Tech CEOs being grilled in congress today

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
13,996
168
106
I'd ask you to imagine being a white supremacist who defends white people murdering black people on video, but you don't have to imagine it.

I guess the better one would be, imagine being a white supremacist thinking anyone on these forums who isn't a white supremacist actually putting any value in anything you ever have to say here.
Again, you are trash piece of idiot. The vast majority of posters here are far left these days. They only bring up articles of "black people being murdered by white" because the agenda most posters are trying to put forward here. I only jump in with the law and facts when it is clear that people like you are spreading lies. If you brought in cases of the reverse and it was a justified shooting of a white man by a black man I would be stating the law where applicable in defense of that. That isn't what happens here. I don't give a shit about the racial makeup of the people in these cases. Like the Michael Dunn case years ago, the moment the evidence was released his dumbass shot after the fleeing cars, I knew he was going to jail for a long as time and rightfully so. That is what he went to jail for. I don't defend white people because they are white at all. If a PERSON's actions are justified under the law as I understand the law in that area they are in, I'll state it. If it doesn't look justified I'll state that. I also don't jump to conclusions just because of race. That is what you and many here do.

If you actually manage to look over my past history in this forum in particular, you'll notice a pattern of me only use the structures of the law or facts. If there is an opinion to give separately, I always state when I am expressing my opinion on a topic, and why it have that opinion. This is shown in the Aubery case thread for example. I stated the details of the law and the evidence known. I also stated as my opinion something didn't quite feel right to me and it seemed racially motivated due to actions that the McMichaels didn't need to further do. That was my opinion and insight. Later the prosecution released a statement saying that Travis stated a racial slur over the guys body, which if true means I was right with that insight. My reaching that opinion though wasn't based on the fact it was white guys chasing a black guy only, but on the totality of the situation of what occurred.

Do us all a favor and go crawl back under your rock. All you can do is use pejoratives and make insults in your posts without actually posting anything insightful ever here. You are the definition of a troll.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
13,996
168
106
Except you're ignoring the facts. I thought you were a fact guy
Not at all. She is trying to couch it under the Army recruiting 12 year olds, which by law they can't already. A 12 year old fillling out an online recruitment form doesn't do squat as they legally can't be liable for that form. It was a stupid argument. Again, 12 year olds can see Army outreach and recruitment programs through TV, radio, billboards, and even school events.

The issue of the giveaway is already something that is already covered by law and there isnt a need to ban the Army from a platform through law over something laws already exist for. False advertising, bait and switch, and other consumer protection laws are already there. The US Army still has to abide by those same laws as the rest of us. Any dumbass in the Army marketing division that breaks the law is subject to punishment. Just like anyone else that breaks any other law.

Her whole bill was a stupid farce that went no where for a reason. Never had a chance of going anywhere.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
29,095
8,187
136
Not at all. She is trying to couch it under the Army recruiting 12 year olds, which by law they can't already. A 12 year old fillling out an online recruitment form doesn't do squat as they legally can't be liable for that form. It was a stupid argument. Again, 12 year olds can see Army outreach and recruitment programs through TV, radio, billboards, and even school events.

The issue of the giveaway is already something that is already covered by law and there isnt a need to ban the Army from a platform through law over something laws already exist for. False advertising, bait and switch, and other consumer protection laws are already there. The US Army still has to abide by those same laws as the rest of us. Any dumbass in the Army marketing division that breaks the law is subject to punishment. Just like anyone else that breaks any other law.

Her whole bill was a stupid farce that went no where for a reason. Never had a chance of going anywhere.
So you're ok with a part of our government using under handed advertising methods to recruit children, and AOC is stupid for introducing a bill to stop it on a streaming service, got it, lol.

The old people she had to explain to what the streaming service even is aren't the stupid ones.

And if you're interested in the facts, not only did the army behave like this quite a bit, but started silencing users for asking about war crimes. Sounds like government censorship without the conservative outrage. Shocking, lol, not really
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
100,168
3,292
126
What the fuck does that have anything to do with it?

AOC was trying to get the US Army off Twitch. Doesnt matter what they were doing on Twitch. Her tactics were completely dumb and wrong. The US Army has a right to recruit however they want to. Unless you think they shouldn't be on the radio, TV, news, or billboards? Twitch is just another outreach platform for them. AOC is an idiot and tried to get them banned because she didn't understand it like she didn't understand how badly she hurt New York for making Amazon leave.
congress telling the army what to do isn't government strong arming. congress has the absolute right to not fund the army.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,884
6,551
136
What the fuck does that have anything to do with it?

AOC was trying to get the US Army off Twitch. Doesnt matter what they were doing on Twitch. Her tactics were completely dumb and wrong. The US Army has a right to recruit however they want to. Unless you think they shouldn't be on the radio, TV, news, or billboards? Twitch is just another outreach platform for them. AOC is an idiot and tried to get them banned because she didn't understand it like she didn't understand how badly she hurt New York for making Amazon leave.
Yeah dumb broad and stupid C
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
13,996
168
106
congress telling the army what to do isn't government strong arming. congress has the absolute right to not fund the army.
Congress has the right to fund or not fund. They don't have the right to direct. That is strictly the baliwick of the executive branch. Did you not learn the basics of our government system? Power of the purse is not exactly the power to direct.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,884
6,551
136
That young whippersnapper wanted the army to stop doing their technowhatchamajig on the twitchbooks
I read about it a bit, while I don’t agree with AOC I do understand her point. Army is targeting too broad of an audience.
Fun fact twitch threatened to ban the Army(?) over displaying false contests as in “You’ve win an Xbox, click here”
Clicking here redirected to a recruiting page. No prize.
Basically you won a prize to speak with an Army Recruiter
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,287
1,521
126
Congress has the right to fund or not fund. They don't have the right to direct. That is strictly the baliwick of the executive branch. Did you not learn the basics of our government system? Power of the purse is not exactly the power to direct.
Congress creates the laws that the executive agencies and entities operate under. They can't "direct" in the traditional sense of the word, but they can most definitely tell the military what it can and cannot do through the levers of funding and laws.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
100,168
3,292
126
Congress has the right to fund or not fund. They don't have the right to direct. That is strictly the baliwick of the executive branch. Did you not learn the basics of our government system? Power of the purse is not exactly the power to direct.
"here's $300 billion do with it as you will" is not how this works or has ever worked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z and jman19

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
29,095
8,187
136
I read about it a bit, while I don’t agree with AOC I do understand her point. Army is targeting too broad of an audience.
Fun fact twitch threatened to ban the Army(?) over displaying false contests as in “You’ve win an Xbox, click here”
Clicking here redirected to a recruiting page. No prize.
Basically you won a prize to speak with an Army Recruiter
I linked this earlier, it's got a 3 minute YouTube video of AOC, and I do agree with her. War is not a game, and using esports / online game streaming platforms to recruit people is not ok with me, especially when those services are used by children. Since the army / navy has seemingly discarded long held scruples, crafting legislation would be a wise choice.


How the vote went


Of course the obstruction party would never vote with her anyways 😋
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,120
1,602
126
I linked this earlier, it's got a 3 minute YouTube video of AOC, and I do agree with her. War is not a game, and using esports / online game streaming platforms to recruit people is not ok with me, especially when those services are used by children. Since the army / navy has seemingly discarded long held scruples, crafting legislation would be a wise choice.


How the vote went


Of course the obstruction party would never vote with her anyways 😋

There was also that 102 Democrats that also voted against it.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
5,010
2,356
136
Again, you are trash piece of idiot.
I have to quote that by itself, as it's a work of art. Nice one.

Again, you are trash piece of idiot. The vast majority of posters here are far left these days. They only bring up articles of "black people being murdered by white" because the agenda most posters are trying to put forward here. I only jump in with the law and facts when it is clear that people like you are spreading lies. If you brought in cases of the reverse and it was a justified shooting of a white man by a black man I would be stating the law where applicable in defense of that. That isn't what happens here. I don't give a shit about the racial makeup of the people in these cases. Like the Michael Dunn case years ago, the moment the evidence was released his dumbass shot after the fleeing cars, I knew he was going to jail for a long as time and rightfully so. That is what he went to jail for. I don't defend white people because they are white at all. If a PERSON's actions are justified under the law as I understand the law in that area they are in, I'll state it. If it doesn't look justified I'll state that. I also don't jump to conclusions just because of race. That is what you and many here do.

If you actually manage to look over my past history in this forum in particular, you'll notice a pattern of me only use the structures of the law or facts. If there is an opinion to give separately, I always state when I am expressing my opinion on a topic, and why it have that opinion. This is shown in the Aubery case thread for example. I stated the details of the law and the evidence known. I also stated as my opinion something didn't quite feel right to me and it seemed racially motivated due to actions that the McMichaels didn't need to further do. That was my opinion and insight. Later the prosecution released a statement saying that Travis stated a racial slur over the guys body, which if true means I was right with that insight. My reaching that opinion though wasn't based on the fact it was white guys chasing a black guy only, but on the totality of the situation of what occurred.

Do us all a favor and go crawl back under your rock. All you can do is use pejoratives and make insults in your posts without actually posting anything insightful ever here. You are the definition of a troll.
Who is "us", champ? Your posts are demolished and mocked by everyone on here who isn't a white supremacist.

Get a grip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVrolok and JD50

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
29,095
8,187
136
There was also that 102 Democrats that also voted against it.
103. 126 that voted for. 0 Republicans voted for it.

edit: side note...the desktop version of the website makes filtering very easy so you can quickly see how your rep voted, and who voted yes / no, etc..
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,120
1,602
126
103. 126 that voted for. 0 Republicans voted for it.

edit: side note...the desktop version of the website makes filtering very easy so you can quickly see how your rep voted, and who voted yes / no, etc..

Yes I misread it.
103 Dems voted Nay.
188 Rep voted Nay.

In my state everybody voted Nay Dems and Reps.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
29,095
8,187
136
Yes I misread it.
103 Dems voted Nay.
188 Rep voted Nay.

In my state everybody voted Nay Dems and Reps.
9 Districts in my state, all D, 7 yes - 2 no. I think Cortez's point here is valid, and based on my own life of explaining tech to many people (even those in the tech industry), it can be quite frustrating.

Clearly, the US Army account is operating it's Twitch.tv feed in an unscrupulous manner.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
13,996
168
106
"here's $300 billion do with it as you will" is not how this works or has ever worked.
Uh yah it is. The sole running of the military is up to the executive branch and not congress. The only thing they have a say in is the declaration of war and how much money they allocate to the military as a whole. They cant even really stipulate where funds have to go. This was why Trump was able to use funds for the wall he wanted although congress didn't give him any funds directly for it. This is why he won that court battle on it too. Sorry you don't like it, but that has been the case since the founding of military outside militias in this country.

Congress can certainly express what they would like funds to go to and be done with, but ultimately that decision is not theirs to make once it is handed over. Of course, if the budget isn't used as they would like, there is the risk the next time the budget needs to be done that congress will decrease it because they feel the funds weren't spent how they want them to be previously. Welcome to the world of political tit for tat.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
13,996
168
106
I have to quote that by itself, as it's a work of art. Nice one.


Who is "us", champ? Your posts are demolished and mocked by everyone on here who isn't a white supremacist.

Get a grip.
No, my posts have never been demolished here. There are fucking looney racists like yourself that want to dream that to be I guess. As i said, this forum has been a leftist echo chamber in the last decade and it is dying because of it. Anyone that isn't as far left is automatically demonized around here like you always do. Rather than trying to have civil conversation the first words you type is "white supremacist!!!" like some fucking robot. I post in less than 1% of the threads around here because there isn't a point. It's a leftist circle jerk all the time. I am not even on the right side of the political spectrum, but since I am right of the far left around being in the center, I have idiots like you that can only use logic fallacies and name calling in response to my posts. Then claim your name calling is "demolishing" my posts. Puhlease. Your posts are literally the mental height of a prepubescent boy.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
13,996
168
106
I read about it a bit, while I don’t agree with AOC I do understand her point. Army is targeting too broad of an audience.
Fun fact twitch threatened to ban the Army(?) over displaying false contests as in “You’ve win an Xbox, click here”
Clicking here redirected to a recruiting page. No prize.
Basically you won a prize to speak with an Army Recruiter
Fun fact, the Army posts recruitment on TV. It can be seen by all ages. The Army posts recruitment on radio, newspaper, billboards, and every other form of media that can be seen by everyone. Fun fact, the Army has out reach programs in high schools, middles schools, and even elementary schools across the country. Fun fact, the Army wants to recruit 16-18 year olds and not 30-40 year olds in life.

Yes, some idiot in the marketing division of the Army fucked up with that contest and it wasn't legal. I'm sure the person/people responsible got in some serious shit over that. People fuck up at all jobs. Yay for trying to use that as an excuse to ban the Army from Twitch and online media.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,287
1,521
126
This was why Trump was able to use funds for the wall he wanted although congress didn't give him any funds directly for it.
This is false. He only was able to do that by abusing his authority to declare an emergency under existing laws and reappropriate funds.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
100,168
3,292
126
This is why he won that court battle on it too.
last court that made a decision on the merits decided that it was illegal for trump to do so. supreme court hasn't reached the merits. either last year or last month.

hell, congress told the air force it had to buy a bunch of C-27s and it took a second act of congress to the prohibit the air force from buying them after the air force said it didn't want them. they couldn't just move the money over to more F-35s or whatever.
 
Last edited:

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
13,996
168
106
last court that made a decision on the merits decided that it was illegal for trump to do so. supreme court hasn't reached the merits. either last year or last month.

hell, congress told the air force it had to buy a bunch of C-27s and it took a second act of congress to the prohibit the air force from buying them after the air force said it didn't want them. they couldn't just move the money over to more F-35s or whatever.
Yes, Trump loses battles, but the point I was making is that Trump won the battle of direction of the military, not congress. Congress can state goals, impose time lines, and control the purse. That is it. The logistics of what is done is up to the executive branch. End of story. Full stop. Congress has no business in meddling with the day to day recruitment operations of the military. No, Congress can make a law that no government entity is able to be on twitch or esports or whatever. That would include AOC herself though. That is a separate thing they could legally do. Doubt it would ever pass though. Congress doesn't have legal grounds to tell the Army they can't recruit off places like Twitch though. They can threaten to reduce their budget, and the US Army can tell them to go fuck themselves. Sure then Congress can reduce the budget, but the Army can continue to tell them to go fuck themselves if they want. That is how the balance of powers is set up.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
100,168
3,292
126
yeah that's not at all how it works. the only thing the congress can't do is tell the army in the field what to do. although, even then, it still has the power of the purse and can pull funding.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
13,942
6,197
146
Congress has the right to fund or not fund. They don't have the right to direct. That is strictly the baliwick of the executive branch. Did you not learn the basics of our government system? Power of the purse is not exactly the power to direct.
This a such a huge tell about your level of ignorance when it comes to how our government works.

Power of the purse is not the power to direct? Guess we’ve been wrong all these years about the Congress telling us we have to go back to moon using SLS.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
5,010
2,356
136
No, my posts have never been demolished here. There are fucking looney racists like yourself that want to dream that to be I guess. As i said, this forum has been a leftist echo chamber in the last decade and it is dying because of it. Anyone that isn't as far left is automatically demonized around here like you always do. Rather than trying to have civil conversation the first words you type is "white supremacist!!!" like some fucking robot. I post in less than 1% of the threads around here because there isn't a point. It's a leftist circle jerk all the time. I am not even on the right side of the political spectrum, but since I am right of the far left around being in the center, I have idiots like you that can only use logic fallacies and name calling in response to my posts. Then claim your name calling is "demolishing" my posts. Puhlease. Your posts are literally the mental height of a prepubescent boy.
Everyone here laughs at the nonsense you post, at least when they aren't attacking your white supremacist defense of white people murdering black people on video.

But you keep on livin' in your delusional reality champ.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY