Not on board with this one...
-
and yet, Hoorta - I haven't harrassed you with insults for years, ridiculed your Christianity for years, misdirected your threads for years...which is how he became the woodpecker.
But thanks - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
So, you are admitting to co-ordinated attacks on conservatives on this board, too?
Little weasel beak greta woodpecka needs a friend THAT badly?
what a sissy bird he is.
Here's your sign:
-
After reelection, Trump doesn't need Twitter anymore
You're joking right?
Of course he will.. And so will a plethora of conservative candidates across the board in future elections.
You're joking right?
Of course he will.. And so will a plethora of conservative candidates across the board in future elections.
Well, maybe that wasn't the best point for me make about this, but if the man farts, no matter what the platform, the world will know.
I guess the better point is, and I'm not speaking about other conservatives here just Trump, it's not going to help what he has an issue with at the moment. And that makes it rather disingenuous. I did see they blocked something of his this morning about the Minnesota cop (retaliation?), but the executive order appears to have been sparked over fact checking. If this was about James Woods or another conservative, it should have been done way back when.
There has to be some personal, not political, leeway on a private platform. For me, that line gets very blurry on fact checking. And I'm not comfortable with the government telling Twitter who they can or should fact check.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” -
You're joking right?
Of course he will.. And so will a plethora of conservative candidates across the board in future elections.
Well, maybe that wasn't the best point for me make about this, but if the man farts, no matter what the platform, the world will know.
I guess the better point is, and I'm not speaking about other conservatives here just Trump, it's not going to help what he has an issue with at the moment. And that makes it rather disingenuous. I did see they blocked something of his this morning about the Minnesota cop (retaliation?), but the executive order appears to have been sparked over fact checking. If this was about James Woods or another conservative, it should have been done way back when.
There has to be some personal, not political, leeway on a private platform. For me, that line gets very blurry on fact checking. And I'm not comfortable with the government telling Twitter who they can or should fact check.
Well, maybe that wasn't the best point for me make about this, but if the man farts, no matter what the platform, the world will know.
I guess the better point is, and I'm not speaking about other conservatives here just Trump, it's not going to help what he has an issue with at the moment. And that makes it rather disingenuous. I did see they blocked something of his this morning about the Minnesota cop (retaliation?), but the executive order appears to have been sparked over fact checking. If this was about James Woods or another conservative, it should have been done way back when.
There has to be some personal, not political, leeway on a private platform. For me, that line gets very blurry on fact checking. And I'm not comfortable with the government telling Twitter who they can or should fact check.
Social media is also still evolving. 5 years ago I don't think anyone would have expected the president to be utilizing Twitter like he is now.
This isn't directed at you htown, but I still haven't seen anything posted here explaining why Trump is in the right or why Twitter HAS to let him tweet whatever he wants. I'm un-ignoring posts and I'm just seeing a bunch of idiotic woodpecker insults. I've read some articles on what Section 230 is and I'm not seeing what grounds Trump has here.
If anyone actually has anything to contribute to defend Trump please let me know.
-
You're joking right?
Of course he will.. And so will a plethora of conservative candidates across the board in future elections.
Well, maybe that wasn't the best point for me make about this, but if the man farts, no matter what the platform, the world will know.
I guess the better point is, and I'm not speaking about other conservatives here just Trump, it's not going to help what he has an issue with at the moment. And that makes it rather disingenuous. I did see they blocked something of his this morning about the Minnesota cop (retaliation?), but the executive order appears to have been sparked over fact checking. If this was about James Woods or another conservative, it should have been done way back when.
There has to be some personal, not political, leeway on a private platform. For me, that line gets very blurry on fact checking. And I'm not comfortable with the government telling Twitter who they can or should fact check.
Well, maybe that wasn't the best point for me make about this, but if the man farts, no matter what the platform, the world will know.
I guess the better point is, and I'm not speaking about other conservatives here just Trump, it's not going to help what he has an issue with at the moment. And that makes it rather disingenuous. I did see they blocked something of his this morning about the Minnesota cop (retaliation?), but the executive order appears to have been sparked over fact checking. If this was about James Woods or another conservative, it should have been done way back when.
There has to be some personal, not political, leeway on a private platform. For me, that line gets very blurry on fact checking. And I'm not comfortable with the government telling Twitter who they can or should fact check.
The way I understand it is they want them to Fact Check everyone equally, is there anyone else besides conservatives that are being fact checked?
The example was China saying US troops brought Covid-19 virus to China and has still not been Fact Checked.
-
Well, maybe that wasn't the best point for me make about this, but if the man farts, no matter what the platform, the world will know.
I guess the better point is, and I'm not speaking about other conservatives here just Trump, it's not going to help what he has an issue with at the moment. And that makes it rather disingenuous. I did see they blocked something of his this morning about the Minnesota cop (retaliation?), but the executive order appears to have been sparked over fact checking. If this was about James Woods or another conservative, it should have been done way back when.
There has to be some personal, not political, leeway on a private platform. For me, that line gets very blurry on fact checking. And I'm not comfortable with the government telling Twitter who they can or should fact check.
The way I understand it is they want them to Fact Check everyone equally, is there anyone else besides conservatives that are being fact checked?
The example was China saying US troops brought Covid-19 virus to China and has still not been Fact Checked.
The way I understand it is they want them to Fact Check everyone equally, is there anyone else besides conservatives that are being fact checked?
The example was China saying US troops brought Covid-19 virus to China and has still not been Fact Checked.
That's how I understand it too.
I'm not trying to argue Twitter is being "fair" and I would run it differently myself, but Twitter is not obligated to fact check anyone. At the same time, when they do, it's their freedom to do so.
Trump's beef would find a lot more sympathy if it was twitter.gov, but it's not.
-
The way I understand it is they want them to Fact Check everyone equally, is there anyone else besides conservatives that are being fact checked?
The example was China saying US troops brought Covid-19 virus to China and has still not been Fact Checked.
That's how I understand it too.
I'm not trying to argue Twitter is being "fair" and I would run it differently myself, but Twitter is not obligated to fact check anyone. At the same time, when they do, it's their freedom to do so.
Trump's beef would find a lot more sympathy if it was twitter.gov, but it's not.
That's how I understand it too.
I'm not trying to argue Twitter is being "fair" and I would run it differently myself, but Twitter is not obligated to fact check anyone. At the same time, when they do, it's their freedom to do so.
Trump's beef would find a lot more sympathy if it was twitter.gov, but it's not.
Is Twitter a publisher or platform is the question.
I don't do Twitter so if they did away with it wouldn't bother me a bit.
-
As long as they aren't skewing the message, you can't realistically punish them. After reelection, Trump doesn't need Twitter anymore, why do this? You're fighting censorship with censorship. It just isn't the right thing to do here.
As long as they aren't skewing the message, you can't realistically punish them. After reelection, Trump doesn't need Twitter anymore, why do this? You're fighting censorship with censorship. It just isn't the right thing to do here.
Trump isn't fighting this, he just gave the power back to the people, as he said he was going to do.
He took away the protection from these Media Monsters that they've had.
Now people can SUE them for defamation, loss of Business/Income, etc.
I know of several people that use their Twitter/Facebook accounts for Business.
By these @$$holes nuking their account due to bias, they have not only infringed on the 1A Rights of these people, they've impaired/interfered with their Business.
More than one US Constitutional Amendment can apply in these cases.
Have you looked at Twitter stock the past few days ?
Big Money knows they are toast.
There are Lawsuits lined up on this in the Billions - Twitter can't do that, and they've got other issues as well coming (Child Porn/Trafficking, etc).
All predicted years ago :
-
Oh boy, now we know what Q thinks.... Thank god
-
Oh boy, now we know what Q thinks.... Thank god
The point is, if you paid attention, you knew this was coming and how it's going to play out.
You obviously never paid attention, or just don't care, so as far as you're concerned it's all irrelevant - ergo keep me on ignore.
-
When social media starts censoring only one side, only one president, they are no longer a "social media", but they become
a platform that is not protected under the law. It's their choice. They chose wrongly.
and woodpecker, you're usual stupid birdbrain statement - you are fine with censoring a statement like "gays are sinners"... is typically mindnumbed.
"unignored us"
lol.
liar woodpecker.
-
Oh boy, now we know what Q thinks.... Thank god
The point is, if you paid attention, you knew this was coming and how it's going to play out.
You obviously never paid attention, or just don't care, so as far as you're concerned it's all irrelevant - ergo keep me on ignore.
The point is, if you paid attention, you knew this was coming and how it's going to play out.
You obviously never paid attention, or just don't care, so as far as you're concerned it's all irrelevant - ergo keep me on ignore.
Mmmhmm, yes, Q always knew and Q knows what's going to happen next definitely. If you say enough shit, and then never have anyone follow up, you can claim whatever you want.
-
When social media starts censoring only one side, only one president, they are no longer a "social media", but they become
a platform that is not protected under the law. It's their choice. They chose wrongly.
and woodpecker, you're usual stupid birdbrain statement - you are fine with censoring a statement like "gays are sinners"... is typically mindnumbed.
"unignored us"
lol.
liar woodpecker.
When social media starts censoring only one side, only one president, they are no longer a "social media", but they become
a platform that is not protected under the law. It's their choice. They chose wrongly.
and woodpecker, you're usual stupid birdbrain statement - you are fine with censoring a statement like "gays are sinners"... is typically mindnumbed.
"unignored us"
lol.
liar woodpecker.
Again, Trump wasn't censored. I don't think you know what that word means.
You said "they are no longer a 'social media'". Alright, then what does it mean to be a "social media"?
What protections do they have under the law, what will they no longer have, and why do they no longer have them?
Where is Twitter obligated to be politically neutral?
They have a terms of service. They aren't run by the government.
-
When social media starts censoring only one side, only one president, they are no longer a "social media", but they become
a platform that is not protected under the law. It's their choice. They chose wrongly.
and woodpecker, you're usual stupid birdbrain statement - you are fine with censoring a statement like "gays are sinners"... is typically mindnumbed.
"unignored us"
lol.
liar woodpecker.
Again, Trump wasn't censored. I don't think you know what that word means.
You said "they are no longer a 'social media'". Alright, then what does it mean to be a "social media"?
What protections do they have under the law, what will they no longer have, and why do they no longer have them?
Where is Twitter obligated to be politically neutral?
They have a terms of service. They aren't run by the government.
Again, Trump wasn't censored. I don't think you know what that word means.
You said "they are no longer a 'social media'". Alright, then what does it mean to be a "social media"?
What protections do they have under the law, what will they no longer have, and why do they no longer have them?
Where is Twitter obligated to be politically neutral?
do your own freaking research, you claim to have a "superior I.Q." and you don't know how to use the INTERNET to RESEARCH?
stop chirping, dumb question bird. You can grow up any time and start answering your own stupid questions.
-
Again, Trump wasn't censored. I don't think you know what that word means.
You said "they are no longer a 'social media'". Alright, then what does it mean to be a "social media"?
What protections do they have under the law, what will they no longer have, and why do they no longer have them?
Where is Twitter obligated to be politically neutral?
do your own freaking research, you claim to have a "superior I.Q." and you don't know how to use the INTERNET to RESEARCH?
stop chirping, dumb question bird. You can grow up any time and start answering your own stupid questions.
do your own freaking research, you claim to have a "superior I.Q." and you don't know how to use the INTERNET to RESEARCH?
stop chirping, dumb question bird. You can grow up any time and start answering your own stupid questions.
I think that Cal really believes that you are a bird.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Again, Trump wasn't censored. I don't think you know what that word means.
You said "they are no longer a 'social media'". Alright, then what does it mean to be a "social media"?
What protections do they have under the law, what will they no longer have, and why do they no longer have them?
Where is Twitter obligated to be politically neutral?
do your own freaking research, you claim to have a "superior I.Q." and you don't know how to use the INTERNET to RESEARCH?
stop chirping, dumb question bird. You can grow up any time and start answering your own stupid questions.
do your own freaking research, you claim to have a "superior I.Q." and you don't know how to use the INTERNET to RESEARCH?
stop chirping, dumb question bird. You can grow up any time and start answering your own stupid questions.
... Did you already forgot I was just posting tweets Trump made where he was bragging about his IQ? The thing you're raging against is exactly what he did. My posts were to make that point
Who am I kidding? Of course you don't get it. I should have realized that was going to be list on you. Your brain doesn't understand how to function in the area between black and white.
Claims are being made and they aren't being backed up. Posters are ranting and raving about Twitter because Trump is mad at them. And if Trump doesn't like something you'll blindly hate it like a good little dog.
I'm pretty convinced Trump has no idea what 230 is.
-
those were reposted, birdbrain, not the same thing as doing your own research.
If I respected you a little bit, I'd upgrade you to a dodo.
Dodo
BirdThe dodo is an extinct flightless bird that was endemic to the island of Mauritius, east of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. The dodo's closest genetic relative was the also-extinct Rodrigues solitaire, the two forming the subfamily Raphinae of the family of pigeons and doves. The closest living relative of the dodo is the Nicobar pigeon. A white dodo was once thought to have existed on the nearby island of Réunion, but this is now thought to have been confusion based on the Réunion ibis and paintings of white dodos. They are believed to have become extinct due to a lack of intelligence, and an inherent instinct to pick fights with bigger, far older and smarter animals. -
Oh boy, now we know what Q thinks.... Thank god
The point is, if you paid attention, you knew this was coming and how it's going to play out.
You obviously never paid attention, or just don't care, so as far as you're concerned it's all irrelevant - ergo keep me on ignore.
The point is, if you paid attention, you knew this was coming and how it's going to play out.
You obviously never paid attention, or just don't care, so as far as you're concerned it's all irrelevant - ergo keep me on ignore.
I know you were referring to Woody. But My opinion is Twitter could go away tomorrow, and I'd never miss it. Only time I ever see anything is when Tweets get pulled off of it and posted here.
-
alas, perhaps one day you will grow up and stop being a woodpecker.
then you might evolve further into a dodobot.
-
those were reposted, birdbrain, not the same thing as doing your own research.
If I respected you a little bit, I'd upgrade you to a dodo.
Dodo
BirdThe dodo is an extinct flightless bird that was endemic to the island of Mauritius, east of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. The dodo's closest genetic relative was the also-extinct Rodrigues solitaire, the two forming the subfamily Raphinae of the family of pigeons and doves. The closest living relative of the dodo is the Nicobar pigeon. A white dodo was once thought to have existed on the nearby island of Réunion, but this is now thought to have been confusion based on the Réunion ibis and paintings of white dodos. They are believed to have become extinct due to a lack of intelligence, and an inherent instinct to pick fights with bigger, far older and smarter animals.those were reposted, birdbrain, not the same thing as doing your own research.
If I respected you a little bit, I'd upgrade you to a dodo.
Dodo
BirdThe dodo is an extinct flightless bird that was endemic to the island of Mauritius, east of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. The dodo's closest genetic relative was the also-extinct Rodrigues solitaire, the two forming the subfamily Raphinae of the family of pigeons and doves. The closest living relative of the dodo is the Nicobar pigeon. A white dodo was once thought to have existed on the nearby island of Réunion, but this is now thought to have been confusion based on the Réunion ibis and paintings of white dodos. They are believed to have become extinct due to a lack of intelligence, and an inherent instinct to pick fights with bigger, far older and smarter animals.Cal, and you wonder why I posted a MAGA pigeon?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login