Wacko Marjorie Green embraced by Trump, GOP leaders

#181
#181
SlipKidVol said:
I live in her district. I did not vote for her in primary and will not again..BUT..banning her ..or almost anyone is just bad.
Click to expand...
Twitter has as much right to ban users who violate their terms of service, as Freak has to ban obnoxious Gator fans who refer to Texas as "The REAL UT." It's not a 1st Amendment issue. Twitter is not under the control of the government.

Marjorie Taylor-Greene has been spreading misinformation on their platform, which could be dangerous, for close to a year now. She has repeatedly claimed without any basis in fact, that the COVID vaccines are ineffective. All of the relevant data, points to the contrary.

She was warned multiple times to stop, but persisted in repeating her false claims. This was always done without providing any evidence in support of what she was saying. Twitter showed a great deal of patience with her. She should have been banned months ago.
 
Last edited:
#182
#182
BowlBrother85 said:
Twitter has as much right to ban users who violate their terms of service, as Freak has to ban obnoxious Gator fans who refer to Texas as "The REAL UT." It's not a 1st Amendment issue. Twitter is a private company, which is not under the control of the federal government.
.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Greenwald had you in mind.

The funniest part is how liberals invoke classic libertarian economics to justify this: "Corporations have the right to do what they want. If you don't like it, start your own platform!" Meanwhile, Dems say these platforms are classic illegal monopolies:
Click to expand...

 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62 and Rickyvol77
#184
#184
BreatheUT said:
To this point you've used an archaic measurement system to determine who is the better POTUS. A one dimensional continuum. A line with character as a metric. A subjective argument at best. Even if using multiple metrics you are on the same illogical sliding scale.

I argue that determining overall governing ability requires more key performance indicators creating more of a 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional diagram using axes, quandrants and depth. Using a number of indicators it is likely Biden is not only a shadow figure to Trump but struggle to outdo Jimmy Carter.

Truth doesn't have a smug attitude.

I know there's a lot to unpack here. Bottle it up and give it some time. I'm looking to come to some agreement on the continuum.
Click to expand...
But he actually thinks Carter was a brilliant man and great president 😂😂😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#185
#185
BowlBrother85 said:
That guy can say whatever he wants. Twitter is a publicly traded, private company; not an extension of the federal government. His arguments don't change that. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
The funniest part is how liberals invoke classic libertarian economics to justify this: "Corporations have the right to do what they want. If you don't like it, start your own platform!" Meanwhile, Dems say these platforms are classic illegal monopolies:
Click to expand...
 
#186
#186
Rasputin_Vol said:
That isn't a good thing. But at least yo do acknowledge the govt being involved in social media... you don't have to take my word for it, Jen Psaki even said over the summer that the White House was working with social media companies to limit the amount of "misinformation".

From the tone of your post, you either don't seem bothered by govt influence or you've come to accept it.
Click to expand...

Nobody said it was a good thing. I live in a reality where not every choice is either good or bad. Sometimes you only have bad and worse choices. Government influence over a company is no justification for denying a company the basic freedom of deciding what is on their platform. You either try free market solutions or trust the government to fix it....you know, the same mother****ers that are the source of the problem. Giving then more power to influence the market seems completely idiotic if you believe they are part of the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#187
#187
@Rasputin_Vol,

You are making an argument that isn't germane to the issue of the 1st Amendment.

Even if Twitter is considered to be a monopoly, that still doesn't change its status as a publicly traded company which is private property owned by members of the public, who are private citizens. Twitter is not under the control of the government, and therefore, the social networking platform is not bound by the confines of the 1st Amendment. It is perfectly legal for Twitter to moderate their privately-owned forum, and to also restrict membership to only include people who are willing to abide by their stated terms of service, which members have to agree to, when they decide to join their social media platform and post messages. There is nothing at all unfair about this.
 
Last edited:
#188
#188
n_huffhines said:
Nobody said it was a good thing. I live in a reality where not every choice is either good or bad. Sometimes you only have bad and worse choices. Government influence over a company is no justification for denying a company the basic freedom of deciding what is on their platform. You either try free market solutions or trust the government to fix it....you know, the same mother****ers that are the source of the problem. Giving then more power to influence the market seems completely idiotic if you believe they are part of the problem.
Click to expand...
... and isn't the GOP, the party of smaller government and de-regulation? But they want government intervention when it comes to social media and Google? It's not consistent.
 
Last edited:
#189
#189
BowlBrother85 said:
Twitter has as much right to ban users who violate their terms of service, as Freak has to ban obnoxious Gator fans who refer to Texas as "The REAL UT." It's not a 1st Amendment issue. Twitter is not under the control of the government.

Marjorie Taylor-Greene has been spreading misinformation on their platform, which could be dangerous, for close to a year now. She has repeatedly claimed without any basis in fact, that the COVID vaccines are ineffective. All of the relevant data, points to the contrary.

She was warned multiple times to stop, but persisted in repeating her false claims. This was always done without providing any evidence in support of what she was saying. Twitter showed a great deal of patience with her. She should have been banned months ago.
Click to expand...
What misinformation was that? As we've seen throughout this exercise, last year's conspiracy is this years surprising new truth
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62 and Rasputin_Vol
#190
#190
utvolpj said:
What misinformation was that? As we've seen throughout this exercise, last year's conspiracy is this years surprising new truth
Click to expand...
As that post you replied to clearly stated in the 2nd paragraph, but I will repeat verbatim, :

"Marjorie Taylor-Greene has been spreading misinformation on their platform, which could be dangerous, for close to a year now. She has repeatedly claimed without any basis in fact, that the COVID vaccines are ineffective. All of the relevant data, points to the contrary."
 
#191
#191
BowlBrother85 said:
As that post you replied to clearly stated in the 2nd paragraph, but I will repeat verbatim, :

"Marjorie Taylor-Greene has been spreading misinformation on their platform, which could be dangerous, for close to a year now. She has repeatedly claimed without any basis in fact, that the COVID vaccines are ineffective. All of the relevant data, points to the contrary."
Click to expand...
lots of people saying the same. Is it misinformation to cite deaths from the vax?

They are ineffective against the current variant and should not be put in children. As I said, last year's conspiracy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: DixieVol and BreatheUT
#192
#192
utvolpj said:
They are ineffective against the current variant
Click to expand...
That is superficial analysis at best. While early studies show that the vaccines are less effective against the omicron variant, that is no reason not to take them. The vaccines still produce a high rate of effectiveness at preventing death, upon contraction.

These studies show that being vaccinated still reduces the chances of omicron infection by 30-40%, and also reduces the chances of becoming seriously ill with the omicron variant, by 70-75%.

How effective are COVID-19 vaccines against omicron?

utvolpj said:
and should not be put in children.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true.

COVID Vaccine: What Parents Need to Know
 
#193
#193
BowlBrother85 said:
Even if Twitter is considered to be a monopoly, that still doesn't change its status as a publicly traded company which is private property owned by members of the public, who are private citizens. Twitter is not under the control of the government, and therefore, the social networking platform is not bound by the confines of the 1st Amendment. It is perfectly legal for Twitter to moderate their privately-owned forum, and to also restrict membership to only include people who are willing to abide by their stated terms of service, which members have to agree to, when they decide to join their social media platform and post messages. There is nothing at all unfair about this.
Click to expand...
This is completely false and it was proven when Psaki said that the White House is working with social media companies to monitor "misinformation".

Hypocritical Psaki leads chilling effort to flag 'misinformation'

"We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We're working with doctors and medical experts…who are popular with their audience with accurate information. So, we're helping get trusted content out there."

That's White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki brazenly saying the quiet part out loud regarding the U.S. government colluding with a private company in deciding what constitutes misinformation and what doesn’t.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#195
#195
Rasputin_Vol said:
This is completely false and it was proven when Psaki said that the White House is working with social media companies to monitor "misinformation".

Hypocritical Psaki leads chilling effort to flag 'misinformation'
Click to expand...
It is not false...

FACT : Twitter is a publicly traded, privately-owned company, which therefore, is not bound by the confines of the 1st Amendment.

You are referring to the unseemliness of government influence, but that is not the same thing under the law, as government ownership.
 
#196
#196
n_huffhines said:
Nobody said it was a good thing. I live in a reality where not every choice is either good or bad. Sometimes you only have bad and worse choices. Government influence over a company is no justification for denying a company the basic freedom of deciding what is on their platform. You either try free market solutions or trust the government to fix it....you know, the same mother****ers that are the source of the problem. Giving then more power to influence the market seems completely idiotic if you believe they are part of the problem.
Click to expand...
I realize this.

All I have been saying is that the libertarians don't have a practical solution... or should I say, the libertarians have not properly addressed the problem of fascism/cartelism when either govt and corporations work together to deny rights or when corporations collude with each other to deny rights. In either situation, the argument that you and @BowlBrother85 use about the private sector being able to do whatever they want becomes problematic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#197
#197
BowlBrother85 said:
It is not false...

FACT : Twitter is a publicly traded, privately-owned company, which therefore, is not bound by the confines of the 1st Amendment.

You are referring to the unseemliness of government influence, but that is not the same thing under the law, as government ownership.
Click to expand...
May as well be one in the same. It really doesn't matter if govt actually owns it or not if they are able to control and influence it.

It is a clever way for the government to circumvent the 1st Amendment because they know they will have people like you defending these criminal actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeTsar, DixieVol and BreatheUT
#198
#198
Rasputin_Vol said:
May as well be one in the same. It really doesn't matter if govt actually owns it or not if they are able to control and influence it.

It is a clever way for the government to circumvent the 1st Amendment because they know they will have people like you defending these criminal actions.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. There is a world of difference when it comes to the law.
 
#200
#200
Rasputin_Vol said:
Not when it comes to the govt having a hand in denying my rights.

And you've introduced a straw man because I've never argued that these companies were not privately owned.
Click to expand...
You have argued that the 1st Amendment should apply to Twitter when they ban users. It doesn't... because they are privately-owned. Like it or not, influence and ownership are not the same.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top