Liberal Forum

Taipan » 13 Feb 2023, 7:34 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 7:34 pm

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2023, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 4:00 pm

Shut up, queer.

That......is your answer to every debate ??
Just yell "queer" ???

 

Well actually more often his answer is "go suck *** cock."  But I will leave it to you cons to determine which is the more deplorable flaccid, limp, and impotent retort.
 

Ike Bana » 14 Feb 2023, 6:51 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 6:51 am

Well actually more often his answer is "go suck *** cock."  But I will leave it to you cons to determine which is the more deplorable flaccid, limp, and impotent retort.
 

Wise analogies never give honest answers. But mislead more than those learning about life in real time on their own instinctive awareness humanity's dirty little secret isn't a secret at all.

Just managing the moment with resonable doubt educated to every generation added forward here.

evil live in every social narrative. Devil lived in every rule of law demanding compliance to maybes.

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2023, 3:20 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 3:20 pm

Let's get you straight on something, skinny brain.

No one is arguing whether social media companies have a DUTY - and from that duty, an obvious authority - to police their fora with objective rules to which participants have been alerted upon signup, and then signaled agreement by proceeding forward. That isn't the issue. 

The media to which you linked is what a 6th grade school kid would refer to as a "no duh." As in, she runs her face, and then we say, "No duh." Your media does not address the issues raised regarding big tech's media platforms violating public policy and laws by gaslighting the public in contravention and gross distortion of their own rules and in concert with deep state police agencies and the demoncrat party. THAT is the issue - and no, they do NOT have that right. Corporations do not HAVE rights. They have duties, authorities, and privileges. Which is why your negress never mentioned the real issue in her drawn out, patronizing no duh fluff piece.

Every time you post on this topic, you manifest your agreement with citizens united, ya neocon turd. 

Where is duty mentioned?
 

Buck Naked » 14 Feb 2023, 6:59 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 6:59 am

Where is duty mentioned?
 

personal responsibility to be honest about oneself. Duty to remaining civil with everyone/everything else sharing time occupying space here now.

Natural code to a balancing environment where nothing stays the same as arrived so far. Evolving between reproductive generations changing population leaving forward those that are best able to balance between erosion and decomposition.life is sandwiched between occupying space in this specific atmosphere each speciic replacement before, during, remaining here now.

Taipan » 13 Feb 2023, 8:11 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 8:11 pm

Carlos Hathcock.
U.S. Marine Corps. Vietnam Sniper.
Arkansas Ozark redneck.
6th.-grade education.
Animal instinct........to the bone.
.30-06.
The best in the business.

Here is my point.
Hathcock would defend the U.S.
Who are you, Jarhead ?                                   

Here's my story from rifle qualifying day April 1969, Camp Pendleton, CA.  Out of the 320 or so recruits in our series of four platoons, there were 9 of us who shot 100%, 10 out of 10 rounds into the head and shoulders silhouette bullseye.  They gathered the nine of us together and took us down to a tent at the end of the firing line.  They called it a "hooch."  Where we were given a recruiting pitch to apply for what would later be called Marine Scout Sniper School, which Carlos Hathcock helped establish.  That night in the squad bay, one of my DI's, the sadistic one, inquired if I planned to follow through with sniper training as requested.  "No, sir.  The private will not, sir."  So...after qualifying "Expert" and shooting 100% from 500 yards prone position that day...I received the worst beating of my time in basic training, by the sadist.  Ya never knew what the reward you get for a superior performance of duty in The Corps might be like.

Like everybody else who didnt know him personally, I only know what I have heard and read about Carlos Hathcock.  That his 93 "confirmed" sniper kills were only part of his own estimate of 300 to 400 total kills of NVA and Viet Cong. This due to the Corps requirement to have an officer level observer present to confirm a kill.  Officers in the Corps weren't all that interested in crawling through rice patties and jungle muck, putting their lives at risk in Vietnam just to confirm sniper kills.

What do I personally think of Hathcock, and the other famous Navy Department sniper Chris Kyle?  I think there was more to their...uh...motivation than "Unit, Corps, God, Country."  Here's what I think.  There's some part of one's humanity that has to be switched off that allows them to not give a second thought to having killed several hundred other human beings...particularly by the personal action of one rifle shot at a time.

As far as Chris Kyle is concerned, he was a **** racist who saw any swarthy non-christians as less than human beings.  It's a whole lot easier to have the experience of taking the lives of hundeds of human beings, one at a time, if they're just subhuman **** to you.

 
 

Ike Bana » 14 Feb 2023, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 8:07 am

Here's my story from rifle qualifying day April 1969, Camp Pendleton, CA.  Out of the 320 or so recruits in our series of four platoons, there were 9 of us who shot 100%, 10 out of 10 rounds into the head and shoulders silhouette bullseye.  They gathered the nine of us together and took us down to a tent at the end of the firing line.  They called it a "hooch."  Where we were given a recruiting pitch to apply for what would later be called Marine Scout Sniper School, which Carlos Hathcock helped establish.  That night in the squad bay, one of my DI's, the sadistic one, inquired if I planned to follow through with sniper training as requested.  "No, sir.  The private will not, sir."  So...after qualifying "Expert" and shooting 100% from 500 yards prone position that day...I received the worst beating of my time in basic training, by the sadist.  Ya never knew what the reward you get for a superior performance of duty in The Corps might be like.

Like everybody else who didnt know him personally, I only know what I have heard and read about Carlos Hathcock.  That his 93 "confirmed" sniper kills were only part of his own estimate of 300 to 400 total kills of NVA and Viet Cong. This due to the Corps requirement to have an officer level observer present to confirm a kill.  Officers in the Corps weren't all that interested in crawling through rice patties and jungle muck, putting their lives at risk in Vietnam just to confirm sniper kills.

What do I personally think of Hathcock, and the other famous Navy Department sniper Chris Kyle?  I think there was more to their...uh...motivation than "Unit, Corps, God, Country."  Here's what I think.  There's some part of one's humanity that has to be switched off that allows them to not give a second thought to having killed several hundred other human beings...particularly by the personal action of one rifle shot at a time.

As far as Chris Kyle is concerned, he was a **** racist who saw any swarthy non-christians as less than human beings.  It's a whole lot easier to have the experience of taking the lives of hundeds of human beings, one at a time, if they're just subhuman **** to you.

Character matters, right? Instincts have to be buried in reasonable doubt to stay in character, correct? what went wrong with humanity is in my reply here as history is full of people becoming typecast role models believing life exceeds mutually evolving forward now.

You really screwed yourself good, I just want to let you know, someone does know how much. I am not loyal to reasonable doubt mantras. You are dedicated to the grave or extinction of this species which ever arrives first, come hell or high water.

Nostradamus'omh » 14 Feb 2023, 8:34 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 8:34 am

Character matters, right? Instincts have to be buried in reasonable doubt to stay in character, correct? what went wrong with humanity is in my reply here as history is full of people becoming typecast role models believing life exceeds mutually evolving forward now.

You really screwed yourself good, I just want to let you know, someone does know how much. I am not loyal to reasonable doubt mantras. You are dedicated to the grave or extinction of this species which ever arrives first, come hell or high water.

One minute to Wapner.
 
Y'know ohm this is all that really matters...we're all doomed, the end is near, there's no hope, have a nice day.

Ike Bana » 14 Feb 2023, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 8:38 am

One minute to Wapner.
 

does that still work in your mind? Rhetorical question since you use it so often and it hasn't worked yet.

Keep the faith it wil work tomorrow.

Nostradamus'omh » 14 Feb 2023, 8:39 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 8:39 am

does that still work in your mind? Rhetorical question since you use it so often and it hasn't worked yet.

Keep the faith.

It appears that between the two of us, there are varying opinions on the quality of how our minds work.  It's all opinion.  Everything everybody produces here is opinion...including the excrement you have produced above.
 

Ike Bana » 14 Feb 2023, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 8:43 am

It appears that between the two of us, there are varying opinions on the quality of how our minds work.  It's all opinion.  Everything everybody produces here is opinion...including the excrement you have produced above.
 

You mind power of suggestion, my brain navigates while adapting to life never the same again. that evolving equally occupying time now as geographically occupying space in plain sight as me, myself, and I sibling to two others mutually same genetic ancestry of one generation gap, thingy.

that isn't a philosophy or opinion about what else is possible.

Meantime, there's no First Amendment speech protection in the workkplace, the internet platform, or anyplace else, unless one's free speech is being interfered with by order of the Federal Government. The First Amendment only protects us from infringement of our speech by the Federal Government, and by extension since Federal Law trumps all State law, infringement by State governments as well.

Nostradamus'omh » 14 Feb 2023, 8:45 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 8:45 am

You mind power of suggestion, my brain navigates while adapting to life never the same again. that evolving equally occupying time now as geographiclaly occupying space in plain sight as me, myself, and I sibling to two others mutually same genetic ancestry of one generation gap, thingy.

Forty-five seconds to Wapner.
 

Ike Bana » 14 Feb 2023, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 8:49 am

Forty-five seconds to Wapner.
 

Still banking on reasonable doubt will save your mentality.

Taipan » 13 Feb 2023, 7:46 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 7:46 pm

Hey, Mr. Marine-Dog,
When are the Dem-boys going to close that Southern Border ??
You swore to God........to defend the U.S.
Did you break your vow to God.....???  ( it sure looks like it to me)                     

Reckon where your sorry *** would be existing right now if, when your people came to this country from Lithuania, or Poland, or Hungary, or Ireland or Scotland, entry into this country was restricted back then the way you want it restricted now when it's Muslims and Mexicans who want in.  You would be doing whatever the **** it is you do somewhere else.

That's what I think about your southern border wall...racist schmuck.

PS - My vow to god?  god is a great gaseous anal emission in the sky.
 
 

slideman » 13 Feb 2023, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 2:01 pm

Does the First Amendment Apply to Social Media Companies?
https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/does- ... -all-users

• The right does not extend to the FBI or any public agency pressuring public companies to regulate speech - that is a Constitutional violation
• Some entities that receive government funding are barred from regulating speech because they have become entangled in government functions. They too are barred from regulating a person's freedom of speech.  Yes, State Universities fall into this category.

IkeBana » 13 Feb 2023, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 7:12 pm

Diectly involved how?  You **** have been trying to make this case for years.   Nothing has ever come of it.  It just more **** sniveling with nothing behind it.

So...prove that anybody was booted off of any social media platform on the orders of someone in government.  The owner of a platform may agree or disagree with some office holder, but that doesn’t mean someone in government ordered it.  The platform management may know that some politician might approve of the management's actions.  So what?

They DIDN'T just "order" it, fool!  THE GOVERNMENT PAID MILLIONS TO TWITTER TO FOLLOW THEIR ORDERS!
Or are you SO deep up your demented hero's *** that you were unaware of this?:

FBI Paid Twitter $3.4M+ Of Taxpayer Money To Censor AmericansUSSA News February 9, 2023 By Alexandra Bruce
53% of Americans made aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story would have changed their vote in 2020.

This is unconstitutional election meddling.

New ‘Twitter Files’ Show FBI Paid Twitter Millions, Influenced Execs To Censor Hunter Biden Laptop StoryBy  Ben Zeisloft  Dec 19, 2022   DailyWire.com

Twitter Files: FBI Paid Company $3.4 Million in Tax Dollars for ‘Administration Costs’Breitbart by LUCAS NOLAN20 Dec 2022

Now, is using taxpayer funds by the FBI to promote false stories and block true ones in order to influence a Presidential election what you're supporting?

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2023, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 3:57 pm

What YOU have to prove is that the big tech companies lying about EVERYTHING and suppressing EVERYTHING, against their own rules  - biden's laptop, the fraudulent provenance of the steele dossier, etc. - was just an innocent oopsie doopsie, and not a part of a conspiracy as the emails and other proofs of collusion demonstrate. 

Good luck, fool.

You spout a lot of **** and then in the end try to turn things on their head. The media companies have no responsibility to prove anything to you. If you think there is malfeasance it is up to the government and you to prove it
Keep trying doofus
It was your claim the hobby lobby case proved the opposite.
You have been handed your ***

slideman » 14 Feb 2023, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 10:41 am

You spout a lot of **** and then in the end try to turn things on their head. The media companies have no responsibility to prove anything to you. If you think there is malfeasance it is up to the government and you to prove it
Keep trying doofus
It was your claim the hobby lobby case proved the opposite.
You have been handed your ***

Why does something self evident have to prove it is self evident to someone never accepting self evident results being one thmselves?

Cannonpointer » 13 Feb 2023, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 3:57 pm

What YOU have to prove is that the big tech companies lying about EVERYTHING and suppressing EVERYTHING, against their own rules  - biden's laptop, the fraudulent provenance of the steele dossier, etc. - was just an innocent oopsie doopsie, and not a part of a conspiracy as the emails and other proofs of collusion demonstrate. 

Good luck, fool.

They gave Biden the same privilege Trump was given. 

Twitter changed their policy to accommodate Trump after he broke their terms. 


 

Pastafarian » 14 Feb 2023, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 10:48 am

They gave Biden the same privilege Trump was given. 

Twitter changed their policy to accommodate Trump after he broke their terms.

twitter had to because of the backlash BV you stupid ****