The Next President is...

[pbar]

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

Get rid of 90% of our military then, because the strong, overreaching federal government and its ability to impose broad sweeping taxes is the only way we as a group were able to procure 20 B-2s.

Nice strawman.  But fine with me.  Coast Guard is the only service that defends the homeland as it's primary mission.   The rest of us are defending our freeloading "allies" and corporate access to overseas markets.   See, two can do this strawman thing.

Edited January 11, 2021 by pbar

[17D_guy]

22 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

As to restricting 1st amendment rights and platforms that have been given a special legal carve out with the expectation they will not moderate content that is not obscene or encourages/direct violence but that they find offensive, I think they owe the users the benefit of the doubt and should have to document to the government and user why they blocked this or that post and or user was de-platformed.

They warned the president multiple times, and provided an explanation after the banning for Twitter.  Does this not meet your requirement?

[Clark Griswold]

They warned the president multiple times, and provided an explanation after the banning for Twitter.  Does this not meet your requirement?

It may be the homework they turned in but it’s an F
If he is unacceptable then why is this turd still on and his post still up?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/12/29/david-cross-defends-saying-i-want-blood-after-biden-called-for-healing-i-was-referring-to-menstrual-blood/amp/

You can’t play a fair game if the players aren’t treated equally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slackline]

24 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

It may be the homework they turned in but it’s an F
If he is unacceptable then why is this turd still on and his post still up?

 

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/12/29/david-cross-defends-saying-i-want-blood-after-biden-called-for-healing-i-was-referring-to-menstrual-blood/amp/

You can’t play a fair game if the players aren’t treated equally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Edit to clarify: of course everyone should be held to the same standard, but comparing anyone to Trump right off the bat eliminates anything resembling a "like" comparison.  You just seem angry that Trump's bully pulpit was finally yanked. Just the perception. Maybe that's not the case.

 

Do you even hear your own double standard sometimes?  Of course that is an unacceptable tweet.  Does he have a history like Trump did of posting inflammatory things?  Does he have a following of 88M people?  If the answer to either of those things is no, he's probably got some slack to play with. Even if he has a history, does anyone care what he thinks, so is it therefore likely that he could incite violence on the level Trump did, or even at all?

 

Just thoughts, but it seems as if you're so bent on the left being wrong, evil or whatever it is you need to tell yourself to sleep at night that it doesn't matter what anyone says.  You'll make an argument to counter everything anyone says...  It's like I'm talking with my teenagers!

Edited January 11, 2021 by slackline

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, pbar said:

Nice strawman.  But fine with me.  Coast Guard is the only service that defends the homeland as it's primary mission.   The rest of us are defending our freeloading "allies" and corporate access to overseas markets.   See, two can do this strawman thing.

Fair enough, my point wasn’t well connected.

It’s just blatantly ironic that the “small government” side believes that the power of government should be diminished, while at the same time also typically believing that we should have either the same size or bigger military.

And thats with the military accounting for over 50% of the discretionary spending of the government. And yes, I do believe the power of government is generally about directly proportional to the amount of money it expends.

What should the government power be? No income tax, like the 1700s/1800s? Or is WWI your opus magnus? Maybe Reagan years? It’s a spectrum.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Negatory

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Edit to clarify: of course everyone should be held to the same standard, but comparing anyone to Trump right off the bat eliminates anything resembling a "like" comparison.  You just seem angry that Trump's bully pulpit was finally yanked. Just the perception. Maybe that's not the case.

Do you even hear your own double standard sometimes?  Of course that is an unacceptable tweet.  Does he have a history like Trump did of posting inflammatory things?  Does he have a following of 88M people?  If the answer to either of those things is no, he's probably got some slack to play with. Even if he has a history, does anyone care what he thinks, so is it therefore likely that he could incite violence on the level Trump did, or even at all?

Just thoughts, but it seems as if you're so bent on the left being wrong, evil or whatever it is you need to tell yourself to sleep at night that it doesn't matter what anyone says.  You'll make an argument to counter everything anyone says...  It's like I'm talking with my teenagers!

The left is just wrong, I just like pointing it out.  I've got no argument with someone from the left saying the same about the right.  

As far as making arguments to counter everyone on this forum not true.  Right now I'll admit I'm running contrary to several active posters as they are to me, if we just come here to agree to each others views and agree with what others say then its not particularly interesting or worthy of anyone's attention.  

I'll make an argument every time against any point, thought, position or idea I don't agree with or like in a free forum where open discussion is to be had.

I'm not for double standards, I just think all should be held to a basic standard and some held to the basic and higher standards.  Trump regularly falls short of the higher standards and is reprimanded accordingly, it just pisses me off to see others at or near his level not held to that higher standard.  Cross may be at some lower level but still should not be allowed to skate on that, just my two cents.

I'll just agree to disagree with you and if I remind you of your teenagers they must be smart as hell.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Will respectfully disagree with you, if they cared so much about preventing users organizing violent activities, preventing organizing and the promotion of violent / false information they would have cracked down very hard sts during last summer's riots/lootings/assults on gov buildings, police departments, etc... but those brave SJWs were fighting systemic racism by looting the Walgreens, burning down a Wendy's, crashing thru private gates on to private property threatening home owners who were the wrong skin color so that's ok.  

Our country has a long and distinguished history of race riots. No big deal. Know what we don’t have a history of? Fuckin’ confederate flags in the fuckin’ US Capitol, that’s what. 

[jazzdude]

Our country has a long and distinguished history of race riots. No big deal. Know what we don’t have a history of? in’ confederate flags in the in’ US Capitol, that’s what. 

Not to mentioned straight up legal racism in our country, which contributed to those race riots. But progressives of those eras pushed for reform.

That's not to say every progressive agenda item is right or justified, but sometimes maintaining a comfortable status quo for a select segment of the population isn't the right answer for the nation, even if you are a conservative. That doesn't mean to just accept what the left has to say, but to challenge it and refine where the country should go on a particular issue through an examination of what we value and why.

[Clark Griswold]

35 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Our country has a long and distinguished history of race riots. No big deal. Know what we don’t have a history of? Fuckin’ confederate flags in the fuckin’ US Capitol, that’s what. 

Race riot seems worse to me as people physically harming each other based on skin color but I understand the outrage. 

I'm a Southerner, don't own a Confederate battle flag nor have displayed one and I didn't like it being in the US Capitol but keep it all in perspective.  All of those guys could have been put down by the Capitol Police but weren't not because they were mainly white but because likely they had evacuated all the Reps and their staffs, they didn't want to kill a bunch of civilians even though they were acting like a-holes and I'm not sure if someone was thinking this strategically as this event was happening but they don't want to give them martyrs like the Nazis got prior to seizing power in the Beer Haul Putsch.  The Nazis used this as lore and to animate and rally their supporters, venerating the 16 killed there.

Don't give them more reasons to hate you.  Treat the cause of the disease not the symptom(s).  

There have been no firing lines or volleys fired into BLM/Antifa riots even as they have relentlessly have attacked and attempted arson on government buildings and private property, another police force took the same tack and even though it is embarrassing and frustrating, what makes us look more like and in fact become more like a failing state than large scale live fire engagements on civilian protests that get out of hand?

The BLM/Antifa shit has calmed down a good bit and at its high point I was as pissed as I could be and when those good for nothing vandals showed up to tear down a statue I wanted the police to roll in there and kick ass indiscriminately, that was wrong and I'm glad no US police force did that.  The 68 Democratic Convention riots, the Kent State incident, the Pettus Bridge / Bloody Sunday, etc... those are long in the past but still echo when we beat down people who sometimes were doing wrong sometimes not (particularly Pettus Bridge), its frustrating but lethal force should be rare even when quelling riots in what we still call and I hope is the Free World.

Take heart, no other flag flies there right now and that is what matters.

[slackline]

7 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

its frustrating but lethal force should be rare even when quelling riots in what we still call and I hope is the Free World.

Take heart, no other flag flies there right now and that is what matters.

Love this sentiment.  It would solve a ton of our country's current issues!

[jazzdude]

As to restricting 1st amendment rights and platforms that have been given a special legal carve out with the expectation they will not moderate content that is not obscene or encourages/direct violence but that they find offensive, I think they owe the users the benefit of the doubt and should have to document to the government and user why they blocked this or that post and or user was de-platformed.
They say they are a neutral platform but they act like a publisher selectively, my and others' two cents.

Social media hasn't been given a legal carve out anymore than a business that owns a theater/stage has, or any private gathering. A private theater running an open mic night can cut the mic off on a speaker who's opinions they feel are inappropriate without repercussions from the government. Or they could choose not to. It's their mic and venue, and they can choose who to let up on their stage. Same goes in my backyard, if someone is acting up and I don't like it, I can tell them to get off my property without fear of the government telling me I have to let that individual state their opinion in my yard. Same idea applies to social media. Even to this forum, which falls under the social media umbrella; our mods shouldn't have to justify to the government why a post was removed or why SpecOpsFighterPilot was banned. Social media platforms can moderate, but they aren't legally required to. Not to say they won't, but they'll do enough to stay out of civil or criminal courts, which a lot of their current efforts are focused on (blocking and reporting to the government things such as child porn, murders, etc), and I'm sure they do a lot of work with law enforcement behind the scenes. But requiring them to moderate everything leads to a very ugly world: someone would have to be the arbiter of truth and appropriateness, or the business case goes away due to the workload required and the company closes.

So who owns the truth and arbitrates what is acceptable? A private company not held to public responsibility? Does the government step in and give the private companies the rules users must abide by in their speech on the platforms?

If a platform has to justify blocking a user to the government, then the government is in the position of now restricting that individual's free speech, by agreeing that the block is legitimate. That is not a place we want this country to go, and violates the underlying principles of the first amendment you are arguing we need to protect. It's something some on the left have wanted, and now I'm surprised many "small government" conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon for more government control in regulating what we can and cannot say. If the government is granted that ability, it won't be long until it starts to block criticism of the government.

You don't have "rights" on a private platform-your use of that service is dependent on both parties (you and the company providing the service) agreement to use that service, and that agreement can be terminated by either party at their leisure. This is the same as a store asking (or forcing) you to leave their place of business for causing a disturbance.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If there's nowhere else to go, well, apply some of that good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit and start your own platform business. If the people want want you're selling, you'll also have the added benefit of getting rich. The American dream :) This is what the free market brings: competition. If there's a need it the on the market, or you don't like what's on the open market, build a business to fill that need, and if your product or service is better, then people will come to your business. And this is what should happen in social media: let the market decide. Users will go to the platform they like, and if they don't like it, they will leave. If you don't like what twitter is doing, quit using twitter and go somewhere else. Vote with your feet.

There is no such thing as a neutral platform; they will skew with the users and moderators. And that's stuff that changes over time. But for most, the common social media outlets are good enough for most who use them to get their full of updates on friends and family, and cute pictures of cats and dogs.

[pcola]

This is perfect.

Then why was it the #1 app downloaded on the App Store when it was taken down?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Pooter]

6 minutes ago, pcola said:

Then why was it the #1 app downloaded on the App Store when it was taken down?
 

Maybe because interest in a thing tends to surge when it becomes the center of a national scandal/media shitstorm. It's so weird but for some reason I have a hard time believing a fringe media echo chamber with 1/50th the users of Twitter grew organically into the most popular app on the internet. Or am I making too much sense? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[pcola]

No you’re actually missing the point entirely. When it became apparent that the leftist tech/social media giants were unabashedly censoring the speech of prominent right voices, the next move was clear. Do what everyone said (which has been said on this very thread several times): create your own platform. The platform luckily already existed and people naturally flocked to it (hence the recent surge in downloads you just shrugged off.) If you believe Parler was killed because it’s a threat to national security than you might want to expand your critical thinking skills. Parler was killed in an effort to maintain control of the narrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[17D_guy]

32 minutes ago, pcola said:

Then why was it the #1 app downloaded on the App Store when it was taken down?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

What? I was talking about the comparison to AETC and it not being a healthy group of people.  If you'd like to go on Parlor, well now you can't.  But there's a few sites grabbing responses to "leaders" (ex. Sidney Powell, Flynn) on there and you should look at those responses.

[pcola]

What? I was talking about the comparison to AETC and it not being a healthy group of people.  If you'd like to go on Parlor, well now you can't.  But there's a few sites grabbing responses to "leaders" (ex. Sidney Powell, Flynn) on there and you should look at those responses.

My apologies to you then. I assumed you were affirming the misconception that Parler predominantly consists of social media misfits. And it is spelled with an “er”. And actually you still can. But we’ll see for how long...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[17D_guy]

8 minutes ago, pcola said:

My apologies to you then. I assumed you were affirming the misconception that Parler is predominantly construed of social media misfits. And it is spelled with an “er”. And actually you still can. But we’ll see for how long...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I was construing it's got a problem with a large amount of toxic people, militias fomenting insurrection and neo-nazis.  But social media misfits are ok.

And we're not fucking, so I'll spell whatever I want however I want.

[pcola]

Internet badass.

The only reason I made the spelling distinction is because of the other app spelled Parlor.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Grabby]

6 hours ago, slackline said:

Edit to clarify: of course everyone should be held to the same standard, but comparing anyone to Trump right off the bat eliminates anything resembling a "like" comparison.  You just seem angry that Trump's bully pulpit was finally yanked. Just the perception. Maybe that's not the case.

 

Do you even hear your own double standard sometimes?  Of course that is an unacceptable tweet.  Does he have a history like Trump did of posting inflammatory things?  Does he have a following of 88M people?  If the answer to either of those things is no, he's probably got some slack to play with. Even if he has a history, does anyone care what he thinks, so is it therefore likely that he could incite violence on the level Trump did, or even at all?

 

Just thoughts, but it seems as if you're so bent on the left being wrong, evil or whatever it is you need to tell yourself to sleep at night that it doesn't matter what anyone says.  You'll make an argument to counter everything anyone says...  It's like I'm talking with my teenagers!

I literally laughed at the fact you don't see your glaring hypocrisy.  

[FLEA]

14 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

I know there is a Tulsi thread on BO.net but I think it’s more relevant to the many conversations going on here.  She touches on a lot of topics in this interview and speaks of her personal experiences in DC.  I also applaud her courage to speak like she does.  It can’t be easy.   

 

I just got around to watching this. I'll be honest, our country lost a great oppurtunity when it was decided she wasn't the "golden child." But maybe that was the point. It sounds like she came to a lot of her bipartisanship after going through the Presidential election process and realizing how edged it was against people not in the chosen few. Great on her for speaking out though. Hope she finds her way into public service again. 

[Prozac]

For all the folks complaining that Trump has been muzzled, ya know, there’s a way for him to get his message out:

When’s the last time this podium was used? Seemed to work fine for every president preceding Trump. Sorry, but I always thought Twitter was an inappropriate place for presidential messaging anyway. Let’s see the man show his face and explain himself. 

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/8/2021 at 5:27 PM, FLEA said:

When discussing liberal media bias, most people are getting at this: 

 

The following data is sourced from OpenSecrets which gathers data based on political donations made by employees of said industries. Anytime a political donation of more than $100 is made the person must include their employer along with other information on the donation. OpenSecrets is a non-partisan group that gathers and evaluates data based on where people come from who donate. The most concerning thing about the above chart is that the quad on the far left, deals business in information. It includes Hollywood, social media, search engines, educational institutions, etc... You are never going to convince conservatives that these people present unbiased information because they are the same people that are donating billions of dollars each year to the democratic caucuses. 

 

Very interesting data.  I'm wondering if there is data on individual small donations (<$100).  

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/10/2021 at 3:41 AM, Pooter said:

The cancel culture stuff is way overblown. There are huge communities of conservatives on every platform that exist without the threat of bans for one simple reason: they don't go around threatening people and inciting violence. 
 

If cancel culture is such a problem you're gonna have to explain to me how the #4 and #5 podcasts on apple right now are Dan bongino and Ben Shapiro. Seriously.. All of the biggest political channels are conservative.  This is the case across most platforms.  Conservatives are killing it on social media, and this has been the case for a long time. 
 

The problem Parler has is that they are the dumping ground for everyone that got kicked off normal social media for rules violations. This isn't a healthy pool of people from which to draw your user base. Think of it like AETC. It's no wonder the culture is toxic when you're getting the rejects from everywhere else. On top of that they weren't enforcing their own terms of service or maybe the wretched hive of scum and villainy grew too large to enforce, and at some point the hosting companies took notice. Probably doesn't help when a contingent of your nutjob users storms the capitol of the country. 

I actually think social media companies have been handling the delineation between conservative opinions vs things that are actually illegal and dangerous really well. Platforms like YouTube and Twitter keep conservatives around who actively trash them on a daily basis as long as what they're saying isn't incitement. Hell, every Steven crowder episode is basically just 90 minutes of him complaining about the YouTube algorithms. 

 

Lastly, to everyone invoking the section 230 town square argument I have two things:

1. If you go to the town square and try to start an insurrection, you will get arrested.

2. If you want to form your own alternative town square, no one is legally obligated to lease the space they own to you.

 

TL;DR - if you want to behave like sh1t you're probably going to need to build your own infrastructure from the ground up.

 

"Think of it like AETC."   I see what you did there.

[Swamp Yankee]

Us old retired guys don't do the "tacticool" look very well.  

Edited January 11, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Swamp Yankee]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

I just got around to watching this. I'll be honest, our country lost a great oppurtunity when it was decided she wasn't the "golden child." But maybe that was the point. It sounds like she came to a lot of her bipartisanship after going through the Presidential election process and realizing how edged it was against people not in the chosen few. Great on her for speaking out though. Hope she finds her way into public service again. 

I like Tulsi's stated positions on many issues, which are moderate and for the most part sensible.  However, something isn't quite right.  On Rogan and other podcasts she spends almost all her time railing against the left and virtually no time discussing/defending her political positions.  My cynical side thinks that she is a "democrat" in order to stand apart from the crowd.  Once her awareness grows beyond the IDW, she'll reposition herself as a republican and drop some of the more progressive positions she claims to have but never discusses.  If true, it is deceptive, although I may still be in alignment with much of her platform. 

Edited January 11, 2021 by Swamp Yankee