Big government Don is at it again. It cracks me up that so-called "small government conservatives" actually back this clown. I'm fully convinced that Trump could come out tomorrow praising the virtues of the ten pillars of communism, and followers would lap it up.

The petulant child's latest Twitter temper tantrum has him throwing out anti-capitalist, big government executive orders. Oh, I so do remember when these so-called small government conservatives decried such a thing.

This actual small government conservative says that Twitter, as a private company, can operate their platform in any way they see fit, and Dumb Donnie and the federal government can go [BLEEP] themselves.

---

Is this gonna be a third?

---

Big government Don is at it again. It cracks me up that so-called "small government conservatives" actually back this clown. I'm fully convinced that Trump could come out tomorrow praising the virtues of the ten pillars of communism, and followers would lap it up.

The petulant child's latest Twitter temper tantrum has him throwing out anti-capitalist, big government executive orders. Oh, I so do remember when these so-called small government conservatives decried such a thing.

This actual small government conservative says that Twitter, as a private company, can operate their platform in any way they see fit, and Dumb Donnie and the federal government can go [BLEEP] themselves.

Nothing "big government" about removing government protection against libel.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Big government Don is at it again. It cracks me up that so-called "small government conservatives" actually back this clown. I'm fully convinced that Trump could come out tomorrow praising the virtues of the ten pillars of communism, and followers would lap it up.

The petulant child's latest Twitter temper tantrum has him throwing out anti-capitalist, big government executive orders. Oh, I so do remember when these so-called small government conservatives decried such a thing.

This actual small government conservative says that Twitter, as a private company, can operate their platform in any way they see fit, and Dumb Donnie and the federal government can go [BLEEP] themselves.

Nothing "big government" about removing government protection against libel.

What's been removed? Did congress repeal some law I'm not aware of? This is Trump acting as if he is all three branches of government. That’s not big government? So called conervatives are suddenly all for end-arounds congress?

And did I dream up the imperiled voices of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh wailing through the speakers of an AM radio about libs imposing the fairness doctrine? Flash forward to now, and isn't Trump making the same exact argument the liberals were making then? That these media outlets were too one-sided and misinformation was effecting elections? That things needed to be more balanced? It's wildly comical.

---

Twitter removed one of his tweets about shooting looters last night. Should be an interesting Friday.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Twitter removed one of his tweets about shooting looters last night. Should be an interesting Friday.

It’s hilarious. The troll job on Trump has his panties in a bunch.

---

There's a big difference between "We're just manufacturing the paper the news is printed on" and "We manufacture the paper and we control the content."   If Twitter comments on tweets, then they are no longer the impartial provider of the public forum they claim to be.   They can't have it both ways.  

Even dirtbags like Trump have to be treated fairly, or else Twitter has to abandon certain protections they are afforded as one who claims to just provide the platform and nothing else.

That's my opinion.

---

I don't care.

Of course you don't care about the masters of the universe trying to impact an election (again).

Given a choice between oligarchy and the populism of today, oligarchy has a definite appeal.

---

Big government Don is at it again. It cracks me up that so-called "small government conservatives" actually back this clown. I'm fully convinced that Trump could come out tomorrow praising the virtues of the ten pillars of communism, and followers would lap it up.

The petulant child's latest Twitter temper tantrum has him throwing out anti-capitalist, big government executive orders. Oh, I so do remember when these so-called small government conservatives decried such a thing.

This actual small government conservative says that Twitter, as a private company, can operate their platform in any way they see fit, and Dumb Donnie and the federal government can go [BLEEP] themselves.

Nothing "big government" about removing government protection against libel.

That's one way to put it.
The law was protecting certain companies from getting sued.
Change it, those companies can be sued.
Maybe that's not big government.
But check who is being set up to do the suing - the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission are envisioned as plaintiffs in these cases.  That's big government, not small.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There's a big difference between "We're just manufacturing the paper the news is printed on" and "We manufacture the paper and we control the content."   If Twitter comments on tweets, then they are no longer the impartial provider of the public forum they claim to be.   They can't have it both ways.  

Even dirtbags like Trump have to be treated fairly, or else Twitter has to abandon certain protections they are afforded as one who claims to just provide the platform and nothing else.

That's my opinion.

I think you have the gist of it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Nothing "big government" about removing government protection against libel.

What's been removed? Did congress repeal some law I'm not aware of? This is Trump acting as if he is all three branches of government. That’s not big government? So called conervatives are suddenly all for end-arounds congress?

And did I dream up the imperiled voices of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh wailing through the speakers of an AM radio about libs imposing the fairness doctrine? Flash forward to now, and isn't Trump making the same exact argument the liberals were making then? That these media outlets were too one-sided and misinformation was effecting elections? That things needed to be more balanced? It's wildly comical.

You are either knowingly lying or you haven't read the executive order. It does not change any law. It ask the FTC to clarify the regulation as to whether or not forums that act with a political bias (such as Twitter in this case) are covered by the law.

Full Text

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Big government Don is at it again. It cracks me up that so-called "small government conservatives" actually back this clown. I'm fully convinced that Trump could come out tomorrow praising the virtues of the ten pillars of communism, and followers would lap it up.

The petulant child's latest Twitter temper tantrum has him throwing out anti-capitalist, big government executive orders. Oh, I so do remember when these so-called small government conservatives decried such a thing.

This actual small government conservative says that Twitter, as a private company, can operate their platform in any way they see fit, and Dumb Donnie and the federal government can go [BLEEP] themselves.

Nothing "big government" about removing government protection against libel.

I don't know if either Malabar or 9/28/82 sincerely want to advocate for "small government", but, these conversations usually get real silly real fast.  
Sometimes government has to be big.  Sometimes it has to be small.  We only start these conversations because government has done, or is about to do, something bad.
So can we confine the discussion to "bad government" vs "good government" instead?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

White House twitter slapped with violation for circumventing & quote-tweeting Trump's already removed "shootin' for lootin'" tweet. Today is going to be nuts.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

That was a ridiculous tweet. Sometimes I like Trump, sometimes he infuriates me.

---

That was a ridiculous tweet. Sometimes I like Trump, sometimes he infuriates me.

This country is a tinderbox and Trump is flicking a match-head to please his far right-leaning base. It's not only ridiculous, but dangerous. Juxtaposing his reaction to the Michigan protests to his reaction to the Minnesota protests makes it even worse.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

That was a ridiculous tweet. Sometimes I like Trump, sometimes he infuriates me.

This country is a tinderbox and Trump is flicking a match-head to please his far right-leaning base. It's not only ridiculous, but dangerous. Juxtaposing his reaction to the Michigan protests to his reaction to the Minnesota protests makes it even worse.

I must've missed the part where the Michigan protesters started burning down the cities.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I see nothing wrong with the issuing of a statement evoking the possible use of military intervention to quell the illegal activity that is occurring. Just as there was zero justification for the murder of Floyd there is also zero justification for the wanton destruction and theft of private and public property. Neither occurrence can be tolerated in a supposed civil society and require swift justice.

Should the riots just be allowed to continue until such time that some fire fighters are killed in a blaze? A business owner is killed while trying to protect his life's work? I think not.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

This is where we disagree. I don't think he does it to please his far right base. I think he just believes that. Trump is a boomer and has boomer values. He thinks you should stand for the anthem, show respect for America, and show respect for its institutions. Leftists want to juxtapose the two protests, but they aren't remotely the same. The minute anyone starts burning buildings and looting, it's no longer a protest. I personally don't believe Trump would make a big deal of the protests if they were non-violent. I do agree that his tweet was inconsiderate and dangerous.

---

I see nothing wrong with the issuing of a statement evoking the possible use of military intervention to quell the illegal activity that is occurring. Just as there was zero justification for the murder of Floyd there is also zero justification for the wanton destruction and theft of private and public property. Neither occurrence can be tolerated in a supposed civil society and require swift justice.

Should the riots just be allowed to continue until such time that some fire fighters are killed in a blaze? A business owner is killed while trying to protect his life's work? I think not.

Death for lootin'? Sure thing.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

What's been removed? Did congress repeal some law I'm not aware of? This is Trump acting as if he is all three branches of government. That’s not big government? So called conervatives are suddenly all for end-arounds congress?

And did I dream up the imperiled voices of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh wailing through the speakers of an AM radio about libs imposing the fairness doctrine? Flash forward to now, and isn't Trump making the same exact argument the liberals were making then? That these media outlets were too one-sided and misinformation was effecting elections? That things needed to be more balanced? It's wildly comical.

You are either knowingly lying or you haven't read the executive order. It does not change any law. It ask the FTC to clarify the regulation as to whether or not forums that act with a political bias (such as Twitter in this case) are covered by the law.

Full Text

It asks the FTC to clarify something, yes, but the thing is really clear.
Twitter can't be held liable for
"Any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider [Twitter] or user considers to be obscene... or otherwise objectionable..."

It's super broad.  You can't make it less broad. Anything can be "otherwise objectionable." And it would be really hard to cross the line into bad faith.  Twitter sincerely believes that their "corrections" to Trump's tweets are true.  Their T.O.S. has always said they might delete or alter tweets.  They are always giving a reason for each ruling they make.  That's good faith.  Sincerity of purpose.  Just because you feel oppressed doesn't mean the opponent is acting in bad faith.

---

This country is a tinderbox and Trump is flicking a match-head to please his far right-leaning base. It's not only ridiculous, but dangerous. Juxtaposing his reaction to the Michigan protests to his reaction to the Minnesota protests makes it even worse.

I must've missed the part where the Michigan protesters started burning down the cities.

Disrupting a legislature is much worse than burning down a convenience store.
Study your revolutions. Study our Declaration of Independence.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.