Ana Navarro: I want them muted, I WANT THEM SILENCED!

[Coyote]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie (unless you happen to think Farrakhan, Milo, and Alex Jones are representative of all conservatives)

They threw in Farrakhan (far left jihadist) on purpose to obfuscate the fact that they did it only to conservatives, and to provide ammunition to people like you to claim "liar" when you blanket label the people banned as conservatives.

Paul Watson is a conservative. Do you disagree?

They included Farrakhan because he is a hate monger right in line with the others.

No one is fooled by your bullshit or your rhino cronies posing as conservatives.

Trump 2020, MAGA.

When you strike us down, we become more powerful than you possible imagine.

Long live the Republic.

What does that have to do with anything I said? Why did you lie in your OP about what she said?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie (unless you happen to think Farrakhan, Milo, and Alex Jones are representative of all conservatives)

They threw in Farrakhan (far left jihadist) on purpose to obfuscate the fact that they did it only to conservatives, and to provide ammunition to people like you to claim "liar" when you blanket label the people banned as conservatives.

Paul Watson is a conservative. Do you disagree?

They included Farrakhan because he is a hate monger right in line with the others.

No one is fooled by your bullshit or your rhino cronies posing as conservatives.

Trump 2020, MAGA.

When you strike us down, we become more powerful than you possible imagine.

Long live the Republic.

What does that have to do with anything I said? Why did you lie in your OP about what she said?

What did I lie about, she's a far left zealot who wants conservatives muted, silenced and shut down, in her own words. How does Paul Watson fall under the "hate" definition anyway.

 

[Coyote]

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie (unless you happen to think Farrakhan, Milo, and Alex Jones are representative of all conservatives)

They threw in Farrakhan (far left jihadist) on purpose to obfuscate the fact that they did it only to conservatives, and to provide ammunition to people like you to claim "liar" when you blanket label the people banned as conservatives.

Paul Watson is a conservative. Do you disagree?

They included Farrakhan because he is a hate monger right in line with the others.

No one is fooled by your bullshit or your rhino cronies posing as conservatives.

Trump 2020, MAGA.

When you strike us down, we become more powerful than you possible imagine.

Long live the Republic.

What does that have to do with anything I said? Why did you lie in your OP about what she said?

What did I lie about, she's a far left zealot who wants conservatives muted, silenced and shut down, in her own words. How does Paul Watson fall under the "hate" definition anyway.

In her own words she is referring to the specific people fb banned, not "all conservatives" who represent a very broad spectrum, so if not a lie, it's certainly a huge stretch. So why claim that?

Never heard of Paul Watson before so I looked him up:Paul Joseph Watson - Wikipedia

He appears to be another Alex Jones acolyte conspiracy theorist.

 

[daveman]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie.

No wonder the OP wanted to hide behind a pronoun. We can't have people knowing what the context is.

So it looks like the OP wants to whine about the same thing this site does; a private company setting boundaries on what you can use its platform for.

Oh the horror, or something.

Yes, we all know you don't support freedom of speech -- which is an inherent right, existing in humans long before it was codified in the First Amendment.

Leftists, however, hate the idea.

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

The First Amendment? No, obviously not.

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

 

[daveman]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie.

No wonder the OP wanted to hide behind a pronoun. We can't have people knowing what the context is.

So it looks like the OP wants to whine about the same thing this site does; a private company setting boundaries on what you can use its platform for.

Oh the horror, or something.

Yes, we all know you don't support freedom of speech -- which is an inherent right, existing in humans long before it was codified in the First Amendment.

Leftists, however, hate the idea.

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

I'm pretty sure there is no definition of "Congress" that comprises "Nosebook and Tweeter".

Perhaps the loyal opposition can point us to that part of the COTUS specifying "Fecesbook shall make no TOS..."

You're purposefully conflating two different things to hide your hatred for freedom of speech.

I explained it. You can stop lying now.

But then...perhaps you can't.

 

[Coyote]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie.

No wonder the OP wanted to hide behind a pronoun. We can't have people knowing what the context is.

So it looks like the OP wants to whine about the same thing this site does; a private company setting boundaries on what you can use its platform for.

Oh the horror, or something.

Yes, we all know you don't support freedom of speech -- which is an inherent right, existing in humans long before it was codified in the First Amendment.

Leftists, however, hate the idea.

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

The First Amendment? No, obviously not.

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

Absolutely. So FB has no requirement to give platforms to anyone in the name of free speech.

 

[Crixus]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

No one listen to that stupid slut anyway.

 

[daveman]

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie.

No wonder the OP wanted to hide behind a pronoun. We can't have people knowing what the context is.

So it looks like the OP wants to whine about the same thing this site does; a private company setting boundaries on what you can use its platform for.

Oh the horror, or something.

Yes, we all know you don't support freedom of speech -- which is an inherent right, existing in humans long before it was codified in the First Amendment.

Leftists, however, hate the idea.

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

The First Amendment? No, obviously not.

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

Absolutely. So FB has no requirement to give platforms to anyone in the name of free speech.

Indeed. Just as I'm free to point out that they're anti-American pieces of shit.

 

[iceberg]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie (unless you happen to think Farrakhan, Milo, and Alex Jones are representative of all conservatives)

They threw in Farrakhan (far left jihadist) on purpose to obfuscate the fact that they did it only to conservatives, and to provide ammunition to people like you to claim "liar" when you blanket label the people banned as conservatives.

Paul Watson is a conservative. Do you disagree?

They included Farrakhan because he is a hate monger right in line with the others.

i just think that branding "hate" without clear rules so we can punish people is ripe for abuse. seems like a lot of non hate will get hit in the crossfire of these headgames and all we do in the meantime is give the haters the attention they are after.

I agree. It can be a very slippery slope and I don't know what the answer is.

I've always tended to believe the best thing is sunshine, which is why I oppose things like Holocaust denial laws and laws criminalizing hate speech. It should be up front and in the open where it can be refuted and argued. Criminalizing it drives it underground, and worse - justifies a sense of persecution and righteousness among it's adherents.

But my view is also dependent on the willingness of people to step up and confront these things. What if that isn't happening, and giving them a platform, legitimizes them as publicly acceptable? Part of the mainstream? What do you do?

i think like we both found outctoday, HOW you do it really dictates the outcome. i xant shut someone down i dont like and say im defending free speech. im killing it. maybe worse than who im "fighting"

i think that line of demanding people "shut uo" needs to be pyshed back and oeople need to learn to simply not respond as another way to shut thrm down.

 

[Olde Europe]

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

You ought to check the meaning of "freedom of speech", for I fear the expression doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[Pogo]

No wonder the OP wanted to hide behind a pronoun. We can't have people knowing what the context is.

So it looks like the OP wants to whine about the same thing this site does; a private company setting boundaries on what you can use its platform for.

Oh the horror, or something.

Yes, we all know you don't support freedom of speech -- which is an inherent right, existing in humans long before it was codified in the First Amendment.

Leftists, however, hate the idea.

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

The First Amendment? No, obviously not.

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

Absolutely. So FB has no requirement to give platforms to anyone in the name of free speech.

Indeed. Just as I'm free to point out that they're anti-American pieces of shit.

You can do that. What you can't do is justify the "anti-American" part. But you have the every right to float opinions you can't justify.

 

[Pogo]

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie.

No wonder the OP wanted to hide behind a pronoun. We can't have people knowing what the context is.

So it looks like the OP wants to whine about the same thing this site does; a private company setting boundaries on what you can use its platform for.

Oh the horror, or something.

Yes, we all know you don't support freedom of speech -- which is an inherent right, existing in humans long before it was codified in the First Amendment.

Leftists, however, hate the idea.

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

I'm pretty sure there is no definition of "Congress" that comprises "Nosebook and Tweeter".

Perhaps the loyal opposition can point us to that part of the COTUS specifying "Fecesbook shall make no TOS..."

You're purposefully conflating two different things to hide your hatred for freedom of speech.

I explained it. You can stop lying now.

But then...perhaps you can't.

Suppose you're in a crowded theater. I was going to say 'lecture hall' but at the thought of you being in a lecture hall I collapsed in laughter. So you're in this lecture hall and everybody's using their snarkphones as an ARS or something via Nosebook. Should you have the right to post that the lecture hall is on fire, when you know perfectly well it isn't?

 

[Moonglow]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

Whoa Dude, that was cut up to portray an image that is not apparent....

 

[Uncensored2008]

She's entitles to her opinion. Why does she not think others are entitled to theirs?

Because she is a Communist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

You actually think you made some point with a literally FIVE SECOND some unknown talking head that doesn't even identify its pronoun?

Have you always been retarded or were you born that way?

Would you like to see the full video? And are you claiming the full video will abrogate the impression given by the 5 second clip?

Pogo thinks his coffee house smirk and Jr. College snark abrogate reality. Suggo knows everything, just ask him. When he is proven wrong, as he is every time, then he knows even more...

 

[Coyote]

No...she isn't. This article gives a bit more info.

Ana Navarro Is Cool With Social Media Platforms Censoring People She Doesn’t Like

The OP claim is a flat out lie (unless you happen to think Farrakhan, Milo, and Alex Jones are representative of all conservatives)

They threw in Farrakhan (far left jihadist) on purpose to obfuscate the fact that they did it only to conservatives, and to provide ammunition to people like you to claim "liar" when you blanket label the people banned as conservatives.

Paul Watson is a conservative. Do you disagree?

They included Farrakhan because he is a hate monger right in line with the others.

i just think that branding "hate" without clear rules so we can punish people is ripe for abuse. seems like a lot of non hate will get hit in the crossfire of these headgames and all we do in the meantime is give the haters the attention they are after.

I agree. It can be a very slippery slope and I don't know what the answer is.

I've always tended to believe the best thing is sunshine, which is why I oppose things like Holocaust denial laws and laws criminalizing hate speech. It should be up front and in the open where it can be refuted and argued. Criminalizing it drives it underground, and worse - justifies a sense of persecution and righteousness among it's adherents.

But my view is also dependent on the willingness of people to step up and confront these things. What if that isn't happening, and giving them a platform, legitimizes them as publicly acceptable? Part of the mainstream? What do you do?

i think like we both found outctoday, HOW you do it really dictates the outcome. i xant shut someone down i dont like and say im defending free speech. im killing it. maybe worse than who im "fighting"

i think that line of demanding people "shut uo" needs to be pyshed back and oeople need to learn to simply not respond as another way to shut thrm down.

That is true, and these extremes seem to get outsized attention from the media (if it bleeds it reads).

 

[daveman]

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

You ought to check the meaning of "freedom of speech", for I fear the expression doesn't mean what you think it does.

It means exactly what I think it means. Freedom of speech is an inherent human right. Governments have to take action to abridge that right...you know, like how Europe has criminalized criticism of Islam, for example.

 

[daveman]

Yes, we all know you don't support freedom of speech -- which is an inherent right, existing in humans long before it was codified in the First Amendment.

Leftists, however, hate the idea.

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

The First Amendment? No, obviously not.

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

Absolutely. So FB has no requirement to give platforms to anyone in the name of free speech.

Indeed. Just as I'm free to point out that they're anti-American pieces of shit.

You can do that. What you can't do is justify the "anti-American" part. But you have the every right to float opinions you can't justify.

Here in America, we support freedom. Well, freedom-supporting Americans do. Leftists don't, your impotent sputtering notwithstanding.

 

[daveman]

No wonder the OP wanted to hide behind a pronoun. We can't have people knowing what the context is.

So it looks like the OP wants to whine about the same thing this site does; a private company setting boundaries on what you can use its platform for.

Oh the horror, or something.

Yes, we all know you don't support freedom of speech -- which is an inherent right, existing in humans long before it was codified in the First Amendment.

Leftists, however, hate the idea.

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

I'm pretty sure there is no definition of "Congress" that comprises "Nosebook and Tweeter".

Perhaps the loyal opposition can point us to that part of the COTUS specifying "Fecesbook shall make no TOS..."

You're purposefully conflating two different things to hide your hatred for freedom of speech.

I explained it. You can stop lying now.

But then...perhaps you can't.

Suppose you're in a crowded theater. I was going to say 'lecture hall' but at the thought of you being in a lecture hall I collapsed in laughter. So you're in this lecture hall and everybody's using their snarkphones as an ARS or something via Nosebook. Should you have the right to post that the lecture hall is on fire, when you know perfectly well it isn't?

And so that justifies leftists calling for the silencing of voices they disagree with...how, exactly?

Hint: It doesn't, and you're a moron for thinking it does.

 

[Coyote]

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

The First Amendment? No, obviously not.

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

Absolutely. So FB has no requirement to give platforms to anyone in the name of free speech.

Indeed. Just as I'm free to point out that they're anti-American pieces of shit.

You can do that. What you can't do is justify the "anti-American" part. But you have the every right to float opinions you can't justify.

Here in America, we support freedom. Well, freedom-supporting Americans do. Leftists don't, your impotent sputtering notwithstanding.

You support freedom for some...I'm sure.