TX GOP Congressman Nixed As Keynote Speaker For Cybersecurity Conf.

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
"The effort by the left to de-platform conservative speakers continues. This time it is Rep. Will Hurd, former CIA officer, and cybersecurity expert, who has been disinvited to be a keynote speaker at a cybersecurity conference. The reason? He’s a pro-life Republican politician. No, really.
This slight doesn’t make any sense at all except to highlight the fact that there is no tolerance from the pro-abortion left for pro-life politicians. What does a pro-life position have to do with cybersecurity? The answer is absolutely nothing
.Zack Whittaker, a security editor for Tech Crunch (and CBS alum, according to his Twitter profile) posted a tweet showing Hurd’s voting record calling it “a terrible voting record on women’s rights.” Whittaker did, however, acknowledge that Will Hurd is one of the few lawmakers who “get” cybersecurity."
GOP congressman nixed as keynote speaker for cybersecurity conference

I am not sure what to say or which emoji to use. maybe:confused2: or:brickwall: or:idk:
 
This is idiocy. And what's laughable is that Hurd isn't some fire-beathing conservative. He's fairly moderate and isn't particularly confrontational. He's pretty low-key and one of the sharpest security minds on Capitol Hill.
 
There is obviously a continued culture war. The Progressives didn't stop with gay marriage and trans bathrooms. Surprise, surprise.

The surprising thing is how Progressives have some how influenced corporate executives. My thought is that there are some social justice groups who are putting pressure on CEOs and BoDs.
 
Monahorns said:
There is obviously a continued culture war. The Progressives didn't stop with gay marriage and trans bathrooms. Surprise, surprise.
Click to expand...

Nope. The goal is to do more than win on policy. The goal is to reframe the debate on issues like gay marriage or abortion to make the conservative position politically toxic. They want someone who opposes gay marriage or opposes abortion to be viewed like someone who supports segregation. That solidifies their side, makes undecided/indifferent people break their way, and takes issues off the table for debate without discrediting them.

They are doing this by couching the conservative position in their political narrative on the issue. That makes it look terrible and makes their position look righteous.

Consider how this douchey busybody Zack Whittaker (who's obviously a self-righteous millennial just judging by his appearance and that "urban"/hipster beard) frames Hurd's position. He's not against abortion (which most view as defensible even if they disagree). He is against "women's rights" (which is indefensible and toxic). The Left does this because it works. The public of today actually is shallow and stupid enough to judge issues based on superficial framing rather than substance.

The Right is terrible at combating this, and most of the time, they don't even know it's occurring. For example, we think we lost gay marriage when the Supreme Court ruled against us. We didn't. We lost gay marriage when the issue was reframed from being for or against "gay marriage" to being for or against "marriage equality." That was a phony caricature of the issue, but we largely accepted it as reality when it wasn't. And after that ********* framing was repeated and tolerated several million times, it gained momentum and became dominant. Hell, the Supreme Court basically accepted it as serious analysis.

And now, someone who holds the position on marriage that was virtually universal in the civilized world for 5,000 years and until about 20 minutes ago is viewed as toxic and crazy.

Monahorns said:
The surprising thing is how Progressives have some how influenced corporate executives. My thought is that there are some social justice groups who are putting pressure on CEOs and BoDs.
Click to expand...

No question about it, and the social justice groups are organized. If CEOs blow them off, they will boycott. They will go on Twitter (where there SJWs have outsized influence), and their cause will go viral. However, if CEOs capitulate, most conservatives won't care. They may pout a little, but there won't be an organized boycott. Tons of companies have virtue signaled about abortion rights recently (including Twitter, Disney, and Netflix). How many pro-lifers have walked away from Twitter or Netflix or cancelled their vacations to Disney World because of it? Not many.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The goal is to reframe the debate on issues like gay marriage or abortion to make the conservative position politically toxic.
Click to expand...

Yep, in the same vein as conservatives casting progressive positions with terms like "open borders". The extreme rhetoric used by both sides to win political arguments is indended to suck the air out of the debate.

Extremism sucks.
 
Monahorns said:
There is obviously a continued culture war. The Progressives didn't stop with gay marriage and trans bathrooms. Surprise, surprise.

The surprising thing is how Progressives have some how influenced corporate executives. My thought is that there are some social justice groups who are putting pressure on CEOs and BoDs.
Click to expand...
You don't the half of it. I work for one of the biggest banks in the world. We haven't done so great as of late against our competition but our CEO and other execs still spend half their time and half our company's internal discussion board talking about cultural goals.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Yep, in the same vein as conservatives casting progressive positions with terms like "open borders". The extreme rhetoric used by both sides to win political arguments is indended to suck the air out of the debate.

Extremism sucks.
Click to expand...
I agree about the hyper-partisanship and intentionally using phrasing out of context, and right up until they all raised their hands to follow Castro's plan on decriminalizing illegal immigration, I would have said you were correct. But how does taking a system that is already a sieve and making it softer on punishment, softer on enforcement, less active in protection and almost "inviting" immigration not constitute "open borders". If people aren't stopped by the prospect of jail time, criminal record, drowning, separation from their kids, etc... Why on earth would they be swayed by a $500 fine? Of course the answer is....they won't. If you really believe this will lead to reduced offenses then I would suggest you try and roll this out for drunk driving. I'm sure all those folks would be more than happy to learn a fine is just as effective as jail time. If fines are just as good, why does the left always push for jail time for executives that violate the law. Civil fines are not just as good.
 
BOSd
I don't get it. Do these CEOs and BoDs think that way ir do they think all their customers think that way?
 
They have been deceived to think that if they would just make the culture of their corporation more socially just, then the world would respond by buying their products. They think one comes from the other. Profits only come if you appease the gods.
 
Monahorns said:
They have been deceived to think that if they would just make the culture of their corporation more socially just, then the world would respond by buying their products. They think one comes from the other. Profits only come if you appease the gods.
Click to expand...
These morons don’t realize that making money is the best insurance of all.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I agree about the hyper-partisanship and intentionally using phrasing out of context, and right up until they all raised their hands to follow Castro's plan on decriminalizing illegal immigration, I would have said you were correct. But how does taking a system that is already a sieve and making it softer on punishment, softer on enforcement, less active in protection and almost "inviting" immigration not constitute "open borders". If people aren't stopped by the prospect of jail time, criminal record, drowning, separation from their kids, etc... Why on earth would they be swayed by a $500 fine? Of course the answer is....they won't. If you really believe this will lead to reduced offenses then I would suggest you try and roll this out for drunk driving. I'm sure all those folks would be more than happy to learn a fine is just as effective as jail time. If fines are just as good, why does the left always push for jail time for executives that violate the law. Civil fines are not just as good.
Click to expand...

Neither a civil fine nor threat of imprisonment in an overcrowded penal system have proven effective at stemming illegal immigration. The cost of imprisonment is enormous. The only truly effective tactic would be to eliminate any forms of employment. The business communities would push any politician out of office who implemented an effective crackdown on employers. That won't happen because both parties and their partisans enjoy the politics of the issue as a way to energize their base.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Neither a civil fine nor threat of imprisonment in an overcrowded penal system have proven effective at stemming illegal immigration. The cost of imprisonment is enormous. The only truly effective tactic would be to eliminate any forms of employment. The business communities would push any politician out of office who implemented an effective crackdown on employers. That won't happen because both parties and their partisans enjoy the politics of the issue as a way to energize their base.
Click to expand...
Ultimately E-Verify coupled with hefty fines is the only measure that will stop it. As long as the incentive is there, some will always try their luck. But I would also say that the Open Borders mentality of the current crop of dem candidates will make it worse....just as DACA made it worse.
 
mchammer said:
These morons don’t realize that making money is the best insurance of all.
Click to expand...
At this point there are true evangelist making these moves. The people heading these initiatives at our firm are themselves LGBT, etc. They truly see it as their mission to pursue "inclusivity". What I find crazy is that it is relatively easy to get money for these efforts and comparatively challenging to get money to get actual IT training for my guys. Priorities are really out of whack.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
At this point there are true evangelist making these moves. The people heading these initiatives at our firm are themselves LGBT, etc. They truly see it as their mission to pursue "inclusivity". What I find crazy is that it is relatively easy to get money for these efforts and comparatively challenging to get money to get actual IT training for my guys. Priorities are really out of whack.
Click to expand...
Alternatively prepare a proposal that requires you visit at least 2 European capitals to further the company’s inclusivity.
 
At this point there are true evangelist making these moves. The people heading these initiatives at our firm are themselves LGBT, etc. They truly see it as their mission to pursue "inclusivity". What I find crazy is that it is relatively easy to get money for these efforts and comparatively challenging to get money to get actual IT training for my guys. Priorities are really out of whack.
Click to expand...

I would say this is proof of just how rich and successful we have become as a society. Corporations can divide their focus. You can't do that and be profitable when you are building capital and wealth. You can only do that with once you have accumulated a great market position.

These kinds of actions though can reduce profitability and soon their focus will have to be unified or the company will go away.
 
Monahorns said:
I would say this is proof of just how rich and successful we have become as a society. Corporations can divide their focus. You can't do that and be profitable when you are building capital and wealth. You can only do that with once you have accumulated a great market position.

These kinds of actions though can reduce profitability and soon their focus will have to be unified or the company will go away.
Click to expand...
Why Things Break: Easy Causes of Business and Investing Failure
 
Seattle Husker said:
The only truly effective tactic would be to eliminate any forms of employment
Click to expand...

Horn6721 said:
SH
You make an excellent and frustrating point.
Click to expand...

BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
Ultimately E-Verify coupled with hefty fines is the only measure that will stop it.
Click to expand...

This is why my private civil action is the best idea. It penalizes crooked employers with major financial ramifications while easily protecting innocent ones. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the feds don't want to enforce the laws, because private citizens and whistleblowers can do it. If it got passed, the problem would go away inside a week.
 
It doesn't work now, and it would simply be easier, and probably less costly, for the government to do their job and stop illegal immigration at the border. They could also stop giving illegals incentives to come here, but I know that makes too much sense .Businesses should not be required to do the government's job.....again.
 
Horn6721 said:
So Mr D
How would that work?
Click to expand...

I've talked about it before, but this is from my previous post on it.

Mr. Deez said:
I've explained it here before but not in a long time. The private civil action would be based on the False Claims Act or what is often called "qui tam" litigation. It would allow whistleblowers to sue, on behalf of and in the name of the government, employers and contractors who hire illegal immigrants and hold them liable for unpaid taxes, government costs associated with the illegal immigrant and his family, and other statutory penalties (for example, $500 per illegal immigrant per day of employment). The government keeps the bulk of the recovery, but you let the whistleblower keep a 10 or 15 percent piece of the action. I'd couple the action with a safe harbor for businesses that use e-verify. If you use e-verify, you owe nothing even if the worker ends up illegal. I'd also eliminate all discrimination lawsuits that pertain to immigration status.

So what are the upsides? First, you impose a major financial risk to hiring illegal aliens that would almost surely tip the scales against doing so. Illegal immigrant enjoyment opportunities would literally dry up overnight. Second, you force the crooks who are making money off of a criminal enterprise to bear its costs rather than the taxpayer. Third, and most important, because it's a private action rather than a government-driven action, the law gets enforced even if we have an administration in office that is pro-illegal immigration.
Click to expand...
 
Mr D
Thanks
I missed it the first time.
A very simple effective idea/ tool. Too bad it has no chance of passing the House.
I know several construction people who would be happy to see that.
I am sure there are some landscapers too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top