Jump to content

Lord Ratner

Supreme User
  • Posts

    923
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    54

Lord Ratner last won the day on July 10

Lord Ratner had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

7,625 profile views

Lord Ratner's Achievements

Gray Beard

Gray Beard (4/4)

1.3k

Reputation

  1. ACSC masters program. Easy, set your own pace, moderately interesting material, very attentive instructors, and free.
  2. Not unless it was incitement. A directive to cause harm ("go out and punish the cops for killing minorities!") Is not protected. A lie that others use to justify harm ("police are murdering minorities for sport!") is protected. You should brush up on the precedent, you're off base on a lot of this stuff.
  3. No, it would otherwise be illegal for the government to block it. Have you read either of the actual decisions? Much easier that way.
  4. Exactly. Prozac is not reading the case law, just citing his opinion as fact, while treating our citation of the case law as personal opinion. The question is whether the quotes by Nadler, Feinstein, and Psaki raise to the level of implied compulsion that Sullivan and Norwood prohibit. I believe dragging a CEO to D.C., berating them for hours, then warning them that there will be legislation to strip them of control over their property if they don't comply is pretty damn concerning. But it was also ok when the Obama administration went after journalists, so I'm not at all surprised that a more nuanced situation is not a concern to whatever the progressives stand for these days. I just can't find an underlying ideology that is consistent with the various party positions beyond "power is bad, success is stolen."
  5. It's in this very thread. Two examples of legislators threatening government control in the absence of desired actions, which in this case, the desired action is the suppression of speech. The associated supreme court case that lays out the concept is also cited.
  6. Hard to refute? You refuted it yourself. Examples of past censorship are exactly why we shouldn't be doing it now. You think propaganda and racist policy is why the US is a global superpower? Not personal and economic freedom? Let's do a little comparison... Which countries have racism and propaganda? All of them. So that's obviously not what made us different. But our system of limited government and unique conception of individual liberty are quite different. As for your many dodges, we can start with your fixed-wealth formulation for billionaire economics. You might have to go back a few pages since Sua Sponte vomited all over the thread.
  7. That's factually incorrect. What you put on social media is *absolutely* protected by the first amendment if the government is the one trying to block it. Which is literally what we're arguing over, government issuing the threat of legislation to compel censorship by social media companies. Further, the government is free to put out a message. That's very different than suppressing someone else's message. That's such a basic concept I'm shocked I have to type it. Again, how did the government do with the Coronavirus messaging? You really want these clowns going through the internet and highlighting "misinformation" for deletion? Can't wait to hear your support for such action from the next republican administration.
  8. Again, theory, not practice. In practice, the Progressives are arguing for a reality that cannot be accepted by many, many people. The systemic racism argument. Trans women/men *are* women/men. Gender confused children should be given hormones against their parents wishes. Your business should be compelled to violate your mainstream religious beliefs. Reparations. Gun control (literally a constitutional issue). Hate speech should be illegal. Defund the police. And the common response to these issues from the left is something akin to "well you're just taking that cause too literally... It means something different." Defund the police. Systemic racism. Patriarchy. Rape culture. Either name your movements in a way that reflects their true purpose, or so whining when you get called out on being insane based on your own words. But really we all know it's just a defense. When a movement like Defund the Police becomes obviously and incredibly unpopular with the normal voters out there, the extremists/activists scramble to repackage and redefine the movement using double speak and jargon. Slightly modifying the great Groucho Marx... What're ya going to believe, me or your own ears? It's not "misinformation" to accurately describe a toxic movement to the American people. Or the origins of a novel virus. Remember how well the bipartisan experts did on the lab leak story? Besides, don't you have some responses to reply to? You must have been a dodgeball superstar in your youth, the way you selectively respond here.
  9. And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. Our society produces and provides *immensely* more to citizens and non-citizens alike than more restrictive governments. And the countries that mimic our model (such as the beloved Nordic countries the new American Socialists love to reference) do much, much better when they do. This doesn't even touch the security umbrella we provide that the "more generous" countries couldn't dream of supporting. The left in America is devolving into a faith-based party that has no concern for evidence, history, or statistics. It's all emotion, virtue-signaling, and shaming. That's fine, but it's never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't produce the incredible wealth, health, and opportunity that Americans are uniquely privy to.
  10. From Sullivan v Rhode Island: "It is true that appellants' books have not *67 been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale. But though the Commission is limited to informal sanctions—the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation—the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable" and succeeded in its aim.[7] We are not the first court to look through forms to the substance and recognize that informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief.[8]" Additionally: "It is true, as noted by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, that Silverstein was "free" to ignore the Commission's notices, in the sense that his refusal to "cooperate" would have violated no law. But it was found as a fact—and the finding, being amply supported by the record, binds us— that Silverstein's compliance with the Commission's directives was not voluntary. People do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around, and Silverstein's reaction, according to uncontroverted testimony, was no exception to this general rule." But you just get off on being the contrarian here it seems, so I don't expect you to see the parallels.
  11. How crazy a senator might be (and she's hardly near the top of that list) is irrelevant. If you can't see how that statement, from one of the highest levels of government possible, is demonstrative of the government threatening a private entity to do their bidding, then you're even drunker than I thought. The case law is clear, the influence does not need to be direct control. But that's really secondary to the point. We shouldn't be paying taxes for partisan political officials to scour the internet flagging speech they disagree with for removal, regardless of who has the final authority to decide.
  12. From Diane Feinstein: “There are going to have to be some controls,” she said. “I’ve said, 'If you don’t control your platform, we’re going to have to do something about it.' I am hopeful that they will." You're not this stupid
  13. That's all well and good, but I don't see any of it as a flaw. It's a necessary ingredient to change, and change is the basis for our continued growth and development. A lot of countries in Europe spend huge sums "protecting" people from the challenges you list, and they barely make a difference, other than to saddle the country with a ton of additional debt. There's a whole lot of people moving to non-coastal cities like Nashville and DFW, all which have their small-town suburbs surrounding them. You can read the currents and profit or fight them and drown, but we aren't an agrarian society so having 5 generations live in the same town isn't a viable option anymore. The monopoly stuff is all true, and it's why we have laws for it. But as you noted, the bigger problem is corporatism. As an example, Amazon gets tax cuts for opening new warehouses. Insanity. We need a constitutional ban on selective taxation that extends all the way to the local level. The greatest threat to a capitalist system is unfairness (of opportunity, not outcome). And no, it shouldn't be a luxury, and it's not. Buying the literal maximum amount of "stuff" with a given income is not a human right. Americans are some of the richest people in the world, and even the lower two quintiles can make choices. In most cases it's not a matter of "can they" but a matter of "do they care?" Just like littering, air pollution, organic produce, bike lanes, and fair-trade coffee, buying from mom and pop stores is a concern of the wealthy.
  14. A lot of people want a lot of things. They get the rewards of their decisions. But their lives are still leagues ahead of the rest of the world, so while they aren't getting the very specific American Dream they desire, they are benefiting none the less. I have many relatives who refuse to move away from CA. They spend a lot of time complaining about how expensive it is, and the limited job opportunities. But when I tell them to leave... No way. Tough shit. They will flounder while millions of others move.
  15. Crenshaw is the only one listed who is able to, and regularly does articulate the underlying principals behind his ideology. His podcast is excellent, and he has a terrific personality/sense of humor. He's a war hero, and he has a "gimmick" that will grab the attention of the reality-TV voters (eye patch). I'd like to see him run with Tim Scott, or someone similarly aggressive in their conservatism while bringing some not-just-another-white-guy diversity into it. It would be pretty badass of we elected a SEAL as president.
×
×
  • Create New...