Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Biden wants to repeal Section 230! Kiss RonPaulForums.com goodbye!

  1. #1

    Biden wants to repeal Section 230! Kiss RonPaulForums.com goodbye!

    hxxps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-biden-both-want-to-revoke-section-230-but-for-different-reasons/ar-BB14NKih

    From the article:

    The two politicians disagree on why the law should be revoked.

    Trump's concerns involve the moderation of content on the internet, like recent fact-checks put on his tweets.

    Biden has said he wants social media sites to be held liable for the content posted on their platforms; currently they are not under Section 230.


    I've been trying to warn y'all about this but you wouldn't listen. You'll learn that I was right when it's too late. Section 230 protection isn't for "big tech." It's for the little guy. Once section 230 is repealed there will be EVEN MORE censorship on places like Facebook and Twitter. Why? Because they we'll then be compelled to take down controversial stuff because they will be liable. Now they just take down controversial stuff because they want to.

    The only real way to go after big tech for the censorship is to use the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Their is clear and convincing evidence, even beyond a reasonable doubt evidence, that Facebook, Twitter and Google conspired to restrict commerce by de-platforming the jointly agreed were bad actors. A conviction under the Sherman Anti-Trust act could result in 10 years in federal prison, a $1,000,000 fine for individuals and a $100,000,000 fine for corporations.

    But repealing Section 230 just gives another avenue to shut down small alternate voices. People are upset about the pro Trump blogger that got arrested for spreading the meme that encouraged black people to "vote by text" for Hillary and put "paid for by Hillary Clinton" on the bottom of it? Imagine if every forum that meme was posted on could be held liable? Because that would be the effect of repealing Section 230. Oh, but you say "What about the left wing twitter troll who posted the meme encouraging Trump voters to vote by text?" Understand this. I AM EXPLAINING THE CURRENT SYSTEM TO YOU! I AM NOT DEFENDING IT! So, why give a corrupt system even more power to be even more corrupt?

    I've actually read the case law that led to Section 230. Prodigy Inc (now defunct commercial BBS) was successfully sued in a state court for liable for something one of their users posted. The state court treated them as a "publisher" because even though the didn't produce the content, the moderated it. When congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA), they included Section 230 because they wanted Internet companies to be free to take down "indecent" material, without being subject to liable for not taking down every controversial posting. The law makes sense. You should not be held liable for libel just because you ban someone for posting porn.

    Now, maybe there is some way to amend the law that doesn't do what Biden wants, which is to open the door for more censorship. But a straight up repeal will most certainly open the door to more censorship. Platforms will be stuck with one of two choices. Either allow everything like the old USENET where even child porn could be found and it was actually impossible to moderate, or moderate every think that some judge and jury somewhere might find problematic. It's not just libel laws that are at issue. The Trump twitter troll that got arrested didn't technically libel anyone. Well...I suppose saying "This ad was paid for by Hillary Clinton" might fit under libel. But if that small piece had been left out, based on my reading of the case, he still could have been charged.

    Anyway, that's all I have for now. Don't say I didn't tell you so. I told you so over and over again.
    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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Why not just hold Big Business to the same bill of rights standards we are supposed to hold government to?

    Clearly Big Tech is acting as a government censor and in clear violation of the First Amendment.

    Just like BoA is acting like cops, in rounding up spending data for any of their "customers" that were in DC on 6 Jan. in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
    Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings. - Heinrich Heine 1823

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Why not just hold Big Business to the same bill of rights standards we are supposed to hold government to?

    Clearly Big Tech is acting as a government censor and in clear violation of the First Amendment.

    Just like BoA is acting like cops, in rounding up spending data for any of their "customers" that were in DC on 6 Jan. in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
    Fascism American Style. The Constitution doesn't apply because corporate personhood.

    Never mind that the CIA set these corporations up and made them dominant, despite being forbidden in its charter from operating domestically. Hell, the Constitution doesn't apply to the CIA anyway, right? It's not part of government any more. Now it runs the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  5. #4
    The point of Sec 230 is if you edit content - you are a publisher and not protected as a platform provider. The reality is large business lobbies to have protections extended to them to shield them from legal risk and competition rather than face the consequences of their actions.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    The point of Sec 230 is if you edit content - you are a publisher and not protected as a platform provider. The reality is large business lobbies to have protections extended to them to shield them from legal risk and competition rather than face the consequences of their actions.
    Have you read Section 230? Have you read the legislative history that brought Section 230? It's the opposite of what you are saying (unless I am greatly understanding what you are saying). The point of Section 230 is to not hold you as a publisher just because you moderate content. When Congress passed the CDA they WANTED content moderated. It was all about "save the kiddos from the porn." (LOL @ how that worked out.) Big tech would not be hurt by a repeal of Section 230. The only end result is that they would moderate content more. You want to post on your favorite conservative forum about Joe Biden's laptop? Your favorite conservative forum could be hit with a libel lawsuit. Facebook and Twitter are already squelching that information so nothing will change except they'll have more of an incentive to do that.
    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.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Why not just hold Big Business to the same bill of rights standards we are supposed to hold government to?

    Clearly Big Tech is acting as a government censor and in clear violation of the First Amendment.
    How do you differentiate in your mind Facebook acting as a government censor versus RPF acting as a government censor? And the "public function test" isn't "Is this private entity doing something I don't want the government to do." The public function test is "This private entity is doing what is typically expected of the government to do." For example, private prisons. Any ruling about prisoner's rights that applies to public prisons also applies to privately owned prisons. I can think of one way the public function test might apply. Post the 2016 (actually even before), Mark Zuckerberg and other "big tech" CEOs were hauled in front of congress to answer the question of why they didn't do more to "stop misinformation." Before that they were hauled in front of congress to ask why they allowed "ISIS" to recruit and post propaganda on their platforms. Back then "conservatives" were pushing big tech to do self censorship. I called into a local talk show host to explain why this was a bad idea and that, eventually, this would be used to go after conservatives. Note that this was before Alex Jones was "de-platformed." Anyhow, it's the fact that congress has been pushing FB and Twitter to do exactly what they are doing that may be the basis for an actual 1st amendment challenge. But if they are really doing this "on their own" then the first amendment doesn't apply.

    Just like BoA is acting like cops, in rounding up spending data for any of their "customers" that were in DC on 6 Jan. in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
    Hmmmm.....I had missed that story. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-rioters.html

    The first question I have is if BoA was hit with a "national security letter." Those, in and of themselves, are unconstitutional. BoA seems unwilling to confirm or deny if they were...which makes me thing the weren't. (If they were the "government made me do it" would be a decent defense against the public backlash.)

    Ever sense "America's Most Wanted" followed by "COPS" became hit shows decades ago I've worried about the glamorization of police state "rat on your neighbors" and "watch the cops beat people up" tactics. This seems to be to be an outgrowth of that. I think financial data should be protected the same way health data is protected under HIPPAA. Yes...that means asking for new regulations to be passed, something that libertarians are loath to ask to happen. But I don't see a clear path around that. The Trump campaign bought user data from Facebook back in 2016.

    I'm not sure what liability would be on FB for cooperating with an informal request from the FBI. (Considering the unconstitutional tools at the disposal of the FBI under the unPatriot Act I don't know why the didn't just do a formal request.) If the local police ask a landlord to plant a bug in a rental house and they don't have a warrant, what's the remedy? Yeah the case can be thrown out as "fruit from a poisonous tree." The rental contract most likely says the landlord can enter the premises to do inspections and repairs. I'm sure the defense attorneys will try to get the BoA information thrown out of court. It would be one thing if BoA volunteered it without being asked, but the fact that they were asks means the FBI may have trouble using it. BoA is facing customer backlash so perhaps the market will punish it sufficiently.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Fascism American Style. The Constitution doesn't apply because corporate personhood.

    Never mind that the CIA set these corporations up and made them dominant, despite being forbidden in its charter from operating domestically. Hell, the Constitution doesn't apply to the CIA anyway, right? It's not part of government any more. Now it runs the government.
    You know, I looked into the "CIA set up Facebook" theory. What I found is was Peter Thiel, the gay billionaire who introduced Trump at the 2016 RNC and who has been praised here sometimes for supporting right wing causes despite being a member of the Bilderberg Group, is the one that gave Zuckerberg his start up funding. Peter Thiel had (has?) the direct connection to the CIA. Thiel was also an advisor to president Trump. Thiel also does some odd things like taking blood transfusions from young blood donors as some kind of health tonic.

    https://stpaulresearch.com/2018/03/2...a-connections/

    https://www.businessinsider.com/pete...ecking-2019-12

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...g-Bilderberger

    Funny (not funny) about the amount of pushback I got a while back for daring, even tongue in cheek (no pun intended) to take on Peter Thiel.

    That said, I fully agree with you about the need to look into and push back against corporate personhood. Consider this. There is the "intracorporate conspiracy doctrine" which means that if members of a corporation conspire against you, you can't sue them under a conspiracy count because the corporation is consider to be a single entity.

    See: https://nahmodlaw.com/2012/10/08/sec...racy-doctrine/

    When I push back against corporate rights, some well meaning, but ill informed person, always comes back with "But corporations are made up of individuals and individuals have rights so corporations should be able to (fill-in-the-blank)." Well meaning, but ill informed person, never stops to think what kind of rights the corporate structure confers onto a group of individuals that they otherwise would not have.
    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.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Fascism American Style. The Constitution doesn't apply because corporate personhood.

    Never mind that the CIA set these corporations up and made them dominant, despite being forbidden in its charter from operating domestically. Hell, the Constitution doesn't apply to the CIA anyway, right? It's not part of government any more. Now it runs the government.
    Exactly. If you are Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, Moderate, or even Non Democrat, then you are NOT ALLOWED TO BE CONNECTED TO THE POWER GRID because "its a Private Company" that powers your (well, their) Electric Cars with 95% Coal! (or whatever the actual number is...)

    ---
    @Bryan - Perhaps this is a good time to make sure everyone knows how to access on the TOR Network? We need a TOR Domain Name! Not a UN ICANN controlled Domain Name...
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Exactly. If you are Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, Moderate, or even Non Democrat, then you are NOT ALLOWED TO BE CONNECTED TO THE POWER GRID because "its a Private Company" that powers your (well, their) Electric Cars with 95% Coal! (or whatever the actual number is...)

    ---
    @Bryan - Perhaps this is a good time to make sure everyone knows how to access on the TOR Network? We need a TOR Domain Name! Not a UN ICANN controlled Domain Name...
    It's funny that just a few years ago it was liberals who were trying to protect "net neutrality" and it was "conservatives" (some here) that were like "Noooo! Let the free market sort it out! Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers! Net neutrality is a secret plot for the government to take over the internet!"

    I'm trying to figure out what changed. Anyway, net neutrality is closer to what you are describing. Should ISPs, who are connecting to a network the government created, be allowed to "throttle" access to certain websites? The concern at the time was cable companies stopping consumer access to their competitors like Netflix and Hulu. That would be like an electric company, which also owned a TV station, refusing to sell electricity to a rival TV station.

    This is different. It's like I've bought up the major country radio stations in town and decided not to play the Dixie Chicks. (They've done pretty good for themselves without country station play BTW). Sure...theoretically Dixie Chick fans could put up their own radio station. And other non country stations could play them. (That happened). Now, if all of the country stations decided, on their own, not to play the Dixie Chicks (what to my knowledge happened), that's totally legal. But if there was ever any evidence that country music stations had a conversation between themselves saying "We're not going to play the Dixie Chicks"...well that would be an anti-trust violation.

    It's not difficult to create a clone of Twitter. (Facebook is such an awful monster of a website that I wouldn't dream of trying to code an equivalent). The question is, how to get people to go to another platform? Of course that happened with Gab and Parler, and then the platforms were "de-platformed." Which brings me back to the anti-trust point. It's not that the individual companies are independently coming up with the idea of de-platforming certain people. They are sharing data on who to de-platform and what to do about technologies that allow people to break out of their matrix. That's what we are really up against. And....it's criminal. And....it should be criminal.
    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.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Which brings me back to the anti-trust point. It's not that the individual companies are independently coming up with the idea of de-platforming certain people. They are sharing data on who to de-platform and what to do about technologies that allow people to break out of their matrix. That's what we are really up against. And....it's criminal. And....it should be criminal.
    Please excuse my ignorance because I don't know all the legal matters regarding this situation, but how is it legally criminal what these companies have been doing in regards to deplatforming?

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Exactly. If you are Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, Moderate, or even Non Democrat, then you are NOT ALLOWED TO BE CONNECTED TO THE POWER GRID because "its a Private Company" that powers your (well, their) Electric Cars with 95% Coal! (or whatever the actual number is...)

    ---
    @Bryan - Perhaps this is a good time to make sure everyone knows how to access on the TOR Network? We need a TOR Domain Name! Not a UN ICANN controlled Domain Name...
    I could be wrong, but wasn't TOR created/infiltrated by the CIA as well?
    Welcome to the R3VOLUTION!

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie RP fan View Post
    I could be wrong, but wasn't TOR created/infiltrated by the CIA as well?
    Maybe the CIA should do its $#@!ing job and arrest the $#@!ing traitors in office.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  14. #12
    Facebook apparently has 15,000 moderators.

    Repealing Section 230 would just increase their competitive advantage over startup competitors because they have the infrastructure for censorship already set up.

    It's not surprising that they're fine with it.

    And this topic is just a disaster because some people are stuck on thinking that Section 230 is actually bad because orange man good.

    What we should actually repeal is that Community Decency Act.
    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by sdsubball23 View Post
    Please excuse my ignorance because I don't know all the legal matters regarding this situation, but how is it legally criminal what these companies have been doing in regards to deplatforming?
    The text of the original Sherman Antitrust Act.

    Section 1:

    Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

    Section 2:

    Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.


    In recent hearings on de-platforming, Mark Zuckerberg was forced to admit that Facebook secretly shared information with Twitter and Google about who to deplatform. That would count as a conspiracy to monopolize a part of trade or commerce.
    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.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Maybe the CIA should do its $#@!ing job and arrest the $#@!ing traitors in office.
    I think you might have backwards what the CIA's job is.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    Facebook apparently has 15,000 moderators.

    Repealing Section 230 would just increase their competitive advantage over startup competitors because they have the infrastructure for censorship already set up.

    It's not surprising that they're fine with it.
    Exactly. And one result that most certainly would *not* come out of repealing Section 230 is decreased censorship of content individuals can post on any online platforms.

    Websites will go from being free to censor objectionable viewpoints to being positively obligated to do it. And the burden of deciding what viewpoints to censor will get shifted off of the private companies and onto the government.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's funny that just a few years ago it was liberals who were trying to protect "net neutrality" and it was "conservatives" (some here) that were like "Noooo! Let the free market sort it out! Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers! Net neutrality is a secret plot for the government to take over the internet!"

    I'm trying to figure out what changed
    .
    Whose ox was being gored.

    That's all.
    Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings. - Heinrich Heine 1823



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    How do you differentiate in your mind Facebook acting as a government censor versus RPF acting as a government censor? And the "public function test" isn't "Is this private entity doing something I don't want the government to do." The public function test is "This private entity is doing what is typically expected of the government to do." For example, private prisons. Any ruling about prisoner's rights that applies to public prisons also applies to privately owned prisons. I can think of one way the public function test might apply. Post the 2016 (actually even before), Mark Zuckerberg and other "big tech" CEOs were hauled in front of congress to answer the question of why they didn't do more to "stop misinformation." Before that they were hauled in front of congress to ask why they allowed "ISIS" to recruit and post propaganda on their platforms. Back then "conservatives" were pushing big tech to do self censorship. I called into a local talk show host to explain why this was a bad idea and that, eventually, this would be used to go after conservatives. Note that this was before Alex Jones was "de-platformed." Anyhow, it's the fact that congress has been pushing FB and Twitter to do exactly what they are doing that may be the basis for an actual 1st amendment challenge. But if they are really doing this "on their own" then the first amendment doesn't apply.
    I have no doubt in my mind that Big Tech is colluding with each other to determine who or what to ban.

    Hmmmm.....I had missed that story. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-rioters.html

    The first question I have is if BoA was hit with a "national security letter." Those, in and of themselves, are unconstitutional. BoA seems unwilling to confirm or deny if they were...which makes me thing the weren't
    That was bad one, because, as my understanding of it is: BoA did not hand over the records of specific people that the Feds had provided and shown to be under investigation.

    No, BoA threw out a dragnet into it's files, whoever's name came back as meeting the spending criteria (in DC on or around the 6th, bought plane tickets, spent money in a gun store etc.) is what they turned over to the feds, along with that spending record.
    Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings. - Heinrich Heine 1823

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I have no doubt in my mind that Big Tech is colluding with each other to determine who or what to ban.
    Absolutely. Suckerbooger admitted as much when testifying before congress. Straight up antitrust violation.

    That was bad one, because, as my understanding of it is: BoA did not hand over the records of specific people that the Feds had provided and shown to be under investigation.

    No, BoA threw out a dragnet into it's files, whoever's name came back as meeting the spending criteria (in DC on or around the 6th, bought plane tickets, spent money in a gun store etc.) is what they turned over to the feds, along with that spending record.
    Wow! Okay. I hate to say it. But there probably needs to be a new law. If this was health information BoA wouldn't be so cavalier about sharing it due to HIPPA. There needs to be similar legislation about financial data. I'm much more concerned about my financial records than my health records.
    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.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I think you might have backwards what the CIA's job is.
    Not when it is FOREIGN POWERS involved.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Maybe the CIA should do its $#@!ing job and arrest the $#@!ing traitors in office.
    I think you might have backwards what the CIA's job is.
    Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd thisgoeshere ...

    https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/stat...66447695945730


    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)

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



Similar Threads

  1. Allen West: If you like Medicare, kiss America goodbye
    By qh4dotcom in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-01-2011, 10:15 PM
  2. Today's PPI Explosion Means You Can Kiss Deflation Goodbye
    By bobbyw24 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-18-2010, 03:28 PM
  3. U.S. Dollar: Kiss Goodbye or Reversal at Hand?
    By bobbyw24 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-18-2009, 08:03 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2009, 05:58 AM

Posting Permissions

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