Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Did he really double cross the bad guys though? I get the impression
that he's sucking up to Trump to act as an insider for the rest of the world elite.
Yeah, that tracks. *political* extremists, always playing the "woe is me" victim card. Everything is all about them.
Well, she was able to "like" it after it was over. But still, Facebook's founder, their fact-checkers, and their content moderators are up to no good for the most part.
So, everything is designed specifically to target & punish you, and
it's by no means a glitch or an unintended side effect of something
else??
Yeah, that tracks. conservatives, always playing the "woe is me"
victim card. Everything is all about them.
Did he really double cross the bad guys though? I get the impression that he's sucking up to Trump to act as an insider for the rest of th world elite.
He's publically admitting that the Biden Regime strongarmed him into censoring things. That a double cross to me.
I see your point, but Facebook's ridiculous censorship began long before Biden took office.
Had Zuckerberg said "The world elite pressured me.." then that would be different. When he said "The Biden administration made me do it" that doesn't add up.
Ron L. wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-
But most of these social media companies were Left-leaning for a long
time as well. So there was "censorship" by the moderators.
I see your point, but Facebook's ridiculous censorship began long bef Biden took office.
Had Zuckerberg said "The world elite pressured me.." then that would different. When he said "The Biden administration made me do it" that doesn't add up.
But most of these social media companies were Left-leaning for a long
time as well. So there was "censorship" by the moderators.
But most of these social media companies were Left-leaning for a long time as well. So there was "censorship" by the moderators.
And I forgot to add that the censorship was about the wierd Left crap,
not the scamdemic and the "science" that was pushed on us.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
And I forgot to add that the censorship was about the wierd Left crap,
not the scamdemic and the "science" that was pushed on us.
Doesn't it all stem from the same source? Biden's owner was a proponent
of all the above.
Doesn't it all stem from the same source? Biden's owner was a propone of all the above.
Sort of. The Elitists did a good job of programming their minions to do things without any direct communications.
What I'm trying to do is distinquish between 2 kinds of censorship on Facebook.
1. The moderator of a group, who has pink hair and pronouns, decides
that he doesn't like a topic and squashes any message that he doesn't like. 2. The Fed (effectively) ordering Facebook to squash all
Type 2 is censorship by definition and highly illegal for the gov't to
do.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
It wouldn't surprise me if some pink-haired-mosquito-penis complained about Trump, and then Zuck used that as justification to ban him. Trump offends people who fit into that category, and Zuck is the type of
elitist who will bend over frontwards for them.
It's illegal for the government to do it on their own, but it's
probably legal for them to collude with other elitists to get it donw.
For many companies, the DEI started in the HR dept and slowly grew. The big-wigs in the top floors don't usually interfere with the lower operations of the company - that's what they pay others to do. And
great pains are done to keep the upper management from knowing what's going on - unless they get a Woke CEO.
It's illegal for the government to do it on their own, but it's probably legal for them to collude with other elitists to get it donw
No. If someone in the gov't told Facebook to censor, Facebook is
somewhat "off the hook" but that someone in the gov't is in big trouble.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
That makes sense. The CEOs and/or owners want what's best for the
company, but lower management can care less. Once in a while it's smart for the CEO to crack some skulls.
Congress should hold them accountable, but you know how that goes.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
It sounds like a Democrat problem, but in reality, it's a NY GOP
problem. They did this to us. And that's part of why I changed my party affiliation a few days ago. I'm a registered Democrat now.
It sounds like a Democrat problem, but in reality, it's a NY GOP problem. They did this to us. And that's part of why I changed my par affiliation a few days ago. I'm a registered Democrat now.
Shall I send you a "get well" card for your lobotomy. :)
It sounds like a Democrat problem, but in reality, it's a NY GOP
problem. They did this to us. And that's part of why I changed my party affiliation a few days ago. I'm a registered Democrat now.
It sounds like a Democrat problem, but in reality, it's a NY GOP problem. They did this to us. And that's part of why I changed my par affiliation a few days ago. I'm a registered Democrat now.
Although no longer true, back when I registered (R), the thought process was you should really register D because the D's ran everything in this state and you'd actually have a voice that way... at least in the primaries.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Shall I send you a "get well" card for your lobotomy. :)
Ha! No, send one to the sheeple who think that "The NY GOP is doing everything they can to find candidates."
(I hope they get well soon!)
Although no longer true, back when I registered (R), the thought process was you should really register D because the D's ran everything in this state and you'd actually have a voice that way... at least in the primaries.
Is KY one of the states where registered Democrat voters can vote in Republica
primaries?
My state is not one of them. And I don't plan on voting in any Democrat primaries either, but this is how I protest against the NY GOP for them being so corrupt.
My state is not one of them. And I don't plan on voting in any Democrat primaries either, but this is how I protest against the NY GOP for them so corrupt.
If I were changing my registration, I would be doing so in order to vote in the primaries. The GOP is not going to really notice your protest,
but voting in a D primary might allow you to support a more moderate-leaning candidate and would be more likely to elicit change.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-
We'll see. It depends on what kind of crap the DNC has to offer. But as you know, they are like robots, and they're programmed to do what
they're told, and they all have the same agenda.
We'll see. It depends on what kind of crap the DNC has to offer. But you know, they are like robots, and they're programmed to do what they're told, and they all have the same agenda.
But remember that any Democrat with brains became a Republican a while ago.
So the Democrat party only has a bunch of useless bots to put forward as candidates.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Yea, they are all on the same payroll. The only way to fix a state like mine is to bulldoze it. Or maybe some tough love from a kick ass
president like Trump could set these reptilians straight.
How did it feel when you found out that Trump won your state? I bet you were proud! It's a clear F U to Gretchie from the voters!
Yea, they are all on the same payroll. The only way to fix a state li mine is to bulldoze it. Or maybe some tough love from a kick ass president like Trump could set these reptilians straight.
"Tough love" is certainly the correct term. It's going to be politically incorrect to tell union workers that they have to actually work if they want to get paid. And all those welfare paracites to get off their rear ends and work. And all the local politicans who will have to stop the graft.
How did it feel when you found out that Trump won your state? I bet y were proud! It's a clear F U to Gretchie from the voters!
It was a hollow victory. Trump won, but an Elitist was elected as senator.
It does show that we don't actually elect anyone in our state. It's all decided by someone else and the votes are created to support that. Just like California.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
There are parents who pay attention to their kids, and there are
parents who don't. My kids know that all their teachers are Democrats.
But I've taught them "Just because your teachers are brainwashed by the reptilians, it doesn't mean that they are wrong about algebra or vocabulary."
My kids caught on to Martin Luther King, his dream, and equality, long before all this ridiculous "equity" and "infinite genders" crap came along. They know that only dumb kids get brainwashed.
That makes sense, but now days it also makes sense to keep a majority.
That probably wasn't important in the old days, but the Democrats have
a strong alliance with incredibly loyal puppets. We need to have the equivalent or they will crush us.
But I've taught them "Just because your teachers are brainwashed by t reptilians, it doesn't mean that they are wrong about algebra or vocabulary."
I thought the same thing until I learned about "New Math". At this
point, if the teacher has pronouns, colored hair, etc. then that teacher is completely incompetent to teach the subject - unless the subject is learning how to handle a delusional person.
That makes sense, but now days it also makes sense to keep a majority
Why? We didn't need to keep a majority for a long time. Career politicians have always been a problem.
My guess is that any reason to keep a majority is related to the gov't being too big (i.e. we don't need that dept) and/or the gov't sticking
its nose into an area where it shouldn't be.
That probably wasn't important in the old days, but the Democrats hav a strong alliance with incredibly loyal puppets. We need to have the equivalent or they will crush us.
Oh, yes. This won't change overnight, that's for sure. But we create disinsentives to being a puppet.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Lefty logic never adds up.
My kids have a smart survival instinct where
they can adapt to their environment. They are quiet about their
knowledge of leftism while at school, but then they come home and tell
me everything.
My elementary schooler said: "I don't eat the snacks that my teacher
gives us because SHE'S A DEMOCRAT." (LOL I wouldn't eat that stuff either!)
You're right that the govt is too big. It's like a very disorderly rat colony. And we can't count on them for much of anything, but less Democrats means less opposition to the chosen one's agenda.
I don't understand that. To me it seems like we need constitutional puppets. People who will let the constitution do the thinking for them.
You're right that the govt is too big. It's like a very disorderly ra colony. And we can't count on them for much of anything, but less Democrats means less opposition to the chosen one's agenda.
It's not just the Democrats.
I've said it before: The problem isn't Democrats, Leftists, etc. The problem is an Elite class that seeks to dominate the rest of us. And it does that by infiltrating a trusted institution and turning it into a
mask for them.
Today, it's the Democrat party that was destroyed by them. The churches aren't far behind. The colleges/universities are done for. The medical industry has taken a huge credibility hit. And the Republican party has its RINOs.
We need to be guarded with any group, at any time. We need to recognize the signs of infiltration. We need to create rules that prohibit that.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
When Democrats have a majority in congress, they use it to hurt us. At least when Republicans have the majority they just sit there and do nothing (for the most part.)
The Roman Catholic Church comes to mind. The current pope is a
globalist tyrant, and Catholic Charities is teaching illegal migrants
how to evade law enforcement (they call it "helping immigrants.")
Legal rules? The only way to fight all this infiltration is to start building our own infrastructure (our own churches, information systems, schools, labor unions, radio stations, etc.) We need to build a
coalition of like minded "experts" in all those fields. It's the only
way. And the government ain't gonna help us, not even Trump.
We need to stop thinking that the opposite of "Democrat" is "Republican" because it's not.
I recognized the Church has a bunch of elitists decades ago and stopped giving them any of my time (or money). Now it's just gotten blatent.
This concept is frequently expressed as "eternal vigilance is the price
of liberty," though it is not originally attributed to Thomas Jefferson, as is commonly believed. The phrase can be traced back to an Irish statesman, John Philpot Curran, who in 1790 said, "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which
condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
They still serve 1 good purpose: they teach kids about Jesus.
I just
need to get out of the Roman Catholic church and probably into the Orthodox Catholic church instead (they are not affiliated with Catholic Charities.)
It's true. And being vigilant is what I do all day every day. But I'm a slave to the left due to their association with all these institutions.
All churches are suspect. I recently went to a service at a very large church near by and, I swear, I thought I was at some sort of variety
show. It was the biggest joke of a "service" that I ever saw.
It's true. And being vigilant is what I do all day every day. But I'm slave to the left due to their association with all these institution
I think you missed my point: Yes, we need to build new institutions.
But we also need to build in vigilance to prevent the Elitists from infiltrating them and wrecking them just like they did to the old institutions.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I think you missed my point: Yes, we need to build new institutions.
But we also need to build in vigilance to prevent the Elitists from infiltrating them and wrecking them just like they did to the old institutions.
We need some federal legislation.
We "scored" a federal court win when
a judge ruled against Google in an antitrust case last year, but it's
been 7 months since the ruling and Google is still the default search engine on phones, Chrome is still the default browser, and Android is still the default OS.
The problem with that probably lies in the fact that Google has enough money to pay congress to stay quiet.
We "scored" a federal court win when
a judge ruled against Google in an antitrust case last year, but it's been 7 months since the ruling and Google is still the default search engine on phones, Chrome is still the default browser, and Android is still the default OS.
But most of those decisions are made by the phone company, who makes the Android build for the phone. So not much of a win. Google simply
doesn't bundle Chrome into Android anymore, but then the phone companies put it back in their builds.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Most smartphone users don't think about the fact that apps communicate with databases around the world. Websites can do it too, but with apps
it becomes even more difficult to control (China probably loves apps.)
For me it's not worth the trouble to obtain a custom device. I rarely
use mine, and I hardly take it with me anywhere.
For me it's not worth the trouble to obtain a custom device. I rarely use mine, and I hardly take it with me anywhere.
Which is why people tolerate this right now. They want the benefits, so they put up with the drawbacks.
Now, if a company were to provide a device with the benefits but no (or
at least fewer) drawbacks, that would drive the market toward more a
more secure device.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
That sounds like it could catch on. Even people who don't understand or care about privacy concerns would potentially want to switch to "the device that's more private."
Anything that takes power away from Google/Apple would be a good cause.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 537 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 146:48:26 |
| Calls: | 10,250 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,981 |
| Messages: | 6,407,969 |
| Posted today: | 2 |