LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Zuckerberg admits White House played a role in suppressing speech, we knew all along,

icanhelp1 said:
No, he would support congress passing a law making it illegal to burn the flag and he would sign.

"I want to get a law passed. Everyone tells me, oh sure, it's very hard. You burn an American flag, you go to jail for one year. Got to do it, we got to do it. They say, 'Sir, that's not constitutional.' We'll make it constitutional," said Trump during a National Guard address in Detroit on Monday August 26.
Click to expand...
HisArpy said:
The Constitution has a process to amend it.

But, unlike your idea that the government can ban guns, banning the burning of the flag for anything other than proper disposal, even for political speech/protest, could be within the realm of possibility given the makeup of the nation.

It is also the nature of political campaigns to make extraordinary statements to gauge if the public will endorse those statements or not.

You not liking it, because Trump, is irrelevant to reality.
Click to expand...
I agreed with Rehnquist dissent, would be interesting to see how this court would rule if congress actually passed a law with 2/3rds majority in each house.
 
icanhelp1 said:
I agreed with Rehnquist dissent, would be interesting to see how this court would rule if congress actually passed a law with 2/3rds majority in each house.
Click to expand...

I'd hope they'd rule the same until that law was ratified by the States.
 
HisArpy said:
I'd hope they'd rule the same until that law was ratified by the States.
Click to expand...
I’d be OK with a Convention of States. I see RED when I see these fucking Hamas sympathizers burning our flag on college campuses.
 
HisArpy said:
The Constitution has a process to amend it.

But, unlike your idea that the government can ban guns, banning the burning of the flag for anything other than proper disposal, even for political speech/protest, could be within the realm of possibility given the makeup of the nation.

It is also the nature of political campaigns to make extraordinary statements to gauge if the public will endorse those statements or not.

You not liking it, because Trump, is irrelevant to reality.
Click to expand...

You keep deflecting to crazy hyperbole. The majority of Americans are in support of gun violence laws. Not sure why you think that means banning all guns outright.

You keep having to make excuses for Trump. All trumpers do. Back to the if he said it he didn't mean it blah blah blah.
 
HisArpy said:
I'd hope they'd rule the same until that law was ratified by the States.
Click to expand...
icanhelp1 said:
I’d be OK with a Convention of States. I see RED when I see these fucking Hamas sympathizers burning our flag on college campuses.
Click to expand...
I wish you two could stay on the topic given by this idiot OP. Why are you two always like a largemouth bass for the hook of misinformation?
 
icanhelp1 said:
I’d be OK with a Convention of States. I see RED when I see these fucking Hamas sympathizers burning our flag on college campuses.
Click to expand...

I'm not.

A convention of the States means that everything is on the table. Given the political divide we're currently undergoing I don't want anyone near the Constitution with the power to abolish it and write a new one.
 
adrina said:
You keep deflecting to crazy hyperbole. The majority of Americans are in support of gun violence laws. Not sure why you think that means banning all guns outright.

You keep having to make excuses for Trump. All trumpers do. Back to the if he said it he didn't mean it blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

Lies.
 
Well, I disagree with the proposed flag-burning amendment, but I also oppose Newsom's attempt to repeal the Second Amendment. I'm kind of funny about defending my constitutional rights. I like to keep the ones that they haven't quite eroded yet.
 
The fact that Suckerberg finally admitted it, when it was too late, and when he knew that it would be buried deep in the online equivalent of the back pages, is very telling and a real indictment of the guy, which is saying a lot when you consider how he got Meta started.
 
icanhelp1 said:
I’d be OK with a Convention of States. I see RED when I see these fucking Hamas sympathizers burning our flag on college campuses.
Click to expand...
HisArpy said:
I'm not.

A convention of the States means that everything is on the table. Given the political divide we're currently undergoing I don't want anyone near the Constitution with the power to abolish it and write a new one.
Click to expand...

It would appear that you two are at odds. FIGHT! FIGHT!! FIGHT!!!

In the squared ring two fools enter.
No credible thought leaves.
 
SevMax2 said:
Well, I disagree with the proposed flag-burning amendment, but I also oppose Newsom's attempt to repeal the Second Amendment. I'm kind of funny about defending my constitutional rights. I like to keep the ones that they haven't quite eroded yet.
Click to expand...
Yeah
Link to this assault on your 2a by Newsom
Or.., you just know many people say he did??
Not a California thing I’ve heard
Regulate the shit out of your guns ?
Fuck yes!
But? You can have them
 
HisArpy said:
Lol, polls from 4 years ago.

Somebody should have spent a second or 2 and checked before posting. Wasn't that your gripe with my cite a day or so ago?
Click to expand...

Less than 1 year. 2023. Even one of them in 2024.

So not only do you hear what you want, you see what you want.

Your perception really does suck.
 
adrina said:
Less than 1 year. 2023. Even one of them in 2024.

So not only do you hear what you want, you see what you want.

Your perception really does suck.
Click to expand...

Not my fault you're gullible. And stupid. And a liar.
 
People should take anything Zuckerberg or any other social media big wig says with a block of salt.

Social media companies are finally being reigned in by governments and they do NOT like it. (See: The EU’s DSA & DMA, and the recent arrest of Pavel Durov (The CEO of Telegram).

Expect to see more grandstanding from Elmo, Zuck, Pavel, etc, to try and cast suspicions on governments over their LEGITIMATE efforts to curtail misinformation and disinformation, etc.

Side node:

The White House responded to Zuck’s pathetic, self-serving whining, and even the SCOTUS recognized that the government did NOTHING wrong by contacting social media companies to alert them about dangerous misinformation and disinformation, etc, on their platforms.

See here: From “The Hill”:

“The White House defended its actions in a statement to The Hill.

“When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety,” a spokesperson wrote in the statement. “Our position has been clear and consistent: we believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.”

And here:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/...uence-on-social-media-content-moderation/amp/

😳

Hope that ^ helps.

👍

👉 ineedhelp1, etc, 🤣

🇺🇸
 
HisArpy said:
I'm not.

A convention of the States means that everything is on the table. Given the political divide we're currently undergoing I don't want anyone near the Constitution with the power to abolish it and write a new one.
Click to expand...
So you aren’t voting for the Convict in Chief??

He doesn’t have the power now, but Project 2025 will help with that. I’m sure you are all for it, hypocreep!
 
so he 'felt' pressured by the gov't requesting his platform (among others) to crack down on deliberate misinformation

bless

with great power comes great responsibility, right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
We Knew This All Along
Replies
3
Views
103
RoryN
RoryN
Obama_Sucks
Your Assignment: Compile Obama’s Flip-Flops
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
JBCorbell
A paranoid style in American politics
Replies
1
Views
318
KingOrfeo
K
Back
Top