Tab Content
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:39 PM
    The Cathedral is no longer even trying to pretend to be anything other than outright Orwellian. In fact, its mouthpieces in the corporate media are now openly embracing it, without irony or shame. Notice how the author doesn't make even a token attempt to deny the "dire warnings" she forebodes. "Concerns about threats to our liberties" are "overblown", she says - and we are not to "waste arguing about it". Big Brother, you see, is a very "pragmatic" fellow, and he ain't got no time for that.
    0 replies | 8 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:19 PM
    Can one of the bullets taken by Jose Guerena count for mine?
    27 replies | 360 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:08 PM
    Hmmmm. Not sure. Need clarification ... How many innocent Yemeni children and the like taking drone-bombs for the USA is the equivalent of me taking a bullet for the USA? I mean, what exchange rate are we talking about, here?
    27 replies | 360 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:51 PM
    So ... Trump actively puts forward nominees like John Bolton (who are not just "bad" but hideously awful) and he gets a pass, but Rand merely votes to confirm a nominee who was going to be confirmed regardless (and who was going to be "bad" no matter what) and this makes him some kind of seditious traitor. This is plainly contradictory. Given the massively lopsided vote in favor of confirming Austin, what "horse trade" could Rand have possibly made (with Republicans or anyone else) by withholding his "yea" vote? You don't get to excuse Trump's refusal to veto bad bills on the basis that his vetoes would have been uselessly overridden, and then blame Rand when, mutatis mutandis, he does exactly the same thing. If Trump gets a pass, then so does Rand. If Rand doesn't get a pass, then neither does Trump.
    22 replies | 572 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:43 PM
    The CDC has updated the 2020 death toll to be over 3.3 million. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
    4 replies | 245 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:14 PM
    A) It's not a "few exceptions." B) Define "rich." An NBA "millionaire" who makes his money from his salary is "rich" by some definitions of the word but the reason he pays such a high tax rate is that he makes his money from salary rather than corporate investments. Educate yourself about taxes.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:08 PM
    So you HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Trump had nominated Ted Cruz to be head of the NSA (just picking one name out of many that would have been better than Bolton), he would have had REPUBLICANS fighting him on that? SMH!
    22 replies | 572 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:04 PM
    Trump was the last commie usurper that had his bad nominees approved.
    22 replies | 572 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:02 AM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to belian78 again.
    9 replies | 343 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:00 AM
    Rand is the alpha male. Trump is the cuck. And Klobuchar didn't want to talk because she in 2019 signed onto a letter with Elizabeth Warren that Dominion voting machines may have stolen an election in Georgia in 2019 on behalf of Republicans. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?550745-DEMOCRATS-Elizabeth-Warren-And-Amy-Klobochar-Attacked-Dominion-Voting-Systems You don't change things by gassing up your followers with a phony "plan" to try to get people like Rand Paul and Mike Pence to overturn the election on January 6th after the electoral college already voted and the states had already certified the election, fraudulent or not.
    12 replies | 423 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:45 AM
    Sometimes using "multiple angles" is a good thing and sometimes not. If terrorists had hostages in a small enclosed space a sniper with a clear should would be a good idea. A Hellfire missile would not be. The issue is collateral damage. There is no collateral damage against websites like RonPaulForums.com from the Sherman Anti Trust angle because, RonPaulForums.com is not a trust. However you try to repeal, rewrite, or judicially re-interpret Section 230, there is risk to websites like RonPaulForums.com and risk to freedom a speech. One way a website can avoid liability for controversial points of view that might be libelous is to do MORE of what Facebook and Twitter are currently doing.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:39 AM
    SMH. You are totally missing the point. It's not YOU that the forum would have to worry about. It's someone else who may not even be on this forum who reads something you wrote that the forum would have to be worried about! Let's take the Ahmaud Abrey case. People on this forum were claiming he was carrying a hammer or something right before he was killed. All of the actual video evidence proves that's false. But some people persisted in it. We are such a small fish in a big ocean that such libel isn't an issue. But it could be. Or take the Sandy Hook or Pizzagate conspiracy theories. Alex Jones already had to settle lawsuits on both of those. Say if EVERY web-forum that that allowed such conspiracy theories to be pushed were liable to being sued? Would that lead to more free speech or less? And don't kid yourself into thinking that can't happen. And you might say "Well those conspiracy theories are true." You have the right to believe that. That doesn't mean you won't lose in court for propagating them. Now, I like what you said here: "individuals are personally responsible....not platforms." That is exactly the point of Section 230! Exactly! 100%! A state court had held Prodigy Inc. liable for the content of an individual's post being libel against someone who wasn't even on Prodigy Inc. The court's reasoning? Because Prodigy Inc. had removed some offensive content, Prodigy Inc. was acting like a "publisher" and not a "platform." So either Prodigy Inc. had not moderate NOTHING in order escape liability (porn, child porn, prostitute ads, whatever), or Prodigy Inc. was responsible for EVERYTHING (user X saying that the local burger joint had a roach infestation). This is where TheCount has a better understanding of this issue than some here. Section 230 has never been about end user's ability to sue over their post being deleted or editorialized or edited. It's always been about whether some third party, that might not even use the service, can sue the platform over what what the users post. You're right in your gut thinking that such lawsuits shouldn't be allowed.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:13 AM
    Yeah....but sometimes people get banned for reasons that have nothing to do with violation of the political mission statement. In fact sometimes it's hard to figure out why someone got banned. The fallback argument is always "Well it's our private property so we can do what we want." Okay. That might not hold up under the new judicial review that regime that you want. In fact I'm CERTAIN it wouldn't hold up. There are too many examples of people who fully support the political mission statement in word and deed who have nonetheless been arbitrarily de-platformed here. Also nothing in the language of Section 230 even comes close to supporting the "political mission statement" exception.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:41 PM
    The Senate President has the power to advise and CONSENT veto, bad nominees bills should be denied consent vetoed. Yet Trump failed to veto a number of bad bills. Is that not "dereliction of duty?" Is that not "collaboration with the enemy?" Perhaps you will say, "He had no choice, His vetoes would have been overridden." Well, then, by exactly the same logic, Rand also had no choice.
    22 replies | 572 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:15 PM
    Please explain to me how to rewrite or repeal section 230 in a way that doesn't expose RonPaulForums.com to liability.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:08 PM
    You mean like Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton? Oops...my bad. Wrong administration. :rolleyes:
    22 replies | 572 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:06 PM
    Hmmmm...."Good faith." Here's where things get sticky. Back in 2016 Facebook was hauled in front of congressional committees to answer for there "misdeeds" of "not reigning in Russian bots" that were "hacking the election." And of course the pressure is ramping up to "reign in" the "Q-Anon terrorists" that caused the January 6th "insurrection." Before 2016 the issue was how to stop ISIS from "radicalizing using social media." And no. It doesn't come down to section 230. That's a red herring. This very forum would not survive section 230 repeal. Not even a redefinition of "good faith." I explain that over and over again and nobody seems to get it. The problem with big corporate tech is....it's big corporate tech. If Facebook had the size and scope of RonPaulForums.com nobody would give a rat's ass how arbitrarily they ran their website. But they aren't that size and scope. They are a huge mega-corporation. Corporate person-hood is the problem. And when you have multiple corporations operating as a trust, sharing data and conspiring to control as much of the sector as possible, that's a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. There is already a vehicle in place to deal with this situation that doesn't get into the impossibly vague question of WTH "good faith" means.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 10:53 PM
    Right. Section 230 limited liability isn't the problem. If there was real competition this wouldn't even be an issue. Anti-trust laws are meant to keep real competition going. If corporations weren't getting a better deal than sole proprietorships then all businesses would be sole proprietorships or at the very least the largest businesses would be sole proprietorships. These people aren't stupid. LOL @ what the government "rakes in in taxes." How much tax did Donald Trump pay last year? Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than income. That's why Warren Buffet's secretary pays a hire tax rate than he does. And LOL at the "owners of a business are individuals as well that should have the identical protections as any other individual" argument. They have greater protections by the fact that they can shield themselves from liability from their bad corporate decisions. Really, I think you're dealing with cognitive dissonance. You can't wrap your mind around the obvious. Unbridled corporate power is a problem. The problem exists because corporate power is, by definition, an extension of government power. The lobbyists for the corporations help draft the laws and they are not drafting those laws to oppress themselves. They draft them to oppress you.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
  • devil21's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 10:07 PM
    OU812
    11 replies | 1152 view(s)
  • devil21's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 10:01 PM
    Mr. Robot? Yes, let's look to Hollywood for guidance. They surely do not push agendas and predictive programming via television shows. smh If you're not a shill, proph, you are very, very uninformed about how the sheep are herded.
    1069 replies | 74190 view(s)
  • devil21's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 09:10 PM
    Oh crap, never mind. He was predicting bircoin, not bitcoin. Anybody know where I can buy some $1,000,000 bircoins?
    11 replies | 1152 view(s)
  • devil21's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 08:28 PM
    ^^^^^^^ blah blah blah. Combative and dismissive because I know how the bankers herd the sheep into their next planned fake money system and have called it in this thread even before Fedcoin/CBDC was made public. Fedcoin is just around the corner and the puzzle pieces are being put into place to regulate the hell out of bitcoin, possibly to the point of being nearly worthless. You think Janet Yellen and Gary Gensler are going to be on your side? LOL All that is great and thanks for your thoughts but no one has refuted, with any evidence whatsoever, my claim from the start that bitcoin is an NSA/MIT invention or address the 1988 Economist cover that not only told us it was going to happen but even was so bold as to code the fuckin' name they'd push and the even the calendar years they'd push it right into the cover. The difference between you and me is that I give credit where it is due but you will not. I have said repeatedly that I hope people do well playing with bitcoin and I'm sure some have. Good for them. But know what it is and that the greed comes at a price for everyone else, as you help herd everyone into their next fake money paradigm. You will not, however, give me credit for pegging the bigger agenda from day 1.
    1069 replies | 74190 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 05:09 PM
    Is my solution to what? Facebook and Twitter? I'm not following you. What I know is this. We do not live in a free market and this country really never has been a true free market. There are aspects of the free market and there are aspects of government control. Trying to make everything fit into a free market lens is not practical. Look at HIPPA. That's government regulation that keeps healthcare providers from selling your private data. OMG! Regulation! Must be evil right? Well....no. No it's not. It is a GOOD thing that there at least some of my personal data that a corporation (or anybody else) collects from me is at least somewhat protected. Someone recently posted a thread about the military buying aggregated cell phone data that's available on the free market without a warrant. Totally constitutional. Maybe a federal law could be passed to keep the U.S. military from being allowed to buy that data, but that wouldn't keep the Chinese government from buying it. As for patents.....do you know why they exist? Hint, it's not to protect the patent holder. It's so the patent holder will make his invention available to the rest of the country so that when the patent runs out other people can make the invention. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes patents are abused. (Drug companies gouging people way past what they need to make a profit just because they have a patent on a life saving drug.) Here is the bottom line. Once one realizes that we don't really live in a free market, one can look at the broader issue of freedom! My freedom is not diminished if Facebook an, Google and Twitter get in trouble for secretly sharing data about who they are going to de-platform. Now repealing Section 230 of the CDA would affect my freedom because website, like this one, they I visit from time to time could get shut down without Section 230 CDA protection. That's it. It's simple freedom calculus. It's not hard to figure out.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 04:40 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Rand 2024? in Rand Paul Forum
    Only a subset of those who voted for Trump believe the election was stolen and a smaller subset of that wanted to fight after the electoral college vote. That said the "always Trumpers" will be a formidable force in 2024.
    42 replies | 711 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 04:34 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Rand 2024? in Rand Paul Forum
    :rolleyes: Matt, seriously? It's one thing to say "Well the vaccines out there so you can take it if you want." It's another thing to take taxpayer dollars and direct those dollars to purchasing the vaccine and direct those purchases to people who are most likely to die from taking that vaccine. This is even worse than the "bully pulpit" argument that acptulsa pointed out. Your argument is like saying "Well if the government doesn't pay for abortions and advocate for women having abortions than women are being denied abortions."
    42 replies | 711 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 04:30 PM
    An LLC is a corporation. And there are limits to individual bankruptcy. If your LLC or corporation goes bankrupt, typically your personal assets aren't touched. A corporation you 100% own can go bankrupt and it not affect your credit. That's not at all true for personal bankruptcy. When the business model is dependent upon the largess of government. For example, a patent is, by definition, anti free market. So is copyright. It's got nothing to do with the size of the business per se, but government largess allows business to grow larger than they otherwise would. Free market depends in part on risk. The more owners are shielded from risk the less accountable they become. That's the problem Consider an actual case involving Section 230 of the CDA. Prodigy, an online service from the 1990s, was sued over a libelous message that one of their users posted. The state court found them libel because Prodigy had deleted some messages which, according to the state court's logic, made them an "editor" because they were exercising "editorial control." Prodigy countered that they had 60,000 messages a day and couldn't monitor all of them. They still lost. That's what prompted the passage of Section 230 in the CDA. Congress wanted online services to have a freehand to take down "offensive material" without being opened up to liability. Really Prodigy had a better defense than would RonPaulForums.com if Section 230 was repealed. RPF can't claim there is such a volume of messages that they couldn't all be moderated.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 04:12 PM
    The precedent for what happened to Parler already happened to Gab. For the life of me I don't understand why people didn't see that coming. Parler is (was?) a centralized application / platform. It was just owned by conservatives. True decentralized applications aren't owned by anyone. In contrast to Parler, there are different Mastodon servers. Taking down Mastodon would be like trying to get rid of email.
    43 replies | 718 view(s)
More Activity
About cjm

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Displayed state:
Virginia
Political / Activist Bio:
Ron Paul 2012: Donated. Knocked doors. Made phone calls. Recruited delegates to district conventions.

Karen Kwiatkowski 2012: Volunteer coordinator, data manager. Knocked doors, made phone calls.

GOP 2012-2016: Treasurer of local unit. Chaired several unit committees. Chaired nominations and credentials committees during mass meetings. Member of district resolutions committee and sergeant at arms, 2016 6th CD convention.

Rand Paul 2016: Served as 6th district co-captain for ballot access petitions. Circulated petitions.

Other: lots of local and State stuff that doesn't fit the RPF activist paradigm. Contributed <$100 to many liberty candidates, including forum members Massie and Kellogg.
Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
5
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a &quot;Stand with Rand&quot; badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Political Campaign Skills
Campaign Workers:
Campaign Manager, Phone Bank Worker
Copywriters:
Collateral Writer, Editor, Proofreading, Typing, Researcher
Computer and Technical:
Programmer, WebMaster, Unix Guru, SQL/Database Expert

Signature


Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,966
Posts Per Day
0.49
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 05:29 PM
Join Date
01-29-2010
Referrals
0

9 Friends

  1. devil21 devil21 is offline

    Member

    devil21
  2. jmdrake jmdrake is offline

    Member

    jmdrake
  3. kcchiefs6465 kcchiefs6465 is offline

    Member

    kcchiefs6465
  4. mad cow mad cow is offline

    Member

    mad cow
  5. Mike T Mike T is offline

    New Member

    Mike T
  6. Occam's Banana Occam's Banana is offline

    Member

    Occam's Banana
  7. Okaloosa Okaloosa is offline

    Member

    Okaloosa
  8. Tillett4Liberty Tillett4Liberty is offline

    Member

    Tillett4Liberty
  9. Voluntary Man Voluntary Man is offline

    Member

    Voluntary Man
Showing Friends 1 to 9 of 9
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

01-22-2021


01-18-2021


01-15-2021


01-14-2021


01-13-2021


01-12-2021


01-10-2021


01-09-2021


01-08-2021



Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast