Total posts: 1,942
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have a neighbor who is a former Army Ranger. When I first met him, he was wearing a t shirt that said “MOSTLY PEACEFUL.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@yachilviveyachali
Like Don Lemon?
Yes, like Don Lemon
I was thinking more like Jake Tapper and his tell-all book.
Yup. Also, in no particular order and not an exhaustive list:
Dana Bash
Chuck Todd
Norah O’Donnell
Margaret Brennan
Wolf Blitzer
Jim Acosta
Anderson Cooper
Yamiche Alcindor
and the dude who said “mostly peaceful.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I really thought this guy FishChaser was having a tough time. It turned out that he was fucking around.
That’s why I call him ShitRaiser.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I knew from the outset why you created this thread and exactly who would take your bait. No more; no less. You could own up to it, but that would be expecting too much.
Created:
This thread appears to exist solely to rankle a certain Catholic member. Mission accomplished! But that really isn’t saying much…
Created:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Capitalism is for those who want to make money. Making money is not putting food on the table; it is having more than you need to live, and employing people to make you more money. They get less and you get more. Capitalists want nice cars, nice houses, nice businesses, and plenty of money in the bank.
This is a rather caricaturish view of capitalism/capitalists.
A communist can be a capitalist too. Bernie Sanders has three homes. He said his book made him money, and he can therefore afford three properties.
I think you are mistaking inconsistency for versatility here.
Created:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
What do you mean “how?” He is a business owner with one employee (himself). That is what “self employed” means.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It is true that you have a lot of free time. I even said so initially. In contrast, I’m starting to feel as though I might have somewhat more pressing matters to attend to. Socks don’t organize themselves, you know!
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Back to post 20… or maybe post 7
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
But you admitted workers have more free time in a commune:"You attempt to rebrand self-employment as Communist because “the worker owns the means of production” and you work less hours than a capitalist would."
No, I was simply restating your own spurious claims.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Yeah, you say they exist in Capitalism now
Correct
and that they are better than the rest of the system now.
Incorrect, unless this somehow translates to “living in a commune in a capitalist nation is better than living in a communist nation.”
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Workers coops? Now thats more like my definition of Communism.
Right. See my reference to communes in my post 20. If this is your only issue with my post 20, then you are doing well.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
In theory, “society” owns the means of production under communism. In practice, the state owns the means on behalf of society.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Sure it does now. I have more free time there. Thats the point. Did you read first post in this thread? Wagey worker in USA has almost no free time and has average life expectancy less than 20 years.
No, your hours worked makes no substantive difference regarding which economic system you are working within. Yes, I read your OP, and you make as much sense as you usually do. You attempt to rebrand self-employment as Communist because “the worker owns the means of production” and you work less hours than a capitalist would. Less hours worked is an alleged result of Communism, which is quite distinct from being a defining trait of Communism that you make it out to be. In reality, self-employment is capitalistic because the owner of the means of production isn’t the state, and the private owner (ie you) keeps the profits, if any.
Even if self-employment were an example of Communism in action, it would be an example of how Communism can exist as a legal microcosm within capitalism. Under Communism, capitalism only exists as an illegal microcosm known as the black market.
Communism (ie “communes”) can legally exist within capitalism-> more liberty
Capitalism cannot legally exist within Communism-> less liberty
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Some self employed Capitalists work for 8 hours a day now. So I am still a lot different than them.
That makes no difference.
Since worker owns means of production, thats Communism.
This means that Communism can exist as a microcosm under a capitalist economic system. I agree.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I dont employ any workers other than myself.
That makes you a self-employed capitalist.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I do own means of production and I am not wagey either.
Ah, so that makes you a capitalist then. Ironic…
Created:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Being proud of one's race is a Black invention. Now, the Whites steal it in response to the Black silliness.
National pride predates racial pride. Chattel slavery significantly changed that by taking black people from their home countries. No longer affiliated with a particular nation or even tribe, they affiliated by race. And frankly, how proud can one be of a nation or tribe which might have sold them into slavery?
With that, black pride came to be a thing, and as you say, white pride followed with it, alas. I am much more on board with national pride, assuming one is actually residing in the nation one is showing pride in.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You appear to have a lot of free time. Are you living under Communism currently?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Funny vid. Zionists are the real Nazis.
Created:
-->
@Savant
This woman is just silly. Firstly, I don’t think there is such a saying in Germany— it is startlingly devoid of any meaningful context. Secondly, this author is addressing her book to and sitting down to dinner with and taking payment from women she calls racist. Does that make her a racist, too?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So, to sum up again, you have established that something undefined other than it being undetectable has a greater than 0% chance of existing. This deserves recognition of some sort:
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
This is just strawman.
No, because undetectability is the central basis for your “proof.”
Well, there are many proved positive effects happening. In fact, even if God didnt exist, it would be very beneficial to believe in God. This is a different topic, but related to belief in God.
Sure, but none of this has anything to do with the topic of your own thread or anything I wrote. Focus.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Well, duh. Undetectable God. Or at least currently undetectable God.
“I believe in an undetectable God. Why do I believe He exists, you ask? Because we can’t detect Him!”
“Duh” indeed…
Now, there are other arguments about God having proved positive effects on people's lives, but thats different from probability argument.
Of course, it’s a different argument. “Proved positive effects” would mean that this God which you have defined as undetectable now has detectable effects on people.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Its my definition of believers here
Someone who believes in something undetectable?
The debate is just about if some God exists
Again, you have established that something undefined other than it being undetectable has a greater than 0% chance of existing. In other words, you have established that something meaningless and evasive has a greater than 0% chance of existing. Is this a profound accomplishment to you?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Believers simply believe in some God.
You haven’t proven that, either.
In that box, there is 50% chance that there is undetectable God in there.
The qualifier “undetectable” is where you establish the upper hand in this. You have established that there is a greater than 0% probability that something undetectable exists. Whoopty do. Because we are unable to detect this entity, that is how we know it possibly exists!
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Lol I meant just in terms of proving if believers are right
But you haven’t proven believers right. Believers believe in god(s) with specific traits. You haven’t proven that a god with any specific traits exists. I went through a period of believing that some vague, poorly defined god entity existed. Then I came to the realization that there is virtually no distinction between a vague, poorly defined god entity existing or not existing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol, like a deadbeat dad?
Yes, but that assumes that the paternity test results are positive.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
This is also problem for atheists in other areas
Why would the “god that exists” be a problem for atheists? Perhaps it wishes to be left alone and appreciates atheists more than anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, hard to say as none of us have a clue as to the personalities and job pressures involved. What is really sketchy was the delay in releasing the captain’s name and her social media being scrubbed. Seems like there were things to hide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don’t see where Trump implied intent. I would tend to call BS on any intent here. “Don’t ascribe to malicious intent what can be otherwise ascribed to incompetence or negligence.”
I need to point out some complex circumstances here: the instructor pilot is ultimately at fault here, as it was his responsibility to instruct the other pilot on how to safely navigate that complex airspace. One of the complexities is that the “student” outranked the instructor. The student also seemed to be a high profile officer whose main job was being a White House aide. Of course, being a female on top of all these factors perhaps made the instructor more hesitant than otherwise? I can only speculate.
At 450 hours flight experience over a period of around 5-6 years, the captain was not experienced, and being a helicopter pilot seemed secondary to her White House job. The instructor’s only job was to fly helicopters, so I cannot say why he failed to intervene properly that night…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I've heard this said before, but I'm skeptical. Wouldn't the bump only last as long as the buyback does? Since if you're a billionaire CEO like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos who sits on his portfolio for 25 years, what difference does it make if Amazon's value is exceptionally good for a couple of days or weeks?
No, stock buybacks are permanent— until such time a company sells or grants shares which have a dilutive effect. In summary, stock buybacks increase the portion of ownership of shareholders, whereas dilutions (aka “share offerings”) decrease shareholder ownership. The effect on the market value of the stock, however, can vary widely. Stock buybacks tend to take a while for the market to price in, whereas dilutions tend to have an immediate, even panicky effect on the market value.
Stock buybacks can be the best or worst capitol allocation decision depending on the market price. A shareholder wouldn’t want his company to buy its own stock at too high a price, just as the shareholder himself wouldn’t want to do that. A company certainly shouldn’t be borrowing money to buy back stock— that is a desperation move which Bed, Bath and Beyond attempted, I believe. It didn’t have the intended result. I don’t like it when companies use federal bailouts to buy back stock, either (I’m talking to you, United Airlines!). I would be open to regulation of those sorts of less than ethical buybacks.
But when a company has profits to reward its shareholders, buybacks at a fair price can be an excellent avenue. Buybacks are only taxed once, whereas dividends are taxed twice— via both corporate tax and the shareholder’s income tax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
… by numbers…
Do you view each act as equal in severity? Such as:
Rape
Intentional killing of a civilian
Unintentional killing of a civilian
Torture
Torturing, then killing a civilian
Executing a prisoner
Taking a hostage
Using a human shield
Mutilating a corpse
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It’s hardly irrelevant. If both sides are committing war crimes, then the one sided disadvantage you have described becomes virtually meaningless. Unless it’s the Jews, of course. In that case, you might be on to something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
the side which does war crimes tends to be at a disadvantage
Just the one side? What war are you thinking of where only one side is/was committing war crimes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
The implicit agreement in a democracy has generally been “You cannot complain if you couldn’t be bothered to vote.” This person wishes to change that standard. This brings up a “damned if you do; damned if you don’t” paradigm: if you don’t see any issues at all, you have partisan blinders on. If you do see issues, then STFU!
Created:
-->
@Savant
What I have observed is that moderates critical of Israeli government try to obfuscate the meaning of “anti Zionism.” Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people should have a homeland of their own. To be against that is to be for the elimination of the state of Israel. But many wish to subtly redefine anti Zionism as “being critical of Israeli government.” I mean, many Israelis are critical of their own government. So, when Palestinians declare their anti Zionism (I.e. wish for the destruction of Israel), lefties in western nations wish to reframe this sentiment as “the Palestinians are just being critical of Israeli government, and understandably so.”
They wish to deny what is actually at stake for the nation of Israel— its very existence.
They wish to deny what is actually at stake for the nation of Israel— its very existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Nice try, dude, but your little “guilt by association” shtick ain’t gonna fly with me. I’m a member of the Nazi Party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And I've been saying that whether there is a plausibly valid case against CBS is irrelevant to whether this is a first amendment violation.It is illegal for a police officer to pull someone over and give them a ticket because they're black. If that's the officers motivation and that can be shown, the question of whether the individual was speeding is irrelevant to the fact that his rights have been violated.To put it another way; if the violation you are citing is merely a pretext, your enforcement actions are illegitimate regardless of whether the violation occurred.
Really? Wait… no, not really:
“No, racist intent generally does not disqualify a speeding ticket.Speeding tickets are based on objective evidence of violating traffic laws, not subjective motivations of the officer. While racial bias in policing is a serious issue, it doesn't negate the validity of a speeding ticket.
Elaboration:
- Objective Evidence:
Speeding tickets are typically issued based on the officer's observation of the speed limit and the driver's speed, often corroborated by radar or lidar devices. - No Legal Basis:
There's no legal precedent or established legal defense that allows a driver to be free of a speeding ticket solely because they believe the officer was motivated by racial bias. - Focus on Enforcement:
Law enforcement focuses on enforcing traffic laws, and the validity of a ticket depends on the objective evidence of speeding, not the officer's perceived motivations.”
Don’t even waste your time fabricating a response. Just… don’t. At this point, my morbid curiosity regarding the depths of your BS antics has been well fulfilled.
The fact that I've said everything I have and “Trumpman bad!” is all you heard... This is why I wake up everyday knowing I'm right. If you had an actual argument against the things I've said you would offer it instead of either not hearing anything I've said or just pretending not to.
Sometimes it’s hard to believe you’re for real.
The fact that I have addressed everything you’ve posted on this thread head on, and your dismissive bit of self delusion is your takeaway from our discussion… This is how I know that you are guilty of virtually everything you accuse your opponents of doing. I’ll leave you to your deaf and inconsolable ranting. May you someday find the meaningful, good faith conversation you are purportedly looking for…
The fact that I have addressed everything you’ve posted on this thread head on, and your dismissive bit of self delusion is your takeaway from our discussion… This is how I know that you are guilty of virtually everything you accuse your opponents of doing. I’ll leave you to your deaf and inconsolable ranting. May you someday find the meaningful, good faith conversation you are purportedly looking for…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If the regulations apply to all outlets...
Negative. You have not read the entirety of my first post to you, evidently. Hint: it’s the last bullet point.
and only one outlet is being called out...then...in order for this to be a good faith underlying basis...the accuser must believe that this is the only outlet who has demonstrably violated the regulation.And yet, as I've already explained in great detail...that is not a credible assertion.Therefore...It is not a good faith underlying basis.
False assumption, non sequitur, red herring… they are all there! I have said nothing about the president having pure as the driven snow motives in this. That is you putting words in my mouth. It is plausible that, as it stands now, CBS is the only broadcast news outlet which Trump dislikes which he has a tangible case against vis a vis the FCC rules for broadcast news accreditation. Please, repeat after me: “broadcast news accreditation.” Why is this phrase important? Because this is the purview of the FCC and CBS has had, and presumably wishes to continue having, broadcast news accreditation. So, to reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am saying that it is plausible that Trump has a valid case against CBS, and this case does not conflict with the 1A.
If you do not believe he has a case, why are you so threatened by what would only be a bunch of hot air and fist shaking?
There is some other reason why he is doing this. And to figure out what that reason is, look to what else this man has said and done.
Trump doesn’t like CBS. AND he has a plausible legal case against it. Two things can be simultaneously true.
This is remarkably disingenuous.
Well, that is your personal opinion, and you’re entitled to it.
We're not talking about Joe Schmoe on Twitter. We're talking about the president of the United States, as in the guy who has the final say on what the FCC focuses their attention on.
So, you think that Trump can order the FCC to fine CBS on the basis that he doesn’t like them? Why stop (or start) there? Why, he can just order various authorities to fine NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times… right?
And we're not talking about him "complaining". We're talking about him publicly declaring that the FCC "will impose the maximum fines and punishment" on CBS and even called out the individual whom he expects to make it happen.
A lawsuit is also referred to as “a complaint” in legal circles. Ask me how I could possibly conclude that you aren’t an attorney.
Excuses for violating CBS's first amendment rights are just that, excuses. They don't make the violation disappear.
Again, this is your personal opinion, and you’re entitled to it. If you wish to argue a conflict with the 1A, then by all means, do so. But if you just want to shake your fist and yell “Trumpman bad!” then I will leave you alone to do that.
Punishing a news outlet for coverage you don't like is a blatant first amendment violation. That is what this is.
“there is no conflict between the First Amendment and complaining that a company isn’t following the rules it agreed to operate under— unless you happen to believe that FCC regulations themselves violate the 1A.”
And we are on the merry go round now. Weee!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The obvious implication of your analogy is that I'm asserting Trump's motives with no evidence or reason to believe it so other than the mere fact that he spoke out against CBS.
Way off. Please reread what I wrote. To reiterate: what I am saying is that you would believe the plaintiff is suing without any underlying, valid legal basis— that is, if the particular plaintiff happened to be Trump. The legal basis in my example is fraud. “This is basic English.”
Your sloppy reasoning can be summarized like this:
“Everyone knows that Trump makes illegitimate claims. We just heard another claim by Trump. Ergo, it’s an illegitimate claim. Yet you’re defending it!”
Well first of all, no he doesn't, at least not in this example. The argument in that case is beyond stupid when looking at the facts, which is why I didn't even bother to get into it. It's just not serious.
Oh, the irony. This “rebuttal” is merely a big, fat (and unserious) appeal to incredulity. In other words:
“It is impossible to give a valid defense; therefor your defense cannot be valid.”
Second, you talk about news outlets (plural) but he's only attacking one which is my point, this isn't about how news outlets operate. It's about him using state power to punish those who cover him unfavorably. That is obvious for all the reasons I've already explained.
*facepalm* I might need a lie down after this… The regulations apply to all broadcast news outlets— plural. The accusation of a news outlet breaking those rules that it agreed to operate under applies to one news outlet in this case— CBS. “This is basic English.”
So it is not credible that you're just merely posting this "fact" as an FYI not tied to any greater point.
This is because you are not a serious interlocutor, and you cannot help but bring all your projection luggage into an argument, hence the aforementioned irony.
The greater point, since you have clearly missed it when I stated it clearly initially, is that there is no conflict between the First Amendment and complaining that a company isn’t following the rules it agreed to operate under— unless you happen to believe that FCC regulations themselves violate the 1A.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, what I would do is utilize logic 101 by looking at the situation in its totality, then use Occam's razor to determine what best explains the individuals motives.
You say “no,” but you then go on to restate the same thing, that being “You, however, would characterize the situation as this particular plaintiff is suing the company only because he personally doesn’t like the company.” but in your own words.
In this example, you would have us believe that what this is about is a president who cares so deeply about news organizations sticking to unbiased fact based journalism that he believes it is worth his time and attention to focus on this one network over this one particular example.
Yeah... That guy. That's the guy you claim is so concerned about fair and unbiased news coverage.
I’m not “having you believe” or claiming either of those strawman imaginings of yours. What I am saying is what I already wrote… at least twice actually, and that is that Trump has a case here according to FCC regulations regarding news outlets. As you like to say, “This is basic English.”
You seem to believe that a person can file a lawsuit on the grounds that they simply dislike a particular person or entity— as if a person has some legal standing with “I don’t like you, so pay up!” That is an odd and unfounded belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Putting out a public statement where you declare the FCC chair (who works for you) "will impose the maximum fines and punishment" on CBS... Is by any reasonable definition, "going after" CBS.CBS is also, very clearly, a news outlet Trump doesn't like.2+2=4
The reasoning you demonstrate above is more like:
2+2=22
For example, there is a plaintiff who is filing a suit against a company for defrauding him. Unsurprisingly, this plaintiff clearly dislikes this company. He wants the company to pay up big for defrauding him. You, however, would characterize the situation as this particular plaintiff is suing the company only because he personally doesn’t like the company. If that were actually the case, said company wouldn’t have much to worry about, would it? It would just be fist shaking.
Here’s a quote from the article you linked:
“The president has accused CBS of aiding his 2024 Democratic opponent through deceptive editing one month before he and Harris faced off in the presidential election. The saga began when Harris was widely mocked for a "word salad" answer she gave to "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker during a preview of the interview on "Face the Nation," and CBS then aired a different answer to the same question during a primetime special.”
Going back to my initial post to you, the FCC has rules regarding when a broadcast network can be accredited as a news outlet. CBS is one such network. One can sue the network for violating those rules, and it is well within the FCC’s purview to investigate such a claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The story is the fact that the president of the United States is calling for his own FCC to punish news outlets for reporting he doesn't like.
That “fact” was not established in your OP. My initial response to your OP is a response to what was established— that CBS might be in violation of FCC rules for what qualifies as an accredited news broadcast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes but that wasn't really what the enlightenment was about.
Just look at what he originally said.
Both these statements need to be expanded upon, as well as substantiation and valid sourcing.
Even if I were to take your word for it or found your assertions to be largely correct, so what? What difference does it make to Darwin’s findings?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
One of the more interesting myths is the idea that Darwin was the product of the Enlightenment, someone who challenged dogma according to reason.
Darwin did challenge dogma according to reason… and observation.
Darwin promoted the idea that the evolution of species on earth was due to chance and probability, and thus nature is inherently chaotic.
This claim needs to be substantiated, as it sounds reductive at best.
The ENTIRE idea of the Enlightenment was to prove that the world was orderly, harmonious, and non-chaotic.
This claim also needs to be substantiated. From what I understand, you had it more correct initially— that it was about reason over dogma.
I actually don’t have a cherished ideological “dog” in this particular fight, but your claims appear specious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No
Agreed! This is progress.
the president of the United States sending a clear message to his subordinates
Who are his subordinates here? Trump is talking about the FCC.
punish a news outlet for reporting on things he does not like.
The article you linked is about Trump complaining that the Harris interview was substantively edited, not that there was a Harris interview in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It isn’t hypocrisy to call out a network which might not be adhering to the rules it has agreed to operate under:
“The FCC prohibits broadcasters from intentionally distorting news reports and requires them to operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. This means broadcasters must provide programming that addresses the needs and problems of their local community. Additionally, broadcasters must adhere to specific rules regarding political programming, including providing equal opportunities to all legally qualified candidates for public office.
Key FCC Requirements for News Broadcasts:
- Prohibition on News Distortion:It is illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort factual news reports, and the FCC may take action on complaints with documented evidence of such behavior.
- Public Interest Obligation:Broadcasters are required to operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, which includes presenting programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of their local community.
- Political Programming Rules:Stations must provide equal opportunities to all legally qualified candidates for public office, including reasonable access to airtime and lowest unit charges for advertising.
- Public Inspection Files:Stations must maintain a public inspection file containing information about their programming and interactions with the FCC.
- …
- News Distortion:The FCC has had a policy against "news distortion" in over-the-air broadcast news for over 50 years. Cable news networks, newspapers, and other non-broadcast news platforms are outside of the FCC's jurisdiction with respect to news distortion.”
Created: