Into the Night
Verified User
Not about any regulations, dumbass. Pay attention.
I don't necessarily believe that, but I'll let it go for now, since it's irrelevant.
Not about the federal government, dumbass.
Parler CEO George Farmer: Trump lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, Google will ‘redef
- Thread starter Stringfellow Hawk
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
Dutch Uncle does not recognize the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution. He wants the oligarchy the Democrats are creating out of the federal government.
Into the Night
Verified User
Insult fallacies. No argument presented.
Into the Night
Verified User
No bet, since you can make such a statement at any time on any thread.
Dude, you're the Trumpian cocksucker who whined about the Christian Bakers and the fucking Democrats then flip-flopped like dropped fish and want to empower the Feds to have even more power over private business. Only a fucking dumbass wouldn't think those thoughts through.
I already listed several of JPP dumbasses but had higher hopes for a sane conservative, not another Trumpian cocksucker.
Republicans no longer even pretend to have principles. And since truth has been thrown out as one, there is nothing left to
say to them. Budget austerity and spreading democracy?
Promoting commerce by international trade engagement according to the law of comparative advantage and natural factor endowment?
The intelligentsia party of experts? I pretty sure CFR is just a bunch of effete liberal rinos to them now. Where did all that stuff go?
They no longer want to dominate federal agencies or departments, they want to gut and destroy them. They exist for the sole reason
of chaos and opposition.
Did you ever think you'd see the day that the damn Center for Disease Control is an untrustable enemy?
- Today, 10:40 AM
Into the Night
Verified User
[h=2]This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.[/h]
- Today, 10:40 AM
Into the Night
Verified User
[h=2]This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.[/h]
- Today, 10:42 AM
Into the Night
Verified User
[h=2]This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.[/h]
- Today, 10:44 AM
Into the Night
Verified User
[h=2]This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.[/h]
- Today, 10:45 AM
Into the Night
Verified User
[h=2]This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.[/h]
- Today, 10:45 AM
Into the Night
Verified User
[h=2]This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.[/h]
- Today, 10:46 AM
Into the Night
Verified User
[h=2]This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.[/h]
Stringfellow Hawk
New member
Then reinterpret for me. What do you want the Federal government to force Twitter to do? Please keep it simple enough for even fucking dumbasses to understand. Straight out. No forum legalese cocksucker bullshit, please.
What I don't want is the Federal government dictating to citizens how to live, think and believe. This includes private businesses.
Leave that up to the States.
I feel exactly the same way, however the government is always forcing people of religion to perform services or sell product to those that violate their religious beliefs. I only want consistency in their opinions which we have not see for last 3 or 4 decades now.
Stringfellow Hawk
New member
even better although he lost to Bill Maher who said and continues to say horrible things
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
So don't sell products that you will not sell to people that "violate" your beliefs.
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG. Age does not affect the Constitution.
An amendment isn't age, dumbass. Nothing has nullified the 1st amendment, dumbass.
Does not affect any other amendment, dumbass.
No court has the authority to change or interpret the Constitution. The 14th amendment already applied to the States.
Using the following quote from you:
His argument is sound. Twitter did what it did due to federal actors encouraging it, including Pelosi, AOC, and Democrats within the federal government in general. It is quite possible kickback payments were involved as well. Graft.
That DOES put it in the domain of all laws that apply to the federal government, including the 1st amendment. Both Pelosi and AOC are members of Congress as well as many other Democrats encouraging this censorship.
Into the Night
Verified User
You are describing Democrats.
Void argument fallacy.
What budget austerity? Democrats will have none of that!
What democracy? Democracy is evil. It is an unstable form of government that usually quickly dissolves into oligarchies and dictatorships. It has no constitution, no representatives, and is just mob rule.
Most departments are unconstitutional. There was never any authority granted to Congress to create them. That includes the EPA, the NEA, the CDC, BATF, the DEA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Agriculture, the Social Security Administration, portions of NASA and the FAA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), etc. They SHOULD be completely dismantled. Won't happen of course.
Yes.
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
Stringfellow Hawk
New member
in decisions
Into the Night
Verified User
The 1st amendment doesn't nullify any civil rights law.
Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot mandate welfare. It does not have authority to change the Constitution.
The 1st Amendment gives internet forums and websites the right to insert their own opinions or censure anyone that does not meet their standards.
Into the Night:
Trump's lawsuit does not claim social media providers are "state actors"
“Currently, it looks like GA is going to choose Republican electors.
AZ looks like it might also, but seems to be further away from actually choosing.”
“Only religions use supporting evidence. Science doesn't.”
“The phrase “freedom of speech” does not appear in the Constitution”
Which Trump supported and had to sign before it became law.
That quote was not from me but from Trump's lawsuit. It proved to you that the lawsuit did claim social media providers are "state actors" which you denied.
Then, you go on to argue that it is state action.
First you deny it and when I prove you wrong you change your complete argument. What an idiot.
And your legal analysis is as crazy as Trump's lawsuit which has no chance of winning.
I don't think Trump expects to win his lawsuits, he is just using them to dupe his supporters out of millions for "legal defense" which can be used for any purpose.
It did not mandate welfare. That was done by the City of Philadelphia. The Supreme Court only ruled it could not discriminate against Catholic Charities because of their religious beliefs. A good defense of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion.
But you are right--it was unconstitutional. The City of Philadelphia acted unconstitutionally by violating the religious freedom of Catholic Charities.
Into the Night
Verified User
No, it doesn't. The 1st amendment only applies to Congress.
Rights do not come from a piece of paper.
Slander is illegal. So is graft.