Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
I believe it filters the words that are similar to "stupid" that have been also used disparagingly toward people with disabilities.
I knew a guy that said he once had a 9v battery in his pocket and some .22's. One went off and scared the 
out of him
out of him
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Where there's money involved, there's a will.
Gotta sell those cigarettes... and collect the taxes on them.
Then sell those dangerous smoking-cessation drugs & largely ineffective nicotine replacement products.
Must be 18 to vape so we're all adults here. I'm not saying this forum should be rated R, but at least a PG would be nice. Not being able to sling the occasional expletive is a real problem for my limited public school vocabulary!!
Yeah, I fear there will be many more, dropping like dominoes.
It was sneaky as hell how they pulled it off. Yet just another example of how legislative system is broken.
It was sneaky as hell how they pulled it off. Yet just another example of how legislative system is broken.
Usually is. "They" get what "they" want and they'll do whatever they have to to get it.
Which was a major of the reason of my last post about batteries.
They operate under the guise that they want to save us from ourselves and keep us from harm. This gives them public support.
Then, if they can't outright ban something, they'll use whatever means they have (be it the financial systems, postal systems, etc) to get what they want. They'll get what they want one way or another.
You can't win using the means they provide you with.
Last edited:
And since all the so-called social media sites have so easily banned Trump [not a fan BTW], then freedom of speech is dead, and any site which may contradict the party line is dead. Including vaping sites. Beware. Welcome to the USSR.
Actually, it wasn't sneaky at all. It was business as usual. They put forward a bill which is 5000 pages long and which contains hundreds of pages of whatever irrelevant stuff and which the congress people have 2hrs to "read" LOL.
It's time for term limits now.
I'm sorry, that was two sort of political posts in succession.
I'm not a member of either of the two parties.
It's just that it's gotten very very worrying.
LOL, I guess this is three. I'll stop now.
I'm not a member of either of the two parties.
It's just that it's gotten very very worrying.
LOL, I guess this is three. I'll stop now.
Look, we can't completely eliminate some political comments, especially when we are talking about regulation and legislation - I think the moderators are just tryinjg to stop political fights and arguments ???
So if I may, an observation, many might consider this to be humorous, which in some ways it is.
Any of you remember when the two political parties, though divided, could often come to reasonable compromise solutions? - Back then many if not most of our politicians were tobacco smokers, vapes had yet to be invented} - Apparenlty tobacco, that gentle brain stimulater and relaxer, was ideal for getting politicians to work together {sometimes}.
So maybe we are going the wrong way in trying to fight these 'control freak' politicians who want to restrict almost all tobacco, including vapes, out ot existence.
Maybe we should instead try to get these politicians to try vaping for themselves? Maybe they will try it and like it ???
It doesn't have to be vapes - Like would not Trump have been a lot better for all of us if he took up premium cigars?? And of course for Nancy Pelosi extra sweet vape flavor might change her nasty 'control freak' attitude.
Unfortunately for the famous anti-tobacco control freak billionaire Little Mickey Blumborg {sic} only traditional cigarettes will do !!!
When we sign those online petitions aimed at influencing votes, do you think the political hacks are paying any attention? - Probably not!
So instead maybe we should send a message like:
"Try it you'll like it" !!!
Our politicians really do need something to stimulate their brains to think,
don't they ???
Last edited:
There was one politician, Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA), that vaped, but he got indicted for misuse of campaign funds. He vaped during committee meetings that were about anti-vaping legislation.
The 1st amendment has nothing to do with it. Twitter
We don't have "freedom of speech" here, even says so in the rules. Forum Rules
15. Freedom of speech
Your contribution to this forum is not a right but a privilege. As this is a private website there is no public right to freedom of speech. The rules we have in place are to protect the site, and to provide a convivial environment for our Members. In short: we decide what is permissible or not permissible.
"It is what it is."
ETA: Fixed for accuracy.
ETA2: Does censorship violate the First Amendment?
The First Amendment protects American citizens from government censorship.
Is Facebook Censorship Legal? | Artrepreneur
Last edited:
As currently constructed, censorship by private corporations is legal. Anti-trust litigation could alter that. However, what would you think about considering technology's selective banning, skewed search results and the like to be direct "in kind' campaign contributions and thus subject to campaign finance laws? But there then is the bete noir of the democrat party, the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Perhaps the opinion should be revisited and expanded, rather than over-ruled, to allow for contributions of any kind either direct or indirect by corporations to a party or candidate.
As is generally true, our intellectual consistency is tied to our personal policy preferences and depends upon whose ox is gored.
As is generally true, our intellectual consistency is tied to our personal policy preferences and depends upon whose ox is gored.
I respectfully disagree, the urge and accordingly right to free expression is an innate right of every human being. No one, in my estimation, has the right to gag anyone. I frankly don't care what rule or law you may be willing or capable of writing, it's meaningless to me. Your speech may only be justifiably restricted when its intent is to cause harm or curtail the equivalent right of others and becomes that in fact and not merely in perception.
My rights end where your's begin. That to me would be the equitable framework of justice in reason and law.
Good luck to all.
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. —Thomas Jefferson to Francis W. Gilmer, 7 June 1816
This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. —William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979, 41.
Last edited:
I'm always open to learning more and your post has totally led me on a quest to learn more. Looking up and reading the little I have regarding Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) there is a lot to learn. That led me to reading more about campaign financing.
I did not know that campaign finance goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson in 1828.
You have a law background. When it comes to law you would be the first person on ECF I would ask.
I did not know that campaign finance goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson in 1828.
You have a law background. When it comes to law you would be the first person on ECF I would ask.
Similar threads
- Locked
