Parler, free speech website, taken down from the web

Sounds exactly like the liberal playbook. Victim, victim, and more victims. But you can't see that can you?

This was really well stated. I think conveyed fairly as well. I’m just surprised regular people don’t see this. I feel like they allow themselves to get carried away by what the mob wants (both sides guilty there), and get completely deluded by self bias (both sides guilty there as well).

Ahh what fun, I love parler:

https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-deep-inside-u-s-capitol-building-1846042905

2600 bro wrote:

Christian bakers (or any baker) should, by and large, be allowed to refuse service to anyone, just like tech companies.

It is in Christian bakers' best interest as well as tech companies' to have clear guidelines about who they will serve and to stick to those guidelines.

We don't need government for this. Grow up people.

Wrong. Christian bakers cannot refuse to serve someone just because they are black, and based on a recent Supreme Court decision, can no longer refuse to serve someone based only on their sexual orientation.

But the analogy with the Christian baker is a bad one. People cannot help who they fundamentally are (gender, age, religion, disability, etc.) but they do have control over what they write and their behavior.

I despise all of those ultra rich people also George. Bezos, Soros, Oprah, and their ilk.

false equivalencies

you guys are idiots

enjoy your loss

"should" vs "may"

#405 wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Christian bakers (or any baker) should, by and large, be allowed to refuse service to anyone, just like tech companies.

It is in Christian bakers' best interest as well as tech companies' to have clear guidelines about who they will serve and to stick to those guidelines.

We don't need government for this. Grow up people.

Wrong. Christian bakers cannot refuse to serve someone just because they are black, and based on a recent Supreme Court decision, can no longer refuse to serve someone based only on their sexual orientation.

But the analogy with the Christian baker is a bad one. People cannot help who they fundamentally are (gender, age, religion, disability, etc.) but they do have control over what they write and their behavior.

josiahi l Williams wrote:

I despise all of those ultra rich people also George. Bezos, Soros, Oprah, and their ilk.

I don't despise their wealth, but more the fact that they got to where they are at primarily on the backs of normal hard working people & perks and loopholes from the government, yet struggle to give back via taxes, livable wages, and other meat & potatoes kinds of ways.

As far as screaming "victims" that is how liberal democrats are painted by the right. I have an easier time understanding a person of color, a gay person, or women coming from a victim mentality after what I have seen over my lifetime. It is tough for me to watch Ted Cruz or people of that ilk throw temper tantrums over their "message" not being heard, especially when they have faced few to no barriers in their lifetime and their party repeatedly fails to provide a message.

When I was a republican I was led to believe they stood for less government, fiscal responsibility, and it was a time when military presence was seemingly wanted/needed. Now, after this shiiit-show, they really just move from topic to topic, making up the lies as they go, with no target in sight beyond perpetuating their own perceived value.

2600 bro wrote:

"should" vs "may"

#405 wrote:

Wrong. Christian bakers cannot refuse to serve someone just because they are black, and based on a recent Supreme Court decision, can no longer refuse to serve someone based only on their sexual orientation.

But the analogy with the Christian baker is a bad one. People cannot help who they fundamentally are (gender, age, religion, disability, etc.) but they do have control over what they write and their behavior.

What are you saying - businesses "should" be allowed to refuse service on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.? It is illegal to refuse service based on specific protected classes.

Apart from that, a business can establish any criteria they want. A credit card company can close your account, a bank can refuse to give you a loan, a bartender can refuse to serve an intoxicated customer, etc. Generally, a business won't provide service if they believe that doing so would cause the company to lose revenue or damage its reputation.

josiahi l Williams wrote:

SeattleSilver wrote:

"Plenty of evidence of voter fraud"? Yet when Trump's attorneys had the opportunity to argue fraud, on the merits and before Trump appointed and other GOP judges, they always backed off and talked about administrative procedures (that were known to both sides before the voting so certainly not within the definition of fraud). Why? Because despite your claim, there really isn't any evidence of fraud. It they'd had that evidence they would have presented it, and it would have given Trump the best chance to chance the vote in one or more battleground states.

Assuming you confusion is in good faith, you are treating public statements and internet blog report about fraud with real evidence of fraud.

Wrong thread old white guy. Sorry.

Well, I was responding to an explicit claim by Bound4Glory in this thread.

I was never explaining was the law WAS. You were just too excited to spam WRONG :) I was arguing for a model where we preserve free association.

#405 wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

"should" vs "may"

What are you saying - businesses "should" be allowed to refuse service on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.? It is illegal to refuse service based on specific protected classes.

Apart from that, a business can establish any criteria they want. A credit card company can close your account, a bank can refuse to give you a loan, a bartender can refuse to serve an intoxicated customer, etc. Generally, a business won't provide service if they believe that doing so would cause the company to lose revenue or damage its reputation.

josiahi l Williams wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Because prejudice should always be challenged. That it bothers you, what do you think that says about you?

"If you look for prejudice, you will see it everywhere. "

It isn't hard to find when it is on parade. Proud Boy?

Bound4Glory wrote:

There is plenty of evidence of voter fraud.

holy bleep you trumpers are so flipping ridiculous. Where is this evidence? Why haven't REPUBLICAN judges seen any in court yet?

Paradoxical wrote:

George Floyd dies from a heart attack resisting arrest while high on meth and fentanyl

Missing Parler eh?

May I suggest that you and the rest of your hooded "klan" create your own app? I hear MIT has easy to use software that even kids can use

welp wrote:

Paradoxical wrote:

George Floyd dies from a heart attack resisting arrest while high on meth and fentanyl

Missing Parler eh?

May I suggest that you and the rest of your hooded "klan" create your own app? I hear MIT has easy to use software that even kids can use

It's a shame how many black people choose to commit suicide when apprehended by the police - especially white police.

TinaTurningin wrote:

Ahh what fun, I love parler:

https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-deep-inside-u-s-capitol-building-1846042905

How many have Twitter?

Facebook?

Snapchat?

Instagram?

Apple?

Android?

I mean, any of those companies are just as much promoting insurrection if they're on any device inside the building right?

Does anyone have actual numbers on how big a percentage on Parler constitutes as hate speech?

What would the similar number on other platforms be?

Baffling how so many people hate so much that they have lost any critical thinking as to what the current deplatforming will lead...

Disclaimer:

I am 100% anti-trump and would be labelled as extreme radical left by Sean Hannity and the members of thedonald.win.

Those are the facts bro guy's autopsy showed he had enough drugs to easily be cause of death. The optic was bad but the technique used had been used over a hundred times in Minneapolis alone. It definitely didn't justify doing 2 billion dollars of damage nationwide plus the loss of life that resulted from these riots. He was the wrong case if you want to minimize police 'brutality'. Chose a different hill to die on.

AOC wants to set up a Ministry of Truth:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/aoc-commission-truth-rein-in-media-slammed-unamerican

comedyrel13f wrote:

AOC wants to set up a Ministry of Truth:

If they overturned Reagan's executive order that made news media no longer have to state sources (not specific individuals) and substanciate fact, could in revert from the current state of lies and sensationalism?

Reagan accepted huge campaign contributions from Murdock of Fox News in exchange for the executive order stating Fox News was 'entertainment', not news, and no longer had to be honest show facts. With the pea-brained attention spans of Americans, the other news organizations followed. We then got to 2016 and a guy in charge who lies even when the truth would serve him better and we are possibly at a point of no return. Each lies or at least spins more than the next in an attempt to pull ratings and it gives a platform to blathering idots who have their own shows.