Protestors Storm Capital

[Ranjr]

Those who abuse freedom ruin it for the rest of us.  Like in high school, when we had open campus.  So many were leaving at lunch hour to smoke and drink, the administration closed campus.  After that, we had to smoke and drink before, during and after school.  That's why we can't have nice things.

[Spongebob]

They are not only censoring incitement to riot. They are taking down whole platforms like Parlor (I don't really know what Parlor is and have never visited it, but I know it's anti-American to take it down). I'm not talking about incitement to riot. I believe Biden won, but questioning the election results should absolutely be allowed. Questioning the World Health Organization should absolutely be allowed. Questioning any official story should absolutely be allowed. It's anti-American to not allow it, and it's beside the point that the government itself isn't the one doing the censoring. The mass censorship is having the same effect basically.

Think of Parler as a combination of Twitter and Instagram, but populated mostly by far right wing nutjobs who spew every sort of wingnut conspiracy and hate you've ever heard.  Platforms like Twitter and Parler work by storing all that information people post on servers (which are mostly rented), which are connected to the Internet via some Internet Service Provider (ISP).  If the company who owns the servers or the ISP doesn't want to be associated with hate speech, don't you think it's their decision to make to kick the service off their hardware?  Think of it like this, if Hobby Lobby were to go into the datacenter business or purchase an ISP and someone came up with a newfangled porn app, should Hobby Lobby be forced to host it?  Anyway, they will probably find some douchebag company that will be happy to host it and it will be back up soon.  I mean, Pornhub has no problem getting a host and that's pretty sleazy.

Do you support new domestic terrorism laws being put into law like Biden wants? Like the Republicans want? Did you support the anti-American Patriot Act after 9/11? This is the same shit all over again. Your rights are going down the tube.

You can't really blame him, can you?  I also never imagined we would need metal detectors to go to a football game, but that's where we are.

[Irreligious Atheist]

What's wrong with punishing these type of people with laws that already exist? Don't you think sufficient laws already exist? You want a new Patriot Act? Did you support the original one? If so, did you not eventually see that that was a really, really bad idea?

[The Architect Of Fate]

The far left spent last summer shitting all over law and order.

The left bein a few angry kids that smashed some stuff up while the rest peacefully objected to police brutality 

Now the far right does the same.

The right as in a group of insurrectionists that stormed the state-building.Threatened the lives of government officials and attempted sedition no matter how much you deny this fact. 

Neither has any room to bitch about the other.

False because the two things aren't even remotely the same. No matter how much whataboutism you attempt.

---

Or it's mountains out of molehills......

Or your so determined to maintain your delusional narrative you are immune to reality

---

It was really dumb to storm the capitol and these people should be punished, but whatever new laws are put in place about domestic terrorism or whatever else I find far more terrifying than a small number of idiots storming a building and causing a handful of deaths. The politicians act outraged, but they are really overjoyed that this took place, just like they were when 9/11 happened. Now they get to take away people's rights even further, and censorship is off the charts now. Just what they wanted. What the politicians can and will do, if far more terrifying than what the Trumpers did. That's my takeaway from all of this.

"Censorship"(private companies being allowed to run their platform as they see fit and cracking down violent extremist movements' ability to use the internet to radicalize people ) is not off the charts. You have no right to twitter or book publisher those aren't rights. Lastly not every anti-terrorism bill is the freaking patriot act.

---

They are not only censoring incitement to riot. They are taking down whole platforms like Parlor (I don't really know what Parlor is and have never visited it, but I know it's anti-American to take it down). 

Were people were inciting riots and plotting criminal acts, And it wasn't taken down other business simply refused to work with them and that is their right.

I'm not talking about incitement to riot.

Irrelevant 

I believe Biden won, but questioning the election results should absolutely be allowed. 

Spreading lies and dangerous misinformation about the election lead to this nonsense. No more!

Questioning the World Health Organization should absolutely be allowed.

Spreading lies and dangerous misinformation has lead to the deaths of thousands. No more!

 Questioning any official story should absolutely be allowed.

Spreading lies and misinformation to serve an agenda should not be allowed because we have seen the results.No more!

 It's anti-American to not allow it,

Tolerance for lies and misinformation is Anti American 

 and it's beside the point that the government itself isn't the one doing the censoring

No that's the point in total. You have NO RIGHT to social media it's a privilege and one that can be taken away. You have NO RIGHT to a book publisher. You have NO RIGHT to force companies to do business with this group or that group. Those are not RIGHTS!

The mass censorship is having the same effect basically.

Accept the simple fact you have no RIGHT to any of the above 

Do you support new domestic terrorism laws being put into law like Biden wants? Like the Republicans want? Did you support the anti-American Patriot Act after 9/11? This is the same shit all over again. Your rights are going down the tube.

Not every anti-terrorism law is the freaking patriot act

---

What's wrong with punishing these type of people with laws that already exist? 

Because they don't far enough in punishing the seditious clowns 

Don't you think sufficient laws already exist? You want a new Patriot Act? Did you support the original one? 

Not every anti-terrorism law is the patriot act

If so, did you not eventually see that that was a really, really bad idea?

Not every anti-terrorism law is the patriot act (I'm getting tired of repeating this)

[Brian37]

Um no, this is nuts. 

Tell me exactly who is being censored for private companies banning incitement to violence? That one GOP lady congresswoman with a mask with the word "censored" on it, when she spoke in the House chamber, was covered by CSPAN, Fox News, MSNBC and CNN AND PBS. 

Freedom of speech only refers to what the government isn't allowed to silence. Incitement to violence is not protected speech regardless. What Facebook and Twitter did in banning Trump was not censorship. He violated their terms of service, and they gave him a ton of slack before cutting him off. Trump could have stayed on those platforms if he had simply stopped selling dangerous lies and pouring gas on the fire knowing his followers would act out on his words. 

Part of the free market is allowing a private business to refuse service, just like a bar owner has every right to toss out an unruly patron who is shouting and trying to start fights with others.

They are not only censoring incitement to riot. They are taking down whole platforms like Parlor (I don't really know what Parlor is and have never visited it, but I know it's anti-American to take it down). I'm not talking about incitement to riot. I believe Biden won, but questioning the election results should absolutely be allowed. Questioning the World Health Organization should absolutely be allowed. Questioning any official story should absolutely be allowed. It's anti-American to not allow it, and it's beside the point that the government itself isn't the one doing the censoring. The mass censorship is having the same effect basically.

Do you support new domestic terrorism laws being put into law like Biden wants? Like the Republicans want? Did you support the anti-American Patriot Act after 9/11? This is the same shit all over again. Your rights are going down the tube.

Um no. Apple is a private business. They are not required by force to put up all apps because that app wants to be on their service. Apple had repeatedly warned Parlor to shape up, and they did not. Apple has the right to refuse service. 

And knock it off with the two parties are the same bullshit.

Now if you want a better argument. I have long since hated growing monopolies. Those are anti competitive, and corporate America does have way too much power. But in the the case of Trump this is strictly about inciting violence. Even giant corporations understand that unrest is economically bad for their bottom line. I am not going to pretend any of this is being done by them for noble reasons. 

But terrorism will affect their bottom line, a civil war also will affect their bottom line.

Giant corporations and GOP billionaire donors are fleeing from Trump and that party, because they know growing seditious terrorism will affect even them.

I'd certainly be for re-instating the "fairness act" that Reagan destroyed and apply that to all formats, not just tv networks. But while protecting offensive speech should always be protected, calls for violence isn't protected speech, no matter the class.

[Drich]

can you not see what facebook, apple, twitter google has does removes our first amendment rights? can you have freedom without the first amendment? can you not look at the 190 seconds it took to impeach the president in the house without one scrap of evidence being examined as an affront to the people who duly elected president Trump? how can freedom exist if a sitting president is removed without any evidence that supports the charges brought against him? where is due process of the law? where is his fair trial? when do the people who voted for him be given a chance to see a legitimate attempt to break the law?

Social media platforms have done absolutely nothing regarding removing your first amendment rights. Read the first amendment slowly and carefully.

social media and the main stream media have or are both acting as the propaganda arm of the democratic party. hiding and erasing blocking and even banning any news unfavorable to it's party candidate, while allowing any and all rumors and conspiracy theory to try and damage the rep side. hunter biden is a perfect example where twitter and facebook censored the president stating his comments on his bribe taking was speculation and un prooven rumors. compared to the whole Russian collusion stick that was pushed without evidence and proven to be false was allowed to run like wild fire against trump. the point you are ignoring is when social media acts to edit in behalf of the US governement 1 amendment rights have been infringed. the up coming law suits, criminal action (Ricco act charges) and purposed breaking up of social media is indeed proof part of the people and government see serious malfeasance concerning these platforms.

It took substantially more that 190 seconds to impeach Trump. Granted, it was pretty quick, but that’s what happens when you’ve had practice.

i'm talking about the motion from start to finish took about 90 seconds the motion was presented seconded, then it was put to a vote and the motion carried without any evidence presented for or against. that whole process took about 190 seconds. that is a mockery of our nuclear option to unseat a president. no evidence should be the focal point of this discussion no matter how long the process took. that fact no evidence was offered for or against yet a guilt verdict was issued is the loss of due process and our rights to a fair trial. if they can to this to the potus then what keeps them from doing it to joe everyman?

oh, and i googled it. you were right it did not take 190 seconds to impeach trump, so i retract my previous statement. as politico says it took 180 seconds.
https://www.politico.com/video/2021/01/1...nds-108920

No evidence needs to be presented to impeach a president and doing so is not an affront to anyone.

no evidence is needed when you suspend due process, you are right. but that is my whole point due process of the law is a constitutional right. one that was suspended and a conviction declared without any evidence. evidence like the FBI states the raid on the capitol was premeditated by agitators.. IE the presidents speech had nothing to do with the raid... the very same speech that the house is using to condemn him and impeach him. the house's whole purpose in the impeachment process is investigation, which is why last time they feigned through the motions with the muller report. it is the senate who takes this information and weighs it out. (which is why we know the report findings were misleading/based on falsified documents and illegal fiza warrants. but again this time around no investigation just 180 second kangaroo trial, and a guilty verdict.

Trump hasn’t been removed from office. He’ll serve out his term, and then leave.

well one if the speaker of the house polisi has her way (she went to the marines top general to have him removed physically/he told her to tread carefully she could be interpreted as plotting treason for having such a discussion) trump would not serve another day. but the house alone does not impeach it take a vote in the senate which they said this trial would not be heard till after joe's inauguration.

His trial is coming, sometime after 20 January.

because the senate right now is controlled by republicans.

Breaking the law has nothing to do with impeachment.

in order to be impeached one is shown guilty of high crimes and or misrmeanors.
You’re pretty ignorant about all this.

Boru
[/quote]

im·​peach | \ im-ˈpēch \
impeached; impeaching; impeaches
Definition of impeach (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb

1: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor
specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
After Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached, finished his chaotic and disgraceful administration, Grant was the inevitable successor.
— Richard Brookhiser
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

[Ranjr]

He says impeachment means "shown guilty" then turns right around and gives the dictionary definition which limits impeachment to the bringing of charges.  Everyone but halfwit Trumpkins know the difference between a charge and a verdict.

Can't even understand his own drivel.  What a fucking idiot.

[arewethereyet]

Oh, but Drich talks to angels. He is the ultimate authority on everything an addled mind is sure of.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Drich

Point by point:

1. The US Government has no First Amendment rights.

2. Putting and seconding the motion is NOT impeachment. Are you seriously contending that Politico’s three minute video montage is the impeachment?

3. Trump has not lost due process. This is exactly how it’s supposed to work. The House levies the charge and the Senate conducts the trial. Trump’s due process and the relevant evidence will be presented during the trial process. As yet, Trump hasn’t been found guilty of anything - he’s been impeached.

4. Pelosi did NOT ask that Trump be forcibly removed from office, she asked if his nuclear access codes could be deactivated. I agree that this was a stupid move on her part. And yes, the House alone impeaches - the Senate has absolutely no role in the impeachment process.

5. Even when the Democrats take control of the Senate, it would require a massive Republican defection to convict him.

6. No, you have to be formally accused of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’, guilt doesn’t enter into it. 

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The far left spent last summer shitting all over law and order.

Now the far right does the same.

Neither has any room to bitch about the other.

I have room to bitch about both.