Nikki Haley, much of the time, you just aren't ready for prime time. I
thought you'd been doing much better over the last month.

But then, you took a moviePig position instead of standing up for free
speech.

Nikki Haley Says Allowing People to Post on Social Media Anonymously is
a 'National Security Threat'

"Every person on social media should be verified by their name...It gets
rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots, and the Chinese bots"

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1724527996642480599?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Haley later reiterated her stance during a podcast interview, saying
that social media companies need "to verify every single person."

"And I want it by name," she said, later suggesting to one of the
co-hosts who uses a pseudonym online that he should use the name on his
driver's license. "I want everybody's name."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/nikki-haley-pushes-to-remove-anonymity-online-i-want-everybodys-name

After criticism, she changed to identifying foreigners.

"We need our social media companies to verify everybody," Haley said. On
the subject of forcing everyone to use their real names online, Haley
said, "Do I think life would be more civil if we were able to do that?
Yes. ... You should stand by what you say. But no, like, you can have
anonymous -- I don't mind anonymous American people having free speech.
What I don't like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having
free speech."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/haley-on-her-plan-to-eliminate-anonymity-online-i-dont-mind-anonymous-american-people-having-free-speech-just-not-foreigners

In article <uje23a$3vnu4$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Nikki Haley, much of the time, you just aren't ready for prime time. I
> thought you'd been doing much better over the last month.
>
> But then, you took a moviePig position instead of standing up for free
> speech.
>
> Nikki Haley Says Allowing People to Post on Social Media Anonymously is
> a 'National Security Threat'

"Allowing" That's cute.

> "Every person on social media should be verified by their name...It gets
> rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots, and the Chinese bots"

> Haley later reiterated her stance during a podcast interview, saying
> that social media companies need "to verify every single person."
>
> "And I want it by name," she said, later suggesting to one of the
> co-hosts who uses a pseudonym online that he should use the name on his
> driver's license. "I want everybody's name."

Please review the Supreme Court jurisprudence on the protected nature of
anonymous speech, then come back and discuss this like an adult, Nikki.

When your rhetoric starts to mirror Trotsky the Hutt, you need to stop
and do some serious self-reflection. Next thing you know, she'll be
doing something even more puerile and cringe-worthy, like calling people
"anonyshits".

> After criticism, she changed to identifying foreigners.
>
> "We need our social media companies to verify everybody," Haley said. On
> the subject of forcing everyone to use their real names online, Haley
> said, "Do I think life would be more civil if we were able to do that?
> Yes. ... You should stand by what you say. But no, like, you can have
> anonymous -- I don't mind anonymous American people having free speech.
> What I don't like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having
> free speech."

On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 22:26:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>"And I want it by name," she said, later suggesting to one of the
>co-hosts who uses a pseudonym online that he should use the name on his
>driver's license. "I want everybody's name."

So how do you verify names? I have a dummy account I use for online
games where the first name is my eldest daughter's name and the
surname is my younger daughter's name.

It happens to be the same as my great-mother's name (though she's been
gone since 1946) but there are plenty of women with that name easily
findable on Googe.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 22:11:10 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 22:26:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>"And I want it by name," she said, later suggesting to one of the
>>co-hosts who uses a pseudonym online that he should use the name on his
>>driver's license. "I want everybody's name."
>
>So how do you verify names? I have a dummy account I use for online
>games where the first name is my eldest daughter's name and the
>surname is my younger daughter's name.
>
>It happens to be the same as my great-mother's name (though she's been
>gone since 1946) but there are plenty of women with that name easily
>findable on Googe.

You'll have to register using some verifiable unique identifier like a
Social Security Number in the USA. Though I doubt this would ever be
allowed to be fully implemented before it went through a legal
challenge.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Sun, 19 Nov 2023 22:11:10 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:
>>Sun, 19 Nov 2023 22:26:50 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>"And I want it by name," she said, later suggesting to one of the
>>>co-hosts who uses a pseudonym online that he should use the name on his
>>>driver's license. "I want everybody's name."

>>So how do you verify names? I have a dummy account I use for online
>>games where the first name is my eldest daughter's name and the
>>surname is my younger daughter's name.

>>It happens to be the same as my great-mother's name (though she's been
>>gone since 1946) but there are plenty of women with that name easily
>>findable on Googe.

>You'll have to register using some verifiable unique identifier like a
>Social Security Number in the USA. Though I doubt this would ever be
>allowed to be fully implemented before it went through a legal
>challenge.

Nikki said it herself. It's already being done.

Scan the driver's license and take a photograph of your face. There have
been services performing on line identity verification for several
years. Dun & Bradstreet just forced me to use one to change an address
on a business credit report.

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:21:16 -0500, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 22:11:10 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 22:26:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"And I want it by name," she said, later suggesting to one of the
>>>co-hosts who uses a pseudonym online that he should use the name on his
>>>driver's license. "I want everybody's name."
>>
>>So how do you verify names? I have a dummy account I use for online
>>games where the first name is my eldest daughter's name and the
>>surname is my younger daughter's name.
>>
>>It happens to be the same as my great-mother's name (though she's been
>>gone since 1946) but there are plenty of women with that name easily
>>findable on Googe.
>
>You'll have to register using some verifiable unique identifier like a
>Social Security Number in the USA. Though I doubt this would ever be
>allowed to be fully implemented before it went through a legal
>challenge.

Was going to say! Can't speak for the US of course but it is not legal
to use one's Social Insurance Number (our equivalent to your SSN) for
anything other than taxation or the Canada Pension Plan.

Thus a Canadian legal challenge wouldn't even get to first base if it
didn't involve one of the two rather large federal agencies given
above.

As for names, my daughter has a common first name and extremely rare
last name - but we still found a namesake for her - a lawyer in NY
state and we found her while my daughter was in law school...

On 11/20/2023 10:51 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:21:16 -0500, shawn
> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 22:11:10 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 22:26:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "And I want it by name," she said, later suggesting to one of the
>>>> co-hosts who uses a pseudonym online that he should use the name on his
>>>> driver's license. "I want everybody's name."
>>>
>>> So how do you verify names? I have a dummy account I use for online
>>> games where the first name is my eldest daughter's name and the
>>> surname is my younger daughter's name.
>>>
>>> It happens to be the same as my great-mother's name (though she's been
>>> gone since 1946) but there are plenty of women with that name easily
>>> findable on Googe.
>>
>> You'll have to register using some verifiable unique identifier like a
>> Social Security Number in the USA. Though I doubt this would ever be
>> allowed to be fully implemented before it went through a legal
>> challenge.
>
> Was going to say! Can't speak for the US of course but it is not legal
> to use one's Social Insurance Number (our equivalent to your SSN) for
> anything other than taxation or the Canada Pension Plan.
>
It's not supposed to be legal here either, but sometimes that's
overlooked. Banks of course, because interest has to be reported to the
IRS, and the DL bureau wants to look at them too.

> Thus a Canadian legal challenge wouldn't even get to first base if it
> didn't involve one of the two rather large federal agencies given
> above.
>

Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
Trump
By STEVE PEOPLES
AP
Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4

I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
>Trump
>By STEVE PEOPLES
>AP
>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4
>
>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.

Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money from
Soros.

On Nov 28, 2023 at 10:55:14 AM PST, "EGK" <memyself@null.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
>> Trump
>> By STEVE PEOPLES
>> AP
>> Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>
>> https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4
>>
>> I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>> Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.
>
> Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money from
> Soros.

And Big Labor. The same Democrats who decry "big corporate donors" have no
problem taking mountains of cash from corrupt labor unions.

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
>>Trump
>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>AP
>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4

>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.

>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money from
>Soros.

I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
on Nikki accepting these monies.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>Nov 28, 2023 at 10:55:14 AM PST, EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
>>>Trump
>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>>AP
>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023

>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4

>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.

>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money from
>>Soros.

>And Big Labor. The same Democrats who decry "big corporate donors" have no
>problem taking mountains of cash from corrupt labor unions.

I don't see that private sector unions have the same conflict of
interest that public sector unions do.

On 11/28/2023 10:41 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
> Trump
> By STEVE PEOPLES
> AP
> Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
> https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4
>
> I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
> Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.
>
She's still a republican.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:09:42 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
>>>Trump
>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>>AP
>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4
>
>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.
>
>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money from
>>Soros.
>
>I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
>on Nikki accepting these monies.

No, but when you pretend to be on some moral high horse by labeling it as
"the dark side" don't be surprised when you get some push back. It's not
the Koch money that's turning this country into a free for all crime spree.

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:09:42 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
>>>>Trump
>>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>>>AP
>>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4

>>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.

>>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money from
>>>Soros.

>>I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
>>on Nikki accepting these monies.

>No, but when you pretend to be on some moral high horse by labeling it as
>"the dark side" don't be surprised when you get some push back.

Your push back is fuck, given that I've never defending the policies you
object to and they are irrelevant to Nikki Haley.

>It's not the Koch money that's turning this country into a free for all
>crime spree.

You have no fucking clue whom the Charles and David Koch are, or were.

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 01:36:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:09:42 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
>>>>>Trump
>>>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>>>>AP
>>>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4
>
>>>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.
>
>>>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money from
>>>>Soros.
>
>>>I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
>>>on Nikki accepting these monies.
>
>>No, but when you pretend to be on some moral high horse by labeling it as
>>"the dark side" don't be surprised when you get some push back.
>
>Your push back is fuck, given that I've never defending the policies you
>object to and they are irrelevant to Nikki Haley.
>
>>It's not the Koch money that's turning this country into a free for all
>>crime spree.
>
>You have no fucking clue whom the Charles and David Koch are, or were.

Yes, yes, yes. As usual, Adam Kerman tries to bully his way through when
challenged on anything. Do you ever get tired of playing that game on
Usenet, Adam? I'm not someone who abides your shtick on here. So get
fucked.

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 01:36:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:09:42 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>
>>>>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
>>>>>>Trump
>>>>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>>>>>AP
>>>>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>>>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4
>>
>>>>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>>>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.
>>
>>>>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money from
>>>>>Soros.
>>
>>>>I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
>>>>on Nikki accepting these monies.
>>
>>>No, but when you pretend to be on some moral high horse by labeling it as
>>>"the dark side" don't be surprised when you get some push back.
>>
>>Your push back is fuck, given that I've never defending the policies you
>>object to and they are irrelevant to Nikki Haley.
>>
>>>It's not the Koch money that's turning this country into a free for all
>>>crime spree.
>>
>>You have no fucking clue whom the Charles and David Koch are, or were.
>
>Yes, yes, yes. As usual, Adam Kerman tries to bully his way through when
>challenged on anything. Do you ever get tired of playing that game on
>Usenet, Adam? I'm not someone who abides your shtick on here. So get
>fucked.

Every comment you made was irrelevant to anything I'd written.

And you DON'T know who the Koch brothers are and why I labeled it going
over to the dark side.

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:24:32 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 01:36:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:09:42 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>
>>>>>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to take on
>>>>>>>Trump
>>>>>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>>>>>>AP
>>>>>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>>>>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4
>>>
>>>>>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>>>>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.
>>>
>>>>>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money from
>>>>>>Soros.
>>>
>>>>>I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
>>>>>on Nikki accepting these monies.
>>>
>>>>No, but when you pretend to be on some moral high horse by labeling it as
>>>>"the dark side" don't be surprised when you get some push back.
>>>
>>>Your push back is fuck, given that I've never defending the policies you
>>>object to and they are irrelevant to Nikki Haley.
>>>
>>>>It's not the Koch money that's turning this country into a free for all
>>>>crime spree.
>>>
>>>You have no fucking clue whom the Charles and David Koch are, or were.
>>
>>Yes, yes, yes. As usual, Adam Kerman tries to bully his way through when
>>challenged on anything. Do you ever get tired of playing that game on
>>Usenet, Adam? I'm not someone who abides your shtick on here. So get
>>fucked.
>
>Every comment you made was irrelevant to anything I'd written.
>
>And you DON'T know who the Koch brothers are and why I labeled it going
>over to the dark side.

I know who the Koch brothers are. I also know who George Soros is and If
there's a dark side, I'd say Soros is way worse than the Koch brothers with
his funding of soft on crime and anti-cop DA's nationwide.
Meanwhile, the Kotch brothers routinely get labeled right wingers yet are
pro choice, support same sex marriage and criminal justice reform among
other things.

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:24:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 01:36:14 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:09:42 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>>>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims
>>>>>>>>to take on Trump
>>>>>>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>>>>>>>AP
>>>>>>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>>>>>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4

>>>>>>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>>>>>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.

>>>>>>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking
>>>>>>>money from Soros.

>>>>>>I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
>>>>>>on Nikki accepting these monies.

>>>>>No, but when you pretend to be on some moral high horse by labeling it as
>>>>>"the dark side" don't be surprised when you get some push back.

>>>>Your push back is fuck, given that I've never defending the policies you
>>>>object to and they are irrelevant to Nikki Haley.

>>>>>It's not the Koch money that's turning this country into a free for all
>>>>>crime spree.

>>>>You have no fucking clue whom the Charles and David Koch are, or were.

>>>Yes, yes, yes. As usual, Adam Kerman tries to bully his way through when
>>>challenged on anything. Do you ever get tired of playing that game on
>>>Usenet, Adam? I'm not someone who abides your shtick on here. So get
>>>fucked.

>>Every comment you made was irrelevant to anything I'd written.

>>And you DON'T know who the Koch brothers are and why I labeled it going
>>over to the dark side.

>I know who the Koch brothers are. I also know who George Soros is and If
>there's a dark side, I'd say Soros is way worse than the Koch brothers with
>his funding of soft on crime and anti-cop DA's nationwide.
>Meanwhile, the Kotch brothers routinely get labeled right wingers yet are
>pro choice, support same sex marriage and criminal justice reform among
>other things.

I didn't label them right wing. You did that. They're really not.

They used the facade of libertarianism to successfully push policies
that were beneficial to their companies because they didn't want to
mitigate and clean up pollution that their industrial processes created.
Somehow they equated freedom and liberty and free markets with repealing
'70s era environmental laws on the state level.

They ruined the Cato Institute but that's gotten out from under their
influence in recent years.

They co-opted the Libertarian Party but that didn't allow them to
achieve their business objectives, so they co-opted the Republican Party
establishment instead. If they had thought the Democratic Party would
have allowed them to achieve their objectives, they'd have co-opted that
instead. They truly aren't ideological but pragmatic in pursuit of their
goals.

Whatever they personally believed on social policies, they never pushed
them. Instead they created mechanisms like ALEC that created model
legislation and built support for actual passage of laws that gave their
businesses undeserved privileges over the rest of society. They happily
allowed all those imposition of religious beliefs as legislation model
legislation to be created through ALEC as long as they got what they
wanted.

If you fucking want to talk about Soros, start your own fucking thread.

When I post to Usenet, I decide what I want to discuss, not you.

In article <vb8dmi5v97gu7n4g2kneejm9tf6ggi45di@4ax.com>,
EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:24:32 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 01:36:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
> >>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:09:42 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
> >>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims to
> >>>>>>>take on
> >>>>>>>Trump
> >>>>>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
> >>>>>>>AP
> >>>>>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
> >>>>>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desanti
> >>>>>>>s-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4
> >>>
> >>>>>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
> >>>>>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.
> >>>
> >>>>>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking money
> >>>>>>from Soros.
> >>>
> >>>>>I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
> >>>>>on Nikki accepting these monies.
> >>>
> >>>>No, but when you pretend to be on some moral high horse by labeling it as
> >>>>"the dark side" don't be surprised when you get some push back.
> >>>
> >>>Your push back is fuck, given that I've never defending the policies you
> >>>object to and they are irrelevant to Nikki Haley.
> >>>
> >>>>It's not the Koch money that's turning this country into a free for all
> >>>>crime spree.
> >>>
> >>>You have no fucking clue whom the Charles and David Koch are, or were.
> >>
> >>Yes, yes, yes. As usual, Adam Kerman tries to bully his way through when
> >>challenged on anything. Do you ever get tired of playing that game on
> >>Usenet, Adam? I'm not someone who abides your shtick on here. So get
> >>fucked.
> >
> >Every comment you made was irrelevant to anything I'd written.
> >
> >And you DON'T know who the Koch brothers are and why I labeled it going
> >over to the dark side.
>
> I know who the Koch brothers are. I also know who George Soros is and If
> there's a dark side, I'd say Soros is way worse than the Koch brothers with
> his funding of soft on crime and anti-cop DA's nationwide.

But you're not even allowed to mention Soros. If you do, the Left shuts
down all criticism by automatically labeling you an anti-Semite because
Soros is nominally Jewish.

In <uk6adu$l069$1@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

[snip]

>Whatever they personally believed on social policies, they never pushed
>them. Instead they created mechanisms like ALEC that created model
>legislation and built support for actual passage of laws that gave their
>businesses undeserved privileges over the rest of society. They happily
>allowed all those imposition of religious beliefs as legislation model
>legislation to be created through ALEC as long as they got what they
>wanted.

ALEC is exactly as described by the late science/science fiction
author, Robert Heinlein, in his novel "Magic, Inc."

The local magicians are sandbagged by a 48 State onslaught of bills
designed to force them into working for a single agency. They're caught
off guard by just how the mobsters can coordinate a nationwide program of
this sort.

Until... well, check out pp's 159 and 160. It certainly looks like we're
facing the same issue here. [a]

[a] rot-13:
Vg gheaf bhg gur Qrivy vf pbbeqvangvat
tebhcf bs qrzbaf, naq gurl'er abg
pbafgenvarq ol gur hfhny gvzr naq
fcnpr yvzvgf

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 03:16:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:24:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 01:36:14 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:09:42 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>>>>>>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims
>>>>>>>>>to take on Trump
>>>>>>>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>>>>>>>>AP
>>>>>>>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>>>>>>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4
>
>>>>>>>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>>>>>>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.
>
>>>>>>>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking
>>>>>>>>money from Soros.
>
>>>>>>>I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
>>>>>>>on Nikki accepting these monies.
>
>>>>>>No, but when you pretend to be on some moral high horse by labeling it as
>>>>>>"the dark side" don't be surprised when you get some push back.
>
>>>>>Your push back is fuck, given that I've never defending the policies you
>>>>>object to and they are irrelevant to Nikki Haley.
>
>>>>>>It's not the Koch money that's turning this country into a free for all
>>>>>>crime spree.
>
>>>>>You have no fucking clue whom the Charles and David Koch are, or were.
>
>>>>Yes, yes, yes. As usual, Adam Kerman tries to bully his way through when
>>>>challenged on anything. Do you ever get tired of playing that game on
>>>>Usenet, Adam? I'm not someone who abides your shtick on here. So get
>>>>fucked.
>
>>>Every comment you made was irrelevant to anything I'd written.
>
>>>And you DON'T know who the Koch brothers are and why I labeled it going
>>>over to the dark side.
>
>>I know who the Koch brothers are. I also know who George Soros is and If
>>there's a dark side, I'd say Soros is way worse than the Koch brothers with
>>his funding of soft on crime and anti-cop DA's nationwide.
>>Meanwhile, the Kotch brothers routinely get labeled right wingers yet are
>>pro choice, support same sex marriage and criminal justice reform among
>>other things.
>
>I didn't label them right wing. You did that. They're really not.

I didnt label them at all. I said they are often labeled right wing.

>They used the facade of libertarianism to successfully push policies
>that were beneficial to their companies because they didn't want to
>mitigate and clean up pollution that their industrial processes created.
>Somehow they equated freedom and liberty and free markets with repealing
>'70s era environmental laws on the state level.
>
>They ruined the Cato Institute but that's gotten out from under their
>influence in recent years.

They co-founded the Cato institute.

>They co-opted the Libertarian Party but that didn't allow them to
>achieve their business objectives, so they co-opted the Republican Party
>establishment instead. If they had thought the Democratic Party would
>have allowed them to achieve their objectives, they'd have co-opted that
>instead. They truly aren't ideological but pragmatic in pursuit of their
>goals.
>
>Whatever they personally believed on social policies, they never pushed
>them. Instead they created mechanisms like ALEC that created model
>legislation and built support for actual passage of laws that gave their
>businesses undeserved privileges over the rest of society. They happily
>allowed all those imposition of religious beliefs as legislation model
>legislation to be created through ALEC as long as they got what they
>wanted.
>
>If you fucking want to talk about Soros, start your own fucking thread.

I can comment in any old thread I like, Adam.

>When I post to Usenet, I decide what I want to discuss, not you.

And now you're right back to you're usual bullying tactics. Again, just
Fuck the hell off, Adam. I realize you think you're the arbiter of what is
allowed on Usenet and in rec.arts.tv in particular but you're not. People
can post what they want in any thread they like. You're shtick was tired
years ago and i'm only surprised more people aren't sick of it.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>But you're not even allowed to mention Soros. If you do, the Left shuts
>down all criticism by automatically labeling you an anti-Semite because
>Soros is nominally Jewish.

EGK has always perfectly free to discuss Soros. He just didn't want to
start a separate thread to discuss it, so he wasn't seriously discussing
Soros. All he was interested in doing was not discussing Nikki Haley or
Koch in followup to my article disucssing them.

He chose to fuck up what I wanted to discuss.

It's news to me that the Left defends Jews these days.

EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 03:16:14 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:24:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 01:36:14 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:09:42 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>>>EGK <memyself@null.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>28 Nov 2023 18:41:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>>>>>>>Nikki Haley wins backing from powerful Koch network as she aims
>>>>>>>>>>to take on Trump
>>>>>>>>>>By STEVE PEOPLES
>>>>>>>>>>AP
>>>>>>>>>>Updated 12:02 PM CST, November 28, 2023
>>>>>>>>>>https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-koch-network-endorsement-desantis-trump-938d932aaf2b9b299c32b4d736aaade4

>>>>>>>>>>I've wanted to like her ever since she showed guts after
>>>>>>>>>>Charlottesville. But she's gone completely over to the dark side.

>>>>>>>>>Riggggght! The Dark side as opposed to all the Democrats taking
>>>>>>>>>money from Soros.

>>>>>>>>I am under no obligation to make a moral equivalency to make a comment
>>>>>>>>on Nikki accepting these monies.

>>>>>>>No, but when you pretend to be on some moral high horse by labeling it as
>>>>>>>"the dark side" don't be surprised when you get some push back.

>>>>>>Your push back is fuck, given that I've never defending the policies you
>>>>>>object to and they are irrelevant to Nikki Haley.

>>>>>>>It's not the Koch money that's turning this country into a free for all
>>>>>>>crime spree.

>>>>>>You have no fucking clue whom the Charles and David Koch are, or were.

>>>>>Yes, yes, yes. As usual, Adam Kerman tries to bully his way through when
>>>>>challenged on anything. Do you ever get tired of playing that game on
>>>>>Usenet, Adam? I'm not someone who abides your shtick on here. So get
>>>>>fucked.

>>>>Every comment you made was irrelevant to anything I'd written.

>>>>And you DON'T know who the Koch brothers are and why I labeled it going
>>>>over to the dark side.

>>>I know who the Koch brothers are. I also know who George Soros is and If
>>>there's a dark side, I'd say Soros is way worse than the Koch brothers with
>>>his funding of soft on crime and anti-cop DA's nationwide.
>>>Meanwhile, the Kotch brothers routinely get labeled right wingers yet are
>>>pro choice, support same sex marriage and criminal justice reform among
>>>other things.

>>I didn't label them right wing. You did that. They're really not.

>I didnt label them at all. I said they are often labeled right wing.

The way third parties described the brothers' politics isn't relevant
since they aren't participating in this discussion.

>>They used the facade of libertarianism to successfully push policies
>>that were beneficial to their companies because they didn't want to
>>mitigate and clean up pollution that their industrial processes created.
>>Somehow they equated freedom and liberty and free markets with repealing
>>'70s era environmental laws on the state level.

>>They ruined the Cato Institute but that's gotten out from under their
>>influence in recent years.

>They co-founded the Cato institute.

Actually, that was just Charles. You may recall that Murray Rothbard
wanted it to be scholarly, but Charles wanted to move Cato into
politics, forcing Rothbard out. You gonna deny that it wasn't intended
to be political in the very beginning?

>>They co-opted the Libertarian Party but that didn't allow them to
>>achieve their business objectives, so they co-opted the Republican Party
>>establishment instead. If they had thought the Democratic Party would
>>have allowed them to achieve their objectives, they'd have co-opted that
>>instead. They truly aren't ideological but pragmatic in pursuit of their
>>goals.

>>Whatever they personally believed on social policies, they never pushed
>>them. Instead they created mechanisms like ALEC that created model
>>legislation and built support for actual passage of laws that gave their
>>businesses undeserved privileges over the rest of society. They happily
>>allowed all those imposition of religious beliefs as legislation model
>>legislation to be created through ALEC as long as they got what they
>>wanted.

>>If you fucking want to talk about Soros, start your own fucking thread.

>I can comment in any old thread I like, Adam.

But you aren't commenting. You were trying to force a change of topic to
prevent discussion of the topic I raised. Don't lie. You're gaslighting.

>>When I post to Usenet, I decide what I want to discuss, not you.

>And now you're right back to you're usual bullying tactics.

Nice gaslighting.

If you had truly wanted to discuss Soros, you'd have started a thread to
discuss Soros. You didn't do that. Instead, you tried to prevent
discussion from taking place of Nikki taking Koch monies.

>Again, just Fuck the hell off, Adam.

Why are you bitching, EGK? You succeeded. You achieved your goal. You
murdered this thread.

Victory.

>I realize you think you're the arbiter of what is allowed on Usenet
>and in rec.arts.tv in particular but you're not.

I am not the arbiter. I do get to criticize people like you who
delibertely ruin threads to prevent discussion of the topic the author
raise. This is exactly what you did. You've pulled this crap on me many
times in the past and will do so in future.

If you were honest, which you never are, you'd simply start separate
threads to discuss what you'd rather discuss. It's interesting that you
prefer to ruin threads rather than starting separate discussions.

>People can post what they want in any thread they like.

If the motive of the author of the followup is to prevent the original
topic from being discussed, I'll call you on exactly the shit you
pulled. See, I can criticize you for bad behavior too.

>You're shtick was tired years ago and i'm only surprised more people
>aren't sick of it.

I'll help you with your kill file.

Again, you had zero interest in discussing Soros, which is why you
refused to start a separate thread and chose to ruin this thread. You
made your ill intent quite clear.

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 04:11:58 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

>Again, you had zero interest in discussing Soros, which is why you
>refused to start a separate thread and chose to ruin this thread. You
>made your ill intent quite clear.

You're right, I did have zero interest in discussing Soros. I had zero
interest in discussing the Koch brothers either. I'm not the one who
created yet another political thread in a TV newsgroup. Since you did, put
your big boy pants on and be prepared when people don't agree with you.
I challenged your assertian that Nikki Haley had joined the dark side. You
then blow a gasket, as usual, and start your bullying tactics when people
don't post the way you think they should. You like to pretend you're the
arbiter of what's acceptable on Usenet and this group. I know I'm not the
only one who's tired of it.