"(Dr. Mercola) In Canada, it’s illegal to sell or give away raw milk, a law that’s enforced in many provinces. In Ontario, distributing raw milk was long considered to be a regulatory offense punishable by fines, but as of January 2018 an order issued by Ontario’s Superior Court changed that. Now, anyone who distributes or sells raw milk in the area can face years in prison."
Why the government want do that? Simple. To make everyone be forced to purchase food from big companies. I don't know about US, but in US
No. Raw milk can kill people because of the bacteria in it. The victim in this case would be the unlucky person who was told it was better for their health, without any scientific backing and got sick or died from it. It is almost as bad as the antivaxer movement.
There is a Netflix docuseries that goes over this and other food related scandals called Rotten. It is worth a watch.
The quote does not even say that people who drink raw milk are in danger; it only forbids people from selling it. The law is against endangering others and potentially killing them with poisonous food.
I’ll also say, being Canadian, the years in prison is only if someone does die, or a whole lot of people do get sick from drinking it.
Usually it is just fines and has everything to do with the health and safety of the product. If this wasn’t on the books, a lot more farms would be offering this increasing the risk of someone dying.
House Judiciary Ranking Member Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, told reporters that there was “no precedent” for attorneys to question witnesses at a congressional hearing.
Then wtf was that with the attorney Republicans brought in to question Dr. Blassey Ford during the Kavanaugh hearing?
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said Wednesday that the Department of Justice had also rejected the committee’s subpoena for an un-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.
The Treasury is also not providing Trump's taxes despite the law saying they SHALL do so.
The White House is preventing former White House lawyer Don Mcgahn from testifying despite waiving executive privilege by allowing him to work with Mueller.
Trump is suing Deutsche Bank and capital one to hide his finances from Congress, despite making a big show of signing over his businesses to his kids.
The Department of Justice has kinda agreed to let Mueller testify at some unspecified time in the future but given all the other obstruction of justice I'll believe it when I see it.
In total, there is a slow moving authoritarian coup by the Republican party going on right now. Republicans realize they have to commit more crimes to cover up old ones.
"Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from. It takes character like Mr. Mattis’s to avoid the damage, because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites ."
House Judiciary Ranking Member Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, told reporters that there was “no precedent” for attorneys to question witnesses at a congressional hearing.
Then wtf was that with the attorney Republicans brought in to question Dr. Blassey Ford during the Kavanaugh hearing?
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said Wednesday that the Department of Justice had also rejected the committee’s subpoena for an un-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.
---
The Treasury is also not providing Trump's taxes despite the law saying they SHALL do so.
--
The White House is preventing former White House lawyer Don Mcgahn from testifying despite waiving executive privilege by allowing him to work with Mueller.
---
Trump is suing Deutsche Bank and capital one to hide his finances from Congress, despite making a big show of signing over his businesses to his kids.
--
The Department of Justice has kinda agreed to let Mueller testify at some unspecified time in the future but given all the other obstruction of justice I'll believe it when I see it.
---
In total, there is a slow moving authoritarian coup by the Republican party going on right now. Republicans realize they have to commit more crimes to cover up old ones.
"Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from. It takes character like Mr. Mattis’s to avoid the damage, because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites ."
- James Comey
I just don't know what we're supposed to do when one side simply flat-out refuses to recognize the rules. Let's say the Celtics and Warriors end up in the NBA Finals this year. The Celtics show up for Game 1 and declare "we no longer have to dribble when moving". Except there is a mechanism in place to stop this. The Celtics would either abide by the rules of basketball or forfeit. There is no such actual authority to stop what is going on in this case. The Republican Party has completely shattered the unwritten social contract that is necessary for this system to function. The Democrats OVERWHELMINGLY won the House last Novmeber, and aren't even being allowed to carry out even their most BASIC oversight functions, which are asking questions of Administration officials, even as the Republican-led Senate is still allowed to do so. If a Democratic President wins, they can't pick Supreme Court justices. If they win the House, the Republican Executive Branch will just issue a blanket decree that no one will show up for any more hearings or comply with subpoenas. So what's next?? Because the logical end-game of this in 2020, if he loses, is that Trump simply doesn't leave.
"(Dr. Mercola) In Canada, it’s illegal to sell or give away raw milk, a law that’s enforced in many provinces. In Ontario, distributing raw milk was long considered to be a regulatory offense punishable by fines, but as of January 2018 an order issued by Ontario’s Superior Court changed that. Now, anyone who distributes or sells raw milk in the area can face years in prison."
Why the government want do that? Simple. To make everyone be forced to purchase food from big companies. I don't know about US, but in US
No. Raw milk can kill people because of the bacteria in it. The victim in this case would be the unlucky person who was told it was better for their health, without any scientific backing and got sick or died from it. It is almost as bad as the antivaxer movement.
There is a Netflix docuseries that goes over this and other food related scandals called Rotten. It is worth a watch.
My health is much better after i stooped consuming processed food. To consume fresh milk, just boil the milk. High temperature kills the bacteria. People consumed fresh milk from centuries and din't died. Everyone should be allowed to purchase food from more "natural sources"...
"(Dr. Mercola) In Canada, it’s illegal to sell or give away raw milk, a law that’s enforced in many provinces. In Ontario, distributing raw milk was long considered to be a regulatory offense punishable by fines, but as of January 2018 an order issued by Ontario’s Superior Court changed that. Now, anyone who distributes or sells raw milk in the area can face years in prison."
Why the government want do that? Simple. To make everyone be forced to purchase food from big companies. I don't know about US, but in US
No. Raw milk can kill people because of the bacteria in it. The victim in this case would be the unlucky person who was told it was better for their health, without any scientific backing and got sick or died from it. It is almost as bad as the antivaxer movement.
There is a Netflix docuseries that goes over this and other food related scandals called Rotten. It is worth a watch.
My health is much better after i stooped consuming processed food. To consume fresh milk, just boil the milk. High temperature kills the bacteria. People consumed fresh milk from centuries and din't died. Everyone should be allowed to purchase food from more "natural sources"...
"Processed Food" is a meaningless *Term*. It just means the food went through a process. Was it farmed? Its been processed. Was it shipped to a store? Processed. Its just a buzzword marketing people use to make you buy or not buy certain products. "Organic" is similarly meaningless.
Facebook has banned an array of fringe figures, including Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, and Milo Yiannopoulos, among other, smaller figures, in a crackdown on extremism.
In this particular case, I agree with the decision. None of these are reasonable or decent people worthy of a major platform. Jones is a scam artist, Farrakhan is a racist, and Yiannopoulos is a troll with no real convictions or beliefs. However, I still really, really do not want Facebook, or any for-profit corporation, to have this kind of power over a free speech platform. It's bad enough for a democratically elected government to have that power; it's far worse for an unelected corporation to have it.
If Facebook is going to ban extremists who are merely on the cusp of inciting violence, that decision should be done by an independent commission.
We'd all be better off it Twitter banned Donald Trump as his divisiveness, lies, racism, and fear mongering is the same or possibly more insidious because he reaches a wider audience and has the force of the Presidency behind him than those that were banned by Facebook today.
Facebook has banned an array of fringe figures, including Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, and Milo Yiannopoulos, among other, smaller figures, in a crackdown on extremism.
In this particular case, I agree with the decision. None of these are reasonable or decent people worthy of a major platform. Jones is a scam artist, Farrakhan is a racist, and Yiannopoulos is a troll with no real convictions or beliefs. However, I still really, really do not want Facebook, or any for-profit corporation, to have this kind of power over a free speech platform. It's bad enough for a democratically elected government to have that power; it's far worse for an unelected corporation to have it.
If Facebook is going to ban extremists who are merely on the cusp of inciting violence, that decision should be done by an independent commission.
Disagree completely.
Facebook is a brand and wants to sell a certain image. They are not bound by free speech rights any more than this forum is. If one of those 3 started a thread on this forum using the same topics they started there or elsewhere they wouldn’t last long.
Just because Facebook has a dominant market share on social media platforms doesn’t mean they should be held to a higher standard than others.
If those on the “fringes” don’t like it, they can take their message to sites that do, such as the Chans, or in a capitalism society that the west is, start their own.
And you have to remember, in the last 3 months, two extremist used their site to broadcast a mass shooting to their followers. The second was thankfully taken down before he started but Facebook needs to start cracking the whip before someone else cracks it on them and blames them for being part of this problem.
Facebook has banned an array of fringe figures, including Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, and Milo Yiannopoulos, among other, smaller figures, in a crackdown on extremism.
In this particular case, I agree with the decision. None of these are reasonable or decent people worthy of a major platform. Jones is a scam artist, Farrakhan is a racist, and Yiannopoulos is a troll with no real convictions or beliefs. However, I still really, really do not want Facebook, or any for-profit corporation, to have this kind of power over a free speech platform. It's bad enough for a democratically elected government to have that power; it's far worse for an unelected corporation to have it.
If Facebook is going to ban extremists who are merely on the cusp of inciting violence, that decision should be done by an independent commission.
Alex Jones believes in some awful conspiracy theories but this guys aren't extremists. An feminist like Valerie Solanas is much more extremist than any alt-righter that i saw on internet. And i saw an guy wanting to DNA test all European population and revoke citizenship of anyone with less than 95% of European DNA and ban all "inter sub racial micigenation"(for example, an slav with an mediterran). But even this guys don't wanna(at least not openly) kill anyone. An left leaning journal should't be forced to publish articles from austrian school economists at the same way that Mises.org should't be forced to publish communist articles. The problem is when you say "i an an open platform" and ban based on ideology; then you are not being honest to the costumers
If facebook don't wanna """far""" right(for today standards, anything more right wing than social democracy is often called far right), then FB should openly say that. For example, revisionism, imo both are bad. Holocaust and Holodomor deniers are bad. Or both should be allowed or both should be banned.
Facebook has banned an array of fringe figures, including Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, and Milo Yiannopoulos, among other, smaller figures, in a crackdown on extremism.
In this particular case, I agree with the decision. None of these are reasonable or decent people worthy of a major platform. Jones is a scam artist, Farrakhan is a racist, and Yiannopoulos is a troll with no real convictions or beliefs. However, I still really, really do not want Facebook, or any for-profit corporation, to have this kind of power over a free speech platform. It's bad enough for a democratically elected government to have that power; it's far worse for an unelected corporation to have it.
If Facebook is going to ban extremists who are merely on the cusp of inciting violence, that decision should be done by an independent commission.
Alex Jones believes in some awful conspiracy theories but this guys aren't extremists. An feminist like Valerie Solanas is much more extremist than any alt-righter that i saw on internet. And i saw an guy wanting to DNA test all European population and revoke citizenship of anyone with less than 95% of European DNA and ban all "inter sub racial micigenation"(for example, an slav with an mediterran). But even this guys don't wanna(at least not openly) kill anyone. An left leaning journal should't be forced to publish articles from austrian school economists at the same way that Mises.org should't be forced to publish communist articles. The problem is when you say "i an an open platform" and ban based on ideology; then you are not being honest to the costumers
If facebook don't wanna """far""" right(for today standards, anything more right wing than social democracy is often called far right), then FB should openly say that. For example, revisionism, imo both are bad. Holocaust and Holodomor deniers are bad. Or both should be allowed or both should be banned.
Farrakhan is anti-Jew, not anti-black. Still a racist...
Jew is a religion, not an race, is like Muslin. There are 100% African muslin and there are 100% white muslin mainly on Chechnya. An Ashkenazi Jews and an Ethiop Jew is completely different racially speaking. Anyway
"Some 130,000 Ethiopians, most of them Jewish, live in Israel. The community experiences higher poverty and unemployment rates than the rest of the country's Jewish population. In the past decade, the birth rate among Ethiopian-Israelis has declined by at least 20 percent. Advocacy groups now claim this decline is the result of a birth control regimen forced upon Ethiopian immigrant women." source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseknutsen/2013/01/28/israel-foribly-injected-african-immigrant-women-with-birth-control/#154317367b88
My health is much better after i stooped consuming processed food. To consume fresh milk, just boil the milk. High temperature kills the bacteria. People consumed fresh milk from centuries and din't died.
They very well did. Louis Pasteur invented the process specifically to keep people from dying from drinking milk. Death from tainted food and water was one of the major contributors to our low life expectancies and infant mortality rates before we finally figured out what was going on.
And seriously, you're trying to dodge the point of Farrakhan by quibbling over definitions? The definition of "Racism" has shifted to become a catch-all word for all types of bigotry. I don't like it either*, but "religionism" sounds stupid. BTW, he hates white people too, and thinks my marriage shouldn't have been legal. So, yeah, racist.
*(Don't even get me started on the definitional shift of "decimation".)
Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity, which don't always coincide. Notably, Hitler's opposition to the Jews was based on genetics; converted Jews did not escape the gas chambers.
I still really, really do not want Facebook, or any for-profit corporation, to have this kind of power over a free speech platform.
Curious how you reconcile this with your role as a Beamdog forum moderator. Is this not a free speech platform?
Edit: "No" seems like a very reasonable and likely answer, but if it isn't, then why is Facebook?
I've raised this issue before--I find it very interesting. Facebook is a platform for political speech for better or worse, and it's the largest on the planet. Mark Zuckerberg has the power to virtually silence large groups of people by cutting off their access to a massive audience. For those it allows to remain, they get a larger audience--and therefore, in effect, more free speech than the people Facebook chooses to ban.
Take the opposite extreme. If somebody is being a jerk in a D&D group, the DM can kick them out, and they're not welcome back at the kitchen table. That, too, is a free speech platform--it just happens to be extremely tiny. When a platform gets that small, the DM's right to have the environment he or she wants outweighs the freedom of the platform. In that example, we've got one jerk and one DM, and there aren't enough people to form an interest group.
You can always sit at another table or join another group of friends. But there is no platform on this planet remotely comparable to Facebook. If you're locked out of that, you don't have an equal alternative.
Facebook has 2 billion users. A table can seat maybe 6 people. Somewhere between those two extremes, the public need for unrestricted speech takes precedence over the personal interests of the platform's owner. I'm not really sure where you'd draw the line--and since it's kind of a gradual shift in priorities, you could say that the amount of top-down control of the platform depends on its size. The more people use the platform, the more their collective interests should outweigh the owner's.
Compare it to owning land. We accept that people can exercise control over tracts of land, but the most important pieces of land--namely, roads and public spaces--are free to everyone.
When it comes to this forum, Beamdog does have an interest in maintaining a certain image, hence the rule about the site being rated Teen and other stuff like the rules against "unapologetic bigotry" and so forth. Those are pretty mild restrictions, which I think is fair for a relatively modest-sized forum like this one. We generally prefer to err on the side of non-intervention. You have to work pretty hard to get banned from the forum.
For the largest social media companies, I think the most important thing is making sure that the free marketplace of ideas is truly free. There's always another gaming forum, but there's no alternative to Youtube or Twitter or Facebook. There's just nothing big enough to compare to each platform.
And I think that that size is ultimately the problem. Frankly, there's no reason one corporation should control the social media accounts of more than 2 billion people. I don't care who Mark Zuckerberg is as a person or a businessman; no one has the right to that much information and power without winning a comparably large election.
In my view, the solution is actually simple when it comes to the example of Facebook: we should break up these gigantic media companies before they get this large in the first place. Having corporations this powerful just makes it even easier for them to crowd out other companies, crush budding competition, and establish monopolies that free them from the responsibility of working for consumers. We already have strictly economic reasons to break up these giants.
Trust-busting would make the free speech issue kind of moot. You don't have to worry about people misusing incredible power if they don't have incredible power over the rest of us to begin with.
My health is much better after i stooped consuming processed food. To consume fresh milk, just boil the milk. High temperature kills the bacteria. People consumed fresh milk from centuries and din't died.
They very well did. Louis Pasteur invented the process specifically to keep people from dying from drinking milk. Death from tainted food and water was one of the major contributors to our low life expectancies and infant mortality rates before we finally figured out what was going on.
And seriously, you're trying to dodge the point of Farrakhan by quibbling over definitions? The definition of "Racism" has shifted to become a catch-all word for all types of bigotry. I don't like it either*, but "religionism" sounds stupid. BTW, he hates white people too, and thinks my marriage shouldn't have been legal. So, yeah, racist.
*(Don't even get me started on the definitional shift of "decimation".)
If i wanna put my life in risk, it should be my liberty The state should't impose an killing small business regulation to protect me from myself.
One question. If someone who blames jews for everything wrong in the world is a anti semite/racist for you, do you consider someone who blames white man for everything wrong in the world a racist too?
One question. If someone who blames jews for everything wrong in the world is a anti semite/racist for you, do you consider someone who blames white man for everything wrong in the world a racist too?
Yup. Personally, I'd consider that question a no-brainer.
I mean, replace "Jews" or "white men" with any other race whatsoever--would it really sound any different?
If i wanna put my life in risk, it should be my liberty The state should't impose an killing small business regulation to protect me from myself.
Government regulation of dangerous substances arent just about protecting the life of people who know the risks and consume accordingly (although I doubt many people are truly aware of such risks) - it's also about protecting people from predatory practices that put their lives in danger, unknowingly.
Take tobacco. If we decided it was truly "victimless", then we would permit underaged children to buy and consume it. We'd also allow sellers to make it more addictive. Neither of those things seem like good ideas.
If i wanna put my life in risk, it should be my liberty The state should't impose an killing small business regulation to protect me from myself.
Government regulation of dangerous substances arent just about protecting the life of people who know the risks and consume accordingly (although I doubt many people are truly aware of such risks) - it's also about protecting people from predatory practices that put their lives in danger, unknowingly.
Take tobacco. If we decided it was truly "victimless", then we would permit underaged children to buy and consume it. We'd also allow sellers to make it more addictive. Neither of those things seem like good ideas.
Alcohol, Drugs, tobacco, etc should be only for mentally stable 18+ yo people.
Also, i don't get why so many feminists wanna ban pay for sexual services on Europe(not saying that all feminists demands it), any client can just pick an train an go to another country. Same with laws/regulations that ban abortion, ban certain types of plastic surgery, etc.
I live unfortunately in a country with draconian gun control laws. Any cartridge stronger than .380 ACP is restricted and even a .380 ACP pistol requires months of insane paperwork. I visited an neighbor country and practiced with "real" non anemic firearm. This hand taking the photo, is my hand
Most of this rifles are .30-06. Even tested an AR-50(only 5 shots, ammo is too expensive)
Here is an 10 yo Japanese children firing an Barrett M95 in Guam(US Territory)
Anyway, here is an interesting video of an guy that was banned. I don't agree with more regulations on big tech industry(2:15), but is interesting to see the version of Paul, not only the version of those who are in favor of the ban.
I will never understand how people oppose regulations with some vehemence. They are just so sorely needed in the modern world
.
Let me give an example: I am currently in the process of buying a new car. For the last two weeks I spent much of my free evenings researching various models, dealerships and insurance packages. And that with regulation in place that ensures that I do not have to worry about the emissions of my car being excessively poisonous, prone to catching fire or my liability insurance having hidden and weird exclusion clauses.
I’ve got a day job; I do not want to spent hours per day researching what sort of food could poison me or avoiding contracts with all sort of hidden small print. Don’t take me wrong: I am decent when it comes to reading contracts and dealing with numbers. I could do that, but I don’t want to spend my free time like that. I especially do not want to have to research the milk I buy to be reasonable certain that it won't make me sick.
There is also the libertarian argument that this should be dealt with via lawsuits against the producers instead of regulations. But lawsuits will not help you to recover your health and neither are they effective against producers who have done bankrupt, have high-powered lawyers or when the burden of proof for the consumer is high.
More than that, in my career I have worked in three highly regulated industries. Not only does following them limit harm that would otherwise lead to expensive litigation, the regulations also provide guidance especially for smaller companies who might not even have the expertise to see all the potential dangers in their products otherwise. Reading regulatory guidelines is often the best way to learn the best practices in your industry.
This corruption isn't hypothetical. This is a massive cash-flow going STRAIGHT into the pockets of the President and his family, while he is in office. There is almost no point in even mentioning this stuff anymore. It's just a flood of bullshit day after day, even 10% of which would have any other person who previously held the office staring at the end of their Presidency:
The 1982 Foreign Missions Act requires foreign governments to get State Department clearance for any purchase, lease, sale, or other use of a property in the United States. Through the Freedom of Information Act, Reuters obtained diplomatic notes sent to the agency under this requirement from early 2015 until late 2017.
The records show that in the eight months following Trump’s January 20, 2017 inauguration, foreign governments sent 13 notes to the State Department seeking permission to rent or renew leases in Trump World Tower. That is more solicitations from foreign governments for new or renewed leases in that building than in the previous two years combined.
There might as well be a drop-box in the Rose Garden in massive neon letters that says "insert cash here".
I will never understand how people oppose regulations with some vehemence. They are just so sorely needed in the modern world
.
Let me give an example: I am currently in the process of buying a new car. For the last two weeks I spent much of my free evenings researching various models, dealerships and insurance packages. And that with regulation in place that ensures that I do not have to worry about the emissions of my car being excessively poisonous, prone to catching fire or my liability insurance having hidden and weird exclusion clauses. (...)
Private certificates can ensure this. "what if they say that they are certificate without being" than is a FRAUD, so is a crime with victim(s)
Now what can protect me and small business from Regulatory captures? The deadliest thing in the human history, deadlier than any plague, than any war, was an centralized gigantic state. Doesn't matter if is right wing(Hitler) or left wing(Stalin).
I will never understand how people oppose regulations with some vehemence. They are just so sorely needed in the modern world
.
Let me give an example: I am currently in the process of buying a new car. For the last two weeks I spent much of my free evenings researching various models, dealerships and insurance packages. And that with regulation in place that ensures that I do not have to worry about the emissions of my car being excessively poisonous, prone to catching fire or my liability insurance having hidden and weird exclusion clauses. (...)
Private certificates can ensure this. "what if they say that they are certificate without being" than is a FRAUD, so is a crime with victim(s)
Now what can protect me and small business from Regulatory captures? The deadliest thing in the human history, deadlier than any plague, than any war, was an centralized gigantic state. Doesn't matter if is right wing(Hitler) or left wing(Stalin).
Actually the deadliest thing in human history was childbirth.
This corruption isn't hypothetical. This is a massive cash-flow going STRAIGHT into the pockets of the President and his family, while he is in office. There is almost no point in even mentioning this stuff anymore. It's just a flood of bullshit day after day, even 10% of which would have any other person who previously held the office staring at the end of their Presidency:
The 1982 Foreign Missions Act requires foreign governments to get State Department clearance for any purchase, lease, sale, or other use of a property in the United States. Through the Freedom of Information Act, Reuters obtained diplomatic notes sent to the agency under this requirement from early 2015 until late 2017.
The records show that in the eight months following Trump’s January 20, 2017 inauguration, foreign governments sent 13 notes to the State Department seeking permission to rent or renew leases in Trump World Tower. That is more solicitations from foreign governments for new or renewed leases in that building than in the previous two years combined.
There might as well be a drop-box in the Rose Garden in massive neon letters that says "insert cash here".
Yeah, but he's declining his Presidential salary...
@subtledoctor "
Pasteurization does not make it "processed food..." it simply heats up the milk to kill bacteria."
No, it is. Pasteurization is a process. That doesn't make it bad. Again, "Processed Food" is a completely meaningless term. Cooking food makes it processed.
Comments
No. Raw milk can kill people because of the bacteria in it. The victim in this case would be the unlucky person who was told it was better for their health, without any scientific backing and got sick or died from it. It is almost as bad as the antivaxer movement.
There is a Netflix docuseries that goes over this and other food related scandals called Rotten. It is worth a watch.
Usually it is just fines and has everything to do with the health and safety of the product. If this wasn’t on the books, a lot more farms would be offering this increasing the risk of someone dying.
Then wtf was that with the attorney Republicans brought in to question Dr. Blassey Ford during the Kavanaugh hearing?
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said Wednesday that the Department of Justice had also rejected the committee’s subpoena for an un-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.
The Treasury is also not providing Trump's taxes despite the law saying they SHALL do so.
The White House is preventing former White House lawyer Don Mcgahn from testifying despite waiving executive privilege by allowing him to work with Mueller.
Trump is suing Deutsche Bank and capital one to hide his finances from Congress, despite making a big show of signing over his businesses to his kids.
The Department of Justice has kinda agreed to let Mueller testify at some unspecified time in the future but given all the other obstruction of justice I'll believe it when I see it.
In total, there is a slow moving authoritarian coup by the Republican party going on right now. Republicans realize they have to commit more crimes to cover up old ones.
"Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from. It takes character like Mr. Mattis’s to avoid the damage, because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites ."
- James Comey
I just don't know what we're supposed to do when one side simply flat-out refuses to recognize the rules. Let's say the Celtics and Warriors end up in the NBA Finals this year. The Celtics show up for Game 1 and declare "we no longer have to dribble when moving". Except there is a mechanism in place to stop this. The Celtics would either abide by the rules of basketball or forfeit. There is no such actual authority to stop what is going on in this case. The Republican Party has completely shattered the unwritten social contract that is necessary for this system to function. The Democrats OVERWHELMINGLY won the House last Novmeber, and aren't even being allowed to carry out even their most BASIC oversight functions, which are asking questions of Administration officials, even as the Republican-led Senate is still allowed to do so. If a Democratic President wins, they can't pick Supreme Court justices. If they win the House, the Republican Executive Branch will just issue a blanket decree that no one will show up for any more hearings or comply with subpoenas. So what's next?? Because the logical end-game of this in 2020, if he loses, is that Trump simply doesn't leave.
My health is much better after i stooped consuming processed food. To consume fresh milk, just boil the milk. High temperature kills the bacteria. People consumed fresh milk from centuries and din't died. Everyone should be allowed to purchase food from more "natural sources"...
Raw milk is milk that hasn't been heated up to kill the bacteria. That's literally what pasteurization is. If you cook it, it isn't raw milk anymore.
"Processed Food" is a meaningless *Term*. It just means the food went through a process. Was it farmed? Its been processed. Was it shipped to a store? Processed. Its just a buzzword marketing people use to make you buy or not buy certain products. "Organic" is similarly meaningless.
In this particular case, I agree with the decision. None of these are reasonable or decent people worthy of a major platform. Jones is a scam artist, Farrakhan is a racist, and Yiannopoulos is a troll with no real convictions or beliefs. However, I still really, really do not want Facebook, or any for-profit corporation, to have this kind of power over a free speech platform. It's bad enough for a democratically elected government to have that power; it's far worse for an unelected corporation to have it.
If Facebook is going to ban extremists who are merely on the cusp of inciting violence, that decision should be done by an independent commission.
Curious how you reconcile this with your role as a Beamdog forum moderator. Is this not a free speech platform?
Edit: "No" seems like a very reasonable and likely answer, but if it isn't, then why is Facebook?
Disagree completely.
Facebook is a brand and wants to sell a certain image. They are not bound by free speech rights any more than this forum is. If one of those 3 started a thread on this forum using the same topics they started there or elsewhere they wouldn’t last long.
Just because Facebook has a dominant market share on social media platforms doesn’t mean they should be held to a higher standard than others.
If those on the “fringes” don’t like it, they can take their message to sites that do, such as the Chans, or in a capitalism society that the west is, start their own.
And you have to remember, in the last 3 months, two extremist used their site to broadcast a mass shooting to their followers. The second was thankfully taken down before he started but Facebook needs to start cracking the whip before someone else cracks it on them and blames them for being part of this problem.
Yes, but still much more safer than "aproved by steate milk". As for "organic food", why the state wanna destroy this market?
Alex Jones believes in some awful conspiracy theories but this guys aren't extremists. An feminist like Valerie Solanas is much more extremist than any alt-righter that i saw on internet. And i saw an guy wanting to DNA test all European population and revoke citizenship of anyone with less than 95% of European DNA and ban all "inter sub racial micigenation"(for example, an slav with an mediterran). But even this guys don't wanna(at least not openly) kill anyone. An left leaning journal should't be forced to publish articles from austrian school economists at the same way that Mises.org should't be forced to publish communist articles. The problem is when you say "i an an open platform" and ban based on ideology; then you are not being honest to the costumers
If facebook don't wanna """far""" right(for today standards, anything more right wing than social democracy is often called far right), then FB should openly say that. For example, revisionism, imo both are bad. Holocaust and Holodomor deniers are bad. Or both should be allowed or both should be banned.
Here is an interesting video about facebook from Ted Cruz
About Farrakhan, come on, he is clearly of African-descent. I don't think that he can be racist towards himself but don't know he.
Farrakhan is anti-Jew, not anti-black. Still a racist...
Jew is a religion, not an race, is like Muslin. There are 100% African muslin and there are 100% white muslin mainly on Chechnya. An Ashkenazi Jews and an Ethiop Jew is completely different racially speaking. Anyway
"Some 130,000 Ethiopians, most of them Jewish, live in Israel. The community experiences higher poverty and unemployment rates than the rest of the country's Jewish population. In the past decade, the birth rate among Ethiopian-Israelis has declined by at least 20 percent. Advocacy groups now claim this decline is the result of a birth control regimen forced upon Ethiopian immigrant women." source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseknutsen/2013/01/28/israel-foribly-injected-african-immigrant-women-with-birth-control/#154317367b88
They very well did. Louis Pasteur invented the process specifically to keep people from dying from drinking milk. Death from tainted food and water was one of the major contributors to our low life expectancies and infant mortality rates before we finally figured out what was going on.
And seriously, you're trying to dodge the point of Farrakhan by quibbling over definitions? The definition of "Racism" has shifted to become a catch-all word for all types of bigotry. I don't like it either*, but "religionism" sounds stupid. BTW, he hates white people too, and thinks my marriage shouldn't have been legal. So, yeah, racist.
*(Don't even get me started on the definitional shift of "decimation".)
I have some 100% blue muslin, mainly on my living room windows.
I've raised this issue before--I find it very interesting. Facebook is a platform for political speech for better or worse, and it's the largest on the planet. Mark Zuckerberg has the power to virtually silence large groups of people by cutting off their access to a massive audience. For those it allows to remain, they get a larger audience--and therefore, in effect, more free speech than the people Facebook chooses to ban.
Take the opposite extreme. If somebody is being a jerk in a D&D group, the DM can kick them out, and they're not welcome back at the kitchen table. That, too, is a free speech platform--it just happens to be extremely tiny. When a platform gets that small, the DM's right to have the environment he or she wants outweighs the freedom of the platform. In that example, we've got one jerk and one DM, and there aren't enough people to form an interest group.
You can always sit at another table or join another group of friends. But there is no platform on this planet remotely comparable to Facebook. If you're locked out of that, you don't have an equal alternative.
Facebook has 2 billion users. A table can seat maybe 6 people. Somewhere between those two extremes, the public need for unrestricted speech takes precedence over the personal interests of the platform's owner. I'm not really sure where you'd draw the line--and since it's kind of a gradual shift in priorities, you could say that the amount of top-down control of the platform depends on its size. The more people use the platform, the more their collective interests should outweigh the owner's.
Compare it to owning land. We accept that people can exercise control over tracts of land, but the most important pieces of land--namely, roads and public spaces--are free to everyone.
When it comes to this forum, Beamdog does have an interest in maintaining a certain image, hence the rule about the site being rated Teen and other stuff like the rules against "unapologetic bigotry" and so forth. Those are pretty mild restrictions, which I think is fair for a relatively modest-sized forum like this one. We generally prefer to err on the side of non-intervention. You have to work pretty hard to get banned from the forum.
For the largest social media companies, I think the most important thing is making sure that the free marketplace of ideas is truly free. There's always another gaming forum, but there's no alternative to Youtube or Twitter or Facebook. There's just nothing big enough to compare to each platform.
And I think that that size is ultimately the problem. Frankly, there's no reason one corporation should control the social media accounts of more than 2 billion people. I don't care who Mark Zuckerberg is as a person or a businessman; no one has the right to that much information and power without winning a comparably large election.
In my view, the solution is actually simple when it comes to the example of Facebook: we should break up these gigantic media companies before they get this large in the first place. Having corporations this powerful just makes it even easier for them to crowd out other companies, crush budding competition, and establish monopolies that free them from the responsibility of working for consumers. We already have strictly economic reasons to break up these giants.
Trust-busting would make the free speech issue kind of moot. You don't have to worry about people misusing incredible power if they don't have incredible power over the rest of us to begin with.
If i wanna put my life in risk, it should be my liberty The state should't impose an killing small business regulation to protect me from myself.
One question. If someone who blames jews for everything wrong in the world is a anti semite/racist for you, do you consider someone who blames white man for everything wrong in the world a racist too?
I mean, replace "Jews" or "white men" with any other race whatsoever--would it really sound any different?
We need a return to science and turn away from corruption.
Government regulation of dangerous substances arent just about protecting the life of people who know the risks and consume accordingly (although I doubt many people are truly aware of such risks) - it's also about protecting people from predatory practices that put their lives in danger, unknowingly.
Take tobacco. If we decided it was truly "victimless", then we would permit underaged children to buy and consume it. We'd also allow sellers to make it more addictive. Neither of those things seem like good ideas.
Alcohol, Drugs, tobacco, etc should be only for mentally stable 18+ yo people.
Also, i don't get why so many feminists wanna ban pay for sexual services on Europe(not saying that all feminists demands it), any client can just pick an train an go to another country. Same with laws/regulations that ban abortion, ban certain types of plastic surgery, etc.
I live unfortunately in a country with draconian gun control laws. Any cartridge stronger than .380 ACP is restricted and even a .380 ACP pistol requires months of insane paperwork. I visited an neighbor country and practiced with "real" non anemic firearm. This hand taking the photo, is my hand
Most of this rifles are .30-06. Even tested an AR-50(only 5 shots, ammo is too expensive)
Here is an 10 yo Japanese children firing an Barrett M95 in Guam(US Territory)
Anyway, here is an interesting video of an guy that was banned. I don't agree with more regulations on big tech industry(2:15), but is interesting to see the version of Paul, not only the version of those who are in favor of the ban.
.
Let me give an example: I am currently in the process of buying a new car. For the last two weeks I spent much of my free evenings researching various models, dealerships and insurance packages. And that with regulation in place that ensures that I do not have to worry about the emissions of my car being excessively poisonous, prone to catching fire or my liability insurance having hidden and weird exclusion clauses.
I’ve got a day job; I do not want to spent hours per day researching what sort of food could poison me or avoiding contracts with all sort of hidden small print. Don’t take me wrong: I am decent when it comes to reading contracts and dealing with numbers. I could do that, but I don’t want to spend my free time like that. I especially do not want to have to research the milk I buy to be reasonable certain that it won't make me sick.
There is also the libertarian argument that this should be dealt with via lawsuits against the producers instead of regulations. But lawsuits will not help you to recover your health and neither are they effective against producers who have done bankrupt, have high-powered lawyers or when the burden of proof for the consumer is high.
More than that, in my career I have worked in three highly regulated industries. Not only does following them limit harm that would otherwise lead to expensive litigation, the regulations also provide guidance especially for smaller companies who might not even have the expertise to see all the potential dangers in their products otherwise. Reading regulatory guidelines is often the best way to learn the best practices in your industry.
The key part is here:
The 1982 Foreign Missions Act requires foreign governments to get State Department clearance for any purchase, lease, sale, or other use of a property in the United States. Through the Freedom of Information Act, Reuters obtained diplomatic notes sent to the agency under this requirement from early 2015 until late 2017.
The records show that in the eight months following Trump’s January 20, 2017 inauguration, foreign governments sent 13 notes to the State Department seeking permission to rent or renew leases in Trump World Tower. That is more solicitations from foreign governments for new or renewed leases in that building than in the previous two years combined.
There might as well be a drop-box in the Rose Garden in massive neon letters that says "insert cash here".
Private certificates can ensure this. "what if they say that they are certificate without being" than is a FRAUD, so is a crime with victim(s)
Now what can protect me and small business from Regulatory captures? The deadliest thing in the human history, deadlier than any plague, than any war, was an centralized gigantic state. Doesn't matter if is right wing(Hitler) or left wing(Stalin).
Actually the deadliest thing in human history was childbirth.
Yeah, but he's declining his Presidential salary...
Pasteurization does not make it "processed food..." it simply heats up the milk to kill bacteria."
No, it is. Pasteurization is a process. That doesn't make it bad. Again, "Processed Food" is a completely meaningless term. Cooking food makes it processed.