U.S. Leans Toward Providing Abrams Tanks to Ukraine

[BWK]

View attachment 750696

It's good to hate what should be hated. If you don't hate evil, then you're evil. I consider you a perverted freak, trying to destroy civilization.

Yea, play it away in that evil world you created for yourself.

 

[Lastamender]

Yea, play it away in that evil world you created for yourself.

He is right about you. Fair game and all.

 

[BWK]

Not really. I am not a public figure, are you?

Irrelevant argument. Isn't this a "WE" country? Why should she go and not you coward?

 

[BWK]

He is right about you. Fair game and all.

And I'm right about him.

 

[BWK]

not yet, but they will be if Biden keep sending equipment and money. Who is going to train the Ukrainians to operate the tanks and missiles if not US troops?

We've been doing that. Old news. Try something else.

 

[BWK]

Ukraine was part of the ussr for decades, they are more russian than anything else.

Those people don't want to be ruled by murdering, Imperialist, Fascist, dictators. That's good enough reason for me. People somehow forgot about Hitler. He didn't go any where.

 

[Red Front]

This post is total self contradictory nonsense.

Media outlets should remain private. That way the market determines what gets produced, not the government.

Russian government controls internet social media platforms. They pass laws enabling it. There are criminal penalties for violating it.

The US government doesn’t.

There are many rules that private media outlets have to follow in this country, so you're quite confused if you think private companies can do whatever they want. I wasn't suggesting that all media should be publicly owned, but rather the multi-billion dollar social media platforms. Either they're made public or they're forced by the government to respect everyone's freedom of speech. The first amendment must be respected.

You're complaining a lot about Russia's authoritarianism and not having free media, while completely ignoring all of the authoritarianism and censorship in Ukraine, going back years now.

 

[BWK]

Zelensky is a fascist dictator, do you live under a rock?

He calls for Democracy. Show us his Fascist policies? I know you can't. We forget, you're a liar.

 

[Litwin]

Russia

what do you think about Dugin ?

 

[Marener]

There are many rules that private media outlets have to follow in this country, so you're quite confused if you think private companies can do whatever they want. I wasn't suggesting that all media should be publicly owned, but rather the multi-billion dollar social media platforms. Either they're made public or they're forced by the government to respect everyone's freedom of speech. The first amendment must be respected.

You're complaining a lot about Russia's authoritarianism and not having free media, while completely ignoring all of the authoritarianism and censorship in Ukraine, going back years now.

You still contradict yourself. You want the government to be uninvolved in media but you want them to forcibly take over the largest and most successful companies. Sorry. You don’t have a right to force your will onto others. The rules that media companies have to follow is extremely narrow. When it comes to the internet, they only really have to comply with rules about sex trafficking. That’s about it.

Ukraine isn’t perfect, but at least they’re allowed to vote for their representatives. Putin will murder or lock up anyone who threatens his strangle hold on the country.

 

[Lastamender]

Irrelevant argument. Isn't this a "WE" country? Why should she go and not you coward?

Because she is scary and stupid. Just like the morons supporting the Nazis in Ukraine.

 

[Red Front]

what do you think about Dugin ?

I don't think about Dugin. There's nothing that justifies us going to war with Russia, and possibly destroying all life on this planet, other than us being directly attacked by Russia with nukes. You American liberals think it's a good idea to go to war with Russia because Russia isn't a Jeffersonian democracy and the LGBTQ people in Russia can't have their pride parades or adopt children. You want to extend NATO into Eastern Europe and deploy NATO troops and hardware, right on Russia's border, because they're not as liberal and democratic as we are. That's just insanity. Stupid.

 

[Red Front]

You still contradict yourself. You want the government to be uninvolved in media but you want them to forcibly take over the largest and most successful companies. Sorry. You don’t have a right to force your will onto others. The rules that media companies have to follow is extremely narrow. When it comes to the internet, they only really have to comply with rules about sex trafficking. That’s about it.

Ukraine isn’t perfect, but at least they’re allowed to vote for their representatives. Putin will murder or lock up anyone who threatens his strangle hold on the country.

The government isn't good or bad, it's whatever we want it to be. Government can secure and protect our lives, our freedoms, and it can also undermine it when we're not vigilant and careful. However, at least with the government, we have a vote. We get to elect people into office, to serve and represent us. We don't have a vote with Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, or Twitter. Yet these social media platforms have an immense amount of control, and influence over the information people have access to. They should not censor anyone on the basis of their political stance on the issues. There should be a law that protects the freedom of speech of the users of these social media platforms.

It's society, the community, that identifies, and even determines what our rights are. Natural rights are self-evident, however, owning a social media platform that has an immense amount of control and influence over the dissemination of information in our society, can be permitted only within certain parameters, determined by the community that the social media platform is serving. Freedom of speech, or respecting the first amendment rights of the user, can be one of those rules. If the community determines that, then so be it. To say that it is wrong for the community to force social media companies to respect freedom of speech is just your opinion.

 

[Marener]

The government isn't good or bad, it's whatever we want it to be. Government can secure and protect our lives, our freedoms, and it can also undermine it when we're not vigilant and careful. However, at least with the government, we have a vote. We get to elect people into office, to serve and represent us. We don't have a vote with Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, or Twitter. Yet these social media platforms have an immense amount of control, and influence over the information people have access to. They should not censor anyone on the basis of their political stance on the issues. There should be a law that protects the freedom of speech of the users of these social media platforms.

It's society, the community, that identifies, and even determines what our rights are. Natural rights are self-evident, however, owning a social media platform that has an immense amount of control and influence over the dissemination of information in our society, can be permitted only within certain parameters, determined by the community that the social media platform is serving. Freedom of speech, or respecting the first amendment rights of the user, can be one of those rules. If the community determines that, then so be it. To say that it is wrong for the community to force social media companies to respect freedom of speech is just your opinion.

You absolutely do have a vote when it comes to social media. Your vote is whether you use them or not.

Freedom extends to the platforms when they decide how to run their own services. Freedom extends to us as individuals when we decide whether to use those platforms.

You do not have the right to take the property of others to serve your own purposes.

 

[Lastamender]

You absolutely do have a vote when it comes to social media. Your vote is whether you use them or not.

Freedom extends to the platforms when they decide how to run their own services. Freedom extends to us as individuals when we decide whether to use those platforms.

You do not have the right to take the property of others to serve your own purposes.

Tell that to our fascist government. Thanks.

 

[Marener]

Tell that to our fascist government. Thanks.

The fascists are the ones that want to forcefully take private industry and use it for their own individual purposes.

That’s what the fascist right wants with social media.

 

[Lastamender]

The fascists are the ones that want to forcefully take private industry and use it for their own individual purposes.

That’s what the fascist right wants with social media.

That is exactly what our government did. Censor media for political gain. You are not really that bright because you still listen to proven liars.

 

[DudleySmith]

Russia's entire military is going to be a trash heap pretty soon and their country a complete joke.

The Russians are supposed be 'technically advanced n stuff', but they still can't produced even a moderately reliable car, much less tanks. They can't even start half their tanks. Himars shut them down, a couple dozen armor units drives them out completely.

 

[Red Front]

You absolutely do have a vote when it comes to social media. Your vote is whether you use them or not.

Freedom extends to the platforms when they decide how to run their own services. Freedom extends to us as individuals when we decide whether to use those platforms.

You do not have the right to take the property of others to serve your own purposes.

That platform depends upon public infrastructure and the community to exist and has certain obligations to the community it serves. If the community decides that a social media platform and its assets are monopolizing and controlling the dissemination of information and have too much power and influence over people's lives, it can impose laws, and regulations to protect the users of those internet platforms. Amazon and Google have monopolized much of the infrastructure of the internet, so for example not that long ago, a very popular right-wing conservative social media app, was closed down by Amazon, because of its political views. Amazon didn't want to host that social media platform on its extensive cloud network.

If it wasn't for the public, the government, Amazon wouldn't exist, and neither would any of these social media platforms. So the public can, if it deems necessary, force social media companies to respect the freedom of speech of their users. How you personally feel about it is irrelevant, because it's not you or I who determine this, but rather the community. All of us together determine what the laws and regulations are, not you or I personally, as individuals. I suspect the majority of people in society are for the legal protection of the freedom of speech, of the users of giant social media platforms.

 

[Marener]

That is exactly what our government did. Censor media for political gain. You are not really that bright because you still listen to proven liars.

They asked social media to take down posts spreading disinformation about the election that affected both sides.

You missed that because you listen to people who are using you.