Mitch McConnel Bravely Tells The Corporate Elite To Stay Out Of Politics

[Cecilie1200]

Huh?

She likes Big Balls:

we'll revisit the question of whether you have the sack to silence me.

No, I just like them to have actually dropped before someone tries to come over all patriarchal at me. I'll ignore it and do as I please anyway, but it's still annoying to have pimply little boys playing at "tough guy".

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think so. I recall when Sen Trent Lott got in "hot water" for saying Ole Strom was right about laws forcing private companies to serve black people were unnecessary (and unconst). What was lost in the furor was his central tenet that KFC and Wal-Mart would have enforced blacks' purchasing simply to gain market share.

He was a sage when it came to public accomodations. (-:

I think the corporations believe America is turning black and so they want to look good for the new demographic. That's why everything is black, black, black in ads and so on these days. Most of it makes very little sense and isn't true to reality, such as pushing all the miscegenation on us that they do by constantly showing black/white couples. I notice since the violence against Orientals has started, they've been pushing those mixed race couples in ads now.

As someone who has an "interracial marriage" - I've never been fond of referring to my marriage as though I was making a political statement by it - I can tell you I'm basically indifferent to ads with interracial couples. I mean, I guess it's nice for advertisers to catch up and notice that we're out here, but I don't actually care all that much.

 

[bendog]

I don't think so. I recall when Sen Trent Lott got in "hot water" for saying Ole Strom was right about laws forcing private companies to serve black people were unnecessary (and unconst). What was lost in the furor was his central tenet that KFC and Wal-Mart would have enforced blacks' purchasing simply to gain market share.

He was a sage when it came to public accomodations. (-:

I think the corporations believe America is turning black and so they want to look good for the new demographic. That's why everything is black, black, black in ads and so on these days. Most of it makes very little sense and isn't true to reality, such as pushing all the miscegenation on us that they do by constantly showing black/white couples. I notice since the violence against Orientals has started, they've been pushing those mixed race couples in ads now.

Imo its more that "these damn kids" a/k/a millennials pretty much rejecting race/orientation as an identifying feature. I don't think they're so much "blind" to features, but wait for people to show characteristics before getting "pigeon holed."

Despite Cosby being a sexual predator shock his sitcom basically avoided any race. Today Blackish is hilarious (imo) simply for the opposite reason. Middle class people with typical human issues, but the race thing gives it a twist. It comes on after the 10pm news. Which sucks because my work day begins at 6am.

So even if these "kids" are not from "blended" households any notion of a company trying to sell them something without opposing all racial disparity is a ticket to losing the biggest market.

 

[dblack]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

 

[bendog]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

 

[dblack]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

 

[bendog]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

 

[woodwork201]

Ok. No, it can't. Not unless you play games with the definitions. If you really don't recognize the fundamental difference between the power of wealth and the power of the state, we're at an impasse. I won't let you pretend they're the same. Voluntary trade is simply not the same as threat of violence.

The power of wealth was shown in the 2020 election when Twitter and Facebook helped steal the election for Biden.

 

[dblack]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

I was responding to the suggestion that political orientation should be added as another protected class (re: discrimination laws).

 

[dblack]

Ok. No, it can't. Not unless you play games with the definitions. If you really don't recognize the fundamental difference between the power of wealth and the power of the state, we're at an impasse. I won't let you pretend they're the same. Voluntary trade is simply not the same as threat of violence.

The power of wealth was shown in the 2020 election when Twitter and Facebook helped steal the election for Biden.

 

[asaratis]

Yet for some reason the Governors of the States have to sign a bill and can veto the Legislatures election Bills. Do you ever wonder why that is, or think perhaps the Legislature don't have the authority you think they have?

Read the Constitution.

We've already had lengthy discussions on this topic. Read them, too.

I don't have the time or the inclination to tutor you.

You obviously don't know what you think you know. The term "Legislature" in the election clause has been broadly interpreted as being the law making apparatus of the States.

Duh!

The legislature of a state does not include the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, or any other officer of the state. It includes only elected Representatives and Senators whose duties are to propose and either reject or pass bills to be sent to the Governor for signing into law.

That procedure is exactly what happened regarding the recent Georgia election reform law.

Can you provide a link to your apparent claim that the term legislature includes anything other than the two Houses of Congress that exist in the states?

Sure,

"One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures."

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

That does not allow Secretaries of State to arbitrarily change the voting regulations such as happened in numerous states that extended the deadlines for mail in ballots and nixed the post mark and signature verification requirements.

In closing, your article states:

As this summary shows, congressional elections are conducted under a complicated mix of state and federal laws, reflecting the Elections Clause’s division of authority between state legislatures and Congress.

 

[AFrench2]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

Just smile and nod. Their entire culture and way of life is dying off in the next 10 years, and they are going to insanity rather than assimilation. Just pat them on the back and say "I know, I know".

 

[colfax_m]

That does not allow Secretaries of State to arbitrarily change the voting regulations such as happened in numerous states that extended the deadlines for mail in ballots and nixed the post mark and signature verification requirements.

Those were changed as a result of court cases, not secretaries of state.

And it wasn't arbitrary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

Just smile and nod. Their entire culture and way of life is dying off in the next 10 years, and they are going to insanity rather than assimilation. Just pat them on the back and say "I know, I know".

Best description of the left being deaf to all reason because they're too in love with the destruction they wreak I've ever heard. Thanks for sharing.

I don't even know why I'm still amazed that you people can't hear what you actually sound like.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Private entities aren't regulating speech. They can't.

Then why do they have governing policies on their platforms dictating what is acceptable to post and what isn't? Why is Facebook banning Trump's very voice from its platform?

It is because they are regulating speech, something the law never intended them to do.

They are regulating their platforms. You are free to speak elsewhere.

Sure you said the same thing about the gay couple in the cake shop.

Take the hypocrisy elsewhere.

 

[AFrench2]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

Just smile and nod. Their entire culture and way of life is dying off in the next 10 years, and they are going to insanity rather than assimilation. Just pat them on the back and say "I know, I know".

Best description of the left being deaf to all reason because they're too in love with the destruction they wreak I've ever heard. Thanks for sharing.

I don't even know why I'm still amazed that you people can't hear what you actually sound like.

Your way of life will be gone by 2030. So enjoy it.

 

[marvin martian]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

Just smile and nod. Their entire culture and way of life is dying off in the next 10 years, and they are going to insanity rather than assimilation. Just pat them on the back and say "I know, I know".

Best description of the left being deaf to all reason because they're too in love with the destruction they wreak I've ever heard. Thanks for sharing.

I don't even know why I'm still amazed that you people can't hear what you actually sound like.

Your way of life will be gone by 2030. So enjoy it.

What "way of life" is that, Adolf?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Private entities aren't regulating speech. They can't.

Then why do they have governing policies on their platforms dictating what is acceptable to post and what isn't? Why is Facebook banning Trump's very voice from its platform?

It is because they are regulating speech, something the law never intended them to do.

They are regulating their platforms. You are free to speak elsewhere.

Free speech is a guarantee made by the government, and it is not for a platform like Twitter or Facebook to regulate. Like I said yesterday, your freedom to regulate your platform ends when you start regulating the legally given rights of others to speak freely.

 

[AFrench2]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

Just smile and nod. Their entire culture and way of life is dying off in the next 10 years, and they are going to insanity rather than assimilation. Just pat them on the back and say "I know, I know".

Best description of the left being deaf to all reason because they're too in love with the destruction they wreak I've ever heard. Thanks for sharing.

I don't even know why I'm still amazed that you people can't hear what you actually sound like.

Your way of life will be gone by 2030. So enjoy it.

What "way of life" is that, Adolf?

Every single person you watch on Twitter and Youtube in the year 2021 will be banned and gone by 2030.

That "way of life". So enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

Just smile and nod. Their entire culture and way of life is dying off in the next 10 years, and they are going to insanity rather than assimilation. Just pat them on the back and say "I know, I know".

Best description of the left being deaf to all reason because they're too in love with the destruction they wreak I've ever heard. Thanks for sharing.

I don't even know why I'm still amazed that you people can't hear what you actually sound like.

Your way of life will be gone by 2030. So enjoy it.

Oh my, how will she ever survive that devastating riposte?