Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Saint Cy of JFC, Aug 8, 2018.
Siekaly, censored since 1998.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but to me it seems like the issues of outsized power and influence companies Iike Google and Facebook have would be better handled as an antitrust issue rather than forcing these massive platforms to host all manner of speech whether they agree with it or not.
If a company is so thoroughly dominant that they essentially are the only avenue for public speech, that tells me they've grown too large.
This sounds good to me, unfortunately we’re not exactly living in a strong antitrust era. The last major antitrust case to break up an existing corporation was almost twenty years ago against Microsoft and the government ended up settling the case. Close to zero chance Trump’s Justice Department files any antitrust action against Apple, Google or Microsoft.
Bernie Sanders was the last major candidate who, if elected, would have railed against corporate power, pushed for stronger antitrust legislation, and appointed Supreme Court nominees sympathetic to the breakup of corporate behemoths. Even if Trump is not reelected, his 2 to 3 Supreme Court appointees will ensure a corporate friendly court for a generation to come.
Moreover, even if the judicial climate and political will existed, under current law you can't really argue antitrust when Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook are all competing against each other in the same sphere. One would have to break out and dominate and start gobbling up the others. Problem is, the AI pie will be mind-bogglingly enormous in the coming decades with more than enough for all to become multi-trillion dollar companies. The era of super gigantic corporations is coming and with it all kinds of privacy and free speech issues due to their reach and power. So far we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
well this is a different viewpoint so it is probably some hate speech. anti fascist mods will ban me i guess,like the time i called the democrat who assasinated a president a racist democrat, guess i'll see you guys in 6 months.
if anyone wants to contact me while banned. babe got my email
So of course the faction for censorship is the faction for authoritarian governance by unelected managerial professionals.
Pretty sad that a sports site has such a decided unbalance of political commenatoris in here that is as extreme as it is, and full of all kinds of "conspiracy theories" downing their opponents, who in Utah of all places is culturally cosmopolitan and educated and civil..... Republican yes, but more like a Romney RINO sort with a strong value on tolerance of other's opinions and beliefs....
Dude, you should get in on some of that Soros money. Get on board man. He takes really good care of his friends. PM me if you want the info.
your conspiracy theories about conservatives are a hoot.
Soros, Rockefeller interests, Gates, Oprah, Besos, and a thousand other Bigs are all on record for their political interests and efforts. Not even disputable. Sure a handful of those Bigs are Conservatives, a substantial number of others are RINO sorts with the intellect of a Jonah in here.
Hillary and Obama and some others are pretty much ideological contemporary versions of pure Statist world agenda notions, who are within their logic frame of references committed to equalizing the world power distribution and to homogenizing the human populace and redistribution of lower class property, leveling the middle class down to a slightly improved lower class, for better management. None of this is even debatable nor any kind of "conspiracy". What you do or anyone does in the light of day, fully explaining your purposes, is hardly "conspiracy".
I might not win anyone in here to the idea of civil discussion and tolerance of a wide range of member views, but hey.... it would be an improvement.
You already get civil discussion (the moderators see to that) and tolerance (you have not been banned) for your views, as does everyone else in here. You are asking for what you already have.
I consider it prima facia evidence that most Utah Jazz fans feel crowded outta the conversations in this forum by the brazen band of progressive hussies we have in here.
I could cite incidents but when it comes right down to it, every person needs to do their on reflections on their tone and comments.
And yes, there are those who are not of the described character I allege, some of whom have tried to tell me I'm just wasting my time trying to discuss anything in here.
Am I a hussy? Cool!
The whole point of free speech and the free exchange of ideas is that bad ideas get crowded out by evidence and exposure. Try coming up with better ideas.
That’s how I paid for my car. I took Soros money to protest Chaffetz at his town hall at Bingham high a few years ago. Easy money
Why do I get the impression that when Trumpers demand “civil discussion” what they really mean is for others to “drop opposition and agree to believe in their insane controversies and nonstop Trump worship?”
I don’t recall Obama being very inflammatory or uncivil yet that didn’t stop the right from making insane and xenophobic stories up about him. I don’t recall calls for civil discussion when trump was running his mouth about birthirism, do you?
I find it amusing that leftists mock the far right wing for being against Soros, a billionaire with a stated lifelong goal of leaving his imprint on all of humanity. Aren't they supposed to be the ones against dirty, evil rich people buying political favor? The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds these days. Instead of celebrating like-minded people for going after activist billionaires they mock them. And then wonder why the big fight continues.
Criticizing Soros as part of the same criticisms of the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc. is a perfectly valid critique. Claiming that he is paying off caravan members or a member of a pedophile ring is not.
A closer look at the "stealth politics" engaged in by American billionaires. I am against "rich people buying political favor".
"Our new, systematic study of the 100 wealthiest Americans indicates that Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg et al are not at all typical. Most of the wealthiest US billionaires – who are much less visible and less reported on – more closely resemble Charles Koch. They are extremely conservative on economic issues. Obsessed with cutting taxes, especially estate taxes – which apply only to the wealthiest Americans. Opposed to government regulation of the environment or big banks. Unenthusiastic about government programs to help with jobs, incomes, healthcare, or retirement pensions – programs supported by large majorities of Americans. Tempted to cut deficits and shrink government by cutting or privatizing guaranteed social security benefits."
....... billionaires who favor unpopular, ultraconservative economic policies, and work actively to advance them (that is, most politically active billionaires) stay almost entirely silent about those issues in public. This is a deliberate choice. Billionaires have plenty of media access, but most of them choose not to say anything at all about the policy issues of the day. They deliberately pursue a strategy of what we call “stealth politics”.
We have come to this conclusion based on an exhaustive, web-based study of everything that the 100 wealthiest US billionaires have said or done, over a 10-year period, concerning several major issues of public policy. For each billionaire we used several dozen carefully selected keywords to find all publicly available information about their specific talk or actions related to any aspect of social security, any type of taxation, or anything related to abortion, same-sex marriage, or immigration policy."
I think you're in it over your head, and don't know what you're swimming in. Amazing to me..... sometimes.... but I should not be.... that someone who is intellectually committed to a cause, as you are, mostly for the value of the ideas as you see them, simply will not see the damage fake advocates of your ideals are doing to your beloved ideals.
My true Marxist friend, who was the first to drop whatever his interest or activity was at the moment, to do something to help others, was truly grieved by the Statist betrayal of the dream. His version of it, as a Native American/European by ancestry, was not too far from the old lore of the "Indians". Love of the Earth, oneness with nature, belief in "good medicine", and a sort of "tribal" community that held this world's goods in the common needs. I never could get him to see the reason why private property, as Blackstone wrote, was essentially the same thing as the right to life.
An individual living and working in a tribal social system simply did not see the need for a mansion on the hill, and there was no protection for "property" beyond the willingness of your tribal brothers to defend it against others.
Historically, Marxism has largely been a tool in the hands of a few "oligarchs" who lived and thought but little different from megabillionaires. Like all the other "tools" trundled out to placate the ignorant masses, it becomes simply another lie used to disenfranchise the huddled masses of dupes.
Globalism, as it is now being run out as a grand agenda, is no different. The distinctions between "oligarchic" or "party" rule, defined by a small inclusive set of "better people" or "experts" or "moneyed interests", and tyranny, simply get lost when the jackbooted thugs, the troops or the "police" go out on the street to enforce the "law".
The compact that is "The American Experiment" is on the whole, an attempt to make tyranny more difficult to create. It attempted to use people's nature to limit their power by dividing the government into supposedly balancing departments.
All that is gone with today's politics. The interests have almost reached an ability to exert cohesive power against the people regardless of what the common people can do. The method used to overcome "limited government" has been ideological..... and that is exactly what you with all of your abilities.... are so deeply committed to.
If you go with the flow in the progressive movement today, you are being used methodically to effect the exact opposite of what you want.
We have in this country today, however, a critical mass of ordinary folks who have the true dream of liberty, and it appears to me that even the extended system of public education, party propaganda press, and scientific methods applied to manage the public discourse and context.... mind control exerted through societal norms as well as indoctrination.... are failing to control the direction of choice.
The determination of the mainstream media and other "deep state" managers to run this country down from an "exceptional" place for human opportunity to a "compliant" cartelist monopoly with a peasant populace like those medieval castles of the dark ages, is now seen more for what it is.
Like a herd of cows that has been rounded up and worked routinely, we need more prodding, more horsemen whooping and hollering, to get us into the pens. The progressive "managers" have lost their patience, and their methods are creating a public stampede away from the fake nirvana of a few bales of hay proffered to get us to comply.
oh damn. The tyrants will have to go to plan B/.
But the tyrants still don't get it. Google and other internet giants, are teaming up with the Chinese Red Army, under Chairman Xi, who loves Mao and Rockefeller and my cuz Maurice Strong and their ilk, to run out a top-down totally regulated "community" where dissidents can be efficiently identified and deplatformed, if not rounded up in little police wagons. Oh yes, we need some "authorities" to police our private conversations, to be sure that no renegades can ruin our paradise of perfectly reformed peasants/.
For 180 years the "progressive" leadership has paid a lot of attention to the tolerances of the masses, seeing the need to keep them in good humor. But, too bad, the current leadership has gone amok. It will not be pretty.
Something like the American Revolution is brewing.
I don't think Alex Jones is particularly a sharp tool. I've wondered if he isn't a deliberately encouraged wackadoodle foil to be used to make American rebels look bad. Who knows. Who could ever really know. But without a lot of people who feel disenfranchised and who resent the Lordly Nobles' lack of common sense and conspicuous privilege, he'd be nothing in the first place.
Taking him off of the social platforms is direct evidence he is genuine, however unbalanced. Now people will be willing to go find him where he is, where ever he is, and believe him more.
Unless the progressives can see the necessity for ditching Hillary and a lot of other problematic talking heads, your dream is lost.
I read through your rant, and looked for a reason to connect it to what I said. I saw nothing.
Nobody cares about Alex Jones anymore. De-platforming works.
Red, you really need to take a closer look at your information.
I think this study is deliberately false. If you could even know who the billionaires are.....
People who hold real estate empires don't report their holding to anyone. The file tax returns, but most of their assets are privately-held companies. The companies file tax returns too. There are places these people can go to make their wealth less visible.... offshore banks, offshore companies...… lots of trusts, lots of "foundations".... and you should not believe anybody really even knows.....
Then, you always love to pick the obviously biased reports that agree with your dreams. Don't believe people with such obvious axes to grind.
A possible majority of "our" billionaires might be on the rolls of the CFR, though many opt to keep their names off the public release list. The CFR is a sort of inclusive club, organized with the intent to draw leaders into the elite interest conversation and make them more or less willing to go with the flow. It has always been a prime tool for the tyrants of "globalism".
Of course, a lot of billionaires and other leaders really don't want to be seen leading the progressive charge. They have their cash cows and they are content to milk them. But that does not mean they are cohesively opposing the agenda. More like it means they know better than stick their heads out the window of the train or in any other way expose themselves to risk.
All that does not mean at all that there are not various factions or interest groups within our societal leadership. It is the exception, sometimes, that proves the rule. Trump is a maverick, and he is building some significant elite support, expressly by being inclusive of the globalists in his cabinet and other lines of influence. He is willing to play with Xi and Putin or anyone else.
All he wants is some good sense applied to things …. well, his version of "good sense". He will make a good deal with any fake idealistic politician, and he could likely be persuasive even with the most innocent of fakes.
It would be better if we all could see the good sense in limiting the power of government, to reduce the scale of corrupt interests trying to manage the world.