The Constitution won’t save America- It has lost touch: open

[Into the Night]

Nope. If military men don't follow orders they can be shot. If government requests a social media company to help reduce misinformation from Russian sources the company does not have to follow those requests.

The company might actually believe Hillary had a child sex ring in a pizza/ping-pong shop.

A corporation is not the army, Sock.
The government coerced social media companies to censor. That is not legal, but the government did anyway. DEMOCRATS again.

 

[Into the Night]

The Marxist forces of the world fight 24/7 to tear down existing national borders, national identities and national loyalties.

Beyond that, the socialist forces of the world strive 24/7 to bring about an all-controlling one-world order (like a global version of the European Union), whereas the communists struggle 24/7 to have a world devoid of any governments, any militaries, any police, or any authority whatsoever.

This is why the communists are always the first to be killed/executed/assassinated by whatever socialist power that emerges, and why no communist country ever emerges.

There is a lot of truth to this, but communism is not a form of government.

Communism, fascism, slavery, and capitalism exist in every nation (including the United States).

 

[Into the Night]

why are libertarians human garbage now?

Bigotry.

 

[Into the Night]

there's no problem.

libertarians and corporate cocksucks need to just stfu with their subversive anti-constitution idiot talk.

they should lose all protecions from section 230 then if they're going to a take an editorial role.

Corporations that censor are taking an editorial role and are liable for what they do. Such actions are NOT protected by Title 47, $230.
Corporations ARE protected by Title 47, $230 from the comments of their users.

Libertarians are not against the Constitution.
Corporations are all over the place. Some support the Constitution, some ignore it.

 

[Flash]

Threats in and of itself is not illegal, either by government or by corporations.

If a person threatens to harm you and it is a serious threat and they are capable of doing it that makes it illegal. A government cannot threaten you so it depends on whether that threat is made on behalf of government or is a personal threat.

 

[Flash]

A corporation is not the army, Sock.
The government coerced social media companies to censor. That is not legal, but the government did anyway. DEMOCRATS again.

I was replying to a post that compared government coercion with the Nazi "following orders" defense. I was not talking about a corporation.

What is your evidence the government coerced social media companies. Source?

If government uses illegal coercion that is a crime by the people doing the coercing and has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

 

[Into the Night]

If a person threatens to harm you and it is a serious threat and they are capable of doing it that makes it illegal.

You are confused again, Sock. Censorship by the federal government is illegal. It violates the 1st amendment. Censorship by a corporation is legal. It is NOT threatening bodily harm.

A government cannot threaten you

It certainly can, and does...even legally. See the 16th amendment, for example. 'Tis the season, you know. What do you think happens if you refuse to pay your taxes?
What do you think happens if you murder someone? The crime of murder and it's associated punishment IS a threat. Don't murder people and you won't have a problem.

so it depends on whether that threat is made on behalf of government or is a personal threat.

No.

Bill collectors threaten all the time. If they have legal standing in the State they are collecting for, they can SUE YOU. That's a threat. If a squatter is in your house and you tell them you are going to call the police to enforce their removal, that's a THREAT. It's legal in a lot of States too, including Washington.

If you sign a contract and then decide to breach it, the consequences laid out for doing so in that contract are the THREAT. That's legal (as long as the contract itself is valid under the law).

 

[Into the Night]

I was replying to a post that compared government coercion with the Nazi "following orders" defense. I was not talking about a corporation.

Every else was, Sock.

What is your evidence the government coerced social media companies. Source?

Elon Musk. The EFF. Joe Biden. AOC.

If government uses illegal coercion that is a crime by the people doing the coercing and has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

WRONG. Any federal employee that coerces censorship is violating the 1st amendment. They have NO authority to do that.

 

[Into the Night]

Ideally, I think it should only be restricted to those who actively advocate harming people for no good reason (as opposed to stopping the Nazis in World War II, say).

It's not possible to censor the internet, Sock.

Unfortunately, even when it comes to this, it appears that governments and corporations are taking sides- for instance, it's ok to advocate harm to Russians or Palestinians because they're not following the Globalists' agendas, for instance.

I keep hearing about this so-called 'Globalist Agenda'. What is it? Who is creating it?

I have no problem with -some- restrictions. I particularly like the ability of thread creators in this forum to thread ban people who they don't want to listen to in their own threads.

Censorship doesn't work, Sock.

But when it comes to information generally, I'm off the view that the best way to counter faulty arguments is with good ones, not by banning people from presenting said faulty arguments.

Paradox. Irrational.

Things get even worse when only a select few in power get to decide what arguments are allowed and what aren't.

Is ONE few enough? YOU are attempting to decide what arguments are allowed and what aren't, Sock.

Could you give an example of what you mean here?

It's simple. Nifty denies and discards the Constitution.

Sure. But seeing as how the writers of the constitution have all passed, they won't be making any more revisions. It's up to the current generation of Americans to correct any flaws it has.

Paradox. Irrational. Every amendment is write a portion of the Constitution, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

libertarians choose corporatism over freedom!

False dichotomy fallacy. Non-sequitur fallacy.

Try something other than slogans, dummy.

 

[Into the Night]

I think the most pressing concern here is the U.S. government bullying corporations from taking down information it doesn't want up. As to the problem, I think it's pretty plain- if the U.S. Supreme Court is going to interpret the Constitution as saying it's ok for the U.S. government to bully corporations into taking down content said government doesn't want up, what good is the constitution? In the end, it's just pieces of paper. There's a line from one of Frank Herbert's books that I think is quite apt here:

**
Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?
**

The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret or change any Constitution, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

how should people deal with the innate totalitarianism of Keynesian (fake money) fascist totalitarianism?

Communism, dummy. The word is communism.

They are already beginning to deal with it. People are already looking around for another currency. Faith in the dollar is waning fast. So far gold and silver seem to be favored, with Bitcoin coming in 2nd.

 

[IBDaMann]

There is a lot of truth to this, but communism is not a form of government.

Correct. Communism is anti-government. It is also anti-human nature. Communists believe that everyone will unselfishly live solely for the benefit of others (Utopian) if only the oppression of government/militaries/police who want to kill them were abolished. Communists find socialists to be the completely unacceptable, diametrically opposed arch enemies that must be defeated at every turn. Socialists realize that communists, not capitalists, are the lidless-eye enemy that never sleeps, who will forever bog them down in guerrilla trench warfare until the universe dies a heat death ... or in your case, until the day after the universe ceases to exist.

 

[Into the Night]

Very good questions. I think history gives good examples of how populations have dealt with totalitarians.

It does.

Generally speaking, it's a pretty bloody affair, but one can always hope that totalitarian systems can be removed without said bloodshed.

Often the case.

As to fake money, I imagine you're referring to fiat currency, perhaps more specifically making too much of it, leading to runaway inflation. There are many solutions to that problem, from having a more responsible government that doesn't spend most of its money on things that don't help its population (most U.S. military spending comes to mind), to alternative currencies such as cryptocurrencies.

The U.S. government has no choice anymore. Their path is committed. They are already broke.

Use of alternative currencies has nothing to do with the government. People decide that.

While cryptocurrency (such as Bitcoin) are being investigated as a currency, it has some big problems:
* Slow. Blockchains get longer and longer with each transaction. The get unwieldy to pass around.
* Online requirement. You must be on the internet to conduct a transaction. That's not always available or convenient.
* Too technical. Setting up a Wallet and using crypto to conduct transactions requires a certain technical expertise. Most people in careers other than computers will have significant difficulty with it.
* Insecure. All it takes is one good hack to destroy the value of a cryptocurrency to ZERO almost overnight. It already happened once with Bitcoin already (the current Bitcoin is version 2).

 

[IBDaMann]

So far gold and silver seem to be favored, with Bitcoin coming in 2nd.

Bitcoin is nowhere near 2nd place. Precious gems, as a group, come in behind the precious metals. Next is real estate, then precious/rare coins after that.

Wait, I take that all back. Safemoon is the way to go. Safemoon, then Bitcoin.

 

[Into the Night]

according to your analysis, the problem is the supreme court.

It HAS been a problem, usually when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution.

nice try, libertarian constitution hater,
who has implied that the problem is either the constitution or the people who wont RISE UP.

He is not a libertarian.

have faith in the system and stop speaking against both the constitution and the people.

Take your own advice.

your shit talking everything wont work, nihilist corporatist.

Your shit talking won't work. Redefinition fallacy. Corporations aren't necessarily nihilist.

 

[Into the Night]

Bitcoin is nowhere near 2nd place. Precious gems, as a group, come in behind the precious metals. Next is real estate, then precious/rare coins after that.

Wait, I take that all back. Safemoon is the way to go. Safemoon, then Bitcoin.

Gems aren't generally used as a currency. Neither is real estate.

 

[Into the Night]

such an AI answer. wtf.


lol.

Hmmmm. Now that you mention it, Phoenyx DOES often sound like AI. Not all the time, though. He's just The Sock all over again, probably grabbing stuff from ChatGPT to thound thmart.

 

[Flash]

You are confused again, Sock. Censorship by the federal government is illegal. It violates the 1st amendment. Censorship by a corporation is legal. It is NOT threatening bodily harm.

It certainly can, and does...even legally. See the 16th amendment, for example. 'Tis the season, you know. What do you think happens if you refuse to pay your taxes?
What do you think happens if you murder someone? The crime of murder and it's associated punishment IS a threat. Don't murder people and you won't have a problem.

No.

Bill collectors threaten all the time. If they have legal standing in the State they are collecting for, they can SUE YOU. That's a threat. If a squatter is in your house and you tell them you are going to call the police to enforce their removal, that's a THREAT. It's legal in a lot of States too, including Washington.

If you sign a contract and then decide to breach it, the consequences laid out for doing so in that contract are the THREAT. That's legal (as long as the contract itself is valid under the law).

You are completely confusing discussions of threats and censorship. A prosecution for not paying taxes is not a threat. A bill collector is not usually threatening you in an illegal manner. Legal provisions in a contract are not a threat but a legal condition.

 

[Flash]

they are acting as a government agent and are completely complicit in the criminal act.

Violating the 1st Amendment is not a criminal act.