Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 279
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163231
Yssup Rider60927
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48646
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42577
CryptKicker37215
The_Waco_Kid37006
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-09-2021, 12:22 AM   #16
winn dixie
Valued Poster
 
winn dixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 5, 2017
Location: austin
Posts: 22,642
Encounters: 22
Default

facebook does not require a credit card last time i checked. all they require is a number to text the confirmation code of your new account along with an email.

These social media sites must be made to govern equally. Which they do not!

That is suppression of the first!
winn dixie is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 12:23 AM   #17
Kinkster90210
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 7, 2016
Location: Out and About
Posts: 521
Encounters: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winn dixie View Post
Youre word playing, but correct in YOUR example of violence! Newspapers and tv networks are privately owned but must give equal opportunity to candidates on both sides and etc. facey and twitty violated that! Your argument otherwise has no sand.!
Newspapers are NOT required to give equal opportunity to candidates of both sides. Where did you get that idea? The NYT staff had a meltdown because the paper published an op-ed by Tom Cotton that the snowflakes didn't like. They were CORRECT that the NYT did not have to publish Cotton's piece, even if they were wrong on the merits.

And you changed the subject. We aren't talking about candidates in an election. We are talking about an app (Parler) being banned from the Apple platform because of ALLEGED conspiracies to commit violence. There are no first amendment protections for that - if true.

Cite some case law that says a private business is required to host speakers who are engaged in threats of violence or plots to commit violence.


I doubt you can.
Kinkster90210 is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 12:47 AM   #18
winn dixie
Valued Poster
 
winn dixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 5, 2017
Location: austin
Posts: 22,642
Encounters: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinkster90210 View Post
Newspapers are NOT required to give equal opportunity to candidates of both sides. Where did you get that idea? The NYT staff had a meltdown because the paper published an op-ed by Tom Cotton that the snowflakes didn't like. They were CORRECT that the NYT did not have to publish Cotton's piece, even if they were wrong on the merits.

And you changed the subject. We aren't talking about candidates in an election. We are talking about an app (Parler) being banned from the Apple platform because of ALLEGED conspiracies to commit violence. There are no first amendment protections for that - if true.

Cite some case law that says a private business is required to host speakers who are engaged in threats of violence or plots to commit violence.


I doubt you can.
I have not posted about violent posting! That should be regulated! But fairly! The antheifa posts this summer were allowed but anyone denouncing them were quickly shadow banned or just removed.
That is suppression
winn dixie is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 12:54 AM   #19
Kinkster90210
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 7, 2016
Location: Out and About
Posts: 521
Encounters: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winn dixie View Post
I have not posted about violent posting! That should be regulated! But fairly! The antheifa posts this summer were allowed but anyone denouncing them were quickly shadow banned or just removed.
That is suppression
But it's not a first amendment violation and that was your previous point. You said incorrectly the platforms could not kick out Parler because of freedom of speech.

You are slowly trying to back out of the wrong assertions you made above, Loser Dixie.
Kinkster90210 is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 01:00 AM   #20
winn dixie
Valued Poster
 
winn dixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 5, 2017
Location: austin
Posts: 22,642
Encounters: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinkster90210 View Post
But it's not a first amendment violation and that was your previous point. You said incorrectly the platforms could not kick out Parler because of freedom of speech.

You are slowly trying to back out of the wrong assertions you made above, Loser Dixie.
No just responding to your lack of comprehension!
And "loser" is a guideline violation!
I never was talking about violent posts. Youre not keeping up!
When anyone or anything allows one side to freely express their view points while banning the opposing side is suppression of speech! Stop word playing and crawfishin.
winn dixie is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 01:04 AM   #21
winn dixie
Valued Poster
 
winn dixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 5, 2017
Location: austin
Posts: 22,642
Encounters: 22
Default

facebook and twitter started the fact checking b/s. It was totally one sided! That was suppression! Do you defend that? Apparently so!
winn dixie is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 03:52 AM   #22
matchingmole
Valued Poster
 
matchingmole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 30, 2009
Location: Only minutes from downtown
Posts: 7,183
Encounters: 30
Default

matchingmole is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 04:11 AM   #23
dilbert firestorm
Valued Poster
 
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
Encounters: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinkster90210 View Post
FB and Twitter want to make billions selling advertising and they want to do it with a staff of 37 people who just operate the servers. They don't want to incur the cost of hiring thousands of monitors to remove porn material or violence inciting material. Too bad about them.
Not true. FB and Twit have thousands of people doing programing and moderation. they have somebody there removing posts they don't like or fact checking with "banners" or shadow doxxing or permanently ban people.

Quote:
Regulations should be put in place to eliminate the anonymous accounts. Twitter members should be required to sign up with credit cards, just like FB users. This will eliminate 90% of the keyboard warriors. Then prosecutions should be made against anyone who threatens another person. And that includes doxxing.

theres always reason to have anonymous accounts. I wouldn't eliminate them.
dilbert firestorm is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 09:02 AM   #24
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 60,927
Encounters: 67
Default

It’s utterly amazing how an armed insurrection turns the insurrectionists and supporters into Monday morning legal scholars.

Trump has been trying other handles today as a means to re-access his Twitter mob.

He has not succeeded.

Did someone here rtm him?

As simplistic though it may be to say thus — our freedom does not include the right to incite mayhem and violent insurrection. To death and destruction.

You want to scream fire in a theater and still watch the movie,

Can’t have it both ways, Trumpites.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH,
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 09:36 AM   #25
winn dixie
Valued Poster
 
winn dixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 5, 2017
Location: austin
Posts: 22,642
Encounters: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider View Post
It’s utterly amazing how an armed insurrection turns the insurrectionists and supporters into Monday morning legal scholars.

Trump has been trying other handles today as a means to re-access his Twitter mob.

He has not succeeded.

Did someone here rtm him?

As simplistic though it may be to say thus — our freedom does not include the right to incite mayhem and violent insurrection. To death and destruction.

You want to scream fire in a theater and still watch the movie,

Can’t have it both ways, Trumpites.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH,
Give that analogy a rest yssup. Apples and oranges to whats being suppressed! one charmin roll response
winn dixie is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 10:32 AM   #26
lustylad
Premium Access
 
lustylad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 8, 2010
Location: Steeler Nation
Posts: 18,649
Encounters: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider View Post
As simplistic though it may be to say thus — our freedom does not include the right to incite mayhem and violent insurrection. To death and destruction.
Great principle assup!

Did twitter and Facebook ban the accounts that organized the antifa/blm flash mobs that looted stores and burned police stations and businesses to the ground all last summer?

Did I miss something or are their accounts still active?

Is Ayatollah Khamenei's account still going strong enabling him to tweet out "Death to Israel!" dozens of times a day to millions of his fanatical followers?

Please explain how fairly and even-handedly your "simplistic" principle is being applied in practice by those broad-minded champions of free speech Dorsey and Zuck!
lustylad is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 11:05 AM   #27
winn dixie
Valued Poster
 
winn dixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 5, 2017
Location: austin
Posts: 22,642
Encounters: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad View Post
Great principle assup!

Did twitter and Facebook ban the accounts that organized the antifa/blm flash mobs that looted stores and burned police stations and businesses to the ground all last summer?

Did I miss something or are their accounts still active?

Is Ayatollah Khamenei's account still going strong enabling him to tweet out "Death to Israel!" dozens of times a day to millions of his fanatical followers?

Please explain how fairly and even-handedly your "simplistic" principle is being applied in practice by those broad-minded champions of free speech Dorsey and Zuck!
yssups reply will be fuck Trump! Thats all hes posted for days!

The dims dont want the double standard exposed!
winn dixie is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 11:27 AM   #28
HedonistForever
Valued Poster
 
HedonistForever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 31, 2019
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 5,667
Default

Calling for protesters to go to DC is absolutely no different than calling for protesters to show up at a mall or show up and block a roadway. Something the left has been doing for 4 years with nobody being banned. That last one is illegal but was anybody banned for doing exactly that? The problem as I see it, is that this restricting and banned is not done with a scalpel but with a sledge hammer and that hammer is coming down on anybody speaking as a Conservative or Republican and the perfect example of how this has gone to far, is Twitter suspending or banning a newspaper for publishing a story they didn't like about Hunter Biden that turned out to be true. And the only reason for doing this was to protect a political party they supported.

There was nothing in that story that supported violence, nothing. It merely talked about a subject that the platform did not want talked about because it might hurt the candidate of their choice.

That can never be OK.

I am all for regulating some speech. I think we all agree, well the sane among us, that Al Qaeda or the Ayatollah, should not have a platform on social media. That's the easy part but for organizing a flash mob that ends up looting a department store and injuring people in the process, that can be allowed?


If one group can call for a protest and not use words associated with violence, "come armed, "we'll burn it to the ground" a common phrase used by the left over and over, not banned, than any group on the other side of the political spectrum should be able to call for protests. Did Twitter or Facebook ban any BLM accounts when their members were calling for the death of cops? I don't remember that happening. What I do remember are plenty of people supporting that movement saying "that wasn't what we support" but was exactly what happened, over and over, again and again with no talk of banning.

I would like somebody, anybody to find the speech that Trump gave prior to the riot at the capital and produce the words that incited that riot. Can any of you do that? Or is this a reaction that could not be foreseen any more than calling for a protest after the death of George Floyd could foresee burning a city down.

What is happening now is political speech that we don't like not using words common to the notion of inciting violence but implying it to one political party over the other.

Not one single Republican to my knowledge, has condoned what happened at the capital. It was not intended or should I say it can't be proved that Trump knew this would happen. How many rallies did Trump hold where the participants left the rally and trashed a town, broke into buildings? Yes, fights broke out but that's to be expected when the other side wants to disrupt a rally that would have been peaceful had they not showed up with the intention of causing fights just like White Supremacists did and rightly got the blame for but never the left, never the left.


I just read an article implying that the words "We will never concede" are the words that incited the riot and yet Hillary and Stacy Abrams used the same words. Were their Twitter and Facebook accounts closed for using words that incite violence. Or perhaps the words "we will fight for our rights". Any left leaning group ever use those words" Pretty sure civil rights groups used those words everyday and the racist cops used those words against them saying they were inciting a riot and the defenders correctly said "the fight" was a legal fight not a call for street violence which Rev. King always spoke against.


So words can be twisted to mean what ever one side wants them to mean. IMHO, there must be specific words we associate with inciting violence and "we will never concede" and "we will fight to the end" are not those words, unless of course they come from the mouths of a Republican. When a Democrat says the same words, they tell us that they don't mean what you are suggesting they mean. Isn't that covenant and when you have a media that accepts that one side can use those words but another can't.


Not much different than Black artist's using a certain word in their music, their writing, daily use in communicating but when a 15 year old White girl uses the word not in a pejorative way but a way to be "cool" to be like the other kids, she has her life ruined by hypocrites.
HedonistForever is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 11:53 AM   #29
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 60,927
Encounters: 67
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad View Post
Great principle assup!

Did twitter and Facebook ban the accounts that organized the antifa/blm flash mobs that looted stores and burned police stations and businesses to the ground all last summer?

Did I miss something or are their accounts still active?

Is Ayatollah Khamenei's account still going strong enabling him to tweet out "Death to Israel!" dozens of times a day to millions of his fanatical followers?

Please explain how fairly and even-handedly your "simplistic" principle is being applied in practice by those broad-minded champions of free speech Dorsey and Zuck!

None of these people were President of the United States attempting to overturn the results of an election.


Apples and oranges, LL.


Check your PMS.
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 11:55 AM   #30
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 60,927
Encounters: 67
Default

Quote:
This message is hidden because winn dixie is on your ignore list.

Sad.
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved