Taking it day by day as there is no other way.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Check his finances!
Freaking Insane!!!
I never miss an episode of Life, Liberty & Levin, great show. Though I must say, this was truly a great show!
Good.
LOL!!!
Sadly for me, AMC channel on comcast became a pay channel a year or two back. It used to be favorite channel of mine.
Spot On.
Love It!
ROTFLMBFAO!!!!
HARR!!!
Thanks pal.
HARR!!!!
TY B2B.
HARR!!!
LOL!!!
Still hilarious.
Bummer.
A most excellent post BD, Thanks you.
Insane, unjust and a very sad state of affairs.
Awesome!
Yep and yep, stay moving or die, that's hardest part of us having mobility issues up here, it's the start of the last dance.
I liked working hard, worked hard most of my working days. The truck and car tire work, even the giant tire work was hard but I loved it. True story, my stepfather was the manager there at the shop I was working when you saw me, and he was a closed mouth type of guy. When I left that shop 'because I was unhappy there, 'I had punched the bosses in the mouth after after several warnings,' I went to the shop where I learned giant tires, land movers and such.
Latter in the year my told me that my stepfather was bragging about me to the family at the deer camp and said I had the last laugh because the boss had to hire two men to take my place. He didn't tell me but he told the family members at the deer hunt. Like said, I loved those working years and always tried to be one of the best wherever I was.
Zuckerberg Fauci & Civil Rights?
Did Zuckerberg, Facebook, And Fauci Conspire To Deny Americans Their Civil Rights?
Scott Shepard
Jun 21, 2021
It seems awfully likely that Mark Zuckerberg, the dead-eyed CEO of Facebook, and disgraced Dr. Anthony Fauci, the highest paid employee of the United States government and tinpot dictator of the 14-month-long two-weeks-to-flatten-the-curve, colluded to keep certain facts and opinions about Covid from being expressed on Facebook.
The facts about the likely origin of Covid have proven true, and Fauci to be a liar. But the truth of the propositions is immaterial to the issue at hand. The First Amendment forbids government to censor Americans’ speech in any content-based or partisan ways. It may, under longstanding doctrine, only regulate, in limited and wholly objective and non-biased ways, the “time, manner and place” of some sorts of expression.
Moreover, the government and its representatives may not “contract out” to private parties to do things that the government would be forbidden to do itself. This is collusion (of the sort that the press covered constantly when Donald Trump wasn’t doing it, but can’t raise any interest in covering when left-wing government actors really are). It is a conspiracy to deny Americans their civil, constitutional rights – in this case, the right of free and open expression.
Evidence of collusion appears in emails between Zuckerberg and Fauci. Or rather, it appears to have been redacted from the released versions of those emails. But government cannot redact its way out of criminal behavior. That would just be further action in advancement of the conspiracy.
I think that the technical way to bring such a charge is under section 1983 or 1985 of the federal criminal code or by a Bivens action; I took both civ pro and criminal law in the fall of 1996, heaven help me, and don’t absolutely recall. But it is a crime to conspire to deny Americans their civil rights. The sort of crime that carries jail terms.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has called for Fauci to be fired. Senator Ted Cruz has mused about liability obtaining to Fauci and to Facebook and Zuckerberg. But firing and liability may not suffice. Prosecution may well be warranted.
And, of course, once an investigation into criminal activity begins, there are potential co-conspirators to consider. After all, it wasn’t just Facebook that stopped Americans from posting facts and opinions about Covid, the lockdowns and related topics. YouTube, owned by many-tentacled monolith Alphabet, the parent company of Google, yanked down videos that disagreed with the Fauci line. Twitter acted similarly. Were those actions, mirrors of Facebook’s collusive behavior, driven by a wider conspiracy that included them as well? Or was it just complete coincidence? That seems like exactly the sort of thing into which the investigation should look. Similarly, was government collusion limited to Dr. Fauci alone? Has Zuck written similar emails to other government officials, and then acted on their instructions to constrain American speech? Has Jack Dorsey or his minions? Tim Cook & Co.? The Google gang?
While this investigation continues, and without regard to what it finds, the Fauci debacle and the tech lords’ eagerness to ban anything that conflicted with the bad doctor’s ever-changing, always-self-serving pronouncements has made the point eloquently: Big Tech censorship must be made terrifically costly indeed.
Many commentators have talked about repealing or reforming section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which exempts tech firms from libel liability. But while repealing the section would be a good idea, it is certainly not a sufficient solution to the tech-tyranny crisis. Repeal alone might force the tech censors to simply increase their censorship of left-wing speech as well. But that is not, at least in my humble opinion (or that of the American founders, and even of the ACLU until it lost its nerve, its spine and its mind, handing them over to the woke looters without a murmur) the goal. What we want is for no one to censor American speech. Let a thousand thoughts spring forth. Let holders of stupid or evil ideas shout them, and get the responses they deserve. Let bad ideas be fully discussed, and properly dispatched. That’s the American Way.
If that’s so, then the analysis should be: What (minimal) legal reforms can we make to render censorship by tech companies too expensive to contemplate?
Today’s suggestion: Enact tort laws that render tech companies liable for any damages that arise as a result of their censorship of any information, and establish that damages will be presumed in any instance in which censored information later turns out to be true. At the same time, expressly retain an exclusion from liability (for the tech companies) for information that is not censored even if it later turns out to be false or defamatory.
This little reform would make the decision to censor always potentially more, and possibly much more, expensive than the decision to forego censorship – especially if the censorship arises not from certainty of facts but from ideological predisposition. And it would place enforcement in the hands of private parties, governed by private law. Private law always trumps public, because it does not bring in its wake reams of regulations and costly and oppressive administration by government employees.
This reform could come in the form of a revision of section 230, but the better choice would be repeal of that section followed by enactment of the reform by states. Tort law is traditionally state law, and the more areas of law that remain in state hands, the better. Laboratories of democracy, and all that. And if the worst-managed blue states don’t enact the law, fine. This will be just another way in which they are inferior to the red states, creating another impetus for conservative-minded people to migrate to red jurisdictions, depriving the blue tyrannies of the tax-fuel of their oppression.
I would expect Zuckerberg and Fauci to remain in blue states – assuming the choice is still theirs.
https://finance.townhall.com/columnists/scottshepard/2021/06/21/did-zuckerberg-facebook-and-fauci-conspire-to-deny-americans-their-civil-rights-n2591277?bcid=5a55cb012aa3d6fcb993420d497e27df&utm_campaign=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_source=thdaily
Note: There are active links contained within the original article at the website posted above.
Zuckerberg Fauci & Civil Rights?
Did Zuckerberg, Facebook, And Fauci Conspire To Deny Americans Their Civil Rights?
Scott Shepard
Jun 21, 2021
It seems awfully likely that Mark Zuckerberg, the dead-eyed CEO of Facebook, and disgraced Dr. Anthony Fauci, the highest paid employee of the United States government and tinpot dictator of the 14-month-long two-weeks-to-flatten-the-curve, colluded to keep certain facts and opinions about Covid from being expressed on Facebook.
The facts about the likely origin of Covid have proven true, and Fauci to be a liar. But the truth of the propositions is immaterial to the issue at hand. The First Amendment forbids government to censor Americans’ speech in any content-based or partisan ways. It may, under longstanding doctrine, only regulate, in limited and wholly objective and non-biased ways, the “time, manner and place” of some sorts of expression.
Moreover, the government and its representatives may not “contract out” to private parties to do things that the government would be forbidden to do itself. This is collusion (of the sort that the press covered constantly when Donald Trump wasn’t doing it, but can’t raise any interest in covering when left-wing government actors really are). It is a conspiracy to deny Americans their civil, constitutional rights – in this case, the right of free and open expression.
Evidence of collusion appears in emails between Zuckerberg and Fauci. Or rather, it appears to have been redacted from the released versions of those emails. But government cannot redact its way out of criminal behavior. That would just be further action in advancement of the conspiracy.
I think that the technical way to bring such a charge is under section 1983 or 1985 of the federal criminal code or by a Bivens action; I took both civ pro and criminal law in the fall of 1996, heaven help me, and don’t absolutely recall. But it is a crime to conspire to deny Americans their civil rights. The sort of crime that carries jail terms.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has called for Fauci to be fired. Senator Ted Cruz has mused about liability obtaining to Fauci and to Facebook and Zuckerberg. But firing and liability may not suffice. Prosecution may well be warranted.
And, of course, once an investigation into criminal activity begins, there are potential co-conspirators to consider. After all, it wasn’t just Facebook that stopped Americans from posting facts and opinions about Covid, the lockdowns and related topics. YouTube, owned by many-tentacled monolith Alphabet, the parent company of Google, yanked down videos that disagreed with the Fauci line. Twitter acted similarly. Were those actions, mirrors of Facebook’s collusive behavior, driven by a wider conspiracy that included them as well? Or was it just complete coincidence? That seems like exactly the sort of thing into which the investigation should look. Similarly, was government collusion limited to Dr. Fauci alone? Has Zuck written similar emails to other government officials, and then acted on their instructions to constrain American speech? Has Jack Dorsey or his minions? Tim Cook & Co.? The Google gang?
While this investigation continues, and without regard to what it finds, the Fauci debacle and the tech lords’ eagerness to ban anything that conflicted with the bad doctor’s ever-changing, always-self-serving pronouncements has made the point eloquently: Big Tech censorship must be made terrifically costly indeed.
Many commentators have talked about repealing or reforming section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which exempts tech firms from libel liability. But while repealing the section would be a good idea, it is certainly not a sufficient solution to the tech-tyranny crisis. Repeal alone might force the tech censors to simply increase their censorship of left-wing speech as well. But that is not, at least in my humble opinion (or that of the American founders, and even of the ACLU until it lost its nerve, its spine and its mind, handing them over to the woke looters without a murmur) the goal. What we want is for no one to censor American speech. Let a thousand thoughts spring forth. Let holders of stupid or evil ideas shout them, and get the responses they deserve. Let bad ideas be fully discussed, and properly dispatched. That’s the American Way.
If that’s so, then the analysis should be: What (minimal) legal reforms can we make to render censorship by tech companies too expensive to contemplate?
Today’s suggestion: Enact tort laws that render tech companies liable for any damages that arise as a result of their censorship of any information, and establish that damages will be presumed in any instance in which censored information later turns out to be true. At the same time, expressly retain an exclusion from liability (for the tech companies) for information that is not censored even if it later turns out to be false or defamatory.
This little reform would make the decision to censor always potentially more, and possibly much more, expensive than the decision to forego censorship – especially if the censorship arises not from certainty of facts but from ideological predisposition. And it would place enforcement in the hands of private parties, governed by private law. Private law always trumps public, because it does not bring in its wake reams of regulations and costly and oppressive administration by government employees.
This reform could come in the form of a revision of section 230, but the better choice would be repeal of that section followed by enactment of the reform by states. Tort law is traditionally state law, and the more areas of law that remain in state hands, the better. Laboratories of democracy, and all that. And if the worst-managed blue states don’t enact the law, fine. This will be just another way in which they are inferior to the red states, creating another impetus for conservative-minded people to migrate to red jurisdictions, depriving the blue tyrannies of the tax-fuel of their oppression.
I would expect Zuckerberg and Fauci to remain in blue states – assuming the choice is still theirs.
https://finance.townhall.com/columnists/scottshepard/2021/06/21/did-zuckerberg-facebook-and-fauci-conspire-to-deny-americans-their-civil-rights-n2591277?bcid=5a55cb012aa3d6fcb993420d497e27df&utm_campaign=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_source=thdaily
Note: There are active links contained within the original article at the website posted above.
ERRR!!! I hope they hang him when they find him.
HARR!!!
Yep, still too much for this old man.
So, still no ho on the boarder.
Happy Birthday Flo!!!
LOL! So, she is well known source of lies, accusations and far-left propaganda, so it's OK remain an TV personality.
That's too much for this old man. Leftover meatloaf, yum, yum. Meatloaf gets better overnight.
Way cool.
Insane Joe! I'm telling you, the only reason he hasn't been removed from office Harris.
Thanks BD.
We don't need Trey for this, that is the pattern with aggressive democrat politics. Sadly, the nation is a little late on the evils of the far-left party.