******Official politics thread ******

[mickmoranis]

who's more of a muppet? The guy saying that there is fake news or the entire liberal party saying that it's a myth?

[Lhancelot]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

who's more of a muppet? The guy saying that there is fake news or the entire liberal party saying that it's a myth?

Even liberals understand fake news exists.

Newsflash: Trump also uses fake news. Conservatives also use fake news.

Fake news isn't something liberals created. As you can see by that cartoon, fake news actually has been recognized and even called as such since 1894.

[mickmoranis]

am I trump? no

did I say it was somethign libs created?

no

did I post an example of how CNN prints fake news?

yes

are you and other libtards (which you sound like are you libtarded now?) trying to defend CNN by having petty arguments about trump instead of acknowledging that CNN Is fake news?

yes

does me saying CNN is fake news, mean I am saying fox news is not fake news?

nope

please be woke lancelot not sheepcuck

[skarlorn]

CNN is a piece of shit right now. It's actually pathetic.

NY Times and WaPo are also historically Fake News.

big surprise: media magnates have deep ties to govt and are actively used as propaganda mills.

Ultimately, this is why I think NN's end is going to be worse than when it was in the hands of govt. It's easier to obfuscate backroom dealings to suppress info and free speech than if the government was doing it publicly.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by skarlorn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

CNN is a piece of shit right now. It's actually pathetic.

NY Times and WaPo are also historically Fake News.

big surprise: media magnates have deep ties to govt and are actively used as propaganda mills.

Ultimately, this is why I think NN's end is going to be worse than when it was in the hands of govt. It's easier to obfuscate backroom dealings to suppress info and free speech than if the government was doing it publicly.

net nutrality did not protect websites or internet service providers from limiting free speech. twitter bans people based on speech all the time. its totally within all of their rights to ban any type of speech.

the reason they dont, mostly, is because we have capitalism and if they did people would just outright stop using the service, specifically if they went all "authoritarian" with their choices of what to ban or throttle or whatever.

However the goverment, if they do that, as the FCC demonstrated... if the majority public opinion is contrary to theirs, it means nothing to them and they will just ban/throttle whatever the feel like at the time.

All it takes is a libcuck al frankin to be in the white house that thinks somethign stupid like, "you know what piracy should be illegal and the best way to prevent it is to block all access to websites that are suspected of supporting piracy"

then no matter what you want, you aint getting access to that.

The (appointed) government employees did have the power to do this under title II

[skarlorn]

Is there any record of what the appointed govt employees banned under Title II?

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by skarlorn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is there any record of what the appointed govt employees banned under Title II?

what are you asking me?

Does america have a history of newlib fembot cuck liberals who support anti free speech at record levels not only in the base but by the current party elite?

no.

Is the modern democrat party actively trying to limit free speech? yes

are these laws meant to last generations and to be changed and evolve with elected (appointed) officials? yes

and to get specific "has there EVER been a goverement that didnt take its rights away from its citizens in the history of mankind?"

no there has never, ever, EVER been an example of a goverement that didnt take away its citizens rights... and as we progress into a world where both the base and the party elete agree on limiting our freedom, giving the goverment the power to do so is a fools errand that will ultimately end with the rights of your children, or even you, taken from you.

COULD you solve all the problems you have with the NN change simply by enacting state regulation?

YEP

so quit your fuckin cryin and get out there and call your representative.

Or are you just an ID political monkey that does whatever reddit mob tells you to do?

PS sorry for the edgy alt right speech but when you ask questions like that, you got it comin.

[Lulz~Sect]

[Post only available for Project 1999® Gold™ account holders]

[skarlorn]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

what are you asking me?

Does america have a history of newlib fembot cuck liberals who support anti free speech at record levels not only in the base but by the current party elite?

no.

Is the modern democrat party actively trying to limit free speech? yes

are these laws meant to last generations and to be changed and evolve with elected (appointed) officials? yes

and to get specific "has there EVER been a goverement that didnt take its rights away from its citizens in the history of mankind?"

no there has never, ever, EVER been an example of a goverement that didnt take away its citizens rights... and as we progress into a world where both the base and the party elete agree on limiting our freedom, giving the goverment the power to do so is a fools errand that will ultimately end with the rights of your children, or even you, taken from you.

COULD you solve all the problems you have with the NN change simply by enacting state regulation?

YEP

so quit your fuckin cryin and get out there and call your representative.

Or are you just an ID political monkey that does whatever reddit mob tells you to do?

PS sorry for the edgy alt right speech but when you ask questions like that, you got it comin.

1) i don't browse reddit
2) asking for a little evidence to better understand your views has triggered you? Seek help dude.
3) I still don't understand why you think NN on a state wide basis will be better. On the whole, I'm pro-state govt over los federales and I am honestly hoping to hear an alternative opinion on the matter since so much of pro NN stinks of emotional reactionary propaganda.
4) please take a breath and work on writing more coherently. It's hard to do anything more than ignore your posts when they are literally streams of wrong-assumptions and vilifications against the government party you do not agree with. You're being just as a bad as a retarded SJW, and that makes me sad.

[mickmoranis]

2) well the gov did put peopel in concentration camps just 60 years ago if they were japanese. Also they try to take away rights all the time because theyre afraid of guns etc. There are many examples of the freedom of americans being limited by goverment overreech.. taking your shoes off at the airport for the TSA is another example etc (one proven to not help anyone mind you) There's a lot of examples. And even if there werent, the point is protecting future generations from an over reaching goverment is the entire modus of the states right/libertarian constatitionalists. Just like it was for the folks the penned the constitution.

3) On a stat level they do not have the power to control the entire country, a state can be supper fucked up (take south carolina for example) and one state over it can be an beutiful place with a booming economy (north)

The country was built on the premice that states would manage shit like this, not the feds. Because states are smaller and easier to manage, rather than the entire country.

Hell NN isnt even goign to be a problem for most libcucks because you live in cities with lots of options for isp's... while the states with smaller pop's are the ones that will suffer the most. Ironically they dont realy care though... and that is just an anecdotal thought.

4. I will never work on writing coherently, writing incoherently is what gets me off and my right.

I am not vilifying a goverment party, Im simply stating a fact: the left is activly trying to change and limit free speech laws, even bernie sanders tried to pass legislation to limit it last year, and hes the smartest guy they got.

I am simply stating a fact. The left wants to limit free speech and the "evil demigog authoritarian nazi trump" happened to be the guy who appointed the guy who ensured that no government apparatus would have the ability to do that. That should make you think.