Pretty significant person saying it.
Maybe we developed counter measures and are making them available?
Banned from twitter
Joe rogan interview removed from YouTube
Fox News and âfree thinkerâ websites continuousky promoting the grifter, CHECK
All these things give him MORE credibility lol.
LolâŚBecause twitter is a really really good doctor huh?
Little commie cunt sheep and his continued push to ban everyone who dares question wearing a mask for the rest of your lifeâŚ
Imagine banning someone who goes in depth and gives reasons that we may have some good news? All because he is not Fauci and the mask/vax mob?
Youâre a fucking cunt.
On a publicity tour saying what everyone else has been saying for weeks. His Joe Rogan stuff was more interesting because it was more original.
What weâre your thoughts on his Joe Rogan interview. I havenât watched it yet.
Interesting for 15m or so. Then you can see the grift oozing out of him for the remaining hour and 15m
I donât watch Rogan. Itâs just that everyoneâs been talking about that interview.
Me either. Just had a friend start asking me why people are getting silenced. I laughed and said who? He said this guy. Normally I would not oblige, but this is a good friend that I graduated HS with. Heâs lost and so I try to help him when I can. Well the next day I messaged him and told him immediately I understood why this guy is banned from Twitter etc. He said but first amendment and my reply?
Doesnât apply to private entities, generally. There are instances where a private entity works for a public agency and they do have to follow the same rules. Iâm fairly certain he didnât understand. I took one for the team and try to help where I can to prevent this civil war. I donât have any faith anymore.
Whatâs amusing is watching the Republicans reveal who they are and the hypocrisy their entire political ideology has been for more than 60 years. For 50 years it was free trade, then Trump said globalization is killing us and we should have tariffs, despite the very people who were campaigning for Trump like Gingrich, being the actual writers of the laws that pushed and allowed for globalization. I remember NAAFTA, written by Gingrich and GHW Bush (ratified after and signed into law by Clinton) being the GOP prized legislation for years!
For EVER the GOP has held up private business and talked about how government should be limited, small, etc. Then, you have Marjorie Taylor Green upset Twitter kicked her off and bitching about the audacity of private companies standing up to the governmentâŚas if sheâs the government and they didnât push that very point as a core belief.
They attack the âwoke mobâ on facebook and twitter, despite being the original Woke Mob and even today, being the most pervasive of it. It was the GOPers who for decades wanted to decide your books, what you could say, what music you could listen to, what things could be said on broadcast tv, etc. Now today, while bitching about cancel culture and the woke mob in the morning, are at book burning that night, commending the cancelling of literal words in schools throughout the day, and signing up for the latest GOP boycott of MLB or Pepsi because they didnât fall in line 100% with the Gestapo GOP. After the book burning, theyâll cheer Tucker Carlson commenting on trying to oust GOPers who again, donât fall in line 100% with the party. This relates to their call for âindividualismâ against the leftâs âcollectivismâ, in that they believe they are all about the individual while also demanding 100% fealty and uniformity. When they canât get 100% of the people to believe EXACTLY as they do, they want to disband the country entirely and separateâŚtake my ball and go home because everyone wonât agree with me.
It goes down daily, on literally every issue. They want to control womenâs reproductive rights, then in the same breath talk about how they should get to make medical choices based on your own personal beliefs, you own personal choice and the government shouldnât dictate what happens to a personâs body and health. They oppose vaccine passports, decry fascism, though their resistance to government issued IDs dissolves away when it comes to voting. Yet, they are mum on the extensive vaccine requirements for anyone seeking an immigration visa who have to show proof of âjabsâ against a range of diseases, from polio to measles to hepatitis. Trump Jr talked about how âthis is what fascism looks likeâ on vaccine passports despite Biden stating heâd leave it up to the private sector.
We have a myriad of âsmall government Republicansâ wrestling control from local officials when it comes to both voting and the pandemic. From Arizona to Wisconsin to Oklahoma, at least 19 states in all, passed a range of new laws barring local communities, school districts and some private businesses from requiring masks or vaccines.
Everyone has hypocrites and weâre all hypocrites from time to time, but this entire party is defined by it at this point. Failed policies dating back decades required them to create their own media ecosystem to keep up the lies. In order to justify their policies, theyâve had to create an alternate reality for their minions, and then drive them with culture wars.
Yea well- free trade is an amazing idea if you have complete central control. The problem arises when other sovereigns donât believe in free trade, crank up tariffs on their side, and create all sorts of trade and labor imbalances.
TL;DR you canât have true free trade when USA is the only one who believes and has 0.0% tariffs but Canada and Mexico have tariffs over 200% for certain items. Itâs just stupid!
See above. NAFTA was a poorly drafted trade agreement. Itâs main effect was to export labor to our neighbors.
It created surpluses for Mexico and Canada because it didnât expressly enforce free or fair trade principles.
This is a bad example. Twitter, and for that matter, all the social media platforms enjoy a particular protection from the Federal Government called Section 230.
This exception entitles them broad leeway to operate, without risk of litigation, IF AND ONLY IF, they not effectively act as publishers, but as unbiased platforms.
In this case, and in many others, theyâve censored content, pushed narratives, and have effectively been editors of their user base. They are not allowed to do this under 230 and should be subject to penalties and potentially losing this status.
Another bad comparison. Conservatives and MAGA want women to control ALL of their rights. We also believe the other living creature inside of them has EQUAL rights to their female host.
You all believe that rights begin when the childâs head crowns. We believe it begins when the sperm penetrates the ovum.
So knock it off with the misrepresentation of our views.
This is amazingly simple to understand.
Vaccines are a heath issue. They fall under the category of âpublic safetyâ which YOU YOURSELF have repeatedly argued that COVID isnât a crisis like Ebola and we should all move on with our lives.
Voting is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT.
The government has a duty to ensure that every single citizenâs vote is counted. The biggest way to disenfranchise a citizenâs vote is to negate it with an invalid vote. And the only way to stop invalid votes is to put safeguards in place to prevent them from being cast. And one of those safeguards is voter ID.
But youâŚ. You are Hypocrite in Chief. The premise of all of your arguments and thoughts are base exclusively off âTrump vs no Trump.â
If no Trump, you agree, you enjoy, you like. If Trump, you despise, you disagree, you attack. Youâre a joke.
This is a great first paragraph, and I 100% agree.
Thing is, lots of ânewâ Republicans bash the old guard. So while they personally agreed with the policies at the time, they get to now say âBut I hate Bush too!â and that wipes their slate clean.
While this is true, censorship is definitely a âboth sidesâ thing. (Watch out people who say I never push back against liberal propaganda.)
Tipper Gore was famous for her involvement in the music warning label. Senator Lieberman was big on banning violent video games. In fact, the Gore/Lieberman ticket lost my vote for those precise reasons (me entering the video game industry, I took it personally).
The problem with a lot of party hypocrisy in politics is that it ALSO goes both ways. So yes, the right shows hypocrisy for opposing beliefs, but the left shows the same hypocrisy for the OPPOSITE opposing beliefs.
For example, you could say:
Republicans - Support death penalty but against abortion = Hypocrites!
Democrats - Support abortion but against death penalty - Hypocrites!
(And letâs ignore whether this is a good example or not. Just focus on the point of opposing views and you will find that both sides often fall for this.)
Excellent point.
Except you totally pulled the part in bold out of your ass.
Seriously, that condition is not written into the law. Think it is? show me:
In fact, Section 230 explicitly ALLOWS computer services to editorialize, and it explicitly PROTECTS them from doing so.
No provider or user of an [interactive computer service] shall be held liable on account ofâ
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
So the very section youâre citing does the OPPOSITE of what youâre claiming it does.
Lol! Thatâs the entire point of the clause. To grant them an exception to the rule. Youâre making my point for me.
Now thereâs a debate if congress should pull it back or amend it because they are acting as publishers, effectively censoring and editorializing narratives.
Youâre falling for the Trump reasoning, which is false. Trump consistently claimed the tariffs he enacted were paid by the countries exporting the goods. Thatâs not how tariffs work. Tariffs are paid by the importers of record. 100% of the tariffs enacted by Trump were paid by US citizens, US companies, and US consumers. Tariffs are designed to discourage imports, not to punish the exporter. Trump lied about this easily verifiable fact throughout his Presidency. You can mess with duties and taxes, but all they have to do is change the Incoterms.
Now, as for the labor issue - youâre correct. That was the point. They, meaning the GOP predominantly, wanted cheap labor. Consistently, since the 90s, the GOP has allowed tax breaks for offshoring jobs and even fought the Dems when they tried to stop it. Hell, your own candidates proudly talk about how they spent their entire lives offshoring jobs, like David Perdue. In the 90s when NAAFTA was being debated, it wasnât Republicans talking about it being bad. It was Bernie Sanders
How so?
This is false. See 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute for the actual wording of Section 230. Nowhere in the wording, under any circumstances, does it cite a provider has to be unbiased. That was postulated (or lied about) by Ted Cruz in a 2018 op ed where he stated they had to be a neutral forum. Thatâs clearly not the case in reading the law, nor by the interpretation of the author Wyden.
Secondly, the law makes no legal distinction between platforms and publishers in section 230. The Wall Street Journal and NY Times are both publishers, yet enjoy Section 230 protections for third-party content. The law encourages moderation of third-party users
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
Nowhere in Section 230 does it stipulate that this moderation needs to adhere to any ideological neutrality.
Now, the curious thing is motivations. Both parties want Section 230 amended or changed. It was something Biden even talked about during the campaign, but for vastly different reasons and therein lies the key, I believe. Democrats attack it because it allows for the spread of disinformation, allows for easier drug sales, trafficking, the spread of online hate groups.
Republicans go after section 230 because some platforms perform Fact Checks on conservative users.
Thatâs it, literally. Republicans are bitching about publishing, theyâre bitching that Facebook or Twitter cancels conservatives and act as the arbiters of truth by applying fact checks or tags of misinformation.
The notion you have of what section 230 allows and doesnât isnât back up by the law and legal interpretations of the law. Itâs just the talking points you got from Ted Cruz or Newsmax. All the while the only REAL issue conservatives have with it is when they get caught lying on it and get fact checked or when theyâre violating the terms of service and get kicked off, ignoring the irony of how they push for the rights of the business. I.e. Marjorie Taylor Green saying YESTERDAY that private businesses like Twitter shouldnât have the right to stand up to the government, who, in this case, she thinks is HER. Oh the irony.
Rhetoric.
AAAAND there it isâŚâthe hostâ
This negates your pointâŚif it cannot live without âa hostâ, itâs, by definition, a parasite. That sounds harsh, but until its born, it definitely is.
The debate between when life begins is your paradigm for the argument. In reality, itâs not where my argument comes from.
Your Bible states life begins at breath even as far back as Genesis, Chapter 1, Exodus 22 or Numbers 5. My debate begins with when personhood is appropriate. Now, if your position is personhood begins at conception, I find that odd. Technically, a zygote is a clump of cells and operates almost exactly the same way cancer cells do. Are cancer cells deserving of personhood? Life from a cellular biological stance absolutely begins at conception, in the same way bacteria or single celled organism are life. But, does it deserve personhood and rights afforded that title. A zygote is a living human cell that is individually distinct from who it draws its nutrients from. You know what else counts as the very same thing? A cancer cell. Unless you are arguing that things like chemotherapy destroys the sanctity of human life, the argument of when life itself begins is null.
If a fetus deserves personhood, then women should be able to take out life insurance policies on them and if they have a miscarriage get the payout.
If a fetus deserves personhood, then men should start paying child support the moment pregnancy is confirmed.
If a fetus deserves personhood, then low income people should be able to get more food stamps and welfare while pregnant.
Did people get additional $500 or $1000 checks while pregnant? Do pregnant women get to claim additional children on their income taxes before birth? Do GOP led states have laws that talk about assaulting pregnant women as child abuse?
Letâs try it THIS way - Can a pregnant immigrant be deported? Letâs take a look:
ection 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declares, âAll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.â
I believe, as our laws do, that personhood is extended upon birth. Thatâs it. Despite your belief that women are brood mares, bodily autonomy is still the issue. You canât take a single cell from a dead body unless the person gave consent before their death. To tell a person they must sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months under threat of prison or worse, against their will in the âincredibly expensive, invasive, potentially dangerous process of pregnancy, is desperately unethical. You canât even ask people to give up organs they arenât using while dead to save another living personâs life. Youâre asking people who become pregnant to have LESS bodily autonomy than a CORPSE.â
That you wanted to throw away because you didnât like the result and were in favor of allowing Republicans to arbitrarily submit their own electors, thus putting you diametrically opposed to the aforementioned statement. Statistics show there is virtually no real voter fraud of any impact, yet you are fully in favor of methods to fully disenfranchise voters even to the point of disregarding the entire national popular vote to install the President YOU want in office instead.
You have been weighed, measured, and found lacking.
Agree with this. The GOP establishment and the Dems like the cheap labor. See George W Bush.
But I believe GSC has been pretty clear he hates the GOP establishment.
This is really hard to measure. And I donât think weâll ever fully know about the potential improprieties in the 2020 election. The left wins elections by getting low information voters to the polls and community organizing. They are good at it. The right sucks at that.
They want elections as loose as possible so that they can ballot harvest (ballot traffic) and incentivize/coerce voters to vote their way.
This is why Georgia is in the crosshairs right now. Stacy Abrams is excellent at this.
We fundamentally disagree as I consider the vast majority of your GOP voters to be total, willfully ignorant morons who almost to a T do not understand the basics of the argument. Hence, Trump winning with the âpoorly educated.â There is a reason why rural voters are GOP. I believe youâre projecting.
You mean like this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/08/08/trump-payroll-tax-cut/
Why, then, is the widespread voter fraud always Republican in nature?
Are you an idiot? I just DEBUNKED your point. You made up some imaginary terms and conditions of their protection, but you ONCE AGAIN failed to show it in the statute.
Hereâs your third chance. Show me where your condition to be unbiased lies in the protectionâŚ
âŚ
This is disingenuous. GSC didnât say that was how tariffs worked. He just said they created unfair imbalances, which could be true depending on your line of thinking.
You guys are thick. The reason for editing, fact checking, etc is bias. Iâm getting to the conclusion. The motive.
There are trillions of statements on social media that are factually incorrectâŚ. The only ones that are corrected have POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS and go in one directionâŚ. They are âcorrectedâ toward the leftward establishment narrative.
They only censor- wait for it- âfar right conservatives.â
(Watch 305 go diffing for 1 or 2 libs that were banned and ignore the hundreds and thousands of conservatives to prove an absolute point.)
If you guys canât see this, youâre insane.
When section 230 is called before congress- and it has - the topic will be about their one way bias. Itâs already been tackled in committee by the freedoms caucus members. Go look up the videos!
Yes, he has made that point several times.