How are we going to stop the liberal war on free speech and conservative voices?

[Syriusly]

The thing you're bumping up against here is the fact that, in a free society, government has less power than the people. And in a free market, economic power (wealth) has more power to influence society than government does. That drives socialists crazy and they are forever after that power.

Well a truly free market allows the power of wealth to dominate society- in order to enrich those who are wealthy.

And of course eliminate those pesky regulations that prevent profits- like food safety regulations and fire safety regulations.

 

[DOTR]

Break up Facebook google YouTube abc nbc cbs msnbc Twitter.
It’s the only answer. Give them credit where credit is due...they learned a hard lesson last election about giving Americans a means of communicating without liberal filters. They don’t intend for it to happen again. Nothing more dangerous to the ruling elites and money interests than Americans excersising free speech.

 

[dblack]

The thing you're bumping up against here is the fact that, in a free society, government has less power than the people. And in a free market, economic power (wealth) has more power to influence society than government does. That drives socialists crazy and they are forever after that power.

Well a truly free market allows the power of wealth to dominate society- in order to enrich those who are wealthy.

And of course eliminate those pesky regulations that prevent profits- like food safety regulations and fire safety regulations.

Nice to see your true colors shining through. All that speaking up for the rights of business was decidedly out-of-character for you. Did it hurt?

 

[dblack]

Basically every single occupy democrats post I see my friends link to.

So what you’re saying is that you can’t come up with a single example.

My friends spread this one around all the time.

FACT CHECK: Does the Dow Jones Do Worse Under Republican Presidents?

Are you calling Trump a liar?

I am calling them all liars.

Are you saying Trump is telling the truth in this case?

Trump is a New York limousine liberal Democrat. Why would I EVER trust a thing he says?

Because he he's telling them what they want hear? Kinda? Sorta? Or maybe they're just hearing what they want to hear. I don't know. I don't get it.

 

[g5000]

So what you’re saying is that you can’t come up with a single example.

My friends spread this one around all the time.

FACT CHECK: Does the Dow Jones Do Worse Under Republican Presidents?

Are you calling Trump a liar?

I am calling them all liars.

Are you saying Trump is telling the truth in this case?

Trump is a New York limousine liberal Democrat. Why would I EVER trust a thing he says?

Because he he's telling them what they want hear? Kinds? Sorta? Or maybe they're just hearing what they want to hear. I don't know. I don't get it.

Trump's a far left Democrat acting out a parody of what a Democrat thinks a conservative Republican believes.

 

[dblack]

It’s different somehow when I feel I am being targeted for discrimination by a business.

These cases expose those that actually support property rights and business rights from those that merely pay lip service when it’s convenient

And the depressing fact that the former is a very small group.

 

[mdk]

It’s different somehow when I feel I am being targeted for discrimination by a business.

These cases expose those that actually support property rights and business rights from those that merely pay lip service when it’s convenient

Again, the idea of "property" in a digital context, especially when you are saying the content on that "property" actually is the responsibility of the users, and not the platform is fuzzy at best.

I don’t think this issue is very fuzzy at all. Some of the same people that support Sweet Cakes by Melissa are now clutching their pearls b/c they feel Facebook is discriminating against them. Watching liberals and conservatives on here suddenly flip on these issues is as funny as it is hypocritical.

 

[dblack]

Well that is how Capitalism works- if people don't like the product- or even the leadership of the company- you can shop somewhere else. You know like how the boycott of Chic Fil E by the left worked so well.

Or, you can just nationalize 'em. That's how socialism works.

 

[martybegan]

It’s different somehow when I feel I am being targeted for discrimination by a business.

These cases expose those that actually support property rights and business rights from those that merely pay lip service when it’s convenient

Again, the idea of "property" in a digital context, especially when you are saying the content on that "property" actually is the responsibility of the users, and not the platform is fuzzy at best.

I don’t think this issue is very fuzzy at all. Some of the same people that support Sweet Cakes by Melissa are now clutching their pearls b/c they feel Facebook is discriminating against them. Watching liberals and conservatives on here suddenly flip on these issues is as funny as it is hypocritical.

There is a difference. one is a point of sale, easily replaceable service. The other is a platform provider that contains a majority of the US population as users and hides behind legal protection to avoid prosecution based on it's own content, and that purports to be an open forum for people.

Micro and Marco.

 

[dblack]

Watching liberals and conservatives on here suddenly flip on these issues is as funny as it is hypocritical.

I'm trying to laugh. But it really doesn't bode well for our nation.

 

[dblack]

It’s different somehow when I feel I am being targeted for discrimination by a business.

These cases expose those that actually support property rights and business rights from those that merely pay lip service when it’s convenient

Again, the idea of "property" in a digital context, especially when you are saying the content on that "property" actually is the responsibility of the users, and not the platform is fuzzy at best.

I don’t think this issue is very fuzzy at all. Some of the same people that support Sweet Cakes by Melissa are now clutching their pearls b/c they feel Facebook is discriminating against them. Watching liberals and conservatives on here suddenly flip on these issues is as funny as it is hypocritical.

There is a difference. one is a point of sale, easily replaceable service. The other is a platform provider that contains a majority of the US population as users and hides behind legal protection to avoid prosecution based on it's own content, and that purports to be an open forum for people.

Micro and Marco.

potato and potahto.

Slim rationalizations for the desire to control others with government.

 

[martybegan]

It’s different somehow when I feel I am being targeted for discrimination by a business.

These cases expose those that actually support property rights and business rights from those that merely pay lip service when it’s convenient

Again, the idea of "property" in a digital context, especially when you are saying the content on that "property" actually is the responsibility of the users, and not the platform is fuzzy at best.

I don’t think this issue is very fuzzy at all. Some of the same people that support Sweet Cakes by Melissa are now clutching their pearls b/c they feel Facebook is discriminating against them. Watching liberals and conservatives on here suddenly flip on these issues is as funny as it is hypocritical.

There is a difference. one is a point of sale, easily replaceable service. The other is a platform provider that contains a majority of the US population as users and hides behind legal protection to avoid prosecution based on it's own content, and that purports to be an open forum for people.

Micro and Marco.

potato and potahto.

Slim rationalizations for the desire to control others with government.

How is saying facebook has to be content neutral controlling them?

They can still post as they feel like.

 

[mdk]

It’s different somehow when I feel I am being targeted for discrimination by a business.

These cases expose those that actually support property rights and business rights from those that merely pay lip service when it’s convenient

Again, the idea of "property" in a digital context, especially when you are saying the content on that "property" actually is the responsibility of the users, and not the platform is fuzzy at best.

I don’t think this issue is very fuzzy at all. Some of the same people that support Sweet Cakes by Melissa are now clutching their pearls b/c they feel Facebook is discriminating against them. Watching liberals and conservatives on here suddenly flip on these issues is as funny as it is hypocritical.

There is a difference. one is a point of sale, easily replaceable service. The other is a platform provider that contains a majority of the US population as users and hides behind legal protection to avoid prosecution based on it's own content, and that purports to be an open forum for people.

Micro and Marco.

Of course it’s different, the shoe is on the other foot. Now suddenly people think they have a right to post on Facebook or view videos of goats fainting on YouTube. It is silly to see people get upset when they have to live by the same standards they set for others.

 

[dblack]

How is saying facebook has to be content neutral controlling them?
.

And who decides what's "neutral"? The Republicans currently running show? Or the next batch of liberal hooligans to take the reigns?

That's what I don't get. You think liberals are controlling Facebook now, but when government sinks its teeth into them, liberals will have even more control. What are you smoking?

 

[mdk]

I'm trying to laugh. But it really doesn't bode well for our nation.

Perhaps I am being naive, but I still think this nation has a bright future.

 

[DOTR]

Again, the idea of "property" in a digital context, especially when you are saying the content on that "property" actually is the responsibility of the users, and not the platform is fuzzy at best.

I don’t think this issue is very fuzzy at all. Some of the same people that support Sweet Cakes by Melissa are now clutching their pearls b/c they feel Facebook is discriminating against them. Watching liberals and conservatives on here suddenly flip on these issues is as funny as it is hypocritical.

There is a difference. one is a point of sale, easily replaceable service. The other is a platform provider that contains a majority of the US population as users and hides behind legal protection to avoid prosecution based on it's own content, and that purports to be an open forum for people.

Micro and Marco.

potato and potahto.

Slim rationalizations for the desire to control others with government.

How is saying facebook has to be content neutral controlling them?
.

And who decides what's "neutral"? The Republicans currently running show? Or the next batch of liberal hooligans to take the reigns?

That's what I don't get. You think liberals are controlling Facebook, but when government sinks its teeth into them, liberals will have even more control. What are you smoking?

Then the (((liberals))) who control Facebook would be the ones taking government power in that case. What’s the difference?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Conservatives need to get with reality. They need everything separate. Start a You Tube competitor, have separate colleges, work places. The nation is too divide to imagine coexisting.

 

[dblack]

I don’t think this issue is very fuzzy at all. Some of the same people that support Sweet Cakes by Melissa are now clutching their pearls b/c they feel Facebook is discriminating against them. Watching liberals and conservatives on here suddenly flip on these issues is as funny as it is hypocritical.

There is a difference. one is a point of sale, easily replaceable service. The other is a platform provider that contains a majority of the US population as users and hides behind legal protection to avoid prosecution based on it's own content, and that purports to be an open forum for people.

Micro and Marco.

potato and potahto.

Slim rationalizations for the desire to control others with government.

How is saying facebook has to be content neutral controlling them?
.

And who decides what's "neutral"? The Republicans currently running show? Or the next batch of liberal hooligans to take the reigns?

That's what I don't get. You think liberals are controlling Facebook, but when government sinks its teeth into them, liberals will have even more control. What are you smoking?

Then the (((liberals))) who control Facebook would be the ones taking government power in that case. What’s the difference?

The difference is that government can put you in jail, or kill you, if you defy them. Facebook can't do squat.

 

[martybegan]

It’s different somehow when I feel I am being targeted for discrimination by a business.

These cases expose those that actually support property rights and business rights from those that merely pay lip service when it’s convenient

Again, the idea of "property" in a digital context, especially when you are saying the content on that "property" actually is the responsibility of the users, and not the platform is fuzzy at best.

I don’t think this issue is very fuzzy at all. Some of the same people that support Sweet Cakes by Melissa are now clutching their pearls b/c they feel Facebook is discriminating against them. Watching liberals and conservatives on here suddenly flip on these issues is as funny as it is hypocritical.

There is a difference. one is a point of sale, easily replaceable service. The other is a platform provider that contains a majority of the US population as users and hides behind legal protection to avoid prosecution based on it's own content, and that purports to be an open forum for people.

Micro and Marco.

Of course it’s different, the shoe is on the other foot. Now suddenly people think they have a right to post on Facebook or view videos of goats fainting on YouTube. It is silly to see people get upset when they have to live by the same standards they set for others.

It's very different, but not because of why you think it is. If facebook enjoys protections from it's content being used to prosecute it, why should it feel the need to censor some viewpoints?

If they want to police their platform, make them liable if they fail to do so.

No half measures here.

 

[DOTR]

There is a difference. one is a point of sale, easily replaceable service. The other is a platform provider that contains a majority of the US population as users and hides behind legal protection to avoid prosecution based on it's own content, and that purports to be an open forum for people.

Micro and Marco.

potato and potahto.

Slim rationalizations for the desire to control others with government.

How is saying facebook has to be content neutral controlling them?
.

And who decides what's "neutral"? The Republicans currently running show? Or the next batch of liberal hooligans to take the reigns?

That's what I don't get. You think liberals are controlling Facebook, but when government sinks its teeth into them, liberals will have even more control. What are you smoking?

Then the (((liberals))) who control Facebook would be the ones taking government power in that case. What’s the difference?

The difference is that government can put you in jail, or kill you, if you defy them. Facebook can't do squat.

Sure they can. They can empower and protect those who can put you in jail and kill you. They can prevent you from criticizing them.
It is the same people. That is what you are not understanding. They were swept from political office but remain in control of media, the money and the administrative state.