Politics US Election 2020

[Scouse]

1st Amendment rights do apply; the Government doesn't stop you exercising your freedom of speech on Twitter or Facebook, Twitter and Facebook do, which isn't precluded. If the US government nationalised Facebook, then they'd have to let everyone have unrestricted freedom of speech on it

Yep. And that's what's needed

Explain that one to Trumpistas; the only way to give them 1st Amendment "Freedom" on Social media is through state ownership, and than stand back as their heads explode.

Yep. Totes hilair!

But actually maybe there's a technical solution - leave ownership of the platform and what they want to do with the platforms in the hands of zuck and his cucks, but enshrine in law that they're not allowed to silence voices.

I guess it'd be hard to do - you'd have to legislate to a certain degree what is an acceptable outcome of a mathematical algorithm.

Anyhoo, given that will never happen, unfettered freedom of speech on social media, a. won't happen (because of a million other restrictions from copyright to libel laws) and b. Freedom of speech isn't the problem. Echo chambers are the problem. Algorithms that let you live in a self-reinforcing bubble of bullshit are the problem

That's why I don't advocate for the banning of @Job and dislike the "ignore" function in Freddyshouse.

He may be a massive tool but this place is probably the only place he gets shat on regularly (other places just ban him back to his racist safe space, wherever that is) and without Job we'd all lack direct experience of dealing with these asshats.


Freddyshouse. It's faaaaan-tastic. Largely because pretty much anything goes. Well done @Deebs and the mods for keeping it that way.

 

[Deebs]

Freddyshouse. It's faaaaan-tastic. Largely because pretty much anything goes. Well done @Deebs and the mods for keeping it that way.

@Scouse thanks. I do support free speech unless it becomes illegal or morally questionable and I have always moderated that way and will continue to do so. Anyone who has moderated here over the years deserves credit for how we have operated FH and I thank them for it.

 

[Deebs]

Fucking hell, what a absolute vile human.


View: https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1349018965260038145

 

[Scouse]

Look, you clearly stated that violent protests under the 1st Amendment are protected. They are not as ruled by the Supreme Court.

No. No I didn't.

 

[Ctuchik]

they were fucking violent protestors,

No they were armed terrorists that had plans to take hostages and god knows what else had they actually caught any of the congressmen.

They are not protesters no matter how much you want it.

 

[Scouse]

@Scouse thanks. I do support free speech unless it becomes illegal or morally questionable and I have always moderated that way and will continue to do so. Anyone who has moderated here over the years deserves credit for how we have operated FH and I thank them for it.

That's why I remain. That and you kind of know people here after (gulp) ~25 years.

#freddyfamily (with family-level arguments)

 

[Scouse]

No they were armed terrorists that had plans to take hostages and god knows what else had they actually caught any of the congressmen.

They are not protesters no matter how much you want it.

Look - I know how they're now labelled in law. Which is why I very explicitly pointed out what happened after 9/11 during the Bush administration.

Prior to 9/11 these people would have been labelled protestors and rioters. They'd have been locked up and punished for the violence that they perpetrated (and rightly so - don't for a second think that I support them). But they would have been labelled protestors nonetheless.

After the planes hit and the US went gun-toting on it's "war against terror" - including a multi-decade strategic war in Afghanistan and a tonking of Iraq (for oil - even Alan Greenspan said it was to America's shame that they couldn't admit it, and he was chairman of the Fed) - the laws and definitions started changing.

There were real concerns at the time that it wouldn't just be used to lock brown people up in Gitmo. That these "new definitions" would be used as weapons to silence dissent and raise the stakes when you kick off against your government.

Lo and behold!

So yes. Technically you're right. Like @DaGaffer said - that's the best sort of right.

But you're also full of shit. And because of your hatred of these wankers you're not willing to look at that 20 year old change, and realise that the "tinfoil conspiracy" of laws changing that are really to be used against Americans - was not actually tin-foil at all.

So, in my opinion, they're protestors. Technically I was right 20 years ago. Just not today.

 

[Deebs]

So, in my opinion, they're protestors. Technically I was right 20 years ago. Just not today.

Law > @Scouse opinion.

They are domestic terrorists no matter how much you want them to be law abiding peaceful treehuggers.

 

[Yoni]

Look - I know how they're now labelled in law. Which is why I very explicitly pointed out what happened after 9/11 during the Bush administration.

Prior to 9/11 these people would have been labelled protestors. They'd have been locked up and punished for the violence that they perpetrated (and rightly so - don't for a second think that I support them). But they would have been labelled protestors nonetheless.

After the planes hit and the US went gun-toting on it's "war against terror" - including a multi-decade strategic war in Afghanistan and a tonking of Iraq (for oil - even Alan Greenspan said it was to America's shame that they couldn't admit it, and he was chairman of the Fed) - the laws and definitions started changing.

There were real concerns at the time that it wouldn't just be used to lock brown people up in Gitmo. That these "new definitions" would be used as weapons to silence dissent and raise the stakes when you kick off against your government.

Lo and behold!

So yes. Technically you're right. Like @DaGaffer said - that's the best sort of right.

But you're also full of shit. And because of your hatred of these wankers you're not willing to look at that 20 year old change, and realise that the "tinfoil conspiracy" of laws changing that are really to be used against Americans - was not actually tin-foil at all.

So, in my opinion, they're protestors. Technically I was right 20 years ago. Just not today.

No you were not right ... they found bombs... with your definition the IRA were violent protestors.. which they were not they were (new IRA still is) terrorists.

 

[Wij]

No you were not right ... they found bombs... with your definition the IRA were violent protestors.. which they were not they were (new IRA still is) terrorists.

And Molotov cocktails.

 

[Deebs]

No you were not right ... they found bombs... with your definition the IRA were violent protestors.. which they were not they were (new IRA still is) terrorists.

Definition of TERRORIST

an advocate or practitioner of terrorism as a means of coercion… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Used in both 1794 and 1795. Way before the terrorist attacks on 9/11

 

[DaGaffer]

Look - I know how they're now labelled in law. Which is why I very explicitly pointed out what happened after 9/11 during the Bush administration.

Prior to 9/11 these people would have been labelled protestors and rioters. They'd have been locked up and punished for the violence that they perpetrated (and rightly so - don't for a second think that I support them). But they would have been labelled protestors nonetheless.

After the planes hit and the US went gun-toting on it's "war against terror" - including a multi-decade strategic war in Afghanistan and a tonking of Iraq (for oil - even Alan Greenspan said it was to America's shame that they couldn't admit it, and he was chairman of the Fed) - the laws and definitions started changing.

There were real concerns at the time that it wouldn't just be used to lock brown people up in Gitmo. That these "new definitions" would be used as weapons to silence dissent and raise the stakes when you kick off against your government.

Lo and behold!

So yes. Technically you're right. Like @DaGaffer said - that's the best sort of right.

But you're also full of shit. And because of your hatred of these wankers you're not willing to look at that 20 year old change, and realise that the "tinfoil conspiracy" of laws changing that are really to be used against Americans - was not actually tin-foil at all.

So, in my opinion, they're protestors. Technically I was right 20 years ago. Just not today.

Nope.

FBI Definition of domestic terrorism from 1998:

"Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by
a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or
Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof
in furtherance of political or social objectives"

In relation to what happened at the Capitol, those fuckwits would always have been regarded as terrorists in the American legal definition of the term.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror_98.pdf

And that's how you do technically correct.

 

[Raven]

To be fair, the vast majority weren't terrorists, they were a mob, following mob rule that got caught up in the attack on the capitol. A mob containing terrorists. The guy with the pipe bombs, the guy with the Molotovs, the guy with the cable ties etc most certainly were domestic terrorists.

 

[Wij]

To be fair, the vast majority weren't terrorists, they were a mob, following mob rule that got caught up in the attack on the capitol. A mob containing terrorists. The guy with the pipe bombs, the guy with the Molotovs, the guy with the cable ties etc most certainly were domestic terrorists.

If you plan to murder senior political figures you can be convicted of terrorism regardless of whether you succeeded (not all were hoping for that admittedly but many were).

 

[Deebs]

Watching CNN right now, got the House Committee on discussing impeachment and the 25th Amendment. Wonder if any of them have seen tRumps statement that his speech was fine.

I would be fucking furious even more than before.

 

[DaGaffer]

To be fair, the vast majority weren't terrorists, they were a mob, following mob rule that got caught up in the attack on the capitol. A mob containing terrorists. The guy with the pipe bombs, the guy with the Molotovs, the guy with the cable ties etc most certainly were domestic terrorists.

Hiding in mobs is terrorism 101.

 

[Deebs]

Wow, Jim Jordan is evil. However the rebuttal of Jim McGovern is brutal.

 

[Scouse]

Law > @Scouse opinion.

They are domestic terrorists no matter how much you want them to be law abiding peaceful treehuggers.

Yep. But you can hold opinions on laws - that's the first step towards changing them. And they can be changed.

I don't think they're law abiding peaceful treehuggers tho. They're clearly arseholes.

See, we're not as far apart as you think

 

[Deebs]

Yep. But you can hold opinions on laws - that's the first step towards changing them. And they can be changed.

I don't think they're law abiding peaceful treehuggers tho. They're clearly arseholes.

See, we're not as far apart as you think

Well apart from the fact that they are not arseholes but domestic terrorists.

 

[Scouse]

And Molotov cocktails.

I made one of them in the summer to burn a caravan down.

Admittedly it was my caravan, on my land, and didn't have members of the cabinet in it.


BUT IT COULD HAVE!

 

[Deebs]

I made one of them in the summer to burn a caravan down.

Admittedly it was my caravan, on my land, and didn't have members of the cabinet in it.


BUT IT COULD HAVE!

Fucking video right fucking now.

 

[Scouse]

And that's how you do technically correct.

And this is how you stand corrected

My bad!


See @Job. See how easy it is! Why not try it some time?

 

[Deebs]

CNN is getting tasty right now, Jim Jordan refusing to say the election was not won fair and square. They are arguing now over each other.

 

[Scouse]

Fucking video right fucking now.

Sorry I didn't film it.

In my overexhuberant not-actually-checking-for-safety excitement I did almost burn the overhead electrical cable to my house tho. Was touch and go for a while.

I'd make a shit terrorist

 

[Deebs]

Sorry I didn't film it.

In my overexhuberant not-actually-checking-for-safety excitement I did almost burn the overhead electrical cable to my house tho. Was touch and go for a while.

I'd make a shit terrorist

Not to derail this thread, but how the fuck do you not film blowing up a caravan?

What a stupid cunt.

 

[Tay]

They're humans. I don't think there's anything particularly different about them tbh.

Same humans that have been suckered in throughout history. And the smartest of us can get suckered in. We're all knuckle-dragging idiots. It's a feature of our species.

Alas, some of us don't fall for the obvious rhetoric, extremism disguised as nationalism/patriotism, outright lies, bullshit of the first order and a plethora of other anti social and frankly racist crap Trump has spouted over the last 20 years.

As I do not see myself as a particularly intelligent person and even I can see him for what he is, doesn't that really doesn't bode well for the human gene pool.

 

[Deebs]

Fucking LOL. Outright arguing now in the House.

Seriously if you can get a feed of the House Committee right now it is worth watching.

The Republicans are defending tRump and his actions.

 

[Scouse]

Not to derail this thread, but how the fuck do you not film blowing up a caravan?

Too busy doing the blowing up, then watching bit

Fuck youtube. Scousetube is just for me.


(And the missus, who lost her shit completely when the fridge exploded.)

 

[Tay]

I bet this stings

Trump National stripped of 2022 US PGA Championship

Trump National in Bedminster is stripped of the 2022 US PGA Championship, with organisers saying using the course would be "detrimental".

www.bbc.co.uk

Perhaps not as much as Sturgeon kicking him in the nuts when he tries to fly to Scotland for some quiet time to avoid the inauguration. I hope !!!

 

[Tay]

Fucking LOL. Outright arguing now in the House.

Seriously if you can get a feed of the House Committee right now it is worth watching.

The Republicans are defending tRump and his actions.

Didnt it last like 4mins and now offline?

Or was I watching the wrong thing?

9:04:02 AM

The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is subject to the call of the Chair.