Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

linkin park was the worst show i've ever seen live.  pretty sure their CD was playing on the engineer's stand and they just stood up on the stage and did fuck all.

  • Haha 1
Posted
13 hours ago, elfenix said:

linkin park was the worst show i've ever seen live.  pretty sure their CD was playing on the engineer's stand and they just stood up on the stage and did fuck all.

😂😂😂😂

Posted
On 2/19/2024 at 10:54 AM, Red Five said:

I listen to the 80s station on XM all the time. The 90s station is basically unlistenable IMO. 

I listen to XMU 35 almost exclusively but flip over to the 80's New Wave (XM33) quite often. Those are the two best stations on XMU.

Posted
On 2/19/2024 at 10:55 AM, Surly Bevo said:

Gotta go with Lithium on Sirius/XM for 90s music....

A good companion station is First Wave which is basically 80s alternative. It's my number 2 station after Lithium.

Posted
21 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

A good companion station is First Wave which is basically 80s alternative. It's my number 2 station after Lithium.

Would you say it was just like heaven? Idk, but regardless I’m a better man for listening to both.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 2/19/2024 at 11:09 AM, jimmyjazz said:

I pretty much ignored new music for about a decade after Kurt Cobain died.  Possible exceptions were Spoon and Wilco.  Can't think of much else.  Holy smokes that was a bad era.

Radiohead, Daft Punk, Neutral Milk Hotel? There's a lot of good stuff that came out 1994-2004. Walkmen, Strokes, Interpol, LCD to name just a few.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Radiohead, Daft Punk, Neutral Milk Hotel? There's a lot of good stuff that came out 1994-2004. Walkmen, Strokes, Interpol, LCD to name just a few.

Pretty much just listened to Radiohead of that group.  Can't stand LCD.  I dug into Americana quite a bit, now that I think of it.

Posted
19 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

"Kids today are so soft!  Not like in my day 20+ years ago when we listened to metal music like ... Linkin Park and other emo bands."

in my defense, i won the tickets off of KLBJ and it was a stadium rock tour with the deftones, linkin park, limp bizkit (whose music also sucks but whose show kicked ass), and metallica.

Posted
On 2/18/2024 at 10:47 PM, RPM said:

John Oliver just offered Clarence Thomas $1 Million a year and a $2 Million motor coach if he retires in the next 30 days.

 

Can this be opened up to Go Fund Me? If Trump can raise over $1m to help him with his legal judgements, surely Dems can pony up $50m for Clarence.

Of course with Manchin and Sinema in the Senate, who knows if Biden could even get someone confirmed to the Supreme Court this year.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Can this be opened up to Go Fund Me? If Trump can raise over $1m to help him with his legal judgements, surely Dems can pony up $50m for Clarence.

Of course with Manchin and Sinema in the Senate, who knows if Biden could even get someone confirmed to the Supreme Court this year.

haha.  that would be awesomely farcical, if we get another version of the 'it's election year, so no scotus but yes scotus but no scotus' rule.

Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Of course with Manchin and Sinema in the Senate, who knows if Biden could even get someone confirmed to the Supreme Court this year.

Put Fetterman in a locked room with both of them and say “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Up to you.”

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 2/19/2024 at 8:10 PM, elfenix said:

linkin park was the worst show i've ever seen live.  pretty sure their CD was playing on the engineer's stand and they just stood up on the stage and did fuck all.

It doesn't even matter.

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

So Clanton will literally be served coffee, as an intern, by the Black Justice Thomas, instead of the other way around?  And I'm supposed to go church tomorrow and pretend we're not locked inside a computer program?  

Yeah, have a nice weekend folks.  See you in the next 1's and 0's.  

 

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Underdog said:

He'll hire whomever Harlan tells him to hire. 

7hkfbk.jpg.629ce28613ba53faf434c8d729ba6201.jpg


in his eyes, he’s not a black man

Edited by tx 3 putt
Posted
2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

She should step down immediately so Biden can pick her replacement 

She won’t. Trump wins and he appoints A Nazi 

The aristocrats 

I don’t understand why they don’t see this. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don’t understand why they don’t see this. 

Maybe the only think they all have in common is their determination to cling to power until their dying breath. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
28 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don’t understand why they don’t see this. 

Human being are notoriously bad for anticipating risk.

 

Posted
29 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Maybe the only think they all have in common is their determination to cling to power until their dying breath. 


RBG really fucked us over 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted

Surprised that no one is discussing the internet free speech case in front of SCOTUS this morning. Shit, this might be worthy of its own thread since it could have a direct bearing on how this site operates.

 

Supreme Court Seems Torn in Free Speech Challenges to Social Media Laws
The tech industry argues that laws in Florida and Texas, prompted by conservative complaints about censorship, violate the First Amendment. The court’s decision could fundamentally alter the nature of speech on the internet.

The Supreme Court seemed troubled on Monday by a Florida law that prohibits social media companies from disfavoring conservative speakers, at least to the extent that it bars major platforms like Facebook and YouTube from making editorial judgments. But several justices indicated that the sprawling law may be constitutional as applied to other sites like Gmail, Venmo, Uber and Etsy.

The court spent more than two hours debating the Florida law, and it went on to consider a similar one from Texas in a second argument. But based on questions in the first argument, the justices seemed torn about how to address broad challenges to laws that may be unconstitutional in key respects but permissible in others.

The court’s decision, expected by June, will almost certainly be its most important statement on the scope of the First Amendment in the internet era, and it will have major political and economic implications. A ruling that tech platforms have no editorial discretion to decide what posts to allow would expose users to a greater variety of viewpoints but almost certainly amplify the ugliest aspects of the digital age, including hate speech and disinformation.

That, in turn, could deal a blow to the platforms’ business models, which rely on curation to attract users and advertisers.

  • The laws’ supporters said they were an attempt to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship, through which major social media companies had deleted posts expressing conservative views. The laws were prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
  • The laws, from Florida and Texas, differ in their details. Florida’s prevents the platforms from permanently barring candidates for political office in the state while Texas’ prohibits the platforms from removing any content based on a user’s viewpoint. “To generalize just a bit,” Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote in a decision upholding the Texas law, the Florida law “prohibits all censorship of some speakers,” while the one from Texas “prohibits some censorship of all speakers” when based on the views they express.
  • The two trade associations challenging the state laws — NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association — said that the actions Judge Oldham called censorship were editorial choices protected by the First Amendment, which generally prohibits government restrictions on speech based on content and viewpoint. The groups said that social media companies were entitled to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by newspapers, which are generally free to publish what they like without government interference.
  • The states responded that internet platforms were common carriers required to transmit everyone’s messages and that the laws protected free speech by ensuring that users have access to many points of view.
  • Federal appeals courts reached conflicting conclusions in 2022 about the constitutionality of the two laws. A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit largely upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Florida’s law. But a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court’s order blocking the Texas law.
  • The Biden administration supports the social media companies in the two cases, Moody v. NetChoice, No. 22-277, and NetChoice v. Paxton, No. 22-555.
  • The Supreme Court blocked the Texas law in 2022 while the case moved forward by a 5-to-4 vote, with an unusual coalition in dissent. The court’s three most conservative members — Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — filed a dissent saying they would have let the law go into effect. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, also dissented, though she did not join the dissent and gave no reasons of her own.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, bolverk said:

Surprised that no one is discussing the internet free speech case in front of SCOTUS this morning. Shit, this might be worthy of its own thread since it could have a direct bearing on how this site operates.

 

Supreme Court Seems Torn in Free Speech Challenges to Social Media Laws
The tech industry argues that laws in Florida and Texas, prompted by conservative complaints about censorship, violate the First Amendment. The court’s decision could fundamentally alter the nature of speech on the internet.

The Supreme Court seemed troubled on Monday by a Florida law that prohibits social media companies from disfavoring conservative speakers, at least to the extent that it bars major platforms like Facebook and YouTube from making editorial judgments. But several justices indicated that the sprawling law may be constitutional as applied to other sites like Gmail, Venmo, Uber and Etsy.

The court spent more than two hours debating the Florida law, and it went on to consider a similar one from Texas in a second argument. But based on questions in the first argument, the justices seemed torn about how to address broad challenges to laws that may be unconstitutional in key respects but permissible in others.

The court’s decision, expected by June, will almost certainly be its most important statement on the scope of the First Amendment in the internet era, and it will have major political and economic implications. A ruling that tech platforms have no editorial discretion to decide what posts to allow would expose users to a greater variety of viewpoints but almost certainly amplify the ugliest aspects of the digital age, including hate speech and disinformation.

That, in turn, could deal a blow to the platforms’ business models, which rely on curation to attract users and advertisers.

  • The laws’ supporters said they were an attempt to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship, through which major social media companies had deleted posts expressing conservative views. The laws were prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
  • The laws, from Florida and Texas, differ in their details. Florida’s prevents the platforms from permanently barring candidates for political office in the state while Texas’ prohibits the platforms from removing any content based on a user’s viewpoint. “To generalize just a bit,” Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote in a decision upholding the Texas law, the Florida law “prohibits all censorship of some speakers,” while the one from Texas “prohibits some censorship of all speakers” when based on the views they express.
  • The two trade associations challenging the state laws — NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association — said that the actions Judge Oldham called censorship were editorial choices protected by the First Amendment, which generally prohibits government restrictions on speech based on content and viewpoint. The groups said that social media companies were entitled to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by newspapers, which are generally free to publish what they like without government interference.
  • The states responded that internet platforms were common carriers required to transmit everyone’s messages and that the laws protected free speech by ensuring that users have access to many points of view.
  • Federal appeals courts reached conflicting conclusions in 2022 about the constitutionality of the two laws. A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit largely upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Florida’s law. But a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court’s order blocking the Texas law.
  • The Biden administration supports the social media companies in the two cases, Moody v. NetChoice, No. 22-277, and NetChoice v. Paxton, No. 22-555.
  • The Supreme Court blocked the Texas law in 2022 while the case moved forward by a 5-to-4 vote, with an unusual coalition in dissent. The court’s three most conservative members — Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — filed a dissent saying they would have let the law go into effect. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, also dissented, though she did not join the dissent and gave no reasons of her own.

 

Quote

A ruling that tech platforms have no editorial discretion to decide what posts to allow would expose users to a greater variety of viewpoints but almost certainly amplify the ugliest aspects of the digital age, including hate speech and disinformation.

There was a Prairie View A&M professor (wat) talking about this on the local news this morning.  Sounds to me like the snowflakes that get banned for being nazis on social media are big mad and this is the case that might let them continue being nazis.  Not to mention just throwing the doors wide open for foreign interference.  Again.  Doesn't seem great.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

There was a Prairie View A&M professor (wat) talking about this on the local news this morning.  Sounds to me like the snowflakes that get banned for being nazis on social media are big mad and this is the case that might let them continue being nazis.  Not to mention just throwing the doors wide open for foreign interference.  Again.  Doesn't seem great.

Pretty much. Florida and Texas got big mad when Trump got banned. 

 

This is what’s at stake in Monday’s arguments.

Social media companies braced for Supreme Court arguments on Monday whose outcome could fundamentally alter the way they police their sites.

After Facebook, Twitter and YouTube barred President Donald J. Trump in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol, Florida made it illegal for technology companies to ban from their sites a candidate for office in the state. Texas later passed its own law prohibiting platforms from taking down political content.

Two tech industry groups, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, sued to block the laws from taking effect. They argued that the companies have the right to make decisions about their own platforms under the First Amendment, much as a newspaper gets to decide what runs in its pages.

The Supreme Court’s decision in those cases — Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton — is a big test of the power of social media companies, potentially reshaping millions of social media feeds by giving the government influence over how and what stays online.

“What’s at stake is whether they can be forced to carry content they don’t want to,” said Daphne Keller, a lecturer at Stanford Law School who filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the tech groups’ challenge to the Texas and Florida laws. “And, maybe more to the point, whether the government can force them to carry content they don’t want to.”

If the Supreme Court says the Texas and Florida laws are constitutional and they take effect, some legal experts speculate that the companies could create versions of their feeds specifically for those states. Still, such a ruling could usher in similar laws in other states, and it is technically complicated to accurately restrict access to a website based on location.

Critics of the laws say the feeds to the two states could include extremist content — from neo-Nazis, for example — that the platforms previously would have taken down for violating their standards. Or, the critics say, the platforms could ban discussion of anything remotely political by barring posts about many contentious issues.

Posted

Texas and Florida will lose soundly, 6-3 or even 7-2 (Gorsuch is the unknown).  The laws are horribly written and clearly unconstitutional. I guess I'm worried about what landmines Roberts leaves in a decision to exploit later, but I'm not sure he even will do that with this one. He'll probably just take some bullshit "Roberts shows the court can still be moderate!" stories and be happy. 

Posted
29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Texas and Florida will lose soundly, 6-3 or even 7-2 (Gorsuch is the unknown).  The laws are horribly written and clearly unconstitutional. I guess I'm worried about what landmines Roberts leaves in a decision to exploit later, but I'm not sure he even will do that with this one. He'll probably just take some bullshit "Roberts shows the court can still be moderate!" stories and be happy. 

You're probably right.  Or at least, you should be right.  But....counterpoint....

Calvinball.jpg

  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
On 2/24/2024 at 5:24 PM, tx 3 putt said:


 

image.png.546f5347f53addbf218b3ec3be808f34.png

 

wait. how did this even happen?

oh, a pet of Ginni Thomas. Ginni and Thomas - the field of psychiatry hasn't terms for this relationship.

From Wiki:

Following her departure from Turning Point USA, Clanton had worked for Ginni Thomas,[4] the Justice's wife, and had lived at the Thomas's house for a year. Ginni Thomas was a member of the Turning Point USA advisory council at the time of Clanton's departure.[5]

image.thumb.png.9aff0c373dbf6c4312f30e638cb8e13a.png

Edited by yoladu
  • Rage+1 2


×
×
  • Create New...