Facebook Goes Full Fascist Mode

[Mushroom]

The mayor of Boston planned to shut down my speech

Katsung, is that you? Did you move to Boston after the entire city of LA was watching and monitoring you?

 

[Mushroom]

Antitrust laws my friend

Can you show they are an illegal monopoly, gained through collusion?

Here is the most amazing thing about Anti-Trust laws. In fact, here is something that most people do not even seem to be aware of.

It is not against the law to have a monopoly!

You only break the law if you use collusion or other illegal means to get or hold it. If you have a majority of a business (say how Myspace was a decade and a half ago), that is perfectly legal.

Facebook is simply the newest of a long string if such things going back over 25 years. And I have seen them come and go over the decades.

Heck, I still remember my 6 digit ICQ user name. If I had been smart I would have sold that 20 years ago, those were going for $5-10k at the time. Today, most have no idea what it is, kinda like Myspace.

 

[Jitss617]

I have brought these specific cases up in our previous discussions.

Emmett Till was a 14 year old boy who was accused of whistling at a white woman (and flirting with her). A few nights later Till was abducted from where he was staying, beaten and mutilated before being shot in the head. His body was then sunk in the Tallahatchie River. This was in 1955 in the Mississippi Delta. The claim that they could not have found a judge is laughable.

You defended that.


Mary Turner was the wife of a black man who was lynched. She was also 8 months pregnant. She denounced the hanging and called out the ignorant rednecks who had done it. She threatened legal action against them. She fled after she was threatened, but the mob caught her. They hung her upside down and doused her with gasoline and lit her on fire. She was still alive when one of the mob cut her belly open and stomped on the fetus.

You defended that.


Michael Donald had committed no crime. Another black man was accused of killing a white policeman. His first trial was declared a mistrial because the jury could not come to a decision. There would be 2 more trials, with the last one seeing the man convicted. But the local kkk was angry about the mistrial. Two klansmen (cowardsmen) drove around that night with a gun and a rope, looking for a black man to attack. They found Michael Donald. They chased him, beat him, and strangled him with a rope. They then showed off the body at a party at the house of a klan elder, before hanging his body from a tree. This was in 1981.

You defended that.


Your "there was no judge" excuses do not apply to any of the above cases.

There’s two sides to every story just like the story about Nazis are untrue

Bullshit. The people discussed above were murdered. There are not two sides. There is the truth and there is bullshit.

The woman who accused Emmett Till of harassing her later recanted and admitted she made it up.

The other two lynchings were well publicized and investigated. The mother of Michael Donald ended up owning the kkk's property.

These are true stories of despicable behavior, murder and the denial of 6th amendment rights. And you claim there are two sides to every story? LMAO!! That is so weak. Stand up for everyone's constitutional rights or quit whining about yours.

If that is true then that’s criminal behavior I do not condone criminal behavior I stated what I believe in. We are talking about how towns used to conduct punishment. Now you’re claiming him for unjustified punishment

No, WE are not discussing any such thing. You have tried to shift to that. Originally you tried the "we the people" crap, despite having no evidence that "we the people" wanted any such thing as a majority. And despite me showing you over and over that constitutional rights cannot be overridden by a simple majority.

You defended each of the case I listed.

It’s pretty simple to understand that most towns in America at one point handled a lot differently than they do today. I think you’re against American history. Unfortunately these towns weren’t rich enough to live in the land you would like.. I understand American disappoints you maybe you should move out

Its pretty simple to understand that you approve of lynching.

It is also pretty simple to see that you are all for YOUR constitutional rights, but for other's rights it is not so important.

Also, many times in the Old West, prisoners were held until the Circuit Judge came through. Then the trial was held.

BTW, all three of the cases I listed above happened in the 20th century, with two of them since 1950. And when you were first confronted with them, you defended the lynching.

As a matter of fact, when I first brought up the case of Michael Donald, your reply was "he shouldn't have raped a white woman".

OK law man! I’m
Still waiting on your decision! There is a murder out there ! What do you want to do??

Arrest him and hold him until the circuit judge comes through town.

Your jail is limited, you have holding cells of domestic violence, petty crime, you can’t hold murders now you have to spend money to feed him BOSS?? Come on law man! We want justice! Why do you do?? Looks like you’ll be voted out or you gonna lose all that money you were making as a law man because you don’t have the balls to execute that son of a bitch

Oh, so you would throw away someone's constitutional rights for a few dollars? I won't. If I have to, I'll let the domestic violence or petty crime criminals go.

You are really stretching to try to make this case. But no matter how you make up shit, lie, or create silly hypothetical situations that are so restricted as to be nonsense, you have still defended and advocated for denying people their 6th amendment rights and approved of murder.

And for you to pretend that this was ever about poor towns in the old west is just a lie.

The last lynching case I presented above was in the 1980s in Mobile Alabama. Your answer does not work. And frankly, you should be embarrassed at trying to pretend this is all about history.

lol there are lynchings every day in Boston this month lol two or three groups lynching each other ,, listen just because the social media doesn’t label it a lynching doesn’t mean it’s not. BUT IT IS

IM trying to show you how it was in America. I know it doesn’t fit your narrative, but town would be able to keep rapist murderers in their town lock up, and if you did you would be voted out. OK LAW MAN!

 

[Jitss617]

Face book whether they like it or not is our public online form, we should stay and fight for free speech.

"Free Speech" only relates to the Government trying to censor you. It has not a damned thing to do with a private individual or company doing it.

This is like Constitution 101 stuff here.

So my speech isn’t protected from another citizen planning to shit it down?

How does another citizen shut it down?

By shouting louder? Yep, that is legal.

You really should study the US Constitution.

The mayor of Boston planned to shut down my speech

As a private citizen? Or in his official capacity as mayor?

Huh

 

[Jitss617]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook. I see political posts from both sides.

I also see friends and family from all over the world able to communicate easily. I see solid information posted and nonsense challenged and debunked.

I don't see problem with using the social media according to their rules. They own the platform.

They are deleting post about rallies coming up, to PROTEST, to ASSEMBLE.

And? It is a privately owned business. They can do as they please. Perhaps they are worried about liability.

They said nothing about getting sued. And no judge would side that decision. Why are you promoting fascism?

I am not promoting anything of the sort. Whether they said anything or not, it could be a factor.

But the bottom line is, it is a privately owned business and they write the rules for its use.

You are correct FOR NOW.

They need to be regulated as the public square that they have CLEARLY replaced.

Not regulated but enforced to allow all speech to be protected, they are the online public square

It is still a privately owned business. If you want to make your public square on private property, you lose certain things.

We will see

No, not "we will see". Private property is still private property.

Antitrust laws my friend

Antitrust laws make sure there is competition. It has absolutely nothing to do with you being able to co-opt their private business to use as a platform for your speech.

We will see my little friend

 

[Jitss617]

So my speech isn’t protected from another citizen planning to shit it down?

Not if they own it.

Feel free to do it in a public square. Most city and county have essentially "open mic nights" where you can air your grievances. You are free to do it wherever you want.

But what you are demanding is the equivalent of going into their front yard and doing it there. Sorry, their yard, you got not rights other than what they give you.

Do not like it, scream in your own yard as much as you like.

Not regulated but enforced to allow all speech to be protected, they are the online public square

No, they are unquestionably private.

Also, not all speech is protected. It is actually perfectly legal for the Government to shut down your public speech as well. Heck, here in California you can get in legal trouble for using the wrong pronoun.

Of course I can go out in public and speak you moron lol
Except democrats try to stop it when they want.

 

[Jitss617]

Antitrust laws my friend

Can you show they are an illegal monopoly, gained through collusion?

Here is the most amazing thing about Anti-Trust laws. In fact, here is something that most people do not even seem to be aware of.

It is not against the law to have a monopoly!

You only break the law if you use collusion or other illegal means to get or hold it. If you have a majority of a business (say how Myspace was a decade and a half ago), that is perfectly legal.

Facebook is simply the newest of a long string if such things going back over 25 years. And I have seen them come and go over the decades.

Heck, I still remember my 6 digit ICQ user name. If I had been smart I would have sold that 20 years ago, those were going for $5-10k at the time. Today, most have no idea what it is, kinda like Myspace.

We will see

 

[Mushroom]

Of course I can go out in public and speak you moron lol
Except democrats try to stop it when they want.

And this is why I do not take you seriously.

Yes, your right to speech is indeed protected, but that does not protect you for the contents of that speech. This has been proven many times in court. For example, anything intended to incite violence, sedition against the government, anger or hatred towards others, that is not protected and indeed the government can shut you down for it.

And I always find it fascinating when people resort to petty insults because somebody does not agree with them. Basically all that tells me is that such an individual should never be taken seriously, they have absolutely no control over their emotions, and will rant and rave and slam others just because they do not agree.

Kinda like an ANTIFA or OWS protestor. Or a lot of Democrats.

*laughs*

 

[WinterBorn]

I have brought these specific cases up in our previous discussions.

Emmett Till was a 14 year old boy who was accused of whistling at a white woman (and flirting with her). A few nights later Till was abducted from where he was staying, beaten and mutilated before being shot in the head. His body was then sunk in the Tallahatchie River. This was in 1955 in the Mississippi Delta. The claim that they could not have found a judge is laughable.

You defended that.


Mary Turner was the wife of a black man who was lynched. She was also 8 months pregnant. She denounced the hanging and called out the ignorant rednecks who had done it. She threatened legal action against them. She fled after she was threatened, but the mob caught her. They hung her upside down and doused her with gasoline and lit her on fire. She was still alive when one of the mob cut her belly open and stomped on the fetus.

You defended that.


Michael Donald had committed no crime. Another black man was accused of killing a white policeman. His first trial was declared a mistrial because the jury could not come to a decision. There would be 2 more trials, with the last one seeing the man convicted. But the local kkk was angry about the mistrial. Two klansmen (cowardsmen) drove around that night with a gun and a rope, looking for a black man to attack. They found Michael Donald. They chased him, beat him, and strangled him with a rope. They then showed off the body at a party at the house of a klan elder, before hanging his body from a tree. This was in 1981.

You defended that.


Your "there was no judge" excuses do not apply to any of the above cases.

There’s two sides to every story just like the story about Nazis are untrue

Bullshit. The people discussed above were murdered. There are not two sides. There is the truth and there is bullshit.

The woman who accused Emmett Till of harassing her later recanted and admitted she made it up.

The other two lynchings were well publicized and investigated. The mother of Michael Donald ended up owning the kkk's property.

These are true stories of despicable behavior, murder and the denial of 6th amendment rights. And you claim there are two sides to every story? LMAO!! That is so weak. Stand up for everyone's constitutional rights or quit whining about yours.

If that is true then that’s criminal behavior I do not condone criminal behavior I stated what I believe in. We are talking about how towns used to conduct punishment. Now you’re claiming him for unjustified punishment

No, WE are not discussing any such thing. You have tried to shift to that. Originally you tried the "we the people" crap, despite having no evidence that "we the people" wanted any such thing as a majority. And despite me showing you over and over that constitutional rights cannot be overridden by a simple majority.

You defended each of the case I listed.

It’s pretty simple to understand that most towns in America at one point handled a lot differently than they do today. I think you’re against American history. Unfortunately these towns weren’t rich enough to live in the land you would like.. I understand American disappoints you maybe you should move out

Its pretty simple to understand that you approve of lynching.

It is also pretty simple to see that you are all for YOUR constitutional rights, but for other's rights it is not so important.

Also, many times in the Old West, prisoners were held until the Circuit Judge came through. Then the trial was held.

BTW, all three of the cases I listed above happened in the 20th century, with two of them since 1950. And when you were first confronted with them, you defended the lynching.

As a matter of fact, when I first brought up the case of Michael Donald, your reply was "he shouldn't have raped a white woman".

OK law man! I’m
Still waiting on your decision! There is a murder out there ! What do you want to do??

Arrest him and hold him until the circuit judge comes through town.

Your jail is limited, you have holding cells of domestic violence, petty crime, you can’t hold murders now you have to spend money to feed him BOSS?? Come on law man! We want justice! Why do you do?? Looks like you’ll be voted out or you gonna lose all that money you were making as a law man because you don’t have the balls to execute that son of a bitch

Oh, so you would throw away someone's constitutional rights for a few dollars? I won't. If I have to, I'll let the domestic violence or petty crime criminals go.

You are really stretching to try to make this case. But no matter how you make up shit, lie, or create silly hypothetical situations that are so restricted as to be nonsense, you have still defended and advocated for denying people their 6th amendment rights and approved of murder.

And for you to pretend that this was ever about poor towns in the old west is just a lie.

The last lynching case I presented above was in the 1980s in Mobile Alabama. Your answer does not work. And frankly, you should be embarrassed at trying to pretend this is all about history.

lol there are lynchings every day in Boston this month lol two or three groups lynching each other ,, listen just because the social media doesn’t label it a lynching doesn’t mean it’s not. BUT IT IS

IM trying to show you how it was in America. I know it doesn’t fit your narrative, but town would be able to keep rapist murderers in their town lock up, and if you did you would be voted out. OK LAW MAN!

The narrative you are trying to show is not what the conversation began as. Nor is it what you have presented.

This is not about history of the old west. It is about much more modern times in which the ignorant grew into a mob and murdered people.

And no matter how hard you try, lynching is not about justice.

As for me being voted out for holding a criminal for trial, I am fine with that. It is far better than selling out and denying someone's constitutional rights for a few dollars. That would be despicable.

 

[WinterBorn]

Face book whether they like it or not is our public online form, we should stay and fight for free speech.

"Free Speech" only relates to the Government trying to censor you. It has not a damned thing to do with a private individual or company doing it.

This is like Constitution 101 stuff here.

So my speech isn’t protected from another citizen planning to shit it down?

How does another citizen shut it down?

By shouting louder? Yep, that is legal.

You really should study the US Constitution.

The mayor of Boston planned to shut down my speech

As a private citizen? Or in his official capacity as mayor?

Huh

What was hard to understand. Did the mayor act as a private citizen or did he act as the mayor (representing the city)? It is a simple question. It was also rhetorical, since we all know he acted as the mayor.

 

[bodecea]

I have brought these specific cases up in our previous discussions.

Emmett Till was a 14 year old boy who was accused of whistling at a white woman (and flirting with her). A few nights later Till was abducted from where he was staying, beaten and mutilated before being shot in the head. His body was then sunk in the Tallahatchie River. This was in 1955 in the Mississippi Delta. The claim that they could not have found a judge is laughable.

You defended that.


Mary Turner was the wife of a black man who was lynched. She was also 8 months pregnant. She denounced the hanging and called out the ignorant rednecks who had done it. She threatened legal action against them. She fled after she was threatened, but the mob caught her. They hung her upside down and doused her with gasoline and lit her on fire. She was still alive when one of the mob cut her belly open and stomped on the fetus.

You defended that.


Michael Donald had committed no crime. Another black man was accused of killing a white policeman. His first trial was declared a mistrial because the jury could not come to a decision. There would be 2 more trials, with the last one seeing the man convicted. But the local kkk was angry about the mistrial. Two klansmen (cowardsmen) drove around that night with a gun and a rope, looking for a black man to attack. They found Michael Donald. They chased him, beat him, and strangled him with a rope. They then showed off the body at a party at the house of a klan elder, before hanging his body from a tree. This was in 1981.

You defended that.


Your "there was no judge" excuses do not apply to any of the above cases.

There’s two sides to every story just like the story about Nazis are untrue

Interesting....and you support the side of those who did the lynchings?

 

[WinterBorn]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook. I see political posts from both sides.

I also see friends and family from all over the world able to communicate easily. I see solid information posted and nonsense challenged and debunked.

I don't see problem with using the social media according to their rules. They own the platform.

They are deleting post about rallies coming up, to PROTEST, to ASSEMBLE.

And? It is a privately owned business. They can do as they please. Perhaps they are worried about liability.

They said nothing about getting sued. And no judge would side that decision. Why are you promoting fascism?

I am not promoting anything of the sort. Whether they said anything or not, it could be a factor.

But the bottom line is, it is a privately owned business and they write the rules for its use.

You are correct FOR NOW.

They need to be regulated as the public square that they have CLEARLY replaced.

Not regulated but enforced to allow all speech to be protected, they are the online public square

It is still a privately owned business. If you want to make your public square on private property, you lose certain things.

We will see

No, not "we will see". Private property is still private property.

Antitrust laws my friend

Antitrust laws make sure there is competition. It has absolutely nothing to do with you being able to co-opt their private business to use as a platform for your speech.

We will see my little friend

LMAO!! Oh please. How do antitrust laws give you any right to co-opt private property?

 

[WinterBorn]

I have brought these specific cases up in our previous discussions.

Emmett Till was a 14 year old boy who was accused of whistling at a white woman (and flirting with her). A few nights later Till was abducted from where he was staying, beaten and mutilated before being shot in the head. His body was then sunk in the Tallahatchie River. This was in 1955 in the Mississippi Delta. The claim that they could not have found a judge is laughable.

You defended that.


Mary Turner was the wife of a black man who was lynched. She was also 8 months pregnant. She denounced the hanging and called out the ignorant rednecks who had done it. She threatened legal action against them. She fled after she was threatened, but the mob caught her. They hung her upside down and doused her with gasoline and lit her on fire. She was still alive when one of the mob cut her belly open and stomped on the fetus.

You defended that.


Michael Donald had committed no crime. Another black man was accused of killing a white policeman. His first trial was declared a mistrial because the jury could not come to a decision. There would be 2 more trials, with the last one seeing the man convicted. But the local kkk was angry about the mistrial. Two klansmen (cowardsmen) drove around that night with a gun and a rope, looking for a black man to attack. They found Michael Donald. They chased him, beat him, and strangled him with a rope. They then showed off the body at a party at the house of a klan elder, before hanging his body from a tree. This was in 1981.

You defended that.


Your "there was no judge" excuses do not apply to any of the above cases.

There’s two sides to every story just like the story about Nazis are untrue

Interesting....and you support the side of those who did the lynchings?

Sad, isn't it? He is fine with people being denied their 6th amendment rights, but gets pissy because FaceBook doesn't give him a platform for his speech.

 

[Jitss617]

Of course I can go out in public and speak you moron lol
Except democrats try to stop it when they want.

And this is why I do not take you seriously.

Yes, your right to speech is indeed protected, but that does not protect you for the contents of that speech. This has been proven many times in court. For example, anything intended to incite violence, sedition against the government, anger or hatred towards others, that is not protected and indeed the government can shut you down for it.

And I always find it fascinating when people resort to petty insults because somebody does not agree with them. Basically all that tells me is that such an individual should never be taken seriously, they have absolutely no control over their emotions, and will rant and rave and slam others just because they do not agree.

Kinda like an ANTIFA or OWS protestor. Or a lot of Democrats.

*laughs*

90% of all daily violent crimes happen in towns run by democrats, by your standards we should stop democrats for from speaking politics ... I agree let’s do it

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course I can go out in public and speak you moron lol
Except democrats try to stop it when they want.

And this is why I do not take you seriously.

Yes, your right to speech is indeed protected, but that does not protect you for the contents of that speech. This has been proven many times in court. For example, anything intended to incite violence, sedition against the government, anger or hatred towards others, that is not protected and indeed the government can shut you down for it.

And I always find it fascinating when people resort to petty insults because somebody does not agree with them. Basically all that tells me is that such an individual should never be taken seriously, they have absolutely no control over their emotions, and will rant and rave and slam others just because they do not agree.

Kinda like an ANTIFA or OWS protestor. Or a lot of Democrats.

*laughs*

90% of all daily violent crimes happen in towns run by democrats, by your standards we should stop democrats for from speaking politics ... I agree let’s do it

You know, one of the reasons I have always been a conservative (of the old school variety) is that they took responsibility for their lives. You have certainly not done that. It is always someone else's fault.

 

[Jitss617]

I have brought these specific cases up in our previous discussions.

Emmett Till was a 14 year old boy who was accused of whistling at a white woman (and flirting with her). A few nights later Till was abducted from where he was staying, beaten and mutilated before being shot in the head. His body was then sunk in the Tallahatchie River. This was in 1955 in the Mississippi Delta. The claim that they could not have found a judge is laughable.

You defended that.


Mary Turner was the wife of a black man who was lynched. She was also 8 months pregnant. She denounced the hanging and called out the ignorant rednecks who had done it. She threatened legal action against them. She fled after she was threatened, but the mob caught her. They hung her upside down and doused her with gasoline and lit her on fire. She was still alive when one of the mob cut her belly open and stomped on the fetus.

You defended that.


Michael Donald had committed no crime. Another black man was accused of killing a white policeman. His first trial was declared a mistrial because the jury could not come to a decision. There would be 2 more trials, with the last one seeing the man convicted. But the local kkk was angry about the mistrial. Two klansmen (cowardsmen) drove around that night with a gun and a rope, looking for a black man to attack. They found Michael Donald. They chased him, beat him, and strangled him with a rope. They then showed off the body at a party at the house of a klan elder, before hanging his body from a tree. This was in 1981.

You defended that.


Your "there was no judge" excuses do not apply to any of the above cases.

There’s two sides to every story just like the story about Nazis are untrue

Bullshit. The people discussed above were murdered. There are not two sides. There is the truth and there is bullshit.

The woman who accused Emmett Till of harassing her later recanted and admitted she made it up.

The other two lynchings were well publicized and investigated. The mother of Michael Donald ended up owning the kkk's property.

These are true stories of despicable behavior, murder and the denial of 6th amendment rights. And you claim there are two sides to every story? LMAO!! That is so weak. Stand up for everyone's constitutional rights or quit whining about yours.

If that is true then that’s criminal behavior I do not condone criminal behavior I stated what I believe in. We are talking about how towns used to conduct punishment. Now you’re claiming him for unjustified punishment

No, WE are not discussing any such thing. You have tried to shift to that. Originally you tried the "we the people" crap, despite having no evidence that "we the people" wanted any such thing as a majority. And despite me showing you over and over that constitutional rights cannot be overridden by a simple majority.

You defended each of the case I listed.

It’s pretty simple to understand that most towns in America at one point handled a lot differently than they do today. I think you’re against American history. Unfortunately these towns weren’t rich enough to live in the land you would like.. I understand American disappoints you maybe you should move out

Its pretty simple to understand that you approve of lynching.

It is also pretty simple to see that you are all for YOUR constitutional rights, but for other's rights it is not so important.

Also, many times in the Old West, prisoners were held until the Circuit Judge came through. Then the trial was held.

BTW, all three of the cases I listed above happened in the 20th century, with two of them since 1950. And when you were first confronted with them, you defended the lynching.

As a matter of fact, when I first brought up the case of Michael Donald, your reply was "he shouldn't have raped a white woman".

OK law man! I’m
Still waiting on your decision! There is a murder out there ! What do you want to do??

Arrest him and hold him until the circuit judge comes through town.

Your jail is limited, you have holding cells of domestic violence, petty crime, you can’t hold murders now you have to spend money to feed him BOSS?? Come on law man! We want justice! Why do you do?? Looks like you’ll be voted out or you gonna lose all that money you were making as a law man because you don’t have the balls to execute that son of a bitch

Oh, so you would throw away someone's constitutional rights for a few dollars? I won't. If I have to, I'll let the domestic violence or petty crime criminals go.

You are really stretching to try to make this case. But no matter how you make up shit, lie, or create silly hypothetical situations that are so restricted as to be nonsense, you have still defended and advocated for denying people their 6th amendment rights and approved of murder.

And for you to pretend that this was ever about poor towns in the old west is just a lie.

The last lynching case I presented above was in the 1980s in Mobile Alabama. Your answer does not work. And frankly, you should be embarrassed at trying to pretend this is all about history.

lol there are lynchings every day in Boston this month lol two or three groups lynching each other ,, listen just because the social media doesn’t label it a lynching doesn’t mean it’s not. BUT IT IS

IM trying to show you how it was in America. I know it doesn’t fit your narrative, but town would be able to keep rapist murderers in their town lock up, and if you did you would be voted out. OK LAW MAN!

The narrative you are trying to show is not what the conversation began as. Nor is it what you have presented.

This is not about history of the old west. It is about much more modern times in which the ignorant grew into a mob and murdered people.

And no matter how hard you try, lynching is not about justice.

As for me being voted out for holding a criminal for trial, I am fine with that. It is far better than selling out and denying someone's constitutional rights for a few dollars. That would be despicable.

It’s American Justice .. I’m ok with it.

 

[Jitss617]

I have brought these specific cases up in our previous discussions.

Emmett Till was a 14 year old boy who was accused of whistling at a white woman (and flirting with her). A few nights later Till was abducted from where he was staying, beaten and mutilated before being shot in the head. His body was then sunk in the Tallahatchie River. This was in 1955 in the Mississippi Delta. The claim that they could not have found a judge is laughable.

You defended that.


Mary Turner was the wife of a black man who was lynched. She was also 8 months pregnant. She denounced the hanging and called out the ignorant rednecks who had done it. She threatened legal action against them. She fled after she was threatened, but the mob caught her. They hung her upside down and doused her with gasoline and lit her on fire. She was still alive when one of the mob cut her belly open and stomped on the fetus.

You defended that.


Michael Donald had committed no crime. Another black man was accused of killing a white policeman. His first trial was declared a mistrial because the jury could not come to a decision. There would be 2 more trials, with the last one seeing the man convicted. But the local kkk was angry about the mistrial. Two klansmen (cowardsmen) drove around that night with a gun and a rope, looking for a black man to attack. They found Michael Donald. They chased him, beat him, and strangled him with a rope. They then showed off the body at a party at the house of a klan elder, before hanging his body from a tree. This was in 1981.

You defended that.


Your "there was no judge" excuses do not apply to any of the above cases.

There’s two sides to every story just like the story about Nazis are untrue

Interesting....and you support the side of those who did the lynchings?

20 lynchings today in towns run by democrats.. it’s your party

 

[Jitss617]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook. I see political posts from both sides.

I also see friends and family from all over the world able to communicate easily. I see solid information posted and nonsense challenged and debunked.

I don't see problem with using the social media according to their rules. They own the platform.

They are deleting post about rallies coming up, to PROTEST, to ASSEMBLE.

And? It is a privately owned business. They can do as they please. Perhaps they are worried about liability.

They said nothing about getting sued. And no judge would side that decision. Why are you promoting fascism?

I am not promoting anything of the sort. Whether they said anything or not, it could be a factor.

But the bottom line is, it is a privately owned business and they write the rules for its use.

You are correct FOR NOW.

They need to be regulated as the public square that they have CLEARLY replaced.

Not regulated but enforced to allow all speech to be protected, they are the online public square

It is still a privately owned business. If you want to make your public square on private property, you lose certain things.

We will see

No, not "we will see". Private property is still private property.

Antitrust laws my friend

Antitrust laws make sure there is competition. It has absolutely nothing to do with you being able to co-opt their private business to use as a platform for your speech.

We will see my little friend

LMAO!! Oh please. How do antitrust laws give you any right to co-opt private property?

You’re going to find out boy

 

[Jitss617]

I have brought these specific cases up in our previous discussions.

Emmett Till was a 14 year old boy who was accused of whistling at a white woman (and flirting with her). A few nights later Till was abducted from where he was staying, beaten and mutilated before being shot in the head. His body was then sunk in the Tallahatchie River. This was in 1955 in the Mississippi Delta. The claim that they could not have found a judge is laughable.

You defended that.


Mary Turner was the wife of a black man who was lynched. She was also 8 months pregnant. She denounced the hanging and called out the ignorant rednecks who had done it. She threatened legal action against them. She fled after she was threatened, but the mob caught her. They hung her upside down and doused her with gasoline and lit her on fire. She was still alive when one of the mob cut her belly open and stomped on the fetus.

You defended that.


Michael Donald had committed no crime. Another black man was accused of killing a white policeman. His first trial was declared a mistrial because the jury could not come to a decision. There would be 2 more trials, with the last one seeing the man convicted. But the local kkk was angry about the mistrial. Two klansmen (cowardsmen) drove around that night with a gun and a rope, looking for a black man to attack. They found Michael Donald. They chased him, beat him, and strangled him with a rope. They then showed off the body at a party at the house of a klan elder, before hanging his body from a tree. This was in 1981.

You defended that.


Your "there was no judge" excuses do not apply to any of the above cases.

There’s two sides to every story just like the story about Nazis are untrue

Interesting....and you support the side of those who did the lynchings?

Sad, isn't it? He is fine with people being denied their 6th amendment rights, but gets pissy because FaceBook doesn't give him a platform for his speech.

White lynching blacks bad.. blacks lynching whites and blacks ... ok lol You all are hypocrites

 

[WinterBorn]

I have brought these specific cases up in our previous discussions.

Emmett Till was a 14 year old boy who was accused of whistling at a white woman (and flirting with her). A few nights later Till was abducted from where he was staying, beaten and mutilated before being shot in the head. His body was then sunk in the Tallahatchie River. This was in 1955 in the Mississippi Delta. The claim that they could not have found a judge is laughable.

You defended that.


Mary Turner was the wife of a black man who was lynched. She was also 8 months pregnant. She denounced the hanging and called out the ignorant rednecks who had done it. She threatened legal action against them. She fled after she was threatened, but the mob caught her. They hung her upside down and doused her with gasoline and lit her on fire. She was still alive when one of the mob cut her belly open and stomped on the fetus.

You defended that.


Michael Donald had committed no crime. Another black man was accused of killing a white policeman. His first trial was declared a mistrial because the jury could not come to a decision. There would be 2 more trials, with the last one seeing the man convicted. But the local kkk was angry about the mistrial. Two klansmen (cowardsmen) drove around that night with a gun and a rope, looking for a black man to attack. They found Michael Donald. They chased him, beat him, and strangled him with a rope. They then showed off the body at a party at the house of a klan elder, before hanging his body from a tree. This was in 1981.

You defended that.


Your "there was no judge" excuses do not apply to any of the above cases.

There’s two sides to every story just like the story about Nazis are untrue

Bullshit. The people discussed above were murdered. There are not two sides. There is the truth and there is bullshit.

The woman who accused Emmett Till of harassing her later recanted and admitted she made it up.

The other two lynchings were well publicized and investigated. The mother of Michael Donald ended up owning the kkk's property.

These are true stories of despicable behavior, murder and the denial of 6th amendment rights. And you claim there are two sides to every story? LMAO!! That is so weak. Stand up for everyone's constitutional rights or quit whining about yours.

If that is true then that’s criminal behavior I do not condone criminal behavior I stated what I believe in. We are talking about how towns used to conduct punishment. Now you’re claiming him for unjustified punishment

No, WE are not discussing any such thing. You have tried to shift to that. Originally you tried the "we the people" crap, despite having no evidence that "we the people" wanted any such thing as a majority. And despite me showing you over and over that constitutional rights cannot be overridden by a simple majority.

You defended each of the case I listed.

It’s pretty simple to understand that most towns in America at one point handled a lot differently than they do today. I think you’re against American history. Unfortunately these towns weren’t rich enough to live in the land you would like.. I understand American disappoints you maybe you should move out

Its pretty simple to understand that you approve of lynching.

It is also pretty simple to see that you are all for YOUR constitutional rights, but for other's rights it is not so important.

Also, many times in the Old West, prisoners were held until the Circuit Judge came through. Then the trial was held.

BTW, all three of the cases I listed above happened in the 20th century, with two of them since 1950. And when you were first confronted with them, you defended the lynching.

As a matter of fact, when I first brought up the case of Michael Donald, your reply was "he shouldn't have raped a white woman".

OK law man! I’m
Still waiting on your decision! There is a murder out there ! What do you want to do??

Arrest him and hold him until the circuit judge comes through town.

Your jail is limited, you have holding cells of domestic violence, petty crime, you can’t hold murders now you have to spend money to feed him BOSS?? Come on law man! We want justice! Why do you do?? Looks like you’ll be voted out or you gonna lose all that money you were making as a law man because you don’t have the balls to execute that son of a bitch

Oh, so you would throw away someone's constitutional rights for a few dollars? I won't. If I have to, I'll let the domestic violence or petty crime criminals go.

You are really stretching to try to make this case. But no matter how you make up shit, lie, or create silly hypothetical situations that are so restricted as to be nonsense, you have still defended and advocated for denying people their 6th amendment rights and approved of murder.

And for you to pretend that this was ever about poor towns in the old west is just a lie.

The last lynching case I presented above was in the 1980s in Mobile Alabama. Your answer does not work. And frankly, you should be embarrassed at trying to pretend this is all about history.

lol there are lynchings every day in Boston this month lol two or three groups lynching each other ,, listen just because the social media doesn’t label it a lynching doesn’t mean it’s not. BUT IT IS

IM trying to show you how it was in America. I know it doesn’t fit your narrative, but town would be able to keep rapist murderers in their town lock up, and if you did you would be voted out. OK LAW MAN!

The narrative you are trying to show is not what the conversation began as. Nor is it what you have presented.

This is not about history of the old west. It is about much more modern times in which the ignorant grew into a mob and murdered people.

And no matter how hard you try, lynching is not about justice.

As for me being voted out for holding a criminal for trial, I am fine with that. It is far better than selling out and denying someone's constitutional rights for a few dollars. That would be despicable.

It’s American Justice .. I’m ok with it.

Then you are against the US Constitution.

And no, it is NOT American justice. It is not justice at all.