Are you a liberal or lefty?

[f6john]

I watched the Prager University video explaining the differences and found it to be very informative. Now I don’t know if Dennis Prager is the final word on the subject but it seems he has done his homework on the subject. We tend to throw around the two terms, liberal and the left, as if they are one and the same but are they? Worth a few minutes of your time.

https://www.prageru.com/videos/left-or-liberal

[Serk]

I consider myself a classical liberal...

Dave Rubin also has a nice video on the difference between real liberals (Or classical liberals) and modern liberals, which are more akin to fascists in many ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8

"Defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position."

[98valk]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/kennedy-was-no-conservative/

[Robert]

The video that got Alex Jones banded from all platforms.

So its OK for Maxine Waters to call for the confrontation of elected officials and to have them booted out of restaurants but when these elitists get exposed its another story.

THIS NEEDS TO STOP, ITS CENSORSHIP OF THE RIGHT.

Twitter and CNN's Oliver Darcy both announced the Alex Jones news at precisely 4:47pm. Interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p6-IDyL7Fk

Jones and his empire have also been banned from Apple,YouTube, Facebook, Google Podcast, Spotify, iHeartRadio, MailChimp, Disqus, Linkedin, Flickr, Pinterest and several others in what silicon valley swears wasn't a coordinated "unpersoning" of Jones.

[Jess from VA]

No.

Though I do support maximum personal freedom and liberty (from government intrusion) under the constitution (something liberals used to support quite strongly).

[f6john]

No.

Though I do support maximum personal freedom and liberty (from government intrusion) under the constitution (something liberals used to support quite strongly).

No, to what?

[The emperor has no clothes]

I don't know. Many here have said I'm both. I prefer to think of myself as a patriotic American. But, I understand many need to label.

[Rain Man]

I’m neither one. 20+ years ago I considered myself a Democrat. But they seemed to leave the Plain Ole Working Man behind. But, now in today’s political 2 Ringed Circus I think the 2 Party system is totally broken.
I say “RE-ELECT NO-ONE”

[98valk]

I’m neither one. 20+ years ago I considered myself a Democrat. But they seemed to leave the Plain Ole Working Man behind. But, now in today’s political 2 Ringed Circus I think the 2 Party system is totally broken.
I say “RE-ELECT NO-ONE”

"Vote none of the above" - Monty Brewster

[f6john]

The question would only apply to someone who views themselves as one or the other or possibly both. I’m wondering if those who might be on the opposite of republican leanings agree with the premise of the video since labels do exist and get thrown around by everyone. It would be good to know what the true meaning of the labels are.

[Jess from VA]

No.

Though I do support maximum personal freedom and liberty (from government intrusion) under the constitution (something liberals used to support quite strongly).

No, to what?  

To the thread question if I'm a liberal or lefty.

[98valk]

I don't know. Many here have said I'm both. I prefer to think of myself as a patriotic American. But, I understand many need to label.

not a patriotic american when u and others vote for people whose policies and agenda ARE AGAINST the US Constitution.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The question would only apply to someone who views themselves as one or the other or possibly both. I’m wondering if those who might be on the opposite of republican leanings agree with the premise of the video since labels do exist and get thrown around by everyone. It would be good to know what the true meaning of the labels are.

To be honest, I didn’t watch the video. I tire of things that are designed to divide us.

Anybody who thinks Alex Jones is part of the conservative movement, is sadly mistaken. One of the most evil, devisive shucksters out there. The last I paid action to the conservative movement making money off of the death of 6 year olds was not in their purvey.

[f6john]

The question would only apply to someone who views themselves as one or the other or possibly both. I’m wondering if those who might be on the opposite of republican leanings agree with the premise of the video since labels do exist and get thrown around by everyone. It would be good to know what the true meaning of the labels are.

To be honest, I didn’t watch the video. I tire of things that are designed to divide us.

Anybody who thinks Alex Jones is part of the conservative movement, is sadly mistaken. One of the most evil, devisive shucksters out there. The last I paid action to the conservative movement making money off of the death of 6 year olds was not in their purvey.

Your choice but I think you might find it interesting and thought provoking as it’s designed to inform not divide, I think.

[Robert]

The question would only apply to someone who views themselves as one or the other or possibly both. I’m wondering if those who might be on the opposite of republican leanings agree with the premise of the video since labels do exist and get thrown around by everyone. It would be good to know what the true meaning of the labels are.

To be honest, I didn’t watch the video. I tire of things that are designed to divide us.

Anybody who thinks Alex Jones is part of the conservative movement, is sadly mistaken. One of the most evil, devisive shucksters out there. The last I paid action to the conservative movement making money off of the death of 6 year olds was not in their purvey.

Your choice but I think you might find it interesting and thought provoking as it’s designed to inform not divide, I think.

Exactly, the division was already done in the silencing of conservative voices and sites. Unequal rights unequal freedom to speak out IS division. Unfair and unjust censorship is the wedge that is being talked about. The fact that the elite left can silence anyone on the sites is not a move to unite but to divide and conquer. So it also was in the days of the Nazis but when exposing it is called causing division then we have lapsed into tyranny.

 Liberal or right both should be up in arms at the censorship. The common goal should be the equal access to social media regardless of what is said.

As found out by our political parties that jockeyed for a specific passage of law and got what they wanted at the change of rules soon regretted their actions when the opposite party got into power and used those created advantages to their advantage and suppressed the other party.

This country was built on freedom of speech and we now see that the government needs to regulate social media since it cannot keep the ideals that they espouse.

When those in the Democratic party and the left see no problem in telling people to confront elected officials or ICE or any goverment official and tell them what you think. But when done to the head of a media group gets confronted by someone and then they are banned across all media and its accepted then this is tyranny.

Half the US voted for Trump, half have been told by the social media sites you cannot speak of the injustices and problems you see. But the left can say anything they want and are NOT banned then these social sites and the people that control them need to answer for their  actions.

If you agree with freedom of speech then we agree and uphold the constitution, either liberal or conservative can agree on this. But if you say that just because someone is on the fringes they need to be banned then we have already been divided. So divided that an agreement cannot be reached on a basic constitutional value and Guarantee as freedom of speech.

It was decided many years ago so its not a new issue, except the left is making it new since its redefining and challenging the constitution in any way possible. That alone should also be the definition of the left a major redefining of values and rights already set forth by our government and how it was established. By not challenging them we are in effect giving up our rights, our constitution not by election or by rule of government but by the loss of rights. By someone saying I dont like what you have to say so I have the power to shut you up and I'm going to do that. The barrage of legal filings is exactly what that is about removing our constitutional guarantees by unjust judges that do not constitutionally make sound decisions.

THAT IS DIVISION.

 SHOCK STUDY: Facebook Has Eliminated 93% of Traffic to Top Conservative Websites Since 2016 Election

They act as if there is no constitution and go ahead and make laws, actions that violate personal guarantees already in place. That is division. That is also breaking the rule of law of balance and scales since justice is no longer balanced. Not everyone gets what they want in a new presidency but the rule of law and decency was always present. Well no longer is it so, no longer do we have fair and just prosecution for all, rich and poor alike.

Only as an example Hillary can go free for thousands of emails but a service man gets arrested for one obscure picture.
A bake shop gets fined, prosecuted  for not baking a cake, yet service at a restaurant can be denied Sara Sanders.
Conservatives shock jock confronts a social media head and he no longer has freedom of expression on social media but nothing is done.

[Oss]

sorry but I dont believe in totally free posting online and there is a social responsibility to those webcarriers

Example
violent overthrow of govmt
hate speech which is targeting people for termination
videos of people being killed or maimed (recruiting videos)
videos of children being abused
videos of how to make bombs or IED or other such
videos seeking jihad
denial of genocides

But censoring for the sake of political opportunity should cost the host their license to host it needs to cause unimaginable pain to the people who run these sites that stifle truly free speech that doesnt yell fire in a crowded theatre

[The emperor has no clothes]

The common goal should be the equal access to social media regardless of what is said.

 

Regardless of what is said ? So if a pedophile were to start up a business promoting the rape of children, that would be ok with you ? So if said pedophile were to give out the addresses and phone numbers of these children, that would be ok with you ? So if a Satanic Cult were to say you are the leader of their cult, that would be ok ? So if a nutjob who is profiting by putting out lies of the murder of children and putting out their addresses that is ok with you ? Well, disregard that last question. You have already answered it.  

[Robert]

The common goal should be the equal access to social media regardless of what is said.

 

Regardless of what is said ? So if a pedophile were to start up a business promoting the rape of children, that would be ok with you ? So if said pedophile were to give out the addresses and phone numbers of these children, that would be ok with you ? So if a Satanic Cult were to say you are the leader of their cult, that would be ok ? So if a nutjob who is profiting by putting out lies of the murder of children and putting out their addresses that is ok with you ? Well, disregard that last question. You have already answered it. 

All of that is already NOT legal so we are in agreement. Because if we are not then that means you dont abide by the constitution. But trying to make a point on one site when 94 percent drop in conservative sites is going to be a stretch even for you.

[f6john]

Well this isn’t the direction or intent of my posting but you guys carry on, I’m not going to learn what I wanted to know.

[3fan4life]

The common goal should be the equal access to social media regardless of what is said.

 

Regardless of what is said ? So if a pedophile were to start up a business promoting the rape of children, that would be ok with you ? So if said pedophile were to give out the addresses and phone numbers of these children, that would be ok with you ? So if a Satanic Cult were to say you are the leader of their cult, that would be ok ? So if a nutjob who is profiting by putting out lies of the murder of children and putting out their addresses that is ok with you ? Well, disregard that last question. You have already answered it.  

I'm trying to figure out what made you go "THERE".

All of the examples that you cite above are in violation of laws that are on the books.

So, anyone doing any of those things could be charged and prosecuted accordingly.



Regulating or controlling Free Speech is a dangerous road.

It has been the first step used to control the people by every communist dictator upon taking power.

There's a reason that the right to free speech is part of the First Amendment.

Right now it is the views of right wing conservatives that are being stymied.

If the tables were turned and leftist liberals were being banned from the internet would you still think that it's ok?  

[The emperor has no clothes]

The common goal should be the equal access to social media regardless of what is said.

 

Regardless of what is said ? So if a pedophile were to start up a business promoting the rape of children, that would be ok with you ? So if said pedophile were to give out the addresses and phone numbers of these children, that would be ok with you ? So if a Satanic Cult were to say you are the leader of their cult, that would be ok ? So if a nutjob who is profiting by putting out lies of the murder of children and putting out their addresses that is ok with you ? Well, disregard that last question. You have already answered it.  

I'm trying to figure out what made you go "THERE".

All of the examples that you cite above are in violation of laws that are on the books.

So, anyone doing any of those things could be charged and prosecuted accordingly.



Regulating or controlling Free Speech is a dangerous road.

It has been the first step used to control the people by every communist dictator upon taking power.

There's a reason that the right to free speech is part of the First Amendment.

Right now it is the views of right wing conservatives that are being stymied.

If the tables were turned and leftist liberals were being banned from the internet would you still think that it's ok?  

The reason I went "there" is to show that not all speech should be okay. Robert is defending a man who has made vile and indefensible statements about many things, one of them being about the murder of 6 year old children. Resulting in death threats against some of the families of these kids. These social networks are companies that control what they want on their sites. Alex Jones's right to free speech has not been infringed. He still has his website to spew his hate and make profits off of it. That does not mean Facebok, Twitter, etc. should be forced to have this hate on THEIR site.

[Gavin_Sons]

The common goal should be the equal access to social media regardless of what is said.

 

Regardless of what is said ? So if a pedophile were to start up a business promoting the rape of children, that would be ok with you ? So if said pedophile were to give out the addresses and phone numbers of these children, that would be ok with you ? So if a Satanic Cult were to say you are the leader of their cult, that would be ok ? So if a nutjob who is profiting by putting out lies of the murder of children and putting out their addresses that is ok with you ? Well, disregard that last question. You have already answered it.  

I'm trying to figure out what made you go "THERE".

All of the examples that you cite above are in violation of laws that are on the books.

So, anyone doing any of those things could be charged and prosecuted accordingly.



Regulating or controlling Free Speech is a dangerous road.

It has been the first step used to control the people by every communist dictator upon taking power.

There's a reason that the right to free speech is part of the First Amendment.

Right now it is the views of right wing conservatives that are being stymied.

If the tables were turned and leftist liberals were being banned from the internet would you still think that it's ok?  

The reason I went "there" is to show that not all speech should be okay. Robert is defending a man who has made vile and indefensible statements about many things, one of them being about the murder of 6 year old children. Resulting in death threats against some of the families of these kids. These social networks are companies that control what they want on their sites. Alex Jones's right to free speech has not been infringed. He still has his website to spew his hate and make profits off of it. That does not mean Facebok, Twitter, etc. should be forced to have this hate on THEIR site.

      

[rocketray]

well maybe  a few people should consider being a Libertarian.....not left/right but standing up for our constitutional liberties....I heard Ron Paul in 2008 but I didnt understand what he was saying---finally in 2010 I got it..it's all about our constitutional liberties...most of you will be dumbfounded by this statement...time hit the books and you will get it..but first google the history of money and banking in the United States--Mises are the good guys

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm trying to figure out what made you go "THERE".

All of the examples that you cite above are in violation of laws that are on the books.

So, anyone doing any of those things could be charged and prosecuted accordingly.

Unfortunately promoting pedophilia is not illegal.

Unfortunately promoting Satanism and lying about its supposed members is not illegal.

Unfortunately spewing hate and lies about the death of children is not illegal.

[Robert]

18 U.S. Code § 2251 - Sexual exploitation of children

Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection

As for satanism are you saying that social media sites have these kind of satanic sites on them while removing conservatives?

[The emperor has no clothes]

18 U.S. Code § 2251 - Sexual exploitation of children

Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection

As for satanism are you saying that social media sites have these kind of satanic sites on them while removing conservatives?

Promoting pedophilia does not require any of the actions sited. A person can and has talked about such things with no charges brought. You are missing the whole point. If you or I don't agree with something such as this, why should we be required to allow it on our property ?

[Robert]

18 U.S. Code § 2251 - Sexual exploitation of children

Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection

As for satanism are you saying that social media sites have these kind of satanic sites on them while removing conservatives?

Promoting pedophilia does not require any of the actions sited. A person can and has talked about such things with no charges brought. You are missing the whole point. If you or I don't agree with something such as this, why should we be required to allow it on our property ?

Regardless of what you think the promotion or endorsing of pedophilia is against the law the talking of it like Trump stopping pedophilia and arresting all the pedophiles is not.

But freedom of speech is the issue and promotion of pedophilia is against the law.

But censoring of conservatives is against the freedom of speech its against the constitution and something we all should be against. This is the divide in the country today and the breaking of the law in regards to conservative censorship.

[98valk]

MH, I know you have me blocked, so anyway, a few days from now, you should read what you wrote and listen to yourself. 

[scooperhsd]

Whoa - on social media suppressing free speech -

Ever heard of the "Golden rule of the press" ? Whoever has the gold, makes the rules. What this means is that the owners of Facebook, etc. can restrict whatever speech they want. You want to say your thing ? - Feel free to create your own website saying whatever you want.

The Owner of this board can restrict whatever speech they want. The fact that they do so little is testament to their belief in Free Speech.

[98valk]

Whoa - on social media suppressing free speech -

Ever heard of the "Golden rule of the press" ? Whoever has the gold, makes the rules. What this means is that the owners of Facebook, etc. can restrict whatever speech they want. You want to say your thing ? - Feel free to create your own website saying whatever you want.

The Owner of this board can restrict whatever speech they want. The fact that they do so little is testament to their belief in Free Speech.

how much of backdoor govt funding made FB?
https://one-just-world.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-not-so-virgin-birth-of-facebook-and.html

[scooperhsd]

Well then - contact your congress critters to force then to respect your viewpoints as well. Let us know how that goes....

[Serk]

We're off in the weeds from the original discussion now, but... I fully support the rights of a private company to allow whatever they want on their platform that they wish...

Having said that...

[Serk]

[..]

I think Jones is a whacakadoodle too but................................

[Jess from VA]

Maybe so, but I'd rather listen to/watch him all day than Don Lemon on CNN, Madcow or Matthews on MSNBC and a host of other propagandists.