• Danke's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:42 PM
    You are a great contributor here on RPFs. but I have not seen any video that shows Ahmaud Abrey empty handed from the time he left the construction site. There are videos that have three (at least two) objects on the road that someone put there, suspicious to say the least. Did Ahmaud Abrey drop them there as he was "jogging"? or maybe some white supremists trying to frame him? That aside, he did grab a shotgun in his hands...just the wrong end.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:07 PM
    3 replies | 98 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:07 PM
    So I created one for AF and TheTexan. Now I think we need one for Oyarde. Let me start.
    3 replies | 98 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:43 PM
    The CDC has updated the 2020 death toll to be over 3.3 million. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
    4 replies | 246 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:14 PM
    A) It's not a "few exceptions." B) Define "rich." An NBA "millionaire" who makes his money from his salary is "rich" by some definitions of the word but the reason he pays such a high tax rate is that he makes his money from salary rather than corporate investments. Educate yourself about taxes.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:08 PM
    So you HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Trump had nominated Ted Cruz to be head of the NSA (just picking one name out of many that would have been better than Bolton), he would have had REPUBLICANS fighting him on that? SMH!
    26 replies | 590 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:04 PM
    Trump was the last commie usurper that had his bad nominees approved.
    26 replies | 590 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:02 AM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to belian78 again.
    9 replies | 361 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:00 AM
    Rand is the alpha male. Trump is the cuck. And Klobuchar didn't want to talk because she in 2019 signed onto a letter with Elizabeth Warren that Dominion voting machines may have stolen an election in Georgia in 2019 on behalf of Republicans. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?550745-DEMOCRATS-Elizabeth-Warren-And-Amy-Klobochar-Attacked-Dominion-Voting-Systems You don't change things by gassing up your followers with a phony "plan" to try to get people like Rand Paul and Mike Pence to overturn the election on January 6th after the electoral college already voted and the states had already certified the election, fraudulent or not.
    12 replies | 437 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:45 AM
    Sometimes using "multiple angles" is a good thing and sometimes not. If terrorists had hostages in a small enclosed space a sniper with a clear should would be a good idea. A Hellfire missile would not be. The issue is collateral damage. There is no collateral damage against websites like RonPaulForums.com from the Sherman Anti Trust angle because, RonPaulForums.com is not a trust. However you try to repeal, rewrite, or judicially re-interpret Section 230, there is risk to websites like RonPaulForums.com and risk to freedom a speech. One way a website can avoid liability for controversial points of view that might be libelous is to do MORE of what Facebook and Twitter are currently doing.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:39 AM
    SMH. You are totally missing the point. It's not YOU that the forum would have to worry about. It's someone else who may not even be on this forum who reads something you wrote that the forum would have to be worried about! Let's take the Ahmaud Abrey case. People on this forum were claiming he was carrying a hammer or something right before he was killed. All of the actual video evidence proves that's false. But some people persisted in it. We are such a small fish in a big ocean that such libel isn't an issue. But it could be. Or take the Sandy Hook or Pizzagate conspiracy theories. Alex Jones already had to settle lawsuits on both of those. Say if EVERY web-forum that that allowed such conspiracy theories to be pushed were liable to being sued? Would that lead to more free speech or less? And don't kid yourself into thinking that can't happen. And you might say "Well those conspiracy theories are true." You have the right to believe that. That doesn't mean you won't lose in court for propagating them. Now, I like what you said here: "individuals are personally responsible....not platforms." That is exactly the point of Section 230! Exactly! 100%! A state court had held Prodigy Inc. liable for the content of an individual's post being libel against someone who wasn't even on Prodigy Inc. The court's reasoning? Because Prodigy Inc. had removed some offensive content, Prodigy Inc. was acting like a "publisher" and not a "platform." So either Prodigy Inc. had not moderate NOTHING in order escape liability (porn, child porn, prostitute ads, whatever), or Prodigy Inc. was responsible for EVERYTHING (user X saying that the local burger joint had a roach infestation). This is where TheCount has a better understanding of this issue than some here. Section 230 has never been about end user's ability to sue over their post being deleted or editorialized or edited. It's always been about whether some third party, that might not even use the service, can sue the platform over what what the users post. You're right in your gut thinking that such lawsuits shouldn't be allowed.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:13 AM
    Yeah....but sometimes people get banned for reasons that have nothing to do with violation of the political mission statement. In fact sometimes it's hard to figure out why someone got banned. The fallback argument is always "Well it's our private property so we can do what we want." Okay. That might not hold up under the new judicial review that regime that you want. In fact I'm CERTAIN it wouldn't hold up. There are too many examples of people who fully support the political mission statement in word and deed who have nonetheless been arbitrarily de-platformed here. Also nothing in the language of Section 230 even comes close to supporting the "political mission statement" exception.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:15 PM
    Please explain to me how to rewrite or repeal section 230 in a way that doesn't expose RonPaulForums.com to liability.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:08 PM
    You mean like Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton? Oops...my bad. Wrong administration. :rolleyes:
    26 replies | 590 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:06 PM
    Hmmmm...."Good faith." Here's where things get sticky. Back in 2016 Facebook was hauled in front of congressional committees to answer for there "misdeeds" of "not reigning in Russian bots" that were "hacking the election." And of course the pressure is ramping up to "reign in" the "Q-Anon terrorists" that caused the January 6th "insurrection." Before 2016 the issue was how to stop ISIS from "radicalizing using social media." And no. It doesn't come down to section 230. That's a red herring. This very forum would not survive section 230 repeal. Not even a redefinition of "good faith." I explain that over and over again and nobody seems to get it. The problem with big corporate tech is....it's big corporate tech. If Facebook had the size and scope of RonPaulForums.com nobody would give a rat's ass how arbitrarily they ran their website. But they aren't that size and scope. They are a huge mega-corporation. Corporate person-hood is the problem. And when you have multiple corporations operating as a trust, sharing data and conspiring to control as much of the sector as possible, that's a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. There is already a vehicle in place to deal with this situation that doesn't get into the impossibly vague question of WTH "good faith" means.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 10:53 PM
    Right. Section 230 limited liability isn't the problem. If there was real competition this wouldn't even be an issue. Anti-trust laws are meant to keep real competition going. If corporations weren't getting a better deal than sole proprietorships then all businesses would be sole proprietorships or at the very least the largest businesses would be sole proprietorships. These people aren't stupid. LOL @ what the government "rakes in in taxes." How much tax did Donald Trump pay last year? Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than income. That's why Warren Buffet's secretary pays a hire tax rate than he does. And LOL at the "owners of a business are individuals as well that should have the identical protections as any other individual" argument. They have greater protections by the fact that they can shield themselves from liability from their bad corporate decisions. Really, I think you're dealing with cognitive dissonance. You can't wrap your mind around the obvious. Unbridled corporate power is a problem. The problem exists because corporate power is, by definition, an extension of government power. The lobbyists for the corporations help draft the laws and they are not drafting those laws to oppress themselves. They draft them to oppress you.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 05:09 PM
    Is my solution to what? Facebook and Twitter? I'm not following you. What I know is this. We do not live in a free market and this country really never has been a true free market. There are aspects of the free market and there are aspects of government control. Trying to make everything fit into a free market lens is not practical. Look at HIPPA. That's government regulation that keeps healthcare providers from selling your private data. OMG! Regulation! Must be evil right? Well....no. No it's not. It is a GOOD thing that there at least some of my personal data that a corporation (or anybody else) collects from me is at least somewhat protected. Someone recently posted a thread about the military buying aggregated cell phone data that's available on the free market without a warrant. Totally constitutional. Maybe a federal law could be passed to keep the U.S. military from being allowed to buy that data, but that wouldn't keep the Chinese government from buying it. As for patents.....do you know why they exist? Hint, it's not to protect the patent holder. It's so the patent holder will make his invention available to the rest of the country so that when the patent runs out other people can make the invention. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes patents are abused. (Drug companies gouging people way past what they need to make a profit just because they have a patent on a life saving drug.) Here is the bottom line. Once one realizes that we don't really live in a free market, one can look at the broader issue of freedom! My freedom is not diminished if Facebook an, Google and Twitter get in trouble for secretly sharing data about who they are going to de-platform. Now repealing Section 230 of the CDA would affect my freedom because website, like this one, they I visit from time to time could get shut down without Section 230 CDA protection. That's it. It's simple freedom calculus. It's not hard to figure out.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 04:40 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Rand 2024? in Rand Paul Forum
    Only a subset of those who voted for Trump believe the election was stolen and a smaller subset of that wanted to fight after the electoral college vote. That said the "always Trumpers" will be a formidable force in 2024.
    42 replies | 728 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 04:34 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Rand 2024? in Rand Paul Forum
    :rolleyes: Matt, seriously? It's one thing to say "Well the vaccines out there so you can take it if you want." It's another thing to take taxpayer dollars and direct those dollars to purchasing the vaccine and direct those purchases to people who are most likely to die from taking that vaccine. This is even worse than the "bully pulpit" argument that acptulsa pointed out. Your argument is like saying "Well if the government doesn't pay for abortions and advocate for women having abortions than women are being denied abortions."
    42 replies | 728 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 04:30 PM
    An LLC is a corporation. And there are limits to individual bankruptcy. If your LLC or corporation goes bankrupt, typically your personal assets aren't touched. A corporation you 100% own can go bankrupt and it not affect your credit. That's not at all true for personal bankruptcy. When the business model is dependent upon the largess of government. For example, a patent is, by definition, anti free market. So is copyright. It's got nothing to do with the size of the business per se, but government largess allows business to grow larger than they otherwise would. Free market depends in part on risk. The more owners are shielded from risk the less accountable they become. That's the problem Consider an actual case involving Section 230 of the CDA. Prodigy, an online service from the 1990s, was sued over a libelous message that one of their users posted. The state court found them libel because Prodigy had deleted some messages which, according to the state court's logic, made them an "editor" because they were exercising "editorial control." Prodigy countered that they had 60,000 messages a day and couldn't monitor all of them. They still lost. That's what prompted the passage of Section 230 in the CDA. Congress wanted online services to have a freehand to take down "offensive material" without being opened up to liability. Really Prodigy had a better defense than would RonPaulForums.com if Section 230 was repealed. RPF can't claim there is such a volume of messages that they couldn't all be moderated.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 04:12 PM
    The precedent for what happened to Parler already happened to Gab. For the life of me I don't understand why people didn't see that coming. Parler is (was?) a centralized application / platform. It was just owned by conservatives. True decentralized applications aren't owned by anyone. In contrast to Parler, there are different Mastodon servers. Taking down Mastodon would be like trying to get rid of email.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 12:29 PM
    Actually the ACLU has been talking about the threat coming from big data for some time now. As for needing a warrant? Well....technically it's not needed from what you've described. If your data is already publicly available, the government doesn't need a warrant to get it. Case in point, the government can't force you to give a DNA sample without a warrant, but if a government agent sees you spit your gum into the trash he can dumpster dive and get it without a warrant. (I know of a case where that happened). What needs to change? I hate to say it, but this is a case where more regulation is needed. Thanks to HIPPA, your healthcare provider isn't allowed to sell a database with "user identifiable information" in it. Technology companies should not be able to sell user identifiable location information either. Just because I want to know what the weather is where I live or I want turn by turn directions to a particular location doesn't mean that I should have to allow that information to be sold. It's not just the government that should not be able to buy that. Say private investigators started selling "enhanced background checks" where individuals could buy a map of where I had been for the past week or month or year? Why should that be okay just because the entity buying the information isn't the government? Imagine a stalker buying that information? Of course that begs the question if the information the DIA is buying is "user identifiable." If all they are able to find out is "There are a lot of people that congregate downtown between these hours on these particular days of the week" I'm not bothered by that.
    5 replies | 255 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 12:08 PM
    Yes. That is sort of how people with a family making about 50k complaining about where their tax dollars are going. They pay no tax. That may change soon.
    7 replies | 325 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:49 AM
    Corporations are anti free market by definition. Corporations are government licenses to be able to have unlimited growth with limited liability. In your OP you said: "I think the idea of government granted liability protections seems like a bad idea to begin with." Well...that's exactly what a corporation is. The "platform liability" that people usually complain about here also applies to this forum. The owners have the right to edit user posts, remove user posts, and "de-platform" users. That still doesn't mean the forum owners should be sued if a user posts something that is libel. Allowing, in general, websites to be sued for libel just because they moderate content is not a good idea. However Facebook, Twitter and Google have gone beyond that. They have conspired with each other (now proven) to coordinate their efforts to de-platform. That is not free market. Not even kind of. Parler tried to get around this by creating their own platform as Gab had done before. Predictably Parler has suffered the same fate as Gab. The "platform" being "de-platformed." If evidence comes forward that Apple, Google and Amazon conspired to de-platform the Parler platform that is also anti free market and a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Now, let's take a closer look at your solution. I would think in a free market, no web site would ever be automatically immune from liability, but the web site could require their members to sign a waiver saying something like "I understand Facebook is not responsible for the postings of it's members and I waive my right to sue."
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:32 AM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to belian78 again.
    43 replies | 805 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:26 AM
    Worse. They are now an embarrassment. In blue states the democrats are the government from the local all the way up to the federal including the both houses of Congress. So anyone in a blue state being "anti government" is not being anti-Democrat. Everybody was bracing for right wing violence on January 20th and instead there was left wing violence. Kamala Harris as a prosecutor put a lot of black men in prison and kept many of them there longer than they legally should have been. You can't be pro police state the way the far left is and really be "anti-cop."
    14 replies | 388 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 11:16 AM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Rand 2024? in Rand Paul Forum
    The vaccine of course. You can protect someone from getting the virus by making sure he/she is not exposed. That's the whole point of herd immunity. Individual members of the herd don't need to have immunity to be protected from the virus. He is making it available to the group that's at the highest risk from dying from the vaccine itself. I'm not sure why that isn't sinking in.
    42 replies | 728 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 08:27 AM
    Did you see this? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?552192-CNN-Norway-reviewing-deaths-of-frail-and-elderly-patients-vaccinated-against-Covid-19
    6 replies | 100 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 08:27 AM
    About the only English TV channel in my hotel room in Frankfurt. I don't have TV/cable at home, so it is always amazing how bias MSM TV is.
    19 replies | 605 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 07:53 AM
    It seems like a complex game is being played and society are the pieces being manipulated by the players.
    7 replies | 325 view(s)
More Activity
About GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
447
Posts Per Day
5.15
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 07:03 AM
Join Date
10-30-2020
Referrals
0

4 Friends

  1. Danke Danke is offline

    Top Rated Influencer

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Danke
    Danke
  2. fatjohn fatjohn is offline

    Member

    fatjohn
  3. jmdrake jmdrake is offline

    Member

    jmdrake
  4. Sammy Sammy is offline

    Member

    Sammy
Showing Friends 1 to 4 of 4
No results to display...
Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

01-23-2021


01-22-2021


01-21-2021


01-20-2021



Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast