Mac1958
Diamond Member
Cafeteria Christians, Cafeteria Constitutionalists, same stripe.
HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech
- Thread starter bripat9643
- Start date
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.
Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech
The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.psmag.com
create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!
You're an idiot.
As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.
Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.www.citizen.org
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 106,135
- 156,876
- 3,615
The antitrust case against Microsoft had nothing to do with personal dislikes from the Clintons. It's was all about compatibility and browsers.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,433
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #84
So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.
Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech
The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.
create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!
You're an idiot.
As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.www.citizen.org
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
Do you always make up stupid shit?So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.
Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech
The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.
create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!
You're an idiot.
As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.www.citizen.org
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,433
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #86
Do you support freedom of speech or not?Do you always make up stupid shit?So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.
Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech
The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.
create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!
You're an idiot.
As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.www.citizen.org
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
Of course.Do you support freedom of speech or not?Do you always make up stupid shit?So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.
Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech
The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.
create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!
You're an idiot.
As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.www.citizen.org
So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,433
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #88
If you support freedom of speech, then you support Citizens United.Of course.Do you support freedom of speech or not?Do you always make up stupid shit?So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.
Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech
The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.
create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!
You're an idiot.
As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.www.citizen.org
So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
So you don’t have a real argument? My freedom of speech hasn’t been effected. How has yours?I'll take that to mean you oppose freedom of speech.Of course.Do you support freedom of speech or not?Do you always make up stupid shit?So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.
Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech
The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.
create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!
You're an idiot.
As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.www.citizen.org
So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.
Move to Cuba.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,433
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #90
It was affected by McCain-Feingold before the USSC repealed it. You're just too stupid to know it.So you don’t have a real argument? My freedom of speech hasn’t been effected. How has yours?I'll take that to mean you oppose freedom of speech.Of course.Do you support freedom of speech or not?Do you always make up stupid shit?So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.
Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech
The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.
create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!
You're an idiot.
As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.www.citizen.org
So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.
Move to Cuba.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
Share specifically how your freedom of speech was affected.It was affected by McCain-Feingold before the USSC repealed it. You're just too stupid to know it.So you don’t have a real argument? My freedom of speech hasn’t been effected. How has yours?I'll take that to mean you oppose freedom of speech.Of course.Do you support freedom of speech or not?Do you always make up stupid shit?So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.
Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech
The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.
create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!
You're an idiot.
As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen
A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.www.citizen.org
So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.
Move to Cuba.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,433
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #92
ROLF! Are you a complete moron? The law prevented people from publishing anything related to the election. How is that not a constraint on my freedom of speech?
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
When were you ever prevented anything?
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,433
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #94
You're too ******* stupid to argue with. The case the decision was based on was where the FEC prevented the author of a book about Hillary Clinton from publishing it. How is that not censorship?
Last edited:
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
So you weren’t? I didn’t think so.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,929
- 1,600
Social media has 2 immediate choices.
Stop censuring. Period. No more. Penalty of law stuff.
Keep censuring, declare you are a publisher, and now be held liable for all accuracy via legal means of recourse.
Long term fight it. Social media is neither a publisher nor platform anymore. A new designation will come eventually with updated rules of play.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 161,889
- 88,483
- 2,645
While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.
. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?
CNSNews
www.cnsnews.com
How the CIA made Google
Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1medium.com
Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA's Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report
What In-Q-Tel represents is a dangerous blurring of the lines between the public and private sectors in a way that makes it difficult to tell where the American intelligence community ends and the IT sector begins. . . .www.corbettreport.com
This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.
Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.
On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.
I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.
People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.
The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.
On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,929
- 1,600
While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.
. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?
CNSNews
How the CIA made Google
Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1
Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA's Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report
What In-Q-Tel represents is a dangerous blurring of the lines between the public and private sectors in a way that makes it difficult to tell where the American intelligence community ends and the IT sector begins. . . .
This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.
Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.
On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.
I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.
People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.
The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.
On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform
social media has taken the best of both and refused the responsibility of either.
that's over.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.
. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?
CNSNews
How the CIA made Google
Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1
Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA's Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report
What In-Q-Tel represents is a dangerous blurring of the lines between the public and private sectors in a way that makes it difficult to tell where the American intelligence community ends and the IT sector begins. . . .
This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.
Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.
On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.
I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.
People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.
The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.
On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform
Quite a mess isn’t it?
- Sep 16, 2012
- 77,010
- 74,000
- 3,605
While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.
. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?
CNSNews
How the CIA made Google
Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1
Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA's Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report
What In-Q-Tel represents is a dangerous blurring of the lines between the public and private sectors in a way that makes it difficult to tell where the American intelligence community ends and the IT sector begins. . . .
This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.
Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.
On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.
Or, when their users follow all the rules, they can destroy them and their livelihood with no warning, because the website algorithms have determined they are a high target social influencer which could impact voter opinion.
This guy never thought it could happen to him apparently.
Mirrored video;
For some reason, every time I click a link to his Bitchute channel in posts, it comes up empty, so here it is again if anyone is curious.
Press For Truth
Press For Truth - Smashing The Pyramid One Brick At A Time! Support my work here: PATREON ➜ https://www.patreon.com/PressForTruth SUBSCRIBESTAR ➜ https://www.subscribestar.com/pressfortruth DONATE via Paypal ➜ https://www.paypal.me/PressforTruth
www.bitchute.com
I don't know why our Admin won't get around to letting us embed video from other sites, at least our problem on this forum would be solved, we wouldn't have to rely on FB, Google or YouTube.
Regarding Bitchute.
Since YouTube is clearly become partisan and political, as it is a subsidiary of Google, can we PLEASE get the ability to embed Bit-chute videos? It is my opinions that with out the freedom of speech, a political discussion site is becoming worthless. The Corbett Report The Corbett Report
www.usmessageboard.com
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
If Trump Doesn't Hurry Up and Finish The Iranian War, I'm Afraid That It Could Easily Hurt Next Year's Election- Started by ChristisKing
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Leftists rejoice! The new Ayatollah is safe, but is being hidden to protect him from Jewish voodoo spells- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 7
