Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: Alex Jones: Why Won't President Trump Do Anything About This?

  1. #31
    It would be nice if Trump would at least open a gab account instead of being exclusive with twitter. But we all know he wouldn't do that cos he is only a pretend anti establishment pol



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    I hope you understand that millions of private businesses within the United States accept both subsidies and/or grants in some form or another. The logical conclusion of your argument would lead to a Communist-style takeover of much of the private sector.
    I understand this all too well. Just look at the control the government has on 501C3 tax exemptions--especially Churches who were exempt for over 200 years prior to this carrot and stick approach. That clearly goes against the first amendment. Government should only be involved to enforce the first amendment, not granting and organization an unconstitutional tax exemption.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    This is a strange argument to make. A left wing book publisher can censor speech and selectively publish works that is agrees with and still be financially successful. A true free market decentralizes and creates profitable niches of all kinds.
    Indeed and in a free market people would choose to support that business if they want but, with such radical ideas (that goes against a free society) chances are, if a majority of people think what this person wrote is offensive, they can boycott and call for a boycott and put that person out of business.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    At heart, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. So I entirely disagree that the role of the state is to do anything but be abolished. However, since we do live within a statist society, I want a state that is the least centralized as possible. In order to have that we must have a federal republic. Applying a document meant for the general government to 50 individual States destroys the concept of a federal republic and helps to creates a super-state that would make even Alexander Hamilton blush.
    Well I know we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights which means what it says, and says what it means--no interpretations needed--contrary to popular lawyer opinion. Each state has their own constitution, however if a state (ex: Virginia) steps over the line and tries to take away the rights of the people, then the role of the Federal Government is to step in and enforce the rule of law for the people.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    I understand this all too well. Just look at the control the government has on 501C3 tax exemptions--especially Churches who were exempt for over 200 years prior to this carrot and stick approach. That clearly goes against the first amendment. Government should only be involved to enforce the first amendment, not granting and organization an unconstitutional tax exemption.
    I see that you do not deny the logical conclusion of your argument. I'm glad I now have a frame of reference for your ultimate societal goals.

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Government should only be involved to enforce the first amendment, not granting and organization an unconstitutional tax exemption.
    You have it backwards. The Bill of Rights is a check on the general government. It is illogical to rely on the general government to enforce its own check. The States and the American people are the only enforcers of the Bill of Rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Indeed and in a free market people would choose to support that business if they want but, with such radical ideas (that goes against a free society) chances are, if a majority of people think what this person wrote is offensive, they can boycott and call for a boycott and put that person out of business.
    Not necessarily. You cannot guarantee that in a free society.

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Each state has their own constitution, however if a state (ex: Virginia) steps over the line and tries to take away the rights of the people, then the role of the Federal Government is to step in and enforce the rule of law for the people.
    That's your opinion, but for the record it was not the opinion of the Founders and framers of the Constitution. It was not even the majority opinion in the country until the 20th century. If you want to fundamentally destroy the Founder's vision of federalism, then that is a valid argument to make. But it has no precedent in much of American history.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    [video=youtube;ypLVPMRfudc]Alex not happy that Trump won't stop online censorship.
    Mebbe Alex should've spoke up when Andrew Anglin and his hilariously heroic Daily Stormer had their domain stolen and were completely kicked off the internet.

    Eh, Alex? Mebbe God is not too happy about that little cowardly choice you made, and this is your punishment.

    This is everybody's punishment. EVERYBODY'S getting banned. Buh-bye. And I will laugh at all of you. Censorious, milquetoast, fake-o cowards.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Which part of the Constitution allows the Senate or the President to regulate YouTube?
    Look, I agree with you 100%. No part.

    However, what part allows them to tax YouTube? What part allows them to tell me whom to hire, fire, what to charge, how to build my plant, how to build my own private house for that matter? Oh, hmm, I'm having a hard time finding those parts, too. Maybe if I squint?

    I am all for anarchocapitalism where private businesses do whatever the heck they want, screw society and screw consequences. But howscomesees our Blessed and Holy Opinion Leaders are all for that too.... only on one issue: the ability of private companies to completely negate and destroy free speech?

    Does that make you think? 'Cause that makes me think.

    What is the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Isn't it that we, as free men and Americans, are able to discourse with each other freely, spread and evangelize our ideas, learn new ideas, argue with each other, and through all this come a little closer to the truth and thus be able to make better choices as to how to run our society? That is the spirit of it. And so I ask you: what if all the public squares were privately owned, and none of them allowed you to speak non-lying non-propaganda on them?

    What good is the "right" without the ability? If no one is able to actually speak his mind, other than six disgusting men at the head of six megacorporations, well then in what sense do the other 100 million of us have free speech?

    Why don't you just start your own Youtube, hurr durr?

    Oh, they'll just steal your domain? Oh, Visa, Discover, and Mastercard will refuse to allow you to conduct commerce?

    OK, then why don't you just start your own internet then, you whiny loser? Oh, and construct your own alternative banking gateway architecture.

    (P.S.: it turns out this last line actually is probably the only solution, because our society is so thoroughly hosed. But it's outlandish and ridiculous that we're having to do this.)

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by H_H View Post
    However, what part allows them to tax YouTube? What part allows them to tell me whom to hire, fire, what to charge, how to build my plant, how to build my own private house for that matter? Oh, hmm, I'm having a hard time finding those parts, too. Maybe if I squint?
    I'd venture to guess that almost all actions by any part of the general government are unconstitutional at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by H_H View Post
    What is the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Isn't it that we, as free men and Americans, are able to discourse with each other freely, spread and evangelize our ideas, learn new ideas, argue with each other, and through all this come a little closer to the truth and thus be able to make better choices as to how to run our society? That is the spirit of it. And so I ask you: what if all the public squares were privately owned, and none of them allowed you to speak non-lying non-propaganda on them?
    I completely understand and sympathize with your frustration. We live in concerning times, but the fact remains is that people can and are still expressing their views online. Before we completely tear down 300-400 years of constitutionalism in America, we ought to understand why it was put there to begin with.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by H_H View Post
    However, what part allows them to tax YouTube?
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th Amendment.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Just look at the control the government has on 501C3 tax exemptions--especially Churches who were exempt for over 200 years prior to this carrot and stick approach. That clearly goes against the first amendment. Government should only be involved to enforce the first amendment, not granting and organization an unconstitutional tax exemption.
    The main advantage of being a 501(c)(3) organization isn't so much that the entity is tax-exempt as it is that donors can get a tax deduction for their contributions. The fact is that donations to churches and other 501(c)(3) are gifts and are therefore not included in gross income by statute. The deduction for contributions is a creature of statute; it's not constitutionally required.

    Churches who wish to promote candidates for public office are free to do so, but if they do they will lose their 501(c)(3) status and their donors won't get tax deductions. The same rule applies to universities and other (c)(3) organizations.

    The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause no more makes churches exempt from taxation than its Free Press Clause exempts publishers.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The main advantage of being a 501(c)(3) organization isn't so much that the entity is tax-exempt as it is that donors can get a tax deduction for their contributions. The fact is that donations to churches and other 501(c)(3) are gifts and are therefore not included in gross income by statute. The deduction for contributions is a creature of statute; it's not constitutionally required.

    Churches who wish to promote candidates for public office are free to do so, but if they do they will lose their 501(c)(3) status and their donors won't get tax deductions. The same rule applies to universities and other (c)(3) organizations.

    The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause no more makes churches exempt from taxation than its Free Press Clause exempts publishers.
    President Trump signed an Executive Order: “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty,” which stops the IRS from revoking their tax exemption for supporting and promoting a candidate. Basically, lifting the gag order Lyndon B. Johnson placed on them.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    President Trump signed an Executive Order: “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty,” which stops the IRS from revoking their tax exemption for supporting and promoting a candidate. Basically, lifting the gag order Lyndon B. Johnson placed on them.
    The EO did nothing of the sort. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...te#post6462981

    Incidentally, the "gag order" was imposed by Congress (although Johnson signed the bill into law). Trump may think he can repeal laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous President, but the fact is he can't.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The EO did nothing of the sort. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...te#post6462981

    Incidentally, the "gag order" was imposed by Congress (although Johnson signed the bill into law). Trump may think he can repeal laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous President, but the fact is he can't.
    Johnson didn't sign the bill into law he was the one that proposed it in 1954.

    President Johnson proposed the amendment to the tax code that has greatly restricted the free speech of pastors and churches on July 2, 1954. 100 Cong. Rec. 9604 (daily ed. July 2, 1954). The words “in opposition to” were added in 1986. Ass’n of the Bar of the City of N.Y. v. Comm’r, 858 F.2d 876,879 (2d Cir. 1988). It was in this year that then-Senator Johnson was up for re-election to the Senate. Unfortunately, it is not clear why Congress enacted it, as “there was little debate over the amendment or how it would influence churches.”

    Sen. Johnson’s motivations, however, are much clearer. Around the time this amendment was introduced, Sen. Johnson had faced some political difficulties from certain organizations in his home state. “Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas forced the amendment out of his anger that [two local] Texas non-profit groups had supported his primary opponent.” Gary Cass, Gag Order, 58 (2005) (citing Bruce R. Hopkins, The Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations, 327 (6th ed. 1992)).

    There you have it. “The IRS rule that strips tax exemption from churches engaged in electioneering was born of Lyndon Johnson’s Texas politics, not the U.S. Constitution . . . .” Larry Witham, Texas politics blamed for ’54 IRS rule LBJ wanted to keep Senate seat, WASH. TIMES, Aug. 27, 1998 (discussing a study done by James Davidson, a Purdue University sociologist). More specifically, “‘[t]he ban on church electioneering has nothing to do with the First Amendment or Jeffersonian principles of separation of church and state . . . .’ ‘It was prompted by Johnson’s desire to challenge McCarthyism, protect the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in Texas, and win re-election.’” Id.
    https://aclj.org/free-speech/how-the...rches-freedoms

    You familiar with the Black Robed Regiment?
    Last edited by donnay; 02-19-2020 at 10:59 AM. Reason: typo
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  15. #42
    Johnson may have had that motive for proposing the bill, but viewed objectively it seems to be good policy. Why should the government subsidize (via tax deductions) electioneering by nonprofits?

    The article you cited talks about why pastors should be allowed to address moral issues. Guess what? They can. The restriction is limited to participating in, or intervening in (including the publishing or distributing for statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Good grief, the Catholic Church speaks out continuously about issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and providing for the poor, and its exemption isn't going away.

    The free speech rights of the churches and their members and pastors aren't being infringed at all. They are perfectly free to renounce their 501(c)(3) status and electioneer all they want. But what they can't do is have their cake and eat it too -- electioneer and be subsidized by tax-deductible contributions. It is not a constitutional requirement that contributions to churches or other 501(c)(3)'s be deductible; they are deductible only because Congress says they are, and Congress can impose reasonable restrictions on deductibility, just as it has on many other types of deductions (e.g., allowing a deduction of only half of the cost of a business meal).
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 02-19-2020 at 10:48 AM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Johnson may have had that motive for proposing the bill, but viewed objectively it seems to be good policy. Why should the government subsidize (via tax deductions) electioneering by nonprofits?

    The article you cited talks about why pastors should be allowed to address moral issues. Guess what? They can. The restriction is limited to participating in, or intervening in (including the publishing or distributing for statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Good grief, the Catholic Church speaks out continuously about issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and providing for the poor, and its exemption isn't going away.

    The free speech rights of the churches and their members and pastors aren't being infringed at all. They are perfectly free to renounce their 501(c)(3) status and electioneer all they want. But what they can't do is have their cake and eat it too -- electioneer and be subsidized by tax-deductible contributions. It is not a constitutional requirement that contributions to churches or other 501(c)(3)'s be deductible; they are deductible only because Congress says they are, and Congress can impose reasonable restrictions on deductibility, just as it has on many other types of deductions (e.g., allowing a deduction of only half of the cost of a business meal).
    Again, you must not be familiar with the Black Robed Regiment.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Again, you must not be familiar with the Black Robed Regiment.
    I wasn't, so I looked up the term. It seems to refers to different groups, although it appears that some claim the term was originally applied to clergymen who spoke out against the British prior to the Revolution. It has been later taken up by various people, including Glenn Beck and David Barton. In fact, some believe that Barton made up the term and passed it off as having been applied to the outspoken clergymen in the pre-evolutionary era. See http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2015/...giment-in.html

    But this has nothing to do with the issue of allowing tax-deductible contributions to be made to electioneering 501(c)(3)'s. Again, preachers, university presidents, and other officials of 501(c)(3)'s can electioneer all they want, but they can't do it with a government subsidy. If they don't electioneer, they can talk about the issues all they want.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I wasn't, so I looked up the term. It seems to refers to different groups, although it appears that some claim the term was originally applied to clergymen who spoke out against the British prior to the Revolution. It has been later taken up by various people, including Glenn Beck and David Barton. In fact, some believe that Barton made up the term and passed it off as having been applied to the outspoken clergymen in the pre-evolutionary era. See http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2015/...giment-in.html

    But this has nothing to do with the issue of allowing tax-deductible contributions to be made to electioneering 501(c)(3)'s. Again, preachers, university presidents, and other officials of 501(c)(3)'s can electioneer all they want, but they can't do it with a government subsidy. If they don't electioneer, they can talk about the issues all they want.
    Many people who do not know the historical turning points of how powerful the Black Robbed Regiment were for our country is the reason why the 501c3 gained a foothold. The 501c3 exemption was so that history would not repeat itself--gag the very people who have a powerful voice at the pulpit.

    President Trump shined a light on it with his Executive Order.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  19. #46

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    This is YouTube now. It's their website. find a new platform.
    Which will be deplatformed.

  21. #48
    Tax reductions/deductions are not subsidies.

    Taking less of what already belongs to someone is not the same as giving them something that does not already belong to them (or to the giver, for that matter).

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Why should the government subsidize (via tax deductions) electioneering by nonprofits?
    By this "logic," anything other than a tax rate of 100% (without deductions of any kind) is a "subsidy" ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Again, preachers, university presidents, and other officials of 501(c)(3)'s can electioneer all they want, but they can't do it with a government subsidy. If they don't electioneer, they can talk about the issues all they want.
    Why not? Even leaving aside for the sake of argument the fact that lower taxation (by whatever method) is not subsidization and that the "government subsidy" of which you speak consists entirely of money that was already theirs to begin with, the whole point of subsidies is to enable some people to do things they would not otherwise have been able to do. Why should electioneering be any different? Especially since, as noted, the "subsidy" with which they would do so was already theirs to begin with. You say "tomato." I say "bribing them with their own money in an attempt to shut them up about certain things" ...

    And as an interesting aside: who gets to decide where the line is between "electioneering" and merely "talk[ing] about the issues?" Preachers, university presidents, et al. are by the nature of their work good at using words - at least the competent ones are. It should not be at all difficult for them to "electioneer" without ever explicitly naming any particular candidates or exhorting people to vote some particular way. So what's the point, other than to sow the seeds of division and contention as a result of indulging those whose careers hinge on the never-ending process of making and "interpreting" more and more rules ... ?


    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Why not? Even leaving aside for the sake of argument the fact that lower taxation (by whatever method) is not subsidization and that the "government subsidy" of which you speak consists entirely of money that was already theirs to begin with, the whole point of subsidies is to enable some people to do things they would not otherwise have been able to do. Why should electioneering be any different?
    The economic effect of a tax deduction is, in most cases, the same as an outright subsidy in an amount equal to the tax savings generated by the deduction.* If we had a flat 10% income tax with no deductions and your tax bill was $5,000 but after you paid it you received a tax-exempt subsidy from the government for $750 because, say, you bought a solar-powered generator for $7,500 you'd be in the same economic position as if you had been allowed to deduct the $7,500 in the first place.

    Donations to political campaigns or expenses for electioneering aren't deductible. But for the Johnson Amendment people could circumvent this rule by donating to a 501(c)(3) organization and having it engage in campaign activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    And as an interesting aside: who gets to decide where the line is between "electioneering" and merely "talk[ing] about the issues?" Preachers, university presidents, et al. are by the nature of their work good at using words - at least the competent ones are. It should not be at all difficult for them to "electioneer" without ever explicitly naming any particular candidates or exhorting people to vote some particular way.
    If this is true, why are some churches complaining about the Johnson Amendment? Do they just have pastors whose ways with words are poor?

    *Under our current tax system there could be minor differences between receiving a subsidy or a deduction. For example, allowing a deduction could put someone in a lower tax bracket.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Which will be deplatformed.
    So start your own Internet, you snowflake!

    Did you build the Internet? N... Wait, what's that you say? It was largely built with taxpayer funds and you were paying those taxes? Look, that's not what I meant. Did you, personally, build the Internet, with your own bare hands? No? Then shut up, loser! What are you, a Socialist? You have no right to have any say over what the righteous hero Megacorps do with the Internet which you did not build. Loser.

    Assigning one monopolistic Megacorp to each facet of our lives is the very definition of Capitalism Itself! And obviously having every possible method of communication justly and wisely divvied up among a few such Megacorp monopolies is crucial to Free Speech. Only a rabid Socialist would have any problem with such an awesome Central Plan.

    We, your, ahem, "capitalist" betters, will decide what can and cannot be said.


  25. #51
    I would like for you to note and come to terms with a mental disconnect you are having. Behold:

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    I'd venture to guess that almost all actions by any part of the general government are unconstitutional at this point.
    OK. Accurate. And then:
    Before we completely tear down 300-400 years of constitutionalism in America
    As da brothas say: Hol' up.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by H_H View Post
    I would like for you to note and come to terms with a mental disconnect you are having. Behold:

    OK. Accurate. And then:
    As da brothas say: Hol' up.
    American constitutionalism goes back to the founding of the colonies. It started as an unwritten constitutionalism brought here from Great Britain. One of the major components was colonial sovereignty over Parliament. This was the beginning of American federalism and the roots of our federal republic where the States wield more power than the general government. Applying the Bill of Rights to the States is the antithesis of this constitutionalism.

    The general government abuses its power writ large. Almost every action it does violates our written Constitution. This is a separate issue.

    I fail to see the disconnect.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    I fail to see the disconnect.
    Constitutionalism is completely disobeyed. It fails to restrain anything. It fails to be anything but a dead letter.

    So, in what sense is it not already been "torn down"?

    One could write such a sense, but it would not be very strong nor convincing. It would be convoluted. You are making the argument that "we can't have free speech, because we need our government to follow the Constitution," and so that argument is already convoluted. But then to add to that "Oh, and yes I do realize that the government already totally doesn't follow the Constitution" makes things doubly convoluted. Please take no offense. I'm just saying.

    Bottom line: We need free speech.

    Bottom line: The government isn't going to start enforcing free speech on the internet anyway, so it really doesn't matter if I or you or all of RPF advocates for it or not. There is no political solution.
    Because virtually all people and all institutions today are stupid and beyond any hope of repair or salvage. There is no political solution.

    So, Bottom line: We need Urbit.
    http://urbit.org

    The solution is technical.

    All doable solutions are always technical.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by H_H View Post
    Constitutionalism is completely disobeyed. It fails to restrain anything. It fails to be anything but a dead letter.

    So, in what sense is it not already been "torn down"?


    There is a difference between constitutionalism and The Constitution. The former existed in the colonies since their formation. Self-determination and constitutionalism are still important ideas for Americans.

    I have little admiration for The Constitution. I'd rather have seen the Articles of Confederation stay intact. However, since we are stuck with it, we ought to be using the arguments and rhetoric of its proponents to inform us on what the Constitution outlines. In that regard, its still relevant to talk about it as something more than a dead letter.

    Quote Originally Posted by H_H View Post
    One could write such a sense, but it would not be very strong nor convincing. It would be convoluted. You are making the argument that "we can't have free speech, because we need our government to follow the Constitution," and so that argument is already convoluted. But then to add to that "Oh, and yes I do realize that the government already totally doesn't follow the Constitution" makes things doubly convoluted. Please take no offense. I'm just saying.
    Ah, you are arguing against something I've never claimed. At no point have I ever stated that "we can't have free speech." You are being disingenuous.

    What I have been arguing is that the Constitution does not authorize the general government to regulate speech. That's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by H_H View Post
    Bottom line: The government isn't going to start enforcing free speech on the internet anyway, so it really doesn't matter if I or you or all of RPF advocates for it or not. There is no political solution.
    Quote Originally Posted by H_H View Post
    Because virtually all people and all institutions today are stupid and beyond any hope of repair or salvage. There is no political solution.[COLOR=#333333]
    If you're going to consume the black pill, then please stop at one. Do not consume the entire bottle.

  29. #55
    Called it!

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    There is a difference between constitutionalism and The Constitution.
    You could not have made any more convoluted and unconvincing argument than attempting to draw a distinction between "constitutionalism" and "The Constitution." No intelligent layman is going to follow you there and be like "Oh, yeah, I get it! You're totally right! About.... umm... whatever it is, about, umm, all that stuff and junk, that you were saying, umm....."



    But no worries! I have to be nice to you, because a) I am a very nice person, b) literally no one else is listening in on this conversation, I am talking to you and only you, because EVERYONE ELSE GOT BANNED OFF OF THIS "FORUM" (this junk is actually relevant, see?), and c) I actually agree with you anyway, probably.


    I have little admiration for The Constitution. I'd rather have seen the Articles of Confederation stay intact. However, since we are stuck with it, we ought to be using the arguments and rhetoric of its proponents to inform us on what the Constitution outlines. In that regard, its still relevant to talk about it as something more than a dead letter.
    Yes, yes, yes, how pure of us. We are so reactionary we call Madison a Commie Pinko. Or was that Jefferson? Enh, all of 'em.



    Ah, you are arguing against something I've never claimed. At no point have I ever stated that "we can't have free speech." You are being disingenuous.
    Nay, I am being practical. And also real. I am attempting to be an inhabitant of reality in a productive way.

    I was not trying to put words in your mouth, I was just using you as a foil, bu't I'll stop that and just speak directly to you since, again, you are the only one reading this.

    Nancy Pelosi recently called on the Tech Monopolies to "do more" and be more aggressive in censoring unflattering videos of herself. This is an officer of the U.S. Government directly demanding censorship. The doctrine that people have been operating under is that "well, but it's not the government itself doing the censorship, it's multinational mega-corporations, and so therefore it's A-OK! USA! USA! USA!" But if the government is itself directly calling for the censorship than... does that really still work?

    Should I care whether it works?

    Is that something that should affect my life and my opinions?

    It's all ludicrous!

    If we can't stinking talk to each other without massive censorship, we do not have free speech!

    It doesn't matter if it's "The Government" doing it directly or if our Governors have built a Rube Goldberg Machine to do it via street mobs and SJWs and mega corporations. Actually it does matter: the latter is far, far worse.

    There are whole huge slaths of topics which I, personally, cannot talk about, without being life-destroyed. The forbidden topics consist of: anything even moderately interesting or controversial. So in what sense do I have free speech?

    I DON'T!

    It makes no SENSE to have multinational mega-corps serve as middle-men for our conversations. It makes no sense to have ANYONE as a middle-man. It's INHUMAN.

    If a bunch of us were talking in Applebees, Applebees doesn't get to decide what we can and can't say. If they decide they can, we can just go out in the street and continue talking. But online, we are in this nightmare scenario where the mega-corps (and little corps) own our identities! If I want to talk to Occam's Banana, I have to come here, to this "private property," -- there is no street, there is no outside. Step outside and "poof!" Occam disappears. Because RPF owns his identity.

    The whole thing is infuriating. I am feeling a lot of RAGE right now.

    RAGE!

    RAGE!!!!!

    I WILL TAKE AS MANY BLACK PILLS AS I WANT AND IN FACT I HAVE ALREADY TAKEN ALL OF THEM AND THERE ARE NONE LEFT FOR YOU!!!!!!!

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Google is a government creation from stem to stern.
    Oh? How much stock does the government hold?
    “…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    Oh? How much stock does the government hold?
    Ask the CIA and In-Q-tel.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypLVPMRfudc

    Alex not happy that Trump won't stop online censorship.
    This very forum "deplatforms" people all the time. i think it's currently banning people at a higher rate than new people are joining. The latest victim of the banhammer, juleswin, got banned right after saying "I hope I don't get banned for no reason." The excuse for these arbitrary actions is "private property." Well....what makes YouTube different? Simply because they are "bigger?" So......you can property rights are determined based on size? Hmmmm.... Oh, and when people complain about it they get shouted down. "How dare you complain about how private property is run!" It's funny, one person that I used to make the "You can't complain about how a forum is run because it's private property" recently got banned. The "free market" that people champion around here so much works best when the "customers" of that market are allowed to be heard. Eventually customers may just decide to leave. RPF have a virtual monopoly on the RP internet watering hole every since Daily Paul died. Sure...there are "alternative" forums....just like there are alternative video sharing platforms to YouTube. We do a poor job of "practicing what we preach."

    /rant

    *sorry you interrupt the latest big tech hate fest with....I dunno....principles?*
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  34. #59
    Think you're mixing up google with Facebook. In Q Tel did have some google stock when google bought the keyhole sat company which is now google earth. Google founders did work as graduate students with grants about identify users. If you want to put a tinfoil hat on for that go ahead, but they were not given money by either for starting. That would go to Bezos and other early tech people tossing money their way. At that time search was a competitive industry.
    “…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    This very forum "deplatforms" people all the time. i think it's currently banning people at a higher rate than new people are joining. The latest victim of the banhammer, juleswin, got banned right after saying "I hope I don't get banned for no reason." The excuse for these arbitrary actions is "private property." Well....what makes YouTube different? Simply because they are "bigger?" So......you can property rights are determined based on size? Hmmmm.... Oh, and when people complain about it they get shouted down. "How dare you complain about how private property is run!" It's funny, one person that I used to make the "You can't complain about how a forum is run because it's private property" recently got banned. The "free market" that people champion around here so much works best when the "customers" of that market are allowed to be heard. Eventually customers may just decide to leave. RPF have a virtual monopoly on the RP internet watering hole every since Daily Paul died. Sure...there are "alternative" forums....just like there are alternative video sharing platforms to YouTube. We do a poor job of "practicing what we preach."

    /rant

    *sorry you interrupt the latest big tech hate fest with....I dunno....principles?*
    x6000000!!!!

    Are JM and I the only ones who have figured this problem out?

    Or is the whole forum converging on this conclusion?


    FREE SPEEEEEEEEECH!



    FREE SPEECH OR DIE!



    Or, how about this one on for size: FREE SPEECH OR WE WILL STINKING KILL YOU. _ALL_!!!!

    Noa I am not going to kill you, you disgusting censorious brats. I am a peaceful person. I try to encourage people to hold off and to refrain from killing you, in fact.

    But it the fact is that muzzling entire sections of society is going to make folks murdrous mad. Pretty predictable fact. Alao, fact is you absolutely deserve to die.

    So. whatevs.

    Have fun!!! XOXOXO!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Alex Jones calls out President Trump
    By Warlord in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-28-2019, 08:22 PM
  2. Alex Jones: WHY IS PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTING SUICIDE?
    By Warlord in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-12-2019, 07:58 PM
  3. Alex Jones: “I want Rand Paul to become President”
    By ObiRandKenobi in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-05-2015, 11:53 PM
  4. JBS President John McManus on Alex Jones (youtube, 50 mins)
    By emazur in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-26-2009, 10:15 PM
  5. Should we get Alex Jones to run for President?
    By dude58677 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 11-27-2008, 07:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •