Liberal Protests

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

People are allowed to be wrong, Joe.

 

People are allowed to do and say things you don't like.  People are allowed to believe differently than you.  They are allowed to purchase mediums which allow them to lend power to their various ideologies.

 

People are also allowed to lie.  Even if you think lying is wrong (and I would agree), people are allowed to not tell the truth.  Even about important things.  Unless they are under oath, or are committing the legal definition of fraud (no, Joe, they aren't committing fraud), people can lie.

 

We don't put people in jail for being wrong, or lying.  Legitimate governments don't take political prisoners.

 

And, as we've covered before, the Constitution expressly forbids what you're suggesting. 

 

Then if the authorities are neutered, it falls on the people to take action.

[/dev/null]

6 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I initially thought perhaps he was not born a US citizen.    But he was born 8/4/1961 and Hawaii became a state on 8/21/59.  Should have been the end of it there IMHO.

Even if Obama had been born prior to Hawaii statehood he would still have been a natural citizen as Hawaii was a US territory prior to statehood.  Just like McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone but was just as eligible to serve as President

[Doc Brown]

On 8/2/2018 at 1:50 PM, njbuff said:

The left can do whatever they damn well please, but the world is going to end if Trump supporters heckle that weasel Acosta at a Trump rally.

 

Ok, got it.

 

What Acosta went thru is the equivalent of what Tom Brady faces when he is on the road. Nothing violent, just verbal abuse....... which Acosta brought upon himself and he is too stupid to realize it.

So, your analogy implies that Jim Acosta is the greatest reporter of all time.  By the way, don't think for a second Acosta isn't enjoying every second of this.  It's all theater at these Trump rallies.

 

 

 

[GG]

Let me get this straight. 

 

People bearing hammer & sickle facemasks and waving red flags are at the speartip of Democrat criticism of Trump's connections to Russia?

[outsidethebox]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

Let me get this straight. 

 

People bearing hammer & sickle facemasks and waving red flags are at the speartip of Democrat criticism of Trump's connections to Russia?

Yep

4 minutes ago, GG said:

Let me get this straight. 

 

People bearing hammer & sickle facemasks and waving red flags are at the speartip of Democrat criticism of Trump's connections to Russia?

 

Just now, westside said:

Yep

They're the good guys 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Let's keep pretending social media isn't a problem:

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Then if the authorities are neutered, it falls on the people to take action.

 

Actually, Joe, it doesn't.

 

It's not that the authorities are neutered:  it's that they are expressly forbidden from taking actions which infringe of the protected freedoms of the citizens they serve.  By design.

 

And that design does not include backdoor vigilantism when the government actually performs their just duties and protects/doesn't infringe those rights. 

 

[njbuff]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

So, your analogy implies that Jim Acosta is the greatest reporter of all time.  By the way, don't think for a second Acosta isn't enjoying every second of this.  It's all theater at these Trump rallies.

 

 

 

 

Ok. let me rephrase.

 

It doesn't have to be Tom Brady. Insert any QB's name in there and that is the equivalent of what Acosta went thru.

 

And, of course he is loving it. It gives him a chance to go on one of CNN's terribly rated shows so he can spew his victimhood BS.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Actually, Joe, it doesn't.

 

It's not that the authorities are neutered:  it's that they are expressly forbidden from taking actions which infringe of the protected freedoms of the citizens they serve.  By design.

 

And that design does not include backdoor vigilantism when the government actually performs their just duties and protects/doesn't infringe those rights. 

 

 

Yeah. So those who would infringe upon the rights of others use those rights to protect their right to do so? I'll take my chances with "backdoor vigilantism."

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2018 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Yeah. So those who would infringe upon the rights of others use those rights to protect their right to do so? I'll take my chances with "backdoor vigilantism."

 

Which of your rights have the major media infringed upon, Joe?

 

Your right to hear exactly what you want, and not to have to hear opinions which differ from yours?

 

Your right not to have your feelings hurt by being lied to?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Which of your rights have the major media infringed upon, Joe?

 

Your right to hear exactly what you want, and not to have to hear opinions which differ from yours?

 

Your right not to have your feelings hurt by being lied to?

 

How about the rights of someone like Alex Jones to express his views on a platform of his choosing?

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Common sense told me the '08 Clinton primary campaign was all over Obama's place of birth and they would've challenged him if there was evidence he wasn't born in Hawaii.  Plus, I'm sure the Republicans did their due diligence before the election.

 

Trump saw the polls with a majority of Republicans thinking he wasn't born in the US and jumped on it.  He's smart enough to know it was BS, but that's how he got his political hat in the ring.

 

Of course they didn't treat Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter any better.  They impeached Clinton for crying out loud.  I consider Carter to be the most decent human being in my lifetime to be president, but he deserved all the criticism he got.

Here's the sad fact.  No one is treated any better than anyone else.  There is no middle of the road approach to civility, no label too hot to drop on a political candidate, nothing really off limits.  

 

Trump is absolutely as guilty as the rest, but the narrative seems to be he invented the genre.  I've never understood the concept that political oneupmanship is akin to racism, and think it's a weak argument.  We sat and watched the Clinton-Trump race/debates where Trump is vilified as a mysoginist, fascist and 'phobe' of virtually any stripe that can be tagged onto the word.  You had a candidate for president calling another candidate and his millions of supporters "deplorable" and, my favorite....irredeemable.  Let's think about that for a second...millions upon millions upon millions of Americans, and the candidate of their choice described by the opposition candidate as beyond hope for salvation, said salvation being to align with her politically.  

 

The interesting part about all that is the 65+ million who voted for that candidate (she won the popular vote I'm told) were perfectly fine with that narrative, feeling apparently that the moral high ground was theirs. Or, held their nose figuring their candidate was better than the other guy...as is the nature of politics.

 

It is what it is, but racism it is not.  or more broadly....some people might be racists, some may hate NYers, some may hate women, some may have religious bias, but it's virtually impossible to figure out who is who in a landscape where just about anything goes. 

Edited August 7, 2018 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

How about the rights of someone like Alex Jones to express his views on a platform of his choosing?

 

Alex Jones doesn't have that right.  Neither do you, I, or anyone else.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Alex Jones doesn't have that right.  Neither do you, I, or anyone else.

 

 

 

So then, conformity of thought is ok so long as it's enforced by private entities rather than government?

 

 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

So then, conformity of thought is ok so long as it's enforced by private entities rather than government?

 

 

 

Anybody being "denied a platform" can either switch to another or create their own.

 

Hopefully the next platform that fills the void of one w/out a thumb on the scale actually doesn't have a thumb on the scale for the other guys & plays it clean.  If they do, w/in 10 years they'll replace Facebook & Facebook will have replaced Myspace.

 

As long as the government doesn't get to pick the winners & losers via net neutrality or worse, someone will come along w/ a better service.  Even if the government tries to step in, somebody will do it better than what's out there now.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

10 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Anybody being "denied a platform" can either switch to another or create their own.

 

 

Sure, but at the expense of audience accessibility.

 

Quote

Hopefully the next platform that fills the void of one w/out a thumb on the scale actually doesn't have a thumb on the scale for the other guys & plays it clean.  If they do, w/in 10 years they'll replace Facebook & Facebook will have replaced Myspace.

 

By which time, voices on the right may have been permanently snuffed out. 10 years is nigh on an eternity in modern politics, and if we allow the left to dominate in social media in the name of "preserving rights" there won't be any rights left to preserve for those not in agreement with their agenda.

 

 

[Taro T]

17 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Sure, but at the expense of audience accessibility.

 

 

By which time, voices on the right may have been permanently snuffed out. 10 years is nigh on an eternity in modern politics, and if we allow the left to dominate in social media in the name of "preserving rights" there won't be any rights left to preserve for those not in agreement with their agenda.

 

 

 

10 years is a long time, the "next big thing" will likely show up significantly faster.  10 years was chosen because it is IMHO extremely likely that something will have supplanted at least 1 or both of Facebook & Twitter by then.

 

Remember, the Democrats have likely taken a huge funding hit in the Janus decision.  All this stuff is fluid & I, for 1, would prefer we not create criminality where none has existed.  Because, once that precedent has been set; there is no turning back IMHO & we will all have lost.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

10 years is a long time, the "next big thing" will likely show up significantly faster.  10 years was chosen because it is IMHO extremely likely that something will have supplanted at least 1 or both of Facebook & Twitter by then.

 

Remember, the Democrats have likely taken a huge funding hit in the Janus decision.  All this stuff is fluid & I, for 1, would prefer we not create criminality where none has existed.  Because, once that precedent has been set; there is no turning back IMHO & we will all have lost.

 

https://www.infowars.com/dem-senator-demands-more-censorship-of-conservative-media/

 

The other side is preparing to do it.

 

Note that this isn't a private citizen speaking, this is a Senator. At what point does the right simply decide that we cannot allow this...by any means necessary?

 

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, /dev/null said:

Even if Obama had been born prior to Hawaii statehood he would still have been a natural citizen as Hawaii was a US territory prior to statehood.  Just like McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone but was just as eligible to serve as President

 

The one thing everyone seems to forget about the Obama birther thing and the non-release of his college transcripts is not that he was born in Kenya, but that purportedly put down Kenya as his home to get him admitted to an Ivy league school because his grades didn't warrant it.

Much like Warren insists she has some Cherokee in her. The universities are quick to use that data to show diversity in the ranks.

 

 

[njbuff]

22 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

https://www.infowars.com/dem-senator-demands-more-censorship-of-conservative-media/

 

The other side is preparing to do it.

 

Note that this isn't a private citizen speaking, this is a Senator. At what point does the right simply decide that we cannot allow this...by any means necessary?

 

 

Free speech isn't free speech if you don't spew the usual leftist drivel.

 

I can't stand Alex Jones, but that doesn't mean he should be shut down. CNN is the worst, but that doesn't mean that their voices can't be heard. Get my drift?

 

I don't know much about the mid terms because I ain't political, but even with the lefts ridiculous rhetoric and violence.................. they have a good shot at taking over the house and the senate. And if that happens, WATCH OUT.