Democrats Call For FBI Probe Of Parler, Censorship Of Conservatives Reaching CRIMINAL Level

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Kal'Stang, Jan 21, 2021.

  1. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your use of FB is strictly voluntary. It is a free service and you have just acknowledged it is a convenience for you. Frankly, you are a hypocrite to continue using the service based on your stated views here. In fact, if you want to effect change, you'll want to divest yourself -- ie stop patronizing -- these entities whose policies to which you claim to object. I just cancelled my Amazon Prime and will no longer shop there -- though it was certainly convenient, especially with all the damn stores closed in my blue state. I've never even been on Twitter. So Twitter has in no way impacted my ability to freely express my views. Vote with your wallet, friend...

    That was a joke, right? I asked you for specific legal actions. This is the problem with your position: If you actually take the time to think about it rather than whining that it's not fair (and it's clearly not fair), you'll realize that there is no legally-actionable solution.

    The solution is -- as it has always been in free societies -- to build a better mousetrap. Innovate.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2021
  2. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is more than a convenience, as I mentioned.
    There is no legal action available. However, the democrats never fail to disappoint me. Every thing is OK as long as it punishes the republicans, but does not affect them.

    Biden says he wants unity. Just empty words with no real meaning. Unity will never happen as long as there is crap like this. The democrats would prefer to punish republicans.
     
  3. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,076
    Likes Received:
    14,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Stop the steal" for two months is the equivalent of "storm the Capitol." Surely you can understand this.
     
  4. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it just depends if you consult reality or not. You refuse to do so.

    Back here in the real world, Trump walked back every single action Obama took against Russia. He even, on the campaign trail, MADE EXCUSES FOR RUSSIA'S INVASION OF CRIMEA. He called for them to rejoin the G7 Summit. He contradicted every statement his intelligence departments made that was critical of Russia, including doing so ON STAGE WITH PUTIN. When he found out that his son and other campaign members had been told about the Russian government's attempts to help his campaign, and then had met with Russian contacts to discuss the dirt they had on Clinton to do so, and then covered up the meeting . . . his response was to dictate a memo FURTHER COVERING UP THE MEETING by falsely claiming it was about adoptions . . . oh, but of course he had to put a cherry on top by lying about doing that, too.

    When he found out Flynn had called Russians to tell them not to worry about the sanctions, that Trump would undo them, he defended Flynn's action and said he supported them.

    The campaign that wins their party's primary typically plays a big role and helping shape the new party platform. Trump's campaign, on the other hand REQUESTED ONLY ONE CHANGE: to go easily on Russia over Crimea.

    Trump outright refuses to criticize Putin, he's been caught on camera humiliatingly try to get his attention, and he's shared intelligence with his government.

    Has he occasionally signed off on sanctions? Yes, yes he has . . . most often after publicly speaking out against those same sanctions, playing no role (of course) in writing or supporting them, and most often only after he was aware that the sanction had a veto-proof majority.

    No president has taken further lengths to bend over and grab their ankles for the post-USSR Russian government. Not even close.
     
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  5. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You stated it "worked wonderfully for me as a means to keep in contact with relatives and friends" IE, a convenience. You will not die if you don't use FB. Meaning it is a luxury. There are seven billion people in the world -- only two billion of them use FB. The other five billion get along just fine without it.

    Good, now we're getting somewhere. So absent legal action, what are the next steps?

    NB: FB, Twitter, Google, Apple, et al, are private enterprises, ie not "The Democrats."

    Biden has nothing to do with FB.
     
  6. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama said that African Americans were treated unfairly by law enforcement. He never said the country would end if this was allowed to continue and he never blamed all law enforcement for this.

    Trump, on the other hand, told his supporters, whom he knew were threatening violence, that the country would end if Pence and Congress obeyed the Constitution that day. The mob acted accordingly. No rational being can call them comparable.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2021
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  7. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your argument requires that Trump intended to cause the hillbillies to storm the Capitol. You actually have no evidence to support such a claim. Likewise, we'd have to prove that Obama intended for cops to be assassinated by his words inspiring those acts. Both claims would be wrong -- without direct evidence. And no rational being can deny that.
     
  8. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not really. It only requires the he could have anticipated the actions as a direct consequence of his own actions and claims. Which, unless you are going for the insanity defense, is kind of a slam dunk.

    Obama never named these specific cops. He never said that the fate of the country depended on stopping them. Trump named names. His mob came looking for those names . . . while waving his flag (something you won't see among the shooters you mentioned). He said that the fate of the country depended on stopping them from performing a specific (legally/Constitutionally required) action mere minutes away, a little over a mile away, based on lunatic conspiracy theories that he had helped spread for months and after he had repeatedly pressured state officials and his own VP to violate the Constitution, after failing multiple times in court to get millions of legal votes overturned.

    I supported impeachment trials for Obama. This is immeasurably worse than anything Obama ever did.

    Please try to address the facts. We know why you can't, but at least pretend to be interested in them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2021
  9. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Senate is not a court of law, however. Basically they are sticking their finger in their mouths to see which way the wind is blowing. Rationally, nothing Trump said could be construed as incitement. But if they jointly decide -- because they want to keep their jobs and their polling tells them the public want Trump's head on a pike

    He didn't have to name names to incite anger and violence, and to fan the flames of racial divide, culminating in the assassination of police officers because "Black Lives Matter" (whose Twitter account is still active consequently).

    Tilting at windmills. Your argument needs it to be "immeasurably worse." But it is in fact measurable: Body count, property damage, insurrection... massively higher due to Obama's inflammatory rhetoric.

    The facts are that both men made statements that some people believe led to violence. But only one of them gets a pass.

    Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread. It is a shame that your facile "argument" is so weak that you have to sink to base fallacies as a diversion from the pallor of your false claims.
     
  10. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To shop wasting time talking to you.
     
  11. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread. Where have I heard that before?

    Statistically a fallacy. Amplified by the leader of the free world, resulting in violence and the assassination of public servants.

    Fallacy. That is not what Trump said.

    Strawman, argumentum ad hominem. Two fallacies in one sentence! Damn dude! Going for a record?

    Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread. Is this thing even on??? Testing! Testing! 1, 2, 3!
     
  12. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean stop? LOL.

    OK, I know the truth is hard to take some times. Have a good day.
     
  13. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not righties ideology. It was because of probable criminal planning going on. Unless your claim that is righties ideology
     
  14. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, you don't shut down a community of millions over a few posts.
     
  15. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So security over freedom? There's a saying about that you know.....
     
  16. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not in normal times.
    What transpired over the last 3 months was abnormal. And dangerous.

    See the events of Jan 6 ,2021
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  17. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not remotely what I argued.
     
  18. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said I was censored from the internet. But I am censored from Parler aren't I?

    And the rest of your line of reasoning is based on a fallacy. If the government shut down Fox News does that mean that they are not being censored? The people that work there could just go work at the many other news outlets out there after all. If the government said that you can't sit an speak out in X spot for no good reason other than they felt like telling you "no" would your free speech not be infringed? After all, you can just post on the internet, right? The point being that just because there are other avenues does not negate whether or not you're being censored or that your free speech isn't being infringed upon.

    Do bakers have to bake gay wedding cakes? Do restaurants have to sell to black people? Do businesses have to hire a religious person?

    And no one is asking that every hosting site host every business. What's being asked is that businesses don't get forcefully shut down just because of political ideology. That people don't get banned just because of a difference in political ideology.

    Do you not see the difference between a forced shut down by people that hold different political ideologies than you and a shut down caused by a lack of clientele or lack of business sense?
     
  19. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think you know what is required to be considered a private club. There are several factors to consider whether a place is considered a private club or an open accommodations business. The main one relating to advertisement. Twitter advertises to the public at large and accepts every person that signs up. As a result of that they are considered as an open accommodations business. Not a private club.
     
  20. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure sounded like it.
     
  21. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, I'm sorry to inform you you're wrong. Maybe read the whole thread? If anything you should conclude I am arguing on the side of liberty.
     
  22. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not at ANY time.
     

Share This Page