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.
Yet again, another left-wing statist asshat who insists that people cannot refuse service to homosexuals wants to cry “FREEDOM to run their business” when it comes to oppressing the only side actually defending freedom.[yes, yes it is. Does not matter if they are big corporations or a tiny site like this one. they should have the freedom to run their business as they see fit. but statist like you will never let that happen if they can help it
I wish you were right, but I fear that people of that age are too brainwashed to resist authority.Good luck with that.can't wait until that's declared about guns & mass shootings...
There is 0 chance that will ever happen. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms - and that trumps the powers of any “national emergency”. The United States military would immediately turn on any administration that tried that. And not a single firearm owner would comply.
oh yea rule of law restored...The Dumbocrats destroyed the rule of law and you know it. It was MaObama who proudly declared “if Congress won’t act, I have a phone and a pen”. The Donald has restored the rule of law in this country. Amazing that that pisses you off.The Donald destroy the rule of law in this country. He's also a fuckin' liar!
oh yea rule of law restored...The Dumbocrats destroyed the rule of law and you know it. It was MaObama who proudly declared “if Congress won’t act, I have a phone and a pen”. The Donald has restored the rule of law in this country. Amazing that that pisses you off.The Donald destroy the rule of law in this country. He's also a fuckin' liar!
1) Trump has repeatedly attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation, and admitted as much—that’s a clear case of obstructing justice.
2) Because Trump never divested from his business interests, he violates the Constitution every time the Trump Organization has business dealings with foreign or American government officials.
3) Trump tried to cover up his campaign’s contacts with a Russian national—which, at very least, constituted a violation of federal law.
4) Trump has demonstrated a pattern of behavior amounting to advocating violence, undercutting equal protection, and, as a result, failing basic Constitutional duties.
5) Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio violates the Fifth Amendment and harms the guarantee of Constitutional rights.
6) Trump cannot be permitted to recklessly and needlessly endanger millions of Americans with his unstable behavior.
7) Trump’s threats against political opponents are threats against American democracy.
8) Trump’s threats against freedom of the press are also threats against American democracy.
9) Trump’s policy endangers thousands of immigrant children and families, and defies basic Constitutional values.
10) Trump committed at least two felonies to illegally cheat his way into office.
All 10 of these items are detailed here.oh yea rule of law restored...The Dumbocrats destroyed the rule of law and you know it. It was MaObama who proudly declared “if Congress won’t act, I have a phone and a pen”. The Donald has restored the rule of law in this country. Amazing that that pisses you off.The Donald destroy the rule of law in this country. He's also a fuckin' liar!
1) Trump has repeatedly attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation, and admitted as much—that’s a clear case of obstructing justice.
2) Because Trump never divested from his business interests, he violates the Constitution every time the Trump Organization has business dealings with foreign or American government officials.
3) Trump tried to cover up his campaign’s contacts with a Russian national—which, at very least, constituted a violation of federal law.
4) Trump has demonstrated a pattern of behavior amounting to advocating violence, undercutting equal protection, and, as a result, failing basic Constitutional duties.
5) Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio violates the Fifth Amendment and harms the guarantee of Constitutional rights.
6) Trump cannot be permitted to recklessly and needlessly endanger millions of Americans with his unstable behavior.
7) Trump’s threats against political opponents are threats against American democracy.
8) Trump’s threats against freedom of the press are also threats against American democracy.
9) Trump’s policy endangers thousands of immigrant children and families, and defies basic Constitutional values.
10) Trump committed at least two felonies to illegally cheat his way into office.
Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or do you write it out first? How about a link of at least two of the items on your list?
Trump never interfered with any investigation. He had the constitutional right to fire Comey, and the only regret I have is that he didn't do it sooner. That's not obstruction because the investigation continued, and he never fired Mueller.
Trump handed over his businesses to his son who currently runs them, and he never had any campaign contracts with anybody from Russia. What constitutional rights did Trump violate by a pardon? Would you like me to give you a list of pardons from Clinton? You know.....Marc Rich and such? Arpaio wasn't a fugitive from the law hiding out in another country. Immigrants have no constitutional rights in the US. And they have limited rights if they cross our border. Invaders are not protected by the US Constitution, and the document charges our representatives with the responsibility to protect this country from them.
Holy shit...that egregious lie was just thoroughly debunked by the exhaustive Mueller investigation in a report released just 24 hours ago and already you’re going back to that idiotic and desperate lie?1) Trump has repeatedly attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation, and admitted as much—that’s a clear case of obstructing justice.
A Fox News poll also said that Hitlery Clinton would win in a landslide.A fox news poll says most think Trump interfered with investigation.
Do us a favor sparky. Don’t ever mention the U.S. Constitution. You’re too ignorant of the document - that you have never read - to mention it. That’s an insult.Because Trump never divested from his business interests, he violates the Constitution every time the Trump Organization has business dealings with foreign or American government officials.
Yet again, another left-wing statist asshat who insists that people cannot refuse service to homosexuals wants to cry “FREEDOM to run their business” when it comes to oppressing the only side actually defending freedom.
Hey Gulping...why don’t you try telling everyone again how taxes are only paid in April.
win or lose doesn't really matter in this one.And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.
California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.
In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."
Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.
"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content."
win or lose doesn't really matter in this one.And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.
California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.
In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."
Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.
"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content."
it just has to be very expensive for the media that chooses to be 100% biased and/or pull stories out of their ass. given the nature of some of these stories and the legal mess that will have to be gone through, this is a very expensive juncture of our media today. we'll see if they calm or double down.
it really doesn't matter what i or anyone else thinks on this. they are going to court many times over at this point and it *IS* going to get very expensive.win or lose doesn't really matter in this one.And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.
California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.
In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."
Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.
"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content."
it just has to be very expensive for the media that chooses to be 100% biased and/or pull stories out of their ass. given the nature of some of these stories and the legal mess that will have to be gone through, this is a very expensive juncture of our media today. we'll see if they calm or double down.
Why should it be expensive for Twitter to be biased?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
it really doesn't matter what i or anyone else thinks on this. they are going to court many times over at this point and it *IS* going to get very expensive.win or lose doesn't really matter in this one.And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.
California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.
In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."
Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.
"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content."
it just has to be very expensive for the media that chooses to be 100% biased and/or pull stories out of their ass. given the nature of some of these stories and the legal mess that will have to be gone through, this is a very expensive juncture of our media today. we'll see if they calm or double down.
Why should it be expensive for Twitter to be biased?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
not going to get into the wordsmithing game today. sorry.
Good luck with that.can't wait until that's declared about guns & mass shootings...
There is 0 chance that will ever happen. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms - and that trumps the powers of any “national emergency”. The United States military would immediately turn on any administration that tried that. And not a single firearm owner would comply.
Their ToS doesn’t say they will “shadow-ban” users. Dumb ass.i'm sure you sign off on their TOS without even reading it. oh well...."But Twitter is free." Not really. I'm giving them access to my data, which they are (trying to) monetize. That's 'consideration' (as lawyers say) in the New Economy! And-if they shadowban-they've obtained it on questionable pretenses, no?
it really doesn't matter what i or anyone else thinks on this. they are going to court many times over at this point and it *IS* going to get very expensive.win or lose doesn't really matter in this one.And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.
California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.
In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."
Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.
"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content."
it just has to be very expensive for the media that chooses to be 100% biased and/or pull stories out of their ass. given the nature of some of these stories and the legal mess that will have to be gone through, this is a very expensive juncture of our media today. we'll see if they calm or double down.
Why should it be expensive for Twitter to be biased?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
not going to get into the wordsmithing game today. sorry.
Why do you support such things?
It is going to get expensive because he have a president and elected officials that are butthurt and will use the power of the government as their preparation H...and you are good with that.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Yet again, another left-wing statist asshat who insists that people cannot refuse service to homosexuals wants to cry “FREEDOM to run their business” when it comes to oppressing the only side actually defending freedom.[yes, yes it is. Does not matter if they are big corporations or a tiny site like this one. they should have the freedom to run their business as they see fit. but statist like you will never let that happen if they can help it
Hey Gulping...why don’t you try telling everyone again how taxes are only paid in April.
Holy shit...that egregious lie was just thoroughly debunked by the exhaustive Mueller investigation in a report released just 24 hours ago and already you’re going back to that idiotic and desperate lie?1) Trump has repeatedly attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation, and admitted as much—that’s a clear case of obstructing justice.
Tell me - were you born an asshole or did it take you many years of dedication to the craft to finally master becoming an asshole?
it really doesn't matter what i or anyone else thinks on this. they are going to court many times over at this point and it *IS* going to get very expensive.win or lose doesn't really matter in this one.And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.
California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.
In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."
Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.
"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content."
it just has to be very expensive for the media that chooses to be 100% biased and/or pull stories out of their ass. given the nature of some of these stories and the legal mess that will have to be gone through, this is a very expensive juncture of our media today. we'll see if they calm or double down.
Why should it be expensive for Twitter to be biased?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
not going to get into the wordsmithing game today. sorry.
Why do you support such things?
It is going to get expensive because he have a president and elected officials that are butthurt and will use the power of the government as their preparation H...and you are good with that.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
in this instance i equate this to saying FIRE in a public theater. our freedoms only go so far.
and dude, i worked at Microsoft as Janet Reno and the dems decided they got big enough to tell what to do and force their activities as well. so let's not wave your angry dick at the (R)s and cry foul. this is standard operating procedure that comes out of human nature. you're seeing this from a singular perspective and hunting for words you can throw back and go THAT'S BULLSHIT at the poster.
your MO, i get that. but annoying as fuck sometimes.
