Has America Imploded? (1 Viewer)

[Pat Hartman]

I would hate to be forced to allow someone to use my app that I didn't want there.

Why is that different from serving them in your store? I can't ban you from my store because I don't like you. Or maybe I can ban you unless you are a protected class? I for one will be checking the African American box from now on just in case. If Africa is where the human race developed, then all Americans are African-American. Men all need to learn to walk with a swish. Then we'll be safe from being cancelled. Or will we? I'd be seriously worried if I were Jewish and I'm not kidding. The Democrats are already vocally anti-Semitic. How long before they come for you? Start sewing your yellow stars. If you want me to be around to defend you, I suggest that you strongly consider defending Trump from the mob.

Trump's crime is exposing the deep underbelly of corruption in Washington.

Thats the way criminal investigations work. Unless it's tom cruise in minority report.

So, I start with your name, decide I want to crush you and so start looking for a crime to pin on you? And if I can't find one, I hire some Russian to create a phony "dossier"? Wasn't that what Stalin's head of security said that he did? Yep, that's the way the FBI and DOJ work since the Obama administration. If the FBI had Don Jr's laptop instead of Hunter's in their custody, do you think the Don Jr. would be walking the streets? That is hypocrisy and that is exactly how Communist countries operate. Laws apply to some people but not others.

Show me the man and I'll show you the crime - The Oxford Eagle | The Oxford Eagle

 

[Jon]

One of my big concerns about this censorship thing is nested bans. Let us say Parler finds a hosting company that will take them on. Then Google says to the hosting company that if you take on Parler, we will delist you from Google's index. "We cannot have companies that host sites that can endanger others." Since Google has a monopoly on search, being deindexed will crush your business. That might explain why Parler is having problems finding those who will host their site, at least that is my understanding.

It is a dangerous precedent. It seems this communist style censorship has really taken hold over the last couple of years, which suggests that the Democrats and big tech have lurched to the far left. All these movies like 1984 are probably viewed as utopian civilisations, a controlled society where no view except their view is allowed, else you are extinguished. No more thinking, because big tech and government will tell you what you are or are not allowed to think. The thought police are already out in force, encouraging this slide into oblivion.

 

[Steve R.]

We need to stick to prosecuting crimes. Not trying to tie a chain of causality backwards as far and creatively as we can go. That's a never ending slope.

In the spirit of reconciliation and healing, the Democrats could have offered an olive branch. Instead of impeachment, they could have had a festive farewell party for Trump.

Thats the way criminal investigations work. Unless it's tom cruise in minority report.

Actually, the concept of pre-crime as portrayed in Minority Report is emerging. In taking down Trump's ability to use the internet, I've seen the wording that Trump is being removed on the potential, not that he has actually done anything wrong.

Furthermore, the left has become ever more aggressive in asserting that they have a right to "defend" themselves by physically and verbally "attacking" anyone who does not subscribe to left wing ideology. Consequently, many conservative viewpoints have been designated by the left as "hate speech", not entitled to "free speech" protections. AOC has already made inferences to creating an enemies list and "fact checking" opposing views for "errors". This "opens-the-gate" to the concept that anyone subjectively accused of speech outside of certain parameters could be subject to pre-crime scrutiny.

Finally, as @Pat Hartman repeated we have seen the emergence, by Democrats, of "Show me the man and I will show you the crime".

 

[Vassago]

Hypocrites love calling others hypocrites.

Why is that different from serving them in your store?

It's not.

I can't ban you from my store because I don't like you.

Yes you can.

Or maybe I can ban you unless you are a protected class?

Wrong. You CAN ban someone in spite of being a protected class. You CAN'T ban someone BECAUSE they are a protected class. There's a difference. This makes the rest of your rant about Africa moot.

I suggest that you strongly consider defending Trump from the mob.

No. He hasn't done anything to defend me.

 

[Pat Hartman]

After Trump has been the most divisive President in recent history? I don't think so.

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. FYI, to our non-US friends and to our US friends who don't know what I'm talking about - There was a famous criminal who actually sold the Brooklyn Bridge (as well as other NY public buildings) on more than one occasion to groups of people who thought they would be able to add toll booths to collect tolls.

The Brooklyn Bridge — “If You Believe That, I Have A Bridge In Brooklyn To Sell To You” | NYC Walks

Trump doesn't suffer fools lightly so he can be abrupt and even be perceived as offensive. I'm not going to defend his bullying and name calling. But, if you actually listen to him speak rather than listening to the OPINIONS of what other people THINK he said, he is more inclusive than any president in my memory and he says what he means and he means what he says. How many times did the last three presidents promise some kind of prison reform? Who actually did it? Ivanka's task was to convince big corporations to get into the business of training people for technical jobs and she got a program going where hundreds of thousands of people have been trained. Jared's job was peace in the Middle East. He orchestrated moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (which is the actual capital of Israel). He was so successful that Trump was nominated three times for the Nobel Peace prize for the various peace treaties we signed with multiple countries who have been at war for almost a century.

 

[Vassago]

I think that what divided us was the emotional, race-identity-political way that liberals reacted to everything he said.
Remember - it takes two to tango, it takes 2 events (at least) to influence the mood of the American people:
1) What the first person says
2) What other leaders say about what the first person says.

I.E.:
Influential Person1: "Something"
Influential Person2: "I can't believe you said that! OMG! That is so horrible and racist"
Result: Division and offense taken on many sides.

What caused it? It depends on your perspective.

Or maybe Person 1 not say the racist thing? That is ignorant. Seriously. So people should ignore when a leader days something divisive to start with? That's your solution? GTFOOH.

 

[Vassago]

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. FYI, to our non-US friends and to our US friends who don't know what I'm talking about - There was a famous criminal who actually sold the Brooklyn Bridge (as well as other NY public buildings) on more than one occasion to groups of people who thought they would be able to add toll booths to collect tolls.

The Brooklyn Bridge — “If You Believe That, I Have A Bridge In Brooklyn To Sell To You” | NYC Walks

Trump doesn't suffer fools lightly so he can be abrupt and even be perceived as offensive. I'm not going to defend his bullying and name calling. But, if you actually listen to him speak rather than listening to the OPINIONS of what other people THINK he said, he is more inclusive than any president in my memory and he says what he means and he means what he says. How many times did the last three presidents promise some kind of prison reform? Who actually did it? Ivanka's task was to convince big corporations to get into the business of training people for technical jobs and she got a program going where hundreds of thousands of people have been trained. Jared's job was peace in the Middle East. He orchestrated moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (which is the actual capital of Israel). He was so successful that Trump was nominated three times for the Nobel Peace prize for the various peace treaties we signed with multiple countries who have been at war for almost a century.

I form my own opinions, thank you. I don't need others to tell me how I feel. Is that how you operate or something?

 

[Steve R.]

How about Zello?

Revealed: walkie-talkie app Zello hosted far-right groups who stormed Capitol

Audio and chat logs show insurrectionists communicated via the app, which has avoided proactive content moderation

www.theguardian.com

Pointless. Pure drivel just to write something that is meaningless. Everyone these days has a cell phone. Cell phones are equivalent to walkie-talkies. Cell phones can be used for the same purpose, to coordinate. Then there are applications, like Facebook and Twitter that could be easily accessed real-time to coordinate activities. I bet Antifia and Black Lives Matter fully embraced these technological marvels for coordination.

 

[Isaac]

Or maybe Person 1 not say the racist thing? That is ignorant. Seriously. So people should ignore when a leader days something divisive to start with? That's your solution? GTFOOH.

I'm merely pointing out that if you have a core group of leaders who are vehemently anti-Trump (which you would have to admit "yes, there is"), and if it's also true that they tend to jump on everything he says as "awful" (which you'd also have to admit "yes, they do"), then it seems to me even more ignorant to assume that what he said was actually awful in its own right. You're a smart person, I'm sure you are capable of assessing what he said in its own right, rather than under color of what CNN tells you it is.

Your conclusion seems to be that if your liberal leaders say something was racist, it must have been racist. Which if that's not ignorant, what is?

How about you have the courage to admit that much of what your liberal leaders--those people you rely on to tell you if something was racist or not--are often the most racist ones of all by openly condemning whites on the basis of whiteness?

 

[Pat Hartman]

No. He hasn't done anything to defend me.

Maybe Verizon or the other tel-coms won't cancel you if you call someone they disapprove of. The purveyors of the internet have a monopoly if they can simply cancel a company like Parler and they proved it. That means they are too dangerous to exist. They need to be regulated in the same way that other common carriers are regulated.

Maybe you'll be lucky and they'll never come for you. Maybe socialized medicine will never come for your wife. This is how the Nazi's started.

You can find a bio of Niemölleron on Wikipedia if you are interested.

"First they came ..." is the poetic form of a post-war confessional prose by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984). It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals and certain clergy—including, by his own admission, Niemöller himself—following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent incremental purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Many variations and adaptations in the spirit of the original have been published in the English language. It deals with themes of persecution, guilt, repentance, and personal responsibility.


First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

And don't forget this part of his original confession:

Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? Only then did the church as such take note.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Check out Harris' web page where she promotes a fund to bail out the BLM rioters. Check out her speeches where she encourages BLM to never stop until they get what they want. Is that inciting a riot? Should she be impeached as soon as she is sworn in? Don't be surprised if that happens. What goes around comes around and the incoming President and VP are probably the dirtiest in our history.

The riot at the Capitol Building was planned well ahead of time (on twitter and FB, BTW but those people haven't been cancelled) and the FBI has the goods to prove it. They just didn't believe it would happen because Trump supports do NOT riot and there's five years of history so the FBI discounted the threat.

Why aren't the Dems calling to defund the Capitol police? Could it be because THOSE police officers protect "important" people unlike the ones they are trying to defund. Who cares about people in inner cities. They're poor. They don't make political contributions so they just don't count. Not all BLM, only some.

@Vassago,
Please tell me what I am being hypocritical about. You can't just insinuate that I am a hypocrite without concrete evidence. You may hold that opinion but you may not offer the opinion as fact without proof. I am assuming that remark was directed at me since I've been calling out what I see as hypocrisy for a while now. I haven't called anyone here a hypocrite, just making some comparisons. Like if you think Trump's peaceful protest speech incited a riot but Harris' vocal support for BLM to continue "protesting" and never stop until they get what they want as well as her fundraising to bail the rioters out of jail is protected speech because you agree with her, then that would be hypocritical. So far, no one has fessed up to being a hypocrite. They have simply discounted the analogy as valid.

 

[Vassago]

I'm confused. Do Trumpers want companies to be liable for what is said on their network or not? He seemed to want them to be liable. But since they removed him for inciting a riot, that's no longer true?

Or is it only applicable that they are liable if it's something against Trumpets?

 

[Vassago]

You pointed out yourself that Clinton was accused of assault yet you continue to support Trump after he was. I think both are creeps. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

I'm not a Biden or Trump supporter before you try to lay that on me. Biden is creepy too. We will continue to get these horrible humans as candidates as long as people like you support them regardless of the things they do.

 

[Pat Hartman]

So people should ignore when a leader days something divisive to start with? That's your solution?

Let's be specific. Give us a quote, preferably in context or a link to the whole speech and we will be happy to review it and discuss it but you're going to have to stop giving us other people's opinions and "fact" checks. What exactly did Trump say that YOU think is divisive?

 

[Vassago]

"Other people's opinions"

That's what Trumpets believe. Anyone who doesn't like Trump must be listening to others and not thinking for themselves. Broken records. Seriously.

 

[Pat Hartman]

You pointed out yourself that Clinton was accused of assault yet you continue to support Trump after he was. I think both are creeps. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

I pointed out that Clinton was sued for assault in a court of law. He settled I believe rather than allow the trial to continue. That is quite different from an unsubstantiated accusation. The women Trump paid were not paid because they claimed he assaulted them. They were going to sell their story of their affairs to the tabloids and that would have embarrassed Trump's wife and possibly injured his campaign, so he paid them to go away. This is blackmail and it is a crime but of course to prosecute, the embarrassing event would be revealed and so wealthy people generally pay and require a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for the money so that the person being blackmailed has some recourse should the blackmailer tell anyway. Cohen, Trump's lawyer for this matter never got properly signed documents so when Stormy elected to breach the NDA and tell her story anyway, Trump had to settle because he didn't have a valid NDA. I don't think he sued her for blackmail and I don't know if he still could.

I don't believe I have ever given any indication that I approve of extra-marital affairs. I have said they are common among the men we have had for president. I think Obama and Bush the younger are probably the only two in the last century who haven't been tarnished by their philandering. I'm not sure about Nixon though. Just because Trump is a philanderer, doesn't mean he would be a bad president. Everyone loved Kennedy. The press was kinder and gentler then and there was minimal reporting on his affairs until after his death but apparently the Secret Service had quite the job keeping the women away from Jackie since he brought them into the White House. The only positive remark I have ever made about Trump's philandering is that "at least he marries his baby-mommas" which is more than we can say for professional football and basketball players. They seem to have an on-going contest as to who can have the most children out of wedlock by the most women.

Are you saying that in 2016, I should have voted for the criminal Hillary rather than the philanderer Trump? Give me a philanderer any day over someone who has committed Treason. There really wasn't a third option and not voting was not a viable solution. Besides, Trump's bulling wasn't actually terrible. It kept our enemies off balance and that wasn't a bad result. Of course anyone who had ever read any of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" or Machiavelli's "the Prince" would have had no problem whatsoever in understanding Trump's foreign policy.

 

[Pat Hartman]

It is perfectly acceptable to not like Trump personally or to disagree with his positions. But it is not acceptable to offer opinion as fact as in - "Trump is a racist", "Trump is a white supremist". Those are opinions. They are not facts. You can take some remarks out of context and throw them around but edited comments are not facts or proof. You can call him a philanderer since there are facts to support that assertion. You can call him a bully since he is prone to name-calling and name-calling is a trait of bullies. You can diminish his accomplishments such as tax cuts that actually did benefit the middle class (remember - the poor don't pay taxes. 47% of workers do NOT pay income tax.) but nothing he has done could be considered "evil" or justify cancelling him.

 

[Jon]

I've started to watch The Handmaid's Tale on Netflix and I can see parallels with a potential future...

It is the year 2025. The handmaids are the Republicans, who are given new names by their Democrat masters. Their previous identity has been expunged from the records. The handmaids (white men) have been reduced to an underclass, cut out from state help and put to the back of the queue. These creatures are not deserving of equal treatment. They have lost their jobs, cannot use any form of social media and are told what to say and think by their Cancel Culture overlords. Living in fear with their heads down, the white male Republicans try to get by without committing a micro-offence. It is hard.

They love their new white bonnets, or at least that is what they are told to believe. Born male, but having had their gender reassigned by their feminist "husband", they have become confused. At the bottom of the social hierarchy is Miss Rump. Constantly having her bottom patted, and told to stoop "lower" when greeting guests, Miss Rump has no past at all. She is a ghost passing through society. Occasionally, she may catch attention for her striking orange hair-do, but she does her best to cover up with her bonnet. She dare not incite more attention.

The End.

 

[moke123]

But it is not acceptable to offer opinion as fact

It is also not acceptable to dismiss facts as opinion.

 

[Vassago]

I've started to watch The Handmaid's Tale on Netflix and I can see parallels with a potential future...

It is the year 2025. The handmaids are the Republicans, who are given new names by their Democrat masters. Their previous identity has been expunged from the records. The handmaids (white men) have been reduced to an underclass, cut out from state help and put to the back of the queue. These creatures are not deserving of equal treatment. They have lost their jobs, cannot use any form of social media and are told what to say and think by their Cancel Culture overlords. Living in fear with their heads down, the white male Republicans try to get by without committing a micro-offence. It is hard.

They love their new white bonnets, or at least that is what they are told to believe. Born male, but having had their gender reassigned by their feminist "husband", they have become confused. At the bottom of the social hierarchy is Miss Rump. Constantly having her bottom patted, and told to stoop "lower" when greeting guests, Miss Rump has no past at all. She is a ghost passing through society. Occasionally, she may catch attention for her striking orange hair-do, but she does her best to cover up with her bonnet. She dare not incite more attention.

The End.

Oh give me a break. The actual rulers of the New America were clearly Republican.