I would like to hear the argument for why the govt should be working with private businesses to suppress information. I'd like to know why you think that is appropriate, if you do indeed think it's appropriate.
I also think it is pertinent to understand what the money from the govt to Twitter was for. Do you not support transparency?
Why is it unreasonable to want to understand the relationship between the govt and Twitter? Is it not worth understanding the extent of power that the government had to suppress information? Is it not worth knowing if the govt put pressure on Twitter to suppress information? Why are these unreasonable questions?
And I guess we'll continue to ignore the fact that the liberals on this board have consistently made this discussion about Twitter while completely avoiding answering questions about the appropriateness of the govts involvement in the matter.
I would like to know why.
Replies to: "I would like to know why."
- RepubliQans should use caution from moving forward with anymore show hearings - Quest4twelve - 6:27am 2/9/23
(35) [View All]
- All Republicans are scum. There is no logic only hate in their actions. - NocalIrish - 7:37pm 2/9/23
- It was indeed embarrassing for those exiled, ex-Twitter scumbags. [NT] - jakers - 12:32pm 2/9/23
- Did somebody mention "Show Hearings"? [NT]
[IMAGE]
- BaronVonZemo - 10:04am 2/9/23
- What an assclown he is. [NT] - fredyo - 10:42am 2/9/23
- Raskin echoed my sentiments re private entity v state action, beginning at 1:40 on counter. - conorlarkin - 9:02am 2/9/23
- This is 2 apologies you owe me. Nowhere did I state that it was a 1A issue. - jakers - 9:42am 2/9/23
- You have couched it as government interference with elections and discourse re elections, correct? [LINK]
- conorlarkin - 10:37am 2/9/23
- Just stop lying and own that you were wrong. Apologize. Have some character. - jakers - 12:30pm 2/9/23
- Your beef is a First Amendment beef, regardless of whether you knew so. - conorlarkin - 1:43pm 2/9/23
- Jesus Christ, you are a lying weasel. We get it, you're surrendering and trying to retreat. - jakers - 4:26pm 2/9/23
- No. You can have a discussion about govt involvement in enforcement of social media policy - jabbadoody5 - 1:50pm 2/9/23
- I see. The GOP led house wants Congress to be a philosophy class? Very cool. [NT]
- conorlarkin - 2:48pm 2/9/23
- This really isn't that complicated. - jabbadoody5 - 3:14pm 2/9/23
- He's trying to make this "debate" go away. This is how he surrenders. [NT] - jakers - 4:27pm 2/9/23
- This really isn't that complicated. - jabbadoody5 - 3:14pm 2/9/23
- I see. The GOP led house wants Congress to be a philosophy class? Very cool. [NT]
- conorlarkin - 2:48pm 2/9/23
- Your beef is a First Amendment beef, regardless of whether you knew so. - conorlarkin - 1:43pm 2/9/23
- You're pivoting. - jabbadoody5 - 10:57am 2/9/23
- ... meaning your beef is a First Amendment beef. [NT] [LINK] - conorlarkin - 10:41am 2/9/23
- Just stop lying and own that you were wrong. Apologize. Have some character. - jakers - 12:30pm 2/9/23
- You have couched it as government interference with elections and discourse re elections, correct? [LINK]
- conorlarkin - 10:37am 2/9/23
- Don't put words in my mouth. - jabbadoody5 - 9:14am 2/9/23
- Read your own words. [NT]
[LINK]
- conorlarkin - 9:20am 2/9/23
- And this thread .... [NT]
[LINK]
- conorlarkin - 9:20am 2/9/23
- Conor, where did I specifically state that I had an issue with Twitter? - jabbadoody5 - 9:40am 2/9/23
- Gov't involvement/interference/tinkering must violate a constitutional right or federal law. [LINK]
- conorlarkin - 10:22am 2/9/23
- I would like to know why. - jabbadoody5 - 10:38am 2/9/23
- Without a breach of federal law or a constitutional right, there is no relief. - conorlarkin - 10:51am 2/9/23
- Exactly. And don't you think it's prudent that the nature of those interactions be understood? - jabbadoody5 - 10:59am 2/9/23
- The GOP led House can investigate whatever they wish. They have the majority. - conorlarkin - 12:40pm 2/9/23
- You're putting words in my mouth again. - jabbadoody5 - 12:59pm 2/9/23
- The GOP led House can investigate whatever they wish. They have the majority. - conorlarkin - 12:40pm 2/9/23
- Exactly. And don't you think it's prudent that the nature of those interactions be understood? - jabbadoody5 - 10:59am 2/9/23
- Without a breach of federal law or a constitutional right, there is no relief. - conorlarkin - 10:51am 2/9/23
- Still waiting. Coward. [NT] - jakers - 10:23am 2/9/23
- I would like to know why. - jabbadoody5 - 10:38am 2/9/23
- Gov't involvement/interference/tinkering must violate a constitutional right or federal law. [LINK]
- conorlarkin - 10:22am 2/9/23
- Conor, where did I specifically state that I had an issue with Twitter? - jabbadoody5 - 9:40am 2/9/23
- And this thread .... [NT]
[LINK]
- conorlarkin - 9:20am 2/9/23
- Read your own words. [NT]
[LINK]
- conorlarkin - 9:20am 2/9/23
- This is 2 apologies you owe me. Nowhere did I state that it was a 1A issue. - jakers - 9:42am 2/9/23
- What was embarrassing about it? [NT] - jabbadoody5 - 8:34am 2/9/23
- So was the SOTU. Clearly their rudderless shit slinging and baseless lies are not working [NT]
- Jerseymick - 7:36am 2/9/23
- All Republicans are scum. MAGAT's are inbred morons. - NocalIrish - 7:34pm 2/9/23
- Nice try…SOTU is routine tradition. Show hearings where the GQP get embarrassed are not. [NT]
- Quest4twelve - 7:39am 2/9/23
- I'm saying GQP got owned by Dark Brandon. [NT] - Jerseymick - 10:00am 2/9/23
- Corn Pop was a baaaad dude! LOL. Mr 10% [NT] - ELP - 8:23am 2/9/23
- LOL - Iggle - 8:18am 2/9/23
- It’s a marathon not a sprint. - Curly1918 - 7:06am 2/9/23