Herve's Bar & Grill

Yet my neighbor is day trader with at least $3000 tied uo in that stock! he was waiting on it the payday to reinvest in something else but the board on their own regretted the offer! Now the Stock is tanking on Stock Market and it seems to a poison pill for the company without informing investors, a non-no in Federal Law!
 
Keep in mind that stocks tank and bounce back on a regular basis. An example is Apple's stock. One rumor makes people panic. The poison pill was to protect the company and it will succeed.

Besides - those who use the stock market as a get rich scheme are playing with fire.
 
First, the deal is not done. While this deal is a hot news item (because Musk made it so) there are items that have to be ironed out which can take 3 months or more before all things are settled. Second the SEC has a say in this.
A quote from your article:
"The Open Markets Institute believes the deal poses a number of immediate and direct threats to American democracy and free speech," OMI Director Barry Lynn said in a statement. "Open Markets also believes the deal violates existing law, and that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have ample authority to block it."

On the other hand, maybe taking it private would be the best since - the theory goes - taking away all the rules on posting would create a massive run of people leaving the platform. Why stick around to be badgered with cruel remarks from jerks. And if Musk gets his way and removes ads, he will need to charge people to use the platform in order to pay the bills.

Free speech has a price.
 
what I say is good or bad, to me in life is my decision!

Until you are on the receiving end of the bad. That is when you will agree there is a line to what is acceptable. It is not okay to threaten someone's life.

And it is not the government that is dictating what you say on the social media platforms. For that you need to move to China or Russia (or similar dictator countries).
 
It should worry all of us. Putin is trying to tell the story that NATO and the US are attacking Russia and their special military action against Ukraine. Remember Putin is also de-natzifying Ukraine. And you know they will not stop at just Ukraine. That is why Sweden and Finland are applying to become NATO members.

Biden was referring to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently stating that "NATO is essentially going to war with Russia through a proxy".

The facts are that Russia is bombing Ukraine because Russia wants the land. Putin wants to go back to being the 'Great Soviet Union' And he will lie and spread disinformation to create fear among everyone.
 
Satcomer. I think you might agree that one cannot call out “fire” in a crowded theater.

that is unless there is one.

to do so when there isn’t one is disinformation and it is punishable by law, if the person is identified and brought to the court. That happens through the actions of government, police, prosecutors and courts. I disagree with the need for a new organ, a “Disinformation Governance Board” (highly susceptible to extremist politicization) but think that willful disinformation needs to be addressed. Maybe an increased awareness of the criminality of it at the state and national level. Still it could be that even that would be too fraught with potential for statist tyranny.

The problem is that it is often hard to separate disinformation from spin.
 
It's beyond me why some Mac users buy Expensive Displays but not run it at it's full dynamic! The should have gotten 4K version instead to use such big letters, better get eyes checked!
 
Let me get this round to all the mothers out there and to all the sons who have
them.
My Mother died from leukemia in 1985 when I was 15! Luckily I promised her the year before she wanted me to go College! So to honor her I went to College (RIT) and graduated in Business Marketing then I went into the Army after breaking up with a model and never looked back! Funny how Life turns out!
 
So- Business Marketing...
Someone else from Business Marketing got that Mac user to plunk for more monitor than they use. ;^)
 
Tell me again: Why are everyday citizens (not swat team police) allowed to be massively & heavily armed?
 
Tell me again: Why are everyday citizens (not swat team police) allowed to be massively & heavily armed?
Well my brothers have weapons (shotguns) to hunt with in Fall! Nothing more scary then the sound of shotgun pumping in dark room!
 
A hunting shotgun is totally different from an assault rifle with magazine clips that allow continuous firing power.
 
Well to get on another thing good luck ordering a new computer and earieliasrt you will get it will be late July! The problem China is locking down again and supplies are being affected! it's not Apple's fault but in the Global business model is falling to the floor!
 
Satcomer. I think you might agree that one cannot call out “fire” in a crowded theater.
Trope Two: "Like shouting fire in a crowded theater"

Example: " There is no freedom to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." Prof. Thane Rosenbaum, Daily Beast, January 30, 2014.

Nearly 100 years ago Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., voting to uphold the Espionage Act conviction of a man who wrote and circulated anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, said"[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

That flourish — now usually shortened to "shout fire in a crowded theater" — is the media's go-to trope to support the proposition that some speech is illegal. But it's empty rhetoric. I previously explained at length how Holmes said it in the context of the Supreme Court's strong wartime pro-censorship push and subsequently retreated from it. That history illustrates its insidious nature. Holmes cynically used the phrase as a rhetorical device to justify jailing people for anti-war advocacy, an activity that is now (and was soon thereafter) unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. It's an old tool, but still useful, versatile enough to be invoked as a generic argument for censorship whenever one is needed. But it's null-content, because all it says is some speech can be banned — which, as we'll see in the next trope, is not controversial. The phrase does not advance a discussion of which speech falls outside of the protection of the First Amendment.

Popehat

F6BUZHd.gif


– J.D.
 
Back
Top