Dr Exiled wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 7:06 pm
1. Democrats didn't even try because they wanted a campaign issue.
Yes, you've said the same thing twice now. It's been false both times. The legislation you say Ds didn't try to pass was passed twice by the House last session and was introduced in the Senate, where it couldn't get the 2/3 necessary for a cloture vote. It was introduced this session in both the House and the Senate.
https://reproductiverights.org/rebuildi ... ntroduced/ But, yeah, repeat your conspiracy theorist talking point a third time.
Dr. Exiled wrote:2. I have two nieces that are LGTBQ and one of them just got engaged. Good for her. The marriage laws should remain. However, we need to come together and just settle the divisive issues once and for all. Both parties use these issues to divide so we don't attack the real monopolistic problems their benefactors care about. We are becoming more and more like South America with its 1% owning the overwhelming majority of assets. It's got to change.
I'll raise your pair of nieces with a pair of transgender daughters. One has a rough case of OCD, and is scared shitless that, if Republicans gain national power, she'll be thrown in jail for promoting trans ideology. She got that idea from the Heritage Foundation's blueprint that I quoted above. Now, how is she supposed to come together with people who equate her identity with pornography? When you find a magic wand that makes all divisive issues go away except the one you care about, let me know. Until then, when I see bigotry, I'll continue to call it out.
Dr. Exiled wrote:3. Where are they criminalizing free speech? The democrats are the ones bullying social media to kill free speech.
Come on counselor, do we have to go through where and when "free speech" applies? Unless government nationalizes social media, "free speech" doesn't apply. Intolerance of speech by private persons and groups may be rude or may be intolerant, but it's not a violation of anyone's free speech rights. On the other hand, anti-abortion statutes elected by Republicans have criminalized the right of doctors to give medical advice to their patients. Some of them force doctors to make statements that are not consistent with the required standard of care. The right yammers on about "cancel culture," while at the same time uses the coercive power of the state to criminalize speech they don't like.
Dr. Exiled wrote:4. They aren't authoritarian, just in disagreement with the oligopoly and so were painted with this authoritarian brush, because going against our beloved authoritarian leaders must be authoritarian. Seems like projection. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration wants to kill free speech on social media. Seems fascist to me. I think the 5th Circuit case was just granted Cert.
MAGA, the dominant populist movement in the United States is 100% authoritarian. Like, ignoring the results of an election authoritarian. Like threaten the Vice President with violence if he upholds the constitution authoritarian. Like threaten House members with violence if they don't vote for Jim Jordan as speaker. Like, Democrats are an existential evil that need to be exterminated authoritarian.
Try and make the case that Biden is more authoritarian than Trump. With, you know, facts. How is the Biden administration trying to "kill" free speech on social media. I'll wait.
Dr. Exiled wrote:5. How about an independent audit like corporations do? Let's see where the money is going and while we are at it, audit the DoD and track down where the money went when it fails.
That doesn't answer my questions. I agree that the recommendations of the GAO should be implemented so that it can perform a complete audit of federal agencies.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-294r Without those, it's not possible to audit. So, how much additional money are you willing to spend and pay taxes for to get the government's financial reporting systems into auditable condition?
Here we go again. You're talking about an 80-year old theoretical and experimental particle physicist who has never published a paper on climate s science. He has zero relevant expertise when it comes to climate science, yet claims to know more about the climate than the hundreds of scientists whose work is presented in the IPCC reports. But he is on the board of directors of an organization funded by the Mercers that is dedicated to spreading pro-fossil fuel propaganda. His "cancellation" is in fact the IMF canceling one scheduled talk. The only real mystery is why the IMF wanted to hear from an unqualified climate crank in the first place. It's not like the IMF's focus is entangled photons.
This is the phony expert gambit that climate deniers have been trying to snooker folks with for decades.
Dr. Exiled wrote:Surely this guy is wrong and it should be easy to show. Cancelling him is not the answer. The answer to bad speech is good speech, not censorship or cancellation.
Science isn't done through advocacy groups funded by political activists. It's done in the literature. I've read some of his claims. They are the same old pseudo scientific nonsense that climate denial groups funded by the "oil oligarchs" They've been stated and beaten down by evidence for decades. None of us have a right to speak to the IMF and the IMF has no obligation to listen to a physicist who is unqualified to speak on the topic they are interested in. You're confusing the right to speak with the right to be taken seriously. He can publish in his organizations publications. He can give speeches to anyone who wants to listen. But he has no right to a specific audience.
But thanks for confirming that you're on team anti-science.
Dr. Exiled wrote:9. Part of the 5th Circuit case is about shutting down scientists from Harvard and Stanford for daring to commit wrongspeak regarding the pandemic. How about hearing them out and showing us where they are wrong?
The case that you're referring to is a paranoid conspiracy theorists fever dream. Why not hear the flat earthers out just one more time? How many times are we obligated to give a platform to and then rebut sheer nonsense?