Nice summary, Chat GPT…not…it missed all of the important things that he says regarding freedom and tyranny, as well as all the admissions of what happened during the lockdowns. The citations are all relevant too.
If one can spend hours on this site reading headlines and looking at memes on, one can spend 10 minutes reading something of true substance.
Part of our problem in this country is we say we want freedom, but we don't deserve it! People CAN'T/WONT even read a 5 page document to try and learn something on their own. They want spoon fed! This is why people don't read the King James Bible...they are so lazy and want to be spoon fed for 45 minutes out of a corrupt NIV or some other corrupt version because they are too damn lazy to read the Bible for themselves and do the hard work of seeking Jesus and His will in their own war room!
"In Washington, D.C., asylum seekers filed a lawsuit arguing that the government lacked legal authority for the orders"
Generally, asylum seekers do not have the funds to hire an attorney to file a lawsuit. What this really means is that some special interest group with an interest in encouraging more illegal immigration filed a lawsuit on the asylum-seekers behalf. A lot of the craziness in this country could be eliminated if we put some serious restrictions on these special interest groups.
I would, Fren, but it is too powerful. One of the best reads I’ve found in a long time. Trust me, you want to read his words for yourself. And, it’s more like 5.5 pages, because the citations of previous court cases. Additionally, they don’t use full page margins, so it is really more like 4.5 pages. A worthwhile read. Enjoy.
It isn't a legal opinion, it's a summary of how America and the world was screwed by panic. The opinion is that we shouldn't have done that and we should take steps to prevent such abuse.
The text without footnotes has approximately 1,675 words which would take an average reader 6½ minutes to read ... and it's more like a newspaper opinion editorial than a legal text 🤓
Justice Gorsuch on COVID-19 and Emergency Government
EUGENE VOLOKH | 5.18.2023 5:14 PM
Arizona v. Mayorkas is one of the cases dealing with "Title 42 orders" that "severely restricted immigration to this country for the ostensible purpose of preventing the spread of COVID–19"; today, the court issued a procedural order in the case, and Justice Gorsuch wrote a statement regarding that decision. It began with laying out the "tortured procedural history," and noting the problems posed by nationwide injunctions; but it then added:
Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.
They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.
Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans. They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.
While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation.
Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force.
We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes. We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear [citing Aristotle's Politics].
But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.
Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate. Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation. Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too.
In the 1970s, Congress studied the use of emergency decrees. It observed that they can allow executive authorities to tap into extraordinary powers. Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed.
At the same time, Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order. In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.
Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years. And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half century and in light of our Nation's recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level.
At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.
Now we’re knit picking over titles of posts with SAUCY sauce? Uhhhhhhh in the time it took all of you to read all this drama, you could have wrote your own 8 page document on freedom and tyranny. Kek.
Sir. Holy. This is a high-effort, high-info environment. If you're such a weaksauce skater that you can't be arsed to read an 8-page SCOTUS PDF, then you belong on the sidelines, watching silently from the gallery with the rest of the plebs, not on the roaming around lost on the field while this movement's best diggers and researchers do all the work. Ponder your existence. See you next week.
Eh, I don't know. Could have at least told him that it's not really just a hard to read legal opinion -- it's a direct statement that, while long, is pretty good -- and hopefully will be proceeded by legal decisions in the future that make sense, instead of dismissing cases for "no standing" when half the country is disenfranchised by the other half.
It's not like reading a purposefully obtuse law compounded by endlessly -- and deliberately -- indecipherable legalese. It's like reading any long winded post here or anywhere else.
I dug into the user’s profile and previous comments. Five minutes before posting here…he had seen a portion of the statement on another user’s post. Ironically, he had just done a TLDR for a portion of the same opinion here, and he did a piss poor job of it. Check it out for yourself.
I cannot stress how great this opinion piece is. All the dominos are lining up. Arizona is about to set the precedent for election fraud; Lake’s evidence is overwhelming. Katie Hobbs was seen with das Boot over two months ago. We’ve been in Devolution for a very long time, and right now is probably the most monumental time in American history since 1776.
I can agree that it's odd behavior to offer a TLDR and then ask for a TLDR after.
Also, it is becoming clear that -- whether one believes in devolution or not -- there is a turning of the winds occurring.
Wokeism is being attacked at all levels, boycotts are working, even liberal gays are starting to get pissed at the alphabet agendas, federal government is being raked over the coals, literally no one actually likes Biden or Kamala and conservative media everywhere continues to grow, both moderate centrist style and fully right wing media.
There is some momentum right now, and hopefully our guys seize the moment instead of letting it slip through their fingers like the GOP did many times before.
Exactly. GAW is an elite research board, not a digital daycare for low effort retards. People can downvote us for taking this action, fine, but us doing this on a regular basis is why GAW is different from everywhere else on the Internet. The mods have no problem whatsoever sending a strong and decisive message that low effort posts, comments, and just generally being lazy around here will get you moved to the sidelines. Fast. Absolutely no apologies. We've been modding this way for years, everyone knows how it works (or is supposed to work) and we will continue to mod this way. The end.
Could have at least told him that it's not really just a hard to read legal opinion
We did. That choice, however, isn't simply being told that. It's a commitment. Are you ready? It's not a decision that one comes to instantaneously. One doesn't transform from a skater to a lifter just by hearing someone say "you should lift" (PW wouldn't be the hellscape it is if it worked like that). And we gave them that information, then moved them to the sidelines for an appropriate amount of time to ponder whether its worth it to make that commitment—or go back to PW.
Please, and I am not trying to sound super crucial here, but when you comment on GAW, you are stepping on to the ice. You better be wearing your skates. If the referees see you flopping around like an idiot without being ready to play the game at an elite level, we will assume that you are a Streaker or a drunk that has fallen over the glass and onto the playing surface. We will assume that you should be escorted back to your seat where you belong, in the stands with the rest of the audience.
Downvotes have less to do with respecting his opinion, so much as disagreeing. I respect catsfive's opinion. I also upvoted him; not only do I respect his opinion, I agree that people should read it for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with a ban (a week! OOF! Something big could happen in a week and it'd suck to be in time out when you could participate!) but he is trying to make a point that people need to at least try to read it.
a week! OOF! Something big could happen in a week and it'd suck to be in time out when you could participate
Except, that user won't participate, they'll skate. Skim this thread. Skim their comment stream. From a quality perspective, what exactly is the board missing? A dozen low effort, no-info "Too long! Not reading that!!" comments? They could have participated here, just now, but instead of throwing in the effort, they chose to comment, saying they prefer to do nothing.
These people are like stalled cars, just sitting in the middle of the race track. Why are they here, if they're not high-performance race cars?? Clearly, there's some mistake! Mods are like tow trucks, and will gladly move them off the track and back to the parking lot where they belong. We'll even give them a foam hat and a Bud Light. But, STAY OFF THE RACE TRACK IF YOU ARE NOT A RACE CAR.
If you were the race track supervisor, would you let cars from the parking lot randomly drive onto the track anytime they please? When you remove these cars, imagine if the audience "booed" you, would you think, OK, they want a place where every no-effort, know-nothing fuckwit is treated exactly the same way as a high-performance researcher? There's already a WIN like that! It's called:
GAW's brand is "Just as good as PW, but without the faggots." The mods aren't here to start fights and shit on anyone. But if you want to comment, basically, "I belong on PW!" then, great, we'll help you out. The end. If this is difficult for you to understand and accept, please, do let us know. Travel agents are standing by.
Precisely why public sentiment is only a fraction of the parameters mods consider when acting in defense of the overall health of the board.
Grabs megaphone:Again, if you would prefer a WIN where every comment by our movement's deep researchers is treated equally, where the mod team couldn't give two shits watching our hardest workers compete equally with and get drowned out by a never-ending torrent of shills, tards, fuckwits, skaters, and other low-info, no-effort faggots, well...
it's called patriots.WIN.
Go there! Frolic! And be happy! But GAW will always demand high-info and high-effort comments. That's what makes this place special, and it's the reason why the mod team wears fireproof asbestos suits to work every day.
Much love to this community, absolutely, 1000%.... But, travel agents are standing by.
Kek the downdoots. Perceived as harsh I suppose, but modanon isn’t wrong on this one. This one needs to be read. No surmising. That only detracts from the significance of the message. It’s not hard to read a couple pages that are this important.
You can summarize the article while also encouraging them to read it.
But I'll also reiterate that people need to stop shying away just because something takes a few minutes to read.
I don't think it's as huge as they're making it out to be -- as I am firmly in the "I really could use some accountability right now" stage -- but it was still a good read and a good benchmark that we are starting to be heard more and more. It certainly gives greater hope that -- having been heard -- we might finally actually see some accountability, somewhere.
As mentioned, he had summarized it himself in a previous comment on another user’s post. This is what he had to say:
Lonegunman65 1 hour ago +4 / -0
For those that don’t want to read through the whole opinion (TLDR) here is the jest of it:
“ And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”
I think this one-liner doesn’t do justice for the Justice.
People need to read in between the lines and start connecting the dots. Things are not summarizable, and you can’t be told what the Matrix is. We are the Great Awakening. This isn’t amateur hour on patriots.win. Why don’t we just start summarizing every Q post with a one liner? And to summarize every Q post (TLDR): Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming.
I feel confidant in this because a Supreme Court Judge published those words. Seems like a big step. Accountability is probably a bit in the future yet but I get it. This is the curse of the anon. We already know, and have for some time. We have to continue to be strong.
Not sure about a ban on this one but that’s mod’s call. I just agree that if you’re here you can read a couple pages. Bigger picture is if anons start squabbling and dividing, our future isn’t going to be too bright. Of course shills and dooners are gonna shilll and doom but true anons have to stick together and support each other. Truth will prevail.
Brah. I hope he reads it—because this is worth being banned for a week! 😃
Really, Frens, I can’t overstate how powerful it is to read this opinion piece in the Justice’s own words. Once you get halfway through the document, it gets even saucier.
For all the semi- or quasi- Doomers out there, if this statement published by the highest court in our land doesn’t remind you that NCSWIC, I don’t know what can.
So we don’t have to read 8 pages of a legal opinion can you please break it down for us. Like we’re second graders?
Sent this through Chat GPT.
Nice summary, Chat GPT…not…it missed all of the important things that he says regarding freedom and tyranny, as well as all the admissions of what happened during the lockdowns. The citations are all relevant too.
If one can spend hours on this site reading headlines and looking at memes on, one can spend 10 minutes reading something of true substance.
If it's enough to convince people to read it, then that's a win. There is no need to insult each other.
I insulted Chat GPT. Last time I checked, Chat GPT still has no feelings (for now).
This. "If one can spend hours on this site reading headlines and looking at memes on, one can spend 10 minutes reading something of true substance."
Part of our problem in this country is we say we want freedom, but we don't deserve it! People CAN'T/WONT even read a 5 page document to try and learn something on their own. They want spoon fed! This is why people don't read the King James Bible...they are so lazy and want to be spoon fed for 45 minutes out of a corrupt NIV or some other corrupt version because they are too damn lazy to read the Bible for themselves and do the hard work of seeking Jesus and His will in their own war room!
Dude... you can't spew this kind of truth!! There's too much text to read in your post!!
/s
Huh?
Entirely too logical and true to be on this site.
"In Washington, D.C., asylum seekers filed a lawsuit arguing that the government lacked legal authority for the orders"
Generally, asylum seekers do not have the funds to hire an attorney to file a lawsuit. What this really means is that some special interest group with an interest in encouraging more illegal immigration filed a lawsuit on the asylum-seekers behalf. A lot of the craziness in this country could be eliminated if we put some serious restrictions on these special interest groups.
LB, just... Thx?!!
Nice breakdown
I would, Fren, but it is too powerful. One of the best reads I’ve found in a long time. Trust me, you want to read his words for yourself. And, it’s more like 5.5 pages, because the citations of previous court cases. Additionally, they don’t use full page margins, so it is really more like 4.5 pages. A worthwhile read. Enjoy.
It isn't a legal opinion, it's a summary of how America and the world was screwed by panic. The opinion is that we shouldn't have done that and we should take steps to prevent such abuse.
The text without footnotes has approximately 1,675 words which would take an average reader 6½ minutes to read ... and it's more like a newspaper opinion editorial than a legal text 🤓
This is the issue. Degradation by willful intent.
Justice Gorsuch on COVID-19 and Emergency Government
EUGENE VOLOKH | 5.18.2023 5:14 PM
Arizona v. Mayorkas is one of the cases dealing with "Title 42 orders" that "severely restricted immigration to this country for the ostensible purpose of preventing the spread of COVID–19"; today, the court issued a procedural order in the case, and Justice Gorsuch wrote a statement regarding that decision. It began with laying out the "tortured procedural history," and noting the problems posed by nationwide injunctions; but it then added:
Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.
They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.
Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans. They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.
While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation.
Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force.
We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes. We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear [citing Aristotle's Politics].
But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.
Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate. Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation. Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too.
In the 1970s, Congress studied the use of emergency decrees. It observed that they can allow executive authorities to tap into extraordinary powers. Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed.
At the same time, Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order. In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.
Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years. And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half century and in light of our Nation's recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level.
At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.
Now we’re knit picking over titles of posts with SAUCY sauce? Uhhhhhhh in the time it took all of you to read all this drama, you could have wrote your own 8 page document on freedom and tyranny. Kek.
As you can see elsewhere in this thread, uhhhh... THIS.
Sir. Holy. This is a high-effort, high-info environment. If you're such a weaksauce skater that you can't be arsed to read an 8-page SCOTUS PDF, then you belong on the sidelines, watching silently from the gallery with the rest of the plebs, not on the roaming around lost on the field while this movement's best diggers and researchers do all the work. Ponder your existence. See you next week.
Eh, I don't know. Could have at least told him that it's not really just a hard to read legal opinion -- it's a direct statement that, while long, is pretty good -- and hopefully will be proceeded by legal decisions in the future that make sense, instead of dismissing cases for "no standing" when half the country is disenfranchised by the other half.
It's not like reading a purposefully obtuse law compounded by endlessly -- and deliberately -- indecipherable legalese. It's like reading any long winded post here or anywhere else.
As a side note:
"Justice Jackson". STILL gross.
This is the first time Ive seen someone banned for not reading an article..
Thou shalt not say things that may offend captain litter box
This is the first time I’ve seen someone want no sauce, when this is VERY SAuCY and SpICY.
I would agree it's a bit heavy handed, but we do also need to have a better attitude than just "it's long/hard to read/I'm not reading it".
At least have some BS excuse, ya know? Like "I'm working a late shift and I don't have time yet, are there any juicy tidbits?" or something.
I dug into the user’s profile and previous comments. Five minutes before posting here…he had seen a portion of the statement on another user’s post. Ironically, he had just done a TLDR for a portion of the same opinion here, and he did a piss poor job of it. Check it out for yourself.
I cannot stress how great this opinion piece is. All the dominos are lining up. Arizona is about to set the precedent for election fraud; Lake’s evidence is overwhelming. Katie Hobbs was seen with das Boot over two months ago. We’ve been in Devolution for a very long time, and right now is probably the most monumental time in American history since 1776.
I can agree that it's odd behavior to offer a TLDR and then ask for a TLDR after.
Also, it is becoming clear that -- whether one believes in devolution or not -- there is a turning of the winds occurring.
Wokeism is being attacked at all levels, boycotts are working, even liberal gays are starting to get pissed at the alphabet agendas, federal government is being raked over the coals, literally no one actually likes Biden or Kamala and conservative media everywhere continues to grow, both moderate centrist style and fully right wing media.
There is some momentum right now, and hopefully our guys seize the moment instead of letting it slip through their fingers like the GOP did many times before.
Exactly. GAW is an elite research board, not a digital daycare for low effort retards. People can downvote us for taking this action, fine, but us doing this on a regular basis is why GAW is different from everywhere else on the Internet. The mods have no problem whatsoever sending a strong and decisive message that low effort posts, comments, and just generally being lazy around here will get you moved to the sidelines. Fast. Absolutely no apologies. We've been modding this way for years, everyone knows how it works (or is supposed to work) and we will continue to mod this way. The end.
We did. That choice, however, isn't simply being told that. It's a commitment. Are you ready? It's not a decision that one comes to instantaneously. One doesn't transform from a skater to a lifter just by hearing someone say "you should lift" (PW wouldn't be the hellscape it is if it worked like that). And we gave them that information, then moved them to the sidelines for an appropriate amount of time to ponder whether its worth it to make that commitment—or go back to PW.
Please, and I am not trying to sound super crucial here, but when you comment on GAW, you are stepping on to the ice. You better be wearing your skates. If the referees see you flopping around like an idiot without being ready to play the game at an elite level, we will assume that you are a Streaker or a drunk that has fallen over the glass and onto the playing surface. We will assume that you should be escorted back to your seat where you belong, in the stands with the rest of the audience.
So far we have 12 people that need their info spoon fed to them. Is it any wonder the world ended up in the state it was in...
We have a lot of work left to do frens!!
Less than 50% of people respect your opinion on this board as you expressed it today
Downvotes have less to do with respecting his opinion, so much as disagreeing. I respect catsfive's opinion. I also upvoted him; not only do I respect his opinion, I agree that people should read it for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with a ban (a week! OOF! Something big could happen in a week and it'd suck to be in time out when you could participate!) but he is trying to make a point that people need to at least try to read it.
Please see:
https://greatawakening.win/p/16b6N5Lwpj/x/c/4TtruqLBvou
Except, that user won't participate, they'll skate. Skim this thread. Skim their comment stream. From a quality perspective, what exactly is the board missing? A dozen low effort, no-info "Too long! Not reading that!!" comments? They could have participated here, just now, but instead of throwing in the effort, they chose to comment, saying they prefer to do nothing.
These people are like stalled cars, just sitting in the middle of the race track. Why are they here, if they're not high-performance race cars?? Clearly, there's some mistake! Mods are like tow trucks, and will gladly move them off the track and back to the parking lot where they belong. We'll even give them a foam hat and a Bud Light. But, STAY OFF THE RACE TRACK IF YOU ARE NOT A RACE CAR.
If you were the race track supervisor, would you let cars from the parking lot randomly drive onto the track anytime they please? When you remove these cars, imagine if the audience "booed" you, would you think, OK, they want a place where every no-effort, know-nothing fuckwit is treated exactly the same way as a high-performance researcher? There's already a WIN like that! It's called:
https://www.patriots.win/
GAW's brand is "Just as good as PW, but without the faggots." The mods aren't here to start fights and shit on anyone. But if you want to comment, basically, "I belong on PW!" then, great, we'll help you out. The end. If this is difficult for you to understand and accept, please, do let us know. Travel agents are standing by.
Precisely why public sentiment is only a fraction of the parameters mods consider when acting in defense of the overall health of the board.
Grabs megaphone: Again, if you would prefer a WIN where every comment by our movement's deep researchers is treated equally, where the mod team couldn't give two shits watching our hardest workers compete equally with and get drowned out by a never-ending torrent of shills, tards, fuckwits, skaters, and other low-info, no-effort faggots, well...
it's called patriots.WIN.
Go there! Frolic! And be happy! But GAW will always demand high-info and high-effort comments. That's what makes this place special, and it's the reason why the mod team wears fireproof asbestos suits to work every day.
Much love to this community, absolutely, 1000%.... But, travel agents are standing by.
Kek the downdoots. Perceived as harsh I suppose, but modanon isn’t wrong on this one. This one needs to be read. No surmising. That only detracts from the significance of the message. It’s not hard to read a couple pages that are this important.
You can summarize the article while also encouraging them to read it.
But I'll also reiterate that people need to stop shying away just because something takes a few minutes to read.
I don't think it's as huge as they're making it out to be -- as I am firmly in the "I really could use some accountability right now" stage -- but it was still a good read and a good benchmark that we are starting to be heard more and more. It certainly gives greater hope that -- having been heard -- we might finally actually see some accountability, somewhere.
As mentioned, he had summarized it himself in a previous comment on another user’s post. This is what he had to say: Lonegunman65 1 hour ago +4 / -0 For those that don’t want to read through the whole opinion (TLDR) here is the jest of it: “ And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”
I think this one-liner doesn’t do justice for the Justice.
People need to read in between the lines and start connecting the dots. Things are not summarizable, and you can’t be told what the Matrix is. We are the Great Awakening. This isn’t amateur hour on patriots.win. Why don’t we just start summarizing every Q post with a one liner? And to summarize every Q post (TLDR): Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming.
I understand your point. It is a good point.
I feel confidant in this because a Supreme Court Judge published those words. Seems like a big step. Accountability is probably a bit in the future yet but I get it. This is the curse of the anon. We already know, and have for some time. We have to continue to be strong.
Not sure about a ban on this one but that’s mod’s call. I just agree that if you’re here you can read a couple pages. Bigger picture is if anons start squabbling and dividing, our future isn’t going to be too bright. Of course shills and dooners are gonna shilll and doom but true anons have to stick together and support each other. Truth will prevail.
Brah. I hope he reads it—because this is worth being banned for a week! 😃
Really, Frens, I can’t overstate how powerful it is to read this opinion piece in the Justice’s own words. Once you get halfway through the document, it gets even saucier.
For all the semi- or quasi- Doomers out there, if this statement published by the highest court in our land doesn’t remind you that NCSWIC, I don’t know what can.
o7
This is big
Is there a place i don't have to download the pdf to read it?
Try here. The PDF is imbedded in the article.