Amazingly, this actress actually understands why the democrat party purge of conservative social media is going to be really bad...

[freyasman]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

No, that's not true at all.

They only try to silence one side of things, everybody else gets to rock out with their cock out.

That MIGHT be true but it doesn't dispute what I said.

If you see hypocrisy condemn it but you cant argue that inciting people to riot is free speech.

What was said that constituted incitement to riot? What were the actual words and context?
(Because I don't listen to speeches.)

And has any Democrat politician or propagandist in the media ever said anything comparable?

 

[pknopp]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

No, that's not true at all.

They only try to silence one side of things, everybody else gets to rock out with their cock out.

That MIGHT be true but it doesn't dispute what I said.

If you see hypocrisy condemn it but you cant argue that inciting people to riot is free speech.

What was said that constituted incitement to riot? What were the actual words and context?
(Because I don't listen to speeches.)

And has any Democrat politician or propagandist in the media ever said anything comparable?

We have covered that many times. If someone states some obscure reference they should verify that. If you are ignorant of something that has been discussed endlessly the last few days, it's up to you to educate yourself.

No, you are claiming he incited a riot, now you back it up.

I don't have to. He's been banned over it. If you dislike that, prove he didn't. Otherwise, I really don't care.

 

[pknopp]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

No, that's not true at all.

They only try to silence one side of things, everybody else gets to rock out with their cock out.

That MIGHT be true but it doesn't dispute what I said.

If you see hypocrisy condemn it but you cant argue that inciting people to riot is free speech.

What was said that constituted incitement to riot? What were the actual words and context?
(Because I don't listen to speeches.)

And has any Democrat politician or propagandist in the media ever said anything comparable?

Then maybe it's about time you started listening to speeches. That's the problem. Everybody gets their news second hand - filtered through someone else's point of view. You're content to let other tell you what was said, and what happened, rather than listen for yourself and form your own opinion. That way you don't have to think for yourself, or compare what you're being told, with what you saw and heard.

No wonder you vote for Donald Trump. You don't want to have to think for yourself.

He has heard the speeches.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left are 100% intolerant of any opposing views.

 

[jknowgood]

The purge came early this year....they aren't even waiting for kamala harris to replace joe "the rapist" biden in office.....

democrat party big tech is purging conservatives from social media and the internet......one actress understands why this is going to end in blood and tears...

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing that the Silicon Valley billionaire’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

One such person is actress-model Emily Ratajkowski, who risked the scorn of her Hollywood peers and the mainstream media by expressing her concern about Zuckerberg’s decision to blacklist the president. “This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER. If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off,” she tweeted on Thursday.

Actress Emily Ratajkowski: If Mark Zuckerberg Can Shut the President Off Facebook, He Can Shut Any of Us Off

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg's decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing, like actress Emily Ratajkowski, that the Silicon Valley billionaire's decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

www.breitbart.com

This fails as a strawman fallacy.

There is no Democratic ‘purge’ of conservative social media, the notion is a ridiculous lie.

You're an idiot.

 

[freyasman]

The purge came early this year....they aren't even waiting for kamala harris to replace joe "the rapist" biden in office.....

democrat party big tech is purging conservatives from social media and the internet......one actress understands why this is going to end in blood and tears...

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing that the Silicon Valley billionaire’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

One such person is actress-model Emily Ratajkowski, who risked the scorn of her Hollywood peers and the mainstream media by expressing her concern about Zuckerberg’s decision to blacklist the president. “This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER. If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off,” she tweeted on Thursday.

Actress Emily Ratajkowski: If Mark Zuckerberg Can Shut the President Off Facebook, He Can Shut Any of Us Off

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg's decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing, like actress Emily Ratajkowski, that the Silicon Valley billionaire's decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

www.breitbart.com

This fails as a strawman fallacy.

There is no Democratic ‘purge’ of conservative social media, the notion is a ridiculous lie.

You really bring the facts, don’t you?

Let me ask the obvious question.

What do you mean? Expound on your initial post.

THAT would be a first

It is very frustrating on this board. The general reply by liberals is: “NO! YOU ARE!”

Like fucking 2nd graders.

If they were deep thinkers, they wouldn't lean left, would they?

Only those in power on the left. Not the useful idiots.

Most of the lefties on this site cant argue their point past one question deep.

They don't bother to argue; they just look at what the worst of their side is doing and accuse their opposition of it.
Then they deny they did so,

 

[pknopp]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

No, that's not true at all.

They only try to silence one side of things, everybody else gets to rock out with their cock out.

That MIGHT be true but it doesn't dispute what I said.

If you see hypocrisy condemn it but you cant argue that inciting people to riot is free speech.

What was said that constituted incitement to riot? What were the actual words and context?
(Because I don't listen to speeches.)

And has any Democrat politician or propagandist in the media ever said anything comparable?

View attachment 440103

I supported the people's right to protest. I disagreed with their protest but I agreed with their right to do it.

 

[freyasman]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

No, that's not true at all.

They only try to silence one side of things, everybody else gets to rock out with their cock out.

That MIGHT be true but it doesn't dispute what I said.

If you see hypocrisy condemn it but you cant argue that inciting people to riot is free speech.

What was said that constituted incitement to riot? What were the actual words and context?
(Because I don't listen to speeches.)

And has any Democrat politician or propagandist in the media ever said anything comparable?

We have covered that many times. If someone states some obscure reference they should verify that. If you are ignorant of something that has been discussed endlessly the last few days, it's up to you to educate yourself.

No, you are claiming he incited a riot, now you back it up.

I don't have to. He's been banned over it. If you dislike that, prove he didn't. Otherwise, I really don't care.

Weak man...... real weak.

 

[freyasman]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

No, that's not true at all.

They only try to silence one side of things, everybody else gets to rock out with their cock out.

That MIGHT be true but it doesn't dispute what I said.

If you see hypocrisy condemn it but you cant argue that inciting people to riot is free speech.

What was said that constituted incitement to riot? What were the actual words and context?
(Because I don't listen to speeches.)

And has any Democrat politician or propagandist in the media ever said anything comparable?

Then maybe it's about time you started listening to speeches. That's the problem. Everybody gets their news second hand - filtered through someone else's point of view. You're content to let other tell you what was said, and what happened, rather than listen for yourself and form your own opinion. That way you don't have to think for yourself, or compare what you're being told, with what you saw and heard.

No wonder you vote for Donald Trump. You don't want to have to think for yourself.

He has heard the speeches.

Except not really.

 

[freyasman]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

No, that's not true at all.

They only try to silence one side of things, everybody else gets to rock out with their cock out.

That MIGHT be true but it doesn't dispute what I said.

If you see hypocrisy condemn it but you cant argue that inciting people to riot is free speech.

What was said that constituted incitement to riot? What were the actual words and context?
(Because I don't listen to speeches.)

And has any Democrat politician or propagandist in the media ever said anything comparable?

View attachment 440103

I supported the people's right to protest. I disagreed with their protest but I agreed with their right to do it.

Me too.

 

[BrokeLoser]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

I thought you said good things come from rioting?

 

[pknopp]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

I thought you said good things come from rioting?

I never said anything any different here. Rioting can bring good things. I would swap the lives lost for the good here but it did help bring down Trumpism, so good thing.

 

[BrokeLoser]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

I thought you said good things come from rioting?

I never said anything any different here. Rioting can bring good things. I would swap the lives lost for the good here but it did help bring down Trumpism, so good thing.

WOW...it's so hard to keep up with you people, you're all over the place, everything is so complex, twisted and trivial.
So, are riots good or not?

 

[pknopp]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

I thought you said good things come from rioting?

I never said anything any different here. Rioting can bring good things. I would swap the lives lost for the good here but it did help bring down Trumpism, so good thing.

WOW...it's so hard to keep up with you people, you're all over the place, everything is so complex, twisted and trivial.
So, are riots good or not?

I'm suppose to address a vast generalization? You asked me a question about something I said, and I said that yes, that is my position.

Now you want me to address a vast generalization? Riots can bring about positive things. Are riots good? Well for me to answer that I need context.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

The purge came early this year....they aren't even waiting for kamala harris to replace joe "the rapist" biden in office.....

democrat party big tech is purging conservatives from social media and the internet......one actress understands why this is going to end in blood and tears...

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing that the Silicon Valley billionaire’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

One such person is actress-model Emily Ratajkowski, who risked the scorn of her Hollywood peers and the mainstream media by expressing her concern about Zuckerberg’s decision to blacklist the president. “This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER. If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off,” she tweeted on Thursday.

Actress Emily Ratajkowski: If Mark Zuckerberg Can Shut the President Off Facebook, He Can Shut Any of Us Off

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg's decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing, like actress Emily Ratajkowski, that the Silicon Valley billionaire's decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

www.breitbart.com

I was surprised to read that. Shes pretty far left -- or at least I thought she was. Maybe recent events brought her over to the side of decency

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

 

[Norman]

The purge came early this year....they aren't even waiting for kamala harris to replace joe "the rapist" biden in office.....

democrat party big tech is purging conservatives from social media and the internet......one actress understands why this is going to end in blood and tears...

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing that the Silicon Valley billionaire’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

One such person is actress-model Emily Ratajkowski, who risked the scorn of her Hollywood peers and the mainstream media by expressing her concern about Zuckerberg’s decision to blacklist the president. “This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER. If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off,” she tweeted on Thursday.

Actress Emily Ratajkowski: If Mark Zuckerberg Can Shut the President Off Facebook, He Can Shut Any of Us Off

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg's decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing, like actress Emily Ratajkowski, that the Silicon Valley billionaire's decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

www.breitbart.com

Social media has nothing to do with offering a service. The product of the media is the leftist low information sheep. They don't want people there educating the low information indoctrinated masses.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The purge came early this year....they aren't even waiting for kamala harris to replace joe "the rapist" biden in office.....

democrat party big tech is purging conservatives from social media and the internet......one actress understands why this is going to end in blood and tears...

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing that the Silicon Valley billionaire’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

One such person is actress-model Emily Ratajkowski, who risked the scorn of her Hollywood peers and the mainstream media by expressing her concern about Zuckerberg’s decision to blacklist the president. “This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER. If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off,” she tweeted on Thursday.

Actress Emily Ratajkowski: If Mark Zuckerberg Can Shut the President Off Facebook, He Can Shut Any of Us Off

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg's decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing, like actress Emily Ratajkowski, that the Silicon Valley billionaire's decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

www.breitbart.com

I was surprised to read that. Shes pretty far left -- or at least I thought she was. Maybe recent events brought her over to the side of decency

She's partially Polish, German and Jewish decent.... she's probably had family tell her things

 

[pknopp]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

Condemn hypocrisy. I never support that. Just because they have not addressed all issues though does not mean they haven't addressed it in the past.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

decent.... she's probably had family tell her things

She made an attempt to take a stand. I'm sure peer pressure will reign her back in to the Dark Side