Simple succinct response. Sums it up perfectly without paragraphs of explanation. We are of like mind.Originally Posted by Mike
Registered Member
Simple succinct response. Sums it up perfectly without paragraphs of explanation. We are of like mind.
OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Registered Member
This thread is a joke, right?
"Back after 5 years. I thought you had died.
don"
Splitting my time between the montane and the mesas
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
Charter Member
What makes you ask that?
Registered Member
I never answer a question in response to a question I posed in response to a question.
"Back after 5 years. I thought you had died.
don"
Splitting my time between the montane and the mesas
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
Charter Member
So how are we supposed to know what you mean? It is a little ambiguous.
There. I ended without a question. You should feel free to answer.
Registered Member
Dave is a democrat and he knows it. He needs to come out of the closet.
"Back after 5 years. I thought you had died.
don"
Splitting my time between the montane and the mesas
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
Charter Member
I'm surely not a republican at this point but I don't believe that by default I become a Democrat.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
"Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
“You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis
Charter Member
Oh. Okeydoke. I appreciate the reply. Thank you!!
Registered Member
Not just this thread but I've been working my way through multiple ones and WOW..
I can't believe some of the things I'm reading.
Multiple people on here are stating that they're okay with taking somebody's first amendment rights away because they don't agree with what they have to say.. that's just disgusting.
I think everybody needs to take a step back and stop with the Republican and Democrat BS.
First and foremost we are Americans start acting like it.
Charter Member
There is no First Amendment issue in this thread.
The First Amendment is about government restrictions on speech. The companies here are private entities. They can ban anyone they want and never run afoul of the First Amendment.
Charter Member
The First Amendment is not absolute, like most things there are limits.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
"Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
“You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis
Registered Member
Yeah, and it’s too important to lose.
"Back after 5 years. I thought you had died.
don"
Splitting my time between the montane and the mesas
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
Registered Member
The 1st. Amendment problem we now see is ; time has changed the way we [ mass ] communicate . The internet has become the news site for a great majority of all people . Not just Americans. Therefore a privately owned site, ie. F Book , Twitter or Parler has because of the mass usage become a defacto news source equal to any T V or Radio Station [ which can be required to broadcast a Presidential speach ] now that may be restricted to a National Emergency , I'm not sure .. To restrict ANYONES access to them is in effect denying them the ability to speak and when the person being denied access is the President , then it becomes a questionable act and is in effect suppression of speech.
Individual rights are protected only as long as they don't conflict with the desires of the state .
Charter Member
I've seen enough anti-Republican stuff online lately that's causing me to wonder if we're overacting on assigning blame. I'm not pointing any fingers here, my friends. I just think we need to be careful.
Yes, I think Trump was corrupt. And, there are Republicans in office who blindly followed him over a cliff. But, not all of them did that. For, we need to be vigilant to ensure all politicians stay within the lines. It is, and will be, an endless task. And, as citizens, we have the right to watch closely over their shoulders while they work for us.
Keep up the good work.
Hunter
I don't care if it hurts. I want to have control. I want a perfect body. I want a perfect soul. - Creep by Radiohead
Charter Member
The amount of usage doesn't change fundamental rights of ownership. That's why when Parler sued Amazon Web Service for getting shut down, they raised no First Amendment arguments.
The President has no right to demand he be allowed to use private property. He is subject to the same Terms of Agreement that everyone else has.
A guy that can call a news conference and 10 minutes later be carried live on all national news channels, including cable, including foreign news services, radio, print - someone is going to argue HIS speech is somehow being suppressed? Not credible.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote