Twitter Permanently Suspends Jim Hoft, Proprietor of Conspiracy-Peddling Pro-Trump Blog The Gateway

[jem]

There are facts and lefties are rarely equipped to deal with facts which are inconsistent with the propaganda they consume.


For instance... multiple lefties here deny that after the Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and Melon tax cuts revenues when up within a few years. (which is 100% verifiable by looking at the U.S. tax revenue receipt tables)


In my experience most lefties here will trot out models which state that the tax cuts cost the govt money...

They don't understand or accept the difference between (a model / in this case a fantasy based on an assumed revenue projected off some previous ratio) and reality... revenues went up vs revenues from a prior year.

 

[userque]

The doctrine is uselss. What facts are there in politics. Left say this tax plan will produce 500,000 jobs, Right says the tax plan will cripple the economy. There are no facts, just opinions and biases.

FOX even defended itself as entertainment in its lawsuit.

I think we're clearer in the other thread, but to respond here too:

Any politician or news outlet can allege something to be a fact.

What will happen in the future, is an opinion.

Alleging that voting machines cheated, is alleging a fact.

 

[userque]

FOX even defended itself as entertainment in its lawsuit.

It will be up to a Judge/jury to decide whether FOX News should be regarded just as Saturday Night Live is regarded.

Any defendant can allege any defense.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I think we're clearer in the other thread, but to respond here too:

Any politician or news outlet can allege something to be a fact.

What will happen in the future, is an opinion.

Alleging that voting machines cheated, is alleging a fact.

True alleging that voting machines were part of a cheat can be alleged...and it was ad nauseum on FOX..... well how far did that get them after the lawsuit stepped in and public opinion spoke up about how wrong they were...

If a % of fucktards still believe it there really is no cure for stupid and having a set of regulations trying to prevent that from happening will chill free speech and better to have all the shit out there at once.

FOX can allege something happens but it does not MAKE IT A FACT. They obviously reported on it being fact but not during the day news.......the day crews were not making any claims of election fraud only reporting what politicians were claiming. Only the fucktards at night in their COMMENTARY were claiming/alleging voting machines were fraudulent.

I think social medai and late night cable commentary is the unintended consequences of free speech and the media and you take the good with the bad. Just like 1st amendment allows so many wonderful things but also allows KKK to hold a proper rally.

 

[userque]

True alleging that voting machines were part of a cheat can be alleged...and it was ad nauseum on FOX..... well how far did that get them after the lawsuit stepped in and public opinion spoke up about how wrong they were...

Someone can shoot at you, and miss. How far did that get them? Should it simply be dropped, or should there be consequences? Should society attempt to deter this sort of behavior?

Or are you suggesting a type of "no harm, no foul?"

If a % of fucktards still believe it there really is no cure for stupid and having a set of regulations trying to prevent that from happening will chill free speech and better to have all the shit out there at once.

Opinions vary. Free speech already has limits. I don't think banning intentional lying, or banning insufficient vetting will hurt free speech ... unless you do a lot of lying.

FOX can allege something happens but it does not MAKE IT A FACT. They obviously reported on it being fact but not during the day news.......the day crews were not making any claims of election fraud only reporting what politicians were claiming. Only the fucktards at night in their COMMENTARY were claiming/alleging voting machines were fraudulent.

Well now, let's get rid of defamation laws for your same reasonings.

I think social medai and late night cable commentary is the unintended consequences of free speech and the media and you take the good with the bad. Just like 1st amendment allows so many wonderful things but also allows KKK to hold a proper rally.

That's not what a law and order society does.

When there is a need to correct wrongs, we try.

There were no laws governing the internet initially. We saw the need. And laws were enacted.

That's logical. And that's what we do. And that's what we've done since pre-colonial times. And that's what we should continue to do.

 

[piezoe]

There are facts and lefties are rarely equipped to deal with facts which are inconsistent with the propaganda they consume.


For instance... multiple lefties here deny that after the Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and Melon tax cuts revenues when up within a few years. (which is 100% verifiable by looking at the U.S. tax revenue receipt tables)


In my experience most lefties here will trot out models which state that the tax cuts cost the govt money...

They don't understand or accept the difference between (a model / in this case a fantasy based on an assumed revenue projected off some previous ratio) and reality... revenues went up vs revenues from a prior year.

We don't consider the Melon tax cuts. That was a different era. For the same reason we don't consider tax cuts during the reign of Louis IV. The only modern era tax cuts that economists believe resulted in an increase in Revenue were the Kennedy cuts which were demand side cuts. In both the Reagan and Bush Cuts there was simultaneously a tremendous increase in government spending into the economy. The net result was huge increases in the deficit well beyond what could be justified by increases in GDP. If you are going to understand the effect of tax cuts you must first understand what the effect of government spending is. And that is an increase in revenue. Your economics is as overly simplistic and as faulty as your legal arguments.

 

[piezoe]

I think we're clearer in the other thread, but to respond here too:

Any politician or news outlet can allege something to be a fact.

What will happen in the future, is an opinion.

Alleging that voting machines cheated, is alleging a fact.

Indeed. Alleging a fact does not make what is alleged a fact.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Someone can shoot at you, and miss. How far did that get them? Should it simply be dropped, or should there be consequences? Should society attempt to deter this sort of behavior?

Or are you suggesting a type of "no harm, no foul?"



Opinions vary. Free speech already has limits. I don't think banning intentional lying, or banning insufficient vetting will hurt free speech ... unless you do a lot of lying.



Well now, let's get rid of defamation laws for your same reasonings.



That's not what a law and order society does.

When there is a need to correct wrongs, we try.

There were no laws governing the internet initially. We saw the need. And laws were enacted.

That's logical. And that's what we do. And that's what we've done since pre-colonial times. And that's what we should continue to do.

Sorry now you are mixing so many thingds that are unrelated.

Shooting and missing is attempted murder/attempted assault so there is no such thing as no harm no foul in criminal law so that analogy is really bad.

Opinions are always intentional lying to some degree so you are going to ban opinions or regulate opinions.
you think I am an asshole....is that an actual fact or your opinion..then you are really lying since you know it is possibly not a real fact.

Defamation laws are completely different than making a claim on late night commentary. You are making too much of a stretch. But Dominion is suing because of what was said and FOX is paying the price so actually defamation laws proves you cannot spout whatever you want at night and get away with it.

So current laws already address a lot of this.

regulation of internet is a good start but you are suggesting thought police and that NEVER works...

Take the good with the bad...that is why freedoms are protected to an extent so that some ass hat in the government does not get to decide what we are allowed to think but the law lets you have recourse if you decide to lie openly

 

[userque]

Sorry now you are mixing so many thingds that are unrelated.

Shooting and missing is attempted murder/attempted assault so there is no such thing as no harm no foul in criminal law so that analogy is really bad.

You completely missed the point. The intent of the shooter was to kill. They failed. The only reason they can be charged with attempted murder is because society said 'attempting to murder someone is a crime.'

Just as I'm saying attempting to deceive someone, even if unsuccessful, should also be a crime.

Whereas you seem to suggest: "no harm, no foul."

Opinions are always intentional lying to some degree so you are going to ban opinions or regulate opinions

I can't make it any clearer. Never mind opinions, except when opinions are purported to be facts.

you think I am an asshole....is that an actual fact or your opinion..then you are really lying since you know it is possibly not a real fact.

Whether or not someone is an asshole is obviously an opinion.?

Defamation laws are completely different than making a claim on late night commentary. You are making too much of a stretch. But Dominion is suing because of what was said and FOX is paying the price so actually defamation laws proves you cannot spout whatever you want at night and get away with it.

Like I said, and like they seemed to understand back in 1949. Defamation claims are insufficient.

Society does recognize when claims are insufficient. And in that case, they strengthen them, like the RICO act.

The lies told regarding the election could have swayed the election, as I've already stated a few times. Defamation claims could have provided no remedy to that.

So current laws already address a lot of this.

No. Just as they saw fit to enact the 1949 regulations due to defamation laws being inadequate; the same exists now.

As I've already illustrated; the current laws act to slowly to prevent damage from disinformation.

Take the good with the bad...that is why freedoms are protected to an extent so that some ass hat in the government does not get to decide what we are allowed to think but the law lets you have recourse if you decide to lie openly

What is allowed speech and not allowed has morphed over the years. We the people decide. We the people have never said, "no one gets to decide." If we the people decide that speech that incites a riot is illegal, then so be it. If we the people decide that lies are illegal, then so be it. It's "we the people," not, "the government."

regulation of internet is a good start but you are suggesting thought police and that NEVER works...

Nowhere did I say "thought." I'm speaking to actual speech.

 

[jem]

This is the exact bullshit I predicted.


The question was did Revenues go up after the tax cuts.
Answer yes.

Did I ask about spending... or the size of the deficit or the effect of govt policy?
Nope.

Lefties are indoctrinated into leftist bullshit... most are incapable of acknowledging that after tax cuts... tax Revenues went up.
---

Please.. note.

When the govt deficit spends it borrows the money.
The point of borrowing is not not expand the money supply.
Hence it should not cause systemic inflation.


The reason we have an inflation in the money supply is because the FED and the Banks and the Lenders create money.

Piezoe is not only the world's worst unlicensed lawyer... he is also the worlds worst untrained economist.

We don't consider the Melon tax cuts. That was a different era. For the same reason we don't consider tax cuts during the reign of Louis IV. The only modern era tax cuts that economists believe resulted in an increase in Revenue were the Kennedy cuts which were demand side cuts. In both the Reagan and Bush Cuts there was simultaneously a tremendous increase in government spending into the economy. The net result was huge increases in the deficit well beyond what could be justified by increases in GDP. If you are going to understand the effect of tax cuts you must first understand what the effect of government spending is. And that is an increase in revenue. Your economics is as overly simplistic and as faulty as your legal arguments.