drafterman

Yes

Not in function. Twitter and the MSM are arms of the Democratic party.

Which ones?

If you don't lie, you won't have to remember when and where you did.

Uhm, every political party opposites the other political party's candidate prior to their election. That's what campaigning is all about.

TDS is still TDS

The ability of Twitter to block whoever it wishes it protected by the First Amendment.

Where did I say "First Amendment" hypocrite?

Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.

Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.

Right, because you have due processes to actions taken against you by Trump...

On Twitter. So "There IS due process with respect to Twitter."

No, I'm asking you if you are accusing me of a crime. Are you?

You are confused. You are accusing Trump of a crime. I am accusing you of hypocrisy.

I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.

One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.

You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical.

A single post. Cite one. Coward.

Grade school taunts will not move me. Debating deranged people about whether they are deranged would be silly. I was brave enough to point out your hypocrisy.

Cases are thrown out every day in courts even when there is much evidence for both points.

We're not talking about the Democratic party, we're talking about Twitter.

Is there a difference?

I have never done this.

Your past posts say you lie.

So?

TDS.

I would hardly call the First Amendment a "special privilege" but it's nice of you to admit that the Republicans would try to take it away from people to protect their own.

Where did I say "First Amendment"?

Right, restrictions on the government apply to actions taken by the government and its officials. Thus Twitter can ban the president because Twitter isn't the government, but the President can't block people because the President is a government official.

Lol!! Thanks for proving my point. You said, "There is no due process with respect to Twitter." Yes, but when you're a dweeb getting blocked by Trump there IS.

Are you accusing me of a crime?

I'm accusing you of hypocrisy. Are you confused?

I have supported none of those things. You are correct that my old posts remain up for all to see. So cite one. Cite one hypocritical post. Cite one post where I supported violence. Cite one post where I supported burning down cities. Cite one post where I supported attacking security officers and peaceful citizens.

One. Just one post, ethang. You brought it up, my posts are there for all to see. CITE ONE you coward.

You are a deluded leftie Draft. You are convinced that all your motives and behaviors are righteous. You would simply insist that your post was not hypocritical. Like Congress saying their 1st impeachment of Trump was not partisan.

Like I said to you, I don't need your agreement. I'm not asking for your approval. You are a hypocrite, of course you will not admit to it publicly. Take heart in that you are not alone. The entire democratic Congress is right there with you.

Adam Schiff has evidence of Russia collusion remember? 

It's basically impossible to "prove" he was trying to "overthrow the united states government" wholesale.

• the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action
  
• the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action.
  

https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-claims-trial-by-combat-comment-game-of-thrones-reference-2021-1

Trump wasn't blocked based on his political affiliation...

Of course he was. And now Democrats are talking about cancelling those who affiliated with Trump. Virtually everything done to Trump in the last 4 years by the Democrats was politically motivated. 

Since I am neither a liberal nor a hypocrite, I can't answer this.

You won't answer because you are a hypocrite

I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to identify it.

I've pointed it out. You don't like it. Eh.

How has my opinion about discrimination changed?

When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!"

And how is that a change?

When it's one of your loony liberals you up in arms about discrimination.

I support the banning of Trump because he is a loatheseome person that spreads misinformation and incites violence.

You and your loony Democrats opposed Trump before he even had a presidential record.

If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.

They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.

Why couldn't they before?

The hypocrites were afraid the Senate would take away their special privileges.

No, if it was political, they would have banned both.

Nope. Because Biden is about to take over the account, and their hypocrisy would be harder to deny and hide if they had to reactivate it for him. 

His due process rights only apply to government actions. Twitter is not the government. There is no due process with respect to Twitter.

Yet a renegade judge found that Trump could not block people from his Twitter account!

I haven't done any of those things, ethang.

Antifa scum wore masks exactly for this reason. It's called "derangement" for a reason Draft.

Can you show how I have done any of those things? No, you cannot.

You supported all of those things. Remember your old posts remain up for all to see. I didn't make you a hypocrite Draft. It just seems to come with your particular political bent. 

Giuliani is talking about Republican officials contesting the certification.

I would certainly concur that religion is a form of wishful thinking, one that is quite indisputably drilled into many children as a form of indoctrination.

It may be drilled into children (or may not be) but that doesn't mean religion is a product of wishful thinking. In many cases, religions are built around observation not wishful thinking. I've been trying to dispel this presumptuous notion. Atheists wouldn't know, but spirituality opposes the natural response of what people "wish" to be the case.

The flaw here is you think it simply comes down to what is more obvious.

That's not a flaw, every man is free to interpret the world how they see fits with reality. This goes the same for your personal interpretation. To me, it's obvious that the universe is a product of intelligence... and indoctrination, wishful thinking and what I want play no role in that assessment. You might assume it does, as long as you understand it's your own speculation.

it seems that - amazingly - the universe does not find itself bound by the limits or wishes of human cognition.

Why would it?

It has become increasingly clear that what is "obvious" to our brains is simply what promotes survival in macroscopic, Earth-like conditions.

When I say that it is obvious, I mean that it is obvious once we apply critical thinking, logic and commonsense that it becomes obvious the universe is a product of a Creator. Now I admit, that's my own interpretation but one that is based on reality.

The revelations of science show us that, outside these narrow constraints the universe is rather bizarre and counter-intuitive. The observations of relativity and quantum mechanics are some of the most non-obvious statements ever to be formulated by man. And yet the most accurate in describing the world around us.

What I find, is that quantum mechanics aligns with my own propositions about creation. And since science is a neutral study there's no need to assume that anything it establishes is a product of materialism or atheism. What science "shows us" is how things work and by what processes, not why such processes occurred in the first place. Science can be interpreted as understanding the works of God, I don't see quantum mechanics or science as anything in contrast to my interpretation of the world.

Atheists assume that scientific studies and the scientific method support materialism and atheism, which is absolute nonsense. They get this silly idea from atheistic preachers who try and use theories of science to undermine religion lol, they think that because they can use science to show how things operate that they can use it to peddle their nonsensical worldviews. Science doesn't make any claims about Gods existence OR nonexistence, that's not its field of study.

So let me get this out of the way now, the scientific method, evolution and scientific studies are compatible with Theism.

You do realize that religion, for the most part, has a history steeped in oppression, persecution, inquisition, and judgement toward those that do not accept it in whole cloth?

I thought I made that pretty clear. This applies to both believers and nonbelievers. So the attitude of atheists towards theists is moot.

Your question makes sense only when considered in a vacuum ignorant of the history of mankind on this planet.

Sure, maybe your reading comprehension needs help? lets read what I wrote again...

"Now to be fair to atheists I am well aware of how you've been treated, at least in the past but theists of all kinds have also been persecuted so that doesn't just apply to atheists. I'm not stupid, I'm well informed of how snot-nosed religious people are prone to condemn unbelievers and anyone that doesn't support their special ideas of the world. I'm sick of that too, but at some point we all need to move past that and be open-minded of each others knowledge. In todays world, it's not so much the case where any of you atheists are being ridiculed or persecuted and actually it seems to be more the case that Theists are ridiculed especially in what seems to be a majority of a secular environment."

Or perhaps maybe it is the case that I have been debating about religion for more than the median user age on this site and have yet to see new arguments or information.

Oh please son, I've been in this game for more than 15 years and I'm 43 years of age. The information and topics I've been launching are certainly fresh ideas. I know they are because I've been around the block a few hundred times.

The quickness in which I reject the god belief is less an automatic response because of brainwashing and close-mindedness and more an automatic response because I've probably heard it before. Why waste time in addressing already debunked nonsense?

Just because you believe you've debunked a few religious ideas you think that makes your worldview anymore legit?

and because you don't find religions convincing that puts a cap on your preconceived materialistic assumptions about the world? if that satisfies your intellect so be it. It's a shame but whatever.

You don't even need religion to put together a theistic interpretation of the universe so you have to do more than debunk ideas of other people. For me, I'm not satisfied with religion (even though there is valuable information available) and I'm certainly not satisfied with accepting materialism or atheism because they are absurd estimations. So I certainly evaluate all the information available and consider what is useful but I put the pieces together for myself, if I thought for one second that flawed religious ideals were the end of consideration I'd be quite disturbed. 

I've seen your posts throughout the years, they are typical examples of presumptuous atheistic attitudes and behavior trying to hijack science to support them, it's ludicrous. Your views are not that complicated, there's only two options and your opinion falls on one side. Big deal. There's many realistic ideas within the Theistic spectrum which involves not just the universe, but every aspect of human experience and so to say it's all nonsense is not very thought provoking.

So because theists have been dicks to each other atheists should ignore how theists have been dicks to atheists? No thank you.

Is it possible you missed my point there lol??

No, political affiliation isn't a protected class,.

That must be how you liberals justify your discrimination.

Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?

What hypocrisy have I displayed, ethang?

Hypocrites usually do not see their hypocrisy. And I'm not trying to convince you of your hypocrisy.

What the fuck are you talking about, ethang?

You are a hypocrite. You know full well a restaurant that barred Republicans would be unconstitutional.

How has my opinion about discrimination changed?

When it's Trump being discriminated against, your opinion goes to, "it's ok and legal!" 

I've never in my life railed against men only or women only private clubs.

No, you just call a common phrase "violence" and support the banning of Trump on a web platform for political reasons.

I support the banning of Trump for inciting violence.

Liar. You did not want any Democrats banned when they called for actual violence.

You did not want BLM banned when they were burning down  cities and assaulting tpeople.

You support the banning of Trump because you are a hypocrite.

If Twitter wanted to ban him for political reasons, they would have done so long ago.

They could not, though they wanted to. Now they have, and it was purely political.

Note that the official POTUS account isn't banned, just Trump's personal account.

Like I said, political reasons.

Also note the hundreds and thousands of conservatives not calling for violence that are also not banned.

Right, the Senate taking up the case of conservatives being unfairly treated on Twitter and FB is just a non-story.

Political discrimination is not illegal.

Discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or political affiliation is illegal. It is your hypocrisy causing to to flip-flop now.

Discrimination based on political affiliation isn't illegal, ethang. Race, color, national origina, religion, and gender are covered by the Civil Rights Act. Political affiliation is not.

That must be how you liberals conceptualize your discrimination.

There is no due process to discard here. We aren't talking about governmental entities.

Trump is a person. A citizen. So was Kavenaugh.

I'm not disputing Trumps personhood.

No, you are opposing his due process rights.

Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence.

Trump is most certainly a racist and he was most certainly fanning the flames of insurrection.

No he is not. Your liberal hysteria has joined your TDS. Thank God we had sane people in the Senate to keep the TDS loons at Bay.

His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.

I haven't done any of those things, ethang.

It's called "derangement"  for a reason Draft.

Atheists, why is it you feel that Theism as a proposition to be something you perceive as absurd or ridiculous?

the reactions and comments through all the years I've been involved in these discussions basically tell me that creation as a philosophical option is regarded by atheists as something that is unintelligent (stupidity), influenced primarily through indoctrination (and wishful thinking) or the results of mental issues (that's my fav lol)...

I'd like to know what is so superior about interpreting the universe as a product of matter rather than a product of intelligent work, I mean it simply comes down to what is more obvious to the person's estimations.

Maybe Theism isn't that absurd, unintelligent or just the products of wishful thinking? The topics I've created recently serve to provide some decent guidelines of how the universe is interpreted as a product of God without the need for stupidity, indoctrination and wishing things to be the case.

Even "if" Theists were indoctrinated, stupid and or mentally ill none of those factors justifies the rejection of Theism as a strong proposition. Are religions and their assessments and rules stupid?

it's possible I suppose but......it is completely irrelevant to whether or not God exists, so what's with the negative attitude towards it? why be so adamant about something that could have some good reasons to consider?

possibilities (logical possibilities) should always be looked into as worthy to be considered. It's almost as if atheists have been programed/brainwashed to automatically assume anything related to God is just nonsense, and to me this seems to foster close-mindedness to the point where any other options are just off the table if it doesn't coddle materialism or anti-theism.

And TBH there are only two options! and interpreting the universe as matter being the fundamental substance of the universe is not that intelligent, not that thought provoking and not that superior. IMO it doesn't take much thought or consideration to adopt such a worldview so it makes me wonder how such a mindset that anything related to Theism is just inferior.

Maybe nobody will admit to that but that is my assessment and no, this does not include all atheists but it's a general observation. All you have to do is follow any topic in this religious forum and you see anger, sarcasm, mocking, pride, smug comments, contention, rudeness, vulgar attitudes, hatred, close-mindedness all directed at topics related to God or anything of the like.

Now to be fair to atheists I am well aware of how you've been treated, at least in the past but theists of all kinds have also been persecuted so that doesn't just apply to atheists.

I'm not stupid, I'm well informed of how snot-nosed religious people are prone to condemn unbelievers and anyone that doesn't support their special ideas of the world. I'm sick of that too, but at some point we all need to move past that and be open-minded of each others knowledge. In todays world, it's not so much the case where any of you atheists are being ridiculed or persecuted and actually it seems to be more the case that Theists are ridiculed especially in what seems to be a majority of a secular environment.

If we get past the immaturity and mistakes of humans and look squarely at the only two opposing propositions being offered, or that are available, then it would make this a much more approachable subject. Being stupid from either side of the coin does not effect the reality of either premise, so there should never be any presumptuous attitudes towards people that become an obstacle of considering either view.

Why do I even care what you think? well it doesn't really matter in terms of who you are as a person or how you lead your own life. I really only care because I'd rather you see the truth behind the universe and what the implications are for you as a soul. I know that when your physical body dies you'll be present within the next experience and so I know that you could have been apart of something much greater than what you thought was possible, or at minimum aware of it and prepared for it. You could have used your time here to extend your relations beyond what you thought were the limits of what you assumed exists. This does not condemn you in any way though, this is not about judging or condemnation but purely about my desire that all souls know how beautiful creation is and how dynamic the Creator is and how that could relate to you personally. 

Why is Trump the only person that could be regarded as a "failed fascist?" Are there really no other people in all of history that you know of that are also "failed fascists"

It's quite the pejorative term you created, and I would love to explore it with you in-depth.

Perhaps by identifying what a "failed fascist" is through real-life examples can we see why the media portrays Trump as a definitive fascist.

Perhaps.

So if you try to be a fascist, but fail, you aren't a fascist?

Is Adam Schiff a "failed fascist?" why not? I just want to be clear about the people you think are and are not "failed fascists"

Assuming we are "ticking off the checkboxes for fascism" namely overturning elections and censoring free speech.

Or is Trump the only person in the entire universe that can qualify? 

So I ask again, what would make Trump a fascist.

Probably doing at the very least, the things Adam Schiff did along with a listing of a host of other RELEVANT things regarding actual fascism that wouldn't make me look like a total jackass slinging the term fascist around with the ridiculous flair of false equivalencies. All the while avoiding supporting the crony media that does so flippantly with the not so discrete objective of maintaining DC elite power.

By your own admission, Trump isn't a fascist because he is a failure. Whatever that means. So you answered your own question.

We're not talking about 2016, we're talking about the here and now. "But but but the DEMS!" isn't a part of this discussion. We're talking about Trump. Only Trump. And the appropriate label for his stance and his behavior.

I'm only pointing out that you can't label Trump as a fascist simply for having similar behavior and failed aspirations as other existing tyrants in DC without running into all sorts of false equivalency logic errors.

You're certainly not suggesting the people who currently support censorship and have actually implemented censorship of free speech are fascists, do you? That Adam Schiff is a "failed fascist" for attempting to overturn the 2016 election? I'd like to hear your reasoning for that one.

 Fascism without the dictator, without the elimination of elections, without suppression of free speech and the right to assemble, isn’t fascism.

We are talking about whether it's correct for the crony media and the supporters of crony media to label the nationalistic movement that elected Trump as a fascist movement, with Trump as a fascist leader of a fascist movement.

And it's most certainly not deflecting acknowledging that 4 years of Biden will most likely look exactly like anti-nationalist Obama 2.0, which means we will be back here again, attempting to explain why the people are nominating the next incarnation of Trump 2.0 in 2024. With all the false equivalency rhetoric of fascism that the powerful elites in DC can muster along with their supporters.

What are you talking about?

So he solidly gets a check in the "Fascist" column for this.

I find it mildly funny that you quoted an excerpt about the censorship of free speech and the destruction of all political opposition, but ascribe none of it to Trump. Trump has put none of his opposition in jail, nor has he suppressed any free speech of any platform. Those attributes go to another set of people. Nevertheless, I would never call Adam Schiff a fascist simply for suppressing free speech or imprisoning political opposition. That would be a false equivalency. You can certainly be a tyrant without being a fascist.

to try and overturn the fair and proper election of....

Unfortunately, since 2016, this has been the acceptable course of presidential elections, and it seems this tradition won't die any time soon.

And, lastly, he has done everything in his power.

And now you have made the largest equivalency mistake here. Trump has little power right now and arguably had little power over the last 4 years to do anything substantial to help or hurt the country thanks to Congress. Barring an all-out civil war, Trump is most certainly going to be gone in 7 days and DC will most likely operate in exactly the same way they did before Trump, promoting the very same political environment that spawned Trump.

While this might be all fun speculation of what might happen, it's extremely likely that in 7 days, America will operate in a post-Trump world and the stock markets reflect that.

This begs the question, will it be permissible for ex-Trump supporters to promote democratic Nationalism with a different candidate without being labeled as fascists by crony media?

My prediction is absolutely no considering the recent behavior of crony media.

Do you believe Americans have the ability to choose democratic nationalism with the current political system without the tyranny of a dictator? Why not?

Fascism asserts that Hitler or Mussolini represent the people but are not answerable to them. The core of fascism is the idea of the dictator, who emerges through his own will. He cannot be challenged without betraying the people. Therefore, free speech and opposition parties are banned and those who attempt to oppose the regime are treated as criminals. Fascism without the dictator, without the elimination of elections, without suppression of free speech and the right to assemble, isn’t fascism.

I'm too old and educated to fall for this liberal trickery. First thing is, election discussion has included war and sport jargon for as long as there have been elections.

It is dumb, disingenuous liberal hysteria that call it "violence". Second, if one party uses fraud in an election, then violence may  be warranted sometimes. The U.S. became independent through violence.

There was something for you to address, the phrase you conspicuously left out.

It was too stupid to include.

And you have addressed it, so nothing about me prevented you from doing so. Good job!

Lol. You're still dodging your hypocrisy. Not surprising. You said I had not addressed it, then you said I had. All in the space of of a single post. Did you go back and re-read my post?

I haven't claimed that everything Trump does is a high crime.

You are a hypocrite. You know you are. I will not banter with you about it, especially as your dishonesty will cause you to avoid questions. You are intelligent, and liberal people like you think intelligence means you can't be morally reprobate. Your hypocrisy is toxic, and it pollutes every virtue you may have.

As I said, when you can face your hypocrisy, let me know. Right now, I have to go puke.

Barring specific protected classes of people, yes.

Is one of those "classes" the political class?

Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?

What the fuck are you talking about, ethang?

You are a hypocrite. You know full well a restaurant that barred Republicans would be unconstitutional.

So should an online platform that bars conservatives.

Your opinion about discrimination changes if it is Trump and conservatives being discriminated against. Like all liberals, you are a hypocrite.

I've never in my life railed against men only or women only private clubs.

No, you just call a common phrase "violence" and support the banning of Trump on a web platform for political reasons.

Political discrimination is not illegal.

Discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or political affiliation is illegal. It is your hypocrisy causing to to flip-flop now.

There is no due process to discard here. We aren't talking about governmental entities.

Trump is a person. A citizen. So was Kavenaugh.

Your liberal hysteria will simply not be taken for granted anymore. Trump is not a racist, a fascist, or calling for violence.

His comments are not "insurrection". It is you liberals who have been violent. It is you burning down cities. Attacking security officers and peaceful citizens. It is you employing cancel culture, identity politics, and fake news.

Yeah. It's never liberals who should "address" things. The phrase "trial by combat" is not illegal.

There is nothing to "address". But if there was, your putrid hypocrisy would have prevented me.

This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.

Abject nonsense. Liberals have made every single charge they're making now since Trump took his oath. You would have some credibility if you didn't claim that everything Trump does is a high crime and that there is "evidence" for it. TDS is not evidence.

If I create a restaurant, can I be able to say who uses it?

Why are you liberals such hypocrites? Does it come with liberalism, or are hypocrites drawn to liberalism?

You will rail against a men only or women only private club, but if Trump is the party banned, your liberalism suddenly takes a back seat to ownership rights.

The question is not about whether big tech has the right to limit or restrict who use their platforms, but whether it is constitutional to limit or restrict based on gender, race, and religious or political criteria. The supreme Court has ruled over and over that this kind of discrimination is illegal.

But we already know that when it comes to Trump, liberals will discard due process and fairness.

there were no rule violations and adding on to the fact that this is a coordinated effort to steer the country left

Always time for a first though when elections are not enough to eliminate political opposition.

Just don't pretend it's an established tradition.

On NP1 you wouldn't have blocked luna either way, but NP2 I think might have been 50/50 if it wasn't for the insider role.'

so the left is ok with a  few megacorporation's determining what we are allowed to say and think on the internet?

i would say thats a new low, a very steep low to think that