Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John10

Youtube banning anti-vax users

Recommended Posts

At what point does Ball Gag Greg figure out that HE'S the actual sheep here?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

At what point does Ball Gag Greg figure out that HE'S the actual sheep here?

When it's too late, and when he's lost what he values...whatever the fuck that might be.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SackMan518 said:

What @f8ta1ity54 doesn't understand is that the baker is indeed a private businessman who can adhere to his own religious beliefs without being harassed by rabid Leftist tyrants but that Big Tech is no such animal for a multitude of reasons namely that they are de facto monopolies, advertised themselves as free speech platforms, act as virtual town squares, are protected from liabilities by the Telecommunications Act, and work hand in hand with the government as a public-private partnership. Being deleted from Big Tech platforms is the same as being refused a ticket on Amtrak or having your phone disconnected by AT&T in the 1970s because they don't like your political beliefs. As such, they gaslight the public and try to convince the masses that they're getting rid of a small segment of Taco Supremacist, Neo-Nazi, IstoPhobes but that is far from reality as this segment of people is too minute to even concern themselves about. Most recently Ron Paul got his YouTube channel deplatformed, on "accident" of course, for daring to air the views of skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Anyone who hasn't woken up to the anti-American tyrannical spirit of this is just a lost cause at this point.

The baker can't deny service based on sexual orientation. He just can't be forced to make something against his religious beliefs.

Big tech companies can limit speech if they want. The first amendment only applies to the government. If you can't tell the difference, that's on you.

If you want to nationalize big tech companies and make them government utilities, that's a different story.

 


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

The baker can't deny service based on sexual orientation. He just can't be forced to make something against his religious beliefs.

Now you're getting it.

10 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Big tech companies can limit speech if they want. The first amendment only applies to the government. If you can't tell the difference, that's on you.

Uh no, they can limit only certain types of speech such as direct threats but anything else makes them a publisher and not a platform which strips away their existing protections.

11 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

If you want to nationalize big tech companies and make them government utilities, that's a different story.

Nah, that's a commie move. However they are so entrenched with the government that they can hardly be called "private companies" anymore. I find it hilarious that you defend them considering that they're piping all the data about you directly to the government should they request it and, as Psaki admitted, they were being directed BY the government as to what they should wipe off their services pertaining to information that they don't want the masses to hear.

Again, that makes them a publisher which could open them to libel suits. Another thing I find hypocritical is that people say "Well if you don't like it build your own Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/Etc" yet when that happens the full weight of Big Tech comes crushing down on potential competition in the forms of removing them from Amazon Web Services, removing them from app stores, pressuring their hosts, lambasting them in the MSM as havens for Taco Supremacists/IstoPhobes/Neo-Nazis/Etc, cutting off mainstream financial services such as PayPal, and other methods intended to destroy any competitors that would sap their user base.

Face it dude, you're on the wrong side of this.

  • Thanks 1

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

Now you're getting it.

Uh no, they can limit only certain types of speech such as direct threats but anything else makes them a publisher and not a platform which strips away their existing protections.

Nah, that's a commie move. However they are so entrenched with the government that they can hardly be called "private companies" anymore. I find it hilarious that you defend them considering that they're piping all the data about you directly to the government should they request it and, as Psaki admitted, they were being directed BY the government as to what they should wipe off their services pertaining to information that they don't want the masses to hear.

Again, that makes them a publisher which could open them to libel suits. Another thing I find hypocritical is that people say "Well if you don't like it build your own Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/Etc" yet when that happens the full weight of Big Tech comes crushing down on potential competition in the forms of removing them from Amazon Web Services, removing them from app stores, pressuring their hosts, lambasting them in the MSM as havens for Taco Supremacists/IstoPhobes/Neo-Nazis/Etc, cutting off mainstream financial services such as PayPal, and other methods intended to destroy any competitors that would sap their user base.

Face it dude, you're on the wrong side of this.

So we should infringe on big tech's right to free speech so other people can post things that big tech doesn't believe in?


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Philly'sFinest said:

Apply this logic to a person and their physical property as in their own body

Like a woman getting an abortion after privately consulting with her Dr?


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

So we should infringe on big tech's right to free speech so other people can post things that big tech doesn't believe in?

That could be the dumbest argument I've heard, companies aren't actually people even though they've twisted the laws to consider themselves so largely for legal purposes.


Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SackMan518 said:

That could be the dumbest argument I've heard, companies aren't actually people even though they've twisted the laws to consider themselves so largely for legal purposes.

I guess we should get money out of politics so these big corporations can't use their free speech to donate to candidates?


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

The baker can't deny service based on sexual orientation. He just can't be forced to make something against his religious beliefs.

Big tech companies can limit speech if they want. The first amendment only applies to the government. If you can't tell the difference, that's on you.

If you want to nationalize big tech companies and make them government utilities, that's a different story.

The Baker didn’t refuse service. The Baker refused to make a wedding cake, they said they would make them anything else they wanted. They even said they had homosexual employees. Personally I feel you should be able to refuse service to anyone you want if it’s your business. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Angry Byrds said:

The Baker didn’t refuse service. The Baker refused to make a wedding cake, they said they would make them anything else they wanted. They even said they had homosexual employees. Personally I feel you should be able to refuse service to anyone you want if it’s your business. 

He did refuse the service of making a gay wedding cake. He's using his religion as a shield for his bigotry. 

If it was a business not serving people with maga apparel, conservatives would be screaming.

  • Haha 1

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Like a woman getting an abortion after privately consulting with her Dr?

I'm on record that there should be a middle ground on this issue, and that nobody will give in completely. It's by far the most controversial debate.

But my original response still remains valid, and you remain unwilling to address it head on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

I guess we should get money out of politics so these big corporations can't use their free speech to donate to candidates?

Not going to disagree with that. I'm all for limiting the power of corporations especially in light of Citizens United as it corrupts the spirit of what our Founding Fathers intended.


Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

Not going to disagree with that. I'm all for limiting the power of corporations especially in light of Citizens United as it corrupts the spirit of what our Founding Fathers intended.

Maybe we can start taxing them more so they have less money to use as free speech.


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Maybe we can start taxing them more so they have less money to use as free speech.

Nah, taxes are too high as they are.


Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

Nah, taxes are too high as they are.

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people with 10 million dollar yachts who hide their money over seas.


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

He did refuse the service of making a gay wedding cake. He's using his religion as a shield for his bigotry. 

If it was a business not serving people with maga apparel, conservatives would be screaming.

Again, he refused to make a wedding cake for something he didn’t believe in. Just like if a Nazi wanted a cake with a big swatzie on it and they said no because they don’t agree. They said they would make them anything else. How do you only read half of an article. 
 

no they wouldn’t because of they because they could have their own place to keep leftist like you out lol


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people with 10 million dollar yachts who hide their money over seas.

Oh, you mean the people that came up with tyranical bullshit that you're  too willing to get on your knees to.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HipKat said:

Well based on your political posts and your reactions to political posts, you're obviously one of the real sheep who would swallow Trump's load without hesitation

You have erotic dreams about DJT don’t you! You talk about his “load” quite often, not that there is anything wrong with your sexual preferences 👍, 21st century, you’re free to be that way.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Are you fucking retarded? Regardless, you are nothing in my world and now you're nothing on this message board. Saw ya!

Buhbye simpleton 👋👋! You came at me numbnuts, I couldn’t care less about some idiot and his 15 cats in his basement apartment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toofast80 said:

Buhbye simpleton 👋👋! You came at me numbnuts, I couldn’t care less about some idiot and his 15 cats in his basement apartment.

it's a badge of honor to be put on ignore by HipTurd. Welcome to the cool club!

  • Like 2

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Angry Byrds said:

Again, he refused to make a wedding cake for something he didn’t believe in. Just like if a Nazi wanted a cake with a big swatzie on it and they said no because they don’t agree. They said they would make them anything else. How do you only read half of an article. 
 

no they wouldn’t because of they because they could have their own place to keep leftist like you out lol

It's different. Being a nazi is a choice. Being gay isn't. It's just bigotry with extra steps.

 

 


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

It's different. Being a nazi is a choice. Being gay isn't. It's just bigotry with extra steps.

It is not bigotry. They don’t hate homosexuals, they disagree with marriage of the same sex. They offered other services and do you think the gay employees that worked for them thought they were bigots? Aren’t you also the same guy who is pro antifa? The group that beat up an Asian gay reporter or groups that burn down businesses because cops bad?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Angry Byrds said:

It is not bigotry. They don’t hate homosexuals, they disagree with marriage of the same sex. They offered other services and do you think the gay employees that worked for them thought they were bigots? Aren’t you also the same guy who is pro antifa? The group that beat up an Asian gay reporter or groups that burn down businesses because cops bad?

The thing is, a private business can choose to operate however they wish within the bounds of the law. Sexual discrimination is against the law. Not allowing propaganda on a privately owned media outlet is not. Even if it's the owners of that company deciding what THEY consider propaganda or not.  It's not different than Meat not allowing threats of violence on here.

It's not rocket science.

  • Like 1
  • Gay 1

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...