All Things in Moderation

Weekend Open Thread

18 Responses

1. 

   I'm Now Kevin's Biatch, on May 3, 2014 at 12:08 pm said:

   Scary if true.

   https://news.vice.com/article/is-the-doj-forcing-banks-to-terminate-the-accounts-of-porn-stars?trk_source=homepage-in-the-news

   Many Big Government conservatives have this tendency to. Think Tochard Nixon and the Bushes.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 3, 2014 at 1:15 pm said:

     McWing:

     Scary if true.

     I read about this the other day. It’s pretty bad, and is yet another example of the many deleterious effects of the unconstitutional and increasingly unaccountable regulatory state that is championed by the left (and, as you say, too many even on the right).

     LikeLike

     Reply
2. 

   I'm Now Kevin's Biatch, on May 3, 2014 at 2:17 pm said:

   This is how they’ll implement gun control. Just stop Winchester et al from banking.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   lmsinca, on May 3, 2014 at 7:57 pm said:

   Lms’s wrath…………….hahaha, that’s funny McWing!

   This is how they’ll implement gun control. Just stop Winchester et al from banking.

   I believe Winchester will be fine, they have a lot more clout than porn stars.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   lmsinca, on May 3, 2014 at 9:30 pm said:

   Scott, from a previous thread.

   As a strong believer in individual rights, I often find myself defending the rights of loathsome people to do things I find very objectionable, but I do so out of principle.

   I don’t think that’s a particularly good example. I am a huge defender of freedom of speech, even if it kills me (theoretically).

   And honestly, I think I have taken as much, or possibly more, heat for being inconsistent and defending people I disagree with than you ever have for being true to your defining principles. I’m just using our experiences here and at the PL as examples. I seem to catch it from both sides. I would actually love to have the luxury of defining every policy within a set of principles that never wavers. I think you and jnc are best at that.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 4, 2014 at 7:11 am said:

     lms:

     I would actually love to have the luxury of defining every policy within a set principles that never wavers.

     It’s not a luxury. It’s a choice.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • 

       markinaustin, on May 4, 2014 at 8:26 am said:

       For me the problem is one of apparent complexity. We have had this discussion before; no point in repeating it.

       One example: I am a Smithian free trader in belief and in principle. But for it to work, it turns out that major players cannot cheat. So when they do, I become defensive, so to speak.

       LikeLike

       Reply
       • 

         ScottC, on May 4, 2014 at 8:41 am said:

         Mark:

         For me the problem is one of apparent complexity.

         Undoubtedly there can be complex situations in which how a principle applies is not obvious, and so two people ostensibly adhering to the same principle might disagree on its applicability. What I object to is when a claimed principle is obviously disregarded simply because it results in a disfavored outcome. Or when a principle is claimed when it happens to be convenient to a particular circumstance, despite the fact it is dismissed in other circumstances where it is not so convenient. This happens quite a lot, I think.

         LikeLike
5. 

   lmsinca, on May 4, 2014 at 8:45 am said:

   Sometimes Shrink puts up a good link:

   Which is troubling, given that undermining rights works both ways. This is going to happen: sooner or later, some CEO or sports team owner or similar is going to get ousted because he or she supports a woman’s right to an abortion, or the cause of Palestinian statehood, or opposes the death penalty. It’s inevitable. I can easily see someone suggesting that, say, Israel is an apartheid state, and watching as the media whips itself into a frenzy. And when that happens, the notion that there is no such thing as a violation of free speech that isn’t the government literally sending men with guns to arrest you will be just as powerful, and powerfully destructive, as it is now. So what will these people say? I don’t have the slightest idea how they will be able to defend the right of people to hold controversial, left-wing political ideas when they have come up with a thousand arguments for why the right to free expression doesn’t apply in any actual existing case.

   http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/05/03/sooner-or-later-theyre-going-to-come-for-people-you-do-like/

   Just one reason why it’s difficult to be a so called “leftie” in this current climate. Most of the liberal defenders of free speech have been booted out of office or silenced in some other way……………..which I personally find very troubling.

   Off to pick up the grandkids for one more visit with the old folks…………..that’s me!

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 4, 2014 at 8:58 am said:

     lms (from the link):

     So what will these people say? I don’t have the slightest idea how they will be able to defend the right of people to hold controversial, left-wing political ideas when they have come up with a thousand arguments for why the right to free expression doesn’t apply in any actual existing case.

     The writer is assuming that “these people” are or will be concerned in the slightest with intellectual honesty and consistency. I think that is a bad assumption.

     LikeLike

     Reply
6. 

   Brent Nyitray, on May 4, 2014 at 9:07 am said:

   Its not just porn stars – it is payday lenders and drug paraphenelia companies too

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Michigoose, on May 4, 2014 at 9:10 am said:

   Just checking in after a few days in SLC doing final wrap-up to put the Race on next weekend. . . good to see you got some frists in there, McWing!

   Have a great time with the grandkids this weekend, Lulu, and just remember: CO and CA aren’t all that far apart! 🙂

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   quarterback, on May 4, 2014 at 12:34 pm said:

   No sports owner, CEO, etc. is going to be forced out any time in the foreseeable future for holding left-wing views or saying left-wing things. The left owns, owns media, pop culure, and the corporate world.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Brent Nyitray, on May 4, 2014 at 12:51 pm said:

   The left owns, owns media, pop culure, and the corporate world.

   Exactly. The left wing media will find nothing objectionable.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Michigoose, on May 4, 2014 at 1:37 pm said:

    The left owns the corporate world?

    I thought you lived in a state that hasn’t made pot legal, qb.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    quarterback, on May 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm said:

    How they have taken control and maintain control of the corporate world is remarkable. The average CEO, CFO, COO and the like probably isn’t very left wing. But they have all been terrorized by the left-wing litigation apparatus and been forced to pay tribute, including submitting themselves to the rule of PR and “diversity” officers who rule them with an iron hand on behalf of their order — call it a syndicate, empire, cosa nostra, whatever.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    quarterback, on May 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm said:

    I thought you lived in a state that hasn’t made pot legal, qb.

    If you don’t think the left owns corporate America, you aren’t familiar with it.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on May 5, 2014 at 7:00 am said:

      Tax dodger Warren Buffet of “I don’t pay enough taxes” fame, shows his true colors now that Obama has been safely re-elected.

      “I will not pay a dime more of individual taxes than I owe, and I won’t pay a dime more of corporate taxes than we owe. And that’s very simple,” Mr. Buffett told Fortune magazine in an interview last week… “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” he said. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

      LikeLike

      Reply