Re: Trump
« Reply #3300 on: October 08, 2018, 05:45:53 AM »
Who is effected by a "labour shortage?"

International capitalists. Not the people. Why should a population be replaced to ensure the population keeps increasing its consumer spending?

For the profit of the global banking elite...

On one hand we are told to have less babies.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

Then we are told we need to be replaced because we aren't having enough babies.

Who are the people behind this push to replace Europeans?
Are nearly all of the major players part of the same ethno / religious group?
Why?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 05:47:41 AM by disputeone »

Re: Trump
« Reply #3301 on: October 08, 2018, 06:32:10 AM »
Who is effected by a "labour shortage?"




The people.
You’re at the grocery store and only a few lanes are open even though its peak shopping hours. You ask why.


«Labour shortage.»


You order a package from Amazon and it takes a week to get to you even though its 2 day business.  You ask why.
«Sorry, not enough drivers.»


You go to the hospital but it takes 2 hours before even a nurse see’s you even though its not busy.  Why?


«Short staffed.  Not enough nurses.»


Global capitalists lose money in salaries.  Less people you pay, the more profit you have.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6642
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3302 on: October 12, 2018, 07:40:26 PM »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1107
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3303 on: October 13, 2018, 02:42:08 AM »
I'm just going to drop this here.
Quote
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Hits me square in the feels, every, single, time.

That's a fabricated quote, just so you know:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bank-shot-2/

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution

lol

Quote
The idea [for a "dialogic" system of judicial review] is that the legislature passes a law, the court says it’s unconstitutional for this or that reason, and then the legislature has an opportunity to respond to the court. In some cases, the legislature will just say, “We understand your reasons, but we disagree with them, and we’re going to go forward with the policy anyway.”

What the fuck? That is an awful idea. It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8395
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3304 on: October 13, 2018, 03:08:08 AM »
It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.

Umm did you not even read Rushy's link from Vox? We need to abolish the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: Trump
« Reply #3305 on: October 18, 2018, 07:11:23 AM »
I'm just going to drop this here.
Quote
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Hits me square in the feels, every, single, time.

That's a fabricated quote, just so you know:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bank-shot-2/

I don't put much stock in Snopes or Trump, for that matter. It's very true regardless if people don't believe that particular person said it.

Also, soon.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fed/trump-calls-loco-federal-reserve-too-aggressive-idUSKCN1ML1TA

He's right. Central and fractional reserve banking are all free peoples biggest enemies.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 07:14:00 AM by disputeone »

Re: Trump
« Reply #3306 on: October 18, 2018, 07:13:37 AM »
It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.

Umm did you not even read Rushy's link from Vox? We need to abolish the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html

Quote
In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.

Oho.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 07:15:08 AM by disputeone »

Re: Trump
« Reply #3307 on: October 18, 2018, 09:28:18 AM »
It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.

Umm did you not even read Rushy's link from Vox? We need to abolish the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html

Quote
In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.

Oho.


Of which is super unlikely.  Especially since this case has nothing to do with social media.


Also, its been ruled multiple times that twitter, facebook, and google are not public actors and thus are not subject to first amendment liabity.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6642
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3308 on: October 18, 2018, 02:05:25 PM »
Of which is super unlikely.  Especially since this case has nothing to do with social media.


Also, its been ruled multiple times that twitter, facebook, and google are not public actors and thus are not subject to first amendment liabity.

I would like to see the case in which it was ruled that Twitter is not a public square. Do you have a link to it?

Re: Trump
« Reply #3309 on: October 18, 2018, 02:22:00 PM »
Of which is super unlikely.  Especially since this case has nothing to do with social media.


Also, its been ruled multiple times that twitter, facebook, and google are not public actors and thus are not subject to first amendment liabity.

I would like to see the case in which it was ruled that Twitter is not a public square. Do you have a link to it?


I was using the terminology in the article above but I seem to have mixed up "public" with "state".


I meant that social media is not part of the government and thus not subject to the restrictions a state or federal government agency or organization is subject to.  Like the first ammendment.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6642
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3310 on: October 18, 2018, 03:21:08 PM »
I meant that social media is not part of the government and thus not subject to the restrictions a state or federal government agency or organization is subject to.  Like the first ammendment.

This isn't always correct. If a company holds something that is publicly available and is often used to voice opinions in a public manner, then that can become a public square with private ownership. Which means that Twitter in fact would be subject to the first amendment. This is why the debate on whether or not Twitter is a public square is still ongoing. The first amendment doesn't exclusively apply to the government in all cases. That's a misunderstanding of the fundamental rights that the first amendment promises.

If it can be shown that Twitter is actually squelching people specifically for their opinion on a subject, in a place that's purported to be specifically for the sharing of opinions, then it can be found that such an act is violating freedom of speech. It should be disturbing that so many people in politics seem to think it's fine for private companies to take away rights at will, especially while espousing themselves as bastions of progressiveness.

The case in question isn't specifically about any of this, but one could very well come into contact sooner rather than later.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 03:29:39 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8395
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3311 on: October 18, 2018, 03:59:07 PM »
I meant that social media is not part of the government and thus not subject to the restrictions a state or federal government agency or organization is subject to.  Like the first ammendment.

This isn't always correct. If a company holds something that is publicly available and is often used to voice opinions in a public manner, then that can become a public square with private ownership. Which means that Twitter in fact would be subject to the first amendment. This is why the debate on whether or not Twitter is a public square is still ongoing. The first amendment doesn't exclusively apply to the government in all cases. That's a misunderstanding of the fundamental rights that the first amendment promises.

If it can be shown that Twitter is actually squelching people specifically for their opinion on a subject, in a place that's purported to be specifically for the sharing of opinions, then it can be found that such an act is violating freedom of speech. It should be disturbing that so many people in politics seem to think it's fine for private companies to take away rights at will, especially while espousing themselves as bastions of progressiveness.

The case in question isn't specifically about any of this, but one could very well come into contact sooner rather than later.

Rushy is correct. While not directly equivalent, the Marsh v. Alabama case reflects the point. Will need to see if the same logic ends up being applied to major tech/social media players.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: Trump
« Reply #3312 on: October 18, 2018, 05:35:37 PM »
I meant that social media is not part of the government and thus not subject to the restrictions a state or federal government agency or organization is subject to.  Like the first ammendment.

This isn't always correct. If a company holds something that is publicly available and is often used to voice opinions in a public manner, then that can become a public square with private ownership. Which means that Twitter in fact would be subject to the first amendment. This is why the debate on whether or not Twitter is a public square is still ongoing. The first amendment doesn't exclusively apply to the government in all cases. That's a misunderstanding of the fundamental rights that the first amendment promises.

If it can be shown that Twitter is actually squelching people specifically for their opinion on a subject, in a place that's purported to be specifically for the sharing of opinions, then it can be found that such an act is violating freedom of speech. It should be disturbing that so many people in politics seem to think it's fine for private companies to take away rights at will, especially while espousing themselves as bastions of progressiveness.

The case in question isn't specifically about any of this, but one could very well come into contact sooner rather than later.

Rushy is correct. While not directly equivalent, the Marsh v. Alabama case reflects the point. Will need to see if the same logic ends up being applied to major tech/social media players.
While I can see the argument of a physical location where a publically used area is owned by a private entity that owns the whole damn town, a digital location is just a web server.  Its location in cyberspace is largely irrelevant for access.  And setting up competing social media platforms is simple.   

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6642
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3313 on: October 18, 2018, 05:56:00 PM »
While I can see the argument of a physical location where a publically used area is owned by a private entity that owns the whole damn town, a digital location is just a web server.  Its location in cyberspace is largely irrelevant for access.  And setting up competing social media platforms is simple.

This is the equivalent of telling someone to just "go somewhere else" in a public location. The claim that all public areas equally compete with each other is inherently nonsensical. "You can have free speech wherever you like, as long as it isn't here" is a dangerous road to go down, and very much why publicly available private property was ruled to be subject to the first amendment. Since those other areas to provide exactly the same impact on the public, they can't be ruled to be equivalent.

You can't tell me "you're not allowed to demonstrate in Times Square, you have to go demonstrate on some sidewalk no one knows about in North Dakota" because you're just squelching freedom of speech by ensuring the impact of my speech is far lower than it rightfully should be. This is why privately owned public squares exist.

Re: Trump
« Reply #3314 on: October 18, 2018, 06:13:46 PM »
While I can see the argument of a physical location where a publically used area is owned by a private entity that owns the whole damn town, a digital location is just a web server.  Its location in cyberspace is largely irrelevant for access.  And setting up competing social media platforms is simple.

This is the equivalent of telling someone to just "go somewhere else" in a public location. The claim that all public areas equally compete with each other is inherently nonsensical. "You can have free speech wherever you like, as long as it isn't here" is a dangerous road to go down, and very much why publicly available private property was ruled to be subject to the first amendment. Since those other areas to provide exactly the same impact on the public, they can't be ruled to be equivalent.

You can't tell me "you're not allowed to demonstrate in Times Square, you have to go demonstrate on some sidewalk no one knows about in North Dakota" because you're just squelching freedom of speech by ensuring the impact of my speech is far lower than it rightfully should be. This is why privately owned public squares exist.


No, this is the equivilent of saying "You must sign up to visit time square and we reserve the right to ban you from it."

Twitter requires you to agree to a TOS to enter.  It's about as public as the lobby at a McDonalds.  Yes it's easy to get in, but you gotta follow the rules on the door: "Shirts and shoes required".



*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6642
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3315 on: October 18, 2018, 07:57:59 PM »
No, this is the equivilent of saying "You must sign up to visit time square and we reserve the right to ban you from it."

That's quite literally illegal, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this analogy.

Twitter requires you to agree to a TOS to enter.  It's about as public as the lobby at a McDonalds.  Yes it's easy to get in, but you gotta follow the rules on the door: "Shirts and shoes required".

Twitter can be viewed by anyone, regardless of whether or not you agree to their TOS. In addition to this, it's not legal to have people agree to a TOS that violates protected rights. McDonald's can't put "you are our slave once you enter" on their door and start chaining people to the registers.

Re: Trump
« Reply #3316 on: October 19, 2018, 08:15:14 AM »
It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.

Umm did you not even read Rushy's link from Vox? We need to abolish the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html

Quote
In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.

Oho.


Of which is super unlikely.  Especially since this case has nothing to do with social media.


Also, its been ruled multiple times that twitter, facebook, and google are not public actors and thus are not subject to first amendment liabity.

That could be changed.

I guess it comes down to who controls America, the American government or private multinational corporations?

We know the answer however, and you are correct. Private multinational corporations control America and the American government is powerless to stand up to them.

As is my government.

Re: Trump
« Reply #3317 on: October 19, 2018, 09:43:07 PM »
No, this is the equivilent of saying "You must sign up to visit time square and we reserve the right to ban you from it."

That's quite literally illegal, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this analogy.
You brought up time square. I was simply trying to make it match how twitter works.

Quote
Twitter requires you to agree to a TOS to enter.  It's about as public as the lobby at a McDonalds.  Yes it's easy to get in, but you gotta follow the rules on the door: "Shirts and shoes required".

Twitter can be viewed by anyone, regardless of whether or not you agree to their TOS. In addition to this, it's not legal to have people agree to a TOS that violates protected rights. McDonald's can't put "you are our slave once you enter" on their door and start chaining people to the registers.

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So please enlighten me where Twitter is Congress?

((I'm intentionally ignoring the rest of the post and the analogy because it's kinda irrelevant.))

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6642
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3318 on: October 19, 2018, 10:41:00 PM »
You brought up time square. I was simply trying to make it match how twitter works.

Then you don't understand how either Times Square or Twitter works...

So please enlighten me where Twitter is Congress?

No one here made that argument. At this point, I'm not sure you even remember what the argument is. Let me roll this all back a bit to the Marsh v Alabama case:

Quote
The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

As you can see, it doesn't matter if a private entity declares private ownership. When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own. Cases such as this is also why businesses can't just ban people for being black, gay, or muslim. As you open your business more and more to the public, your rights as a private business end as the rights of the customers begin. I'm surprised you're siding with the corporations on this one, Dave. I always thought of you as a more left-leaning fellow. Should Twitter be able to ban people for any reason?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2018, 10:44:15 PM by Rushy »

Re: Trump
« Reply #3319 on: October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM »
No one here made that argument. At this point, I'm not sure you even remember what the argument is. Let me roll this all back a bit to the Marsh v Alabama case:

Quote
The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

As you can see, it doesn't matter if a private entity declares private ownership. When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own. Cases such as this is also why businesses can't just ban people for being black, gay, or muslim. As you open your business more and more to the public, your rights as a private business end as the rights of the customers begin. I'm surprised you're siding with the corporations on this one, Dave. I always thought of you as a more left-leaning fellow. Should Twitter be able to ban people for any reason?
Businesses can't ban people for being black, gay, or muslim because those are protected classes in anti-discrimitory law. Which didn't always exist.  Remember the time blacks were banned from certain businesses? 

And even IF you want to apply the first amendment to a private business, again, the first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law restricting it.  It says nothing about a private entity not being allowed to restrict freedom of speech.

The rights of the customers never ended.  Why would you think they did?  The problem, I think, is that you see the first amendment as applying to everyone even though it very clearly states that it only applies to congress.  (ie. congress can't limit free speech) 


As for why:
Honestly?  I hate idiots.  Meme spreaders.  Fake news.   I'd rather Facebook and Twitter and all social media crack down and ban those people than watch as society crumbles into shouting matches of emojis and images with vague, nationalistic or misleading messages.