(01-09-2021, 11:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:23 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ]Sheesh, turn off AM radio, or whatever it is you get this nonsense from. Then let me know when the government itself gets to the business of banning speech. Post a bill from the legislative branch. Maybe an EO from the executive. Until then, you're wrong. Sorry.
I don't listen to the radio or watch cable news. I watch what Washington does and they do just what I said. They always have its just never been so blatant. Have you never heard of lobbyists? They're the legal prostitutes of DC.
You're both right.
He's right that there technically isn't a law or executive order saying Twitter has to ban Trump.
She's right that this technicality doesn't mean much, because Twitter and others are somewhat motivated by fear of prosecution from the new administration. The SEC angle, the Antitrust angle, the incitement angle. The US code is such a pretzel and it was written by people who couldn't have imagined Twitter. A competent Congress would clear all that up, but Twitter is scared that a motivated and competent Congress would actually be worse, and get so strict they can't make money anymore.
(01-09-2021, 11:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:23 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ]Sheesh, turn off AM radio, or whatever it is you get this nonsense from. Then let me know when the government itself gets to the business of banning speech. Post a bill from the legislative branch. Maybe an EO from the executive. Until then, you're wrong. Sorry.
I don't listen to the radio or watch cable news. I watch what Washington does and they do just what I said. They always have its just never been so blatant. Have you never heard of lobbyists? They're the legal prostitutes of DC.
Why would they need to make laws for it when they can get their buddies to do it for them?
(01-09-2021, 11:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:23 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ]Sheesh, turn off AM radio, or whatever it is you get this nonsense from. Then let me know when the government itself gets to the business of banning speech. Post a bill from the legislative branch. Maybe an EO from the executive. Until then, you're wrong. Sorry.
I don't listen to the radio or watch cable news. I watch what Washington does and they do just what I said. They always have its just never been so blatant. Have you never heard of lobbyists? They're the legal prostitutes of DC.
Your attributing Donald being banned from Twitter to lobbyists? Oh, wow. I think I'm wasting my time. But I'll play along for a bit more. So, lobbyist influence inspired what bit of legislation in regards to limiting speech?
(01-09-2021, 11:38 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't listen to the radio or watch cable news. I watch what Washington does and they do just what I said. They always have its just never been so blatant. Have you never heard of lobbyists? They're the legal prostitutes of DC.
Why would they need to make laws for it when they can get their buddies to do it for them?
What is this actually suggesting?
(01-09-2021, 11:34 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't listen to the radio or watch cable news. I watch what Washington does and they do just what I said. They always have its just never been so blatant. Have you never heard of lobbyists? They're the legal prostitutes of DC.
You're both right.
He's right that there technically isn't a law or executive order saying Twitter has to ban Trump.
She's right that this technicality doesn't mean much, because Twitter and others are somewhat motivated by fear of prosecution from the new administration. The SEC angle, the Antitrust angle, the incitement angle. The US code is such a pretzel and it was written by people who couldn't have imagined Twitter. A competent Congress would clear all that up, but Twitter is scared that a motivated and competent Congress would actually be worse, and get so strict they can't make money anymore.
Prosecution from the new administration? Based on what laws? SEC angle? Antitrust? Are you suggesting they are breaking current laws with the protection of Trump? None of this works this way. Twitter banned Trump because he's a malignant sociopath who calls for insurrections of the government on their platform. Take off your tin foil hats, for [BLEEP]'s sake.
(01-09-2021, 11:46 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't listen to the radio or watch cable news. I watch what Washington does and they do just what I said. They always have its just never been so blatant. Have you never heard of lobbyists? They're the legal prostitutes of DC.
Your attributing Donald being banned from Twitter to lobbyists? Oh, wow. I think I'm wasting my time. But I'll play along for a bit more. So, lobbyist influence inspired what bit of legislation in regards to limiting speech?
(01-09-2021, 11:38 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]Why would they need to make laws for it when they can get their buddies to do it for them?
What is this actually suggesting?
It’s not that hard to figure out if you put a little thought in to it. Or maybe your ridiculous need to be condescending is interfering with your ability to grasp plain English.
(01-10-2021, 12:01 AM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:46 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ]Your attributing Donald being banned from Twitter to lobbyists? Oh, wow. I think I'm wasting my time. But I'll play along for a bit more. So, lobbyist influence inspired what bit of legislation in regards to limiting speech?
What is this actually suggesting?
It’s not that hard to figure out if you put a little thought in to it. Or maybe your ridiculous need to be condescending is interfering with your ability to grasp plain English.
No, I don't have a tin foil hat. Explain to me how you think this played out.
(01-10-2021, 12:01 AM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:46 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ]Your attributing Donald being banned from Twitter to lobbyists? Oh, wow. I think I'm wasting my time. But I'll play along for a bit more. So, lobbyist influence inspired what bit of legislation in regards to limiting speech?
What is this actually suggesting?
It’s not that hard to figure out if you put a little thought in to it. Or maybe your ridiculous need to be condescending is interfering with your ability to grasp plain English.
+1 Bunnie. I'm not going round and round with this.
I have to agree to disagree with him because I'm not getting any younger and don't need to waste my time.
(01-11-2021, 02:11 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2021, 12:01 AM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]It’s not that hard to figure out if you put a little thought in to it. Or maybe your ridiculous need to be condescending is interfering with your ability to grasp plain English.
+1 Bunnie. I'm not going round and round with this.
I have to agree to disagree with him because I'm not getting any younger and don't need to waste my time.
Sure, choosing not to operate in reality is always the best move.
(01-11-2021, 06:29 AM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021, 02:11 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]+1 Bunnie. I'm not going round and round with this.
I have to agree to disagree with him because I'm not getting any younger and don't need to waste my time.
Sure, choosing not to operate in reality is always the best move.
I said I agree to disagree which means leave it be but you still have to say something snide. Did I piss on your favorite chew toy?
Let. It. Go.
I am.
First POTUS and now FLOTUS come out and say she died for nothing.
She does not represent what she thought she was fighting for.
(01-09-2021, 11:55 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:34 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You're both right.
He's right that there technically isn't a law or executive order saying Twitter has to ban Trump.
She's right that this technicality doesn't mean much, because Twitter and others are somewhat motivated by fear of prosecution from the new administration. The SEC angle, the Antitrust angle, the incitement angle. The US code is such a pretzel and it was written by people who couldn't have imagined Twitter. A competent Congress would clear all that up, but Twitter is scared that a motivated and competent Congress would actually be worse, and get so strict they can't make money anymore.
Prosecution from the new administration? Based on what laws? SEC angle? Antitrust? Are you suggesting they are breaking current laws with the protection of Trump? None of this works this way. Twitter banned Trump because he's a malignant sociopath who calls for insurrections of the government on their platform. Take off your tin foil hats, for [BLEEP]'s sake.
Show the recipts please.
(01-12-2021, 04:31 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]First POTUS and now FLOTUS come out and say she died for nothing.
She does not represent what she thought she was fighting for.
Bruh, the rioters cemented progressive rule in this country for 25 years.
I'm a jag fan. If our QB throws a pic, we boo.
Excusing stupidity just because the person wears the same jersey is a democrat thing.
(01-12-2021, 07:02 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2021, 11:55 PM)Jagsfan4life9/28/82 Wrote: [ -> ]Prosecution from the new administration? Based on what laws? SEC angle? Antitrust? Are you suggesting they are breaking current laws with the protection of Trump? None of this works this way. Twitter banned Trump because he's a malignant sociopath who calls for insurrections of the government on their platform. Take off your tin foil hats, for [BLEEP]'s sake.
Show the recipts please.
(01-12-2021, 04:31 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]First POTUS and now FLOTUS come out and say she died for nothing.
She does not represent what she thought she was fighting for.
Bruh, the rioters cemented progressive rule in this country for 25 years.
I'm a jag fan. If our QB throws a pic, we boo.
Excusing stupidity just because the person wears the same jersey is a democrat thing.
Quick sidebar:
Of all the ridiculous things bandied about in current day political discussion, the fact that the word “progress” has become a bad thing to so many people continually blows my mind.
Sorry.
Carry on.
(01-12-2021, 11:44 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2021, 07:02 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Show the recipts please.
Bruh, the rioters cemented progressive rule in this country for 25 years.
I'm a jag fan. If our QB throws a pic, we boo.
Excusing stupidity just because the person wears the same jersey is a democrat thing.
Quick sidebar:
Of all the ridiculous things bandied about in current day political discussion, the fact that the word “progress” has become a bad thing to so many people continually blows my mind.
Sorry.
Carry on.
When "progressives" decided to attach their lefty political movement to a particular term it was sure to sour it in those who disagree with their objectives. It's odd that such a thing blows your mind. If the bad guys call themselves the Purple Sea Turtle Patrol and start blowing up groups of people on the beach don't you think society would eventually frown on those who use the moniker? Progressives are worse.
Progressive has a rich, racist history. It's not a new thing. And, just to remind you, many of the ideas that came from that rich, racist past are still embedded in their ideology. People just forgot the origin.