Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 15 July 2018
« Last post by evensgrey on July 16, 2018, 10:20:16 AM »
I think I have a solution for the Democrats mangling the investigative proceedings.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18.htm

Quote
§1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

The penalties available are important, because they mean that this qualifies as a felony under the normal rules used to identify a felony in US Federal law, which means that the limited immunity to arrest of Members of Congress during sessions does not apply.  It would be entirely proper for the Attorney General to initiate a criminal investigation into the actions of those Members who improperly abused the system to attempt to block the committee from questioning the witness.  It would also be entirely appropriate for the Committee on Ethics to investigate their behavior, which has the potential to lead to penalties up to expulsion from their Seats.
2
The Podcast / Podcast for 15 July 2018
« Last post by MrBogosity on July 15, 2018, 06:12:00 PM »


Co-Host: Daniel Wilcox https://www.castingcall.club/projects/mega-danganronpa-69-castle-chaos-2

News of the Bogus:
15:05 - Biggest Bogon Emitter: Donald Trump http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-were-not-losing-152b-in-trade-with-the-eu-were-benefiting-from-a-152b-net-inflow-of-goods/
19:35 - Idiot Extraordinaire: House Judiciary Committee Democrats https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/12/peter_strzok_hearing_descends_into_chaos_after_first_question.html

32:59 - Tag: The Future of Monobook on FANDOM http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:1456214#12

This Week's Quote: "Many economic fallacies depend upon (1) thinking of the economy as a set of zero-sum transactions, (2) ignoring the role of competition in the marketplace, or (3) not thinking beyond the initial consequences of particular policies." —Thomas Sowell

Dɪsᴄᴏʀᴅ: https://discord.bogosity.tv/
Mᴀsᴛᴏᴅᴏɴ: @shanedk@mastadon.social @shanedk@mstdn.io
Fᴀᴄᴇʙᴏᴏᴋ: https://www.facebook.com/Bogosity.tv
BɪᴛCʜᴜᴛᴇ: https://www.bitchute.com/shanedk/
Lɪᴠᴇsᴛʀᴇᴀᴍs: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg3bMbE6gbL1GaADuZaC8jw
Pᴀᴛʀᴇᴏɴ: https://www.patreon.com/shanedk
MᴀᴋᴇʀSᴜᴘᴘᴏʀᴛ https://www.makersupport.com/shanedk
PᴀʏPᴀʟ: https://www.paypal.me/shanedk
Bɪᴛᴄᴏɪɴ: 1PtGC39EktJNod3S574T4SsLzEpsUFRfuW
Bɪᴛᴄᴏɪɴ Cᴀsʜ: 1PyiWjnNK4TivWwzchprVYBwBxCbJrSK7M
DASH: XmebStk9yUTzDCnwnxGkTCRzvm3HjRUXwi
AʟᴛCᴏɪɴs: http://altcoins.bogosity.tv
3
The Podcast / Podcast for 8 July 2018
« Last post by MrBogosity on July 08, 2018, 06:00:00 PM »


News of the Bogus: Supreme Court Special
22:42 - Biggest Bogon Emitter: The Southern Poverty Law Center https://pjmedia.com/trending/about-60-organizations-are-considering-a-lawsuit-against-the-splc-following-3m-nawaz-settlement/

27:25 - Idiot Extraordinaire: Donald Trump https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/06/11/evidence-that-new-tariffs-not-immigrants-costing-jobs/

This Week's Quote: "Privacy isn't about something to hide. Privacy is about something to PROTECT. Privacy is the right to the self. Privacy is the foundation from which all other rights are derived. It's a kind of fountainhead from which all of these rights spring out. If you want to have a free world, if you want to have an open world, you have to respect people's rights to be different. And that is what we call 'privacy.'" —Edward Snowden

Dɪsᴄᴏʀᴅ: https://discord.bogosity.tv/
Mᴀsᴛᴏᴅᴏɴ: @shanedk@mastadon.social @shanedk@mstdn.io
Fᴀᴄᴇʙᴏᴏᴋ: https://www.facebook.com/Bogosity.tv
BɪᴛCʜᴜᴛᴇ: https://www.bitchute.com/shanedk/
Lɪᴠᴇsᴛʀᴇᴀᴍs: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg3bMbE6gbL1GaADuZaC8jw
Pᴀᴛʀᴇᴏɴ: https://www.patreon.com/shanedk
MᴀᴋᴇʀSᴜᴘᴘᴏʀᴛ https://www.makersupport.com/shanedk
PᴀʏPᴀʟ: https://www.paypal.me/shanedk
Bɪᴛᴄᴏɪɴ: 1PtGC39EktJNod3S574T4SsLzEpsUFRfuW
Bɪᴛᴄᴏɪɴ Cᴀsʜ: 1PyiWjnNK4TivWwzchprVYBwBxCbJrSK7M
DASH: XmebStk9yUTzDCnwnxGkTCRzvm3HjRUXwi
AʟᴛCᴏɪɴs: http://altcoins.bogosity.tv
4
The Podcast / Podcast for 17 June 2018
« Last post by MrBogosity on June 17, 2018, 06:00:01 PM »


0:59 - Update: To Pre-empt an Ass-Handing, the Government Lards on Problematic New Charges against MalwareTech https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/06/to-pre-empt-an-ass-handing-the-government-lards-on-problematic-new-charges-against-malwaretech/

News of the Bogus:
14:10 - Biggest Bogon Emitter: Apple https://beinglibertarian.com/the-right-to-repair-is-a-libertarian-argument/

18:05 - Idiot Extraordinaire: Bulgaria https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pregnant-cow-sentenced-death-eu-border-bulgaria-serbia-penka-a8380501.html

This Week's Quote: "The worst evil is—and that's the product of censorship—is the self-censorship, because that twists spines, that destroys my character because I have to think something else and say something else, I have to always control myself." —Milos Forman

Dɪsᴄᴏʀᴅ: https://discord.bogosity.tv/
Mᴀsᴛᴏᴅᴏɴ: @shanedk@mastadon.social @shanedk@mstdn.io
Fᴀᴄᴇʙᴏᴏᴋ: https://www.facebook.com/Bogosity.tv
BɪᴛCʜᴜᴛᴇ: https://www.bitchute.com/shanedk/
Lɪᴠᴇsᴛʀᴇᴀᴍs: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg3bMbE6gbL1GaADuZaC8jw
Pᴀᴛʀᴇᴏɴ: https://www.patreon.com/shanedk
MᴀᴋᴇʀSᴜᴘᴘᴏʀᴛ https://www.makersupport.com/shanedk
PᴀʏPᴀʟ: https://www.paypal.me/shanedk
Bɪᴛᴄᴏɪɴ: 1PtGC39EktJNod3S574T4SsLzEpsUFRfuW
Bɪᴛᴄᴏɪɴ Cᴀsʜ: 1PyiWjnNK4TivWwzchprVYBwBxCbJrSK7M
DASH: XmebStk9yUTzDCnwnxGkTCRzvm3HjRUXwi
AʟᴛCᴏɪɴs: http://altcoins.bogosity.tv
5
The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Last post by evensgrey on June 15, 2018, 06:45:22 PM »
It's how appellate courts work. If you have something blatantly biased like this Commission using different criteria for the gay marriage cake as for the anti-gay cakes, you deal with that most serious issue first. Then you only deal with larger issues if dealing with the more serious issue didn't remedy the situation, which in this case it did.

This is also why so many rulings "kick back" the case to lower courts. After dealing with the serious issue, there's still a controversy that requires arguments that haven't been presented, so they're basically told to try again.

The Supreme Court does not (and should not) have the ability to just decide the big issues at their own whim.

And that is why this ruling is narrow:  It deals with the procedural unfairness the appellate was subjected to, but not the higher issues about wether the entire process is permissible in the first place, because it didn't have to.

I really don't see how you misunderstood the usage of the word 'narrow' in the first place.
6
The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Last post by MrBogosity on June 12, 2018, 09:19:34 AM »
It's how appellate courts work. If you have something blatantly biased like this Commission using different criteria for the gay marriage cake as for the anti-gay cakes, you deal with that most serious issue first. Then you only deal with larger issues if dealing with the more serious issue didn't remedy the situation, which in this case it did.

This is also why so many rulings "kick back" the case to lower courts. After dealing with the serious issue, there's still a controversy that requires arguments that haven't been presented, so they're basically told to try again.

The Supreme Court does not (and should not) have the ability to just decide the big issues at their own whim.
7
The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Last post by evensgrey on June 12, 2018, 09:05:31 AM »
So, what would an un-narrow ruling have looked like?

As the articles state, it would have dealt with broader issues, such as the 1st Amendment freedom of speech (or silence) and freedom of worship (or non-worship) issues that claiming that someone is entitled to a (transient, in this case) work of art that carries a specific message from a specific artist who does not want to create a work of art with that message because he believes it to contradict the tenants of his religion.  As it is, this is about the fairly narrow 5th Amendment matter of were his views on the message he was being asked to convey treated in the same manner as the views of any other artist being asked to convey the message of a prospective client which the artist does not believe in personally (which they were not, which is the basis of the ruling as I understand it).

Appellate courts generally seem to like making narrow rulings on the basis of procedural protections to end cases like this, probably because it means they don't have to think about the bigger questions, like whether it is permissible for the state to require speech that the speaker is, in fact, personally opposed to.  (Living in Canada, I have to deal with the fact that I am under a legal system that explicitly refuses to accept that a thing is done freely only if one is also free to NOT do it, such as I only associate freely with a person if I am also free to NOT associate with that person.  Here, we're going through a spasm of insanity from our idiot Prime Minister who thinks he can put you in jail for not using random nonsense instead of correct words because he just doesn't like the correct words.)
8
The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Last post by Dallas Wildman on June 12, 2018, 01:18:20 AM »
So, what would an un-narrow ruling have looked like?
Ruling that the mere existence of the Civil Rights Commission is unconstitutional, or that the government cannot forbid any business from refusing patronage from anyone for bigoted reasons.
9
Jim Sterling does not know how to defend free speech


Jim's point boils down to this: if Steam does not moderate it's storefront (too the extent at which it can be called censorship) then regulations will follow.  This simply proves the point of many critics of the far left.  They are not content with the free market or the free marketplace of ideas.  That they geniunely believe it is the corporations', if not the government's, duty to police everyone's thoughts and opinions.  That they should de-platform anyone that does not adhere to their regressive orthodoxy.

Most video game critics on YouTube understand that content distributors should not take crap for content they host.  Credit for the content and quality of video games falls squarely on the developers.

Rags goes into much more detail as to why this problematic (to which Jim Sterling failed to refute):


To reiterate a point by Rags, no one gives crap to Wal-Mart or Barnes & Noble for selling copies of Mein Kampf or the Qu'Ran.  Everyone (at least those who haven't drunken the Kool-Aid for the far left or other identitarian sects) perfectly understands how awful Nazism and Wahabbism (not to throw shade at all Muslims) is.  In fact most are appreciative of content stores and libraries for selling or renting copies of books that promote such horrible ideologies.
10
The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Last post by MrBogosity on June 11, 2018, 04:04:17 PM »
So, what would an un-narrow ruling have looked like?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10