(05-20-2019 03:24 AM)felix_vagabondo Wrote:  The question is, how exactly would you regulate this industry? You can't just divvy up the accounts, like with Broadband providers, because it's by nature a single global forum. And if you banned Facebook, surely it would be replaced by others who provide the same service.

It's very simple. If they want to be publishers (they do and are) rather than platforms like they promised congress they would be, then they lose their CDA Section 230 protections.

If you don't know what those are, then you've got no business piping up about this subject.

(05-20-2019 09:13 AM)tomtud Wrote:  Certain countries ban certain sites. A government can ban access to Facebook. Even VPNs can be minimilized. They can issue penalties and fines for visiting Facebook. The best situation is if Facebook and the others had competition. But MySpace fizzled out.

China already has done this, and every indication is that Russia is about to.

(05-20-2019 09:29 AM)Deepdiver Wrote:  Back onto the Trump Topic - his leading Dem polling opponent:

Humor...

https://joebiden.info/

Scroll down for disclaimer:

This site is political commentary and parody of Joe Biden's Presidential campaign website. This is not Joe Biden's actual website. It is intended for entertainment and political commentary only and is therefore protected under fair use. It is not paid for by any candidate, committee, organization, or PAC. It is a project BY AN American citizen FOR American citizens. Self-Funded.

All things Creepy Commie-loving Corrupt old Joe in one place.

The good old days of Jon Stewart who was a leftie, but who could still make fun of democrats.





This has become increasingly radical.

Jon Stewart aka Jon Leibowitz is probably the most disgusting person I've ever seen on TV.

Why does this guy go to such lenghts to hide his jewishness?

(05-20-2019 07:59 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  You literally support the de-platforming, banning of Roosh on all platforms.

That's not true; I am grateful that Roosh's work has continued and is still available on various platforms that compete in the digital media space.

When a platform bans a user, it is essentially a business to decision to vacate a specific market. This creates an opportunity for whole new platforms to occupy that space. It forces the user to innovate and open up new pathways for getting his message out there. That's not a bad thing.

When a company begins to willingly sacrifice potential market share, playing right into the interests of its competitors, then you start to wonder about its long-term viability.

(05-20-2019 07:59 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  By that measure a private gas and electric company could shut you off because you vote Trump.

Wrong. Utility companies are granted a permit to operate on the condition that they serve all of the customers in a specified geographic region. The same goes for waste disposal. Ever notice that there's only one company that owns the electric lines, and hauls away your garbage? The government gives them permission to operate a monopoly, apparently because it's the most efficient way to run certain industries. Facebook, etc., on the other hand, have a wide range of competitors (In fact, we're utilizing the services of one of those competitors as we speak.)

(05-20-2019 07:59 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  By your perception it's all dandy to have banned Roosh off Amazon and various other platforms! Amazon and a few other companies already work like a monopoly. The internet itself creates natural monopolies.

Wrong. I couldn't give a shit who Amazon or anyone else bans. They're not monopolies.

Roosh's books are still available for purchase from many of Amazon's competitors, for which I'm grateful.

Just because they're really large doesn't mean they're a monopoly. There are countless platforms online where people can buy and sell goods.

What I would find objectionable is a business decision by an Internet Service Provider to intentionally disrupt or modify the service of its customers, unless it could be shown that the ISP industry is broken up enough that there's adequate competition and people could go somewhere else if they wanted to.

(05-20-2019 07:59 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  By that measure Roosh had nothing to complain about when being canceled by the payment processors.

If you're talking about Visa and Mastercard, this is a more serious issue, since such companies are few in number, something resembling a monopoly. They should have the right to ban users (I'm thinking like mass murderers and corrupt dictators). But should they ban Roosh? I would say that their monopoly status gives them special responsibilities to cover Roosh. But if you're talking about PayPal and Stripe... not monopolies... so they should be allowed to ban at will. Plus, by restricting access to the Dollar market, such companies are only encouraging the emergence of alternative currencies.

(05-20-2019 07:59 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  Also next no complaint when hotels cancel him, AirBnB bans him, and maybe later bank accounts are closed because he is a terrible male supremacist (literally the definitions).

Being "a terrible male supremacist" (your words, not mine) is not a protected status for the sake of public accomodations. I'm not saying I support their decisions, but I know that if somebody bans me from their private hotel because they don't like my ideas, I'd be happy to stay somewhere else. Also, do you think I'd be on this forum talking to you if I held the same opinion of Roosh as AirBnb does?

(05-20-2019 07:59 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  Such statements can be safely called identical to SJW.

This is where you really start to go off the rails, man.

SJWs believe that private enterprise is greed and the economy should be planned out by a centralized agency. How that relates to my points is totally beyond my comprehension.

(05-20-2019 07:59 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  And if you as a libertarian believe that this works well without regulation, then you are utterly deluded. The power structure in a real free libertarian model would long have to be broken up.

Remind me again where I identified as libertarian?

The system we've got in place (private entrepreneurs make operational decisions, government breaks up monopolies and regulates any negative externalities, and I get dirt cheap goods imported from the global market, freeing up my time to learn coding or other high-value skills) has resulted in billions of people being raised up out of poverty. I'm pretty much on board with that.

(05-20-2019 07:59 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  Oh - and your ideas that Somalis would produce the same results as Swedes because "there are good industrious people everywhere" - that is also SJW 101 so far away from reality that you could instantly get a position at Antifa.

There you go again, Simeon_Strangelight, putting words in my mouth.

I was merely observing that claims of intrinsic racial superiority are empirical (originating in or based on observation or experience), whereas the claim that a man could become a woman is simply logically false prima facie. Do you know what that means? Maybe you and Leonard D Neubache should be study buddies and take a Logic 101 course.

With regards to your invitation to join Antifa... Thanks, but I'm not into the idea of cowardly sucker-punching somebody for having a different view.

(05-20-2019 10:11 AM)Malone Wrote:  It's very simple. If they want to be publishers (they do and are) rather than platforms like they promised congress they would be, then they lose their CDA Section 230 protections.

I actually learned something today, in between dealing with a flood of bullshit ad hominem and red herring arguments. Thank you for making a real argument that is to the point, and not a total waste of time to address.

(05-20-2019 10:11 AM)Malone Wrote:  [...] you've got no business piping up about this subject.

I didn't really ask for your permision, Malone. I'll say whatever I want, and if you don't like it you don't have to listen, or you can offer a counter-argument, which you did, and I'm grateful for that. That's called free speech. There's also freedom to ignore speech, so maybe you should look into that.

I could already tell a few pages back felix wasn't going to last long here. I doubt it'll be long before he gets the banhammer.

You can really read the abrasiveness in some people's posts from day 1.

(05-20-2019 06:31 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  I could already tell a few pages back felix wasn't going to last long here. I doubt it'll be long before he gets the banhammer.

You can really read the abrasiveness in some people's posts from day 1.

I knew you were right when you posted this, but I thought it'd take another couple of days.

(05-21-2019 10:45 AM)Malone Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 06:31 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  I could already tell a few pages back felix wasn't going to last long here. I doubt it'll be long before he gets the banhammer.

You can really read the abrasiveness in some people's posts from day 1.

I knew you were right when you posted this, but I thought it'd take another couple of days.

same here, that was quick

Oh, for f*ck's sake...

Meanwhile...

For those who don't know who DeStefano is, this tweet back in June 2018 helps.

(05-20-2019 07:54 AM)heavy Wrote:  Drudge headline...

"White House to focus on investment in Middle East as part of peace proposal"

Is there any way we could quit investing in a giant sand-box and not depend on that area for oil?

Diversify energy sources so that the USA is less dependent on oil.

The last 50 pages can be summed as:

"Trump is being sabotaged by his own people"

leading to...

"Why does Trump keep appointing people who sabotage him"

because..

"Trump is being sabotaged by his own people"

Not that it matters, but it has to be obvious now that Trump is an antisocial personality type with very little in the form of a moral code. Whatever positive traits he exhibits politically are the result of genetic coding, the spitting image of Patton, germanic collective unconscious seeping through. His own "personality" though is much closer to Patrick Bateman. The first time I saw how he decorated his home, I knew something was wrong. His house looks like a judeo-russian oligarch, which I would say is his closest comparison.

This is from 5 May, but I just learned of this.

W.T. Fuck happened?

(Yesterday 11:43 AM)MOVSM Wrote:  This is from 5 May, but I just learned of this.

W.T. Fuck happened?

Despite being a crazy Dem in other ways, Schumer has been consistently in favor of getting tough with China on trade.

The alien parasites were priming China as their new host to latch on to when they abandoned the dying husk of the West.

Indications are that China has double-crossed them. So now instead of the parasites selling America out to the Chinese like they have for the last two decades via the Clinton cartel, they've been forced to try and put the screws back on their next prospective victim and bring them to heel again.

Schumer gives a shit about America being gutted on trade? Give me a fucking break. He'd sell all of you for dog-meat and sleep like a baby.

Sucks to suck, you rat bastards. Regardless of what happens to the West I hope the Chinese shut you out and your botched move to the next victim leaves you to burn in the light of day.

^ Good point.

I think their next move is twofold, based on South America as the first option. They already have their ethnic guys in Peru (or is it Chile) and they're gunning for Venezuela.

Oil wealth they can siphon off after "privatization", like they did with Yukos in Russia.

Second, I think they're going for Australia, Canada and New Zealand as mentioned before. Canada is probably on the way out as canadians are already a province of China.

This thread is too low energy. Let's get it picked up!

Build Me - Dude wears brick wall suit and gets asked up on stage by Trump at his latest rally:





Interview of the Brick Wall Suit Guy on Fox & Friends:





ZeroHedge - Pentagon Declares Victory In Non-War: Iran Forced To Put Attacks "On Hold"

Quote:And just like that it's over — war averted, apparently, as the Pentagon announced Tuesday US defense posturing and military build-up in the Persian Gulf has thwarted potential attacks an Americans.

Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Iran was forced to “put on hold” plans to harm American troops and their allies in the region:

QUOTE:
“I think our steps were very prudent and we’ve put on hold the potential for attacks on Americans and that is what is extremely important,” Shanahan told reporters at the Pentagon, though without giving specifics.

He added that Iran was ultimately forced to "recalculate" its aggression.
END QUOTE

Since John Bolton's May 5th statements citing "credible intelligence" of a heightened Iran threat which supposedly put US troops in the cross hairs there's been next to nothing in terms of actual details.

Instead the past two weeks has witnessed incessant blustering out of Washington, with daily threats that military action was looming against Iran.

And now with zero evidence that Iran was readying an attack, the Pentagon is essentially declaring victory following statements by Trump that he is not willing to escalate, but instead telling Iran's leaders to "call me".

During Shanahan's press briefing he still underscored "the credibility of the intelligence" and called US deployment of a carrier strike group and B-52 bombers "very prudent". Through these measures, he claimed, "we have put on hold the potential for attacks on Americans and that’s what’s extremely important."

QUOTE:
I’d say we’re in a period where the threat remains high and our job is to make sure that there is no miscalculation by the Iranians,” Shanahan added.

“I just hope Iran is listening. We’re in the region to address many things, but it is not to go to war with Iran,” the Defense Secretary said.
END QUOTE

Previously Trump warned Monday that he was ready to use “great force” if Iran harmed American interests in the region. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had also made statements saying it was "quite possible" Iran had sabotaged four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz last week, which actually appeared to be a softening of expectations the White House would come out and directly blame Iran.

A funny line of comments from Reddit on the above:

Quote:Oh wow its almost like this was all a game of chicken and Iran wasn’t actually fucking retarded enough to wage war on the US, exactly what I said it would be.

Jesus really sick and tired of people saying Trump’s gonna start a war when Trump’s harsh rhetoric has proven to be from North Korea to Syria, always be about getting the otherside to back down before war is required.

Trump isn’t bush and 9/11 didn’t just happen.

Quote:All the "Trump's gonna start a war"-mongers are really the actual war-mongers who WANT WAR.

Ever notice how they get PISSED when says he's pulling out of Syria? Or wants world peace with NK + Russia? They are besides themselves.

But if he says he "has to strike Assad" or some shit they praise him. Say he's "Presidential".

Our MSM are hypocritical, war-mongers.
No need to read between the lines. The writing's on the wall.

Quote:John Bolton came into my room to bring me a plate of atomic warfare and I literally screamed at him and hit the plate of atomic warfare out of his hand. He started yelling and swearing at me and I slammed the door on him. I'm so distressed right now I don't know what to do. I didn't mean to do that to John Bolton but I'm literally in shock from the results tonight. I feel like I'm going to explode. Why the fucking fuck are we not unnecessarily risking American lives? This can't be happening. I'm having a fucking breakdown. I don't want to believe the world is so peaceful. I want a future to fear about. I want Hillary to be president and continue feeding the military-industrial complex. I cannot fucking deal with this right now. It wasn't supposed to be like this, I thought we were going to turn the middle east into glass?? This is so fucked.

Judge Orders Antifa Activist Yvette Felarca to Pay Judicial Watch Legal Fees for Her ‘Entirely Frivolous’ Lawsuit

Quote:(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced that a U.S. District Judge in California awarded Judicial Watch $22,000 in legal fees in a case filed by an Antifa organizer in an effort to block Judicial Watch from obtaining information about her activities.

Yvette Felarca, a middle school teacher in the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), and two co-plaintiffs were ordered to pay Judicial Watch $22,000 in attorney’s fees and $4,000 in litigation costs. Felarca had sued the BUSD in federal court to keep the school district from fulfilling its legal obligation to provide Judicial Watch with records of their communications mentioning: Felarca, Antifa, and/or BAMN. Judicial Watch also asked for Felarca’s personnel file.

Felarca is a prominent figure in By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), a group founded by the Marxist Revolutionary Workers League that protests conservative speaking engagements. In 2016, Felarca and two of her allies were arrested and charged with several crimes, including felony assault, for inciting a riot in Sacramento. Earlier this year, Felarca was ordered to stand trial for assault.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, Northern District of California, who had previously ruled that Felarca’s lawsuit was “entirely frivolous,” wrote in his ruling awarding legal fees to Judicial Watch that Felarca and her co-plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims were “premised on the obviously baseless assumption” that the First Amendment condemns the speech of some while condoning the ideological missions of others.

Judge Chhabria added that “The plaintiffs also mischaracterized the documents under review” and that the plaintiffs “failed to grapple with the role Ms. Felarca played in making herself a topic of public discourse through her physical conduct at public rallies and her voluntary appearance on Fox News.”

Judge Chhabria’s order also states that “a significant portion of the documents the plaintiffs initially sued to protect from disclosure had been publicly disclosed months earlier in another suit brought by Ms. Felarca against BUSD, where she was represented by the same counsel. (See generally Felarca v. Berkeley Unified School District, No. 3:16-cv-06184-RS). The plaintiffs, therefore, had no reasonable argument to protect those documents from disclosure.”

Along with Felarca’s $20,000 payment, co-plaintiffs Lori Nixon and Larry Stefl were ordered by Judge Chhabria to pay Judicial Watch $1,000 each (Yvette Felarca, et al., v. Berekely Unified School District, et al. (No. 3:17-cv-06282-VC)).

“Judicial Watch is entitled to attorney’s fees because the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was frivolous, and their litigation conduct was unreasonable,” Judge Chhabria wrote in his order.

Additionally, Judge Chhabria’s order holds the plaintiffs “jointly and severally liable” to pay Judicial Watch $4,000 in litigation expenses.

In 2017, Judicial Watch filed a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request seeking public records information about Felarca’s Antifa activism and its effect within the Berkeley Unified School District. In her lawsuit aimed at keeping the Berkeley school district from furnishing the records, Felarca alleged that Judicial Watch was misusing the law for political means and the district should refuse to provide the information.

In January 2018, a separate judge ordered Felarca to pay more than $11,000 in attorney and court fees for her frivolous attempt to get a restraining order against Troy Worden, the former head of the University of California (UC) Berkeley College Republicans.

“This is a huge victory for Judicial Watch against Antifa and the violent left,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Ms. Felarca attacked Judicial Watch without basis and the court was right to reject her ploy to deny our ‘right to know’ because we don’t share her violent left views.”

Breitbart, Sean Spicer Wrote:Exclusive – Sean Spicer: Huawei, the Threat that Is Hiding in Plain Sight

This makes Huawei 5G acutely dangerous.

For you see, while Huawei claims to be just another independent telecom company, that’s just not the case.

China’s 2017 Intelligence Law clearly states that any “organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with” China’s security services. That law applies to Huawei and all Chinese companies.
...
“Chinese-designed 5G networks will provide near-persistent data transfer back to China that the Chinese government could capture at will,” they warned.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/...ain-sight/

Spicer, you magnificent cuck, the US government cooperates with tech corporations to have backdoors in operating systems, clouds, phones, TVs, microchips, cars and mobile towers to spy on the entire world - and you're trying to scare us about Huawei? Fuck off.

(Yesterday 12:21 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The alien parasites were priming China as their new host to latch on to when they abandoned the dying husk of the West.

Indications are that China has double-crossed them.

This is a very interesting and important point.
Can you expand on this ?
Specifically in which exact ways the Chinese outsmarted/betrayed/double crossed them ?
Western countries have a lot of very valuable lessons to learn from the Chinese regarding (((alien parasite))) control .

(Yesterday 08:11 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Breitbart, Sean Spicer Wrote:Exclusive – Sean Spicer: Huawei, the Threat that Is Hiding in Plain Sight

This makes Huawei 5G acutely dangerous.

For you see, while Huawei claims to be just another independent telecom company, that’s just not the case.

China’s 2017 Intelligence Law clearly states that any “organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with” China’s security services. That law applies to Huawei and all Chinese companies.
...
“Chinese-designed 5G networks will provide near-persistent data transfer back to China that the Chinese government could capture at will,” they warned.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/...ain-sight/

Spicer, you magnificent cuck, the US government cooperates with tech corporations to have backdoors in operating systems, clouds, phones, TVs, microchips, cars and mobile towers to spy on the entire world - and you're trying to scare us about Huawei? Fuck off.

Apple and Google want their own spy tech and not the Chinese tech. All this hysteria is just to throttle Huawei agreessive push into the USA market. Chinese phones have cracked the code of offering good tech and features for cheap and Apple and Google can't compete if similar power of phones from China sell for a quarter of the price as the Apple.