monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

No he never posted anything close to genius,

I have posted stuff consistent with my 170 IQ. You are just too stupid to understand such things.

glitterbag wrote:

but plenty of things to attract the FBI.

You're the one who is always in favor of treason and terrorism. I'd say they'd be looking at you first.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

What conservatives need to do is set up shop on Russian servers.

Mr. Putin is eager to help the American people resist and undermine the Biden Administration, and I'm sure he'd be happy to have a large segment of the American population discussing the resistance on Russian servers.

1. Above is statement made by Oralloy.

2. I will not make any further comment on Oralloy's above statement.

3. I simply wanted to highlight Oralloys own words for all to see.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Thanks for showing that. I actually went so far as to check the original post - that's really what he said.

Just fyi, I am conservative, though the definition seems to have changed in the past several years.

1 Reply

@roger,

I concur. My words were not altered.

0 Replies

The organisers of the PGA Championship cancelled plans to hold the event at President Trump’s Bedminster, N.J., golf club in 2022 in the wake of last week’s Trump-inspired riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Quote:

It’s become clear that conducting the PGA Championship at Trump Bedminster would be detrimental to the PGA of America brand and would put at risk the PGA’s ability to deliver our many programs and sustain the longevity of our mission

A Statement from the PGA of America on the 2022 PGA Championship

0 Replies

@snood,

I remember, and accepting everything that happened and condemning it, still makes it a far cry from the October Revolution.

They remain a bunch of disorganised idiots.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Should private companies be allowed conditions of service is what you’re asking.

Legitimate ones, yes. Not ones that abrogate clearly stated Constitutional rights.

Private companies should be able to deny services to anyone they don’t like, is what you’re saying.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Private companies should be able to deny services to anyone they don’t like, is what you’re saying.

If I may butt in — I don't think that's what thepush is saying. It's more like, private companies should be able to deny their services to users who violate openly-stated terms of use.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Of course not, if Leadfoot couldn’t put words in other people’s mouths he’d have nothing to argue about.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

You should be clear here.

“Banning any forum that allows unmoderated provocations of violence”

All of these “bans” would be avoided if Parler agreed to remove and discourage violence. It’s that easy.

You agree?

Of course not.

I have seen and experienced levels of government corruption and Joe Sixpack American stupidity and complacency that I would never use the same totalitarian measures as in China, N. Korea, etc. to ban talk of violent overthrow of their corrupt leaders by its own citizens. It’s how we were born after all.

Can you imagine proposing those same rules to the Founding Fathers of this once great but still the best (for now) country?

My only fear is you will equate this with support for the idiots who broke into the WH.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

Actually no one ever said that, it's really a piss poor version of the actual saying. Look it up, hopefully you will learn something. I actually think it's a dangerous thing to alter was was once a noble statement into a ridiculous death match motto.

I said it was paraphrased. And if you claim I mischaracterized it, it is up to you to back up that claim, glitter. Can you? Are there any balls in that bag?

0 Replies

@hightor,

No, you clearly didn’t understand what either of us said.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

if Leadfoot couldn’t put words in other people’s mouths he’d have nothing to argue about.

One need not look back many posts to see your blatant hypocrisy.
I was returning tit for tat.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You seem to believe that people should be forced to broadcast hate speech whether they want to or not.

Free speech is all you care about, you don’t show any concern for those at the receiving end of such hate, or human rights.

You are the embodiment of white privilege, if this hate was directed at you it would be another matter entirely.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Can you imagine proposing those same rules to the Founding Fathers of this once great but still the best (for now) country?

That's not a particularly helpful thought experiment as the content of the modern fora we are discussing here is distributed widely and nearly instantaneously and information ends up on the monitors of single users. It doesn't apply to a bunch of colonists debating amongst themselves whether to declare their independence. Their discussion was not being hosted on a privately-owned platform.

Do you really think that anyone on social media should be allowed to post unmoderated exhortations to commit violence and acts of terror based on lies and disinformation? Having "rights" means accepting responsibilities as well.

Oh, by the way, the USA isn't the "best" country, now or ever. It's a childish conceit to claim that the country you happen to live in is somehow superior to all others. The USA has steadily fallen in the rankings normally used to rationalize stupid boasts like this so I don't see what you're basing your assessment on. It's up there in the top twenty or twenty-five countries where I might wish to live but I don't see any evidence of it being the "best".

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You are the embodiment of white privilege, if this hate was directed at you it would be another matter entirely.

I am an old white guy, so guilty as charged I guess?

No problem, I get all the hate I need right here.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Most people don’t need hate, it’s something they can do without.

You’re the one who wishes to protect hate speech.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

It's a childish conceit to claim that the country you happen to live in is somehow superior to all others.

You have a point, I should have added that it was true for me as an individual having my own priorities and preferences. There are those whose best of all possible worlds is to grow up in N. Korea.

But there is no shame in advocating for the country that serves you best.
If and when that is no longer true and the country becomes the opposite of the one I once swore to defend, I will either move or fight to restore the country that once was. Whichever path is open to me.

'Country' is not my top priority anymore so If other means are available I would not choose violence, but curtailing free speech is a sure way to close the door on peaceful means. It makes the eventual explosion even worse.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

This saying is often attributed to Voltaire, the 18th-century philosopher. It was actually a paraphrase from a biographer named Evelyn Beatrice Hall who was stating what she thought Voltaire was thinking.

In any case, it expresses a very unambiguous assertion, which is ‘We may disagree, but I’ll defend your right to your opinion with my very life, if need be’

Here is your “paraphrase” (I bolded it):

Quote:

Who was it that said 'I will fight you to death for what you do, but I will fight to the death for your right to say anything.'

I might have paraphrased that but you get what the idea is, even over there. Or not.

Glitterbag correctly pointed out that your rendering of the quote warped the original meaning when you included some notion about “I will fight you to death”, which is not only not part of the original quote, but it’s also mangled syntax.

In your next response to her you not only can’t admit just getting the damn quote wrong, but you also ridicule her as if she got something wrong when she pointed out your mistake.

Now, I’m fairly sure my correction will make no difference to you, as you seem to be someone who is consistently unmoved by objective fact and impressed only with your own opinions. But your insulting "balls in bag" response to her was unwarranted.

So it goes.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I remember, and accepting everything that happened and condemning it, still makes it a far cry from the October Revolution.

They remain a bunch of disorganised idiots.

Well, your continuing to underestimate the insurgents may not be wise, or a graceful way to admit that you were just wrong about their potential dangerousness, but it's certainly entertaining.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know