Elon Musk may be planning hostile takeover of Twitter - declines board seat with majority share - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15256451
pugsville wrote:Just more evidence of your utter hypocritical lack of any sort constancy. MY guys are good regardless of what they do , the other guys are worng no matter what they do,

You don;t have any actual objection to the "liberals" you post you stuff about because your absolutely fine with "conservatives" doing the exact same thing.



Leftists like you are constantly trying to insert government (federal/state/local) in to people's lives and insert themselves into the private sector for "the greater good".

The right wants government to get the fuck out of their lives and the private sector. They prefer to be independent and do things themselves, because then they know it's done correctly. Something Uncle Sham is unable to do, BTW. Instead, government fucks up everything it touches.
#15256457
BlutoSays wrote:Leftists like you are constantly trying to insert government (federal/state/local) in to people's lives and insert themselves into the private sector for "the greater good".

The right wants government to get the fuck out of their lives and the private sector. They prefer to be independent and do things themselves, because then they know it's done correctly. Something Uncle Sham is unable to do, BTW. Instead, government fucks up everything it touches.


Yup a simplistic trite tirade with no real concurrency with the real world. Government can and does many things better than the private sector. The profit motive can and does distort things. Capitalism can and does some things well as well. Both have their own pitfalls.

The right wing is obsessed with handing more power and money to large corporation and billionaires because they had been duped like you into believing this stuff.

horsehsot,.
#15256462
pugsville wrote:On line poll on twitter as way to make these sort of rulings, how many bots voted Elon?


I couldn't care less. As you can see, I did not even give a single comment on that poll before you do.
#15256528
BlutoSays wrote:Leftists like you are constantly trying to insert government (federal/state/local) in to people's lives and insert themselves into the private sector for "the greater good".

The right wants government to get the fuck out of their lives and the private sector. They prefer to be independent and do things themselves, because then they know it's done correctly. Something Uncle Sham is unable to do, BTW. Instead, government fucks up everything it touches.


Why should local government get out of your life? Are you proposing that society should be completely atomized? If so, how do you even have property rights? Because the assertation that property exists is government interference.

Are you an anarchist or something?

As always, I await a thoughtful response from Bluto.
#15256541
BlutoSays wrote:Leftists like you are constantly trying to insert government (federal/state/local) in to people's lives and insert themselves into the private sector for "the greater good".

The right wants government to get the fuck out of their lives and the private sector. They prefer to be independent and do things themselves, because then they know it's done correctly. Something Uncle Sham is unable to do, BTW. Instead, government fucks up everything it touches.


That is very simplistic view of things. As SO said, a lot of things like freedom or property rights or negative or positive rights exist because of the government and its monopoly on violence. Simply saying that the government should fuck off then what, you loose all your rights automatically with freedoms and so on and it becomes anarchy. And if you think that private business is going to somehow fairly regulate it all by themselves then you haven't been paying attention to the last 1000 years of human history or something. Without a semblance of a government, we sadly degrade to might is right or warlordism or tribalism depending on how you wanna view it.

So here is the real question that you need to answer. What is the border where the government should get involved and where it shouldn't? The problem with this question is that different people in the same society will have different answers to this so the situation is murky at best. Hence your displeasures.
#15256543
He literally doesn't know what he's saying. The NPC meme was 100% projection of rightwing idiots: they don't realize they regurgitate things like "Get the government off my back!" when they take the standard deduction every year and they don't notice any change to the tax code.

Bluto is nothing more than an amusing idiot at best, a meme spamming bot at worst. He does not engage anyone in any meaningful way and never will.

To get back on topic: Twitter will become $44 billionchan and marketers will flee it because Musk is an absolute loser and, most importantly, a shitty poster.

At best, Elon trades his massive debt into a smaller portion of shares than he had before and people who realize McDonald's doesn't want to advertise next to blue check marked racists screeching, "The groomers had it coming!" in response to stories about gay bars being shot up take over and ~censor~ the people Bluto loves so much.
Last edited by SpecialOlympian on 23 Nov 2022 08:26, edited 1 time in total.
#15256602
SpecialOlympian wrote:Why should local government get out of your life? Are you proposing that society should be completely atomized? If so, how do you even have property rights? Because the assertation that property exists is government interference.

Are you an anarchist or something?

As always, I await a thoughtful response from Bluto.



No, there is a legitimate function for government. Today, it's gone way past what it's chartered to do. It's now a jobs program for the administrative state of unelected bureaucrats.

What government is supposed to do, it does poorly. It inserts itself into aspects of our lives where it is not supposed to be. The founders were certain that would occur, and it is.

The 17th amendment put that on steroids, by making political parties stronger than a properly functioning government.

The senate was meant to represent individual states on the federal stage, not represent party politics. We should return to senators being elected by the state legislatures, not direct election.

In short, the government is fucked up and becoming more fucked up.
#15256611
BlutoSays wrote:
No, there is a legitimate function for government. Today, it's gone way past what it's chartered to do.



That, amazingly, is true; as far as it goes.

But the idea of reform is also built in, so when the world changed in the 1800s, so did we.

There are a few spectacularly remote islands where people mostly live like it's still the 1600s.. You should move there.
#15256615
late wrote:That, amazingly, is true; as far as it goes.

But the idea of reform is also built in, so when the world changed in the 1800s, so did we.

There are a few spectacularly remote islands where people mostly live like it's still the 1600s.. You should move there.


Just because different people are elected does not mean the Constitution is obviated, regardless of your screwed up belief system.
#15256617
The senate was meant to represent individual states on the federal stage, not represent party politics. We should return to senators being elected by the state legislatures, not direct election.


Of course you think this. You belong to a party that owes its entire strength to denying the notion of one person one vote. It is a party that owes its strength to gerrymandering. Direct election (democracy) is your worst enemy. The Democrats and the independents that vote Democrat far outnumber the Republicans and their followers. And do you know what makes you look even more ignorant? The Democratic party is a center right party. FAR from what YOU call liberal.

How about we do what logic should tell us we should do and apportion votes in the Senate by population. Remember Bluto that the constitution says that states have no power except that given by the citizens of that state.

But I know, Bluto, that you would support me when I say that gerrymandering political power is the ultimate intrusion of the state into the rights and privileges of the citizens. So if you support the gerrymandering that is absolutely necessary to maintain the power of the Republican Party, you support the ultimate intrusion of the states into the rights of the citizens.

You are allowed to be a hypocrite. You are allowed to call for this government intrusion into the rights of its citizens at the state level then whine about it at the Federal. You are very good at illogically whining.
#15256656
BlutoSays wrote:No, there is a legitimate function for government. Today, it's gone way past what it's chartered to do. It's now a jobs program for the administrative state of unelected bureaucrats.

What government is supposed to do, it does poorly. It inserts itself into aspects of our lives where it is not supposed to be. The founders were certain that would occur, and it is.

The 17th amendment put that on steroids, by making political parties stronger than a properly functioning government.

The senate was meant to represent individual states on the federal stage, not represent party politics. We should return to senators being elected by the state legislatures, not direct election.

In short, the government is fucked up and becoming more fucked up.


These are just vague generalities. In what way is government intruding on your life or preventing you from doing anything?

I want your answer to be specific to you. How is encroaching government hurting you or stopping you?

Because, with what you said, I could agree with you 100% and be a libertarian pedophile who has a lot of gripes about age of consent laws. That's how vague you're being.

Bluto, I shit on you a lot. I'm going to continue to do so no matter what you say. But here's your chance to start forming your own political ideology by having discussions with strangers on the internet. Don't fuck it up by repeating crap you've heard from whatever shitty media sources you listen to. Close your eyes and think for a sec about why you believe what you just said.

Right now, you're just being angry about politics without having any clear stances about anything. Saying government has crossed a line without defining the line means literally nothing.
#15256706
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/toula-nicolacopoulos.htm
Her immanent critique rests on the hypothesis that every justification of liberalism has at its heart a public-private dichotomy, a dichotomy of mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories in which one or the other category will play the defining role according to circumstances. This hierarchical public-private dichotomy is the characteristic feature of liberalism, but another feature of liberalism is that liberal theorists are unaware of their own metaphysical assumptions, so the determining power that this structural dichotomy has in the theory remains hidden from criticism.

Toula then works through how the public-private dichotomy is rendered in the theory in each of the steps in the writer’s argument, and by an exhaustive and meticulous logical investigation demonstrates that the very public-private relationship which lay at the base of the structure, is necessarily inverted at a certain point thus undermining the foundation of the theory. Thus each model is shown to fall into self-contradiction with respect to its fundamental but unstated premise of the public-private dichotomy, and if consistently carried through, will fall into crisis.


https://philarchive.org/archive/ROSLMA
The thought seems to be that, in order to be able to articulate its main conceptual categories, namely publicness and privateness, liberals must presuppose the non-viability or the non-desirability of the (intrinsically public) conception of human agency that their own (intrinsically private) conception is supposed to be superior to. Instead of showing why intrinsically private agency si desirable, they presuppose it. And that is at odds with the modern western demand forjustification', which requires a rational and freestanding account of all sources of normative legitimation. Moreover, this is where critical reconstructionism comes into play: according to Nicolacopoulos the commitment to the public/private dichotomy is not just another normative claim that liberals endorse, but it stems directly from the liberal theorising subjects inquiring practices. The point is that liberals cannot offer a justification for the public/private dichotomy because it is implicit in the way they think, even though their own standards require such a justification.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#PoliEman
Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore, liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility—for Marx, the fact—that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. Accordingly, insisting on a regime of liberal rights encourages us to view each other in ways that undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation.


https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/macintyre2.pdf
Thus, the social bases of liberalism are two-fold: the raising of property to the status of the primary social relation, and the loss of community, the loss of the capacity to appeal to or rely upon shared meaning beyond the satisfaction of individual desire.
...
In each of the historical settings that MacIntyre investigates, he is able to show that the type of justice and the type of rationality which appears to the philosophical spokespeople of the community to be necessary and universal, turns out to be a description of the type of citizens of the community in question. Accordingly, the justice of liberalism and the rationality of liberalism is simply that justice and that rationality of the “citizens of nowhere” (p. 388), the “outsiders,” people lacking in any social obligation or any reason for acting other than to satisfy their desires and to defend the conditions under which they are able to continue satisfying their desires. Their rationality is therefore that of the objects of their desire.


https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/aristotle.htm
There is for Aristotle no sense of the privacy of personal experience and the uniqueness of the individual. Far from denying the existence of individuals, particular things are substances and really exist, along with their form or essence and the matter of which they are composed. But the individuality of the person is, by modern standards, a relatively trivial individuality, just like that of animals, plants and for that matter grains of sand.

In contrast, we moderns are inclined to believe that although constrained by society to fit into certain forms, deep down we are all uniquely individual, with our private thoughts and inexpressible feelings. The surprising idea that, on the contrary, we are all the same “inside,” reminds one of the good-hearted commonsense conviction that foreigners or people of other times, despite their differences in language and custom, are all “just like us underneath.”
#15256740
Man @BlutoSays Seriously take up @SpecialOlympian challenge. I would very much enjoy a constructive and frank discussion about that which you post. I would very much like to hear what it is, in your opinion that government is doing that specifically is harming you.

For here is the deal. Whether you are an old time conservative Republican or a newly minted one (like yourself) we are outnumbered. In a big way. And it is getting worse and will continue to get worse.

The best we can hope for in the long run, (unless you truly want a repressive fascist takeover, and I don't think you do) is that we can temper the changes that are inevitably coming. The cold hard reality is that we are NOT going to:

Make same sex marriage illegal.

Stop the move toward universal health care or at least serious health care reforms.

Stop abortion in the majority of states.

Pay off the deficit any time soon.

Get increased gun rights. (We might, if we are wise in what we advocate for, hold what we have.)

Deport all of the undocumented people in the country. (And you and I both know that the Republican leadership would not do this if it could.)

In other words friend, short of the dissolution of the union we are going to move slowly to the center over time. This is inevitable. So seriously start this off Bluto....What is it, specifically, that you want to happen?
#15256756
I'm just picturing Bluto as one of those giant, room sized computers with the reel to reel magnetic tape systems from the 50's and I'm eagerly waiting to hear him process my very simple question and spit out an answer.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Hope yours was as fun as mine.
#15256790
late wrote:Modified, not obviated..

Facts have a well known liberal bias.


WRONG. Obviated.

That means you aren't supposed to get around it by passing statutes, interpreting things that aren't there, changing the definitions of words and issuing executive orders that OBVIATE it.

You change it the legitimate way, or not at all.


"Article V
   
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

I saw an interesting article a couple of days ago […]

https://files.techhub.social/cache/m[…]

The ethical question is not who wins, but who sh[…]

@Rich Depends on sources which age she had acco[…]