Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 49 of 49

Thread: A free market answer to the facebook/twitter problem.

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    This is incredibly simplistic (and rather childish) thinking of the problem that is occurring. It would be that simple if the freedom of association trumped freedom of speech. In fact, both of those things are important. And you don't have to pick one over the other.

    Anyone who has read I, Pencil understands that the economy is a complex series of interactions that end up in the product or service you use. So, when you use any service, you are engaging a long supply chain. In the case of these social media problems, as we have seen, you have the site that could ban you. If they don't drop you, you could have their host deny them service because they wouldn't ban you. If the host isn't working out, you could target banks, or advertisers, or any other myriad of options to deny someone their free speech. Just keep going one step back in the supply chain until you find a weak link.

    We understand, as Americans, that our rights are not granted by a Constitution, but that they are inherent in each individual. The Constitution provides that the government should make no law to infringe on your natural right to free speech. But governments are not the only ones that can violate your rights - in fact, that's why governments are created in the first place. Because others can violate your rights, and people want a body that can help guarantee them.

    If this were simply a freedom of association thing, then you'd be right. But that's not what's been happening. There has been an intent to silence a political viewpoint. Now, these companies are not just amicably breaking ties, they are doing it as a way to violate their right to speech. It comes down to the "good faith" article of 230. It is clear that has been violated, so it must be adjudicated. And it should get a rapid rise to the Supreme Court. "Good faith" needs defined by Constitutional ruling so that all parties engaging in this business understand the rules. The Big Tech companies are trying to have it both ways.
    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.
    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. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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.
    This is true. Which is why we need a Judicial Branch remedy here to curtail the Legislative and Executive Branches. Of course, that is if you're of the mind that things can be fixed using the system we have. I can see both sides of that argument clearly.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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.
    So, I wouldn't be opposed to that remedy either. (I wouldn't say 230 is a red herring though. That one section of 230 is what allows these particular companies to have undo protection from litigation. Banks can't do this. Insurance companies can't do this.)

    But you may be right as a matter of expediency.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    So, I wouldn't be opposed to that remedy either. (I wouldn't say 230 is a red herring though. That one section of 230 is what allows these particular companies to have undo protection from litigation. Banks can't do this. Insurance companies can't do this.)

    But you may be right as a matter of expediency.
    Please explain to me how to rewrite or repeal section 230 in a way that doesn't expose RonPaulForums.com to liability.
    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. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Please explain to me how to rewrite or repeal section 230 in a way that doesn't expose RonPaulForums.com to liability.
    Why should RPF have any liability at all for what a Free individual posts?

    Why should anyone think an ISP should be responsible for content??

    individuals are personally responsible.. not platforms.

    Why should you be liable for associating with Me? The Forum has allowed me. and I relieve the forum of All Responsibility for my posts.
    Last edited by pcosmar; 01-23-2021 at 11:28 PM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Please explain to me how to rewrite or repeal section 230 in a way that doesn't expose RonPaulForums.com to liability.
    See, I'd expect a Judicial review here more than a legislative rewrite. RPF has a mission statement. If political opinions or discussion is deemed to have violated its clearly posted mission statement, RPF would maintain the right to disband with users based on their political speech. However, big tech companies who propose to be neutral, but are then using actions to take a side would not be found to be operating in "good faith". And they'd be liable for damages, including punitive. In this case, a class action suit from nearly everyone who was deplatformed in this recent round.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    See, I'd expect a Judicial review here more than a legislative rewrite. RPF has a mission statement. If political opinions or discussion is deemed to have violated its clearly posted mission statement, RPF would maintain the right to disband with users based on their political speech. However, big tech companies who propose to be neutral, but are then using actions to take a side would not be found to be operating in "good faith". And they'd be liable for damages, including punitive. In this case, a class action suit from nearly everyone who was deplatformed in this recent round.
    I should mention that I see a few different remedies. I wouldn't suggest that we follow only one. The Anti-Trust angle should also be pursued.

    An interesting thing about pursuing multiple angles at once... When this happens, you tend to get some sort of settlement that serves to clarify the issue. Either way a settlement would go, you'd either get a positive solution that would diminish their power, or a rapidly developing competitive market to take advantage of the new landscape. (In either case, the long-term prospects for some of these tech stocks isn't so rosy.)
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  10. #38
    Unfortunately, I cannot rep jmdrake as I have done so too recently. A big thank you to both him and CaptUSA for their back and forth, because you two are fleshing out an important subject that needs addressing. I believe it is worth approaching the issue from more than one angle, as CaptUSA talks about above. Also, I believe jmdrake is entirely correct in all of his remarks about corporations and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

    It is a shame you two were not having this as a live conversation that was recorded. Both of you deserve attention for your efforts.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    See, I'd expect a Judicial review here more than a legislative rewrite. RPF has a mission statement. If political opinions or discussion is deemed to have violated its clearly posted mission statement, RPF would maintain the right to disband with users based on their political speech. However, big tech companies who propose to be neutral, but are then using actions to take a side would not be found to be operating in "good faith". And they'd be liable for damages, including punitive. In this case, a class action suit from nearly everyone who was deplatformed in this recent round.
    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.
    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.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Why should RPF have any liability at all for what a Free individual posts?

    Why should anyone think an ISP should be responsible for content??

    individuals are personally responsible.. not platforms.

    Why should you be liable for associating with Me? The Forum has allowed me. and I relieve the forum of All Responsibility for my posts.
    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.
    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.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    I should mention that I see a few different remedies. I wouldn't suggest that we follow only one. The Anti-Trust angle should also be pursued.

    An interesting thing about pursuing multiple angles at once... When this happens, you tend to get some sort of settlement that serves to clarify the issue. Either way a settlement would go, you'd either get a positive solution that would diminish their power, or a rapidly developing competitive market to take advantage of the new landscape. (In either case, the long-term prospects for some of these tech stocks isn't so rosy.)
    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.
    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.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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.
    You can always find a few exceptions, but the fact is the rich pay almost all the taxes and at a higher rate.

    There's nothing inherently anti free market in the concept of incorporating. It spreads out the burden of ownership. If the government has granted special privileges to corporations the answer is to reduce government interference not increase it with things like antitrust.

    Weren't you the one who thinks all the oil companies should be nationalized? Because it's a "community resource"?

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    You can always find a few exceptions, but the fact is the rich pay almost all the taxes and at a higher rate.
    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.





    There's nothing inherently anti free market in the concept of incorporating. It spreads out the burden of ownership. If the government has granted special privileges to corporations the answer is to reduce government interference not increase it with things like antitrust.
    You're complaining about corporations being given freedom from liability when the definition of a corporation is a government license to have freedom from liability. Your argument makes absolutely no sense. And sometimes "government interference" is actually NEEDED. The government helped create these giant megacorps that are owned by people all over the world, including foreign governments, and yet you naively think the only problem is "government interference?" Wake up! You have corporations either owned or in bed with the Chinese Communists getting unchecked access to your private data because of phony "free market" corporatism.

    Weren't you the one who thinks all the oil companies should be nationalized? Because it's a "community resource"?
    WTF? No. I've never said anything about anybody being nationalized let alone oil companies. You're delusional.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 01-24-2021 at 12:17 PM.
    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.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Danke; 01-24-2021 at 08:44 PM.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    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.
    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-ho...n-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.
    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.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Why should RPF have any liability at all for what a Free individual posts?
    It shouldn't. That's the point. When people demand the repeal of Section 230, they're saying it should.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    It shouldn't. That's the point. When people demand the repeal of Section 230, they're saying it should.
    It's not all or nothing. A clarification of 230(c)(2) would suffice.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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-ho...n-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.

    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?
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    OK, post those videos.


    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.

    "guy saved the lives of people in a waffle house by grabbing an AR-15." was that before shooting started or after?
    He grabbed the AR-15 after other people were shot. Ahmaud grabbed the shotgun after being hit by a truck.
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-25-2018, 09:34 AM
  2. Free Market answer to gun buybacks.
    By jdcole in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-28-2013, 12:20 PM
  3. Chicago Looks to Twitter for Answer to Gun Problem
    By CaseyJones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-30-2012, 12:12 PM
  4. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-24-2012, 03:36 PM
  5. What would be a free market solution to this problem?
    By messana in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-03-2011, 02:55 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
  •