Alex Jones and Social Media Censorship

[DutchJazzer]

well this is a different viewpoint so it is probably some hate speech. anti fascist mods will ban me i guess,like the time i called the democrat who assasinated a president a racist democrat, guess i'll see you guys in 6 months.

if anyone wants to contact me while banned. babe got my email

 

[babe]

So of course the faction for censorship is the faction for authoritarian governance by unelected managerial professionals.

Pretty sad that a sports site has such a decided unbalance of political commenatoris in here that is as extreme as it is, and full of all kinds of "conspiracy theories" downing their opponents, who in Utah of all places is culturally cosmopolitan and educated and civil..... Republican yes, but more like a Romney RINO sort with a strong value on tolerance of other's opinions and beliefs....

 

[Gameface]

So of course the faction for censorship is the faction for authoritarian governance by unelected managerial professionals.

Pretty sad that a sports site has such a decided unbalance of political commenatoris in here that is as extreme as it is, and full of all kinds of "conspiracy theories" downing their opponents, who in Utah of all places is culturally cosmopolitan and educated and civil..... Republican yes, but more like a Romney RINO sort with a strong value on tolerance of other's opinions and beliefs....

Dude, you should get in on some of that Soros money. Get on board man. He takes really good care of his friends. PM me if you want the info.

 

[babe]

Dude, you should get in on some of that Soros money. Get on board man. He takes really good care of his friends. PM me if you want the info.

nah.

your conspiracy theories about conservatives are a hoot.

Soros, Rockefeller interests, Gates, Oprah, Besos, and a thousand other Bigs are all on record for their political interests and efforts. Not even disputable. Sure a handful of those Bigs are Conservatives, a substantial number of others are RINO sorts with the intellect of a Jonah in here.

Hillary and Obama and some others are pretty much ideological contemporary versions of pure Statist world agenda notions, who are within their logic frame of references committed to equalizing the world power distribution and to homogenizing the human populace and redistribution of lower class property, leveling the middle class down to a slightly improved lower class, for better management. None of this is even debatable nor any kind of "conspiracy". What you do or anyone does in the light of day, fully explaining your purposes, is hardly "conspiracy".

I might not win anyone in here to the idea of civil discussion and tolerance of a wide range of member views, but hey.... it would be an improvement.

 

[One Brow]

I might not win anyone in here to the idea of civil discussion and tolerance of a wide range of member views, but hey.... it would be an improvement.

You already get civil discussion (the moderators see to that) and tolerance (you have not been banned) for your views, as does everyone else in here. You are asking for what you already have.

 

[babe]

You already get civil discussion (the moderators see to that) and tolerance (you have not been banned) for your views, as does everyone else in here. You are asking for what you already have.

I consider it prima facia evidence that most Utah Jazz fans feel crowded outta the conversations in this forum by the brazen band of progressive hussies we have in here.

I could cite incidents but when it comes right down to it, every person needs to do their on reflections on their tone and comments.

And yes, there are those who are not of the described character I allege, some of whom have tried to tell me I'm just wasting my time trying to discuss anything in here.

 

[One Brow]

I consider it prima facia evidence that most Utah Jazz fans feel crowded outta the conversations in this forum by the brazen band of progressive hussies we have in here.

Am I a hussy? Cool!

The whole point of free speech and the free exchange of ideas is that bad ideas get crowded out by evidence and exposure. Try coming up with better ideas.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Dude, you should get in on some of that Soros money. Get on board man. He takes really good care of his friends. PM me if you want the info.

That’s how I paid for my car. I took Soros money to protest Chaffetz at his town hall at Bingham high a few years ago. Easy money

 

[Deleted member 365]

You already get civil discussion (the moderators see to that) and tolerance (you have not been banned) for your views, as does everyone else in here. You are asking for what you already have.

Why do I get the impression that when Trumpers demand “civil discussion” what they really mean is for others to “drop opposition and agree to believe in their insane controversies and nonstop Trump worship?”

I don’t recall Obama being very inflammatory or uncivil yet that didn’t stop the right from making insane and xenophobic stories up about him. I don’t recall calls for civil discussion when trump was running his mouth about birthirism, do you?

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

nah.

your conspiracy theories about conservatives are a hoot.

Soros, Rockefeller interests, Gates, Oprah, Besos, and a thousand other Bigs are all on record for their political interests and efforts. Not even disputable. Sure a handful of those Bigs are Conservatives, a substantial number of others are RINO sorts with the intellect of a Jonah in here.

Hillary and Obama and some others are pretty much ideological contemporary versions of pure Statist world agenda notions, who are within their logic frame of references committed to equalizing the world power distribution and to homogenizing the human populace and redistribution of lower class property, leveling the middle class down to a slightly improved lower class, for better management. None of this is even debatable nor any kind of "conspiracy". What you do or anyone does in the light of day, fully explaining your purposes, is hardly "conspiracy".

I might not win anyone in here to the idea of civil discussion and tolerance of a wide range of member views, but hey.... it would be an improvement.

I find it amusing that leftists mock the far right wing for being against Soros, a billionaire with a stated lifelong goal of leaving his imprint on all of humanity. Aren't they supposed to be the ones against dirty, evil rich people buying political favor? The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds these days. Instead of celebrating like-minded people for going after activist billionaires they mock them. And then wonder why the big fight continues.

 

[One Brow]

I find it amusing that leftists mock the far right wing for being against Soros, a billionaire with a stated lifelong goal of leaving his imprint on all of humanity. Aren't they supposed to be the ones against dirty, evil rich people buying political favor? The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds these days. Instead of celebrating like-minded people for going after activist billionaires they mock them. And then wonder why the big fight continues.

Criticizing Soros as part of the same criticisms of the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc. is a perfectly valid critique. Claiming that he is paying off caravan members or a member of a pedophile ring is not.

 

[Red]

I find it amusing that leftists mock the far right wing for being against Soros, a billionaire with a stated lifelong goal of leaving his imprint on all of humanity. Aren't they supposed to be the ones against dirty, evil rich people buying political favor? The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds these days. Instead of celebrating like-minded people for going after activist billionaires they mock them. And then wonder why the big fight continues.

A closer look at the "stealth politics" engaged in by American billionaires. I am against "rich people buying political favor".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...h-politics-america-100-richest-what-they-want

"Our new, systematic study of the 100 wealthiest Americans indicates that Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg et al are not at all typical. Most of the wealthiest US billionaires – who are much less visible and less reported on – more closely resemble Charles Koch. They are extremely conservative on economic issues. Obsessed with cutting taxes, especially estate taxes – which apply only to the wealthiest Americans. Opposed to government regulation of the environment or big banks. Unenthusiastic about government programs to help with jobs, incomes, healthcare, or retirement pensions – programs supported by large majorities of Americans. Tempted to cut deficits and shrink government by cutting or privatizing guaranteed social security benefits."

....... billionaires who favor unpopular, ultraconservative economic policies, and work actively to advance them (that is, most politically active billionaires) stay almost entirely silent about those issues in public. This is a deliberate choice. Billionaires have plenty of media access, but most of them choose not to say anything at all about the policy issues of the day. They deliberately pursue a strategy of what we call “stealth politics”.


We have come to this conclusion based on an exhaustive, web-based study of everything that the 100 wealthiest US billionaires have said or done, over a 10-year period, concerning several major issues of public policy. For each billionaire we used several dozen carefully selected keywords to find all publicly available information about their specific talk or actions related to any aspect of social security, any type of taxation, or anything related to abortion, same-sex marriage, or immigration policy."