Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #61
What do you mean, "was supposed to?"So, what you are saying is that she did not actual question them as she was supposed to.
Where is that in the constitution?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What do you mean, "was supposed to?"So, what you are saying is that she did not actual question them as she was supposed to.
At the request of the FBI, you mean?How is it an abuse of power to a private business to make business decisions?
What do you mean, "was supposed to?"
Where is that in the constitution?
I would agree with that if everyone who wanted them called to the hearing only made speeches and did not ask them questions. But MTG did it to make her point that they had silenced her. She lost nothing by doing so, since the witnesses had already made it clear that they could remember nothing useful about their days at Twitter.That is the point of hearings, to question those you demanded appear before the body.
If all they are doing to do is make speeches so people like you can get a woody, why demand the Execs appear before the body?
How is silencing just conservatives and millions of views a "business decision"? Its not. Its a violation of "free speech".How is it an abuse of power to a private business to make business decisions?
I would agree with that if everyone who wanted them called to the hearing only made speeches and did not ask them questions. But MTG did it to make her point that they had silenced her. She lost nothing by doing so, since the witnesses had already made it clear that they could remember nothing useful about their days at Twitter.
I know you believe that Twitter had a right - and a duty - to silence anyone the FBI, or CDC, or the DNC asked them to silence, but the asking in the first place was an unconstitutional violation of the rights of MTG's constituents to hear from her over a purported "neutral public platform," so I won't be shedding any aligator tears for those execs that got shitcanned.
How is silencing just conservatives and millions of views a "business decision"? Its not. Its a violation of "free speech".
We're NOT as focused on Twitter as on the FBI influencing Twitter to sway the 2020 election.
Why was the FBI telling Twitter what to censor?
1. Is the FBI part of the government, did it use Twitter to violate conservative's "free speech" rights? Yes or No?No it is not. A private entity can literally not violate your free speech as free speech is a function of the Govt.
Then why are the FBI folks that did that not being demanded to appear before the body?
What is your opinion on AOC?She's a friggin moron. Not fit to serve in Congress. Has no grasp of policy. Doesn't even make an effort.
The result of the lowest common denominator on the right.
By the way, she looked like a complete idiot..again today.
You'll notice that the rank & file don't cheer and point to articulate, intelligent, informed, reasoned comments and actions.She's a friggin moron. Not fit to serve in Congress. Has no grasp of policy. Doesn't even make an effort.
The result of the lowest common denominator on the right.
By the way, she looked like a complete idiot..again today.
Since it was at the behest of the government, it was government who was silencing her.But they did not silence her. Twitter is not the only venue for expression. If it were then you might have a point, but as it stand you do not, and neither does she.
I would believe all that fully, if not for two things:What I believe is that Twitter as a private company can run their business as they wish. Nobody has a god given right to be on Twitter. There is no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.
Just as I beleive the baker should be able to say "no, I will not bake that cake" and the diner to say "no, we will not serve them" I belive Twiter and FB and even this site have the right to say "we do not want you on our platform"
I do not see how anyone that once pretended to have libertarian tendencies would disagree with that.
1. Is the FBI part of the government, did it use Twitter to violate conservative's "free speech" rights? Yes or No?
2. Stay tuned, the FBI will be subpoenaed, I'm curious if the FBI will let them testify.
Maybe you should run so you can change the world….lolThat is the point of hearings, to question those you demanded appear before the body.
If all they are doing to do is make speeches so people like you can get a woody, why demand the Execs appear before the body?
Since it was at the behest of the government, it was government who was silencing her.
1) It was government doing the silencing. The Twitter exec who did most of the talking said that he thought the Biden laptop story from the New York Post was fine. Then his boss sent down the order to censor it. It was the FBI who were telling Twitter and other platforms the lie that the laptop was disinformation. That violates the U.S. Constitution.
2) Twitter claims to be a neutral public platform. Due to that claim, they get special protection from libel and slander laws. If someone posted on Twitter that I was a groomer, that would damage my professional reputation in an actionable way, since I'm a teacher. I can sue the poster, but if I sue Twitter they can say, "we don't pick and choose what people post, so we're not responsible," Meanwhile they absolutely are picking and choosing, so that is a lie.
Maybe you should run so you can change the world….lol
You'll notice that the rank & file don't cheer and point to articulate, intelligent, informed, reasoned comments and actions.
They cheer yelling, attacks, insults and name-calling, and they revere those who dwell down in that behavioral hole.
The party used to be better than this.
Where are you running? And for what position? So I might donate to your campaign….The way to change the world is to start at the local level. And that is what I am working on.
Where are you running? And for what position? So I might donate to your campaign….