What is "Free Speech" online? (Cartoon)

  
Via:  krishna  •  4 months ago  •  178 comments

What is "Free Speech" online? (Cartoon)
Your free speech rights aren't being violated, it just means ...

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Krishna
1  seeder  Krishna    4 months ago

Over the years, I have noticed that many people feel they have the right to say whatever they want in an online discussion forum-- and that if a moderator confronts them, their Constitutional rights are being violated.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Krishna @1    4 months ago

That take doesn’t even come close to addressing the type of unholy censorship bias and malfeasance being exercised online in today’s environment.

 Project veritas baby it’s going to come out.

 I have a lot more to say on this topic but I don’t know if I really want to waste my time with the type of nonsense. this article is likely to dredge up.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    4 months ago
but I don’t know if I really want to waste my time with the type of nonsense. this article is likely to dredge up.

OK-- so you don't want to waste your precious time with that type of nonsense.

Understandable.

But now you've got me curious...what type of nonsense do you want to waste your time with?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    4 months ago
 Project veritas baby it’s going to come out.

Iv'e heard.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    4 months ago

You Tube pulled the plug before I had a chance to see it but I caught it on another channel 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    4 months ago

James O'Keefe and Project Veritas?  You consider that a reputable source?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    4 months ago

I'm going to join you in the jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

These nuts are still credible to people? Really?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.5    4 months ago

They're only credible to the 'alternative facts' crowd.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.7  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    4 months ago

Project Veritas is a great investigative watchdog organization. I love reading and watching the sleaze and slime they expose. 

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.8  lib50  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.7    4 months ago

Lol, they ARE the sleaze and shame.   They make things up and make fake videos.   They do deception, they don't uncover it.  Anything to do with the pimp is sure to be lies.  No wonder you believe Trump.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    4 months ago
That take doesn’t even come close to addressing the type of unholy censorship bias and malfeasance being exercised online in today’s environment.

So, that must mean you support Colin Kaepernick's silent protest and condemn the way the NFL has prevented him from working in his profession.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.7    4 months ago
I love reading and watching the sleaze and slime they expose. 

That must explain why nearly everything you post here is sketchy at best and downright false most of the time. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.11  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    4 months ago
James O'Keefe and Project Veritas? 

Would that be convicted-criminal  James O'Keefe and PV's violations of various state non-profit regulation regarding non-profit regulations.  While we're on the subject of what a massive POS O'Keefe, let's review his career, shall we:

States Sanctioning Project Veritas' Ability to Fundraise Due to Faulty Conviction Disclosures:

Florida

Maine

Mississippi

Utah

Wisconsin

In jeopardy:  New York

Per  The Washington Post .

Other lowlights of the O'Keefe-PV scumbaggery:

1.  Mary Landrieu Criminal Charges 

In January 2010 James O’Keefe and three associates were arrested by federal authorities in the course of posing as telephone workers in an attempt to execute a phone tampering sting in U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office. Though the four men were initially facing felony charges, each pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of entering a building under false pretenses. The three associates, Stan Dai, Joseph Basel, and Robert Flanagan were each sentenced to two years of probation, a fine of $1,500 and 75 hours of community service. As the group’s leader, O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, a fine of $1,500 and 100 hours of community service.

Vera v. O’Keefe (S.D. Cal. 2012)​ 

On July 8, 2010 Juan Vera filed suit against James O’Keefe and his employee, Hanna Giles, following a sting by O’Keefe where he and Giles entered a California office of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) under false pretenses. During this encounter, Mr. Vera, and employee of ACORN, was lured into a hypothetical conversation about smuggling young girls into the country to be used as prostitutes. Following the encounter Mr. O’Keefe and Project Veritas posted a heavily edited video on YouTube implying that Vera and ACORN were advising clients on how to smuggle underaged prostitutes. Vera’s complaint alleged that O’Keefe and Giles had violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, which requires all-party consent for any recording of a confidential communication. Following the filing of the complaint, O’Keefe made a motion for summary judgment alleging that the conversation was not confidential. On August 9, 2012 that motion was denied. O'Keefe settled with Vera for $100,000. The case closed on May 2, 2013.

James O’Keefe v. Nadia Naffe

O’Keefe filed suit against Nadia Naffe, on allegations that Naffe stole O’Keefe’s confidential information without his permission and leaked a copy of a confidential settlement agreement on the internet. In his complaint, O’Keefe stated claims of conversion and intrusion, arguing that Naffe was wrongly in possession of his private, proprietary information. The confidential information at the center of the claim involved a $20,000 settlement agreement between Project Veritas and Isabel Santa following allegations by Santa of sexual harassment during her employment at the organization. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.9    4 months ago
So, that must mean you support Colin Kaepernick's silent protest and condemn the way the NFL has prevented him from working in his profession.

False statement.

The NFL hasn't done squat.

If you insist that it has, please prove it.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    4 months ago
If you insist that it has, please prove it.

This is why when I see you comin' after me my heart leaps with joy, Tex:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-need-to-stop-making-excuses-and-give-colin-kaepernick-a-chance/

And just in case you're going to try to tell us that the NFL and the owners aren't the same thing:

The NFL's Billionaire Owners

Your move (and please do try to make one). 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.12    4 months ago
This is why when I see you comin' after me my heart leaps with joy, Tex:

Oh, good. You should be excited to learn new things. Thanks.

You listed an opinion piece. Nice, but not the same as proof. Lesson #1.

Does the NFL control the CFL and the Arena League?

 You stated that the NFL was preventing him from working his profession, which is just a blatantly false statement. Lesson #2.

Now please respond so I can school you some more. I know you probably have lots of irrelevant stuff floating around!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.13    4 months ago
Now please respond so I can school you some more. I know you probably have lots of irrelevant stuff floating around!

I take it that by "school" you mean changing the subject (which was not the CFL* or Arena League*) or just denying the facts put right in front of your eyes.  The "opinion piece" was based on the fact that NFL owners (a.k.a., The NFL) have basically conspired** to keep Kaepernick from working and no amount of hissy-fitting by you can alter that reality. 

I knew you'd never admit what a massive blunder you made in challenging me, Tex.  Your coming back at me again made my schooling of you all the sweeter.  

Your move, again (c'mon, you can't resist--esp. after I humiliated you so badly on the way federal budgets work).  Surely you can find a grammar error to pounce on to try to save face.  

* in neither of which is Kaepernick interested in playing whether you think he should or not. 

** for which Kaepernick sued and got what what was thought to be a $60M settlement.  But he still wants to play football.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.13    4 months ago
You stated that the NFL was preventing him from working his profession, which is just a blatantly false statement.

Is that why the NFL settled with Kaepernick for what has been reported to be somewhere around 80 million? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.14    4 months ago
I take it that by "school" you mean changing the subject (which was not the CFL* or Arena League*) or just denying the facts put right in front of your eyes. The "opinion piece" was based on the fact that NFL owners (a.k.a., The NFL) have basically conspired** to keep Kaepernick from working and no amount of hissy-fitting by you can alter that reality.

I didn't change the subject. I debunked your weak and false claim that the NFL was preventing Kaepernick from playing football. Lesson #3. Your opinion piece is conjecture.  Lesson #4.

Your "understanding" ( I can't even type that with a straight face, sorry, it is just too precious!) of the federal budget leaves much to be desired.

* in neither of which is Kaepernick interested in playing whether you think he should or not.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck what Kaepernick does for a living. You said the NFL prevented him, those leagues are NOT associated with the NFL, proving once again your claim is false. Lesson #5. As far as him collecting some money in a settlement, I am sure the NFL is glad to just be done with his trifling ass.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    4 months ago
Is that why the NFL settled with Kaepernick for what has been reported to be somewhere around 80 million?

If you have been paying attention, you would know what the claim made was.

The claim was that the NFL prevented him from playing football for a living. The Arena League and the CFL are not associated with the NFL, and he might could have played for a team in either league, if they chose to sign him. The NFL has no ability to stop a team from signing him in other leagues.

I noticed that no team in the NFL has considered him worthy of a contract. To much bad publicity for the team for far too few returns.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.17    4 months ago
I noticed that no team in the NFL has considered him worthy of a contract. To much bad publicity for the team for far too few returns.

They colluded to keep him out of the NFL. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.18    4 months ago
They colluded to keep him out of the NFL.

How very apropos of you--we're talking about football, and you're moving the goalposts!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    4 months ago
How very apropos of you--we're talking about football, and you're moving the goalposts!

How is citing the case that Kaepernick argued in court moving the goal post Tex?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.20    4 months ago

Refer to post 1.1.17.

Again.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    4 months ago

You are deflecting Tex.

If you don't have an answer for my question, move on. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.22    4 months ago
You are deflecting Tex.
If you don't have an answer for my question, move on.

Asked and answered, Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

If you don't like my answers, you have the choice to stop asking or to move on.

I don't care which.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.23    4 months ago
Asked and answered,

That is a lie. 

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

I asked:

How is citing the case that Kaepernick argued in court moving the goal post Tex?

If you don't have an answer for my question, you could fess up and admit it, though I know that's uncharacteristic of you. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Krishna @1    4 months ago
I have noticed that many people feel they have the right to say whatever they want in an online discussion forum

I don't know if that's really the question. You have pictured Thomas Jefferson above. I believe he once said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." Having said that, I wonder what he would have thought of an unregulated monopoly, such as Google or Facebook, which controls information and debate, deciding what opinions were fit to be heard? 

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 months ago
an unregulated monopoly, such as Google or Facebook, which controls information and debate,

So I take it you are for more government regulation of the media?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Krishna @1.2.1    4 months ago

That’s the opposite of the conclusion I’d reach based on that statement.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.2    4 months ago
That’s the opposite of the conclusion I’d reach based on that statement.

Good for you. Since you jumped in, what's Vic's answer? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Krishna @1.2.1    4 months ago
So I take it you are for more government regulation of the media?

I haven't decided on that, I'm just asking some questions. The idea is after all to preserve the right of "Free Speech"?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.4    4 months ago

What so called 'conservative' group is allegedly being denied their free speech rights now?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.2.6  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 months ago
an unregulated monopoly, such as Google or Facebook, which controls information and debate, deciding what opinions were fit to be heard? 

Vic agreeing with Liz Warren now?  Breaking up Google might be a good thing?  Project veritas seems to agree.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @1.2.6    4 months ago
Vic agreeing with Liz Warren now?

Maybe she's right on that one?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.4    4 months ago
I haven't decided on that, I'm just asking some questions.

TJ wrote extensively about his thoughts on the press. One thing he based his opinions on was the fact that the press was held liable for what they printed. Newspaper editors control the content of their publications. 

How would knowing what TJ would think of Google or Facebook inform your decision? 

The idea is after all to preserve the right of "Free Speech"?

The only right we have to 'free speech' is enumerated in the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congressional actions. Neither Google or Facebook are the Congress.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2.8    4 months ago
How would knowing what TJ would think of Google or Facebook inform your decision? 

You left out TJ's quote, which I provided to show TJ's idea that more info and or opinion was preferable to less. Thus my question on what such a man would have thought about present day monopolies who control information and opinion. I'm not sure how to address it or even if it can be addressed.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.9    4 months ago
You left out TJ's quote,

Actually, I address it and MORE. 

which I provided to show TJ's idea that more info and or opinion was preferable to less.

Which obviously infers that more than ONE source is necessary to garner that information. TJ was well aware of 'partisan censorship' by the editors of publications. He wrote letters of publishers addressing that very fact. 

Thus my question on what such a man would have thought about present day monopolies who control information and opinion.

First of all, Google isn't a monopoly. There are multiple search engines available for your use. Ditto for cloud services. No one forces anyone to use Facebook or Google. 

I'm not sure how to address it or even if it can be addressed.

What needs to be addressed? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2.10    4 months ago
What needs to be addressed?

If you don't know, I don't think I can help you.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.11    4 months ago
If you don't know, I don't think I can help you.

Well since your predicate has been refuted, I posit that since you can't cite what 'it' is, your comment is moot. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @1.2.10    4 months ago

It's hard to tell if anyone responding to this seed actually watched Project Veritas video about Google.  I did though. Most of the video contains the thoughts of a disgruntled Google employee who spills the beans on how Google tries to fool people through the "auto-complete" of search terms.  Whatever the worth of this employees "accusations" (I think they are practically worthless as a "bombshell" revelation) , they have virtually nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you want to google "Obama's crimes" , you will get results for "Obama's crimes" however fruitless the search may be. Google doesnt prevent you from seeing the sites with such information. James O'Keefe does in this video what he always does, he tries to make insignificant tidbits into a national scandal of gargantuan proportions. As usual there is no there there. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.13    4 months ago

Anything connected to 'Project Veritas' is bullshit and in the case of this seed, a deflection from the topic. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.2.14    4 months ago

Yup

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.16  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.2    4 months ago

Exactly...

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.17  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.11    4 months ago
If you don't know, I don't think I can help you.

giphy.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.18  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.7    4 months ago
Maybe she's right on that one?

Which means she could be right on a lot of things.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.3  Heartland American  replied to  Krishna @1    4 months ago

It is the internet companies in general and social media there as well that really are the description of the last word of the cartoon.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @1.3    4 months ago

Door?

 
 
 
Krishna
2  seeder  Krishna    4 months ago

xkcd has had some very thought provoking cartoons. Actually I came across this one in an article about a knitting forum:

Knitting website bans users from posting in support of Trump

 
 
 
luther28
2.1  luther28  replied to  Krishna @2    4 months ago

I do believe that the last three panels more or less sum it up in my opinion.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2  Heartland American  replied to  Krishna @2    4 months ago
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @2.2    4 months ago

You did?  Then why post a link to Vic's seed?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.2.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.1    4 months ago

Apparently XXJefferson#51   is a sock puppet of Vic Eldred.   He just got confused about which alias he was using when he posted that comment.

Many White-wing Republicans use sock puppets.

800

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.1    4 months ago

Is that a meta violation?  I'm never quite clear what that means.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.2.3    4 months ago

OK let me explain, Vic has an open group and his members can post articles within the group and they will show on the front page. I can understand the confusion and I will make all the proper corrections with moderation. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Legality aside, what is our country coming to when this sort of partisan censorship is acceptable?

No country with any pretense of democracy can survive long if this continues... 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 months ago

Couldn't agree more if big tech was right leaning and tried what google is doing the left's collective head would explode. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @3.1    4 months ago
the left's collective head would explode

One can hope, one can only hope.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  MUVA @3.1    4 months ago

 Well I would be equally offended if they were doing it from a conservative  perspective because I know what would come next 

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.3  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @3.1    4 months ago
tried what google is doing

What is it that you imagine "Google is doing"?

(Sounds like yet another Alex Jones conspiracy theory...???)

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Krishna @3.1.3    4 months ago

Seriously ?  You didn't know what the fuck was going on when you posted this topic?

Google is admitting their desire to hack the election.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.4    4 months ago
Google is admitting their desire to hack the election.

Proof?  And the turd Tucker Carlson is not proof.  

You believe Project Veritas and Tucker?

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.1.6  SteevieGee  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.4    4 months ago
Google is admitting their desire to hack the election.

Google is an American corporation.  Perhaps the Citizens United decision is coming back to bite conservatives in the ass.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1.6    4 months ago
Google is an American corporation. Perhaps the Citizens United decision is coming back to bite conservatives in the ass.

CU is a SCOTUS decision--not a conservative one.

There is a HUGE difference between what Google is trying to do and CU.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.1.8  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.7    4 months ago

Citizens united was a conservative non-profit that sued to be able to air anti-Clinton ads.  The ruling assured that they could do so.  It assures that Google can too.  Didn't you know?  Money is speech.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.4    4 months ago

Complete nonsense. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
3.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.1    4 months ago

Things containing vacuum implode,  they don't explode. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.1.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.9    4 months ago

Dude they fucking admitted it.   But this is so typical of what I have come to expect here.  Total denial of the truth.  

Seriously!  I don't know what you think you are going to accomplish by denying reality.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.11    4 months ago
Dude they fucking admitted it. 

Link? 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.13  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    4 months ago

You bet.  They are actually very reliable sources unlike the lamestream media.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @3.1.13    4 months ago
'You bet.  They are actually very reliable sources unlike the lamestream media.'

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1.8    4 months ago
Money is speech

It most definitely is now.

Thanks, Citizen United!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.16  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.15    4 months ago

Yup.  Citizens United is another example of a party line vote by the Republicans on SCOTUS. So money is free speech and corporations are people.  It's entertaining to find out that the NRA (like Trump) colluded with Russia.

Since Google and Facebook are NOT run by the government, they can censor anything posted on their sites.  I hope they censor all of the Russian bots and idiots like Alex Jones.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.17  Heartland American  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.1    4 months ago

True and the sooner the better as far as America is concerned.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.18  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.1.11    4 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.19  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.7    4 months ago
CU is a SCOTUS decision--not a conservative one.

Oh, there's that fantasy world you live in again, Tex.  CU was a narrow decision that split right down the conservative/liberal line.  It was the very definition of a conservative decision.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.19    4 months ago
Oh, there's that fantasy world you live in again, Tex. CU was a narrow decision that split right down the conservative/liberal line. It was the very definition of a conservative decision

Schools I went to taught me that a SCOTUS decision, whether it is 9-0, 6-3, or 5-4, is all the same.

Myabe you were taught differently, I don't know.

Anyways, it is a SCOTUS decision, and you will just have to learn to live with it.

Or not.

 Don't really care if you approve of it or not, as that doesn't matter.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.21  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @3.1    4 months ago
Couldn't agree more if big tech was right leaning and tried what google is doing the left's collective head would explode. 

Which brings up the question:  why aren't you satisfied with all the extreme and hyper-extreme rightwing places to air your opinions?  There are  masses of them--you people link to them all the time and I've put comments up on a few of them which nearly always disappear almost immediately.  I never whined to the scumbags who ran them. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 months ago

 I think you probably already know the answer to your question and the realization is that the culture war has been lost and we are well on the road down the road to a dystopian left-wing future unless they come to their senses  as a result of some sort of crisis because it won’t be by reasoning with them.  That much they have convinced me of.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2    4 months ago
you probably already know the answer to your question and the realization is that the culture war has been lost and we are well on the road down the road to a dystopian left-wing future

What makes you so sure that Trump won't get re-elected-- and that we'll have a Democratic president?

(And what makes you so sure the dems will hold the House and regain controlof the Senate in 2020?)

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Krishna @3.2.1    4 months ago

Perhaps you would prefer to stick to the topic.

[Deleted]

[The seeder determines the topic and the scope.]

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.2    4 months ago
Perhaps you would prefer to stick to the topic.

Perhaps you would. 

BTW, it's the height of irony that you'd pick Carlson to champion your concept of free speech. Carlson, the guy who censors speech by cutting guests mics because he doesn't like what they're saying. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.2    4 months ago

Interesting look at Google. So, the Project Veritas tape can be found on Youtube and Google already removed it.

I think we will have to treat the internet as we always have - with extreme caution. Our second line of defense will be the wistleblowers.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.5  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.2    4 months ago

So of course you believe a voice on Fox News  (which someone lie Tucker Carlson claims is a voice from a Google employee) ...???

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.2    4 months ago

Junk Republican propaganda. Google does not suppress any information.

Hillary Clinton is a lesbian communist.

-

Tucker Carlson says Google is removing Republican supporters from You Tube.  What I have seen removed are conspiracy jackasses, liars and far right buffoons.  Is that the extent of "Republican supporters" ? 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.6    4 months ago

[deleted]   Clearly you are not part of the You Tube community.

Face it.  There is no upside for you in the denial.  Only downside.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.6    4 months ago

And BTW this is not coming from Republicans.  It's a POV shared by liberals and conservatives alike.   Many on the left are aghast at what is occurring as everyone should be.  If not you are in the company of left wing authoritarian propagandists marching down the road to a dystopian state.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.9  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.2    4 months ago

Great post well said.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.10  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.4    4 months ago

The internet is rapidly becoming the enemy of we the people. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.11  Heartland American  replied to  Krishna @3.2.5    4 months ago

I’d believe a voice from Fox over that of any msm or internet company source.  I’d believe Breitbart or World Net Daily over them as well.  Being labeled and censored 🤬 by the msm or internet social media site is a badge of honor to be worn with great pride. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.12  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.8    4 months ago

Bingo. jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.9    4 months ago

What does your avatar say about the 'president', that he is the storm?

Shitstorm would be correct.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.10    4 months ago

There are two monopolies that government dosen't seem to know how to deal with. If we regulate, what do the regulations look like and what have we recently learned about taking extreme measures?

I think we have to depend on watch dogs & whistleblowers. They seem to know what to look for.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.2.15  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.14    4 months ago

Wow.  Be careful.

Responding to your sock puppet can result in accidentally outings.  Like comment 2.2 above.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.16  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2    4 months ago

You are correct.  There is no reasoning with them.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.17  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.2    4 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.18  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.13    4 months ago

He is the storm draining the DC swamp of secular progressive establishment power structures entrenched there for decades

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.19  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.14    4 months ago

Then they do to them what they did to Judicial Watch so that we can’t use them to uncover the dirt except through a third party reporting their findings.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.20  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.19    4 months ago

judicial watch gets govt records and is labeled conspiracy while cnn gets info from the garbage and that conversation is allowed on this site?    that cracks me up every time I think about it.

using a biased third party website to regulate acceptable conversations on another website is censorship of the lamest form and very un-american as well.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.2.15    4 months ago

OK let me explain, Vic has an open group and his members can post articles within the group and they will show on the front page. I can understand the confusion and I will make all the proper corrections with moderation.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 months ago

There has always been 'partisan censorship' by the media AND the government. What book got printed, what newspapers reported, what the radio played and what was allowed on TV. None of it's new. 

The country managed to bear with it from the first and survived. 

 
 
 
JBB
3.3.1  JBB  replied to  Dulay @3.3    4 months ago

Historically, the hallmark of all successful publishing has always been the professional application of editorial control of content and the same holds true for websites and social media. The New York Times is not obligated to publish any olde bullshit submitted to it and websites are certainly not obligated to provide a platform for any and all views. Fake news and harmful foreign propaganda can find their own platforms. Decent American private enterprises are not obligated to provide one for them...

I could not agree more with the message of the cartoon. Who would not?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.3.2  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @3.3.1    4 months ago

The SPLC is the definition of the last word in that cartoon.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @3.3.2    4 months ago
'The SPLC is the definition of the last word in that cartoon.' 

Door?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.3.4  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.3    4 months ago

In your wildest dreams....

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 months ago
Legality aside, what is our country coming to when this sort of partisan censorship is acceptable?

That seems like the perspective of someone who has no US history education. We've been dealing with the concept of censorship since our founding, and the fact is long before the internet we had newspapers that were free to print OR NOT PRINT whatever the feck they wanted. And they were brutal to political parties and opponents. And there were papers who took sides and were the FOX and MSNBC of their time. They would reject any opinion authors view points and refuse to print ideological babble they didn't agree with. The only difference between the media companies of old and the ones today is size and reach. Sure, Google, Facebook, YouTube and other media platforms are monoliths garnering much wider viewership than someone's blog from their basement, but they still have the same rights to host only content they agree with or align with just like any other private business.

So one has to ask themselves, is the "partisan censorship" coming from the government? If so, then it should be stopped. What I hear here seem to be Republicans expressing their desire to use the government to force their partisan beliefs on private companies and citizens which actually would be a violation of their free speech.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4    4 months ago

Ready to address what I wrote now? Or do you want to go attack another strawman? 

I'm not talking about newspapers. Or google. If people like you need their news curated to their own little safe space, that's fine. 

The whole sale politicization of  non political activities (like knitting)  is not sustainable. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.4.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.4.1    4 months ago
Ready to address what I wrote now?

He did. 

Or do you want to go attack another strawman?

If his comment attacked a straw man, you posted it. 

The whole sale politicization of non political activities (like knitting) is not sustainable.

You started this thread claiming that 'partisan censorship' wasn't sustainable and that at least has some connection to the topic. 

Now you're deflecting with the claim that 'politicization of non political activities' isn't sustainable, but that has NOTHING to do with free speech. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.4.3  Heartland American  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.4.1    4 months ago

I’ll get em the straw for their next creation.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 months ago

Newspapers and broadcast media have been partisan for the last 40 years when the Fairness Doctrine was discarded. I don't hear any of you crying about that.

Google is a privately owned company. It's CEO and board of directors were not elected by the American people. Do what  deleted  people always do...boycott it

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.5    4 months ago

This isn't google, or a newspaper. 

This is a sewing website.

If you think a country where every business in one side or the other excludes the other half of the country is sustainable, I've got swamp land in the everglades to sell you.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.5.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.5.1    4 months ago

Why are people on a sewing website trying to spam the site with pro Trump propaganda? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.5.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.5.1    4 months ago

It's a sewing website....that's my point.

They have the right to control the content of their website. If you want to talk about sports or cars on a website, do you really want people spamming it with politics?

Ya know...it's killing me that you cons want all kinds of free speech everywhere you go but when somebody calls you out on your bullshit you scream "OPPRESSION!"

 
 
 
JBB
3.5.4  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.5.3    4 months ago

I belong to a couple of private groups on FB dedicated to high school and college associations and reunions and such. Just judging from those it is the Trumpsters who seem compelled to constantly and inappropriately spam inflamatory pro-Trump anti-Democratic bullshit where it is unwelcome. Even among old friends some are completely unaware how offensive that crap is to most in the groups no matter their political disposition...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.5.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @3.5.4    4 months ago

I would also think allowing any old nonsense on a website would eventually cause members to float away. If I want to talk about sewing and Sean up there comes into the website and starts talking anti-liberal this and pro-trmp that, I will probably get mad and make a few unsavory comments at him. Meanwhile, the other members are watching this bullshit, get tired of it, insist that the moderator/owner do something about it, the M/O refuses, and the membership quits.

Well, so much for allowing any speech because now that website barely exists anymore.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4  Buzz of the Orient    4 months ago

What's the difference between bias and censorship?  Both can contravene the First Amendment, can they not?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    4 months ago
Both can contravene the First Amendment, can they not?

Only if perpetrated by the government. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dulay @4.1    4 months ago
Only if perpetrated by the government. 

Like China.

Here in America, private citizens can say what they like, criticize whoever they want without fear of reprisal. Private companies can choose to host whatever content they want as long as it doesn't cross the line into libel. Being "biased" isn't illegal in America, so you can operate a business like FOX which is so biased, if it leaned any further right its head would be on the ground. Fox doesn't have to host liberal or progressive views and I accept that. They have every right to refuse content they disagree with. Sadly, it seems Fox and religious conservatives don't feel the same when it comes to liberal or progressive companies who choose not to host conservative or alt-right hate speech and viewpoints. They want to be allowed to censor any liberal or progressive views while simultaneously trying to use the government to force liberal and progressive media companies to carry their conservative views. It's hard to achieve this level of hypocrisy, but somehow there are always some religious conservatives up to the challenge.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.1    4 months ago
Here in America, private citizens can say what they like, criticize whoever they want without fear of reprisal.

Except on a college campus

understanding-the-uc-berkeley-protests.j

Or outside of a Trump rally

GettyImages-537766470-1.jpg

Or at a political convention

Chicago-1968-Riots-CC.jpg

Or when speech is offensive

170812110739-charlottesville-white-natio



Free Speech is under attack in America, though not from the government.


 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    4 months ago

So who is free speech under attack from then Vic?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.3    4 months ago

The Left

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    4 months ago

I wonder if anyone is surprised?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.5    4 months ago

They probably need a conference now. The leader of the debate team is out for a little fresh air, one would hope.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    4 months ago
Free Speech is under attack in America, though not from the government.

What it appears you desire is for speech to be consequence free or that everyone must respectfully listen to every opinion. That's not what the first amendment guarantees. If someone says shit that is offensive, that's their right, and it's my right to tell that person to go shove their offensive xenophobic garbage where the sun doesn't shine. 

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.8  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    4 months ago
Free Speech is under attack in America, though not from the government.

Isn't it amazing how when free speech is under attack in America, its always from the Left?

As "everyone knows" those on the Right never, ever, attack free speech-- heck, they wouldn't even dream of it!

I wonder how many people here are aware of that?

Well, in any event, you deserve a big "thank you" for pointing that out. 

By doing so you have greatly elevated the level of political discussion here on NT!

(Perhaps we need to bring back the 'ole NV "RAV"... anyone remember that?)

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    4 months ago

'The Left'

Color me fucking surprised!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.1    4 months ago

Did I not read recently that FOX news was the most popular and watched news source in America? 

What was that adage - You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.11    4 months ago
Did I not read recently that FOX news was the most popular and watched news source in America?

Actually, it's not when it comes to the 'Evening News'. FOX is the most watched propaganda network. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    4 months ago
They probably need a conference now. The leader of the debate team is out for a little fresh air, one would hope.

Well gee Vic, you seem to be having a lovely conversation all on your own and it looks like you've finally found a debate partner who will applaud your every utterance. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.11    4 months ago

What does all that (4.1.11)  mean? 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.15  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    4 months ago

The internet has moved from being the biggest tool of free speech to being the single greatest enemy of free speech.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.11    4 months ago
'Did I not read recently that FOX news was the most popular and watched news source in America?' 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Popularity does not equal veracity

Also they only fool Rump's supporters, no one else.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.15    4 months ago
The internet has moved from being the biggest tool of free speech to being the single greatest enemy of free speech.

We have to be careful we don't make it worse. Time will help cleanse it. We might just be saved.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  Krishna @4.1.8    4 months ago
(Perhaps we need to bring back the 'ole NV "RAV"... anyone remember that?)

Are you their Pied Piper?   Yup, that's why Newsvine is long gone.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.19  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @4.1.13    4 months ago
it looks like you've finally found a debate partner who will applaud your every utterance. 

I wonder how many of his "debate partners" are his sock puppets?

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.20  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.18    4 months ago

I don’t remember what the RAV was from when I was there 2009-2015.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.20    4 months ago

OK let me explain, Vic has an open group and his members can post articles within the group and they will show on the front page. I can understand the confusion and I will make all the proper corrections with moderation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    4 months ago

Like Iv'e always said, hit em with facts and they bail out.


Take care Buzz

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    4 months ago
hit em with facts and they bail out

When did that happen? When does it ever happen? I'd be surprised if most of the religious conservatives would even be able to recognize a fact if they saw one nowadays.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    4 months ago

What facts were those that you hit us with Vic?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.1    4 months ago

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    4 months ago

How does that relate to DP's question?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.4    4 months ago

Directly

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.5    4 months ago

Don't see it.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.2.7  Heartland American  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.1    4 months ago

Quite the sweeping generalization against us religious conservatives, don’t you think?  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.2.8  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.6    4 months ago

Of course not.  I would not expect most secular progressives to see the point. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @4.2.8    4 months ago
I would not expect most secular progressives to see the point. 

Quite the sweeping generalization against secular progressives, don’t you think?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
4.2.10  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @4.2.9    4 months ago
Quite the sweeping generalization against secular progressives, don’t you think?

Not any more outlandish as white people refuse to do back breaking farm work.

I think Facebook and Google can do what ever they want. They are under no restrictions of the 1st amendment.  

In my opinion they have a bias but it is what it is.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.3  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    4 months ago
What's the difference between bias and censorship?  Both can contravene the First Amendment, can they not?

Here's the actual  text of the First Amendment:

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In terms of free speech, it basically says Congress shall make no law prohibiting free speech. Which means, among other things, that the media has the right to free speech-- and of course that includes the media's right to express "biased" views. 

BTW, as one might expect, there have been numerous Supreme Court opinions re: the right to free speech. Atone point I was quite interested in this subject and read a lot of these opinions. The right to "freedom of speech" is not absolute.

IIRC, one of the most important limits to free speech is that speech inciting violence is not permitted. In addition, while the government must permit free speech, private organizations can limit it. Another ruling I remember is that citizens do not have the right to not be offended.-

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @4.3    4 months ago
"Another ruling I remember is that citizens do not have the right to not be offended."

In other words they cannot prevent anyone from doing a cartoon of Muhammud. But they sure as hell will try - to the extent of beheading you.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.1    4 months ago
But they sure as hell will try - to the extent of beheading you.

We're talking about American law here Buzz. We hang, burn, shoot and fry people here...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.3.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.1    4 months ago

The US government beheads us for cartoons of Mohammed?

Not last I heard.

There are governments, I'm sure, that restrict free speech rights, right down to banning internet sites within their borders, but the US isn't one of them.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.1    4 months ago

In other words they cannot prevent anyone from doing a cartoon of Muhammud. But they sure as hell will try - to the extent of beheading you.

Everyone is not as obsessed with Muslims as you are. I think your outrage falls a little flat these days. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.3.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.4    4 months ago

Look who's talking about "obsession".  LOL

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.3.6  Heartland American  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.5    4 months ago

A TDS obsession 24/7/365.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.3.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.4    4 months ago

IRAQI CLERIC: QURAN FOCUSES ON JEWS SO MUCH BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR SWORN ENEMY WITH WHOM WE CAN NEVER MAKE PEACE

MEMRI, June 2019:

June 16, 2019

Iraqi Cleric Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin: The Quran Focuses on the Jews So Much Because They Are Our Sworn Enemy with Whom We Can Never Make Peace

Iraqi cleric Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin said in a June 16, 2019 broadcast on Al-Naeem TV (Iraq) that the Quran focuses on the Jews as much as it does because they are the “sworn enemy” of the Muslims. He explained that this always has and will always be true, and that the Quran discusses the Jews so that Muslims can understand their enemy’s mentality and so that Muslims know that the Jews are permanent and “recalcitrant” enemy with whom peace agreements cannot be made and who will never be satisfied with concessions.

Abd Al-Salam Zain Al-Abidin: “Why does the Quran focus on the Jews? First of all, because they are [our] sworn enemy. The Jews… [The Quran says:] ‘You shall find the people strongest in enmity towards the believers to be the Jews.’ This was true in the past, it is true today, and it will continue to be true in the future.

“The Quran focuses on the Jews for two reasons. First of all, in order for you to know your enemy’s mentality. Second, you must know that this is not a temporary enemy with whom we can sign a peace agreement – the Oslo Accords, or whatever… No! This is a recalcitrant and experienced enemy. No matter how many concessions you make to this enemy, they will remain recalcitrant and stubborn.”

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.3.3    4 months ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.3.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.8    4 months ago

So it would seem.  Ironic, yes?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.8    4 months ago

I think it's fair to say that Buzz is a decent man and a friend to all of us. Let's not put him in a "position".

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.3.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.3.3    4 months ago

I wasn't talking about the government.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.3.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.10    4 months ago

I'm aware that there are a few members here who would like to get rid of me.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.12    4 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.14  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.11    4 months ago

Since the comment you replied to WAS talking about the government, you should have been. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.3.15  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.12    4 months ago

Don't be silly.  I could care less.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.3.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @4.3.14    4 months ago

My mistake.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.17  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.7    4 months ago
IRAQI CLERIC: QURAN FOCUSES ON JEWS SO MUCH BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR SWORN ENEMY WITH WHOM WE CAN NEVER MAKE PEACE

Unless your goal was to double down on obsession, what relevance does your comment have to the topic? 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

Free speech is for the hive, if you disagree with the hive the comrades report you.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5    4 months ago

Free speech is for the hive, if you disagree with the hive the comrades report you.

And when that happens on NT...I suppose your fate depends upon "the luck of the draw"-- which particular moderator-person it gets reported to!

(And/or what kind of a mood they're in that particular day....?)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @5.1    4 months ago
(And/or what kind of a mood they're in that particular day....?)

my personal moderator/shadow has been trying to get me booted from day one.

and that just makes me laugh :)

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.2  Heartland American  replied to  Krishna @5.1    4 months ago

Pretty much spot on but likely opposite of what you intended..

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.3  Heartland American  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5.1.1    4 months ago

Both shadows! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
arkpdx
6  arkpdx    4 months ago

Things containing vacuum implode,  they don't explode. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @6    4 months ago

You said that already.  

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
7  Larry Hampton    4 months ago

A Canadian dude just lost some work due to this cartoon ...

384

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8  al Jizzerror    4 months ago

And now for a little irony: I was censored for two of my comments on this free speech article.

According to the "logic" of the White-wingers doesn't that mean he's a liberal?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  al Jizzerror @8    4 months ago

The situation was cleared up and everything is good to go al. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    4 months ago

As expected the RWCW (rightwingculturewarriors) are outraged that private media companies are beginning to eliminate their lying, smearing and false propaganda with which they've been polluting the internet with impunity so far.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    4 months ago

I'm really enjoying this fake-victim role that rightwingers love to play, even as they keep pushing the lie that all those claims of victimization by minorities are hoaxes.  The projection never stops.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Dean Moriarty
KDMichigan
MrFrost
jungkonservativ111
Sunshine
XDm9mm
Save Me Jebus
Ender
Tessylo
JBB


87 visitors