Cartels in trafficking illegal immigrants. He flies them in the dark of night to unknown secret locations where they are released to prey upon actual citizens. Of course Biden is a trafficker of illegals. Does he get his 10% from the Cartels?

#3.1.1.1 OneGuy on 2022-09-19 12:30 (Reply)

OneGuy: He flies them in the dark of night to unknown secret locations where they are released to prey upon actual citizens.

They're moved to other cities where there are services available to help relieve pressure on border towns.

#3.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 12:33 (Reply)

So which cities, how many did he traffic to them and when (each flight and numbers per flight) and what were their criminal records and vaccine status????

If you don't know THEN he trafficked them in secret!!!

#3.1.1.2.1 OneGuy on 2022-09-19 15:41 (Reply)

OneGuy: So which cities, how many did he traffic to them and when (each flight and numbers per flight) and what were their criminal records and vaccine status????

Most have been unaccompanied children being sent to non-profits, such as MercyFirst. The Biden administration has resisted sending larger numbers as advocated by DHS due to overloaded facilities near the border.

#3.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 15:53 (Reply)

So you don't know because its a secret. Biden trafficked the immigrants all over the U.S. in secret. He might be breaking some laws but he is most cetainly breaking his oath of office.

#3.1.1.2.1.1.1 OneGuy on 2022-09-19 21:43 (Reply)

OneGuy: He might be breaking some laws but he is most cetainly breaking his oath of office.

It's neither illegal or breaking the oath of office. When migrants are allowed to stay pending an immigration hearing, such as those seeking asylum under the law, provisions have to be made. Moving migrants away from overtaxed border towns is appropriate.

#3.1.1.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-20 08:52 (Reply)

"Moving migrants away from overtaxed border towns is appropriate."

So you agree with the Texas and Florida governor .

#3.1.1.2.1.1.2.1 OneGuy on 2022-09-20 10:34 (Reply)

OneGuy: So you agree with the Texas and Florida governor .

No, because they lied to the migrants and didn't make appropriate provisions for their care at their arrival point, including families with children.

#3.1.1.2.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-20 10:37 (Reply)

"Alinsky was trying to help the weak to exercise power"

God, that caused coffee all over my keyboard while I snorted in laughter.

#3.2 John Fisher on 2022-09-19 11:22 (Reply)

"Poverty means not only lacking money, but also lacking power. ... When ... poverty and the lack of power bar you from equal protection, equal equity in the courts, and equal participation in the economic and social life of your society, then you are poor." — Saul Alinsky

#3.2.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 11:51 (Reply)

Today that applies to the people Democrats call 'deplorable'. I number myself among them.

That said, Alinsky no more cared about the powerless than Marx and Lenin did. His was just another route to power.

#3.2.1.1 John Fisher on 2022-09-19 16:18 (Reply)

John Fisher: Alinsky no more cared about the powerless than Marx and Lenin did.

Wrong on all three points.

#3.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 16:25 (Reply)

Lenin and his followers were responsible for 50+M deaths in the 20th Century. How many kulaks were powerless when the Party came for them? Marx owns that - hopefully those ghosts are dancing on his grave.

Alinsky by contrast, hasn't gotten that many people killed - yet. Patience, grasshopper.

#3.2.1.1.1.1 John Fisher on 2022-09-19 17:59 (Reply)

John Fisher: Lenin and his followers were responsible for 50+M deaths in the 20th Century.

That’s what happens when you combine an unattainable ideal (Utopianism) with a belief that the ends justify the means (extremism). The question concerned their motives. Marx and Lenin were true believers. Alinsky did care about the poor and dispossessed, contrary to your claim above.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 18:51 (Reply)

No Alinsky cared only about power, his ower

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 SF jeff on 2022-09-19 22:18 (Reply)

SF jeff: No Alinsky cared only about power, his ower

That's appears contrary to his work with the dispossessed. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-09-20 08:53 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Bill Maher: A unified theory of wokeness . . . It’s just a way to congratulate yourself about being better than George Washington because you have a gay friend and he didn’t.

Baron von Steuben, considered one of the fathers of the United States Army and George Washington's chief of staff, was openly gay.
https://www.history.com/news/openly-gay-revolutionary-war-hero-friedrich-von-steuben

woke : aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

#4 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 10:00 (Reply)

Dang, site is not allowing me to post a link no matter how I jigger it. Oh, well.

No disrespect to Jordan Peterson, but VDH has a lovely bit of writing over at The New Criterion.

How Silicon Valley has become the new King Cotton, where a few filthy rich lord it over the servile class and there's no place for a middle class. Which is why the Democrats have become the party of the rich, don't care about the problems of the middle class. and favor unrestricted immigration for cheap labor. Not much different from the plantation owners in the Old South circa 1850.

#5 Jerryskids on 2022-09-19 10:18 (Reply)

If you read the fine print on the Hungary story you discover that the EU is not happy that Hungary is not participating in the great reset by replacing their voters with "neo-huns". Open up your borders Hungary and accept the invaders.

#6 JustMe on 2022-09-19 10:47 (Reply)

Of more interest, and perhaps concern, why is Poland arming themselves to the teeth?

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/poland-south-korea-seal-58-billion-military-deal-88889833
https://www.foxnews.com/world/poland-seeks-purchase-apache-attack-helicopters-from-us-making-second-largest-fleet-world
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/nation/story/2022-09-16/poland-south-korea-seal-3-billion-military-aircraft-deals

And are they combining this public rearming with private conversations with their Eastern European neighbors about dumping both the EU and NATO for a local arrangement that won't be sovereignty eating like the EU nor dependent on a distant and disinterested US for defense. If I were a Polish leader, I would.

The South Korea tie is also an 'interesting' twist.

#6.1 John Fisher on 2022-09-19 16:24 (Reply)

John Fisher: Of more interest, and perhaps concern, why is Poland arming themselves to the teeth?

Because Russia invaded Ukraine. (Poland borders Ukraine. Poland also borders Belarus, which Russia has used as a staging ground for the invasion.)

John Fisher: And are they combining this public rearming with private conversations with their Eastern European neighbors about dumping both the EU and NATO for a local arrangement that won't be sovereignty eating like the EU nor dependent on a distant and disinterested US for defense.

Brexit has shown everyone the problem with leaving the EU. It's not as if Britain can just stop doing business with Europe. The EU has all these regulations, so does it make sense to leave the EU to avoid those regulations? Consider a British business selling to Europe. After Brexit, they still have to meet those regulations, but they no longer have a say in setting the regulations, plus now they to fill out all sorts of paperwork, pay tariffs, go through inspections, all the while competing against European businesses who don't have that problem.

Poland would have the same problem. Regardless, Poles overwhelmingly support the EU.

#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 16:41 (Reply)

I'm guessing that poll would look a little different today. It will look a lot more different when Germany stabs Ukraine in the back to get its gas turned back on - can't have good Germans freezing in the dark for Slavs after all.

And if Eastern Europe decides to leave the EU en mass and form its own trading block the idiots in Brussels who regulate everything will only have themselves to blame.

#6.1.1.1 John Fisher on 2022-09-19 18:03 (Reply)

John Fisher: And if Eastern Europe decides to leave the EU en mass and form its own trading block the idiots in Brussels who regulate everything will only have themselves to blame.

It’s possible, but it would have the same issues as Brexit. Their best markets are in the west. Furthermore, free movement has been a boon to Polish workers especially, as they work freely for high wages across Europe.

#6.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 19:39 (Reply)

"'Ultra-Processed' Food: The Nutrition Myth That Won't Die" If an item's ingredient list reads like a chemistry book I refuse to buy it.

#7 JC on 2022-09-19 12:41 (Reply)

S.F. building 95-million-dollar school despite fewer students... those are re-education centers to serve the WEF/NWO/BBB society.

#8 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 12:59 (Reply)

The 17th was Constitution Day in the US So that's why the flags in our town were at half-staff.

#9 snopercod on 2022-09-19 13:38 (Reply)

It would be fitting.

#9.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 14:16 (Reply)

Federer the great... I think I would put Arthur Ashe in that category as well. Like Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus in golf, Ashe seemed to be a gentleman of the game in tennis.

#10 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 13:44 (Reply)

The Martha's Vineyard meltdown... Note from Gunther Eagleman

Breaking: All but one illegal immigrant was removed from Martha's Vineyard... One had a fake birth certificate from Hawaii.

#11 indyjonesouthere on 2022-09-19 14:13 (Reply)

Thanks for the laugh especially after scrolling through the unread Zach... gaslighting or whatever misinformation it is.

#11.1 grant1863 on 2022-09-19 19:14 (Reply)

Three points on the social media providers:
1. If a site takes on the task of moderating content based on viewpoint, they should lose their immunity for suits based on libel and slander, as they have placed themselves in the position of a publisher and not a forum.

2. If they are going to use their code of conduct as a part of their contract of carriage, the details of what is and what is not need to be spelled out to the extent that a reasonable person could determine what is and what is not allowed. Vague statements like "may cause offense" need to be judged in terms on a reasonable person standard, not a potential for causing harm.

3. At the poinnt a private company begins to rely on information from a government entity on what is and what is not misinformation, they have become the agent of said government and should be liable for First Amendment violations. If they are abiding by CDC and FBI "recommendations", they are not acting as the private entity that would shield them from consideration as an actor.

#12 Another guy named Dan on 2022-09-19 16:50 (Reply)

Another guy named Dan: 1. If a site takes on the task of moderating content based on viewpoint, they should lose their immunity for suits based on libel and slander, as they have placed themselves in the position of a publisher and not a forum.

That's not how forums work. If you create a forum for knitting, you can keep out discussions of why the Stones are better than Zeppelin if you want. If you set up a bulletin board in your restaurant for local food charities, you don't have to allow notices about upcoming Nazi gatherings.

Another guy named Dan: 2. If they are going to use their code of conduct as a part of their contract of carriage, the details of what is and what is not need to be spelled out to the extent that a reasonable person could determine what is and what is not allowed.

Sure. And people have the right to complain if those codes are vague. But that's a decision of the forum, not one where the government can force them to publish views they find repugnant.

Another guy named Dan: 3. At the poinnt a private company begins to rely on information from a government entity on what is and what is not misinformation, they have become the agent of said government and should be liable for First Amendment violations. ]

Consider a forum for discussion of science. A flat-Earther drops by. The forum operator links to NASA and labels flat-Eartherism as misinformation. How the heck would that be a violation of the First Amendment? Sure, you could say they shouldn't rely on NASA—cause deep state woo. But they have every right to do so. That's free speech. What would be a violation would be the government coercing compliance.

#12.1 Zachriel on 2022-09-19 17:10 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, September 19. 2022

Monday morning links