RE: The Threat is Real. Can the DOJ Defend DOGE?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The government has a derived value policy, it's as simple as that. SSI recipients are surprised when they find out that someone who was helping them out to survive, that help was considered worth value, thus their benefits were cut because of the derived value. You can twist it anyway you want, but derived value is exactly what it means.
That in no way compromises your right to speak freely somewhere besides their platform, which they don't owe you. Neither does their bias in any way compromise their integrity just because it's not the bias you have...
Again, wrong. If I had had thousands of dollars just laying around, I could have sued them and won. Why? Because of their open policy statement that they are a censorship free platform and that all opinions are respected as long as you follow the their policy rules of behavior. He (the guy who got me banned) didn't follow the rules of their policy. I was following the rules of their policy and I got banned. You can't advertise as being something of which you are not. They are saying you are welcome here if you follow a set of rules, and if following those rules and banning you when you haven't violated the rules, is false entrapment, or advertising. I more than likely couldn't have claimed any financial harms by what they chose to do, but there was harm to my reputation and I likely could have been compensated for that as it inhibited my ability to function on other platforms using Disqus that I wasn't a known user of as my comments went into pending approval, I in essence went from being a trusted user of the Disqus platform to one who couldn't be trusted. For larger platforms, publications, it could take a day or more to get approval, therefore restricted from engaging freely on platforms. Reputational harms is a real thing, and people can sue for it.
This environment that Trump, and his billionaire cronies, has created, is like no other I've experienced over the last ten years or more that I have been blogging. Now, in this next instance, you example would be right. People whom I've blogged alongside of for years turning on you once you no longer align with them politically. People whom you helped fight the battle with, coming up from behind as their reinforcement blindsiding the other side with known facts of truth, that was perfectly okay. Once you decide not to align with them, they stab you in the back over and over again, and ultimately take away your right to post your opinions. The fact I'd been there from the start, the very early start, like three, four people that would include myself, showing up after having watch two individuals birth the site, one who didn't like me having not aligned to his political candidate of choice, the other a staunch defender of my right not to be censored, comes out and straight out lies he has no control over the decision to remove my posting rights. So yeah, in this instance, you are right, there's nothing more left to do than to move on because you simply can't engage with being censored. I could still comment but my right to post my editorial opinion was suspended. Well, your right to decide to let me continue making comments, is now suspended. It works both ways. There's nothing that says I have posting rights to my editorial opinions, but for him to come out and say there was nothing he could do after him having my back for years, from the very essence of the birth of the site, that's just disgusting and isn't worthy of any of my opinions or comments. It wasn't even that I wasn't withstanding an onslaught of ugly, degrading comments myself as he spent defending my rights, buried in angry emails, it was watching the total disintegration of the site revolved into an ugly disrespect for how they started treating those not aligned to themselves and many people leaving as a result over the last four years, I'd had already been contemplating leaving earlier this year but decided his faith in protecting my rights had more value than anything disintegrating anybody else had to provide, that's increasingly becoming rare to find, so I stayed. But really, does it shock me he decided to stab me in the back, not at all, not in this political climate. I've been doing this long enough I can find other places to increase my time spent, and find new avenues to go down if I like.
Although I am 100% disabled, I don't take any, despite I have been awarded it. I cut my benefits 100%.
Your charade at auditing my books is as frail as your grip on sanity. Derived value is limited to quid pro quo. Invitations to dinner, to backyard BBQ's, will not meet that standard, your bloviations notwithstanding. People begging change on the street can make a lot of money at it. More than me. Pity the IRS Agent that drags one into an audit.
Sure. Been there, done that, still lost my house despite applying my mortgage payments for a mortgage I had signed to a mortgage I had never even seen is blatantly illegal. Every ambulance chaser in smelling distance will tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to plunk down a retainer, and then put their kids through college doing battle with Brobdingnagian foes that can throw paper at the courts until you die.
If you initiate a lawsuit while you're paying a mortgage, BTW, the lender can call your note due and immediately payable, because you not only might not win, but might lose a huge judgment against you. Your target can countersue.
You have to have a reputation that's worth a plugged nickel first. Anonymous comments on some Discus blog don't count. There have been all manner of dire threats and vicious abuses posted on this blockchain, and not one suit has come of any of it, to my knowledge, despite millions of dollars being in some of the accounts.
Keep a rational tongue in your cheek. Or even a floridly insane tongue in your cheek, but by Ned's hair quit taking yourself so seriously. I do appreciate you letting up on the libel. Thanks for that grace.
You can never lose an argument. You think I sit around thinking this stuff up but I don't. A person took in a friend after they became disabled. The friend filed for disability. He ended up getting SSI, they deducted $314.00 from his monthly SSI payment of nine hundred some dollars. They said he derived value from her providing him a place and taking care of him. Feeding someone derives value. At least to the government. But keep calling me a liar.
I said if I had thousands laying around, as in enough that I wouldn't have anything better to do with it other than fling it into a chance something might or might not come of it. It wouldn't so much matter that my word means nothing out on a blog platform as it would to help bolster my complaint that they misrepresent themselves to the public, openly, blatantly, of which they cannot do. I don't have thousands laying around with nothing better to do with it, so it's just worthless conjecture for you to assume I'd lose my house over it. I don't have a mortgage either. I have an equity loan but nothing big enough to sweat about as I have good enough credit to switch that over to an unsecured loan if I had to.
You receiving something of value in exchange for something of value, is derived value according to the government. Your argument is like the guy who insist he didn't commit the crime but is guilty as hell. I don't make the rules, nor do I apply them, or agree with them, but, overall, the bigger shock will come when they digitalize everything on an open chain and proceed to ask that person peddling for money on a street corner how it is he spends more money than he gets.
Good point. That's because I'm never wrong.
I didn't. I pointed out I'd lost mine, and explained how.
It depends who he is. If he's the right beggar, they'll never ask.
I think Catherine Austin Fitts said it best the other night in a video. "You can't go off and barter when they have Space X and Starlink going off above your head and they're targeting your head with electronic weapons. That takes real imagination. Elon Musk who seems to be so popular right now, wants to put a mesh network in the back of your head and hook you up to a satellite. Why is anyone in American wanting to listen to someone who want to do that."
She's more intelligent than I could even assume to be, yet she's not to far off from where several months ago, when Musk was seeking to purchase twitter, someone wrote similarly what he was really after. That was to get into the algorithms behind twitter that kept people who post on twitter identifies hidden. His goal, it was said, was to put enough satellites up where he could track any tweet from anywhere in the world within five minutes. Something the experts said was statistically impossible to accomplish. Catherine's at the point Musk will just give you a good old zap to the head no matter what corner your sitting on taking up money from passerby's. You don't get those forms filled out, he'll just zap you from the earth. Now if I'd said that, you'd be ripping two ways to Sunday on me. I've was just figuring he'd send you a reminder tweet.
Though it's obvious that someone like Catherine, who has never really cared much about what she tells on the government(s), shows how much the world has become afraid of Trump, when speaking on the missing trillions, at the end of the video, she said something along the lines of let's just hope Trump can get it figured out. That is so laughable, a man who was living off the borrowed dime off his assets, his family now, after only four years of holding office, multi billionaires in hard cash. You know she isn't really that gullible.
No I wouldn't. I'm right there with you, in fact. Otherwise I'd be ripping on your right now.
Yes. But hope springs eternal. Humanity cannot help but hope for whatever can enable them to persist through whatever challenge we face. ~64k Starlink satellites surveilling us, tanks rolling into our village, sabertooths leaping from cover, whatever we face we envision means of surmounting it. This is a key capacity that has resulted in our survival, because we're not always wrong.