Facebook Bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Other Dangerous Figures

[beagle9]

It is Facebook right as a private company...

Legally speaking, they are a "platform", which gives them some legal advantages. In reality, they are a publisher who advocate for and against various ideological positions. They are also a monopoly.

What do they have a monopoly on???

Undoubtedly they have a monopoly in their views on content policing, where as there is no opposition strong enough to present an opposing view in good faith any longer, without it being squashed by the ideological views of those who are driving the bus now.

The only answer though, is for there to be competition added to the empty space that exist, and that would be filled quickly by millions of conservative's needing a place to land again.

It may be time to separate for competitive reasons, the ideologies, cultures, and characters by allowing true freedom of choice in America again, and let the best group's win the prize's just as it should be.... We shouldn't be allowing any group to hold another group back or hostage, otherwise by way of using the manipulation of government power, private power, and highjacked platforms to do so.. Especially without any way out for those being trapped into it all, for example like a bunch of fish swimming into the nets unexpectedly after it's to late.

This is proof that monopolies are bad for the American people, and they should always be broken up once they get to big.

It's the monopoly with the guns that bothers me.

Scared of good people with gun's eh ??

 

[beagle9]

I don't want to control social media. I just want the opportunity to share my views and to hear the views of others.

Even if it means controlling social media?

So opening it up where as it is being squashed now by the leftist, and keeping it opened up to all productive views, uhhh is controlling something ??

 

[dblack]

I don't want to control social media. I just want the opportunity to share my views and to hear the views of others.

Even if it means controlling social media?

So opening it up where as it is being squashed now by the leftist, and keeping it opened up to all productive views, uhhh is controlling something ??

If it's the government forcing them to? Yeah. Pretty much the definition of control.

 

[dblack]

It is Facebook right as a private company...

Legally speaking, they are a "platform", which gives them some legal advantages. In reality, they are a publisher who advocate for and against various ideological positions. They are also a monopoly.

What do they have a monopoly on???

Undoubtedly they have a monopoly in their views on content policing, where as there is no opposition strong enough to present an opposing view in good faith any longer, without it being squashed by the ideological views of those who are driving the bus now.

The only answer though, is for there to be competition added to the empty space that exist, and that would be filled quickly by millions of conservative's needing a place to land again.

It may be time to separate for competitive reasons, the ideologies, cultures, and characters by allowing true freedom of choice in America again, and let the best group's win the prize's just as it should be.... We shouldn't be allowing any group to hold another group back or hostage, otherwise by way of using the manipulation of government power, private power, and highjacked platforms to do so.. Especially without any way out for those being trapped into it all, for example like a bunch of fish swimming into the nets unexpectedly after it's to late.

This is proof that monopolies are bad for the American people, and they should always be broken up once they get to big.

It's the monopoly with the guns that bothers me.

Scared of good people with gun's eh ??

No. I was referring to government.

 

[beagle9]

I don't want to control social media. I just want the opportunity to share my views and to hear the views of others.

Even if it means controlling social media?

So opening it up where as it is being squashed now by the leftist, and keeping it opened up to all productive views, uhhh is controlling something ??

If it's the government forcing them to? Yeah. Pretty much the definition of control.

Opening it up to all productive views is a bad thing ? Otherwise protecting the Constitution is a bad thing ??

 

[beagle9]

Legally speaking, they are a "platform", which gives them some legal advantages. In reality, they are a publisher who advocate for and against various ideological positions. They are also a monopoly.

What do they have a monopoly on???

Undoubtedly they have a monopoly in their views on content policing, where as there is no opposition strong enough to present an opposing view in good faith any longer, without it being squashed by the ideological views of those who are driving the bus now.

The only answer though, is for there to be competition added to the empty space that exist, and that would be filled quickly by millions of conservative's needing a place to land again.

It may be time to separate for competitive reasons, the ideologies, cultures, and characters by allowing true freedom of choice in America again, and let the best group's win the prize's just as it should be.... We shouldn't be allowing any group to hold another group back or hostage, otherwise by way of using the manipulation of government power, private power, and highjacked platforms to do so.. Especially without any way out for those being trapped into it all, for example like a bunch of fish swimming into the nets unexpectedly after it's to late.

This is proof that monopolies are bad for the American people, and they should always be broken up once they get to big.

It's the monopoly with the guns that bothers me.

Scared of good people with gun's eh ??

No. I was referring to government.

Government is only a problem when it lands in the hands of radicals, and that is the leftist at this point in history. They want to get power back in order to continue their destruction of American society.

 

[impuretrash]

What do they have a monopoly on???

Undoubtedly they have a monopoly in their views on content policing, where as there is no opposition strong enough to present an opposing view in good faith any longer, without it being squashed by the ideological views of those who are driving the bus now.

The only answer though, is for there to be competition added to the empty space that exist, and that would be filled quickly by millions of conservative's needing a place to land again.

It may be time to separate for competitive reasons, the ideologies, cultures, and characters by allowing true freedom of choice in America again, and let the best group's win the prize's just as it should be.... We shouldn't be allowing any group to hold another group back or hostage, otherwise by way of using the manipulation of government power, private power, and highjacked platforms to do so.. Especially without any way out for those being trapped into it all, for example like a bunch of fish swimming into the nets unexpectedly after it's to late.

This is proof that monopolies are bad for the American people, and they should always be broken up once they get to big.

It's the monopoly with the guns that bothers me.

Scared of good people with gun's eh ??

No. I was referring to government.

Government is only a problem when it lands in the hands of radicals, and that is the leftist at this point in history. They want to get power back in order to continue their destruction of American society.

Anyone who thinks it's ok to let a handful of tech corporations decide what opinions the American people are allowed to hear and say online is no patriot.

 

[dblack]

Government is only a problem when it lands in the hands of radicals, and that is the leftist at this point in history. They want to get power back in order to continue their destruction of American society.

Right. And if you indulge your desire for authoritarian government, all the state power you support for "your guys" will be available to the opposition if and when they regain power. ie "your guys" won't always be in charge, so if you're going to grant government the power to control the media, it will be used against you.

 

[Oddball]

Government is only a problem when it lands in the hands of radicals, and that is the leftist at this point in history. They want to get power back in order to continue their destruction of American society.

This is the warning I used when opposing DHS, NSA spying, FISA, and the Patriot Act, only to have so-called "conservatives" poo-poo me...Now look at what happened when the radicals got their mitts on these easily abused powers.

Now you want to entrust the gubmint with even more unwarranted power?

Just kill me now.

 

[dblack]

Government is only a problem when it lands in the hands of radicals, and that is the leftist at this point in history. They want to get power back in order to continue their destruction of American society.

This is the warning I used when opposing DHS, NSA spying, FISA, and the Patriot Act, only to have so-called "conservatives" poo-poo me...Now look at what happened when the radicals got their mitts on these easily abused powers.

Now you want to entrust the gubmint with even more unwarranted power?

Just kill me now.

There is where it all ends up.

 

[beagle9]

Government is only a problem when it lands in the hands of radicals, and that is the leftist at this point in history. They want to get power back in order to continue their destruction of American society.

Right. And if you indulge your desire for authoritarian government, all the state power you support for "your guys" will be available to the opposition if and when they regain power. ie "your guys" won't always be in charge, so if you're going to grant government the power to control the media, it will be used against you.

Depends on how it's done, and what laws are put in place in order to protect those works.

 

[beagle9]

Government is only a problem when it lands in the hands of radicals, and that is the leftist at this point in history. They want to get power back in order to continue their destruction of American society.

This is the warning I used when opposing DHS, NSA spying, FISA, and the Patriot Act, only to have so-called "conservatives" poo-poo me...Now look at what happened when the radicals got their mitts on these easily abused powers.

Now you want to entrust the gubmint with even more unwarranted power?

Just kill me now.

Listen, they (the left), are going to use government power against you and me regardless of what any republican administration does while in power before them and/or afterwards, so it's best to go forth with NO FEAR, and do what's right for the American people.

 

[skye]

Mr President, please do something. Enough is enough.





this says it all:




"...................what Facebook has done isn’t just an attack on particular individuals or sources. ...........— this is an attack on the independent media as a whole. It’s an unprecedented tilting of the scales in favor of Democrat-approved media, and it will have an enormous impact on the 2020 election.

That’s the point of course. Since Trump won in 2016, Silicon Valley has been animated by a single mission — ensure it never happens again.

Beyond the leaks showing that Facebook is deliberately deboosting conservative figures (when it isn’t outright banning them), that YouTube and Google are pushing conservative content out of their top search results, just look at the video-recorded weeping of Google executives on stage after Trump won. They hate him, they hate his supporters, and they will do everything they can to suppress them before election day. The only question is, what’s Trump going to do about it? "








Bokhari: Link-banning Is Facebook's Terrifying New Censorship Tool | Breitbart

 

[skye]

one by one by one....the fascists in Silicon Valley are banning all conservative voices....this is wrong, very wrong.

what is it going to be done about it. WHAT! and WHEN????





James Woods Banned From Twitter As Silicon Valley Zaps Conservative 2020 Influencers

James Woods Banned From Twitter As Silicon Valley Zaps Conservative 2020 Influencers

 

[WheelieAddict]

Good lord this thread. Conservatives really are the most entitled whiniest bitches going.

 

[skye]

Good lord this thread. Conservatives really are the most entitled whiniest bitches going.

orange man bad? yes?

you are a moron brainwashed !!! pathetic

 

[FA_Q2]

It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.

When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.

Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.

If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.

Incorrect. Facebook may not be government but the word ban is not exclusive to government functions - only the legality of it. FB is certainly and actively banning speech on their platform - a legal action by a private entity.

They should also be eviscerated for it by the public but it is doubtful there are enough people that are awake enough to be aware of how dangerous this really is to even make a blip on the radar. The right is just using this as an easy excuse to support massive government control. The left already openly embraces massive government control so they support things like this from the get go. The paltry few percent that actually care are not enough to put into motion what REALLY needs to be done - alternative market solutions.

I don't want to control social media. I just want the opportunity to share my views and to hear the views of others. The left seeks to silence those who express alternative views.

Nor do I. MOST people on this board, OTOH, do. The left wants them banning the right and the right wants the government to control the private platforms.

Can they really be called "platforms"?

For better or worse, Facebook and Twitter have become the modern equivalent of the proverbial town square. They probably SHOULD be regulated in order that all ideas, especially unpopular ideas, can be shared.

Except they are not. As I already pointed out, social media moves from platform to platform. The proverbial town square is the INTERNET. Facebook is one of those private gathering places within it. There are others, have been others and will continue to be others.

 

[emilynghiem]

Earth to Death Angel
Note that Facebook and Instagram are free market companies.
If they are offering services under their terms, they have the
right to enforce those.

What I will agree with protestors on:
If a company falsely ADVERTISES or MISREPRESENTS
that it is open to all users regardless of views or content,
as long as you meet given standards of use such as not to abuse or harass,
and the people banned DID NOT VIOLATE any of these rules but
barring from services was due to "discriminate against the person"
and not because of their actions breaking rules, then this is
a violating act of discrimination similar to barring gay customers
because of "who they are and what they believe"
as OPPOSED TO just refusing service to specific requests
(such as gay weddings that go outside the agreed services and against
the beliefs of the business operators).

In both cases:
A. it is wrongful discrimination to refuse to serve customers
just because of their beliefs
B. but it is within the discretion of business service providers
to refuse certain content if their policies make it clear they
have this discretion. Such as a disclaimer that the service
providers may refuse to accommodate content they find
in conflict with their own philosophies or beliefs.

C. To make this perfectly fair and distinct between A and B,
I strongly urge that customers and businesses sign MEDIATION WAIVERS
and DISCLAIMERS in advance, where they agree that any conflict
concerning beliefs or content be resolved by free mediation to the
satisfaction of both parties, in order to prevent any legal action
or costs to any party to disputes; and if such disputes cannot
be resolved, the parties agree to refrain from conducting
business together so that beliefs of both are respected equally.

If businesses require customers to sign these waivers in advance
before using services, then any dispute either has to be resolved
amicably and consensually by mediation, or they don't do business together.

Facebook is chock full of horrific animal abuse videos and even videos of children being strangled, run over and beaten. That sort of content is very popular with southeast asians for some reason. But that's not what's being censored. Opinions are. the opinions of western conservatives.

Unless they misrepresent their policies to paid users and advertisers,
can't any private individual or company decide what they want or don't
want on their servers or through their networks.

Fox News picks and chooses which anchors or which advertisers or messages,
which letters from the audience get airtime etc. It's not a public channel open to just anyone.

impuretrash from what I understand:
The legal disputes where there was standing to enforce laws and policies
involved MISREPRESENTATION of the services.

So yes, if they claimed not to discriminate on the basis of content and did,
that is a violation of their advertised policies.

If they claimed not to sell or abuse user information for marketing or profit,
for example, but did such abuses of private information, yes that has been
used as the basis of taking legal action for violations of user policy.

For content, however, I am more in agreement
with Constitutionalist Mark Levin who argues that
we don't want to get into this business of trying to
regulate anyone's discretionary choices on freedom of speech and of the press.

You don't want govt REGULATING media, so whatever
Fox News or Facebook publish or don't publish, you don't
want to go down that road. Because, as Mark Levin says it:
NOTHING IS REQUIRING YOU TO USE THESE NETWORKS OR PLATFORMS.

What I will CLARIFY is IF these outlets
MISREPRESENT, VIOLATE OR ABUSE their own POSTED terms
and user agreements and/or advertising policy
SURE they can be sued for breach of contracts like any other company.

So they just need to clarify VERY specifically their right to regulate
content through their platforms and not claim to be equally inclusive or exclusive.

If they claim not to post illegal activities, yes
they should take every effort to remove those.
The problem is if extra costs or resources are needed,
then platforms such as Facebook cannot completely remove content
but can only block the public access. If you bring up the old links,
you can still find those images left online, and no group has been
able to solve this since the backlog is so huge it would take years.

(My solution to that is to enlist the efforts of all spammers, online
frauds, identity theft hackers, and make it part of their restitution
to pay the cost of hiring IT staff to remove all these images offline)

Let me get this straight. We absolutely DON'T want the govt to regulate and censor free speech but we absolutely DO want to give that power to massive multinational corporations who have NO loyalty to any nation.

No impuretrash
the corporations can be policed at the state level where they receive
licensing to operate. Any COLLECTIVE entity should and can be
held to a process of "redressing grievances" so no "collective
authority" is abused. The entities still retain equal free speech
as any individual. But we do need to end the monopoly on redressing
grievances and resolving conflicts, by implementing mediation
and conflict resolution assistance at local and state levels.

This isn't about punishing and restricting free speech and media.
But setting up access to use that to resolve conflicts to correct any abuses.

What a free mediation process depends on is equal respect for
freedom by all parties using that system.

If complainants want to abuse the system to FORCE a certain
outcome or change on the other side, that makes mediation fail.

so that's why our legal system and current mediation provisions
tend to fail, is that people abuse this for adversarial coercion
instead of REAL mediation which is about respecting and protecting
the freedom of choice of all parties to conflicts so people are truly equal.​

You are about 50 years to late. The damage has already been done, and now anything to correct it all, ends up pressing the boot down even harder onto the necks that it has been choking out for decades and decades now.

Dear beagle9
Yes and no. Of course once damage is done, the effects can't magically disappear.
What keeps the damaging conflicts going, as you describe above, is projecting conditions on how to correct the problem. However, the pattern of retribution is broken by forgiveness.

Otherwise, if we try to attack problems with anger or ill will
instead of forgiveness:​

Conflicts become like a "Chinese finger trap"


The harder we try to reject and struggle,
the faster we remain stuck, both sides.
The blame punishment and judgment we will on others,
is projected back onto us like a "boomerang" effect.
This is the notion of "bad karma" that keeps us stuck in a vicious cycle of ill will.

But when we push to meet each other in the middle,
we free ourselves from the mutual trap. That is what
forgiveness does, is set us free by having more compassion
for humanity and each other than we have blame, ill will and
projected resentment and hostility that just attracts more negative reactions.

The good news beagle9
is that the worse sacrifices and burdens that we forgive,
the greater rewards when justice is received in peace.
The greater the debts, the greater the payoff when justice is redeemed.

We just can't predict or dictate when this or how this will occur.
All we can do is make sure we don't ADD to the debt, so the struggle and suffering is prolonged.

The sooner we agree to "let go" and stop adding more pressure to the situation,
as in the Chinese finger trap, we can release the hold the situation has on us.

When we can think and see clearly, we can better understand
and communicate to address the root cause and fix the problems.
We can prevent them in the future even if the past damage is irreparable.

What we can restore is the spiritual peace of mind by forgiving the
emotional injury, and focusing on recovery and renewing good
faith relations, so that the people involved can work more effectively
in cooperation to resolve the effects and create sustainable solutions from
lessons learned. We can prevent the causes of such abuses from escalating,
and learn better skills in intervention, corrections and prevention.

So the wisdom and efficiency gained from these experiences
ends up proportional to the effort and expense it took to study, learn and teach.
That's how there is justice in the world, the payoff gained is relative to the pain endured.

So that's why it is stated in the Bible as the meek inheriting the earth,
and those who suffer persecution shall be the most blessed.

If you look at the most noble and influential peacemakers in the world,
then look at their pasts and what got them to where they are now,
you will see this common pattern.

 

[beagle9]

Facebook is chock full of horrific animal abuse videos and even videos of children being strangled, run over and beaten. That sort of content is very popular with southeast asians for some reason. But that's not what's being censored. Opinions are. the opinions of western conservatives.

Unless they misrepresent their policies to paid users and advertisers,
can't any private individual or company decide what they want or don't
want on their servers or through their networks.

Fox News picks and chooses which anchors or which advertisers or messages,
which letters from the audience get airtime etc. It's not a public channel open to just anyone.

impuretrash from what I understand:
The legal disputes where there was standing to enforce laws and policies
involved MISREPRESENTATION of the services.

So yes, if they claimed not to discriminate on the basis of content and did,
that is a violation of their advertised policies.

If they claimed not to sell or abuse user information for marketing or profit,
for example, but did such abuses of private information, yes that has been
used as the basis of taking legal action for violations of user policy.

For content, however, I am more in agreement
with Constitutionalist Mark Levin who argues that
we don't want to get into this business of trying to
regulate anyone's discretionary choices on freedom of speech and of the press.

You don't want govt REGULATING media, so whatever
Fox News or Facebook publish or don't publish, you don't
want to go down that road. Because, as Mark Levin says it:
NOTHING IS REQUIRING YOU TO USE THESE NETWORKS OR PLATFORMS.

What I will CLARIFY is IF these outlets
MISREPRESENT, VIOLATE OR ABUSE their own POSTED terms
and user agreements and/or advertising policy
SURE they can be sued for breach of contracts like any other company.

So they just need to clarify VERY specifically their right to regulate
content through their platforms and not claim to be equally inclusive or exclusive.

If they claim not to post illegal activities, yes
they should take every effort to remove those.
The problem is if extra costs or resources are needed,
then platforms such as Facebook cannot completely remove content
but can only block the public access. If you bring up the old links,
you can still find those images left online, and no group has been
able to solve this since the backlog is so huge it would take years.

(My solution to that is to enlist the efforts of all spammers, online
frauds, identity theft hackers, and make it part of their restitution
to pay the cost of hiring IT staff to remove all these images offline)

Let me get this straight. We absolutely DON'T want the govt to regulate and censor free speech but we absolutely DO want to give that power to massive multinational corporations who have NO loyalty to any nation.

No impuretrash
the corporations can be policed at the state level where they receive
licensing to operate. Any COLLECTIVE entity should and can be
held to a process of "redressing grievances" so no "collective
authority" is abused. The entities still retain equal free speech
as any individual. But we do need to end the monopoly on redressing
grievances and resolving conflicts, by implementing mediation
and conflict resolution assistance at local and state levels.

This isn't about punishing and restricting free speech and media.
But setting up access to use that to resolve conflicts to correct any abuses.

What a free mediation process depends on is equal respect for
freedom by all parties using that system.

If complainants want to abuse the system to FORCE a certain
outcome or change on the other side, that makes mediation fail.

so that's why our legal system and current mediation provisions
tend to fail, is that people abuse this for adversarial coercion
instead of REAL mediation which is about respecting and protecting
the freedom of choice of all parties to conflicts so people are truly equal.​

You are about 50 years to late. The damage has already been done, and now anything to correct it all, ends up pressing the boot down even harder onto the necks that it has been choking out for decades and decades now.

Dear beagle9
Yes and no. Of course once damage is done, the effects can't magically disappear.
What keeps the damaging conflicts going, as you describe above, is projecting conditions on how to correct the problem. However, the pattern of retribution is broken by forgiveness.

Otherwise, if we try to attack problems with anger or ill will
instead of forgiveness:​

Conflicts become like a "Chinese finger trap"


The harder we try to reject and struggle,
the faster we remain stuck, both sides.
The blame punishment and judgment we will on others,
is projected back onto us like a "boomerang" effect.
This is the notion of "bad karma" that keeps us stuck in a vicious cycle of ill will.

But when we push to meet each other in the middle,
we free ourselves from the mutual trap. That is what
forgiveness does, is set us free by having more compassion
for humanity and each other than we have blame, ill will and
projected resentment and hostility that just attracts more negative reactions.

The good news beagle9
is that the worse sacrifices and burdens that we forgive,
the greater rewards when justice is received in peace.
The greater the debts, the greater the payoff when justice is redeemed.

We just can't predict or dictate when this or how this will occur.
All we can do is make sure we don't ADD to the debt, so the struggle and suffering is prolonged.

The sooner we agree to "let go" and stop adding more pressure to the situation,
as in the Chinese finger trap, we can release the hold the situation has on us.

When we can think and see clearly, we can better understand
and communicate to address the root cause and fix the problems.
We can prevent them in the future even if the past damage is irreparable.

What we can restore is the spiritual peace of mind by forgiving the
emotional injury, and focusing on recovery and renewing good
faith relations, so that the people involved can work more effectively
in cooperation to resolve the effects and create sustainable solutions from
lessons learned. We can prevent the causes of such abuses from escalating,
and learn better skills in intervention, corrections and prevention.

So the wisdom and efficiency gained from these experiences
ends up proportional to the effort and expense it took to study, learn and teach.
That's how there is justice in the world, the payoff gained is relative to the pain endured.

So that's why it is stated in the Bible as the meek inheriting the earth,
and those who suffer persecution shall be the most blessed.

If you look at the most noble and influential peacemakers in the world,
then look at their pasts and what got them to where they are now,
you will see this common pattern.

Have to have a willing participation on the other side of the isle to get results, and that ain't happening any longer it appears. It's gone way to far, just like spoiling or brainwashing the children or doing the same to generation after generation for life, it is becoming that serious of a problem more and more these days. Most say it's over, but is it really ??

Intimidation and deplorabalism has been allowed to grow out of control in America, and it is spreading like a wild fire across this once great and very blessed land that we all live upon together. No one wants this, not even those who were indoctrinated into the bullcrap in which makes them part of the problem instead of part of the solution, but they are brainwashed and therefore don't know any better any longer.

Soon there won't be anywhere to get away from it, and your children will be trapped unless you are one of the special one's with the skills to by pass it temporarily through being born with that proverbial silver spoon in hand or you were born into a clique that is shrinking faster and faster as things get worse and worse for even those in these cliques or exist along the edges of the cliques.

I've seen in my years alive, entire communities, towns, and cities fall as they were taken over by the poorly guided impoverished within our societies. Now maybe I'm living or have lived in some sort of bubble that tells me and/or shows me these things only exist in that bubble, but I don't think so. It appears to have grown or is growing exponentially over the years.

I couple these things with nation wide events that are reported on the news, and by watching the programming trends coming out of Hollyweird in order to get the patterns being seen in it all, and then watching the actions of the people.

Many know these things, see these things, and experience these things, but have been made powerless to change it because they are labeled one of the labels in which sets off the radars of the brainwashed minions for whom in their brainwashing are programmed to protect their newly formed hives.

The federal government highjacked by certain elements over the years, of course has made all this possible.

It is why we are witnessing this urge to take back power by those in support of it all, and this in order to continue the transformation to these things faster and faster... It is of the up most importance to the leaders of their brainwashed bee hive's come 2020.

We went to an estate auction a good while back in a fallen community (no tresspassing signs nailed to the trees in all the front yards, beware of dog signs, camera surveillance signs etc..... In this community they still had some elderly trapped within this community, in which appeared to be falling down all around them. In the situation a family member had passed away leaving the elderly lady in the community by herself. She had an auction company auction off everything as fast as she could, and got out as fast as she could.

These people who ever they were, had a real nice place (well kept), and had nothing but quality stuff through in and through out.

After the auction you wouldn't believe how cheap everything went for. Unbelievable and sad all at the same time. Can't blame her though, because no one in their right mind would want to live in that drug invested, crime riddled community any longer, and especially at an old age in life. Trash was on the roads, keep out signs every where, broken down homes (no maintenance), and impoverished elements roaming the streets.

It was prime property (I would bet), found in these communities back in the day, but they are wasted now.

Poverty doesn't mean that people have to be bad while in their transition from poverty to non-poverty, but when you see the kind of entrenched poverty the government creates (dependency), and you see those in that poverty being exploited and used by the powerful in hopes to keep them in that capacity/power/roll for nefarious reasons, then Houston we have a huge problem in America.

 

[dblack]

Fascism is coming.