Doesn't the US already have the world biggest prison system and the most people in jail/prison. I think the whole concept of it being a deterrent has been debunked.
I think the comment you replied to was being facetious
Readit NewsDerpyBaby123 commented on After 20 Years as a Prosecutor in Illinois, I Quit realclearwire.com/article... · Posted by u/baremetal
DerpyBaby123 commented on Starship Flight Test [video] youtube.com/watch?v=L5QXr... · Posted by u/somenameforme
Could NASA not have chosen the acronym for the oldest science funding institution in the US for this?
From their 'about' page:
NASASpaceFlight is not affiliated with and does not represent the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA initials used with NASA’s permission.
DerpyBaby123 commented on Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire propublica.org/article/cl... · Posted by u/donohoe
How is noting that Justice Thomas took bribes from a conservative billionaire "politicizing" the Court? In any other branch of government and any other court with the federal judicial branch, he would at minimum be required to disclose those gifts. In most positions, he would be removed from service for receiving them.
How is noting that Justice Thomas is married to a conservative activist "politicizing" the Court?
I'm not arguing Justices's spouses shouldn't work. But, conflicts of interest should be disclosed and the Justice should be required to recuse themselves when potential conflicts arise. And Thomas sitting on cases that involve issues in which his wife is active or receiving payments for services is a MASSIVE conflict.
Of the Justices, Thomas and his wife are unique in the level of potential conflicts.
Other spouses: Jackson - surgeon
Barrett - white collar defense lawyer
Kavanaugh - town manager (Chevy Chase, MD)
Gorsuch - home maker?
Kagan - single/unmarried
Sotomayor - divorced
Alito - former law librarian
Roberts - recruiter for law firm
>In any other branch of government and any other court with the federal judicial branch, he would at minimum be required to disclose those gifts.
I believe that SCOTUS justices are also required to do these disclosures, FTA:
>His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.
DerpyBaby123 commented on Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire propublica.org/article/cl... · Posted by u/donohoe
The photos at the beginning look sensational.
The actual photos look like a slightly fancier version of me and my buddies going fishing and having a cook out.
It's not relevant or insightful unless you and your buddies have a shared conflict of interest, and are influential in public life. This is corruption at the highest level.
I always wonder about these sorts of comments. Do you think sources for these easily-googleable facts don't exist, or that the pretty uncontroversial events I'm talking about didn't happen? Am I supposed to somehow be argued down by having to post a couple links? Or is this just a way to shift the conversation to discrediting the particular links I reply with, instead of engaging with the actual issues I'm bringing up?
Anyway. Here's the WH Disinformation Governance Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... This is the CA gun-ad law: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/gun-groups-challenge-califo...
As for it being just the unrelated actions of large corporations and not Democrats per se... Well, the White House part kind of disproves that, as does the California law. Yes, large corporations do act independently of the Democratic party, but the question here is does the Democratic party want this sort of censorship against other people, and they self-evidently do. And the WH Disinformation board shows that they're happy to use the large corporations as their tools to get it.
You claim deplatforming has been in a Democratic playbook "for years", then cite the introduction of a WH DGB which opened and closed this year, after being open for less than a month
>Do you think sources for these easily-googleable facts don't exist
>does the Democratic party want this sort of censorship against other people, and they self-evidently do
People ask for these "easily-googeable facts", and your response is 1 link to something not really relevant, and an assertion that it is "self-evident". Apologies if not everyone finds this to be a convincing argument
Pretty predictable responses.
> Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats
Again, there was a White House office made specifically to coordinate these platforms banning "disinformation" content. It was later shut down, but its creation in the first place shows that the Democratic party wants to censor discussion it doesn't like. Or are you somehow implying the White House is not run by Democrats?
> That sounds like a law to regulate advertisements, not a deplatforming
Which is exactly what we're talking about here: these are advertisements, Hulu doesn't want them on their platform. You're fine with Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, banning advertisements from gun manufacturers and retailers, presumably pro-gun, but you have a problem with Hulu not wanting advertisements that are anti-gun.
>Or are you somehow implying the White House is not run by Democrats?
Of course not, this is obvious?
>You're fine with Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, banning advertisements from gun manufacturers and retailers, presumably pro-gun, but you have a problem with Hulu not wanting advertisements that are anti-gun.
I may or may not be fine with either of those things, why do you assert something you don't know?
So far you've demonstrated an inability to source the information in your original claim, "this sort of deplatforming hadn't been part of [Democrat's] playbook for years."
Absolutely. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill to ban ads for firearms. Google and Facebook already ban that as well. If you have no problem with that then why should you have a problem banning ads against guns?
More right-wing personalities than I can even remember have been banned from various media, not least being a sitting President of the United States. The same platforms also have policies against certain "disinformation" that target anyone discussing some issues or events like the Hunter Biden laptop which were later determined not to be disinformation at all. As for it being Democratic policy, there was (briefly) a White House office under a Democratic president to coordinate these policies.
>ban ads for firearms
Source? That sounds like a law to regulate advertisements, not a deplatforming
>Google and Facebook already ban that as well
This is irrelevant - these are not Democratic organizations, and they do not have Democratic policies. Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats, and so supposedly Hulu is run by Republicans?
DerpyBaby123 commented on It’s time to leave the leap second in the past engineering.fb.com/2022/0... · Posted by u/mikece
> By 2055, the "minute" displayed on a clock may be incorrect, which again may cause issues with legal timestamps.
I'm not following here. What defines "legal timestamps" in our current system? I'm unaware of any laws in the US that uses the actual position of the sun to determine the time.
"Noon" when the sun is at the highest point, can vary over an hour across a timezone.
>"Noon" when the sun is at the highest point, can vary over an hour across a timezone.
this is "solar noon" - just "noon" denotes 12:00 on the clock [1]
[1]https://www.bsu.edu/academics/centersandinstitutes/ceres/hel...
Perhaps Hulu recognizes that some people just want to watch TV and not be bothered by campaign ads.
Also perhaps I'd be more sympathetic to the Democrats here if exactly this sort of deplatforming hadn't been part of their own playbook for years.
>exactly this sort of deplatforming hadn't been part of their own playbook for years.
Can you source this, repeated examples of Democratic policies to deplatform ideas?
"a place that is governed by this state"
In your belief, from what comes Plato's link between place and state? Places exist before states and often afterward. Can a state exist without place? If a place can exist without any particular state, can a person have a link to a place independent of a state?
I do not know enough to answer about that question, nor to say if Plato even makes that link honestly. I think you're arguing with my summary.
Imagine if I'd edited it to read: 'choosing to stay within the bounds of the government, and enjoying the benefits'
Sovereign citizens do enjoy the benefits of the US state, do not reject them nor make strides at moving away from them (from anything I've read).