California bans some high-power computers.

[Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 20:49:01 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  On Saturday, July 31, 2021, 01:17:21 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
>  
>  >   I'm saying that YOUR comments on the so called US constituion make YOU a statist.

> No, I didn't say I LIKE it.  Nor did I say I APPROVE it.  Rather, I am expressing my understanding of what people who work with the US Constitution do say about this question.  I realize that you will find this distinction difficult to understand.  


	I didn't say you like it or approve it either. At least not explicitly. 

	However, your 'argument' is based on playing the constitutional game. You're assuming the constitution is somehow above 'regulations' and that 'regulations' should 'follow the constitution', which is statist nonsense. 


	In the real world, the 'legal' system is based on random, arbitrary, criminal 'laws' and 'regulations' and the politicians and CEOs can do whatever they want. 


> In any case, I definitely DON'T approve of the state of California banning high-power computers, or bacon.  I have different (and additional) reasons beyond the constitutional issues I have mentioned.  I don't believe that the government of California should even exist, to name just one example.  

	Yeah ok. So that's a real argument. 

>But, that doesn't prevent me from citing reasons, under the US Constitution, that it is doing the wrong thing.  

	Of course it does. Either you use real arguments, or play their game. If you believe the govt shouldn't exist, then discussing their idiotic, criminal 'constitution' is mostly pointless.
	


> 
>  >   And here is a sample, for fun : 
> 
>  >   "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States" 
> 
> >    Slavery is 'LEGAL' in the US. And indeed widely practiced as 'prison labor'.
> 
> Well, I didn't say I approved that, either.  


	Fact remains, that's the US constitution, and your previous 'argument' takes for granted that the US 'constitution' is not a sick joke. 

	Discussing the 'legality' of some stupid regulation with respect to a 'constitution' that supports SLAVERY seems odd, at best. 

	


> 
>  >   As a libertarian I'm against the US, the worst fascist cesspool on the planet and biggest threat to freedom on the planet, since the time it was 'founded' as a SLAVE SOCIETY with the 'constitution' you are drooling over.

> Then, you ought to stop misunderstanding my statements.  I can criticize people even on the basis of their own 'rules' which they claim to follow.  


	well yes, you could argue against so called 'constitutionalists'...but see above. Those people don't care about logic. 


	And are there any 'constitutionalists' here defending the california ban anyway? 
	
 
>     
> 
> >> This was illustrated well nearly 18 months ago:  As you may recall, about 2/10/2020 I posted an item about the longstanding anti-malaria drug, chloroquine.  (Not quite the same as hydroxychloroquine, but closely related.)  For a about a month, chloroquine was entirely non-controversial.  THEN Trump made a comment about it.   At that point, the TDS-sufferers had to oppose chloroquine with a passion.
> 
>  >   are you saying you are a trumpofascist?

> I am continuing to show that there is a 'political' aspect to the big dispute.    
> 
> 
>  >   And did I ever mention that the 'covod pandemic' is a US military PSYOP? Your chloroqinone won't cure it.
> 
> It has definitely been co-opted by nations.


	not just co-opted...

	and by the way, it's another great illustration of the way the 'legal' system actually works. It's 'legal' to put 1000s of millions of people under house arrest because pfizer says so.