I'm not aware of a single rooster ever having been charged with a rape crime....maybe that will change soon.

LLOL

That would shock the cattle and horse industries as well..Next!

yeah and they want to sue the manufacturer of guns for a gun crime , and thumper nailed it , he said well lets sue the air since air is the reason why it keeps evil people alive to do crime

The air has no party to go after with deep pockets the libs can raid.

and lets sue windows 10 for all the hackers and cyber crimes to

forget holding the criminals responsible just go after the abyss lol

About these Republicans.... I'm wondering which organization is the "best" to support in an effort to support a Republican ticket. Usually, if POTUS mentions a group favorably, I feel I can support it. But which is the "correct" Repub org?

im independent party

@B2 learn as much about a candidate as you can 1st (vet ), party affiliation is secondary.👌

Yes, I get that on a local level. But what about a candidate like say, Dan Bishop, who POTUS recommends, but who is not anywhere near me? I thought the big party orgs were designed to get our financial support to candidates in other areas (which we really shouldn't even be allowed to do, but are).

@B2 therein is where the corruption begins...it's like the unions taking $ from everyone locally, then supporting who the fat cats want at the national level. Politics is local is my position.

@Groot Local: As it should be. 💯

I was thinking about your censorship comment.

Yeah. We're against it.

If the constitution require government to protect natural rights (God given rights- not man given) . And Freedom of speech is particularly noted in the 1st Amendment (Not to the exclusion of any other God given rights). Where does Government receive any authority to govern speech. Secondly;

Natural rights ( or God given rights) can not be contracted away. So how does the social media, allegedly restrict those rights thru its internal policies and procedures, or by terms of use?

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

@Groot -- maybe the rationale is that social media is NOT government and is therefore not bound by the specificity of the Constitution.

Of course they are not government. So it makes it easier. What happens when one trespasses on anothers rights?

well, if you're a leftie, nothing happens

any word on 8chan sit down?

@woodsracer544 Wow. I was JUST thinking about that -! I only heard it was "closed door" and nothing was seeping out...

negative that I have seen yet @woodsracer544

someone posted the Watkins attorney letter in casual chat today that was mentioned a day to 2 ago. I found it interesting.

@B2 the right of every one is redress when there rights are violated by another.

yea they read that out on psb stream last night.....believe it's the same one

Hm. Thinking thusly: When you walk out of your house, into the vast "marketplace", you are guaranteed the right to speak freely. However, social media today has managed to throw a net (pun intended) over huge swaths of the "marketplace," and so can impose restrictions on speech within those areas... So we say, "Wait! I want my free speech!" And they say, "Then go to another platform and speak freely -- but not here!" Of course, that's where 8chan comes in. We create a free platform where we can, once again, enjoy our right of free speech... And they shut it down.

@B2 of course you are right...my position is that the social media companies violating natural right by censor of free speech should be held accountable for those violations...... why are they not?

Also, who are business licensed by..and what is a license.

@Groot I believe that's the issue that is coming to a head now -- publisher or platform? But we are in completely new territory these days; such a situation has never occurred before. Without precedent, we have to find the answer through careful deliberation and... CRITICAL THINKING -- Good luck to us with THAT! Anyway, I'm going to turn this over in my head for awhile... "bake my noodle" and see what comes up.

good point...

@Groot To your comment that "social media companies violating natural right by censor of free speech should be held accountable", see my earlier post. I point out that because social media aren't govt (or "Congress"), then their excuse is that the Constitution says, specifically, "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." "We're not Congress! We're Twitter! We can make any 'laws' or rules we want!" <-- And so far, that seems to be the case. If they are legally determined to be "PUBLISHERS", they will in fact, be allowed to do whatever they want. As "PLATFORMS", they cannot abridge anyone's right to free speech. Which will it be?

Abe just called on live to find out if there was any info regarding the 8chan hearing..but the hearing is still ongoing so no info

@CodeMonkeyZ
1m
First set of questioning finished. Lunch break then there will likely be another round of questions.

@B2 to me the publisher/platform is a business licensing issue and nothing to do with ones free speech. No business is free to violate natural rights any more than one can violate a right of another. In other words, a contract can not be valid when it is made to violate a natural right of a man.

@CodeMonkeyZ
·
13s
Actually just got news that it is done for the day. There will likely be another round of questions on another day.

let the leaking begin.

🚰

Actually, CodeMonkey said they took a lunch break and will probably be more questioning. Didn't say whether it would be this afternoon, but lunch break would indicate they'll be going at it again this afternoon

did you see the latest one after that?