leh-nerd skin-erd

Worst case scenario the script flipped, and Twitter is now what it was before. The world continued to spin, there were winners and losers, and it will be more of the same. I don’t believe that, I believe de-libbing the platform will take some time, but again, no big deal.

No sir--the fact that the discussion is ongoing, in the public square, is a major step in the right direction. Let's work together to figure this all out. In the past, the response from people who claim to be in the know, with secret and anonymous sources at the highest levels of government sorta gave the impression every non-believer or skeptic was crazy. As so often happens, twenty minutes after the truth begins to see the light, nobody knew nothing about nothing.

I won’t link to all the airport shootings, assaults or robberies that popped up when I ran a search, but there was that issue recently where one of the most admired men in the world (emeritus) had an incident with a stalker and his child. To be fair, all I see is a bunch of journalists whining about having rules to follow. Musk interacted with them, explained the perspective and moved on when they didn’t like it. In the meantime, we know with certainty that these same journalists failed to uncover/report or flat out incorrectly reported stories about Hunter Biden, botched many stories about Trump, Russia or Mueller, and apparently were unaware of connections between old Twitter (and other social media entities) and the US Govt. It is sort of fun to watch though. Huh. Imagine that.

The reason for the suspension is irrelevant, even if it’s relevant to the suspension.

My God BillSy, you’re completely oblivious to the role you’ve assumed here. It almost seems your lobbying for people to hide in a closet, or to maybe keep their mouth shuts, sort of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing. Now where has that happened before? The good news is that people of faith and courage understand the toxic nature of what your ideology and reject it more often than not. Anyway, if Joe can change, you can. Think about it.

He claims not to know what he tweeted that got him suspended? Others claim not to know what they tweeted that got them suspended? That’s weird. It’s completely plausible and highly likely they tweeted something that directly and egregiously violated TOS, did so knowingly with intent, the ultimate goal being to get suspended to complain about being suspended to destroy a free speech platform they do not support. Think Jussie Smollette. Or maybe they are victims of a Twitter Coup, which I shall now call a Twoup!

You know what he posted that resulted in this ban? What was it?

The cult talk makes you sound nutty, but the point remains—the bill anticipated problems not yet a reality. Desantis is talking about the same thing. These are two sides of the same coin. Right, but you should care. Instead, you only care about what’s important to you, missing the larger point that the bill attempts to address—“respect”. You might feel that you’re a better type of bigot than some other bigot, but at the heart of the matter, a bigot be as a bigot do. I have many issues with President Biden, but let’s assume for a moment he’s the non-cult hero of marginalized people. Just a short time ago, he was a close friend to misogynists and white supremacists. He had his issues keeping his hands off women before he championed women’s causes. He spoke of our cities as jungles and wrote laws that tore up communities in crisis. He was part of the orginal political cabal of marriage = 🚹+🚺, a notion Barrack Obama supported as well. If an 80 year old Joe Biden can change and extend some measure of respect to those who don’t agree with this bill, if in fact and appeal for reason, rational thought, respect for differing opinions and such are literally written into the Bill, don’t you think maybe you should take your foot off the gas, ratchet down the negativity and try to convince those you can? Hate and bigotry are not the answer, BillSy. To the contrary, they are the problem. That makes you part of the problem. Consider.

The bill itself suggests respect for all opinions here, BillSy. Why are you going off script? Also, he’s right—assuming this clipped tape wasn’t altered to any great degree—it’s been reported that here wasn’t any real need for the bill to be signed now as the matter was addressed in 2015. It was preemptive. HIf there are concerns by religious folks that this bill is a precursor to intolerance and overreach, at most they are just getting out ahead of things. I don’t have any issue with the bill, it was a political move by politicians. Love all, respect all. At the same time—the bill suggests we all should be tolerant of different views, you may be missing the point?

After midnight We're gonna let it all hang out After midnight We're gonna chug-a-lug and shout We're gonna 'cause talk and suspicion Give an exhibition Find out what it is all about

When you ask “Hey …how ya doin?”, sometimes people answer honestly.

Agreed, but until then….

Right, or as Anonymous likes to say, “Daily each day”.

We can put it on the list of all the “Things we wish weren’t so but sadly are” from Twitter today and Twitter Past.

“Self-owning….himself”? 🤔

I agree with you on this one, but people can get salty when they feel their children are at risk. Often best to avoid tangling with crazy people, crazy lawyers, and the super-rich.

But if they believe that Joe believes—really believes—they are forgiven, aren’t they sorta forgiven?

Who cares? If it’s not dangerous, does it matter one way or the other?

Sherp, I don’t know which interview you’re talking about, but insurance companies cannot just raise rates arbitrarily. State regulators must approve changes. In fact, a few years back, Fla regulation prohibited a company from raising rates beyond an arbitrary percentage (10% maybe?) which had little to do with the rate that actually should be charged. Some companies chose to leave the market as a result, Florida said good riddance, and within 2 or 3 years Citizens Insurance (the state option for coverage), needed a 50% rate increase. There are issues beyond regulation, and companies contribute to the challenges at times, but artificially managing rates catches up in the long run. See, for example, Medicare. The math can be figured out, the program funded, but no one really wants to pay for it.

I’m not sure, but while I appreciate Joe B trying, it’s clear that trueimpernaahionalloperseesionnon just doesn’t work these day.

If the true nature of problem is climate change, then the country collectively should contribute to solve the problem. The ravages of industry and pollution from the northeast as no secret, the carbon footprint of the west coast shipping hubs and associated industries must surely be a major contributing cause. American consumerism would be a significant contributor as well. I would assume Gov DeSantis would gratefully accept the other 49 states contributing, and voluntary/compulsory contributions from all Americans would help as well. Btw—in the article, it’s noted that one issue that drives rate is onerous legislation with respect to attorney fees. In addiction, the lack of an option for binding arbitration is also noted as a major reason for skyrocketing costs. Neither of these are related to climate change, though attornies blathering on in court no doubt adds a tremendous amount of hot air to the equation. Why not start with these two issues?

There are quite a few challenges with the insurance market. On the private side, it’s a mixture of expansion/cost of homes/overexposure on coastal markets/rising cost of construction, the fact that people probably don’t want to pay to cover the actual risk AND a hostile insurance department that has ultimately limited consumer choice with onerous regulation. On the flood side of things, the flood program is federal, not a state program. There are some benefits—required in a flood zone where a mortgage is involved. It has some limitations, it’s expensive in areas where it’s needed. It has some rules to follow—example a 30 day waiting period if no mortgage company is involved. A friend of a friend built a house on/near the water, paid cash and the house was destroyed. Unf the loss occurred inside the 30 day window and $0 was paid. This problem started long before Ron DeSantis was governor.

The other 28% post here, content with the right type of censorship.

I’d bake the cake, been grateful for the opportunity to serve, and upsold the blueberry scones if possible. But I’m not them. Perhaps before supporting oppressive, punitive action against the business owner, you should consider attempting to understand them—what they think, why they think it, and why their perspective is important to them. Maybe you’ll gain a better understanding of them, and maybe through dialogue and shared respect, they’ll come to see your perspective. Or maybe you’ll come to see theirs. Or, maybe neither. After all, as you said “it’s a ***** cake.”.

Man, the ink isn’t even dry and people are moving past the language to point their finger at they and them. From the bill… 2) Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.