Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Greyparrot
You can make the same argument for the safety regulations that would plunge the country into a recession if the rail companies can't meet the safety requirements.
You can make whatever argument you want. Whether it abides by basic principals of logic and critical thinking is another issue, as is the question of whether that even matters to you.
There is no chance that taking the proper safety measures to avoid catastrophic train derailments would have shut down the entire rail industry.
This is quite honestly, the worst take I have seen any Democrat make, that it's OK to have a few people suffer like those in Ohio as long as New York is OK. Dystopian AF.
Of course it is. That's usually what happens when you make up your own bullshit to attack instead of responding to the person you are pretending to talk too.
Nothing I have said even remotely resembles this, and there is no excuse for you to think I did. You're not this stupid.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
As far as the rail companies go, Biden and his Democrat administration has already proved they are firmly in the pocket of the rail companies the day Biden signed the law to end the rail strike and make it illegal for rail workers to strike.
No, it proved that Biden wasn't willing to plunge the economy into a deep recession by allowing a critical source of transportation for goods across the country to suddenly by shut down.
The confirmation bias needed to skip over that obvious explanation and take it where you did is quite impressive.
You were the one bringing up Biden's position, which seems to align closely with Joy Behar's take on Ohio. It's a red region that doesn't deserve excessive help because there is no political capitol to be gained from it.
Biden's position that I was referring to, which is the same position democrats stood firm on for decades and republicans have been fear mongering in response to all that time, is that regulations work and are generally a good thing.
That's all.
What the hell does Joy Behar have to do with any of this? And that question sets side the nonsense strawman you are putting forward regarding her comments.
This is the problem with talking to you, your mind is so warped by all of that right wing propaganda that you can't even translate basic English. Perhaps in the future you should consider asking more questions instead of just assuming everyone lives in the same news bubble you do.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And yet again you reply to with without demonstrating that you have any clue what I was talking about or any interest in the actual conversation that was taking place.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Conspiracy once again becomes fact. That’s because the lying democratic government can’t keep a secret.
The conspiracy theory that has been derided since this conversation started back in 2020 was the idea that China purposefully created the virus and unleashed it into the population. The idea being considered more seriously now is the idea that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab, no one is seriously contending that it's unleashment was intentional.
To the extent that the "basic" lab leak theory was refuted, that was on the basis that the virologists who studied the strain concluded it most likely formed naturally. But the possibility of it originating in the Wuhan lab was never seriously disqualified.
What's amusing now is watching all the conspiracy theorists take victory laps because they think this vindicates them. Few problems here:
It's still not diffinitive where COVID originated despite right wingers insistence that they were right.
Moreover, even if it were proven that COVID came from the Wuhan lab, that still doesn't validate the position most of the same people boasting about it now held back in 2020. One of the most basic concepts of critical thinking is that one proportions their beliefs to the evidence. The lab leak theory in 2020 was supported by the facts to, at best, a degree of reasonable suspicion. So anyone who is running around bragging about being right and calling others idiots or liars for supporting the "natural" theory is just demonstrating their ignorance and lack of ability to engage in critical thinking.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you ever read the arguments other people make with the intent of understanding it, or is your only purpose here to attack your own made up Boogeyman?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Watched about 2 minutes of it, this is so stupid. Is there a point you're trying to make?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
As far as I am aware, we don't yet have the final report on what went wrong so while we may have a pretty good idea, we are still relying largely on speculation.
What I think matters here is not whether Trump's specific rollback of safety regulations was in fact what lead to this disaster, but the fact that we know with a high level of certainty that a lack of regulations generally is still largely responsible. If the regulation Trump gutted wouldn't have made a difference here, there is some other regulation that would have.
To the extent people are playing politics with this, if we really want to use this as a cudgel between Biden and Trump it clearly favors Biden. Trump's philosophy was made clear; gut as many regulations as possible so that businesses can thrive. The flip side to that argument is that things like this will happen more frequently. So if you do not want to see more disasters like this, Biden and the democrats position here is the one you would be endorsing.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Are you saying most women are left-handed?
No, but what I'm saying also fits into the left handed right handed gap. We know that the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body and vice versa. So if the left side of the brain is more tied to analytical thinking it explains why most people are right handed. Think about a baby discovering their hands and learning how to use them, what processes of the brain are they primarily using? It's entirely an excercise of analytics.
Again, I never said women are any less capable of being analytical, only that this is not the side of the brain that primarily drives them. That doesn't mean they don't use both, we all do, is just a matter of how dominant one side is over the other.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
My contention is that global national corporations are under tremendous pressure from external nations to subvert American interests.
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You mentioned representation. I assumed that meant you want to see people chosen for certain jobs based on their identity and not their qualifications. If not than what do you mean by representation?
I said that people (aka customers) want to see themselves represented. Remember we're talking about Disney, a mostly content driven company. So when people see themselves in movies and shows they are more likely to embrace the company as a whole.
The point was that being inclusive is generally a good idea for any company. The problem we're having that being inclusive is now labeled as "wokism" and is just like that, with no further thought required, deamonized by the political right.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Heh, I am just rolling along with your premise that multinational global corporations represent and reflect the common American.
No, you're rolling along with a premise you made up.
I didn't say corporations represent the common American, I argued that they are at worst capitulating to the ideas embraced by most of the country because it's in their best interest to do so.
This isn't complicated.
Recall where this conversation started, I was replying to a comment made suggesting that I was ok with corporations being "forced" by liberals to act against their business interests. You can strawman me all day because that's clearly all you have, but that's the context my points are being made within.
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
I think generally speaking, female brains are just wired differently. Most women are right brained, so they follow their intuition. Most males are left brained, so we're more analytical.
It's not a difference in intelligence, which has more to do with ability. It's just a matter of what tools we use to reach our conclusions and make decisions. Since women tend to rely on what they feel, debate is just not appealing as it wouldn't accomplish anything. You can't argue with what someone feels (ask any husband).
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
He has more access to classified Intel about election security than the media .
Do you have any evidence at all that there is any classified intel concerning election security, or is this one of those made up things which serves only to provide an unfalsifiable narrative for those who don't care about facts and logic?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Pure DURESS bullshit.
The files released included Fox hosts like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson telling each other that Trump's stolen election claims were bullshit. Were those under duress as well?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So places like China. Yeah, you can see where this is gong...
Yeah, I see exactly where it's going. You've got nothing left so now you're just saying stupid things to make the readers forget how silly your position turned out to be.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Do we need more inclusion in the NBA balecause it is predominantly black or should it be a meritocracy?
Is there a point you are trying to make, or have we reached the part of the conversation where you have nothing left and just start throwing out silly little comments to make this thread go away?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
About 50% of America is conservative. Why is it most billion dollar corporations push woke agendas even at the expense of their own profits and obviously with great harm to the United States.
It's not 50%, it's more like a third. Same with liberals. Then there are those in the middle or who don't really follow politics and couldn't tell you what they are.
And by "pushing woke agendas" what you really mean is standing up for minorities and being inclusive so everyone has a chance to see themselves represented. The fact that this had become toxic on the political right is an absolute joke.
Regardless of how you caricature it, that is obviously good for any major corporation. It's unfortunate that such a large chunk of the country has made it their cultural mission to stop it, but that chunk is far smaller than the rest of the country so it's just common sense for any major corporation to go that route, even if they do overdo it sometimes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most people in Florida are not pressuring Disney to behave this way.
You do know Disney's customer base is not limited to Florida right?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
so do you oppose them having the special tax status yes or no?
Generally speaking, yes I do. But this is a complex issue, so my position on it isn't set in stone.
Do you oppose how liberals try to force corporations to be political on their behalf or is it better that politics is left to the people rather than billion dollar corporations?
The way you are phrasing this is just cartoonish. You talk about liberals likes it's some small group of a few individuals pulling the strings for everyone and then contrast it with "the people", as if liberals are not people.
Corporations are made up of people, and those people have opinions. Just because you don't like their opinions doesn't mean they are being held at gun point to state them.
To the extent corporations are feeling the pressure to think a certain way that's because that's what the population they are among wants from them. Not everyone of course, but most. That's all were seeing here. There's no conspiracy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@PREZ-HILTON
This is where you can see the liberal hypocrisy come in. The second you do something that ideologically they agree with but it benefits the wrong team than you see the mask comes off.
This is where it helps to read what others write and understand it before replying, as opposed to focusing on trigger words and phrases you think amount to a "got-cha".
At no point did I espouse any position on Disney's special tax status because that is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
Once again, Disney took issue with a law Florida passed and spoke out against it. In response to Disney saying something the Florida governor didn't like, he decided to use the power of the state to punish the corporation.
And it's not even like this is a controversal spin, he was pretty explicit in spelling out his motivations.
Whether Disney should have special tax status is an entirely different conversation. We would not be talking about this had Disney not criticized the law Florida passed.
So when right wingers pretend that they care about free speech and claim it is under assault, if they are not condemning what Desantis did they are a full blown hypocrite whom nobody should be taking seriously.
And in case I didn't make myself clear enough, Disney's special tax status has nothing to do with this conversation.
Understand?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Basically though republicans want businesses to be politically neutral, Disney decided to not be politically neutral
Then not only do republicans not give a damn about free speech liked they love to pretend, but they also believe in government so big it gets to decide how private businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. Sounds like a breathtaking level of hypocrisy.
And no, republicans do not want businesses to be politically natural, that's where they get their donations. Ironically Disney was a big contributor to Florida republicans, I wonder how they'll spend those funds moving forward.
and they weren't so much punished as they were forced to pay taxes like every other business in Florida is required to do.
They were forced to pay taxes and lost their special district status*because of and in direct retaliation for* them speaking out against Florida law. That's the literal definition of punishment.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Neither the FBI nor the DOJ shouldn't be taking marching orders from any lobbyist group.
What does this have to do with anything we've discussed?
You started off with a supposed example of the government limiting speech to fit an ideology, presenting the tired and debunked claim that the DOJ was being used to silence parents at school board meetings.
Then when having it pointed out that there is no justification for your overtly exaggerated characterization, you provide a source to groups apologizing for the DOJ memo. None of this supports your point.
The DOJ isn't. This is why we have a judicial branch. You know this.
I also don't know why you think linking to a letter written and signed by as bunch of republicans making the same bogus claims you are supports your point. This isn't complicated at all. The Garland memo they are all pretending is a big deal is only 5 paragraphs long. Any laymen can read it and see very clearly that it does no such thing as what they are claiming.
They know this, but they also know that people like you will not bother to read it and instead just read headlines written by others whose job it is to keep you outraged over imaginary bogeymen.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you even read your sources, or just skim the headlines?
The DOJ is not targeting parents for speaking out, this is yet another ridiculous right wing talking point that gets repeated over and over again where the only evidence for it is the fact that it gets repeated over and over again.
Your article gave a whooping two examples, both were cases where someone on the school board forwarded emails to the FBI asking them to investigate it. That's not evidence for your claim. At all.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
No, it is "small government dedicated to X, Y, and Z".
X, Y, & Z can mean anything. "Protecting the lives of citizens and the well being of minors" is not exactly a limited scope. I suppose the latter of those two things is where you will place book bannings, limitations on what teachers are allowed to talk about in classrooms, and stopping parents and their doctors from deciding what's best for their children. Oh, and let's not forget punishing Disney for exercising free speech.
It's all bullshit. Whatever it needs to be is what it is. "I believe in small government except when it comes to issues X, Y, & Z" is inherently dishonest. If you're willing to accept that government can and should be used to intervene in important issues within our society then our disagreement is not that one believes in government and one doesn't, the difference is in which issues we value enough to believe government should intervene in.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Politics is just reality TV to the MAGA crowd. Reality be damned, a good entertaining story is the goal.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, if Biden isn't interested in fixing Trump's "mistakes" after having 2 years to fix them
Two years is way more time than is needed to clean up the mess of a prior administration. I mean just look at how quickly Trump fixed the economy. The last jobs report of the Obama administration was so bad they had to put out a fake one. Then all of a sudden the first jobs report days after Trump was sworn came in and as Sean Spicer said "they're very real now". Incredible!
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The GOP does typically hold to a limited government, but they also hold to certain jobs the government is meant to uphold, and that is to protect the lives of the citizens and the well-being of minors. This very much is inline with that.
In other words, small government until my agenda gets tabled, and then big government is fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Calling something a right doesn't make it a right either.
Which is why I ended my post by expressing that he has a right to his viewpoint.
Is there a point you thought you were refuting, or are you just replying to troll?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Women have aright to do whatever they want to their body's.But they do not have a right to murder.
Murder has an actual definition. Calling something murder doesn't make it murder.
Again, you don't believe women have a right to decide what happens within their own body. So when they decide for example, that a fetus will not be able to use their body as a feeding tube, you have decided that it will. Because it's your choice what happens within their body and not theirs.
But they're not objects.
You are free to hold that view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok well most pro-lifers don't view women as objects, so I don't really understand what you're trying to get at.
They don't view women as objects but they also don't believe women have ultimate say over what happens within their own bodies.
You have a right to that viewpoint.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok yes, it is a logical trap, but is my point wrong?
Yes, because the entire point of a logical trap is to pit someone against their own position or against logic itself. That’s not happening here, because the targets of your questioning are using these terms in completely different ways than you are and if you took the time to understand that would see that there’s no contradiction here. But you don’t see it because you continue to pretend that your definitions are the only definitions people can use. That’s ridiculous.
In other words, either define woman without excluding any particular person, that could identify as a woman, or accept that your thinking is flawed.
Or, you could accept that there are different ways to think about things that are not always black and white. That’s why there’s a logical fallacy literally called the black and white fallacy.
If you can’t be bothered to understand alternative points of views, then you don’t get to be taken seriously when you criticize them.If you're view is different, then why are you arguing against mine in the first place? Oh, right because debating is about conflating different views on certain points.The fact of the matter is that gender/sex are the same thing.
I’m sitting here explaining to you that you don’t get to be taken seriously criticizing other peoples positions if you can’t be bothered to understand them first and all you did was reiterate that your position is the correct one.
So, in order to be a trans man, you have to have surgery done? What about people who identify as a man, but don't want the surgery?
That depends on the context we’re having this conversation within. I already explained this to you.
Us on the political right are trying to show you that the world is not always happy and nice, and it won't ever be, because there are bad people out there.
Yes, and you are doing a fine job of demonstrating this reality.
If you are someone who has gender dysphoria, there are other, more reasonable ways to fix that desire to become the opposite sex, like therapy. And it has worked before with many people. If you have gender dysphoria, if you really think that making everyone around you bend to your preferred pronouns, and getting life altering surgery, is going to make you feel like a human being, then I am sorry to say, but that's not going to help you, because then you're going to feel even worse because you will have a fake penis/vagina, unstable amounts of chemicals in your body, and have a constant remembrance of who you were born as.
It’s not up to you to decide what will make someone else happy, and it really is quite remarkable to watch someone who knows so little about a subject spend so much time and energy telling others about the solutions to their own problems.
It's ok to have differing opinions, but just because I have differing opinions as well, doesn't mean you get to call me an a**hole
I didn’t call you an asshole because you have a different opinion than mine. I called you an asshole because that is what your arguments amount to. I’m not just sitting here throwing insults, I’m explaining how your actions amount to the definition of the slur. You can either get defensive and take that personally or you can listen to what I’m telling you and reflect upon it.
Again, all people with gender dysphoria are asking you to do is respect them as human beings. Instead of just being ok with that you sit here day after day arguing with people to explain why you shouldn’t have to, and even worse you do it under the guise that you are really doing it for their own good. Not to mention, in the process you repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t have the slightest clue what this conversation is even about.
For the umpteenth time, we are not conflating biological sex with gender. You are. Your unwillingness to separate these things into two different concepts only makes you ignorant to the conversation you are engaging in. You don’t have to agree with the premise, but you don’t get to pretend that’s not the premise.
You continue to talk about facts while completely disregarding the fact that, as an example, the idea that “he” applies to biological males is a human construct. To argue that it cannot be changed is just as absurd as arguing that your name can’t be changed.
Imagine the name on your birth certificate read John, but for reasons personal to you that name now offends you and you have decided to go by Mike. You intend in getting your name legally changed but are not old enough yet or are waiting on the paperwork. Everyone now knows you as Mike, but some dude comes along and says he has no interest in going through the trouble of calling you Mike. He’s going to call you John instead because that’s how he thinks of you. He doesn’t care how it makes you feel and justifies his actions by claiming that you have to live in the real world, and it is just a fact that your name is John.
Please explain to me how this man is not an asshole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Some democrats accuse Republicans of "hating women" because most of us are pro-life, but if we really hated women, wouldn't we just be gay?
No, because these are two completely different things. That’s why I asked if your comment was serious, because I find it perplexing that anyone could not know the difference.
A man can hate women and still be sexually attracted to them. In fact for many men their hatred is based on that sexual attraction (that’s basically what incels are).
Hatred towards women in a political context is about viewing women as objects not entitled to the same rights and respect as men. That has nothing to do with sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It doesn’t matter. The political right will continue to isolate themselves into their own right wing echo chambers and label every single individual who has anything contradictory to say about Trump’s big lie as part of the left wing conspiracy (yes, even Trump appointees, lifelong republicans, etc). Logic. Reason. Reality. None of it matters to these people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The logical trap you continue to try and portray your question as only demonstrates your ignorance and/or unwillingness to engage in good faith conversation.SERIOUSLY?Asking for the non-contradictory answer for the definition of a woman, is a logical trap?
No. Read my statement again. Note the bold.
A logical trap is a question framed in such a way that the person answering it won’t be able to do so without arguing against a position they previously held. There is no trap here because those of us on the left who actually understand these issues recognize that this is not as simple as you insist on believing it is.
You don’t see sex and gender as different things. That’s fine, you are free to view it however you like. But what you don’t get to do is pretend that the rest of us are looking at it the same way in order to attack things we aren’t even saying.
If you can’t be bothered to understand alternative points of views then you don’t get to be taken seriously when you criticize them.
Please explain to me how the biological definition of a woman is different from the medica definition of a woman.
A trans man would no doubt according to you be considered a biological woman, but would have no need to see a gynecologist.
Because the last time I checked the world is not all sunshine and rainbows, and at the end of the day, no one really cares about your feelings.
*No one [on the political right] really cares about your feelings*
Fixed, and agreed. This one sentence is really all you had to say, that is clearly the difference between people like you and people like myself. It’s not difficult to understand that there are a lot of people who have deep and sincere problems with this and carry it on their shoulders every day of their lives. All the political left is trying to do here is recognize these problems as being very real and do what we can to help people who are struggling with it. If calling someone a she instead of a he is what it will take to make someone feel like a human being, I don’t see a problem with that.
You however do. But instead of just admitting that when it comes to this issue at least, you’re just an asshole, you instead pretend that this debate is about facts and basic biology. It’s not. That’s your convenient excuse because you won’t just call yourself what you are.
I don’t say any of this to be disparaging or disrespectful to you, just calling it what it truly is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You say Republicans don't like women, yet most republican guys are strait.........
Was this a serious comment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Pence ruined his reputation by turning on Trump after staying loyal for 4 years.
Something I really don’t think gets talked about enough is just how remarkable it is and what it says about republican politics that insufficient loyalty is seen as a disqualifier in a politician. I remember a time when politicians were supposed to care about the people they represented more than paying back others for boosting their political careers.
Created:
Posted in:
I think Haley is the strongest candidate the GOP has to put forward in a general election, but she won’t make it through a republican primary. A not insignificant portion of the base are misogynists, and the party at large has no interest in the “hope for the future” message she’s trying to sell. This is a grievance party, the nominee will be the person the base feels most confident in to own the libs. It’s that simple.
Created:
Posted in:
I assume the chats link to see who responded to you is one of those features that will return. Traffic on this site would take a significant hit if people have to keep going back and combing through threads to see if anyone replied to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This question has to do with gender roles, and how certain gender/sexes portray themselves, and is a topic for a different forum.But the question still stands:What is the definition of a Woman?
The point of the question is to show how silly your (and the political right in general’s) obsession with this topic is.
If you can’t define woman in any way that has any practical relevance to your daily life then why obsess over it?
The logical trap you continue to try and portray your question as only demonstrates your ignorance and/or unwillingness to engage in good faith conversation.
The definition of the word “woman” depends entirely on the context it’s being used in. If we’re talking about biology then that’s one thing, if we’re talking about socially that’s another. If we’re talking medically that’s another. If we’re talking about for the purposes of determining whether one should be eligible for certain benefits then that has a range on its own depending on what we’re talking about. So no, there isn’t one definition across the board and there shouldn’t be so long as we live in a society where we recognize the harsh realities some of us face and give a damn about doing what we can to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live a dignified life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Simple challenge:Define the word woman without using the word woman.
Here’s a simple challenge for you: define “woman” in a way that wouldn’t require you to undergo a full medical examination in order to tell whether any given person meets your definition.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you even know what fascism means?
Please explain how this video in any way aligns with fascism.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
So once again you refuse to watch/read information provided by a DART member with the intent to educate others and initiate a discussion.
Discussions are initiated with words strung together to form coherent thoughts. You don’t have that to offer, which is why no one here takes you seriously.
Your laziness knows no bounds.
Says the guy who is too lazy to make an argument of his own.
You expect everyone else to do your work for you.
No I expect others who decide to spend their time on a debate site to defend their own positions, not point to someone else and go “dUh wHat He sAId”.
If I wanted to sit around watching videos I’d be on YouTube. I come here to interact with others who have
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am not a fan of DeSantis. But the claims made against him are obviously done to defame him and make him lose support.I agree, Occam's Razor applies here.
Agreed. Desantis has no known history of such behavior so such a claim is pretty remarkable. A picture of him with other school kids is unremarkable. Therefore it fails the test.
It also doesn’t help that it’s Trump making the claim, a man known for being a pathological liar, especially when it comes to his perceived political rivals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This doesn’t mean we should assume you’re guilty, innocent until proven guilty. But there are 3 options, and I will rank my ideal options:
Innocent until proven guilty is a requirement for a jury. If the conversation is about whether the individual in question should go to jail, this is appropriate because we value freedom over punishment. But if the topic is simply who we believe, all we should be going by at that point is Occam’s razor.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
So once again, you make a claim that you refuse to explain, then tell everyone who asks you to support your BS to go watch a YouTube video.
Why are you here? What is your point on this site?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
It’s ALL common knowledge. As such, it doesn’t require proof.
All claims require evidence before they can be taken seriously. The fact that this filth has spread all throughout right wing eco chambers across America does not change that.
Oh, and it’s clear you didn’t even take the time to watch the video. Which is in and of itself, proof.
Chuck Grassley making a bunch of claims is not proof of anything. The fact that he was reading them off of a paper again, does not change that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Fuck you tooThis, 100% this. I have never agreed so much in my life
Aren’t you supposed to be the president of this site?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Says someone who can’t even be bothered to type words forming sentences to convey actual thoughts.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Once again, you clearly FAILED to look at the cited links given to you.
Because yet again, you have failed to present anything resembling a deep thought.
If you don’t have time to make your own arguments then I don’t have time to sort through all of your spam.
And I have explained it. You just conveniently ignored (denied) it.Hint: col·lu·sionnoun
I understand what you’re claiming. I’ve already explained in detail why there is nothing illegal or improper about it in any way. But apparently that was far beyond your bandwidth so all you have in response is a scary sounding word that I’m supposed to figure out how to fit into your point. No thanks, make your own point and I will be happy to respond to it.
Another one: duress
Still waiting for someone to make that claim and attempt to support it. Till then I have no obligation to take your posting of one word and pretending you made a point seriously.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The government cannot violate the first amendment, period. Even when they ask someone else to do it for them. It’s still under their direction. Your analogous is bunk. You clearly don’t understand how the law works.
The law says that Twitter has the ultimate authority to make the decision. And they did. That. By definition. Means it is not a first amendment violation.
Telling me I don’t understand it doesn’t change that fact.
No one is arguing that the government cannot violate the first amendment. You made that up. I’m pointing out that they didn’t violate the first amendment here. I’m still waiting for you to explain how they did.
If you want to argue that the government coerced Twitter into complying then that would be a legitimate point if it could be substantiated. Neither you nor anyone else I’ve argued this with, nor anyone I’ve even seen ranting about the Twitter files has ever attempted to make that point.
Created: