“There’s a free speech crisis in America today. But there’s no free speech crisis in Britain.”
—Maryland Democratic Rep. Jaime Raskin, proving for all time that he is a shameless partisan whom Marylanders should hang their heads in shame for inflicting on Congress and their fellow Americans.
Raskin really said that. No, I’m not kidding, he really did. He did! I’m not making it up!
The rapid government attack on free speech in Great Britain, where it has never been particularly strong, has been the subject of great concern among civil libertarians in the UK and here, for very good reasons. As Matt Taibbi, the red-pilled former Rolling Stone pundit recently wrote, “The arrest of Graham Linehan for his tweets is one of many examples that show [Great Britain] should not be treated as a free one.” (You can read about the Linehan scandal here.) Indeed. British citizens are being punished for peacefully protesting, for petitioning the government, for critical social media posts, and even for displaying the British flag. Yet Raskin says that there is no free speech crisis. His idea of a free speech crisis is CBS being forced to pay the piper after engaging in election interference to try to get an idiot elected President of the United States. Meanwhile, here in the good ‘ol USA, thanks to Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the gradual exposure of censorious Leftist colleges and universities, and the demise of Biden’s proto- fascist Justice Department, free speech is healthier than it has been in quite a while.
After Raskin made his fatuous statement in the House hearing titled “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,” was held to discuss EU and U.K. censorship, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) quickly made the obvious rebuttal: “The gentleman alleges there’s no free speech in America under Donald Trump while his staff member holds up countless articles criticizing the Trump administration.”
Ethics Alarms 
I see your Raskin and Raise you a Tim Kaine who stated our rights come from government and compared the fundamental basis of of our natural rights are “troublesome” in today’s testimony
He was describing the inalienable rights ordained by our creator as similar to “Shia” law that they have in Iran which is a theocracy . I should have included that
I should have included that he was comparing rights from a creator is no different than in Iran where they use “Shia “ law. He called the notion of rights from one’s creator “troublesome”.
duplicate post – sorry first follow-up did not show up upon post so I wrote it again
You’re focusing on the words “free speech” while he’s focusing on the word “crisis”. Clearly, to him, the crisis is when the government can’t tell you what to say or not to say.
good point
the only way it makes sense is that there is no free speech crisis in Britain because they don’t have free speech.
here, in the U.S., free speech is under attack because we have it to begin with.
where there is no free speech, free speech cannot be attacked because it does not exist.
-Jut
Jack- I’m currently using AI to help me write a book about strategies in euchre. As you can see from my frustrations, and the examples below- I don’t think this technology is overtaking true human intelligence for at least a few years yet. Notably, I’ve also had to correct it about 15 times with respect to points in the game. It has consistently erred in believing that in euchre, you will get one points if you get two tricks. [You need three tricks to get any points in case anyone doesn’t know the game).Ultimately, I just had to write the damn example myself. [Forgive the cuss words, please.]Example 4: You bid hearts holding jack of hearts (right bower), ten of hearts, nine of clubs, king of diamonds, queen of spades. Opponent leads ace of spades, your partner plays nine of spades. You incorrectly trump with jack of hearts (right bower) in second position, violating the rule since your partner had a chance to win with potential spade strength. Your partner is forced to discard nine of clubs (a loser) on the trick you unnecessarily took.
You now lead king of diamonds. Your partner has ace of diamonds and takes the trick, but opponent trumps with queen of hearts. Opponent then leads jack of clubs (left bower), beating your remaining ten of hearts. With no trump left and opponents controlling the remaining tricks, your team gets euchred. Had you preserved the right bower and allowed the ace of spades to win trick one, your partner could have thrown a loser naturally, and you would have retained the right bower to trump opponent leads later, preventing the euchre. The premature right bower usage eliminated your trump insurance and forced poor partnership coordination.Retry
JM
Redraft- that example is clearly wrong- remember we have to be in SECOND position- so we don’t yet know our partner cannot take the trick.Edit
Analyzed euchre strategy for second-position card play.
Looking at this request, the user wants me to redraft an example where a player incorrectly uses the right bower in second position. They’ve pointed out that my previous example was wrong because in second position, you don’t yet know if your partner can take the trick (since they haven’t played yet).
This is a very specific euchre strategy discussion and doesn’t require any research – it’s about crafting a tactical example within their rulebook. This is a straightforward writing/editing task that doesn’t need the extended search function.
Let me think through the scenario:
You’re in second position
Opponent leads a card
You hold the right bower
You incorrectly trump with it, violating the rule that says don’t use right bower when partner has “any chance” to win
Partner then plays (and plays a loser, showing they couldn’t have won)
This leads to a sequence where you get euchred because you wasted the right bower
The key is that in second position, you don’t know what your partner will play, so you should preserve the right bower in case they can win the trick.
Example 4: You bid hearts holding jack of hearts (right bower), ten of hearts, nine of clubs, king of diamonds, queen of spades. Opponent leads ace of spades. You incorrectly trump with jack of hearts (right bower) in second position, violating the rule since you don’t yet know whether your partner can win this trick. Your partner then plays nine of spades (a loser), revealing they had no chance to take the trick anyway, but the damage is done.
You lead king of diamonds. Your partner takes with ace of diamonds, but opponent trumps with queen of hearts. Your partner then leads nine of clubs. Opponent trumps with jack of clubs (left bower), beating your remaining ten of hearts. With no trump left, opponents take the remaining tricks and euchre your team. Had you preserved the right bower by throwing queen of spades on the opening ace of spades lead, you would have retained trump insurance to handle later opponent leads, preventing the euchre despite the early trick loss.Retry
JM
No. Jesus fucking christ- are you stupid.
You bid hearts holding jack of hearts, and all losers. The opponent plays an ace of spades. You have no spades so you trump the ace with the jack of hearts. Your partner then plays a nine of diamonds. You then play one of your losers (ten of clubs). Your partner has to play his ten of clubs. The opponent in fourth position subsequently trumps your partner’s ace of clubs. Then, that opponent leads the ace of hearts. You have no more trump. Your partner is forced to follow suit and plays queen of clubs. Ultimately, you lose the hand and get euchred. Since the right bower was a guaranteed trick, you should never have played it until you were CERTAIN it was impossible for your partner to win the trick.
Confirm this example works please.Edit
Analyzed euchre rule violation and strategic gameplay consequences.
The user seems frustrated with my inability to understand their euchre example correctly. They’re providing a specific scenario to illustrate why Rule 7 is important. Let me parse their example carefully:
You bid hearts holding jack of hearts (right bower) and all losers
Opponent leads ace of spades
You have no spades, so you trump with jack of hearts (the mistake)
Your partner then plays nine of diamonds
You then lead ten of clubs (one of your losers)
Your partner has to play ace of clubs
Opponent in fourth position trumps your partner’s ace of clubs
That opponent then leads ace of hearts
You have no more trump
Your partner follows suit with queen of clubs
You get euchred
The point is that you wasted your guaranteed trick (right bower) when you didn’t know if your partner could win the trick. This led to a cascade of bad events that resulted in euchre.
This seems like a reasonable example that demonstrates the principle behind Rule 7. The user is asking me to confirm this example works.
This is definitely not something that requires research – this is a continuation of our discussion about euchre rules and examples. I should not use the research tool here, as this is a direct continuation of our conversation about the specific rule we’ve been working on.
Yes, this example works perfectly and clearly demonstrates the rule violation’s consequences:
Example 4: You bid hearts holding jack of hearts (right bower) and all losers. Opponent leads ace of spades. You have no spades, so you incorrectly trump with jack of hearts in second position, violating the rule since your partner might have been able to win the trick. Your partner then plays nine of diamonds. You lead ten of clubs. Your partner takes with ace of clubs, but opponent trumps with queen of hearts. That opponent then leads ace of hearts. You have no trump remaining and your partner follows suit with queen of clubs. You get euchred.
The cascade is clear: wasting the right bower in second position eliminated your guaranteed trick when you didn’t yet know your partner couldn’t compete for the trick. Had you thrown a loser on the ace of spades, you would have preserved the right bower as insurance against exactly this type of opponent trump sequence that led to your euchre.
This example perfectly illustrates why the rule restricts right bower usage when your partner has any chance to win the trick – the guaranteed trick insurance is too valuable to waste on uncertain gains.-I was worried because I took a position as a lawyer that is more transactional and less in front of judges. This experience has lessened that worry considerably- (Also, apologies for the length of the comment).
I am confused as to which is the AI and which is you. It reads as though the AI knows its ‘partner’s’ hand, allowing perfect strategy, but don’t know the rules at all so am not fully following along.
I agree with Rick — it’s hard to follow the conversation and know who is saying what (if I can characterize it as a conversation when one participant is an AI).
But in general, I’d think you would have trouble getting useful content on this sort of subject. The AI’s we refer to are the large language models, so they are input huge quantities of text, books, articles, etc. and work to rearrange those to come up with prose that seems like something a human might write.
That’s a simplistic version of my understanding of what the large language AIs do.
What you really need for this sort of writing project is an AI that can take information about the rules of euchre, combine that with books on and studies of euchre, and synthesize that into advice for a player or approaches for someone to take playing the game.
Comparing that to contract bridge, there are a lot of books offering different systems of bidding, plus many books on card play both as declarer and as a defender. That’s the type of thing it sounds like you’re looking to write, but it is just that sort of thing ChatGPT and the like cannot do.
The American left redefines conduct to justify their hypocrisy on the matter.
When the left is violently protesting, it is simply “Fiery but mostly peaceful.” Trump attempting to crack down on the backers of violent speech is suppression of speech. Federal agents enforcing laws the left doesn’t like is can be interfered with using violence because they’re “fighting Nazis”. Arresting those interfering with federal agents is “suppressing their speech.” Just look at the case in Spokane, WA where a veteran was part of a group that attacked federal agents and was arrested. The veteran wasn’t one who used violence, but he was an organizer and they explicitly discussed violence in a pre-protest chat. The arrest was widely penned as “Trump critic jailed.”
On the other hand, “hate” speech is violence. Arresting someone who says things you don’t like is “fighting violence.” (Perhaps maybe pointing out that certain cultures lack respect for women, especially young women?)
They’ve been doing this in their bubble so long that people like Rep Raskin actually believes the bile he spews.
My first reaction, when I read this, was to think you got caught by satire again. After all, no one with two brain cells to rub together could possibly say such things. After a little extra research, I am forced to conclude that Rep Raskin’s brain cell is lonely.
I am further disgusted by Rep Raskin, who proclaims himself Catholic, for denying that we are given rights by our Creator. If I were his bishop (thank you God for never giving me that power or even the opportunity to seek that power as I would likely not use it wisely), I’d be having a “come to Jesus” chat with him about what he, as a Catholic, is obliged to believe.
Catholics, once a year, declare that they affirm the truths of the Catholic Church, and there are many stances we cannot take, at least publicly, on matters covered by the Church. There are far more stances that allow for debate on how we achieve certain goals (Welfare vs Private Charity to care for the poor, for example), but certain things, like man being made in the image and likeness of God with inherent dignity isn’t really one of those. At this point, (after Pelosi, Biden, Raskin, JFK, and a slew of others), if someone says they are a Catholic politician, it’s nearly a vote killer in my book.
How do we keep getting so many idiots who seek power? (And to ask that question, it seems, is to answer it.)
It was Tim Kaine who stated that our rights come from government. Jamie Raskin is Jewish.
Question: can a Catholic in good conscience vote Democrat?
Perhaps someone needs to start a GoFundMe for Rep. Raskin’s brain cell, and find it some friends.
“I am forced to conclude that Rep Raskin’s brain cell is lonely.”
This made me laugh out loud. Thank you. Luckily I wasn’t at a computer so no new keyboard needed.
PWS