Elon/Twitter/and stories from the sh!tter?
- Thread starter Indianaftw
- Start date
“Capitalism” is all in one’s definition. I define it as La Belle Époque (1871-1914). Not the corporatist shit we see today.
From the "Liar of the Year" for his "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" lie.
That’s pretty amazing from Barry and Cankles.
“To protect our democracy, we need LESS freedom.”
And they say it without a hint of irony.
“To protect our democracy, we need LESS freedom.”
And they say it without a hint of irony.
To be fair, Reagan, both Bushes and Trump all had similar moments where they expressed their ironic thoughts on freedom.
Trump - Take guns first, get due process second is one obvious example.
Bush Sr. - Any number of statements about the war on drugs as it pertained to marijuana. Google "Green Merchant". Sending a couple hundred Haitian refugees to Guantanamo is another example. It's been argued that the media restrictions and censorship in the first gulf war was unprecedented. Import ban on semi auto rifles.
Bush Jr. - The Patriot Act alone is reprehensible enough as it relates to freedom. Don't forget the "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system" nonsense.
Reagan - Anti gun rights as the governor of California (Mulford Act), as President (FOPA), and after he left office with support of the Brady Bill & AWB.
So, you basically concerned with one issue - guns. And I see Uncle Mark agrees with you.
So you're saying that gun control and the continued erosion of a person's second amendment rights isn't anti-freedom? That's an interesting take and not an opinion I would have figured you to have, if you're saying what I think you're saying. Gun rights aren't really related to freedom. Which of the other amendments in the BoR aren't really related to freedom?
And you glossed over the other examples that I cited.
I'm not saying anything like that. I said you appear to be defining 'freedom' as a gun issue.
And your interpretation of whatever happened is colored by the fact that issue is important to you. Don't put words in my mouth.
What other example? The Patriot Act? There's nothing wrong with the Patriot Act itself. But it has been misused and it's been shown that the people who are charged with enforcing the rules are corrupt. But that's not Bush's fault for implementing an act that has helped us in the war against terror.
You criticized Republicans. That's what he's taking issue with. No need to read anything more into it than that.
Due process is at the root of my Trump example and a Bush Jr example. 1st Amendment/Freedom of the press in 3 Bush Sr. examples.
Your preferred psychopaths are just as bad as the psychopaths on the other side when it comes to cloaking themselves in talk of freedom and then doing or trying to do things that contradict their flowery prose.
Do you ever read my posts, or just see that it's me that's posting and go brain-dead?
There was due process - it just wasn't followed by the FBI. That's an FBI problem.
You've got to be shitting me - Republicans would never dare ignore the law and use it for political gain like the Democrats had done. Look at what happens to guys like Roger Stone - not only charged, but a SWAT team raided his house pred-dawn with CNN news crews covering it.
No, Republicans know what happens to them if they take one step outside the law. Democrats know their ass will be covered. Look up Lois Lerner.
Sure thing. You got me. Never been a Republican who actually has or tried to remove personal freedoms while talking about the importance of freedom. That's a Democrat thing only. Those examples you asked for aren't diverse enough or don't really count since it wasn't your opposition party.
Would love to hear you explain how there was due process in the Patriot Act. That'll be a real thigh slapper to hear how my meta data is collected despite there never being a warrant issued with any probable cause for that collection.
Talk about brain dead. You're like Hannity. When an R does it, it's for good reasons and nothing is wrong with it. But when it's a D, look out!
Would love to hear you explain how there was due process in the Patriot Act. That'll be a real thigh slapper to hear how my meta data is collected despite there never being a warrant issued with any probable cause for that collection.
Talk about brain dead. You're like Hannity. When an R does it, it's for good reasons and nothing is wrong with it. But when it's a D, look out!
When you're in a war, some liberties are curtailed for a time to win the war.
Evidently you never heard of 9/11.
There were safeguards put in place. What wasn't anticipated is that the FBI was the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party.
That kind of thinking is why I finally stopped holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. You gotta laugh about the idea that his party (my former party too) has never limited personal freedoms while talking about standing up for freedom.
I never said otherwise. But you also failed to acknowledge it was implemented because of an attack on the US.
Maybe you could have shot the planes out of the sky with your guns.
At least you have outed yourself.
Yeah, the Dems never want to limit your 2nd Amendment rights.
You're not very consistent, to say the least.
Incredibly weak. My original point was that the Rs do it too and you asked when. Sorry to upset your apple cart with examples from every R pres since 1980, including Reagan's act as a governor prior to that.
never let a crisis go to waste.
the Patriot Act was obviously already in the drawer, just waiting for the right opportunity to impose it. (did you really think it was put together almost overnight).
and the FBI and all other govt forces, work for the party in power, and the govt, and the politicians that comprise the govt, and the corps and money that own and control the govt and the politicians.
I don’t think it’s fair to label the FBI as such. Plus it just doesn’t pass the smell test. Law enforcement professionals are generally more conservative. I think there is data showing the majority of the FBI votes Republican.
You are letting weak individuals like Comey and Strozk, sour your view of an entire (necessary) government agency.
Last edited:
Well who was running the FBI? "individuals like Comey and Strozk"
I mean, come on. That's like saying the Nazis were good guys except for HItler and Himmler.
Yeah, but you used to vote Republican.
Just like every other leftist who argues for Democrats.
Show me where I argued for democrats.
I liked the above post and then replied with this one. Notice the use of the phrase "had similar moments" which implies that I agreed, but think both sides do it.
Regardless, show everyone how 100% correct you are about me being like every other leftist who argues for Democrats by giving an example of me doing it.
You're clearly calling me a leftist who supports and argues for Democrats, so put up an example of me defending a Democrat. Show your work and provide the context too.
I think you're right dbm this is all over Twitter and gaining traction. This has been quite entertaining over the past couple weeks. I wonder how many immediate changes will occur?
The other thing that many people might not realize is he wants to make Twitter an open source platform. Thats wild!
This is awesome. Don’t want to count my chickens but Twitter could be getting a lot more fun, really soon. Alex Jones, Trump, Milo these guys are entertainment in a bottle. I might have to get a Twitter account if they’re going to be back in there getting the crowd riled up.
Can you dumb it down even more? Like we'll know who is behind accounts? What accounts are bots? Why posters are banned?
Definition
Open source software (OSS) is software that is distributed with its source code, making it available for use, modification, and distribution with its original rights. Source code is the part of software that most computer users don’t ever see; it’s the code computer programmers manipulate to control how a program or application behaves. Programmers who have access to source code can change a program by adding to it, changing it, or fixing parts of it that aren’t working properly. OSS typically includes a license that allows programmers to modify the software to best fit their needs and control how the software can be distributed.This is what Wikipedia is with the public being able to add and edit someone's wiki page. Does this mean somebody can edit your Tweets? Sounds like something that might not be the best idea. Frankly, I just don't see how Musk can find the time for this. Making it as open as he wants can be a huge headache trying to keep it functional and not a complete dumpster fire.
Heres my understanding...
Open source softwares being available are good imo. Now for guys like you and I it means nothing. I have dabbled and found fixes for smaller softwares and passed those along to developers to install on backends for websites we have managed for customers and what not.
Its available for all. So if a programmer rolls in and says we can make this function better with this code Twitter can review that and add it if they wish with maybe a note as to who added the script (code) for better functionality.
Theres others that can probably chime in better than me but fixes, security patches, better functionality, etc. etc. AND everyone and anyone can view the source code. Its not a behind closed doors code.
Also and for instance the shadow banning. Twitter has written source code that follows certain posters or certain words. If the posters use certain words they get error messages when they post OR they have to modify their post. Musk wants a free platform and to bring these kinds of practices out in the open.
He has the internet service thing. A brain chip. On and on. He must just surround himself with Uber competent people and task them with implementing his ideas. I know he's constantly fundraising
