Almost 140 serious injuries to Capitol Cops

[martybegan]

More trying to be slick and failing miserably.

Your critique is absent. You say I’m failing miserably because you don’t want to acknowledge your argument is fringe and illogical.

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

 

[colfax_m]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

 

[martybegan]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

Apples and empty heads (i.e. yours).

Your gotcha moment is pretty pathetic. Try harder.

 

[colfax_m]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

Apples and empty heads (i.e. yours).

Your gotcha moment is pretty pathetic. Try harder.

Your counter argument is “nuh-uh”.

And I’m the one that needs to try harder? Your desire to make Twitter a commons is apples and empty heads. There’s no rational basis.

 

[martybegan]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

Apples and empty heads (i.e. yours).

Your gotcha moment is pretty pathetic. Try harder.

Your counter argument is “nuh-uh”.

And I’m the one that needs to try harder? Your desire to make Twitter a commons is apples and empty heads. There’s no rational basis.

You aren't counter arguing, you are bringing up a strawman.

My position has been made clear, you dip and duck and try to be slick.

 

[colfax_m]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

Apples and empty heads (i.e. yours).

Your gotcha moment is pretty pathetic. Try harder.

Your counter argument is “nuh-uh”.

And I’m the one that needs to try harder? Your desire to make Twitter a commons is apples and empty heads. There’s no rational basis.

You aren't counter arguing, you are bringing up a strawman.

My position has been made clear, you dip and duck and try to be slick.

It’s not a straw man since I’ve not suggested you’ve argued for it. Seems you are using words you don’t understand.

Kinda like using the word common without knowing what it means.

I’m applying your logic more broadly to demonstrate how stupid it is. You’re creating a legal framework out of convenience, not principle.

 

[martybegan]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

Apples and empty heads (i.e. yours).

Your gotcha moment is pretty pathetic. Try harder.

Your counter argument is “nuh-uh”.

And I’m the one that needs to try harder? Your desire to make Twitter a commons is apples and empty heads. There’s no rational basis.

You aren't counter arguing, you are bringing up a strawman.

My position has been made clear, you dip and duck and try to be slick.

It’s not a straw man since I’ve not suggested you’ve argued for it. Seems you are using words you don’t understand.

Kinda like using the word common without knowing what it means.

I’m applying your logic more broadly to demonstrate how stupid it is. You’re creating a legal framework out of convenience, not principle.

You are using it as a distraction from the actual argument.

You are trying to be slick, and failing at it miserably.

 

[colfax_m]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

Apples and empty heads (i.e. yours).

Your gotcha moment is pretty pathetic. Try harder.

Your counter argument is “nuh-uh”.

And I’m the one that needs to try harder? Your desire to make Twitter a commons is apples and empty heads. There’s no rational basis.

You aren't counter arguing, you are bringing up a strawman.

My position has been made clear, you dip and duck and try to be slick.

It’s not a straw man since I’ve not suggested you’ve argued for it. Seems you are using words you don’t understand.

Kinda like using the word common without knowing what it means.

I’m applying your logic more broadly to demonstrate how stupid it is. You’re creating a legal framework out of convenience, not principle.

You are using it as a distraction from the actual argument.

You are trying to be slick, and failing at it miserably.

It’s the same argument. This requires a little bit of abstraction, I know, but I think you’re up the task.

The point being you cant declare a medium a public commons just because it’s convenient to do so.

 

[martybegan]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

Apples and empty heads (i.e. yours).

Your gotcha moment is pretty pathetic. Try harder.

Your counter argument is “nuh-uh”.

And I’m the one that needs to try harder? Your desire to make Twitter a commons is apples and empty heads. There’s no rational basis.

You aren't counter arguing, you are bringing up a strawman.

My position has been made clear, you dip and duck and try to be slick.

It’s not a straw man since I’ve not suggested you’ve argued for it. Seems you are using words you don’t understand.

Kinda like using the word common without knowing what it means.

I’m applying your logic more broadly to demonstrate how stupid it is. You’re creating a legal framework out of convenience, not principle.

You are using it as a distraction from the actual argument.

You are trying to be slick, and failing at it miserably.

It’s the same argument. This requires a little bit of abstraction, I know, but I think you’re up the task.

The point being you cant declare a medium a public commons just because it’s convenient to do so.

No, it's not the same argument.

One involves one way communication, as designed, the other consists of a platform designed for multiple interactions between the people on it.

Apples and your empty ball sack.

 

[colfax_m]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

Apples and empty heads (i.e. yours).

Your gotcha moment is pretty pathetic. Try harder.

Your counter argument is “nuh-uh”.

And I’m the one that needs to try harder? Your desire to make Twitter a commons is apples and empty heads. There’s no rational basis.

You aren't counter arguing, you are bringing up a strawman.

My position has been made clear, you dip and duck and try to be slick.

It’s not a straw man since I’ve not suggested you’ve argued for it. Seems you are using words you don’t understand.

Kinda like using the word common without knowing what it means.

I’m applying your logic more broadly to demonstrate how stupid it is. You’re creating a legal framework out of convenience, not principle.

You are using it as a distraction from the actual argument.

You are trying to be slick, and failing at it miserably.

It’s the same argument. This requires a little bit of abstraction, I know, but I think you’re up the task.

The point being you cant declare a medium a public commons just because it’s convenient to do so.

No, it's not the same argument.

One involves one way communication, as designed, the other consists of a platform designed for multiple interactions between the people on it.

Apples and your empty ball sack.

And where in your long often inconsistent argument to date has that been a relevant issue?

Speech does not require dialogue and you’ve made this a speech issue.

 

[martybegan]

We were arguing about social media platforms that claim to be open platforms and you decide to try to be slick and divert to news broadcasts.

Broadcasts that claim to be fair and balance. What do you have against using government to force them to live up to what they claim?

Or are you just here to enforce your dictates on people you hate?

Apples and empty heads (i.e. yours).

Your gotcha moment is pretty pathetic. Try harder.

Your counter argument is “nuh-uh”.

And I’m the one that needs to try harder? Your desire to make Twitter a commons is apples and empty heads. There’s no rational basis.

You aren't counter arguing, you are bringing up a strawman.

My position has been made clear, you dip and duck and try to be slick.

It’s not a straw man since I’ve not suggested you’ve argued for it. Seems you are using words you don’t understand.

Kinda like using the word common without knowing what it means.

I’m applying your logic more broadly to demonstrate how stupid it is. You’re creating a legal framework out of convenience, not principle.

You are using it as a distraction from the actual argument.

You are trying to be slick, and failing at it miserably.

It’s the same argument. This requires a little bit of abstraction, I know, but I think you’re up the task.

The point being you cant declare a medium a public commons just because it’s convenient to do so.

No, it's not the same argument.

One involves one way communication, as designed, the other consists of a platform designed for multiple interactions between the people on it.

Apples and your empty ball sack.

And where in your long often inconsistent argument to date has that been a relevant issue?

Speech does not require dialogue and you’ve made this a speech issue.

My debate has been 100% consistent, you just disagree with it. Stop equating disagreement with technical flaws.

 

[colfax_m]

My debate has been 100% consistent, you just disagree with it. Stop equating disagreement with technical flaws.

Nah, it’s been waffling. I’m not even 100% sure exactly what you want other than for Facebook and Twitter to pay for perceived wrongs upon your political tribe.

Sometimes you talk about declaring them a public commons. Sometimes you just dial it back to removal of liability protections.

Don’t forget this argument was already a distraction from the last argument you lost which is how Trump supporters perceive people who disagree with him by assuming their motive is opposition to Trump.

 

[martybegan]

My debate has been 100% consistent, you just disagree with it. Stop equating disagreement with technical flaws.

Nah, it’s been waffling. I’m not even 100% sure exactly what you want other than for Facebook and Twitter to pay for perceived wrongs upon your political tribe.

Sometimes you talk about declaring them a public commons. Sometimes you just dial it back to removal of liability protections.

Don’t forget this argument was already a distraction from the last argument you lost which is how Trump supporters perceive people who disagree with him by assuming their motive is opposition to Trump.

Not waffling, perfectly consistent. Again, you try to take disagreement and turn it into some technical violation because you refuse to debate the merits.

I would like them to be declared a commons, but would accept them being made the publisher of the content if they want to say it's their content. It's called being pragmatic.

Your motive IS "Orange Man Bad", but of course you can't see it because you are a ******* retard.

 

[colfax_m]

My debate has been 100% consistent, you just disagree with it. Stop equating disagreement with technical flaws.

Nah, it’s been waffling. I’m not even 100% sure exactly what you want other than for Facebook and Twitter to pay for perceived wrongs upon your political tribe.

Sometimes you talk about declaring them a public commons. Sometimes you just dial it back to removal of liability protections.

Don’t forget this argument was already a distraction from the last argument you lost which is how Trump supporters perceive people who disagree with him by assuming their motive is opposition to Trump.

Not waffling, perfectly consistent. Again, you try to take disagreement and turn it into some technical violation because you refuse to debate the merits.

I would like them to be declared a commons, but would accept them being made the publisher of the content if they want to say it's their content. It's called being pragmatic.

Your motive IS "Orange Man Bad", but of course you can't see it because you are a ******* retard.

Ah, so you’re not consistent, there’s several options here.

It’s not pragmatic. Removing liability protections from websites will basically end user participation, which will basically end social media.

You’re not being pragmatic. You’re being vengeful.

 

[martybegan]

My debate has been 100% consistent, you just disagree with it. Stop equating disagreement with technical flaws.

Nah, it’s been waffling. I’m not even 100% sure exactly what you want other than for Facebook and Twitter to pay for perceived wrongs upon your political tribe.

Sometimes you talk about declaring them a public commons. Sometimes you just dial it back to removal of liability protections.

Don’t forget this argument was already a distraction from the last argument you lost which is how Trump supporters perceive people who disagree with him by assuming their motive is opposition to Trump.

Not waffling, perfectly consistent. Again, you try to take disagreement and turn it into some technical violation because you refuse to debate the merits.

I would like them to be declared a commons, but would accept them being made the publisher of the content if they want to say it's their content. It's called being pragmatic.

Your motive IS "Orange Man Bad", but of course you can't see it because you are a ******* retard.

Ah, so you’re not consistent, there’s several options here.

It’s not pragmatic. Removing liability protections from websites will basically end user participation, which will basically end social media.

You’re not being pragmatic. You’re being vengeful.

My views are consistent, I'm just realistic about the chances of getting my full way, and would accept getting part of my way.

Actually it would let them moderate as they see fit, and give them the ability to truly be a "publisher".

 

[colfax_m]

My debate has been 100% consistent, you just disagree with it. Stop equating disagreement with technical flaws.

Nah, it’s been waffling. I’m not even 100% sure exactly what you want other than for Facebook and Twitter to pay for perceived wrongs upon your political tribe.

Sometimes you talk about declaring them a public commons. Sometimes you just dial it back to removal of liability protections.

Don’t forget this argument was already a distraction from the last argument you lost which is how Trump supporters perceive people who disagree with him by assuming their motive is opposition to Trump.

Not waffling, perfectly consistent. Again, you try to take disagreement and turn it into some technical violation because you refuse to debate the merits.

I would like them to be declared a commons, but would accept them being made the publisher of the content if they want to say it's their content. It's called being pragmatic.

Your motive IS "Orange Man Bad", but of course you can't see it because you are a ******* retard.

Ah, so you’re not consistent, there’s several options here.

It’s not pragmatic. Removing liability protections from websites will basically end user participation, which will basically end social media.

You’re not being pragmatic. You’re being vengeful.

My views are consistent, I'm just realistic about the chances of getting my full way, and would accept getting part of my way.

Actually it would let them moderate as they see fit, and give them the ability to truly be a "publisher".

It’s not consistent, these are drastically different approaches.

They already are a publisher in their own way but making them legally responsible for the unfiltered content that millions upon millions of users submit will make it impossible for them to stay in business.

 

[martybegan]

My debate has been 100% consistent, you just disagree with it. Stop equating disagreement with technical flaws.

Nah, it’s been waffling. I’m not even 100% sure exactly what you want other than for Facebook and Twitter to pay for perceived wrongs upon your political tribe.

Sometimes you talk about declaring them a public commons. Sometimes you just dial it back to removal of liability protections.

Don’t forget this argument was already a distraction from the last argument you lost which is how Trump supporters perceive people who disagree with him by assuming their motive is opposition to Trump.

Not waffling, perfectly consistent. Again, you try to take disagreement and turn it into some technical violation because you refuse to debate the merits.

I would like them to be declared a commons, but would accept them being made the publisher of the content if they want to say it's their content. It's called being pragmatic.

Your motive IS "Orange Man Bad", but of course you can't see it because you are a ******* retard.

Ah, so you’re not consistent, there’s several options here.

It’s not pragmatic. Removing liability protections from websites will basically end user participation, which will basically end social media.

You’re not being pragmatic. You’re being vengeful.

My views are consistent, I'm just realistic about the chances of getting my full way, and would accept getting part of my way.

Actually it would let them moderate as they see fit, and give them the ability to truly be a "publisher".

It’s not consistent, these are drastically different approaches.

They already are a publisher in their own way but making them legally responsible for the unfiltered content that millions upon millions of users submit will make it impossible for them to stay in business.

it's called getting some of what I want or getting all of what I want. Absolutism is idiotic in most cases.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

In addition to the cop who died after having his skull crushed with a fire extinguisher, the injuries include brain, cracked ribs, smashed spinal discs, eye issues (one about to lose an eye) and one officer stabbed with a metal fence stake. To make matters worse, another one committed suicide yesterday. And yet, Republicans yet defend Donald and his murderous insurrectionist mob. Sad

Oh now you care about the safety of the cops...lol

 

[colfax_m]

it's called getting some of what I want or getting all of what I want. Absolutism is idiotic in most cases.

“What I want” is exactly the problem.

This isn’t based on any principle. It’s based on you wanting your people to be able to use Twitter to benefit yourselves and don’t like it when Twitter won’t let you.

Youll pretend like this is important to the country but at the end of the day it’s just selfishness.

 

[martybegan]

it's called getting some of what I want or getting all of what I want. Absolutism is idiotic in most cases.

“What I want” is exactly the problem.

This isn’t based on any principle. It’s based on you wanting your people to be able to use Twitter to benefit yourselves and don’t like it when Twitter won’t let you.

Youll pretend like this is important to the country but at the end of the day it’s just selfishness.

It's based on the principle of an even playing field, something SJW's like you despise.