How Can A Bot Be Allowed “free Speech”?
Free speech applies to human beings. It doesn’t apply to corporate entities and it can’t apply to bots.
1 Like
Oh No Chris, The Rich And Powerful Can Repeal The Laws Of Physics
Remember when a state legislature decreed that PI was to be 3.0?
A Canadian friend once said to me that we yanks thought a few more engineers and a few more $millions could allow us to repeal the laws of physics.
A Voice Of Sanity - Maybe?
Now of course, this comes from the corn belt, but it also makes sense. It allows manufacturers to use measured co2 emissions from flex fuel engines to calculate fleet emissions – Flex Fuel Fairness Act to provide an incentive for automakers to manufacture flex fuel vehicles in addition to battery electric vehicles
Sorry, the Supreme Court already ruled that corporations have free speech. I expect they would rule that bots do as well. They are created by people and therefore have their creators free speech right.
It Isn’t Incompetence
Sorry to disagree with everybody else but I found significant portions of the interview nauseating.
Grant is perfectly happy to chalk the entire scamdemic up to incompetence. His only issue is that we non-specialists running things who don’t know what they are doing. By that logic Tony Fauci should have been allowed to run everything because he is qualified vs the elected bozos who have no medical training. The elected bozos supposedly did follow the advice of those who were qualified. Except we know they didn’t really, they followed authoritative people who were in on the whole scheme from the beginning.
You can find a great summary of the evil actors at:
https://expose-news.com/2023/12/31/bilderbergers-covid-pandemic-resonse-manipulation/
or
https://198.199.127.59/wiki/Bilderberg/2021
Politician incompetence is one of the major reasons we are supposed to have limited government with protections for natural rights and freedoms. The others are greed and corruption.
3 Likes
Nuclear Downsides
It’s often asserted that nuclear power is safe and the various accidents over the years haven’t killed anyone. That’s not true. It’s just that most of the deaths are from shortened life spans and have been spread out over a large enough population to make strict accounting very difficult. The numbers were much more obvious with Chernobyl.
We still don’t have a solution to the waste problem of Uranium reactor technology. Thorium is supposed to have shorter lived waste but it’s not what’s being pushed in the current batch of small reactors.
Accidents become very expensive. Chernobyl bankrupted the USSR and Fukushima would probably bankrupt Japan if there was accountability in the Japanese financial system.
The war in Ukraine points up the huge risks involved when society comes apart and you have nuclear power plants in the line of fire. Do you really thing we can depend on nuclear power plants getting adequate security, attention and maintenance when an economic collapse happens? Or when BLM, or the equivalent group of crazies, riots near a local nuclear reactor?
In a sane world where intelligent honest people ran things nuclear power probably could be perfected and run safely with at a good return on investment. I don’t see those conditions in the West.
A good summary of the energy situation is done here by Erik Townsend -https://www.energytransitioncrisis.org/ -
Mike Green had this guy on his podcast and it covers the issues very well - as Doomberg says (to paraphrase), there are no perfect solutions, only alternatives. A good understanding of the state of the technology is essential to a worthwhile discussion - This series is worth the time.
True point and well stated. My concern is that Grant stating near the end of this interview that at this point, we need to have a “conversation.“ At this point, having “conversations” is playing into the problem. He is wealthy and talks for a living, so that is probably his imperative and how he gets through things. Also, it is a throw away comment to say in a podcast to allow the interview to continue smoothly. However, from my perspective, a conversation is polishing the brass on the titanic - I am watching lives be destroyed by gender ideology, porn, legalized weed, immigration, problems, inflation, and job destruction. Things are getting tight in my own life and I fear I will have to move out of the city I live in. Our national debt has grown by 3 trillion dollars in less than a year, they are starting useless wars, and there is strong evidence of election fraud and they are distorting the legal system to destroy the political process and kill Trump - hate or love him, it will not stop with him - you can kiss political freedom goodbye if it is not stopped. Add to that COVID - One reason I pay $30 a month to be on this site is that Chris nailed the suppression of preventative measures, the distortion of vaccine risks, the obfuscation of statistics, the manipulation of facts to allow the vaccine to be given to so many. One could conclude all these problems hitting at once is just entropy or the 4th turning, but the synergy of all these forces occurring simultaneously defies the odds, and common sense(and having real skin in the game concerning their impact) begs a different explanation than fixing our problems with conversation. I like Grant, and his discussion of Macro is unparalleled, and he seems like a wise and balanced man, but he is obfuscating the issue if he is actually suggesting that the problems society faces will be solved by “conversations.” That seemed weasle-ish to me. I am pretty good at conversations, and some of the conversations I have had are useless. In these conversations, I have witnessed intelligent people become obdurately stupid, in the way Bonhoeffer describes in the beginning of his letters from prison. People are not interested in them, at least in real conversations. Like Socrates discussion of wisdom, the key is knowing when you are over your skis. I will always listen intently to his macro perspectives, but will take his recommendation to get through these dilemmas with “conversation” as a bromide.
Just mentioned that because that is how the conversation began. I’m just getting tired of people acting like Powell makes any of his own decisions. I don’t think he does.
…What I like about Grant is that he is reserved in his speech and humble enough to say “I don’t know.” We need more people like that. This is something to respect and emulate.
BTW, the Moon landings were fake. Just sayin.