RepubliQans should use caution from moving forward with anymore show hearings
After yesterday's embarrassing hearing with Twitter execs.
Replies to: RepubliQans should use caution from moving forward with anymore show hearings
All Republicans are scum. There is no logic only hate in their actions.
When scum Republicans support inbred morons they lose.
It was indeed embarrassing for those exiled, ex-Twitter scumbags.
(no message)
Did somebody mention "Show Hearings"?
(no message)
What an assclown he is.
(no message)
Raskin echoed my sentiments re private entity v state action, beginning at 1:40 on counter.
Raskin demolished the Freedom Fighters' narrative and premise. This is similar to the beating I have delivered here to those posters (jabba,jakers, et al) who think that people (or AI bots) have a First Amendment right to have a Twitter account.
This is 2 apologies you owe me. Nowhere did I state that it was a 1A issue.
Why do you keep lying? Own your b.s. and apologize.
You have couched it as government interference with elections and discourse re elections, correct?
See attached thread.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=110120
Just stop lying and own that you were wrong. Apologize. Have some character.
I stated -- factually -- that our own government agencies were directly meeting with a private company's leadership to explicitly influence an election. I also stated that have no idea what the legal ramifications are.
And I stated that no one should be okay with this type of government overreach and unilateral manipulation of what people are saying and what is being seen and amplified. It isn't good.
You're simply trying to spin your nonsense to pretend you weren't wrong when you claimed I was decrying 1A violations with Twitter when you made your smug, snarky post that used my name. You were wrong, just own it.
Your beef is a First Amendment beef, regardless of whether you knew so.
The allegation that the US Government sought to influence social media "content" re a political campaign/contest strikes you as what? 4th Amendment violation? 5th Amendment violation? 6th Amendment violation? 8th Amendment violation?
Don't play stupid.
Did the aggrieved party in your scenario file a lawsuit in federal court? Can you link us to the pleadings?
And btw, you lack standing to say "that no one should be okay with this type of government overreach and unilateral manipulation of what people are saying and what is being seen and amplified. It isn't good." You were certainly OK that Russia did so in 2016. The rest of us were not, to include the GOP controlled Senate Intelligence Committee.
Jesus Christ, you are a lying weasel. We get it, you're surrendering and trying to retreat.
The attempt at "nuance" and strawmen with false equivalencies and word salad is an epic fail.
No. You can have a discussion about govt involvement in enforcement of social media policy
Without it having anything to do with the first amendment. It's a philosophical discussion vs a legal one. You are conflating the two.
There can be intersection, but the topics are mutually exclusive.
I see. The GOP led house wants Congress to be a philosophy class? Very cool.
(no message)
This really isn't that complicated.
I was responding specifically to your interpretation of Jakers' position. I was pointing out how it's possible to discuss this topic without referencing 1a.
I gave no opinion for the current actions of the GOP in that post.
I don't think you're this stupid, but you have been really stupid today. I don't want to keep pointing out where you are falling off the tracks.
He's trying to make this "debate" go away. This is how he surrenders.
(no message)
You're pivoting.
You mischaracterized each of our positions and now you are mischaracterizing your original statement in this thread. Neither Jakers, nor I, have made the arguments that you said we made in your original post.
This attempt to take the discussion in another direction to veil that point, is not going to work. You made a false claim. Why are you playing these games?
... meaning your beef is a First Amendment beef.
(no message)
Link: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/128/burson-v-freeman
Don't put words in my mouth.
I think the GOP is questioning the wrong people. I have never claimed wrongdoing on the part of a private business, so the fact that you would imply that shows that either...
A) you are so far up your own ass that you aren't paying attention to what is actually being discussed.
B) you are dishonest.
My opinion on the hearings is that they are talking to the wrong people. There are DHS officials that are playing at the edge of the first amendment and if you disagree the ethics of that shouldn't be discussed, I don't have anything more to say to you. Its a valid discussion to be had.
So it seems that you and I actually agree on the private action vs state action. It's completely inappropriate for you to have mischaracterized this discussion over the last several months; especially when I was very clear on my stance
All that said, Byron Donald brought up an interesting point. He wondered aloud what the dollar value of suppressing the Biden laptop had to the Biden campaign. I went in thinking the GOP was talking to the wrong people, but that's a very good question. I haven't quite wrapped my mind around it, but that single question, for me, proved there was some value to the discussion.
Read your own words.
And this thread ....
Conor, where did I specifically state that I had an issue with Twitter?
Nothing in the evidence you provided shows that. My issue was never with Twitter as a private business. My issue was ALWAYS with the gov's role in the suppression of information.
You are inferring things that were never implied. Why?
Gov't involvement/interference/tinkering must violate a constitutional right or federal law.
Otherwise, your beef with the Government communicating with Twitter is, as Raskin explained, of no consequence.
See attached thread. You and jakers and others have been worked up over nothing.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=113731
I would like to know why.
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.
Without a breach of federal law or a constitutional right, there is no relief.
Are you aware that federal/state/local law enforcement agencies interact daily with social media platforms?
Exactly. And don't you think it's prudent that the nature of those interactions be understood?
And don't you think we should have a discussion about the limits that should be placed on those interactions?
The current house is doing what the previous house failed to. We need to have this discussion. We need to determine if it's really acceptable for the DHS to be working with private media to suppress speech.
The GOP led House can investigate whatever they wish. They have the majority.
In my view, Raskin correctly pointed to much more important matters re what Congress should be investigating on social media.
Your ilk seems to think that the alleged "weaponization" or "interference" by the FBI is a much bigger threat/danger vs the mischief caused by bad actors and foreign adversaries (now perpetrating such chaos via bots). Your ilk also believes that The Big Lie and January 6th was inconsequential, and that the House Select Committee investigation was simply a "political" play by the Democrats.
Let us know when you learn how to sort out reality vs nonsense.
You're putting words in my mouth again.
How about you stop doing that. It's a waste of time for both of us.
And don't use the term ilk with me. You clearly don't know who my "ilk" are.
Still waiting. Coward.
(no message)
What was embarrassing about it?
(no message)
So was the SOTU. Clearly their rudderless shit slinging and baseless lies are not working
(no message)
All Republicans are scum. MAGAT's are inbred morons.
Thank God for Joe Biden and the Democrats.
Nice try…SOTU is routine tradition. Show hearings where the GQP get embarrassed are not.
(no message)
I'm saying GQP got owned by Dark Brandon.
(no message)
Corn Pop was a baaaad dude! LOL. Mr 10%
(no message)
Qwesty, you don’t even know who your fellow travelers are.
It’s a marathon not a sprint.
But the Dems have taught them the lesson of not having show impeachments. Plus,,, they need to leave Joe in place as the Dem’s candidate