Parler CEO Says Parler May Be Offline Longer Than Expected -- Why Didn't We Let The Free Market Decide???

[martybegan]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

 

[dblack]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

They're not doing that. Again, you're adopting the liberal conceptions of rights - namely that "rights" requires others to accommodate you. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen; it doesn't mean you can force FB to post your comments on their website. That's a dangerous inversion of individual rights that implicitly grants infinite power to the state.

What you're really arguing for is declaring certain websites (or any other venues you want to force your way into) to be "the commons", aka state property, and granting government the power to control them. That's as statist as you can get.

 

[martybegan]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

They're not doing that. Again, you're adopting the liberal conceptions of rights - namely that "rights" requires others to accommodate you. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen; it doesn't mean you can force FB to post your comments on their website. That's a dangerous inversion of individual rights that implicitly grants infinite power to the state.

What you're really arguing for is declaring certain websites (or any other venues you want to force your way into) to be "the commons", aka state property, and granting government the power to control them. That's as statist as you can get.

Sorry, but the State is already on its way to infinite power, and letting corporations like FB and twitter that provide platforms for the modern political town square control access is letting the State get even more power, because they support the party that supports said infinite power.

All your absolutism will get you is this:

 

[dblack]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

They're not doing that. Again, you're adopting the liberal conceptions of rights - namely that "rights" requires others to accommodate you. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen; it doesn't mean you can force FB to post your comments on their website. That's a dangerous inversion of individual rights that implicitly grants infinite power to the state.

What you're really arguing for is declaring certain websites (or any other venues you want to force your way into) to be "the commons", aka state property, and granting government the power to control them. That's as statist as you can get.

Sorry, but the State is already on its way to infinite power, and letting corporations like FB and twitter that provide platforms for the modern political town square control access is letting the State get even more power, because they support the party that supports said infinite power.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".....

I'll pass.

 

[martybegan]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

They're not doing that. Again, you're adopting the liberal conceptions of rights - namely that "rights" requires others to accommodate you. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen; it doesn't mean you can force FB to post your comments on their website. That's a dangerous inversion of individual rights that implicitly grants infinite power to the state.

What you're really arguing for is declaring certain websites (or any other venues you want to force your way into) to be "the commons", aka state property, and granting government the power to control them. That's as statist as you can get.

Sorry, but the State is already on its way to infinite power, and letting corporations like FB and twitter that provide platforms for the modern political town square control access is letting the State get even more power, because they support the party that supports said infinite power.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".....

I'll pass.

And lose.

 

[toobfreak]

free market decided to kick em off

^^^^^ Dangerous idiot. Now leftwing billionaire CEOs are the "free market." I guess the rest of us are all just "users."

 

[dblack]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

They're not doing that. Again, you're adopting the liberal conceptions of rights - namely that "rights" requires others to accommodate you. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen; it doesn't mean you can force FB to post your comments on their website. That's a dangerous inversion of individual rights that implicitly grants infinite power to the state.

What you're really arguing for is declaring certain websites (or any other venues you want to force your way into) to be "the commons", aka state property, and granting government the power to control them. That's as statist as you can get.

Sorry, but the State is already on its way to infinite power, and letting corporations like FB and twitter that provide platforms for the modern political town square control access is letting the State get even more power, because they support the party that supports said infinite power.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".....

I'll pass.

And lose.

Lose what? Seriously. If I give in a become a statist, I've already lost that which is most valuable to me.

I'm not making the pacifist argument. I'm not saying, "lay down and let them walk all over you". But adopting the corrupt principles of my enemies IS losing.

 

[martybegan]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

They're not doing that. Again, you're adopting the liberal conceptions of rights - namely that "rights" requires others to accommodate you. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen; it doesn't mean you can force FB to post your comments on their website. That's a dangerous inversion of individual rights that implicitly grants infinite power to the state.

What you're really arguing for is declaring certain websites (or any other venues you want to force your way into) to be "the commons", aka state property, and granting government the power to control them. That's as statist as you can get.

Sorry, but the State is already on its way to infinite power, and letting corporations like FB and twitter that provide platforms for the modern political town square control access is letting the State get even more power, because they support the party that supports said infinite power.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".....

I'll pass.

And lose.

Lose what? Seriously. If I give in a become a statist, I've already lost that which is most valuable to me.

I'm not making the pacifist argument. I'm not saying, "lay down and let them walk all over you". But adopting the corrupt principles of my enemies IS losing.

Then enjoy your barricades.

 

[dblack]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

They're not doing that. Again, you're adopting the liberal conceptions of rights - namely that "rights" requires others to accommodate you. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen; it doesn't mean you can force FB to post your comments on their website. That's a dangerous inversion of individual rights that implicitly grants infinite power to the state.

What you're really arguing for is declaring certain websites (or any other venues you want to force your way into) to be "the commons", aka state property, and granting government the power to control them. That's as statist as you can get.

Sorry, but the State is already on its way to infinite power, and letting corporations like FB and twitter that provide platforms for the modern political town square control access is letting the State get even more power, because they support the party that supports said infinite power.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".....

I'll pass.

And lose.

Lose what? Seriously. If I give in a become a statist, I've already lost that which is most valuable to me.

I'm not making the pacifist argument. I'm not saying, "lay down and let them walk all over you". But adopting the corrupt principles of my enemies IS losing.

Then enjoy your barricades.

I will. Kindly stay on the other side of those barricades, with the rest of the statists.

 

[martybegan]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

They're not doing that. Again, you're adopting the liberal conceptions of rights - namely that "rights" requires others to accommodate you. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen; it doesn't mean you can force FB to post your comments on their website. That's a dangerous inversion of individual rights that implicitly grants infinite power to the state.

What you're really arguing for is declaring certain websites (or any other venues you want to force your way into) to be "the commons", aka state property, and granting government the power to control them. That's as statist as you can get.

Sorry, but the State is already on its way to infinite power, and letting corporations like FB and twitter that provide platforms for the modern political town square control access is letting the State get even more power, because they support the party that supports said infinite power.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".....

I'll pass.

And lose.

Lose what? Seriously. If I give in a become a statist, I've already lost that which is most valuable to me.

I'm not making the pacifist argument. I'm not saying, "lay down and let them walk all over you". But adopting the corrupt principles of my enemies IS losing.

Then enjoy your barricades.

I will. Kindly stay on the other side of those barricades, with the rest of the statists.

Things are not black and white. Your absolutism will be your downfall.

 

[jc456]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

What is the principle you’re supporting when backing demofks?

the most vile vindictive fks on the planet!

your principle aligns with my way or no way demofks?

 

[dblack]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

What is the principles you’re supporting when backing demofks?

I'm not backing Democrats. I realize that the mind of a partisan works that way. But it's not reality. Rejecting Trump's nonsense doesn't mean one is embracing Democrats. Likewise, opposing Democrats doesn't mean you have to put up with Trump's crap. True Story™

 

[jc456]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

And the other side ends up winning because of it.

Hmmm what side are you calling the "other"? From my perspective, both Trumpsters and Democrats are the "other side".

The one actively trying to suppress speech and political activity of their opponents?

It's hard to play the game when the other side prevents you from even accessing the board.

Which board?

You all seem to be adopting the liberal conception of "discrimination". Liberty doesn't mean that others are required to accommodate you.

it was metaphorical.

Liberty dies when one side decides to use any means nessasary to shut the other side down.

That depends entirely on the means. Shunning people you disagree with in no way violates their liberty.

Stopping them from participating in public discourse sure does violate it.

They're not doing that. Again, you're adopting the liberal conceptions of rights - namely that "rights" requires others to accommodate you. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen; it doesn't mean you can force FB to post your comments on their website. That's a dangerous inversion of individual rights that implicitly grants infinite power to the state.

What you're really arguing for is declaring certain websites (or any other venues you want to force your way into) to be "the commons", aka state property, and granting government the power to control them. That's as statist as you can get.

Sorry, but the State is already on its way to infinite power, and letting corporations like FB and twitter that provide platforms for the modern political town square control access is letting the State get even more power, because they support the party that supports said infinite power.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".....

I'll pass.

And lose.

Lose what? Seriously. If I give in a become a statist, I've already lost that which is most valuable to me.

I'm not making the pacifist argument. I'm not saying, "lay down and let them walk all over you". But adopting the corrupt principles of my enemies IS losing.

Then enjoy your barricades.

I will. Kindly stay on the other side of those barricades, with the rest of the statists.

Things are not black and white. Your absolutism will be your downfall.

He needs to tell us how he aligns himself with those vile fks

 

[jc456]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

What is the principles you’re supporting when backing demofks?

I'm not backing Democrats. I realize that the mind of a partisan works that way. But it's not reality. Rejecting Trump's nonsense doesn't mean one is embracing Democrats. Likewise, opposing Democrats doesn't mean you have to put up with Trump's crap. True Story™

What are you rejecting?

 

[dblack]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

What is the principles you’re supporting when backing demofks?

I'm not backing Democrats. I realize that the mind of a partisan works that way. But it's not reality. Rejecting Trump's nonsense doesn't mean one is embracing Democrats. Likewise, opposing Democrats doesn't mean you have to put up with Trump's crap. True Story™

What are you rejecting?

Idiots like you.

 

[jc456]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

What is the principles you’re supporting when backing demofks?

I'm not backing Democrats. I realize that the mind of a partisan works that way. But it's not reality. Rejecting Trump's nonsense doesn't mean one is embracing Democrats. Likewise, opposing Democrats doesn't mean you have to put up with Trump's crap. True Story™

What are you rejecting?

Idiots like you.

As I knew, you can’t even explain your hate. Go fking figure.

you have every right to hate Trump, be honest about it chicken shit.

name what he did to enrage you

 

[dblack]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

What is the principles you’re supporting when backing demofks?

I'm not backing Democrats. I realize that the mind of a partisan works that way. But it's not reality. Rejecting Trump's nonsense doesn't mean one is embracing Democrats. Likewise, opposing Democrats doesn't mean you have to put up with Trump's crap. True Story™

What are you rejecting?

Idiots like you.

As I knew, you can’t even explain your hate. Go fking figure

Sure... run with that.

 

[jc456]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

What is the principles you’re supporting when backing demofks?

I'm not backing Democrats. I realize that the mind of a partisan works that way. But it's not reality. Rejecting Trump's nonsense doesn't mean one is embracing Democrats. Likewise, opposing Democrats doesn't mean you have to put up with Trump's crap. True Story™

What are you rejecting?

Idiots like you.

As I knew, you can’t even explain your hate. Go fking figure

Sure... run with that.

Fact! If you ignore facts you then are a demofk, no libertarian would ever back the vile demofks

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Yawns....just say you agree with progressives and you want to nationalize (oh no socialism) private companies as public commodities......

Obviously, you can't compete with these companies in the "free market" -- so just take them over instead or break them up into smaller companies.....

By the way, did you guys hear the Trump speech today?? Or was he banned from speaking by Twitter or something

 

[dblack]

It's amazing how much extreme Libertarians like you are willing to take it in the ass on your "principles"

Thank you.

We do try to stick to our principles, even when doing so isn't personally convenient, or might benefit people we don't like. That's how freedom works.

What is the principles you’re supporting when backing demofks?

I'm not backing Democrats. I realize that the mind of a partisan works that way. But it's not reality. Rejecting Trump's nonsense doesn't mean one is embracing Democrats. Likewise, opposing Democrats doesn't mean you have to put up with Trump's crap. True Story™

What are you rejecting?

Idiots like you.

As I knew, you can’t even explain your hate. Go fking figure

Sure... run with that.

Fact! If you ignore facts you then are a demofk, no libertarian would ever back the vile demofks

I'm not backing the Democrats. That's an artifact of the stilted state of your deranged mind. You think that if someone doesn't support Trump, that they support everyone who opposes him. It's stupid, but stupid is how you roll.