The Daily Beast: Devin Nunes Says 'Republicans Have No Way to Communicate'—on Fox News
The Daily Beast: Devin Nunes Says 'Republicans Have No Way to Communicate'—on Fox News. https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin-nunes-says-on-fox-news-republicans-have-no-way-to-communicate?source=cheats&via=rss Jim Bell's comment: Again:. This is a blatant Anti-trust violation. See Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, January 11, 2021 7:26 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jim Bell's comment:
Again:. This is a blatant Anti-trust violation.
See Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts.
Jim, when every provider out there rejects your platform for facilitating treason and mob violence, it's not anti-trust - it's common sense and national consensus! you're either ignorant of the hate on the platform, or a willing party to it... best regards,
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 18:24:31 +0000 coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, January 11, 2021 7:26 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jim Bell's comment:
Again:. This is a blatant Anti-trust violation.
See Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts.
Jim, when every provider out there rejects your platform for facilitating treason
WOOOOAAAAA - MORE TREASON!!!!
and mob violence, it's not anti-trust - it's common sense and national consensus!
But half your cuntry, the trumpofascists, don't agree with you. So where's your 'national consensus' son?
you're either ignorant of the hate on the platform, or a willing party to it...
'hate speech' - the warcry of the 'left wing' US fascist. professor turd wrote:
its treason to this list to do what this ' Coderman ' jackass keeps doing.
coderman is a US military agent just like you, he just works in different office. furthermore, coderman idiotically asserted :
anarchism does not imply violence! cypherpunks do not promote violence! violence is the language of totalitarian fascists,
violence against totalitarian fascists like you coderman is called self-defense.
best regards,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:24:31PM +0000, coderman wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, January 11, 2021 7:26 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jim Bell's comment:
Again:. This is a blatant Anti-trust violation.
See Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts.
Jim, when every provider out there rejects your platform for facilitating treason and mob violence, it's not anti-trust - it's common sense and national consensus!
Aka "censorship is the new national concensus". A stunning position for a purported anarchist to take...
you're either ignorant of the hate on the platform, or a willing party to it...
And "hate" speech is no longer protected.
best regards,
Does not sound like it coderman, quite the opposite in fact. Talk about hunting with the hounds and running with the foxes... Seems Punk is a better jugde of character than I am..
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:56:58 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:24:31PM +0000, coderman wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, January 11, 2021 7:26 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jim Bell's comment:
Again:. This is a blatant Anti-trust violation.
See Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts.
Jim, when every provider out there rejects your platform for facilitating treason and mob violence, it's not anti-trust - it's common sense and national consensus!
Aka "censorship is the new national concensus".
A stunning position for a purported anarchist to take...
Yes, what's even more stunning is that this 'coderman' agent who tries to pose as 'anarchist' is also hysterically whining about 'treason'...to the US state. 'Anarchist' 'treason' the the 'anarchist' US state? Infinite self parody to the power of infinite.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 7:49 AM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: ...
Yes, what's even more stunning is that this 'coderman' agent who tries to pose as 'anarchist' is also hysterically whining about 'treason'...to the US state. 'Anarchist' 'treason' the the 'anarchist' US state? Infinite self parody to the power of infinite.
i think what you and rat and zeenan are missing is that anarchism does not imply violence. period! rational anarchy is devoid of violent intent and capability, and you don't achieve a lasting anarchy through violent suppression of authority. the key to a sustainable global rational anarchy is betterment of every human, continually, incrementally, until the violent authorities which exist today fade like fog in the morning sun. anarchy banishes authority through self sufficiency. not violent imposition... i don't know how much simpler i can emphasize this truth. best regards,
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:16:57 +0000 coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 7:49 AM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: ...
Yes, what's even more stunning is that this 'coderman' agent who tries to pose as 'anarchist' is also hysterically whining about 'treason'...to the US state. 'Anarchist' 'treason' the the 'anarchist' US state? Infinite self parody to the power of infinite.
i think what you and rat and zeenan are missing is that anarchism does not imply violence. period!
coderman, son, one of the most basic traits of 'anarchy' is being anti-state. your crass support for the fascist-biden-US-state and pretending to lecture 'us' on what 'anarchy' is, is simply insane...if taken at face value. In reality you are of course just a US military agent and what you post is what Karl should be calling 'disruption' (but interestingly enough he doesn't).
anarchism does not imply violence
That depends on the circumstances. There's nothing wrong with self-defense and beating the likes of you to a pulp.
rational anarchy is devoid of violent intent and capability,
enough, son. Go pretend that you're not a US military agent somewhere else.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:16:57 +0000 coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
rational anarchy is devoid of violent intent and capability, and you don't achieve a lasting anarchy through violent suppression of authority.
this trick is pretty old and can be seen in theocractic fascists like the jew-kristians and the buddhists. The coderman turd is preaching 'pacifism' so that victims don't enage in self-defense. See, the 'anarchist' turd 'coderman' is siding with authority, and against those who would 'violently' suppress authority (i. e. defend themselves).
the key to a sustainable global rational anarchy bla blab bla vomit vomit vomit
the other key point here is that the same turd and US govt agent who pretends to 'enlighten' people about the nature of 'anarchy' has also this to say :
i've seen the MAGA traitors promote some absurd bullshit
mob violence against an elected administration is treason against democracy and the republic
it will be interesting to look back a year from now and see how many of these idiots are in prison for their violent insurrection
wait what? Treason against the so called UNITED STATES? That would be the duty of any actual anarchist out there. And even that is a misnomer. There's no anarchist 'treason' against any state. It's just extermination of govt criminals. What 'coderman' is speaking about is an aburdity and turds who both try to pose as 'anarchists' while babbling about treason (i. e. coderman) are revealed as the most ignorant and crass kind of propaganda agent. CONGRATS CODERMAN
On 1/14/21, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:16:57 +0000 coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
rational anarchy is devoid of violent intent and capability, and you don't achieve a lasting anarchy through violent suppression of authority.
I didn't notice an email containing this in my inbox.
so that victims don't enage in self-defense. See, the 'anarchist' turd
It's important to remember that self-defense is different from attack. Both protect you, and both can hurt the other party, but attack makes you become a threat to them.
pretends to 'enlighten' people about the nature of 'anarchy' has also this to say :
I thought about this conflict a little, and I'm thinking about how I'm often unable to say what I believe directly, and then I realise that almost everyone posting to this list is acting as if they have that issue way worse than I do. A lot of our conversations are engaging that.
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:36:04 -0500 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/14/21, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:16:57 +0000 coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
rational anarchy is devoid of violent intent and capability, and you don't achieve a lasting anarchy through violent suppression of authority.
I didn't notice an email containing this in my inbox.
so that victims don't enage in self-defense. See, the 'anarchist' turd
It's important to remember that self-defense is different from attack. Both protect you, and both can hurt the other party, but attack makes you become a threat to them.
And so does self-defense. It's obvious that people who are willing to defend themselves and turn the likes of coderman into a bloody pulp are a 'threat' to the likes of 'coderman'. Anybody who doesn't 'respect' the 'authority' of coderman's mafia is a threat to coderman's mafia(a.k.a. the US govt)
pretends to 'enlighten' people about the nature of 'anarchy' has also this to say :
I thought about this conflict a little,
Not sure what conflict you're talking about. I was analyzing the garbage that agent coderman posts. That's not a 'conflict'.
and I'm thinking about how I'm often unable to say what I believe directly, and then I realise that almost everyone posting to this list is acting as if they have that issue way worse than I do.
Not sure what you mean. Maybe you want the propaganda agents to be even more crass? You have here people calling for trumpofascist military dictatorship, technofascism, biden fascism, more technofascist surveillance, 'medical' fascism, etc. Whatever illiberal garbage you can think of, it's probably been advocated by some 'cypherpunk'(LMAO!!!) here.
A lot of our conversations are engaging that.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, January 15, 2021 3:17 AM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
... It's obvious that people who are willing to defend themselves and turn the likes of coderman into a bloody pulp are a 'threat' to the likes of 'coderman'. Anybody who doesn't 'respect' the 'authority' of coderman's mafia is a threat to coderman's mafia(a.k.a. the US govt)
you're adept at targeted distortion; a verbose Punk indeed. but supporting democracy over authoritarianism is not swearing fealty to the US mafia. you can exist in a current system, while working toward a better one! if social organization is a spectrum, there are some models clearly flawed; dictatorships, monarchies, fascist totalitarianism, communism. resisting a backwards slide certainly worthwhile - i prefer democracy over theocracy even if the ideal is rational anarchy. to see how we progress along this spectrum look at various efforts of decentralization and the application of technology to amplify the capabilities of the individual. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization ) observe: fully decentralized == anarchy :) best regards,
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:04:39 +0000 coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, January 15, 2021 3:17 AM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
... It's obvious that people who are willing to defend themselves and turn the likes of coderman into a bloody pulp are a 'threat' to the likes of 'coderman'. Anybody who doesn't 'respect' the 'authority' of coderman's mafia is a threat to coderman's mafia(a.k.a. the US govt)
you're adept at targeted distortion; a verbose Punk indeed.
I didn't distort anything. You are babbling about 'anarchy' while in practice supporting the US fascist state. Your trick is the oldest in the book.In the last few days you have : 1) barefacedly promoted NSA surveillance via shitflare and their DNS monopoly. 2) barefacedly supported censorship and the actions of amazon-NSA, called it 'moderation' 3) given away the fact that you're fully loyal to the US fascist state, biden faction by pretending that a bunch rioters 'commited treason' (LMAO!!!!) - this last claim is not only as fascist as it gets, it's so fucking ridiculous and idiotic to anynody knowing the A of the ABC of political theory.
but supporting democracy over authoritarianism is not swearing fealty to the US mafia.
you support the US state son, stop playing dumb. You support the worst state on the planet while pretending to lecture people on 'anarchy'.
you can exist in a current system, while working toward a better one!
you are not doing that. You're an agent of the US fascist state and only work to extend its criminal activities.
if social organization is a spectrum, there are some models clearly flawed;
enough, son.
On 2021-01-16 03:04, coderman wrote:
if social organization is a spectrum, there are some models clearly flawed; dictatorships, monarchies, fascist totalitarianism, communism.
empirically, some monarchies work very well, for example Dubai, and some democracies work horribly badly. Of course you would doubtless argue that a democracy that works horribly badly is not a real democracy - and it is usually the case that in a democracy that works horribly badly, the opposition gets cancelled, deplatformed, demonetized, beaten up, and imprisoned on frivolous charges, while the ruling faction gets away with obvious criminal acts. Like the USA.
garbage
nasty things! things that are without repute! low-status references! this is why we should disregard and criticize things that i say are worhtless: because. 1+1=unpleasant. 2*3=pile of shit. 8-4=only if want to do stupid arithmetic like a -2 does.
coderman
I've exchanged 3 encrypted messages with coderman, where I included cryptographic digests of theirs to have some confidence that we were actually communicating. In none of them did they acknowledge the digests. In the third I pointedly asked for coderman to quote the digests. coderman quoted the message signature output text, as if the digest had been removed and the signature confirmation was the closest thing it seemed i could have been talking about. this indicates something could have been altering the messages between me and coderman. but maybe more likely coderman has just been "encouraged" to avoid encryption, and had trouble engaging the digests. coderman said they were very busy, in their last message, and me be unable to reply again for many days.
On Monday, January 11, 2021, 10:57:30 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:24:31PM +0000, coderman wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, January 11, 2021 7:26 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jim Bell's comment:
Again:. This is a blatant Anti-trust violation.
See Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts.
Jim, when every provider out there rejects your platform for facilitating treason and mob violence, it's not anti-trust - it's common sense and national consensus!
Aka "censorship is the new national concensus".
A stunning position for a purported anarchist to take...
It's not clear to which comment you are responding. I should point out that my reference to the Sherman and Clayton Anti-trust acts should not be taken as if it were my 'approval' of those laws, or their enforcement, and certainly not as if I approved the Federal Government of the United States. I mean that those laws do exist, and with the current controversy we can reasonably ask ourselves how 'we' (the country's people, and including various levels of government) have gotten to where we currently are. Myself, I am absolutely outraged that, the country and virtually the world moving the "Town Square" of the 1700's to the Internet in about 1995, and seemingly having it functioning smoothly until the last few years, suddenly mammoth corporations (that got that way, and that big, in part due to toeing the government line, and getting government protections such as Section 320). While I do agree that a tiny bit of Federal Government research planted a tiny 'seed' in designing the Internet Protocol, I believe that credit for making the Internet available to most citizens was...the few companies that actually designed and made those 9600 bps modems, followed by the 14.4Kbps modems, and even later the 28.8kbps modems. Put simply, if those modems hadn't existed, we wouldn't have been able to take advantage of our POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) lines, sampled at 8,000 samples per second, using the companding compression system, "mu-law". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9C-law_algorithm (I don't know how to make my computer display the Greek letter "mu", which looks somewhat like a script 'u'.) Since 'we', the early users of the Internet, were using government-regulated Yes, I have a "libertarian hat" and I usually wear it. Nevertheless, since I did spend more than 15,000 hours in a Federal prison law library learning many different kinds of Federal laws (Contract Law, Tort Law, Libel Law, Criminal Law, Civil Rights Law, and yes, even INCLUDING Federal Anti-Trust law, surprisingly enough!), I feel qualified to point out problems and inconsistencies, and indeed places where government could choose (following, at least, its own laws and rules) to step away, in some ways, or step in, in other ways, to correct a now-major problem that its own actions partly caused. That doesn't mean that my observations (all of them) should be considered to comply with "libertarian principles". The reality is that America isn't (yet) a libertarian society, nor is the rest of the world. Yet, I feel that I am intellectually entitled to propose ideas for making society better than it is today, even if these limited proposals don't 'go all the way' to a libertarian society. In other words, going in the right direction, but not as far as I'd like. The way I see it, government (and mostly the Federal Government) CAUSED, at least indirectly (and somewhat directly, too) the problems we have been seeing with the censorship in the major Socialist-Media (What I call 'Social Media"). I say that at this moment, the biggest threat to our freedom, at least the most immediate and imminent threat right now, comes from companies named Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Apple. Consider: When Facebook decided to offer a service, did it string up it own data links, all over the country? No, it piggy-backed onto an already-existing system, which once was called "Arpanet" but was eventually split into "Internet" and "Milnet". It did that, of course, to avoid duplication of effort. From a POV of 'conventional' American law, maybe it would/could be determined by the existing (non-libertarian) government that the service 'has to follow' rules. Today's local Internet service already has a problem: Not too many localities have any realistic competition in Internet service. Many areas have telephone-line legacy services, and cable-TV legacy services. But you rarely find localities with more than three Internet providers. We've had a situation where for years, Facebook and Twitter, etc, appeared to not 'play sides'. They lobbied for Section 320, which gave them serious advantages, but knowingly with the requirement that they not censor. (except, arguably, certain minor kinds of censorship not relevant to this discussion). They 'won out' over other services, and possibly won over (deterred) services that never came into existence, because they provided a seemingly-unbiased service. But now, for obviously 'political' reasons, they have VERY quickly changed. Under conventional, American law, are they entitled to do that? It is arguable that by blocking some users, Facebook and Twitter may have (for example) libelled those users, possibly falsely claiming th at those users have violated "Terms of Service" that it is obvious to many people aren't objectively enforced. (This analysis, not by 'libertarian' principles, but by conventional American Federal law.) Quite recently, it appears that three huge market-controllers have attempted to crush Parler by their joint action. That is so obviously a violation of American Anti-trust law that it's pointless to argue otherwise. NOT, necessarily, violating 'libertarian principles'. There is a very serious danger that the Biden Administration won't stop that, simply because it is so dependent on, and grateful for, this media misconduct.
you're either ignorant of the hate on the platform, or a willing party to it...
And "hate" speech is no longer protected. And I'm reminded that the 1st Amendment is NOT intended, not needed, for speech that everybody likes: It's intended to protect speech that, perhaps, most people hate. But unfortunately, a major sector of utterly-clueless people today (not here...) seem to be displaying little or no respect for the concept of 'free speech'. In the late 1960's, people marched on campuses FOR free-speech. In late 2017, people RIOTED on the campus of UC Berkely AGAINST free speech.
Jim Bell
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:21:24 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2021, 10:57:30 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:24:31PM +0000, coderman wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, January 11, 2021 7:26 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jim Bell's comment:
Again:. This is a blatant Anti-trust violation.
See Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts.
Jim, when every provider out there rejects your platform for facilitating treason and mob violence, it's not anti-trust - it's common sense and national consensus!
Aka "censorship is the new national concensus".
A stunning position for a purported anarchist to take...
It's not clear to which comment you are responding.
it's clear he was responding to agent coderman not you.
While I do agree that a tiny bit of Federal Government research planted a tiny 'seed' in designing the Internet Protocol,
See, jim bell, another technofascist, brazenly lying about the most basic facts of 'US history' and, like the typical randroid he is, pretending that the US government isn't HEAVILY involved in ALL of the 'private' sector's businesses. Oh no, it was just a 'tiny seed'.
The way I see it, government (and mostly the Federal Government) CAUSED, at least indirectly (and somewhat directly, too) the problems we have been seeing with the censorship in the major Socialist-Media
Yeah the trillionaire technofascists from joogle, fukerbook and all the rest are 'socialists'. And intel is a 'capitalist' business.
(What I call 'Social Media"). I say that at this moment, the biggest threat to our freedom, at least the most immediate and imminent threat right now, comes from companies named Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Apple.
And when did mr. bell realize that his goverment, I mean, the 'private' sector, is a threat to freedom? Why, twatter became a 'threat to freedom' when he banned the orange monkey, emperor of the trumpofascists.
Consider: When Facebook decided to offer a service, did it string up it own data links, all over the country? No, it piggy-backed onto an already-existing system, which once was called "Arpanet" but was eventually split into "Internet" and "Milnet".
yeah, facebook is the arpanet, you just discovered that?
We've had a situation where for years, Facebook and Twitter, etc, appeared to not 'play sides'. They lobbied for Section 320, which gave them serious advantages, but knowingly with the requirement that they not censor. (except, arguably, certain minor kinds of censorship not relevant to this discussion).
LMAO! Fucking dishonest garbage. 'Minor censorship' Fukerbook twatter and the rest of the arpanet 'deparments' operated in the way they operate today since day zero. The trumpofascits just 'realized' how bad the arpanet is when things didn't (completely) go their way. Because in reality the trumpofascists and the rest of 'conservatives' are hardly opposed to US fascism, just like the orange monkey is a billionaire oligarch from jew york city. as to the rest of the 'proposal' yeah go ask the pentagon to shutdown the arpanet, no doubt the 'US government' will 'regulate' the 'private sector' to 'protect' the 'little guy'.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:01:09PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
as to the rest of the 'proposal' yeah go ask the pentagon to shutdown the arpanet, no doubt the 'US government' will 'regulate' the 'private sector' to 'protect' the 'little guy'.
Wellllp, our glorious orange troller in chief may not have a -lot- of time up his sleeve, but as the screeching harpies, RINOs and other demon rats know, a LOT can happen in 5½ days :D So strap in, relax and double down on the Putin popcorn - since God willing, this ride is just about to start <very Kek-like emoticon grin> If you want to help kick it into high gear, find someone who knows how to pray, and ask them to pray that justice be wrought upon all North American politicians and others in positions of power, according to their crimes.
participants (6)
-
coderman -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
jim bell -
Karl -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness