fauxlaw

No, every dictionary does not.

My OED definition of 'salt' is some 34 column inches. What other dictionary does that? The whole bloody OED, in print from, is 20 volumes of 6- and 8-point type. It comes with a magnifying glass. What other dictionary does that?

You mean like Jesus-charismatic? Charisma is not only a negative trait.

Did I say it was? No. And the ancient Greeks, even. in their religion, recognized Hermaphroditus, an androgen of male/female features. Back to the two sex types, just mixed. my distinction holds.

Or, a simple lesson many refuse to burn.

show me that video, or are you committing the same extremism you accuse Trump of doing?

Your quote from lexico does what many dictionaries do, today, trying to be relevant. But in lexico [which, though "powered by oxford' is not the OED] it notes the original use of "gender," not as a sexual or even human societal definition, but one of grammar.  Root cause is the task we seek, which authenticates the OED as the ultimate dictionary of the English lexicon.

So, the PADP is justifying its own authority? I could do the same, but the claim will not fly any further than your willingness to agree. I'm talking third-party, you know, like peer review? Let someone else of sufficient academic acumen claim the authority in the Shrink Dictionary. Such as https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-the-oxford-english-dictionary-went-from-murderers-pet-project-to-internet-lexicon. for the OED. You might also read "The Professor and the Madman"

According to whom? Wiki? You do know what Wiki says of its own accuracy...

According to the OED, relative to human biologic condition, "gender = sex," i.e., male or female. Only in grammar is "gender" defined as nouns  and pronouns[sometimes verbs] which are masculine, feminine, neutral, or common. Only by cancel culture phenomenon is the biologic condition of "gender" multiplied beyond male and female. Many multi-gender advocates refer to the variations as a ""social construct." Sorry, words mean what they mean. Only by cultural majority do meanings change over time, because culture drives language; not the other way around.

more opinion unless you can cite evidence. No, don't give me some other idiot's opinion. Show me, chapter and verse, the statute Trump has violated with the evidence that he, in fact, violated it. It must stand up in court, you know. There is the arbiter of justice, not from some media rag.

everybody has an opinion

You do know what opinions are worth. What's your evidence? He said/she said? Sorry. must have more to sustain your opinion.

I'll give y'all an example of another attempt to enact a universal ban one hundred years ago. Congress banned the manufacture, sale and distribution of liquor. They would have banned drinking it, but knew that was a preposterous proposal. They figured that if those activities that were banned, drinking would shortly follow, not anticipating the new industry of bootlegging. Congress was too dumb to see that. So, Congress banned an industry. In 13 short years, it was repealed, the only amendment to suffer that fate. One factor was sudden loss of revenue by liquor sales taxes, and corporate taxes. Such will be the case in these attempts to ban users simply for their non-violent, but contrary political content. Mark my words. You do not censure without consequence.

There is no law allowing banning of users. That is my point. Donald Trump is a user. Was a user. But he was banned. Nor can one provider ban another provider. but a provider was banned. Parler. Not because Parler was a a provider for users advocating violence because parket did not allow inciting violence on their platform, but they were banned anyway by Google and Apple. 

But they did ban Trump. Wrong action by Twitter.

Content = material, as in one post, not a ubiquitous ban on a user from posting anything. Only material that is [quoting from paragraph 2[A]: "...obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."  That's why I said a complete ban of anyone is not allowed, because the service provider [Twitter] cannot ban Trump should he want to tweet "roses are red..." as I said in my #82.  Section 230 says nothing about banning users. You cannot assume what it does not stipulate.

You may miss it, because it does not specifically say there's a prohibition to ban users. But it does say only content can be banned, and that only on "good faith."  You're required too apply critical thinking.

What? So you don't have to read it yourself? I am not your tutor. It's short. READ IT.

Thank you. I am, aftert all, just follwng the 1A, Section 230, and SCOTUS decisions, all pointing to the Twitter action against Trump, and the universal action against Parler as being inappropriate

I realize that. Section 230 is relevant because it speaks to eliminating content, but NoT users. Yet you argue for banning users unilaterally, when section 230 prohibits it. Therefore, it is relevant to the discussion because we are talking about banning Parler, specifically, and Trump in general. All without the proper interpreting of the 1A, freedom of association be damned. Were talking political speech, after all, and your SCOTUS is particularly lenient on that score, contrary to your claim.

Haven't read section 230, have you? It stipulates removing CONTENT, not the USER. All your posts in which you say "orange" must be allowed to stand. 

I did. Read my #84, also mentioned in my #82. Section 230. Read it. I have to remind a mod to research?? Really?

So you say, but section 230 does not allow an internet service provider, Twitter, from banning a member, period, but only that member's in-good-faith determined content. So, banning one post, yes, but all posts by that member? No. Not unless the ISp can demonstrate that all posts are in-good-faith objectionable. Even then, it is post by post decisions, not a unilateral banning decision. Have you read section 230, or just depended on what others say? Do your own research.

Well, you'd best do better research, because the freedom of association does not have a 100% SCOTUS success rate in favor of your claim.  It goes both ways. Start with https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of-association, but continue from there. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. In particular, the Court frowns on censure of political speech. Section 230 does not stipulate that an internet service provider, such as Twitter, can unilaterally ban a user from posting anything, but only their objectionable content, determined "in good faith." As it is, Trump posting "Roses are red, violets are blue." is banned, when that content is not at all objectionable "in good faith." Same goes for Parler being banned from having a platform at all.

Show me.

And this affects my investment portfolio, how?

Or the fact that I'm happy with the smile of Jesus on my face?

You are correct, my bad. Nevertheless, where is the report? It is not included as a supporting document in the official congressional record of HRes 24 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24

Care to comment on the House Rules for 117th Congress?

I'm not claiming anyone is a terrorist

Like I said, she me a gov't that follows its own rules unerringly. Go ahead and complain. I'm sure they'll listen. I've stopped.

Why is Jerry Nads releasing a report a day AFTER the impeachment? Kind of late, isn't he? And considering that #2 is a requirement of the House not just by the document I cited, because I knew both of you would step in it, the House Rules of the 116th Congress were adopted by vote on 1/4 to be the House Rules of the 117th Congress. The rules are published. Rules X and XI require the House to  perform step #2, [as well as 1 & 3] and only after an approving vote by the entire House to conduct a House Judiciary Committee investigation, and then other committees, if necessary, and only then proceed to step 3. What investigation, and by what report from the Committee Chair did the House vote on the 11th. Pelosi violated all these rules, as she did in 2019. When was that investigation approving vote in 2021?

Not only by these rues, but the House is held by SCOTUS precedent from U.S. v. Rumley [1953], Quinn v. U.S. [1954], and Watkins v U.S. [1957]. The House cannot arbitrarily begin investigation, or issue subpoenas, by their own recognizance; they must obtain full House approval by majority vote. Having failed to do so, in both 2019, and 2021, having a committee report from the Judiciary in 2021 a day late to be considered by the House floor, the entire House impeachment investigation by several committees was entirely and completely invalid in 2019, and in 2021, not done in time at all.

Tell me, when. does a "terrorist" become an enemy combatant, held on foreign soil in a "secret prison." Do all foreigners on all foreign soils have any other right than due process when on American soil? No. And if not? No, and not even due process.

Did I say that government will not violate a person's rights? No. But that does not change the fact that terrorists have rights. That the government may deny them, notwithstanding, terrorists have the right to seek a redress of their grievances.

Yes, it does. And since Buddhism was founded 6 centuries before Christ, it only demonstrates that true principles are true wherever and whenever they exist because truth works for everybody if they try it.

Fine. Let's examine the protocol followed for this "impeachment."

According to the above,  "The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment."

In the 01/11/2021 "impeachment," show me when phases [1] and [2] were conducted, per the procedure. 

The implication of Eckhart's statement is that regardless of subject, truth can only be established when the soul is cleared of all the junk it has acquired, else the risk of contaminating the truth with leftover corruption. He once also said: "A man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that God is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which God has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to God; and fourthly, of the purity of the divine nature."  The "erasure" is "be empty of self and all things," then follow that by acquisition of "the purity of divine nature," i.e., the truth.

in the U.S., since when?

What is the more offensive version of Eckhart's quote?

i hear that Wiki is a reliable source. Don't beleive everything you hear.

SloJoe will cave.

Lying may be offensive, but it's not illegal. Lying and perjury are not the same. Therefore regardless of someone being offended, they have that right, but their legal and ethical actions are limited.

Slander is not slander, and, therefore, not illegal if the statements made are true,  regardless of someone being offended.

Incitement to riot is not proven, merely charged, and not criminally, therefore, though some may have been offended, it's not a crime until convicted.

Who says? DOJ policy? pfffttt. The Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 7, read correctly, says otherwise.

Since within 100 days, Kammie is going to engage the 25th against Biden, I don't think the GOP should act against Kammie because she will likely stall on appointing a VP, and then Pelostomy would be the President replacing Kammie. That's not an improvement

Further, the Senate cannot convict on an impeachment of a President who is no longer in office since the purpose of impeachment/conviction is removal from office. Once out of office, the Senate cannot convict a private citizen. Their power to convict a federal officer ends with the officer's departure from service. The Constitution is very clear on that subject. but Democrats are not known for their allegiance to the Constitution other than as by re-inagining it.

Wow, we're now 4 days past the impeachment. What is Fancy Nancy waiting for? I thought this was an urgent matter, but she has not darkened the Senate's door.

Is that like ignoring that Nancy Pelosi said last September, as the SENATE [by the way, what in hell does Pelostomy have to do with the Senate?] was conducting advice and consent of Amy Comey Barrett's nomination, "We have arrows in our quiver?" Sounds like inciting to riot to me. Not to you? Arrows are offensive weapons. Peace and patriotism are not offensive, period. But no one complained that Pelosi was inciting anyone. Why not?

Yes, people who are mindless twits who do no critical thinking of their own, the standard of the progressive wave. But they'll believe anything. Such as that paying indulgences of carbon credits will clean the clouds.

You have entirely misunderstood the linkage of a word of various meanings and the obviously non-inciteful words "peaceful" and "patriotic." Who's doing the ignoring. How insightful is "peaceful?" Besides, when one is incited to violence by another's speech, regardless of what is said, it is indicative of the actor failing the ability to control himself. That means a weak backbone. The same person is also offended excessively by speech. We have the right to be offended. We do not have the right to either censure or act violently because of it. To act says you neither have a backbone nor a brain. Brainless people exist on all sides of this debate.

This effort by Pelosi was just another exercise of premature efactulation - an act that ought not be a public event, and one for which she is ill-equipped. Yes, I know when she references her oath of office, she's always speaking to the words of the President's oath, and not her own, but she is, after all, a very confused lady.

The article of impeachment enacted on the 11th is an exact repeat of the accusations hurled by all Dems and 10 Rs in the House, with just this one line of "evidence:" "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." However, the accusers ignored the evidence against their charge of "high crimes..."  He also said, "...everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

According to the OED, "fight" as a verb has a variety of definitions. The obvious definition Trump used must align with the later commentary of "peaceful" and "patriotic," let alone "voices." A fight by voices to sustain peace and patriotism. What, you automatically go to a physical battle as the defining meaning that Trump "engaged in insurrection" by inciting a crowd to violence? Uh-huh. Is that why the first person arrested in this incident is a liberal activist, who apparently, by attending the speech, displayed no ability of self control to follow Trump's advice to be "peaceful and patriotic?" Oops.

I was turned off within 2 minutes by the definition of the positive freedom of capitalism as being a "fair" share of the economy available to the average joe. Fair? No, because too many people view"fair" as "equal," and that is contrary to the real individual contribution to a free market economy available to the average joe. Worse, it is only "fair" if it is engaged individually, and many do not. Consider: one may work at an hourly or salary wage. Working for money. But how much of that money does the average joe INVEST, i.e., putting his money to work for him? Today, roughly 55%. That's pathetic. Worse, they think they live a capitalist lifestyle, but if they're not putting money into investment, they are not participating in the free market, and will never benefit from it more than getting occasional raises in a paycheck. Working for money is not capitalism at its best. With nearly half the country not engaged at all, I'd sooner say that capitalism is not a failed system; it is, rather, a system half of America does not try. No wonder you think its a negative freedom.

that's how I read the 25th, as well. Did I say anything different?

I'd say you latter point carries the day