President Joe Biden - Kamala Harris Administration

#25,204
#25,204
Weezer said:
The places you listed can refuse service to customers based on their rules. Have you never seen a "no shirts, no shoes, no service" sign? Government monitoring is not the same as setting rules that customers must follow.

It's funny, you keep insulting the intelligence of others when you're the one who clearly does not understand.

Also, you clearly don't know my political views. In no way am I being a hypocrite. This isn't about being a Republican or a Democrat (I'm neither), this is about what our laws clearly allow. IF companies like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, or whatever were run by the government, you'd have a point about censorship. Since they are privately owned, the owners reserve the right to refuse service. It's a simple concept and one that is not hard to understand. You don't have to agree with it, but it is what it is.

Hell, @McDad is still pissed he can't go to Arby's nekkid.
Click to expand...
I still believe Beef n cheddar is for all men and isn't proprietary to Arby's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, AM64 and Weezer
#25,207
#25,207
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and AM64
#25,209
#25,209
Vol737 said:
And then, and I haven’t found the link yet, did Kamala run her mouth and imply Ukraine is, or considered as such, a member of NATO??
Click to expand...


Found it. Poor choice of words. She needs to check herself…probably for lots of things.

“The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people in defense of the NATO alliance,” Harris told a gathering of the Democratic National Committee in Washington D.C. Saturday
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, norrislakevol, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#25,211
#25,211
GroverCleveland said:
Other than the first amendment, you’re right.
Click to expand...

I tend to think that a journalist with a "news" story can be far more dangerous than a gun, but we have all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership despite a different constitutional amendment allowing a right to own and bear arms. I just happen to think that when something is called "news" that it should be objective and unbiased, and that the intent of the 1st Amendment was to see that objective and unbiased reporting was in no way tampered with or tempered by the government. I also tend to thing that perhaps our founding fathers we dealing with a better class of people when they wrote the Constitution and didn't foresee the erosion of ethics.

When other professions have standards of ethics and professionalism supposedly to protect us, it shouldn't be wrong to include legitimate news reporting. It's either news or entertainment, and the consumer should know which up front - we can't have it both ways. Entertainment is still covered in the 1st Amendment in any case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#25,213
#25,213
AM64 said:
I tend to think that a journalist with a "news" story can be far more dangerous than a gun, but we have all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership despite a different constitutional amendment allowing a right to own and bear arms. I just happen to think that when something is called "news" that it should be objective and unbiased, and that the intent of the 1st Amendment was to see that objective and unbiased reporting was in no way tampered with or tempered by the government. I also tend to thing that perhaps our founding fathers we dealing with a better class of people when they wrote the Constitution and didn't foresee the erosion of ethics.

When other professions have standards of ethics and professionalism supposedly to protect us, it shouldn't be wrong to include legitimate news reporting. It's either news or entertainment, and the consumer should know which up front - we can't have it both ways. Entertainment is still covered in the 1st Amendment in any case.
Click to expand...

I also believe this . When government steps in and “ helps “ a private business ( FB) to control what they have declared to be “ misinformation “ , that means that it has decided what the narrative is going to be , and what it wants the masses to hear . In my opinion , the private business should have told the government to **** off , it’s our company and we will decide what our guidelines are .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, tbwhhs and AM64
#25,214
#25,214
hog88 said:
The should be able to operate any way they choose but they can’t because of government rules and regulations. If the truth ever got out I would bet these media platforms aren’t operating as they choose but are being threatened by the government. My bet is they are being threatened with antitrust investigations and legislation if they do not do the government’s bidding, So supporting giving more power to and wanting more government involvement is really hypocritical.
Click to expand...

True, but I'd bet that most news and entertainment organizations (if there's currently a difference) are far more threatened by their sponsors (advertisers). It's hard to imagine the government speaking with one voice when segments of the government tried to oust an elected president. And don't forget the leakers in government who provide confidential or opposing voices to the press despite the official party line and attempts to control the message.
 
#25,218
#25,218
0nelilreb said:
I also believe this . When government steps in and “ helps “ a private business ( FB) to control what they have declared to be “ misinformation “ , that mean that it has decided what the narrative is going to be and it wants wants the masses to hear . In my opinion , the private business should have told the government to **** off , it’s our company and we will decide what our guidelines are .
Click to expand...
You're correct. However, the problem is that the flaming liberals running all the tech companies are more than happy to do this administration's bidding.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, tbwhhs, AM64 and 2 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top