Twitter locks out Trump

[dblack]

You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?

Well, I'm only 56, so you're full of shit right out of the gate. And I don't recall pushing any division or hatred. Examples?

The constant race baiting is the big one. A whole segment of society is not allowed to even discuss their interests, because even saying the name of their group, gets one dog piled.

Well, I don't recall doing that. Do you have quotes or links to posts where I'm doing that? I think you're just making shit up.

That is one example of the division lefties like you have been planting in our society since at least teh 60s.

Ahhh... there's your mistake. I'm not a lefty. Try again.

YOu asked a question. I answered. The answer stands. IF you are not a lefty, you still have seen the actions of lefties.


So, you happy now? Your question is answered.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.

You answered nothing. You made a false claim. I called you on it. You said "You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?"

I haven't been pushing division and hate. I'm not a race-baiter and I'm not a liberal or a lefty. Your assumption was in correct.

Noted. You claim to not be a lefty. My answer still stands, even if it is not directly ABOUT you.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.


So, you happy with the answer? Do you have a comment on it?

So, you're just using my post to rail about "lefties". Ok.

Getting back to the topic, Twitter should have banned Trump long ago. He's a demagogue and thrives on division and hatred. He sows dissent and spreads paranoia.

You claim to be a libertarian, and you say twitter should ban Trump?

You realize what a douchebag hypocrite you are, don't you?

No. But it's clear you don't have the slightest clue about individual rights. Twitter has every right to ban Trump from their website. The fact that you don't get that - that you have the same, fucked-up, inverted conception of rights that progressives do, is telling. Freedom of speech means government can't pass laws to silence you. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, or put your horseshit on their website.

No, it doesn't have that right. It's a government protected monopoly. If it wants to be free to censor, then it needs to give up it's government protection from lawsuits.

LOL - fucking hypocrite. You really an uber-authoritarian. Is it the 'strongman' thing that gets you hard? Or do you just love state run media??

Says the fucking Commie who defends cnesorship this swindle election.

Says the sore loser who can't admit he loves bullies.

You're the bully, asshole. You defend censorship and shooting people for committing misdemeanors.

Nope. Wrong again. I defend the right of any business to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. As far as shooting people for misdemeanors, you're just making shit up. 'Cause making shit up is all you got.

What you don't defend is the First Amendment, and you endorse government protected monopolies the right to censor.

You should actually read the First Amendment. It starts with "Congress shall make no law ..." It's a limitation on government power. It prevents Congress from passing laws that limit speech. It's not a mandate on businesses to cater to every moron who thinks he has something to say. Libertarians understand this. You, do not.

What felony did the woman the capitol police shot commit?

Beats me. I never said she should have been shot. Again, you're just making shit up. I guess because you're cornered and have nothing else to defend your insane position.

I'm done arguing about this shit. If you support Twitter and Google encoring people, then you oppose the First Amendment.

Then you, truly, do not understand the First Amendment.

Sure I do. I also understand that you're a lying douchebag. You are not a libertarian.

Fucking read a book. Whatever it is you think "libertarian" means, is way, way off the mark.

I've been a libertarian for 40 years, and I've read hundreds of books on the subject.

So what changed your mind?

 

[bripat9643]

You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?

Well, I'm only 56, so you're full of shit right out of the gate. And I don't recall pushing any division or hatred. Examples?

The constant race baiting is the big one. A whole segment of society is not allowed to even discuss their interests, because even saying the name of their group, gets one dog piled.

Well, I don't recall doing that. Do you have quotes or links to posts where I'm doing that? I think you're just making shit up.

That is one example of the division lefties like you have been planting in our society since at least teh 60s.

Ahhh... there's your mistake. I'm not a lefty. Try again.

YOu asked a question. I answered. The answer stands. IF you are not a lefty, you still have seen the actions of lefties.


So, you happy now? Your question is answered.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.

You answered nothing. You made a false claim. I called you on it. You said "You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?"

I haven't been pushing division and hate. I'm not a race-baiter and I'm not a liberal or a lefty. Your assumption was in correct.

Noted. You claim to not be a lefty. My answer still stands, even if it is not directly ABOUT you.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.


So, you happy with the answer? Do you have a comment on it?

So, you're just using my post to rail about "lefties". Ok.

Getting back to the topic, Twitter should have banned Trump long ago. He's a demagogue and thrives on division and hatred. He sows dissent and spreads paranoia.

You claim to be a libertarian, and you say twitter should ban Trump?

You realize what a douchebag hypocrite you are, don't you?

No. But it's clear you don't have the slightest clue about individual rights. Twitter has every right to ban Trump from their website. The fact that you don't get that - that you have the same, fucked-up, inverted conception of rights that progressives do, is telling. Freedom of speech means government can't pass laws to silence you. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, or put your horseshit on their website.

No, it doesn't have that right. It's a government protected monopoly. If it wants to be free to censor, then it needs to give up it's government protection from lawsuits.

LOL - fucking hypocrite. You really an uber-authoritarian. Is it the 'strongman' thing that gets you hard? Or do you just love state run media??

Says the fucking Commie who defends cnesorship this swindle election.

Says the sore loser who can't admit he loves bullies.

You're the bully, asshole. You defend censorship and shooting people for committing misdemeanors.

Nope. Wrong again. I defend the right of any business to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. As far as shooting people for misdemeanors, you're just making shit up. 'Cause making shit up is all you got.

What you don't defend is the First Amendment, and you endorse government protected monopolies the right to censor.

You should actually read the First Amendment. It starts with "Congress shall make no law ..." It's a limitation on government power. It prevents Congress from passing laws that limit speech. It's not a mandate on businesses to cater to every moron who thinks he has something to say. Libertarians understand this. You, do not.

What felony did the woman the capitol police shot commit?

Beats me. I never said she should have been shot. Again, you're just making shit up. I guess because you're cornered and have nothing else to defend your insane position.

I'm done arguing about this shit. If you support Twitter and Google encoring people, then you oppose the First Amendment.

Then you, truly, do not understand the First Amendment.

Sure I do. I also understand that you're a lying douchebag. You are not a libertarian.

Fucking read a book. Whatever it is you think "libertarian" means, is way, way off the mark.

I've been a libertarian for 40 years, and I've read hundreds of books on the subject.

So what changed your mind?

Do you really believe anyone is swallowing your shit?

You are no libertarian.

 

[HappyJoy]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

It's just weird watching someone celebrate censorship

Maybe he shouldn't incite a mob riot on the Capital. I know, you don't think he did because you're illiterate between the lines.

They were mostly peaceful. The woman shot was unarmed. That cop should be arrested.

Should, but wont.

But if a drunk black woman in Detroit pounds on your door at 3 am and you tell her to leave but she refuses, and you shoot and kill her thru the door, YOU GET 50 YEARS IN PRISON FOR MURDER

Yeah, shooting a drunk black woman is murder.

I don't know yet what the circumstances were for the shooting of the woman at the capital but I guess she wasn't listening to police and was in the act of breaking the law and from what you guys seem to say that means she's a lawful target. For me, I'll wait to see more details before passing judgement.

Funny how suddenly being unarmed or a woman or not a threat or that the man was bigger, or blah, blah, blah,


suddenly doesn't mean shit to you lefties.

Suddenly someone committing a crime shouldn't be shot according to you numbnuts.

I'm willing to see the evidence, you've made up your mind.

When did any right winger say people should be shot for committing misdemeanors?

Anybody who wants to shoot people for crossing the border for starters.

I'm also not so sure committing insurrection is a misdemeanor either.

Only morons believe they committed insurrection, and I have never advocated shooting people for crossing the border illegally.

Wingnuts have and it was insurrection. There purpose was to hold up our elections and they brought handcuffs and nooses because that's fun.

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language (Published 2019)

If the president did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.

www.nytimes.com

Let us know when anyone is indicted for insurrection. All they really did was trespass and break one window. Do you believe a woman should be shot for trespassing?

They interfered with government business, attacked the police while the police were protecting our duly elected officials and their motives were political in nature to overturn an election result. Sounds like insurrection to me and felonious. They did this while some were carrying handcuffs and they built a structure outside the capital for hanging.

They didn't attack the police. The police attacked them. "Interfering with government business" is not a crime that I'm aware of. Their motives are irrelevant. What are the motives of Antifa and BLM?

Oh, I see. They ripped through the capital and the police weren't even polite (well, some were) to them. They had zero rights to be there.

As far as interring with Congress, it is indeed a crime. You think any Tom, Dick or Harry can just walk into the capital and shut it down like it's their right?

Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities

Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit...

www.everycrsreport.com

Bottom line: you're a douchebag who has two sets of standards - one for Democrats and another for Republicans.

I don't remember the Democrats not getting their way and then attacking the capital building and then other Democrats being little bitches about it and not accepting the guilt the invaders deserve.

 

[dblack]

You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?

Well, I'm only 56, so you're full of shit right out of the gate. And I don't recall pushing any division or hatred. Examples?

The constant race baiting is the big one. A whole segment of society is not allowed to even discuss their interests, because even saying the name of their group, gets one dog piled.

Well, I don't recall doing that. Do you have quotes or links to posts where I'm doing that? I think you're just making shit up.

That is one example of the division lefties like you have been planting in our society since at least teh 60s.

Ahhh... there's your mistake. I'm not a lefty. Try again.

YOu asked a question. I answered. The answer stands. IF you are not a lefty, you still have seen the actions of lefties.


So, you happy now? Your question is answered.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.

You answered nothing. You made a false claim. I called you on it. You said "You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?"

I haven't been pushing division and hate. I'm not a race-baiter and I'm not a liberal or a lefty. Your assumption was in correct.

Noted. You claim to not be a lefty. My answer still stands, even if it is not directly ABOUT you.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.


So, you happy with the answer? Do you have a comment on it?

So, you're just using my post to rail about "lefties". Ok.

Getting back to the topic, Twitter should have banned Trump long ago. He's a demagogue and thrives on division and hatred. He sows dissent and spreads paranoia.

You claim to be a libertarian, and you say twitter should ban Trump?

You realize what a douchebag hypocrite you are, don't you?

No. But it's clear you don't have the slightest clue about individual rights. Twitter has every right to ban Trump from their website. The fact that you don't get that - that you have the same, fucked-up, inverted conception of rights that progressives do, is telling. Freedom of speech means government can't pass laws to silence you. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, or put your horseshit on their website.

No, it doesn't have that right. It's a government protected monopoly. If it wants to be free to censor, then it needs to give up it's government protection from lawsuits.

LOL - fucking hypocrite. You really an uber-authoritarian. Is it the 'strongman' thing that gets you hard? Or do you just love state run media??

Says the fucking Commie who defends cnesorship this swindle election.

Says the sore loser who can't admit he loves bullies.

You're the bully, asshole. You defend censorship and shooting people for committing misdemeanors.

Nope. Wrong again. I defend the right of any business to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. As far as shooting people for misdemeanors, you're just making shit up. 'Cause making shit up is all you got.

What you don't defend is the First Amendment, and you endorse government protected monopolies the right to censor.

You should actually read the First Amendment. It starts with "Congress shall make no law ..." It's a limitation on government power. It prevents Congress from passing laws that limit speech. It's not a mandate on businesses to cater to every moron who thinks he has something to say. Libertarians understand this. You, do not.

What felony did the woman the capitol police shot commit?

Beats me. I never said she should have been shot. Again, you're just making shit up. I guess because you're cornered and have nothing else to defend your insane position.

I'm done arguing about this shit. If you support Twitter and Google encoring people, then you oppose the First Amendment.

Then you, truly, do not understand the First Amendment.

Sure I do. I also understand that you're a lying douchebag. You are not a libertarian.

Fucking read a book. Whatever it is you think "libertarian" means, is way, way off the mark.

I've been a libertarian for 40 years, and I've read hundreds of books on the subject.

So what changed your mind?

Do you really believe anyone is swallowing your shit?

You are no libertarian.

I'm surprised you still remember how to spell it.

 

[bripat9643]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

It's just weird watching someone celebrate censorship

Maybe he shouldn't incite a mob riot on the Capital. I know, you don't think he did because you're illiterate between the lines.

They were mostly peaceful. The woman shot was unarmed. That cop should be arrested.

Should, but wont.

But if a drunk black woman in Detroit pounds on your door at 3 am and you tell her to leave but she refuses, and you shoot and kill her thru the door, YOU GET 50 YEARS IN PRISON FOR MURDER

Yeah, shooting a drunk black woman is murder.

I don't know yet what the circumstances were for the shooting of the woman at the capital but I guess she wasn't listening to police and was in the act of breaking the law and from what you guys seem to say that means she's a lawful target. For me, I'll wait to see more details before passing judgement.

Funny how suddenly being unarmed or a woman or not a threat or that the man was bigger, or blah, blah, blah,


suddenly doesn't mean shit to you lefties.

Suddenly someone committing a crime shouldn't be shot according to you numbnuts.

I'm willing to see the evidence, you've made up your mind.

When did any right winger say people should be shot for committing misdemeanors?

Anybody who wants to shoot people for crossing the border for starters.

I'm also not so sure committing insurrection is a misdemeanor either.

Only morons believe they committed insurrection, and I have never advocated shooting people for crossing the border illegally.

Wingnuts have and it was insurrection. There purpose was to hold up our elections and they brought handcuffs and nooses because that's fun.

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language (Published 2019)

If the president did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.

www.nytimes.com

Let us know when anyone is indicted for insurrection. All they really did was trespass and break one window. Do you believe a woman should be shot for trespassing?

They interfered with government business, attacked the police while the police were protecting our duly elected officials and their motives were political in nature to overturn an election result. Sounds like insurrection to me and felonious. They did this while some were carrying handcuffs and they built a structure outside the capital for hanging.

They didn't attack the police. The police attacked them. "Interfering with government business" is not a crime that I'm aware of. Their motives are irrelevant. What are the motives of Antifa and BLM?

Oh, I see. They ripped through the capital and the police weren't even polite (well, some were) to them. They had zero rights to be there.

As far as interring with Congress, it is indeed a crime. You think any Tom, Dick or Harry can just walk into the capital and shut it down like it's their right?

Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities

Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit...

www.everycrsreport.com

Bottom line: you're a douchebag who has two sets of standards - one for Democrats and another for Republicans.

I don't remember the Democrats not getting their way and then attacking the capital building and then other Democrats being little bitches about it and not accepting the guilt the invaders deserve.

They trespassed, so they deserved to be killed.

You're a fucking douchebag.

Democrats committed arson, looting, theft, assault and murder because they didn't get their way.

Who are you trying to fool?

 

[bripat9643]

You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?

Well, I'm only 56, so you're full of shit right out of the gate. And I don't recall pushing any division or hatred. Examples?

The constant race baiting is the big one. A whole segment of society is not allowed to even discuss their interests, because even saying the name of their group, gets one dog piled.

Well, I don't recall doing that. Do you have quotes or links to posts where I'm doing that? I think you're just making shit up.

That is one example of the division lefties like you have been planting in our society since at least teh 60s.

Ahhh... there's your mistake. I'm not a lefty. Try again.

YOu asked a question. I answered. The answer stands. IF you are not a lefty, you still have seen the actions of lefties.


So, you happy now? Your question is answered.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.

You answered nothing. You made a false claim. I called you on it. You said "You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?"

I haven't been pushing division and hate. I'm not a race-baiter and I'm not a liberal or a lefty. Your assumption was in correct.

Noted. You claim to not be a lefty. My answer still stands, even if it is not directly ABOUT you.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.


So, you happy with the answer? Do you have a comment on it?

So, you're just using my post to rail about "lefties". Ok.

Getting back to the topic, Twitter should have banned Trump long ago. He's a demagogue and thrives on division and hatred. He sows dissent and spreads paranoia.

You claim to be a libertarian, and you say twitter should ban Trump?

You realize what a douchebag hypocrite you are, don't you?

No. But it's clear you don't have the slightest clue about individual rights. Twitter has every right to ban Trump from their website. The fact that you don't get that - that you have the same, fucked-up, inverted conception of rights that progressives do, is telling. Freedom of speech means government can't pass laws to silence you. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, or put your horseshit on their website.

No, it doesn't have that right. It's a government protected monopoly. If it wants to be free to censor, then it needs to give up it's government protection from lawsuits.

LOL - fucking hypocrite. You really an uber-authoritarian. Is it the 'strongman' thing that gets you hard? Or do you just love state run media??

Says the fucking Commie who defends cnesorship this swindle election.

Says the sore loser who can't admit he loves bullies.

You're the bully, asshole. You defend censorship and shooting people for committing misdemeanors.

Nope. Wrong again. I defend the right of any business to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. As far as shooting people for misdemeanors, you're just making shit up. 'Cause making shit up is all you got.

What you don't defend is the First Amendment, and you endorse government protected monopolies the right to censor.

You should actually read the First Amendment. It starts with "Congress shall make no law ..." It's a limitation on government power. It prevents Congress from passing laws that limit speech. It's not a mandate on businesses to cater to every moron who thinks he has something to say. Libertarians understand this. You, do not.

What felony did the woman the capitol police shot commit?

Beats me. I never said she should have been shot. Again, you're just making shit up. I guess because you're cornered and have nothing else to defend your insane position.

I'm done arguing about this shit. If you support Twitter and Google encoring people, then you oppose the First Amendment.

Then you, truly, do not understand the First Amendment.

Sure I do. I also understand that you're a lying douchebag. You are not a libertarian.

Fucking read a book. Whatever it is you think "libertarian" means, is way, way off the mark.

I've been a libertarian for 40 years, and I've read hundreds of books on the subject.

So what changed your mind?

Do you really believe anyone is swallowing your shit?

You are no libertarian.

I'm surprised you still remember how to spell it.

What could be more surprising than a Stalinist like you claiming to be a libertarian?

 

[dblack]

You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?

Well, I'm only 56, so you're full of shit right out of the gate. And I don't recall pushing any division or hatred. Examples?

The constant race baiting is the big one. A whole segment of society is not allowed to even discuss their interests, because even saying the name of their group, gets one dog piled.

Well, I don't recall doing that. Do you have quotes or links to posts where I'm doing that? I think you're just making shit up.

That is one example of the division lefties like you have been planting in our society since at least teh 60s.

Ahhh... there's your mistake. I'm not a lefty. Try again.

YOu asked a question. I answered. The answer stands. IF you are not a lefty, you still have seen the actions of lefties.


So, you happy now? Your question is answered.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.

You answered nothing. You made a false claim. I called you on it. You said "You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?"

I haven't been pushing division and hate. I'm not a race-baiter and I'm not a liberal or a lefty. Your assumption was in correct.

Noted. You claim to not be a lefty. My answer still stands, even if it is not directly ABOUT you.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.


So, you happy with the answer? Do you have a comment on it?

So, you're just using my post to rail about "lefties". Ok.

Getting back to the topic, Twitter should have banned Trump long ago. He's a demagogue and thrives on division and hatred. He sows dissent and spreads paranoia.

You claim to be a libertarian, and you say twitter should ban Trump?

You realize what a douchebag hypocrite you are, don't you?

No. But it's clear you don't have the slightest clue about individual rights. Twitter has every right to ban Trump from their website. The fact that you don't get that - that you have the same, fucked-up, inverted conception of rights that progressives do, is telling. Freedom of speech means government can't pass laws to silence you. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, or put your horseshit on their website.

No, it doesn't have that right. It's a government protected monopoly. If it wants to be free to censor, then it needs to give up it's government protection from lawsuits.

LOL - fucking hypocrite. You really an uber-authoritarian. Is it the 'strongman' thing that gets you hard? Or do you just love state run media??

Says the fucking Commie who defends cnesorship this swindle election.

Says the sore loser who can't admit he loves bullies.

You're the bully, asshole. You defend censorship and shooting people for committing misdemeanors.

Nope. Wrong again. I defend the right of any business to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. As far as shooting people for misdemeanors, you're just making shit up. 'Cause making shit up is all you got.

What you don't defend is the First Amendment, and you endorse government protected monopolies the right to censor.

You should actually read the First Amendment. It starts with "Congress shall make no law ..." It's a limitation on government power. It prevents Congress from passing laws that limit speech. It's not a mandate on businesses to cater to every moron who thinks he has something to say. Libertarians understand this. You, do not.

What felony did the woman the capitol police shot commit?

Beats me. I never said she should have been shot. Again, you're just making shit up. I guess because you're cornered and have nothing else to defend your insane position.

I'm done arguing about this shit. If you support Twitter and Google encoring people, then you oppose the First Amendment.

Then you, truly, do not understand the First Amendment.

Sure I do. I also understand that you're a lying douchebag. You are not a libertarian.

Fucking read a book. Whatever it is you think "libertarian" means, is way, way off the mark.

I've been a libertarian for 40 years, and I've read hundreds of books on the subject.

So what changed your mind?

Do you really believe anyone is swallowing your shit?

You are no libertarian.

I'm surprised you still remember how to spell it.

What could be more surprising than a Stalinist like you claiming to be a libertarian?

You, actually standing up for liberty. That would be very surprising.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

The left is scared of Trump and the truth, why else would they do this?

Nobody is scared of that fat, orange turd eater!

MAGA

 

[dudmuck]

You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?

Well, I'm only 56, so you're full of shit right out of the gate. And I don't recall pushing any division or hatred. Examples?

The constant race baiting is the big one. A whole segment of society is not allowed to even discuss their interests, because even saying the name of their group, gets one dog piled.

Well, I don't recall doing that. Do you have quotes or links to posts where I'm doing that? I think you're just making shit up.

That is one example of the division lefties like you have been planting in our society since at least teh 60s.

Ahhh... there's your mistake. I'm not a lefty. Try again.

YOu asked a question. I answered. The answer stands. IF you are not a lefty, you still have seen the actions of lefties.


So, you happy now? Your question is answered.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.

You answered nothing. You made a false claim. I called you on it. You said "You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?"

I haven't been pushing division and hate. I'm not a race-baiter and I'm not a liberal or a lefty. Your assumption was in correct.

Noted. You claim to not be a lefty. My answer still stands, even if it is not directly ABOUT you.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.


So, you happy with the answer? Do you have a comment on it?

So, you're just using my post to rail about "lefties". Ok.

Getting back to the topic, Twitter should have banned Trump long ago. He's a demagogue and thrives on division and hatred. He sows dissent and spreads paranoia.

You claim to be a libertarian, and you say twitter should ban Trump?

You realize what a douchebag hypocrite you are, don't you?

No. But it's clear you don't have the slightest clue about individual rights. Twitter has every right to ban Trump from their website. The fact that you don't get that - that you have the same, fucked-up, inverted conception of rights that progressives do, is telling. Freedom of speech means government can't pass laws to silence you. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, or put your horseshit on their website.

No, it doesn't have that right. It's a government protected monopoly. If it wants to be free to censor, then it needs to give up it's government protection from lawsuits.

LOL - fucking hypocrite. You really an uber-authoritarian. Is it the 'strongman' thing that gets you hard? Or do you just love state run media??

Says the fucking Commie who defends cnesorship this swindle election.

Says the sore loser who can't admit he loves bullies.

You're the bully, asshole. You defend censorship and shooting people for committing misdemeanors.

Nope. Wrong again. I defend the right of any business to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. As far as shooting people for misdemeanors, you're just making shit up. 'Cause making shit up is all you got.

What you don't defend is the First Amendment, and you endorse government protected monopolies the right to censor.

You should actually read the First Amendment. It starts with "Congress shall make no law ..." It's a limitation on government power. It prevents Congress from passing laws that limit speech. It's not a mandate on businesses to cater to every moron who thinks he has something to say. Libertarians understand this. You, do not.

What felony did the woman the capitol police shot commit?

Beats me. I never said she should have been shot. Again, you're just making shit up. I guess because you're cornered and have nothing else to defend your insane position.

I'm done arguing about this shit. If you support Twitter and Google censoring people, then you oppose the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship. Social media platforms are private companies, and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit.

Twitter is a government protected monopoly. That makes it constrained by all the rules that constrain government. They are not a "platform." Platforms don't play favorites. Twitter is a publication and should be subject to all libel and defamation laws

you have all these alternatives to twitter.

there’s no legal distinction between a “platform” and a “publisher” in Section 230. Twitter is already treated like every publisher.

It Doesn’t Matter If Twitter Is a ‘Publisher’ or a ‘Platform” | National Review

If a new bill passes that deprives tech companies of liable protections for third-party comments, the Internet is going to be overwhelmed with lawsuits.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Coyote]

It's quite sad to see people cheering for the Chinese to takeover America. Perhaps they think their children and grandchildren will be exempt from being forced into slavery, but they are wrong.

Who's cheering?

You're not very observant, hun.

Clue us in sweetie or admit it was just a baseless comment.

 

[lantern2814]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

It's just weird watching someone celebrate censorship

I guess you missed the seige of the Capitol building today. No one likes censorship but someone died today because of Trump and who knows how much in property damage was done to our Capitol building because of Trump’s incitement to riot.

No you fucking brain dead moron. An innocent woman was shot in cold blood (meaning murdered) by a cop. There was no incitement by Trump. Show him saying to do that. Now asshole. You assholes best get ready. This may be just the start.

Hey, Lantern, your light is as dim as your brain. Blood rests on the hands of Trump. He incited an insurrection and a person died.

And it figures a violate Trumpist asswipe like yourself threatens more death.

Only pond scum want more violence. Go back into that rancid water from you crawled out.

Hey asshole, you’re as dumb and lying as much as always. Trump has no blood on his is hands you traitorous piece of shit. Threaten death? Quote it asshole. Now. Violence? That’s you assholes and your BLM and Antifa pals. I’m not going anywhere. Neither ate REAL Americans. Go back under your rock idiot.

 

[lantern2814]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

It's just weird watching someone celebrate censorship

Maybe he shouldn't incite a mob riot on the Capital. I know, you don't think he did because you're illiterate between the lines.

They were mostly peaceful. The woman shot was unarmed. That cop should be arrested.

Should, but wont.

But if a drunk black woman in Detroit pounds on your door at 3 am and you tell her to leave but she refuses, and you shoot and kill her thru the door, YOU GET 50 YEARS IN PRISON FOR MURDER

Yeah, shooting a drunk black woman is murder.

I don't know yet what the circumstances were for the shooting of the woman at the capital but I guess she wasn't listening to police and was in the act of breaking the law and from what you guys seem to say that means she's a lawful target. For me, I'll wait to see more details before passing judgement.

Funny how suddenly being unarmed or a woman or not a threat or that the man was bigger, or blah, blah, blah,


suddenly doesn't mean shit to you lefties.

Suddenly someone committing a crime shouldn't be shot according to you numbnuts.

I'm willing to see the evidence, you've made up your mind.

When did any right winger say people should be shot for committing misdemeanors?

Anybody who wants to shoot people for crossing the border for starters.

I'm also not so sure committing insurrection is a misdemeanor either.

Only morons believe they committed insurrection, and I have never advocated shooting people for crossing the border illegally.

Wingnuts have and it was insurrection. There purpose was to hold up our elections and they brought handcuffs and nooses because that's fun.

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language (Published 2019)

If the president did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.

www.nytimes.com

Sorry idiot. Learn a definition. Not insurrection. Just because your media pukes use a word they don’t know, you start spouting it too. Peaceful protest. By your sides definition, now shut up.

 

[lantern2814]

You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?

Well, I'm only 56, so you're full of shit right out of the gate. And I don't recall pushing any division or hatred. Examples?

The constant race baiting is the big one. A whole segment of society is not allowed to even discuss their interests, because even saying the name of their group, gets one dog piled.

Well, I don't recall doing that. Do you have quotes or links to posts where I'm doing that? I think you're just making shit up.

That is one example of the division lefties like you have been planting in our society since at least teh 60s.

Ahhh... there's your mistake. I'm not a lefty. Try again.

YOu asked a question. I answered. The answer stands. IF you are not a lefty, you still have seen the actions of lefties.


So, you happy now? Your question is answered.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.

You answered nothing. You made a false claim. I called you on it. You said "You never considered the cost of all that division and hate you were pushing over the last 60 years?"

I haven't been pushing division and hate. I'm not a race-baiter and I'm not a liberal or a lefty. Your assumption was in correct.

Noted. You claim to not be a lefty. My answer still stands, even if it is not directly ABOUT you.


This is about Traditional Americans, Trump is just our current spokesman.


So, you happy with the answer? Do you have a comment on it?

So, you're just using my post to rail about "lefties". Ok.

Getting back to the topic, Twitter should have banned Trump long ago. He's a demagogue and thrives on division and hatred. He sows dissent and spreads paranoia.

You claim to be a libertarian, and you say twitter should ban Trump?

You realize what a douchebag hypocrite you are, don't you?

No. But it's clear you don't have the slightest clue about individual rights. Twitter has every right to ban Trump from their website. The fact that you don't get that - that you have the same, fucked-up, inverted conception of rights that progressives do, is telling. Freedom of speech means government can't pass laws to silence you. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, or put your horseshit on their website.

No, it doesn't have that right. It's a government protected monopoly. If it wants to be free to censor, then it needs to give up it's government protection from lawsuits.

LOL - fucking hypocrite. You really an uber-authoritarian. Is it the 'strongman' thing that gets you hard? Or do you just love state run media??

Says the fucking Commie who defends cnesorship this swindle election.

Says the sore loser who can't admit he loves bullies.

You're the bully, asshole. You defend censorship and shooting people for committing misdemeanors.

Nope. Wrong again. I defend the right of any business to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. As far as shooting people for misdemeanors, you're just making shit up. 'Cause making shit up is all you got.

What you don't defend is the First Amendment, and you endorse government protected monopolies the right to censor.

You should actually read the First Amendment. It starts with "Congress shall make no law ..." It's a limitation on government power. It prevents Congress from passing laws that limit speech. It's not a mandate on businesses to cater to every moron who thinks he has something to say. Libertarians understand this. You, do not.

What felony did the woman the capitol police shot commit?

Beats me. I never said she should have been shot. Again, you're just making shit up. I guess because you're cornered and have nothing else to defend your insane position.

I'm done arguing about this shit. If you support Twitter and Google censoring people, then you oppose the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship. Social media platforms are private companies, and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit.

Wrong. Once you start censoring and telling people what is or is not “true”, you are now a content provider with no legal protection from lawsuits.

 

[HappyJoy]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

It's just weird watching someone celebrate censorship

Maybe he shouldn't incite a mob riot on the Capital. I know, you don't think he did because you're illiterate between the lines.

They were mostly peaceful. The woman shot was unarmed. That cop should be arrested.

Should, but wont.

But if a drunk black woman in Detroit pounds on your door at 3 am and you tell her to leave but she refuses, and you shoot and kill her thru the door, YOU GET 50 YEARS IN PRISON FOR MURDER

Yeah, shooting a drunk black woman is murder.

I don't know yet what the circumstances were for the shooting of the woman at the capital but I guess she wasn't listening to police and was in the act of breaking the law and from what you guys seem to say that means she's a lawful target. For me, I'll wait to see more details before passing judgement.

Funny how suddenly being unarmed or a woman or not a threat or that the man was bigger, or blah, blah, blah,


suddenly doesn't mean shit to you lefties.

Suddenly someone committing a crime shouldn't be shot according to you numbnuts.

I'm willing to see the evidence, you've made up your mind.

When did any right winger say people should be shot for committing misdemeanors?

Anybody who wants to shoot people for crossing the border for starters.

I'm also not so sure committing insurrection is a misdemeanor either.

Only morons believe they committed insurrection, and I have never advocated shooting people for crossing the border illegally.

Wingnuts have and it was insurrection. There purpose was to hold up our elections and they brought handcuffs and nooses because that's fun.

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language (Published 2019)

If the president did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.

www.nytimes.com

Sorry idiot. Learn a definition. Not insurrection. Just because your media pukes use a word they don’t know, you start spouting it too. Peaceful protest. By your sides definition, now shut up.

Insurrection
a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Meets the definition.

 

[HappyJoy]

When you're shopping you have choices.

Consider whether the business where you're shopping advertises on Twitter.
If it does - move on. But first tell the proprietor (not some piss-ant clerk) in firm but gentle terms why you're not buying.

Just don't use Twitter, period.

Yes, I think the wingnuts should further remove themselves from society.

 

[lantern2814]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

It's just weird watching someone celebrate censorship

Maybe he shouldn't incite a mob riot on the Capital. I know, you don't think he did because you're illiterate between the lines.

They were mostly peaceful. The woman shot was unarmed. That cop should be arrested.

Should, but wont.

But if a drunk black woman in Detroit pounds on your door at 3 am and you tell her to leave but she refuses, and you shoot and kill her thru the door, YOU GET 50 YEARS IN PRISON FOR MURDER

Yeah, shooting a drunk black woman is murder.

I don't know yet what the circumstances were for the shooting of the woman at the capital but I guess she wasn't listening to police and was in the act of breaking the law and from what you guys seem to say that means she's a lawful target. For me, I'll wait to see more details before passing judgement.

Funny how suddenly being unarmed or a woman or not a threat or that the man was bigger, or blah, blah, blah,


suddenly doesn't mean shit to you lefties.

Suddenly someone committing a crime shouldn't be shot according to you numbnuts.

I'm willing to see the evidence, you've made up your mind.

When did any right winger say people should be shot for committing misdemeanors?

Anybody who wants to shoot people for crossing the border for starters.

I'm also not so sure committing insurrection is a misdemeanor either.

Only morons believe they committed insurrection, and I have never advocated shooting people for crossing the border illegally.

Wingnuts have and it was insurrection. There purpose was to hold up our elections and they brought handcuffs and nooses because that's fun.

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language (Published 2019)

If the president did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.

www.nytimes.com

Sorry idiot. Learn a definition. Not insurrection. Just because your media pukes use a word they don’t know, you start spouting it too. Peaceful protest. By your sides definition, now shut up.

Insurrection
a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Meets the definition.

Showing your ignorance. Trump is President. They were not uprising against him. Failure. Peaceful protest.

 

[HappyJoy]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

It's just weird watching someone celebrate censorship

Maybe he shouldn't incite a mob riot on the Capital. I know, you don't think he did because you're illiterate between the lines.

They were mostly peaceful. The woman shot was unarmed. That cop should be arrested.

Should, but wont.

But if a drunk black woman in Detroit pounds on your door at 3 am and you tell her to leave but she refuses, and you shoot and kill her thru the door, YOU GET 50 YEARS IN PRISON FOR MURDER

Yeah, shooting a drunk black woman is murder.

I don't know yet what the circumstances were for the shooting of the woman at the capital but I guess she wasn't listening to police and was in the act of breaking the law and from what you guys seem to say that means she's a lawful target. For me, I'll wait to see more details before passing judgement.

Funny how suddenly being unarmed or a woman or not a threat or that the man was bigger, or blah, blah, blah,


suddenly doesn't mean shit to you lefties.

Suddenly someone committing a crime shouldn't be shot according to you numbnuts.

I'm willing to see the evidence, you've made up your mind.

When did any right winger say people should be shot for committing misdemeanors?

Anybody who wants to shoot people for crossing the border for starters.

I'm also not so sure committing insurrection is a misdemeanor either.

Only morons believe they committed insurrection, and I have never advocated shooting people for crossing the border illegally.

Wingnuts have and it was insurrection. There purpose was to hold up our elections and they brought handcuffs and nooses because that's fun.

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language (Published 2019)

If the president did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.

www.nytimes.com

Sorry idiot. Learn a definition. Not insurrection. Just because your media pukes use a word they don’t know, you start spouting it too. Peaceful protest. By your sides definition, now shut up.

Insurrection
a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Meets the definition.

Showing your ignorance. Trump is President. They were not uprising against him. Failure. Peaceful protest.

The executive is only one branch of the government. Did you ever take a civics class?

 

[DukeU]

Nobody is scared of that fat, orange turd eater!

MAGA

Why spend so much time and effort on silencing and smearing him?

 

[KissMy]

 

[HappyJoy]

Link coming

They need to kept the seditionist-in-chief under wraps.

His main means of communication needs to be taken away.

They should have done this years ago and for longer than 12 hours.

It's just weird watching someone celebrate censorship

Maybe he shouldn't incite a mob riot on the Capital. I know, you don't think he did because you're illiterate between the lines.

They were mostly peaceful. The woman shot was unarmed. That cop should be arrested.

Should, but wont.

But if a drunk black woman in Detroit pounds on your door at 3 am and you tell her to leave but she refuses, and you shoot and kill her thru the door, YOU GET 50 YEARS IN PRISON FOR MURDER

Yeah, shooting a drunk black woman is murder.

I don't know yet what the circumstances were for the shooting of the woman at the capital but I guess she wasn't listening to police and was in the act of breaking the law and from what you guys seem to say that means she's a lawful target. For me, I'll wait to see more details before passing judgement.

Funny how suddenly being unarmed or a woman or not a threat or that the man was bigger, or blah, blah, blah,


suddenly doesn't mean shit to you lefties.

Suddenly someone committing a crime shouldn't be shot according to you numbnuts.

I'm willing to see the evidence, you've made up your mind.

When did any right winger say people should be shot for committing misdemeanors?

Anybody who wants to shoot people for crossing the border for starters.

I'm also not so sure committing insurrection is a misdemeanor either.

Only morons believe they committed insurrection, and I have never advocated shooting people for crossing the border illegally.

Wingnuts have and it was insurrection. There purpose was to hold up our elections and they brought handcuffs and nooses because that's fun.

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language (Published 2019)

If the president did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.

www.nytimes.com

Let us know when anyone is indicted for insurrection. All they really did was trespass and break one window. Do you believe a woman should be shot for trespassing?

They interfered with government business, attacked the police while the police were protecting our duly elected officials and their motives were political in nature to overturn an election result. Sounds like insurrection to me and felonious. They did this while some were carrying handcuffs and they built a structure outside the capital for hanging.

They didn't attack the police. The police attacked them. "Interfering with government business" is not a crime that I'm aware of. Their motives are irrelevant. What are the motives of Antifa and BLM?

Oh, I see. They ripped through the capital and the police weren't even polite (well, some were) to them. They had zero rights to be there.

As far as interring with Congress, it is indeed a crime. You think any Tom, Dick or Harry can just walk into the capital and shut it down like it's their right?

Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities

Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit...

www.everycrsreport.com

Bottom line: you're a douchebag who has two sets of standards - one for Democrats and another for Republicans.

I don't remember the Democrats not getting their way and then attacking the capital building and then other Democrats being little bitches about it and not accepting the guilt the invaders deserve.

They trespassed, so they deserved to be killed.

You're a fucking douchebag.

Democrats committed arson, looting, theft, assault and murder because they didn't get their way.

Who are you trying to fool?

You said there was no crime for interfering with the government I just pointed you to one specifically about Congress. I can't help it if they broke it. Your rage is funnier by the day.