• jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 11:40 AM
    A Now. Post a single video that shows Ahmaud with a hammer or anything else in his hand after leaving the house. The burden of proof is on you. He grabbed the AR-15 after other people were shot. Ahmaud grabbed the shotgun after being hit by a truck.
    48 replies | 924 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 11:39 AM
    Joe was on top of this. He has been doubling down on the masks for a long time.
    4 replies | 101 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Today, 10:56 AM
    OK, post those videos. "guy saved the lives of people in a waffle house by grabbing an AR-15." was that before shooting started or after?
    48 replies | 924 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Today, 10:38 AM
    I already got my card.
    11 replies | 229 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    6 replies | 74 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 09:28 AM
    ^This is just asinine. To compare apples to apples, how is Lloyd Austin worse then General Mattis? (Hint. He's not.) Should Rand have voted against Trump's nominees? Principles >>>>> partisanship.
    35 replies | 820 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 09:09 AM
    :rolleyes: Once again, do you think Ted Cruz would have not been confirmed. Yes or no. And Bolton wasn't the only horrible pick. Jeff Sessions for attorney general. Nikki Haley for U.N. ambassor. Mike Pompeo for secretary of state. The swamp list goes on and on.
    35 replies | 820 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 09:03 AM
    Every video that I have seen of him leaving the construction site he is empty handed. If you have a video showing him with something in his hand as he is leaving the site please post it. As for what was supposedly seen in the road, have you never seen a piece of branch or tire tread in the road? None of the defendants have EVER claimed he was carrying something or dropped something. As for grabbing the shotgun, well this guy saved the lives of people in a waffle house by grabbing an AR-15. https://www.foxnews.com/us/waffle-house-patron-29-hailed-a-hero-after-snatching-gun-from-shooter One of the men chasing Abrey actually side swiped him with the truck. It wasn't hard enough to disable him but that had to be scary. Under those circumstances it's not illogical to think your life may be forfeit if you DON'T try to disarm the assailant. So no. I don't support your theory on Arbery. But I don't think you should be banned for it nor do I think RPF should face liability over it.
    48 replies | 924 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Today, 05:23 AM
    @Brian or @Bryan Someone hacked TheTexan's account. Please delete it. Pretty sure the real Texan died during gender reassignment surgery.
    39 replies | 667 view(s)
  • 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.
    48 replies | 924 view(s)
  • Danke's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:07 PM
    3 replies | 115 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 | 115 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 | 257 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.
    48 replies | 924 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!
    35 replies | 820 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:04 PM
    Trump was the last commie usurper that had his bad nominees approved.
    35 replies | 820 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:02 AM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to belian78 again.
    9 replies | 371 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.
    18 replies | 599 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.
    48 replies | 924 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.
    48 replies | 924 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.
    48 replies | 924 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.
    48 replies | 924 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:
    35 replies | 820 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.
    48 replies | 924 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.
    48 replies | 924 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.
    48 replies | 924 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 | 758 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 | 758 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
451
Posts Per Day
5.17
General Information
Last Activity
Today 01:32 PM
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 online now

    Member

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

01-25-2021


01-23-2021


01-22-2021


01-21-2021


01-20-2021



Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast