Those are your personal value judgements
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2792867]You know Tooms does not even live in the USA? He reads this biased left wing crap and then spews all this nonsense about how he knows what is best for a country he does not live in.[/QUOTE]You boys and girls have been making personal value judgements about Dems and Repubs with that "good" vs "bad" obsession of yours.
I rarely if ever use those words to describe any politician, much less entire political parties. But you boys and girls trot out those value judgements all the time.
Very telling.
See, I only point out the irrefutable historical facts regarding Dems passing the legislation I have listed under certain conditions, producing and presiding over every major recovery, economic expansion and historic job gains and none of the Great Depressions / Great Recessions and Massive Jobs Destruction of the past 100 years while Repubs have passed nothing of note under the same conditions, produced and presided over every Great Depression, Great Recession and Massive Job Losses, etc.
Yep, it seems historical data and the actual record of results for America is the same no matter where you verify and cite it. Even in a different country, it remains the same, totally unchanged by ones proximity to the unbiased record sources.
You seem to have concluded those Dem results are "good" and the Repub results are "bad."
Well, those are your value judgements based on the facts but I have never really expressed such a thing either way.
Ya' know: I Report, You Decide.
The big difference is, unlike Faux News, what I have reported for you to pass judgement on is true, I know it to be true and so do you and everyone else.
Interesting that most of you have decided "Dems good and Repubs bad" based solely on the data and actual record of results, definitely not based on me telling you which is which. LOL. Obviously, a lot of Repub voters think those Great Repub Depressions, Great Repub Recessions and Massive Repub Job Losses are "good" and keep voting for them and that those Great Dem Recoveries and Historic Job Gains are "bad."
Again, those are personal value judgements.
I'm sorry for your poor reading comprehension
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2792863]Checkmate, I am giving you one more chance and then I am done.
I am not talking about whether the executive branch has the right to make the law. They do. I think you are so dumb you do not even get what the first amendment is about.
Are the people who make the laws allowed to censor those parties that are critical of them? Yes or no. If you answer yes, we are done and you are a clueless moron.
Did that happen with Twitter? Did executive branch officials ask that Twitter censor individuals? Yes or no. If you answer no, you are VERY ill informed, and I am done with you.
The constitution varies? And who are those damaged supposed to sue? Federal officials have immunity, and Elon Musk has taken over and aired all the crap that the previous ownership did wrong. Suing the federal government and winning via Bivens lawsuit is nearly impossible and costly to boot and the former Twitter employees who engaged in censorship are gone.
Again, you do not know what you are talking about. [URL]https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/16/texas-social-media-law/[/URL].
A Texas law prohibiting large social media companies from banning users' posts based on their political viewpoints will go into effect after a federal appeals court on Friday lifted a block placed on the statute.
NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association sued Texas after the law, known as House Bill 20, was passed last year, arguing that internet companies have a First Amendment right to curate content posted on their platforms and decide which types of speech they saw fit to be there.
In its ruling, the 5th USA Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the law was unconstitutional, saying they were seeking protection to "muzzle free speech. ".
Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," the ruling says.
The CCIA said the ruling forced tech companies to give equal treatment to all manners of speech, including extremist views.
You are contradicting yourself here. You said they can do whatever they wanted. Then you said they can do whatever they want within the parameters of the law, but you just admitted that you do not even know what all the state laws are.
So why are you posting corporations can do whatever they want when you do not even know what the laws are that regulate them?
And what am I supposed to think? You think it is okay that the bureaucrats and Twitter employees censored Republicans? And now you are saying you are a former Dem?
Come on man. You labeled yourself with that crap.[/QUOTE]1. You should really read what you wrote. "Did executive branch officials ask that Twitter censor individuals?" Executive branch official ASKING is not the same as law making. (examples: Trump administration asked Twitter to take down Chrissy Teigen post, or Biden administration asked Twitter to take down posts) Executive branch doesn't make laws, they do, however make certain ruling based on what Congress have given them the power to do, ie. Enforce the borders as they see fit. This is how you get different enforcement codes (rules) from one administration to another.
"The ruling Friday from the 5th USA Circuit Court of Appeals likely means the case, which could have wide implications for online speech, will go before the USA Supreme Court again. " This is at the very top of the article below the headline.
You know how ISG deleted your post on 10-19-22 because you violated their policy. They can do that. Just as Twitter deleted a whole bunch of people who violated their terms of agreement. Then, Elon bought the Twitter, and changed the policy, which is his perogative. See how I don't jump up and down when policy changed, because it is not my property.
I wrote "US constitution and state laws can vary. " You read and replied, "The constitution varies?" As in Mr Phillips case, he sued the state through the Federal Court system.
You are correct that I do NOT know ALL the laws, in every state. I'm willing to bet you don't either. I can cite and comment on what the current laws that I know exist. Let's assume you've read more laws than me.
And it's funny that you asked "what am I supposed to think?"
You wrote this on 2-22-22, "Is that what happened? Damn right it did. You must be one of these dumb libs with your heads buried in the sand and have never heard of the Twitter files."
You do you. I can't help another grown man think.
I actually don't need you to give me chances on ISG forum. You have the right to express your opinions. If you choose not to interact with me or others, it's just a click away. But, I won't ever call you dumb, as you have expressed many times about me and others. This is a tactic usually employed by Bullies who want to be heard or get things his / her way.
Life is short, enoy it. Turn that frown upside down.
Executive Branch is NOT the Legislative Branch
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2792863]Checkmate, I am giving you one more chance and then I am done.
I am not talking about whether the executive branch has the right to make the law. They do. I think you are so dumb you do not even get what the first amendment is .[/QUOTE]The Executive Branch doe not make laws in the USA. That is the job of Congress, Senate and House of Representatives. The Executive may or may not sign it into law but does not make the laws. The President can issue Executive Orders but they are not law. The First Amendment is about the Government censorship or whatever you want to call it with regard to Free Speech and Religion and not what private entities may or may not do.
The First Amendment may protect your right to call someone dumb in public but does not prohibit a private entity such as ISG from not allowing such language. In this case ISG does not seem to care and allows it but that is their choice not the government's.
