Shh, dont talk about anything other than WHO and Fauci's rules
Yall see this shit? Woooohooo boy this is getting good.
Yall see this shit? Woooohooo boy this is getting good.
- Thread starter Clob McStrunk
- Start date
- Claims that any vaccine is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19
- Content that encourages the use of home remedies, prayer, or rituals in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospital
I will be praying for you Federal agent guy !
Subdivisions.
Rush was right all along...
Temples of Syrinx for your listening pleasure:
Who the fuck are you, or anyone else, to prohibit people from doing so?
Ironically that song was aimed at conservatives at the time, oh how the pendulum has swung.
It would be terrible if .gov declared youtube and FB utilities…
Rush was also right when they said "Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise". Like you said, ahead of their times.
There are ways around it. Be subtle and be sarcastic. For example, if discussing the fatal heart issues post-vaccine, list them and describe them in detail especially with the deceased's correlation to the vaccine, and then downplay the vaccine's side effects with platitudes like "but but there is no evidence stating that the vaccines are dangerous and anybody that suggests so are conspiracy theorists". Same goes for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin data.
Deliver the message, but use misleading, sarcastic and confusing packaging. Those who are able to think critically will still be able to cut through the buffering layers of packing material and retrieve what you are trying to convey.
For starters, watch JP Sears AKA "AwakenWithJP". That man is a GENIUS in sarcasm and psychological kung-fu. See how he does it and apply the same to your publications and videos, albeit with changes to suit your needs.
Deliver the message, but use misleading, sarcastic and confusing packaging. Those who are able to think critically will still be able to cut through the buffering layers of packing material and retrieve what you are trying to convey.
For starters, watch JP Sears AKA "AwakenWithJP". That man is a GENIUS in sarcasm and psychological kung-fu. See how he does it and apply the same to your publications and videos, albeit with changes to suit your needs.
blah blah blah strawman arguments..........................
^ Somebody give this man a Kewpie Doll!
When you become a content editor, different rules come into play. Section 230, say goodbye to it.
I think there are a whole bunch of Christian Scientist's who would disagree with you and don't like having their 1st amendment rights violated on two different counts:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I think it's time to start treating big tech as utilities.
This Ministry of Truth BS needs to end.
It's also very unscientific (and an assault on our liberties), to only let one narrative be discussed with silencing all others.
This Ministry of Truth BS needs to end.
It's also very unscientific (and an assault on our liberties), to only let one narrative be discussed with silencing all others.
Remember they are a open platform for discussion, NOT a publisher who guides and limits the material 
Honestly the fact that no one in gov has the balls to pull their “platform” privileges and call what is CLEARLY a publisher, a publisher, is pathetic.
I’m 100% OK with their rules, IF they are correctly categorized as a publisher.
Honestly the fact that no one in gov has the balls to pull their “platform” privileges and call what is CLEARLY a publisher, a publisher, is pathetic.
I’m 100% OK with their rules, IF they are correctly categorized as a publisher.
Remember they are a open platform for discussion, NOT a publisher who guides and limits the material
Honestly the fact that no one in gov has the balls to pull their “platform” privileges and call what is CLEARLY a publisher, a publisher, is pathetic.
I’m 100% OK with their rules, IF they are correctly categorized as a publisher.
Unfortunately we live in a technocracy now.
All information must be dispersed through gatekeepers, they shall decide what is "safe" and "unsafe" for you to know and see.
Technology is a paper dragon... Somebody on another site mentioned that a single dot made by a Sharpie on a QR code renders it corrupted and unreadable.
Except YouTube is not Congress. People get banned on this site for typing stupid shit all the time, for example. I preferred when religion and political posts were prohibited. It forced most people to concentrate on the martial arts. Now the pit is a cesspool of freaks, pedophiles, government employees, government contractors, and felons. Junkies, Whores, and Thieves, Oh My! LOL. Seriously, actually pay attention when you quote the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Maybe go to junior college and take American History I and II. Or get a GED whether you need it or not
W
YouTube and Google operate under the auspices of many Federal agencies such as the FCC, SEC, FTC ad nauseum. They are so intertwined with government agencies and regulation, receiving federal remuneration in both fiat and licensing (bandwidth), that they are bound by the Constitution. It is a matter for litigation.Except YouTube is not Congress. People get banned on this site for typing stupid shit all the time, for example. I preferred when religion and political posts were prohibited. It forced most people to concentrate on the martial arts. Now the pit is a cesspool of freaks, pedophiles, government employees, government contractors, and felons. Junkies, Whores, and Thieves, Oh My! LOL. Seriously, actually pay attention when you quote the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Maybe go to junior college and take American History I and II. Or get a GED whether you need it or not
Don't be a nitwit. You're just proving my point except I left out nitwit
Fox Mulder, they were taught to kill communists but never about communism itself. Damn, I wish Stalin was a member here.
Just as long as no one comes in and wants them to bake a cake, right?
Communism isn't about Communism.
Communism is about a small elite having absolute power over a mass of people living at a common level of misery.
For supporting that shit these companies deserve to be broken up.
You think we are living at a common level of misery and that has something to do with communism? And here you are wanting the government of all things to break up these companies when the only solution is the invisible hand of supply and demand, which doesn't exist under communism. Again, YouTube can ban anybody they want no different than any other Internet forum and it is legal. It doesn't matter if they are banning content or somebody you agree or disagree with. No different than Snipers Hide LLC. They both operate under the same umbrella with their own rules for end users. It is on the end user to switch the channel. Communism isn't about communism only when it is about whining fucking cunts acting like liberals when it is convenient. That is some catch, that Catch-22. There is a small percentage of dumb fucks that waste more than their share of bandwidth on this forum that causes more harm than good when it comes to our common core values. But I don't go crying to the mods asking for a beheading. I apply the same principle towards the likes of YouTube. They have their own small percentage of dumb fucks to deal with as well. But go ahead. Switch over there to watch your vintage rifle videos. Maybe even post some comments. Maybe even post a link to one on these forums. It is designed to let you do it.
It doesn’t sound like that at all. What it sounds like is that whenever a large corporation is so intertwined with the government that it becomes it’s agent, that corporation then becomes subject to constitutional limitations on government action.
Fuck
The older terminology for this is, to some extent, "regulatory capture".
When I worked for a VERY large company, their plan was to lobby for more rules/laws/regulations/policies from the government in all ways at all times.
When I mentioned it increased costs - they said that complying with regulations consisted of .00000001% of the companies revenue, and 5000000% of the revenue of a small and agile company with good ideas that might be able to knock us off our perch.
But in this context it means something else. Government agencies have a direct line to social media censors and are causing certain individuals to be silenced based on their non conforming points of view. That is the allegation at least in one of the election integrity lawsuits. If true, and it is likely true, all these social media companies are state actors and not private companies in the normal sense.
Be careful what you wish for. There is more than enough misinformation going around on the cottage social media groups as well that add up. Forcing the government to get more involved in what you think is a disregarded entity of the government makes perfect sense. . You're never going to get the government to create an artificial 1st Amendment issue out if this because next will come the 2nd Amendment. Think.
. You're never going to get the government to create an artificial 1st Amendment issue out if this because next will come the 2nd Amendment. Think.
Careful, the man you are addressing has been there and done that.
If you only knew how ridiculous your commie assertion was...
R
Agreed/also true.
I think the law needs to clarify something (the courts, and ideally the Supreme Court) that a) you cannot consent to a violation of your constitutional rights. b) the government should not be able to buy a violation of a constitutional right that they could not directly commit.
"...the government should not be able to buy a violation of a constitutional right that they could not directly commit."
And YouTube is receiving revenue from the government to that end? And you want the government, specifically the supreme court, to put an end to this?
And YouTube is receiving revenue from the government to that end? And you want the government, specifically the supreme court, to put an end to this?
So, the pattern I'm starting to see is we have changed our minds completely on black letter law and want to join ranks with liberals and switch to judicial law and a living constitution. The very kangaroo courts we bitch about all the time. And we are going to do that by getting the government to make YouTube the U.S. Department of YouTube.
Sort of sounds like Pravda in the making. Imagine what the application fees would be just to get a YouTube account along with a fingerprint federal background check. And the added burden on taxpayers to fund this new utopia government information entity protected under the 1st Amendment so that you may be merely under the illusion. I'm sorry but some of you people do exhibit communist ideology.
Sort of sounds like Pravda in the making
. Imagine what the application fees would be just to get a YouTube account along with a fingerprint federal background check. And the added burden on taxpayers to fund this new utopia government information entity protected under the 1st Amendment so that you may be merely under the illusion. I'm sorry but some of you people do exhibit communist ideology.
Zerohedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com See here's the problem. Government demanding censorship of stuff they don't like.
And yes, I believe the government should step in. Because clearly these platforms are denying service on ideological values.
Can you imagine how much hell would come down on a platform if they blocked all pro abortion posts?
I hate to point out the obvious idiocy of another one of your retarded statements....
......oh wait, I love to point out stupid shitbags stupidity in public.....
You expect us to believe you don't understand freedom of religion and freedom of choice?
This is just one glaring example comrade covidiot....
Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily known to physicians for their refusal of blood transfusions. Conflict arises at times with the medical staff concerning how best to manage their care. This article will begin with a brief description of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and will then recommend spec …
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Medical Treatment?
Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses gladly accept medicine and medical treatment. They want to maintain good health and to prolong life. In fact, like the first-century Christian Luke, some of Jehovah's Witnesses are physicians. — Colossians 4:14. However, Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept types of treatment that conflict with Bible principles.
And to go to EXACTLY why you're wrong:
- Church of Christ, Scientist - One of the basic teachings of this denomination is that disease can be cured or prevented by focused prayer and members will often request exemptions when available. However, there are not strict rules against vaccination and members can receive required vaccinations.
So, the pattern I'm starting to see is we have changed our minds completely on black letter law and want to join ranks with liberals and switch to judicial law and a living constitution. The very kangaroo courts we bitch about all the time. And we are going to do that by getting the government to make YouTube the U.S. Department of YouTube.
Sort of sounds like Pravda in the making
Not at all. We only want YouTube and company to stop doing the government’s bidding.
I’m alittle behind…. But this comment made me laugh… buffalowinter a commie….
. You really are a fucking idiot aren’t you?
Similar threads
