Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
haha, you just can't handle Dems' facts.That never happened. Dont blame your lack of reading comprehension either. You quoted exactly what was said so you are intentionally being a repub and lying.Where were you when the Dems said 'NO' to the vaccine because it was Trump's vaccine?Let me be specific. Lies that cause people to die or goad them to violence....where people tend to die. I never heard anyone say the vaccine wouldn't work except Drumpf followers.C'mon, what is lying?? You can find "the earth is flat" posted on FB every day. Did the dems say the vaccine was not working when Trump was the POTUS?Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
Harris’ statement, which came during the only vice presidential debate of the 2020 election cycle, underscores the central role that Covid-19 vaccine development has played on the 2020 campaign trail.
“If public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely,” she said. “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”
Harris and the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, have criticized Trump for months for rhetoric that undermines government scientists and, they argue, has damaged public trust in an eventual vaccine. Biden has backed Harris’ stance on the Trump administration’s vaccine development process, outlining several transparency thresholds that the campaign would require before endorsing use of a Covid-19 vaccine.
For months, President Trump has pledged an imminent vaccine approval, openly acknowledging he’s seeking one by Election Day on Nov. 3.
In response, Pence stopped short of echoing the Trump campaign’s prior accusation that Harris’ stance makes her an “anti-vaxxer,” but he called her stance “unconscionable.”
I know I cant be the first to tell you that you lack any swag at all in your technique and you are actually whack with it?haha, you just can't handle Dems' facts.That never happened. Dont blame your lack of reading comprehension either. You quoted exactly what was said so you are intentionally being a repub and lying.Where were you when the Dems said 'NO' to the vaccine because it was Trump's vaccine?Let me be specific. Lies that cause people to die or goad them to violence....where people tend to die. I never heard anyone say the vaccine wouldn't work except Drumpf followers.C'mon, what is lying?? You can find "the earth is flat" posted on FB every day. Did the dems say the vaccine was not working when Trump was the POTUS?Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
Harris’ statement, which came during the only vice presidential debate of the 2020 election cycle, underscores the central role that Covid-19 vaccine development has played on the 2020 campaign trail.
“If public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely,” she said. “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”
Harris and the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, have criticized Trump for months for rhetoric that undermines government scientists and, they argue, has damaged public trust in an eventual vaccine. Biden has backed Harris’ stance on the Trump administration’s vaccine development process, outlining several transparency thresholds that the campaign would require before endorsing use of a Covid-19 vaccine.
For months, President Trump has pledged an imminent vaccine approval, openly acknowledging he’s seeking one by Election Day on Nov. 3.
In response, Pence stopped short of echoing the Trump campaign’s prior accusation that Harris’ stance makes her an “anti-vaxxer,” but he called her stance “unconscionable.”
Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
Not really. That doesn't make you die. More like injecting bleach to sort of clean the virus away.Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
Like if they said I could keep my doctor if I liked it or I could keep my healthcare plan if I liked it or they said that my Healthcare premiums would be reduced by $2,000
You are on this site and they actually do censor you so you already signed up.I answered "A little",: but really my answer is "it depends";. It depends on whether their cooperation was in any way coerced.
I'll say this though. As a non-user of FB, this doesn't encourage me to join up.
Yeah but here's the rub. The Federal government telling or advising a private entity, any private entity to censor anything that is not deemed secret and above is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is by law required to be above that.Read further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying."but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........
Fuck off. You lefties allowed several Democratic governors to kill seniors in nursing homes with no repercussions. You dipshits have no credibility.It's 'censorship', and we are in the middle of a pandemic that is causing new cases to soar.
Idiot Americans who believe in a cascade of daily lies is causing people to die, literally.
Bravo, President Biden. This is actually long, long overdue.
What part of the first says the government cant urge private companies to be more responsible?Yeah but here's the rub. The Federal government telling or advising a private entity, any private entity to censor anything that is not deemed secret and above is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is by law required to be above that.Read further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying."but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........
You are on this site and they actually do censor you so you already signed up.I answered "A little",: but really my answer is "it depends";. It depends on whether their cooperation was in any way coerced.
I'll say this though. As a non-user of FB, this doesn't encourage me to join up.
the shit you type....what about deflections, the other shit scum demonRATS doRead further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying."but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........
Sorry but that spin doesn't fly especially when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Besides, more responsible is typically subjective in cases like this, i.e. politically motivated. Granted you won't see it that way but that is reality whether any of us like it or not.What part of the first says the government cant urge private companies to be more responsible?Yeah but here's the rub. The Federal government telling or advising a private entity, any private entity to censor anything that is not deemed secret and above is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is by law required to be above that.Read further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying."but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........
How do you know they arent in cahoots with the government? You do realize they could be monitoring our conversation right now? I get what you are saying about disappearing but that kind of a stretch from urging FB to put a warning on people that are lying.You are on this site and they actually do censor you so you already signed up.I answered "A little",: but really my answer is "it depends";. It depends on whether their cooperation was in any way coerced.
I'll say this though. As a non-user of FB, this doesn't encourage me to join up.
Not sure what that has to do with anything. I've been very vocal in support of their right to censor. But if they're in cahoots with the government, that's a bit different. My son lives in China, where nominally they have free speech and free markets. But if you piss off the party, you'll get disappeared in a hurry. We don't want to go there.
Isnt 5hat the definition of fascism?The merger of corporate and government power. We are no longer represented. Disgusting rat pieces of shit.
Show me in the 1rst what you are talking about?Sorry but that spin doesn't fly especially when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Besides, more responsible is typically subjective in cases like this, i.e. politically motivated. Granted you won't see it that way but that is reality whether any of us like it or not.What part of the first says the government cant urge private companies to be more responsible?Yeah but here's the rub. The Federal government telling or advising a private entity, any private entity to censor anything that is not deemed secret and above is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is by law required to be above that.Read further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying."but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........
Whatever you dont believe is a "lie." The simple minded logic of the AfricanPretty sure the government lies. You ever watch a established politician talk to the public? The government is not going to lock down the public and fuckup their tax base so you can be sure that if they lie its going to be to give an early all clear.The exact point is, do you think the government never lies?Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
We should Never hear opinions other than the governments?
How do you know who is lying, the government or the poster?
Everyone is supposed to be free to access to online "platforms" and say whatever they want to, that's why section 230 was approved.
You arent free to access those online platforms if you don't follow their rules. Like no lying.
Dont get emotional. Please use a little punctuation. Are you asking a question or making a statement?the shit you type....what about deflections, the other shit scum demonRATS doRead further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying."but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........
Thats pretty much all humans not just us Africans. Look at how much you call things a lie that you cant stomach.Whatever you don5 believe is a "lie." The simple minded logic of the AfricanPretty sure the government lies. You ever watch a established politician talk to the public? The government is not going to lock down the public and fuckup their tax base so you can be sure that if they lie its going to be to give an early all clear.The exact point is, do you think the government never lies?Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
We should Never hear opinions other than the governments?
How do you know who is lying, the government or the poster?
Everyone is supposed to be free to access to online "platforms" and say whatever they want to, that's why section 230 was approved.
You arent free to access those online platforms if you don't follow their rules. Like no lying.
Right. Thus, "it depends".How do you know they arent in cahoots with the government? You do realize they could be monitoring our conversation right now? I get what you are saying about disappearing but that kind of a stretch from urging FB to put a warning on people that are lying.You are on this site and they actually do censor you so you already signed up.I answered "A little",: but really my answer is "it depends";. It depends on whether their cooperation was in any way coerced.
I'll say this though. As a non-user of FB, this doesn't encourage me to join up.
Not sure what that has to do with anything. I've been very vocal in support of their right to censor. But if they're in cahoots with the government, that's a bit different. My son lives in China, where nominally they have free speech and free markets. But if you piss off the party, you'll get disappeared in a hurry. We don't want to go there.
Not really. That doesn't make you die. More like injecting bleach to sort of clean the virus away.Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
Like if they said I could keep my doctor if I liked it or I could keep my healthcare plan if I liked it or they said that my Healthcare premiums would be reduced by $2,000
Oh so in your eyes the 1st Amendment is subjective depending on which party is in control. Got it.Show me in the 1rst what you are talking about?Sorry but that spin doesn't fly especially when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Besides, more responsible is typically subjective in cases like this, i.e. politically motivated. Granted you won't see it that way but that is reality whether any of us like it or not.What part of the first says the government cant urge private companies to be more responsible?Yeah but here's the rub. The Federal government telling or advising a private entity, any private entity to censor anything that is not deemed secret and above is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is by law required to be above that.Read further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying."but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........
