Where in the “we’re in a Nazi state” was Germany when they reached the part where there were collaborators in every corner and every and every gathering place? Not everyone is smart enough to write and speak in code (regardless of how elaborate it is) and there’s no real way you can or would make a bunch of discreet travels avoiding cameras, checkpoints, and guards, just to tell some fellow forum user “Joe Biden needs to take a nap. And his favorite ice cream flavor is fucking disgusting”.
What these idiots fail to take into account, unlike the Masterpiece Cake Shop, these companies like Facebook and Twitter have a monopoly on social media, and control what information gets out there. Masterpiece Cake Shop doesn't have the ability or pull to shutdown every bakery in town, let alone the entire country. Big Tech went out of their way to take down Parler, force payment processors to stop their service with certain content creators, etc.
It seems the only real way to fight this is to spread your message going door to door like a Jehova’s Witness. Or be like Andrew Torba and Gab and make your own everything in the middle of nowhere.
What these idiots fail to take into account, unlike the Masterpiece Cake Shop, these companies like Facebook and Twitter have a monopoly on social media, and control what information gets out there.
I addressed their situation as a de facto monopoly, your reading comprehension really sucks, if you missed that part. Stop getting mad at opinions different from your own on a forum built around internet gossip and actually try to address the points the other person is making, not what points they made within the realms of your imagination.
That being said: I am in favor of a specific company refusing services to customers they dislike - in this case a bakery that doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake. A company should in general be able to do that. That unfortunately means that the same applies to large companies. The effect when social media do this is far greater and I never said anything else, that would be ridiculous, but when I support one company's right to refuse customers, I also have to support another company's right to do the same - unless I am a hypocrite that demands different rules for different companies based on my political affiliations. How to deal with such monopolies is a whole different matter and trying to built an alternative that is still dependent on those that have the monopoly is unfeasible for obvious reasons. The right needs to get something up and running that can't be shut down by being removed from an app-store and for the love of fuck, they need to make it more appealing than a burning turd. When I look at right-wing alternatives to established stuff, it's always something as ridiculously stupid as Hatreon or Parler, that seems to just exist to be an asylum for people who want to call others nigger and throw around death threats. Yeah geez. I wonder why that shit doesn't catch on.
Yeah, what's up with that? You'd think an angry armed mob broke into the seat of government chanting for the hanging of the vice president and thrashing the place 2 weeks ago or something.
Record profits from Amazon (since we all have to use e-commerce which is more or less an oligopoly) and record decimation of the middle class don't matter, okay.
Never said that it's okay, Einstein.
I said that this has been going on for years, the death of the middle class is something that has been ongoing for decades (if not a century, even) specifically.
What have they gained from these lockdowns in comparison to any other given year? That specifically is my point when people peddle this nonsense about the private villa of corrupt elites supposedly instigating the coof-hysteria to profit off of it. I can just as easily claim that they made less money compared to what their regular income is. They'd still make absurd amounts of money either way and if "but they made money" is the best anyone can come up with as reasoning why the elites are throwing their own fucking base of power and income into disarray with lockdowns, I tend to just laugh and go "Yeah right, in contrast to all these other years where they hardly made any money at all, huh."
So I'm, asking you, how much money have they made compared to other years?
You want to see an example of a slippery slope, look how in about 10 years we've come from our president being skeptical about gay marriage to our president believing you can identify as whatever gender you please, even made up ones, and funding for stinkditch installment is mainstream
Political ideals change over time - sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left. They are now far further to the left than I am comfortable with, but here's the funny thing about these ideals: They aren't invalid just cause you (or I, for that matter) disagree with them.
This isn't a one-way trip into some Soros-funded marxist hellscape, it's the political pendulum swinging left and right, it has been doing that for centuries.
The assumption that politics were a stagnant thing in the past and that they'll become stagnant in the future is simply divorced from reality.
Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or mainstream Democrat politicians like Biden or Harris said and did (Obama built the camps and deported an insane amount of people) is now considered racist and evil and Trumpist, but that was mainstream center-left policy for many years.
And Biden will continue to run these camps and the media will ignore it, cause both the DNC and the left-leaning media are hypcrites. And water is wet. The borders will be manned and operated just like before, just with PR that pretends it's much more just now for some made up reason.
BLM is mainstream now as is open borders. Politics have been pushed leftwards for years incrementally, you'd have to be either ignorant or willfully blind not to see it.
I am not denying anything about any of this. I am saying this however: It's just a trend. Biden will be President and he'll be a boring-ass President. He'll be a tiny bit to the left of Trump, do some things that Trump wouldn't have done sure, but ultimately, nothing as bad as what people here keep peddling.
You won't become a pod-person, you won't be forced to eat bugs, your children will not be forced to become tranny sex slaves to the jewish elite or whatever else people on this board seem to believe.
Biden will come into office. Biden will leave office. Someone else will take over. Politics will change a little in this direction, they'll change a little in that direction. It'll be an endless meandering process of going back and forth on some issues and overall, shit will just proceed as they always have. This might shock you, but there is this concept of Checks and Balances in place in the US and the Supreme Court is in the GOPs hand right now. Biden simply isn't in a position to do the things you guys seem to think he's going to do, if he even tries.
Spare me the mopey venom. This "centrism" has allowed me to enjoy the salt and vitriol of 4 years of mad trannies bitching about imaginary MAGA-FEMA deathcamps. It'll serve me splendidly enjoying the salt and virtriol of people who are incapable of accepting that their tard in chief couldn't get elected through meme-magic once more and now spend their days doomposting about the inevitable mandatory enslavement of the white race or whatever.
Frankly, the kind of stuff that I read on here sometimes makes me think it's someone's masochist sissyfication-and-sexual-slavery-to-black-gangsters fetish running wild.
And since none of this shit will change, I'll just get my kicks out of shitposting in this thread whenever I feel like it.
I addressed their situation as a de facto monopoly, your reading comprehension really sucks, if you missed that part...
That being said: I am in favor of a specific company refusing services to customers they dislike - in this case a bakery that doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake. A company should in general be able to do that. That unfortunately means that the same applies to large companies. The effect when social media do this is far greater and I never said anything else, that would be ridiculous, but when I support one company's right to refuse customers, I also have to support another company's right to do the same - unless I am a hypocrite that demands different rules for different companies based on my political affiliations.
What you describe here is not what happened in Masterpiece Cake's case, and the way you phrase it makes me consider it an act of discrimination if it was what had transpired, however, as I said, it's inaccurate. The bakery didn't refuse to make a cake to deny service to a customer on the basis of their sexual orientation in the Masterpiece Cake decision, in fact, the baker who owned the bakery refused to work for hire for a person asking for something they didn't have offered in the bakery. This is a distinct and important difference as you can't force an artist to work for hire for you even if you like the same sex in bed then claim discrimination when they tell you no they don't offer the product you're asking for and won't be making it for you as a work for hire situation either. Yes, to fudge the distinction, every story almost to a one on the case frames the tale as "bakery baker denies queer customer gay celebration cake" as a way of obscuring the fact that the bakery didn't offer the cake being asked for and thus the work for hire situation was in effect instead of outright customer discrimination based on a protected class, but that doesn't mean I won't point it out when you indulge in it any more than when any other thread deals with the whole nothingburger of a story.
The other issue being raised has nothing to do with a work for hire denial of service though, it's a terms of service violation issue as far as I interprate the dispute between the parties over what one wants to host and one wants to contract out to host.
What you describe here is not what happened in Masterpiece Cake's case, and the way you phrase it makes me consider it an act of discrimination if it was what had transpired, however, as I said, it's inaccurate. The bakery didn't refuse to make a cake to deny service to a customer on the basis of their sexual orientation in the Masterpiece Cake decision, in fact, the baker who owned the bakery refused to work for hire for a person asking for something they didn't have offered in the bakery. This is a distinct and important difference as you can't force an artist to work for hire for you even if you like the same sex in bed then claim discrimination when they tell you no they don't offer the product you're asking for and won't be making it for you as a work for hire situation either. Yes, to fudge the distinction, every story almost to a one on the case frames the tale as "bakery baker denies queer customer gay celebration cake" as a way of obscuring the fact that the bakery didn't offer the cake being asked for and thus the work for hire situation was in effect instead of outright customer discrimination based on a protected class, but that doesn't mean I won't point it out when you indulge in it any more than when any other thread deals with the whole nothingburger of a story.
The other issue being raised has nothing to do with a work for hire denial of service though, it's a terms of service violation issue as far as I interprate the dispute between the parties over what one wants to host and one wants to contract out to host.
Yes, to fudge the distinction, every story almost to a one on the case frames the tale as "bakery baker denies queer customer gay celebration cake" as a way of obscuring the fact that the bakery didn't offer the cake being asked for and thus the work for hire situation was in effect instead of outright customer discrimination based on a protected class, but that doesn't mean I won't point it out when you indulge in it any more than when any other thread deals with the whole nothingburger of a story.
The tldr version is that the Bakery did not refuse service to the faggots, they were happy to sell them any of the cakes in the store. The Bakery declined to design and make a CUSTOM, SPECIAL ORDER pride cake.
As usual, the issue wasn't a bakers 'discrimination' but rather some faggot's sense of entitlement.
The tldr version is that the Bakery did not refuse service to the faggots, they were happy to sell them any of the cakes in the store. The Bakery declined to design and make a CUSTOM, SPECIAL ORDER pride cake.
As usual, the issue wasn't a bakers 'discrimination' but rather some faggot's sense of entitlement.
It was worse than that. IIRC, the reason the bakers won any money at all is because the faggots decided to dox the baker and the lefty mob sent people after their kids.
And hasn't that baker been sued several time since then, since some tranny lawyer keeps calling and demanding superfag cakes be made, and when he says no, welp, new lawsuit time!
It was worse than that. IIRC, the reason the bakers won any money at all is because the faggots decided to dox the baker and the lefty mob sent people after their kids.
And hasn't that baker been sued several time since then, since some tranny lawyer keeps calling and demanding superfag cakes be made, and when he says no, welp, new lawsuit time!
They'll get everything they ever wanted, and it will sink them like a millstone around their neck. The best action now is to do literally nothing, have them jumping at shadows, crawling under every bed, screaming into the night.
Cut off ties with the companies and businesses you know are hostile, turn off the media, leave the cities, refuse the business and money of those that are hostile. They are locking things up, let them live in their sieged cities, starve them of money, food, resources, time.
The tldr version is that the Bakery did not refuse service to the faggots, they were happy to sell them any of the cakes in the store. The Bakery declined to design and make a CUSTOM, SPECIAL ORDER pride cake.
As usual, the issue wasn't a bakers 'discrimination' but rather some faggot's sense of entitlement.
Short version is boomer old person takes litteraly that wrtten documents count as spoken word .
This could of been aviod if increased the cost for making the cake but, still honor before death
@Null
the trannies found the gold
they after this & guns & Oil for agenda.
Regulator finalizes rule forcing banks to serve oil, gun companies
BY SYLVAN LANE - 01/14/21 09:19 AM EST 365
125
Just In...
FTC chairman Simons to step down this month
TECHNOLOGY
— 3M 41S AGO
Biden Intel chief nominee Avril Haines pledges public report on QAnon threat
TECHNOLOGY
— 7M 19S AGO
CNN poll: Melania Trump leaving office as least popular first lady ever
IN THE KNOW
— 15M 21S AGO
Lobbying world
LOBBYING HIRES
— 20M 57S AGO
Biden has historic opportunity with inaugural address to turn the page
OPINION
— 22M 52S AGO
Two Guard members removed from Biden inauguration over ties to far-right groups: report
DEFENSE
— 26M 54S AGO
Texas governor calls FBI vetting of National Guard troops 'offensive'
STATE WATCH
— 31M 1S AGO
Cori Bush dismisses concerns of being 'co-opted' by establishment
HOUSE
— 33M 31S AGO
VIEW ALL
Related News
Nine, including former Michigan governor, charged over Flint water crisis
Nine, including former Michigan governor…
Delta puts customers who harassed Romney, Graham on no-fly list: CEO
Delta puts customers who harassed Romney…
Lawmakers mount pressure on Trump to leave office
Lawmakers mount pressure on Trump to…
Read This Before You Renew Amazon Prime Again
Read This Before You Renew Amazon Prime…
Sponsored | Capital One Shopping
by
The move comes less than two months after the agency first proposed the regulations.
The rule makes it illegal for any bank regulated by the OCC with more than $100 billion in assets to reject a customer for reasons other than financial risk. Supporters and critics of the rule both say it is intended to prevent more banks from joining those who’ve stopped serving firearm companies and financing oil and gas drilling projects.
“As Comptrollers and staff in previous administrations have made clear in speeches, guidance, and testimony, banks should not terminate services to entire categories of customers without conducting individual risk assessments,” said Acting Comptroller Brian Brooks, who announced Wednesday he will leave the agency on Thursday.
“It is inconsistent with basic principles of prudent risk management to make decisions based solely on conclusory or categorical assertions of risk without actual analysis. Moreover, elected officials should determine what is legal and illegal in our country,” he said.
The OCC first proposed its fair access rule on Nov. 19 to praise from Republicans, who’ve fiercely criticized several major banks that dropped clients in the firearm industry or pledged to stop funding Arctic drilling projects. Those banks include Citibank, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase.
"Fairness matters. Discrimination is not allowed in our society and big banks should not be an exception. No matter how important their services are, they do not have the right to create de-facto bans on legal businesses like energy producers and gun manufacturers," said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee whose state is one of the biggest U.S. producers of oil and natural gas.
The agency argued that the rule upholds the OCC’s obligation “to ensure fair access to financial services, and fair treatment of customers” by banks under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law.
Democrats, however, argue that the Dodd-Frank fair access principles are meant to protect people of color and low income communities who’ve faced decades of banking discrimination — not powerful corporations with ample financial sector options.
Bank industry groups have also condemned the OCC rule as an unnecessary intrusion into decisions made by private businesses.
"The rule lacks both logic and legal basis, it ignores basic facts about how banking works, and it will undermine the safety and soundness of the banks to which it applies," said Greg Baer, president and CEO of the Bank Policy Institute, a research and advocacy group for big U.S. banks.
Critics of the rule have also ripped the OCC for seeking to approve it quickly before President-elect Joe Biden takes office and appoints a new comptroller, who could have stopped the rule from being finalized. The OCC finalized the rule just ten days after the legally mandated comment period ended and less than two months after it was first proposed, a remarkably fast turnaround for a federal rule.
"Its substantive problems are outweighed only by the egregious procedural failings of the rulemaking process, and for these reasons it is unlikely to withstand scrutiny," Baer said.
The only difference between the final rule and the proposal is the removal of a provision that would have made banks offer a service to a business if rejecting it would have prevented the firm from entering or competing in a market or would have helped another customer of the bank, the OCC said.
The fair access rule is set to take effect April 1, but the Biden administration likely has several options to prevent that from happening.
Court strikes down Trump coal power plant rule
15 former Defense officials back waiver for Austin to serve as...
Biden is expected to appoint a new acting comptroller on Jan. 20 while his nominee to lead the OCC awaits Senate confirmation. A new acting comptroller can likely delay when the rule takes effect so the OCC can revise it or scrap it altogether.
Biden and Congress can also try to revoke the rule through the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows both chambers to pass a bill repealing a new regulation and preventing the agency from releasing a similar rule.
In its final days, the Trump administration is seeking to disrupt the way progressive activists increasingly impose their will on big business: through banks controlling the loan lifelines to the economy.
A regulation just finalized (update) aims to prevent lenders from blackballing businesses in industries opposed by the left by requiring banks to demonstrate that their loan decisions are “based on quantitative, impartial risk-based standards,” rather than political or reputational concerns.
The proposed Fair Access to Financial Services Rule (FAFSR) is a response to successful pressure campaigns waged by environmental groups and congressional Democrats, which culminated in every major American bank refusing to finance drilling projects in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), despite such drilling being authorized by President Trump in 2017.
Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, told RealClearInvestigations that the rule codifies longstanding OCC guidance on banks’s obligation to provide equitable access to their services, and will ensure that banks are not “terminating entire categories of customers.”
The rule has been published in the Federal Register, but it may be short-lived with the end of Trump’s term. Many Democrats oppose the measure and they will have 60 legislative days to disapprove the rule by a simple majority vote, as provided under the Congressional Review Act.
Nevertheless, the Arctic drilling conflict highlights the power of progressive groups to intimidate, cajole, and partner with corporate powerhouses to advance their agenda – often beyond the confines of the legislature. Through boycotts and other pressure campaigns, progressives have sought to push corporations to adopt their social and cultural values on issues ranging from climate-change policy to gun control.
The Debate Over Arctic Drilling Continues
Firearms dealers, oil producers, payday lenders, and workers in other controversial industries have had their access to capital stunted by these campaigns, which are often aimed at the circulatory system of the economy – the banking industry. Oil companies spent decades working through traditional Washington channels – engaging in full-press lobbying, writing white papers, and, of course, offering generous campaign contributions to sympathetic legislators – to obtain permission to drill in ANWR.
The debate over drilling in the refuge, the nation’s largest wildlife reserve, has raged since portions of the 19-million-acre area were first set aside under President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960. Twenty years later, President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which expanded the size of the reserve but opened up a coastal plain (the so-called “1002 Area”) to oil exploration, subject to prior congressional approval.
That authorization has proven elusive, as preserving ANWR became a cause célèbre among environmentalists. In December 2017, however, President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which included a provision written by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski authorizing oil exploration in the 1002 Area. The language opened a relatively small portion of the reserve – 2,000 of the area’s 1.57 million acres – to surface development.
The Republican lawmaker speculated that the project could generate “$60 billion in royalties for [Alaska] alone.” As the required environmental review process moved forward, opponents took action.
Applying Pressure on Banks
In January 2020, a group of Senate Democrats sent a letter to all of the major American banks, requesting that they “stop financing … oil and gas drilling and exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” in order to better “prepar[e] the U.S. economy to weather the growing impacts of the climate crisis.” The letter echoed themes found in later pressure campaigns waged by such environmental advocacy groups as the Sierra Club and Greater Good.
The banks fell quickly in line. In February, Wells Fargo announced that it would not “directly finance oil and gas projects in the Arctic region, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).” UBS pledged that it would “no longer provide financing where the stated use of proceeds is for new offshore oil projects in the Arctic.” Citigroup declared that it would “not provide project-related financing for oil and gas exploration and production in the Arctic Circle.”
By Dec. 1, every major American bank had announced its refusal to finance drilling in the region, despite it having been authorized for development by Congress.
In response, Murkowski and Alaska’s other members of Congress sent a joint letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in June, urging him to take action. The delegation highlighted how the banks in question were using “reputation risk” — the risks associated with reputational disfavor brought by financing politically and morally controversial projects — as a justification to unilaterally deny Arctic drillers access to capital.
“By denying financing under the guise of reputation risk,” the lawmakers wrote, “these [banks] are discriminating against America’s interests, our economic recovery, and our workers, all while utilizing significant federal support and benefits.”
The regulation proposed by the OCC aims to end not only this standoff but to ensure that other businesses “involved in politically controversial but lawful” industries are not excluded from capital markets.
The rule’s public-comment period closed on Jan. 4. Commenters across several industries wrote to the OCC in favor of the pending regulation. Richard Brower, the vice-chairman of the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund and a board member of the Institute for Pension Fund Integrity, described what he perceived as disturbing parallels between the politicization of pension-fund management and the politicization of lending decisions.
“Just as with the management of these pension funds,” Brower wrote, “banks have also [succumbed] to pressure to terminate contractual lending relationships not based on business decisions, but rather from activist pressure. Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend of major lending institutions shirking their fiduciary obligations, citing ‘reputational risk’ and concerns over political repercussions in their decision making.”
‘The Privilege of a National License’
Richard Lipsey, the chairman of Lipsey LLC, the largest firearms distributor in the United States, told the OCC that corporate activism and the fallout of Operation Choke Point — the since-abandoned Obama-era effort to cut off members of “high risk” industries, including firearms dealers, from access to the banking system — have made it difficult for firms in his industry to do business.
“Unfortunately, while [Operation Choke Point] is no longer in place under President Trump,” Lipsey wrote, “the financial institutions continue to discriminate against [firearms dealers] and systemically attempt to pick and choose the types of legal products they will tolerate their customers’s manufacturing and selling to law-abiding Americans. “Operation Choke Point has effectively been privatized, away from the purview of elected officials and the voters they represent.”
Congressional Democrats bristled at the pending rule. A group of 23 House Democrats wrote a letter to the OCC indicating that discrimination of the sort described by Brower and Lipsey is a necessary step toward creating a safer society.
“The quantitative-only risk analysis that would be required by the [FAFSR],” the congressmen wrote, “discounts other material risks, including public safety, to the extent financial institutions voluntarily chose to adopt a decision-making framework intended to reduce gun violence when determining who and how they serve potential customers.” The delegation also noted that the proposed rule “would do nothing to ensure communities of color are better served by the banking system.”
The proposal drew the ire of leading officials in the banking industry, who contend that FAFSR poses an unnecessary burden to lenders. Greg Baer of the Bank Policy Institute, a group that represents several of the nation’s leading banks, wrote a letter to the OCC taking issue with the “sweeping practical implications of [FAFSR]” and “the faulty legal reasoning underpinning it.”
“Under [FAFSR], national banks could no longer consider the range of factors they have traditionally taken into account,” Baer wrote, “both in the context of applying their own sound risk management practices and meeting the OCC’s supervisory expectations when deciding whether and how to provide a customer with financial services.”
It is unclear, however, whether the banks in question are merely applying “their own sound risk management practices” when they refuse to play ball with certain politically controversial borrowers. An OCC investigation revealed that, far from limiting their discrimination to the realm of lending, “certain banks … were also terminating advisory and other services [to would-be Arctic drillers] that are unconnected to credit or operational risk.”
Hubbard of OCC emphasized that banks receive federal deposit insurance and are given “the privilege of a national license to operate,” a license that he claims imposes on banks certain obligations. Banks have a duty, Hubbard said, to provide proportionate access to financial services, even for clients involved in legal but politically controversial industries. Republished from RealClearInvestigations, with permission.
Trump voters are very short cultists who follow a cult leader conman and also they're very short (unlike I, who is very tall in real life) and they follow a conman. Furthermore, they're part of a cult and they're very short and also they follow a conman as well.
I might have made a few dozen similar posts today already, but I just noticed I haven't posted on this page yet, so
Oh, wait, you're only mad about the OTHER career conman, the one that came in from outside the curated ecosystem, and none of the rest of them, the ones that have sucked on the public teat for 30, 40, and 50 years, doing absolutely fuck all of benefit for the people, I got it now.
Oh, wait, you're only mad about the OTHER career conman, the one that came in from outside the curated ecosystem, and none of the rest of them, the ones that have sucked on the public teat for 30, 40, and 50 years, doing absolutely fuck all of benefit for the people, I got it now.
At least Biden never ran a fraudulent children's cancer charity and got sued for running a fake charity by NY. And Biden never lost an election then tardraged about non-existent voter fraud and conned his cult out of $300 million to "fight the fraud" only to pocket 99% of it. Sorry that the man you worship is a career grifter. I know you autistics are more easily conned, but even you should've seen this.
