Republicans: continued

[Cunt]

You would have to ask Paul for the 'massive election/voter fraud' evidence. I didn't say there was such.

Of course not. You just agree with people who say they have convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud and link to stuff 'proving' that it has occurred on a massive scale. Remember that Parler meme showing the discrepancy between the pitifully low number of counties Biden has won (477), and how many more (2,497) Trump got? Although it does not explicitly say it is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud, the unspoken message is obvious: It is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud. Are you trying to tell us that you threw that into the thread even though you are agnostic on the massive election/voter fraud issue?

Not surprised you strongly desire to make this about me being wrong.

Correction: I have no desire whatsoever of proving you wrong. Your opinions are another matter. I strongly desire to show them to be wrong. See the example given above.

I guess I still find Sen. Paul more convincing than facebook censorship. Good for you for not being fooled by anyone contradicting facebook though!

Facebook censorship? Great. Another deviation.

You have hammered this forum with Parler links since you joined it. The stream only stopped when it went offline. It's back up. Once it has its technical problems with the Russian hosts resolved I presume you'll resume flooding us with more from that font of unbiased material. I challenge you to find a single piece I linked from Facebook.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were sourcing things from sketchy sources, only that everything you stand with is in alignment with facebooks censorship on the issue. Amazon and Alphabet would probably like it all, too.

Nothing controversial at all. Unity with most corporate, and natural people.

Senator Paul is being MUCH braver, with respect to facebooks moderation enforcement. I mean, he outright said that there were important questions to answer.

Imagine the vulgarity!

On a public blog!

[JimC]

Well, he should go right ahead and answer those important questions, and show the entire world the results!

[Cunt]

Well, he should go right ahead and answer those important questions, and show the entire world the results!

He went on later (during impeachment discussions) to point out other examples of 'inciting language' from politicians. Made excellent points about some very vulgar assholes.

It's going to be a peach-mint party! Maybe they don't need term limits, just vindictive younger politicians willing to be a bit cutthroat.

[Hermit]

You would have to ask Paul for the 'massive election/voter fraud' evidence. I didn't say there was such.

Of course not. You just agree with people who say they have convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud and link to stuff 'proving' that it has occurred on a massive scale. Remember that Parler meme showing the discrepancy between the pitifully low number of counties Biden has won (477), and how many more (2,497) Trump got? Although it does not explicitly say it is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud, the unspoken message is obvious: It is convincing evidence of massive election/voter fraud. Are you trying to tell us that you threw that into the thread even though you are agnostic on the massive election/voter fraud issue?

Not surprised you strongly desire to make this about me being wrong.

Correction: I have no desire whatsoever of proving you wrong. Your opinions are another matter. I strongly desire to show them to be wrong. See the example given above.

I guess I still find Sen. Paul more convincing than facebook censorship. Good for you for not being fooled by anyone contradicting facebook though!

Facebook censorship? Great. Another deviation.

You have hammered this forum with Parler links since you joined it. The stream only stopped when it went offline. It's back up. Once it has its technical problems with the Russian hosts resolved I presume you'll resume flooding us with more from that font of unbiased material. I challenge you to find a single piece I linked from Facebook.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were sourcing things from sketchy sources, only that everything you stand with is in alignment with facebooks censorship on the issue. Amazon and Alphabet would probably like it all, too.

Nothing controversial at all. Unity with most corporate, and natural people.

Senator Paul is being MUCH braver, with respect to facebooks moderation enforcement. I mean, he outright said that there were important questions to answer.

Imagine the vulgarity!

On a public blog!

And now you persist along the path of deviation. I am not particularly interested in discussing censorship while we are looking at the allegedly stolen election issue and allegations of massive electoral/voter fraud, but since you keep bringing it up, I'll leave you to contemplate this:

[Cunt]

Censorship of the stolen election claims is surely for our own good.

[Hermit]

Censorship of the stolen election claims is surely for our own good.

More talk about censorship (ignoring the fact that private enterprise doesn't do censorship). Great.

Tell me, Daggles, when you troll, do you do that because you enjoy it so, or is it some sort of involuntary thing, like, you know, a nervous tick?

[Brian Peacock]

I'm looking forward to being regaled with mentions of the commendable Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's got her finger on the pulse of America, you know. Completely convincing, unlike the horde of big tech shills on this site!

The sarcastic rant thread is over there....

[pErvinalia]

Thanks for pointing that out, Brian. Really helpful.

[Brian Peacock]

[Joe]

Censorship of the stolen election claims is surely for our own good.

No, censorship is bad. That's why the First Amendment was passed.

Of course, by your definition of censorship, I just censored your claim.

How's it feel to be repressed?

[Cunt]

Censorship of the stolen election claims is surely for our own good.

More talk about censorship (ignoring the fact that private enterprise doesn't do censorship). Great.

When a government is not allowed to do it, are they allowed to favour corporations that do? Treat them well, I mean?

Amazon is more powerful than most governments. Facebook spies more than governments are allowed, and has a habit of sharing that data with favoured government agencies.

Ya, you call it trolling if you want. I call it sketchy as fuck that corporations unify in censoring election questions.

[Sean Hayden]

Are you sure you're starting from facts Cunt? I'm not sure Amazon is more powerful than most governments, and recent history shows the US government's willingness to spy on its own citizens.

The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)

Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)

Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).

"Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

https://www.aclu.org/other/surveillance ... atriot-act

Keep in mind that using Facebook is voluntary, whereas the US government has access to records whether you intended to share them with another party or not.

[Tero]

They can't do anything because...er..because they are Republicans

Take the reaction of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to her comments. A spokeswoman for McCarthy called them "deeply disturbing" and noted that McCarthy "plans to have a conversation" with Greene about them.
What "conversation," short of "please pack up your belongings and never return to the Capitol," could possibly be appropriate? McCarthy's lame response suggests two things: either he and the caucus are OK with calls for the execution of political opponents, or they are too craven to denounce them.
The latter seems likely, given how similarly McCarthy's Republican counterparts in the Senate are approaching the impeachment of former President Donald Trump. Senators have privately expressed "disdain" about Trump's conduct both in undermining the result of the 2020 election and in the run-up to the deadly January 6 riot at the US Capitol that put all of their lives in danger. Still, it is widely reported that they are concerned about how a vote to convict Trump might lead to a political backlash.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/opinions ... index.html

[Cunt]

Are you sure you're starting from facts Cunt? I'm not sure Amazon is more powerful than most governments, and recent history shows the US government's willingness to spy on its own citizens.

If the US attacks Amazon, what do they attack? A P.O. Box address? Some of their physical facilities? Their tax breaks?

Amazon has the power to coordinate with other corporations, to remove Parler from being able to do business - for shit reasons.

We all know that other tech companies were as guilty, or more guilty, in 'inciting violence' or whatever bullshit reason they gave.

[Hermit]

Censorship of the stolen election claims is surely for our own good.

More talk about censorship (ignoring the fact that private enterprise doesn't do censorship). Great.

When a government is not allowed to do it, are they allowed to favour corporations that do? Treat them well, I mean?

Amazon is more powerful than most governments. Facebook spies more than governments are allowed, and has a habit of sharing that data with favoured government agencies.

Ya, you call it trolling if you want. I call it sketchy as fuck that corporations unify in censoring election questions.

Thanks for JAQing off once again and the word salad that follows. Instead of answering your leading question and replying to the dribble underneath it, let me tell you this:

Big business owns governments. All governments. Governments do what big business allows them to do. Elections are a charade. Big business has already made the choice for you. Whoever you vote for, one thing is certain: The winner will be capitalism. Capitalism is about making as much profit as possible. (In the USA Bernie Sanders is the only potential obstacle to it. That's why not a single billionaire has supported him financially or otherwise. That is also why the main stream media do their best to starve him of publicity and the Democratic Party pole-axed him in 2016 and again in 2020.)

Of course, big corporations are not unanimous which capitalist party is best for turning a profit. Some think the neoliberal flavour is better in the long run because its social policies prevent the bread riots of yore and hopefully don't fuck the environment to the point of economic unsustainability. Others prefer the "damn the torpedoes - full steam ahead" approach of the other. So the billionaires donate to one or the other. Many donate to both. "Donating" is actually a misnomer. "Buying" is more accurate.