Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?

Tangle writes: marc9000 writes: Now, beginning only in the past few decades, and ramping up drastically in only the past few years, we're seeing an increasing hostility and intolerance towards conservative free speech. You're confused. No one has to tolerate another's speech.

They don't HAVE to, it's just been a way of life in the U.S. for over 200 years, agreed upon by both sides. Starting to erode now, by ONE political party.

marc9000 writes: For months now, Donald Trump has been banned from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, and Snapchat. This forum's longtime poster Faith, was permanently banned, not for breaking forum rules or vulgar language, but for having an opinion on something that administration deemed "dangerous". Banning people from private platforms for breaking the rules of the owners of those platforms is not an attack on free speech.

Big Tech has surpassed the label of "private platform". They've become a public trust. An electric company or water works can't refuse service to someone on a street because they don't like the political signs in their yard. Trump was demonized for what he said on January 6th, largely because most of the mainstream media cut out his words "peacefully and patriotically". When Maxine Waters was inciting riots and hatred against white people, Fox news showed every word she said. Peacefully and patriotically" weren't among her words. "Breaking rules"? Yes, if the double standards are big enough.

The ones who have no right to do something, are Big Tech.

Dan Gainor: Big Tech crushing free speech – this censorship report card reveals growing and dangerous bias

quote:

---

F." One letter says everything you need to know about failure in our society. In this case, it’s a letter hard-earned by Big Tech.

There’s a simple reason. The first quarter of 2021 was the worst for online freedom since the start of the dotcom era. Big Tech went to war with conservatives in a place that was once one of the most free places on earth – the internet. That failing grade is the assessment of the Media Research Center’s new, quarterly report card about the censorship and biases that have taken over in Silicon Valley.

---

and;

quote:

---

The first quarter was filled with examples of their censorship. The power-mad powerbrokers of Big Tech went after President Donald Trump following the Capitol Hill riot. At least 10 separate tech companies censored him. Trump had long been in their sights. Leftist journalists and their friends in the tech world were furious that he had used social media to win election in 2016. They spent years getting revenge.

It wasn’t enough that they censored him and his campaign 625 times, compared to zero for Team BIden. The tech overlords were determined to take away his online powerbase and used the Capitol Hill riot as an excuse to do so.

---

marc9000 writes: A big enough issue so that you think it was not an okay discussion? Would it have been better if my posts had been censored? It should be obvious that if the problem is a lack of intelligent posts from one side, the solution is for that side to provide intelligent posts. A good discussion requires worthwhile posts from both sides.

And a poster from one side can determine what are intelligent posts from both sides, while a poster from the other side cannot?

marc9000 writes: Now, beginning only in the past few decades, and ramping up drastically in only the past few years, we're seeing an increasing hostility and intolerance towards conservative free speech. That’s really a consequence of the increasing hostility, intolerance and mendacity of Conservative speech.

You have evidence that conservatives are trying to censor liberal speech? Or conservatives are just saying things that liberals don't like? And the answer is to censor them?

For instance confusing the right to speak with the right to be given a soapbox on other people’s property.

Big Tech doesn't own the internet. They shut down Parler. Censorship has reached new heights from the Democrat party, and all the branches it owns.

marc9000 writes: For months now, Donald Trump has been banned from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, and Snapchat. Because he was disseminating misinformation that lead to a coup attempt. They tried lesser remedies but even fact checks were attacked as restricting “free speech”. Ridiculous, but that’s where Conservatism is,

So was Maxine Waters. Double standards, but that's where liberalism is.

marc9000 writes: This forum's longtime poster Faith, was permanently banned, not for breaking forum rules or vulgar language, but for having an opinion on something that administration deemed "dangerous". Again, for posting dangerous disinformation.

Someone was going to be injured, or die from what she posted? Or is there an increasing fear of what conservatives have to say?

And again this is a privately-owened forum. There is no “free speech” right to use it against the owner’s wishes,

That's true, the question is, what is the owner afraid of?

marc9000 writes: They don't disagree with the science, they disagree with the atheism. So they are prepared to accept that the Earth is billions of years old, that there never was a global Flood and that evolution explains the diversity of life we see ? Those are all science, accepted by many Christians.

The earth has to be billions of years old if we have to jam-pack all of reality into one time dimension. Some Christians have been brainwashed into believing that by today's atheist science classes.

Tangle writes: No one has to tolerate another's speech.

Phat writes: Agreed. marc9000 needs to provide an argument as to why the conservative speeches (of the past 5 years) need to be heard...particularly those of Donald Trump.

I do? Who has to provide an argument as to why AOC and Maxine Waters need to be heard? Other than their political elections, they have no other accomplishments to recommend them. Trump has a few, other than his election.

The question is, what is the fear of conservative free speech, that's causing all this brand new censorship?

Hilarious! The same bunch of Republican assholes who voted against net neutrality are now whining like a bunch of stupid babies because it's biting them on the ass. Irony and karma are a bitch!

Almost as hilarious as Democrats shrieking "Trump - Russia collusion!!!!", even though it was shown to be a lie / conspiracy theory after the multi- million dollar Mueller investigation, and now they're calling the Trump claims of a stolen election a lie and conspiracy theory, even though any investigation of that has been a small fraction of the Mueller investigation.

marc9000 writes: The question is, what is the fear of conservative free speech, that's causing all this brand new censorship? Oh you have your free speech. No government agency is denying you a voice.

There is evidence that private Democrat monopolies are. But you didn't really answer the question. Why is there a FEAR of conservative free speech? There is also evidence that government subsidized universities have blocked conservative speakers on their campuses for decades. While constantly inviting America haters like Ward Churchill and countless others like him with open arms, to spew violent anti-Americanism.

The rest is social reaction to your hate speech. That reaction is allowed. That reaction is also free speech. Government can't stop you but the rest of society sure the hell can. The big fear is you right-wingers becoming reich-wingers taking over, again, and killing everybody, again. Your hate speech right now is on that slippery slope that leads to NAZIs. Do you want me to put it more graphically, like we're going to not only ridicule every backward inhumane stance you bozos come up with, we're going to throw sand in your face whenever, wherever we can? If you want more graphic visuals just let me know.

You seem very angry, along with, I suspect, all of your green dot providers. It just doesn't make sense, considering that anger wasn't here only a few decades ago, when all of your recent demands weren't even on the horizon.

Here are a few graphic visuals for you;

60 years ago, most Democrats agreed that taxpayer funded abortion was a bad idea. Not any more.

60 years ago, most Democrats agreed that prayer in schools was okay. Not any more.

60 years ago, most Democrats supported the second amendment. Not any more.

40 years ago, most Democrats supported fiscal responsibility. (not borrowing trillions for government pork) Not any more.

40 years ago (or 10 years ago) most Democrats would have laughed at the stupidity of calling free child care, free healthcare, free college, forgiveness of student debt as "infrastructure". Not any more.

30 years ago, most Democrats wouldn't have agreed with taxpayer funded special rights for blacks and gays. Not any more.

30 years ago, (or 10 years ago) most Democrats would have laughed at the thought of "defunding the police". Not any more.

20 years ago, most Democrats supported immigration laws, a secure southern border. Not any more.

It goes on and on, do you need more examples? And you wonder why Republicans are becoming vocal enough to injure your sensitive feelings?

No, it wasn’t shown to be either a lie or a conspiracy theory. Manafort did have improper contact with the Russians. The Trump Tower meeting happened. The Russians were behind the DNC hack and the release of the documents. It turned out that Mueller didn’t find that things had gone far enough for charges, but there was enough to justify investigation.

Didn't go far enough for charges, but it was still the truth?

Because there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion, and because the recounts and audits didn’t find any serious problems.

But the recounts and audits didn't go on for 2 years, or cost millions of dollars. Ballot harvesting, mail in voting, and all the other fraud was barely investigated at all. No investigation on why the mainstream media completely covered up the Joe Biden / Hunter Biden corruption with Ukraine during the Obama administration, only weeks before the election. Polls showed that enough voters would have changed their vote from Biden to Trump had they known about it, to change the results.

marc9000 writes: And a poster from one side can determine what are intelligent posts from both sides, while a poster from the other side cannot? I think that we can say that the person who tried to suggest that the restrictions on wood burning stoves was a response to global warming - and that the reason was the heat they give out - is unable to judge the intelligence. Message 633

It's all about government control of personal liberty, the different divisions of government excuses to do it is fairly irrelevant. I was much more concerned with intelligence, concerning the message that claimed that most all products used by humans today can easily be made without fossil fuels. And the very telling reaction it got when I pointed out how wrong that was. I'll go over to that thread here shortly.

Then perhaps you can show me evidence of this coup attempt and that Maxine Waters spread disinformation that lead to it.

You haven't seen the antifa and BLM riots, both before and after her incentivizing it, and calling it all okay?

If it was fear of what she was saying, why wasn’t she banned much earlier? It makes no sense.

Because, as I've been saying, conservative speech is becoming tolerated LESS, as a fear of it grows.

marc9000 writes: The earth has to be billions of years old if we have to jam-pack all of reality into one time dimension. That doesn’t even make sense.

It makes perfect sense, humans can't comprehend anything outside of one time dimension, three space dimensions, and re-arrangement of material. Logic actually tells us there is more to reality.

But even if it did, assuming multiple time dimensions isn’t even theistic.

No, God created time, he is outside of time. He created, humans can't create, or even comprehend creation.

Of course, even if a teacher was actually teaching that there was no God reacting to it by trying to take over parts of the science curriculum is in no way a sensible answer. Nor even a proportionate one. So that’s a good example of conservatives being worse than liberals.

?? That doesn't make sense.

I think you're confusing the views of Trump and his supporters with conservatism. They're not the same thing.

I know, this is a game that liberals play. I've seen it all over the place before. I take it you think most posters here are conservative? Proper definitive terms being jacked all around to confuse straightforward discussions isn't something I'm interested in engaging in any longer.

What has been "ramping up drastically in only the past few years" is objections to Trump and his supporters' attacks upon democratic institutions.

All those recent institutions that I described in Message 24?

There's nothing about language in the Forum Guidelines, and no moderator action is ever taken for it. Faith's spreading of covid-19 misinformation (e.g., promoting hydroxychloroquine, questioning fatality statistics, etc.) was deemed a threat to life, which this forum could not in good conscience permit to continue.

But without checking right now, I seem to remember them saying something about being respectful, about attacking the argument, not the person.

I think there are a lot of liberal claims that could be a threat to life, the destruction of the second amendment , or as I'm about to make clear to PaulK in the other thread, the implication that most all the products humans need and depend on can easily be manufactured and distributed without fossil fuels, so it would be very cool for the government to meddle in the use of fossil fuels. Very dangerous.

Sounds accurate, since Rush Limbaugh's lies were pretty dangerous, e.g., “The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.” He died of lung cancer because he believed his own lies about smoking: "Firsthand smoke takes 50 years to kill people, if it does." "There’s no … major sickness component associated with secondhand smoke." "I would like a medal for smoking cigars."

He died at age 70, a lot of non-smokers die of lung cancer at an earlier age than that. My mom smoked most of her life, she died at 88. Little opinions about personal choices pale in comparison to the whoppers liberals like AOC say.

No they aren't liberal efforts against free speech. I think you're confusing criticism with free speech infringement. Rush Limbaugh was free to lie about smoking and covid-19, and other people were free to criticize him for it. It's necessary to mention that Limbaugh shares responsibility for the vaccine reluctance that will prevent the US from reaching herd immunity, because part of that reluctance is the belief promoted by Limbaugh and others that the virus isn't really dangerous.

So Trump slowed the vaccine development because of what Limbaugh said? I think not.

Did you hear the one the mainstream media told about the Capital police officer being hit and killed by a fire extinguisher, wielded by a typical Trump supporter? Fox news ran a montage of a LOT of news anchors making that statement. It's now been proven that officer died of natural causes. Some people found out the truth, most did not - the mainstream media paid no price for that lie. No investigation of just who made that up out of thin air. Little doubt it was an amateur liberal reporter. Restricting free speech because of accusations of lies is a new thing, it wasn't considered in past U.S. history.

None of this has anything to do with attempts to infringe upon free speech. You're saying "free speech infringement" but you're describing criticism, and plenty of criticism flows in both directions. The significant difference is the lies from the liar in chief that are believed and repeated by other Republicans. Most Republicans believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen and that Trump actually won in a landslide, and no one tried to take away anyone's rights to make these claims.

Trump's use of the term "landslide" was stupid, typical Trump personality that hurts him, everyone knows the election was close. I'm sure he was frustrated by the mainstream media cover up of the Biden corruption during the Obama presidency. No question the Democrat owned news media bought that election for him, combining the Biden corruption with other things. Before you say that everyone has the right to watch Fox news, the simple reality is that much of rural America doesn't have access to anything but over-the-air news, and that's what the mainstream media dominates.

Belief in a stolen election is a now requirement for membership in good standing of the Republican party. Liz Cheney will likely lose her House leadership position to Elise Stefanik for not accepting this lie. Ironically Liz Cheney has voted 82% of the time with conservatives, Elise Stefanik only 52% of the time. In their eagerness that top Republican leadership be pure on the "stolen election" claim they're replacing a staunch conservative with a tepid one.

The replacement of Liz Cheney is much more involved than just the belief in a stolen election.

No one believing this missive from Mr. Jones has engaged in any critical thinking. For the benefit of those to whom the glaring flaws aren't obvious, Mr. Jones cannot have studies showing what will happen after ten years for a vaccine that has been available for study for no more than a year. We don't know what causes Alzheimer's, and so we also don't know how to cause it. The earliest studies of the vaccines are about a year old now, and no one in the early studies has come down with neurological disorders. Alex Jones is lying, just as Rush Limbaugh was lying, and just as Donald Trump is lying. Their free speech rights give them the right to lie, and these same rights give other people the right to criticize them for lying.

These are political opinions and talking points, NO DIFFERENT than liberal talking points, like global warming will be completely out of control soon if we don't allow the government takeover of the fossil fuel industry, like U.S. coasts will be swallowed up by rising oceans, like Joe Biden's campaign lie that he had no idea how many millions Hunter Biden raked in from his Ukraine corruption, like Joe Biden's recent lie that the southern border is under control, on and on.

marc9000 writes: The list of liberals who are included on Fox News Channel discussions is long,... Could I see this list?

Donna Brazille
Christopher Hahn
Juan Williams
Jessica Tarlov
Marie Harf
Leslie Marshall
Chris Wallace

Some past ones;

Greta Van Susteren
Shepard Smith
Bob Beckel
Alison Camerota

With the possible exception of Beckel, these people are good -they can proclaim the liberal talking points without sputtering with rage. Probably a requirement of the job. Makes for good complete information at Fox, unlike CNN, ABC, and all the rest. No conservatives get anywhere near World News Tonight on ABC.

I watch the Sunday morning news programs, and on Meet the Press, Face the Nation and This Week conservatives are very well represented. Conservatives appearing recently on these programs are Senator Ron Johnson, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Republican pollster Al Cardenas, Lanhee Chen, Senator Rob Portman, National Review's David French, Senator Tim Scott, Governor Mike DeWine, the list just goes on and on.

Is Sunday morning pretty much it? I'm in church on Sunday mornings. The people I listed above could show up at Fox any time during the week.

Chris Wallace has been at Fox News since 2003. He does represent an odd man out the last few years now that his network has moved so far to the right and embraced lying and misrepresentation as news, but letting him go would greatly reduce the overall quality of their news staff since he is by far the most honest and respected newsman they have.

Yes, I noticed your praise of him here not long ago. He cuts off and smarts off to conservatives all he can, and with few exceptions, he lets the liberals off with no challenges.

This is an odd charge given the number of false and misleading statements you've made in just this post alone. I presume you don't believe a person's religion or lack of it is relevant in politics, so I don't know why you mention atheists. Many here are liberal, but you'd be going out on a limb to describe them as far left. I personally am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

So you believe in social spending, but not fiscal spending? Do you believe that borrowing trillions more, for free child care, student loan forgiveness, and most of the rest of Biden's pork, are "infrastructure"?

Science is atheistic in the way plumbing and knitting are atheistic. Religion just isn't relevant.

That's the talking point I've seen dozens of times before, and like before, still not true no matter how much its repeated. I'm just glad plumbers didn't have an emotional meltdown with the release of "Darwin's Black Box".

The word is SURELY. Don't call me Shirley.

I am baffled what motivates marc9K to post here considering that he must know that everything he says will be fact checked, skeptically scrutinized, and soundly criticized if it's false or misleading. He seems to think that violates HIS RIGHTS and should be illegal.

Oh, it's a blast! 4, or 5, or 15 frantically working together to try to shout me down, with little regard to what the truth is. I'm about to prove that in the "Climate Denier" thread, won't you join me there? (if you sputter with rage and call me vulgar names, I probably won't respond though.)

He can't possibly think that suddenly some of us are going to start believing him and how he characterizes us.

Oh no, I don't! I just like to watch you dig deeper and deeper holes, again, as I'm about to show in the other thread. I'm sure there are some conservative non-members who might happen by here, terrified to post of course, but who might get some amusement at how I get you going.

Their goals for America scare the living shit out of me. Those assholes are passing laws making it legal to run down protesters with a motorized vehicle, for fuck's sake!

See what I mean? Please link me to these "laws". Your 4 approval dot providers should be able to help you. Please include more vulgar words.

I'll be back this weekend.

You said, "we're seeing an increasing hostility and intolerance towards conservative free speech." We're not. If you think we are then provide some examples.

There are those who've researched it, and say we are.

The Free Speech Alliance

quote:

---

In April 2018, the Media Research Center released a groundbreaking report exposing efforts to censor conservatives and silence conservative speech from major online platforms. Our report was so impactful that US Representatives on the House Judiciary Committee cited it four separate times during a July 17, 2018 congressional hearing.

---

In the past year or so, a well known Cincinnati Reds baseball announcer made a casual comment about a "fag", when he didn't think his mike was hot. He sure lost his job, the gays in the Cincinnati news media had a fit. No such fits used to happen to Robert Byrd, who used the N word publicly more than once.

These increased attacks on conservative free speech aren't just very recent (the 2020 election) but have been ramping up during the entire Trump administration. Not only to Trump himself, but to all conservatives.

What I think you can legitimately point to over the past few years is increasing hostility toward the views of Trump. For instance, there's a great deal of hostility right now toward his claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. That view is Trumpism, not conservatism.

There are a lot of conservatives who aren't real confident in the integrity of the 2020 election. "Stolen" is a harsh word, but these are changing times that our society is still coming to grips with. The Covid 19 hysteria played no small part in the confusion that was the voting process this time. The mail-in voting, the early voting, the questions about voter ID, etc. Conservative's lack of confidence in it is really very comparable to the liberal hysteria we heard 4 years ago when it was claimed that Russia interfered with Hillary's victory. Not as much free speech was silenced that time.

No democratic institutions were described in Message 24.

No they were not, what was described there was today's Democrat party's serious swerve to the left of liberalism, more towards socialism and communism. None of my dozen or so frantic opponents has responded to it.

That's going to cause me to limit my line by line response to all of this tonight. I'll just touch on a few of the more interesting ones.

Liberals achieved "the destruction of the second amendment"? Wow! How did I not hear about this?

They've been trying real hard in the past decade or so, and it's one of their few efforts that haven't gotten much traction. The more Democrats threaten to take them, statistics show that more and more guns are being sold.

How is it dangerous to set government policy regarding fossil fuels?

The government often doesn't do a good job of predicting unforeseen costs and complications that result from their meddling. In the 90's we had president Bill Clinton, you remember him. Bill had a little socialist dictator wannabe named Carol Browner as his EPA administrator. Her and the EPA decided it would be a swell idea to ramp up gas mileage standards, to the point where that time periods technology wouldn't allow large cars to be built anymore, thereby herding all the unwashed masses into tiny little econobox cars. They couldn't foresee the huge percentage of car buyers flocking to big SUV's in the next decade, and now into big 4 door pickups. There would probably be more fuel efficient vehicles on the road today if the government wouldn't have meddled. Sure, it's true that even those large vehicles get better mileage than large cars of the early 90's, the auto makers spent a lot of time and money to get engines to where they are today. That's largely why so many moderately equipped, moderately sized new vehicles today cost as much as a house.

You're ignoring the point. Rush Limbaugh's lies caused deaths, including possibly his own.

Everybody dies. A lot of us like to make our own decisions concerning how we choose to live.

This can be interpreted two ways, neither of which make sense. The actual cause of Sicknick's death, a surprise to everyone and so fairly big news, was very widely reported, so it makes no sense to say that most people did not hear about this. Or maybe you mean that some people found out that Sicknick died of natural causes before the coroner released his report. This, too, makes no sense.

What makes sense is that a lot of people heard it trumpeted that he was killed by a Trump supporter with a fire extinguisher, and a lot fewer people heard that he died of natural causes. I watch ABC World News Tonight most evenings, no big attention getting correction was made concerning the original false report.

But if you want to claim so minor an inaccuracy is a lie, a big lie in fact, then how do you describe the lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen? You're using a mote to distract people from a beam.

I believed the reports that conservative poll observers were sometimes denied entrance, and expelled, from polling places at times during the election. I live near, and sometimes work in, a medium sized, old U.S. city, where mobs sometimes roam, and I can just imagine which of the two political parties controlled the atmosphere at ALL big mob infested cities in the U.S.

Republicans have lost the popular vote in the last four presidential elections and seven of the last eight. That's why they're working so hard on voter suppression efforts.

They're working hard on voter ID, on getting the election process back to traditional methods, not all this new early voting, mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, illegals voting etc. But yes, Democrats have the numbers, they get them from the clusters of idle people in big cities. The red/blue maps showing where the red and blue voters are make that clear.

Gee, that's funny, because when I drive around rural America, which describes most of my state, I see satellite dishes on almost every house.

Gee that's even funnier, because when most people think of rural America, they're not thinking of New Hampshire hahahaha. They're thinking of Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas, Montana, Kentucky, South Dakota.

Mark, you are both amazing and amazingly consistent. I'm halfway through your post and have yet to find much of anything true. You're able to give voice to obvious outrage but unable to find anything true to support it.

You say below that you watch Ron Johnson and Tim Scott sometimes on Sunday morning programs. Do you find me to be a lot different than them, and others like them?

How is it untrue? I don't see religion's involvement or relevance in science, plumbing or knitting. Obviously you see it differently, so please explain.

There is ANGER in those who study science, this forum alone should make that clear to anybody, partly because they take science far beyond its boundaries, beyond what's testable and falsifiable, and religion gets in its way. They also have frustration at their inability to come up with naturalistic origins of life. Their beloved evolution continues to be a building with walls and a roof, but no foundation.

I'm just glad "plumbers" don't have this kind of anger, half of them would be laying around dead, beaten to death with monkey wrenches.

Johnson has been identified as the GOP's foremost advancer of conspiracy theories and disinformation. His disinformation claims are so in line with the Kremlin's that an MSNBC commentator always adds before showing a video of Johnson repeating that disinformation "We had to pay extra to translate it from the original Russian." So here you're comparing yourself to Ron Johnson and claiming that you're little different from him.

I'd guess you could come up with something like this for any Republican.

Do you compare yourself with "The Squad" - AOC, Omar, Tlaib, Pressley?

Squad Members Attack Israel As Hamas Rockets Rain Down, Because of Course

The Free Speech Alliance and it's Media Research Center is right wing. They've been described as "propaganda clothed as critique."

They began that way, there's no secret about who they are, they've remained consistent. The NY Times is now described as "chief cheerleader for the left". They did not begin that way, and there's still some belief among the public that they're still a legitimate news source. But that belief is fading fast.

But I could find no evidence of this claim (though I know there are Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who believe this nonsense). Here's a link to the webpage for the House Judiciary Committee hearing for that day: Facebook, Google and Twitter: Examining the Content Filtering Practices of Social Media Giants | U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee . Knock yourself out finding references to the Media Research Center report at that link.

That claim fits what I see going on around me. I don't need to spend hours looking for something you can't find, only to have you dismiss it in 5 seconds. I believe what the MRC says, you believe what the NY Times says. That's where we are.

Why should the Cincinnati Reds organization provide a platform for a gay-hater.

One flippant word in private does not indicate hate. Sheesh.

Why are you defending even more hate speech by offering the example of Robert Byrd getting away with using the word nigger?

The term is "double standard". Democrats get away with hate speech, Republicans do not. Rashida Tlaib screams "impeach the mo frigga" very intentionally, very publicly, and pays no price at all.

Not providing a platform for hate speech like you describe, namely calling people fags and niggers, is a good thing. You seem not to even realize how much more obvious you're making the racist and homophobic views of Trump Republicans. You're just digging your hole wider and deeper.

"Racist and homophobic" - I guess no terms have been coined to describe the Trump hate and white people hate that people like Tlaib regularly display. Probably because it's not thought necessary, not taken seriously. But some of us think it's time to start taking it seriously.

First, you don't really mean true conservatives. The people you're really talking about are Trump supporters who believe the former president's lies that the election was stolen, despite that he lost 59 of 60 court cases. The one court case he won was to allow observers to stand closer.

I really do mean true conservatives, because close to half of the country liked the job he did as president, his somewhat childish reactions to the election were a minor detail. His somewhat regretable behavior about the election were understandable for most of them, his dread of what Biden's handlers were going to do to this country stirred up some understandable panic. The Hamas terrorist group has no fear of the U.S. now, oil prices going up, an out-of-control southern border. Unemployment, inflation, able bodied people doing nothing, it's all happening fast.

Are Trump supporters confident in the election of all the down ballot Republicans who won? Have they figured out yet how, other than by magic, votes for down ballot Republicans were unaffected but votes for Trump on the same ballot were changed to Biden? Why would anyone having the power to change votes change them only for the presidential race?

Hahahaha, because the presidential race was high profile, it's where all the attention and corruption was!

Covid-19 hysteria? With nearly 600,000 dead so far, concern about covid-19 is rational, not hysterical.

Trump was blamed for it, dances were done by the NY Times to imply that he was somehow responsible for it, or that his actions in dealing with it were inadequate. All lies of course. Recently, the Colonial pipeline company paid millions in ransom to Russian hackers to restore the operation of their pipeline. No mention of Biden in any of the reports. If that had happened during the Trump administration, do you think his name would be mentioned? Impeachment articles would be drawn up.

It was a reply to AZPaul3, and I guess he chose not to respond to it. You appear to be spewing a bunch of nonsense in that message, much like here.

So you don't believe the Democrat party has changed much in the last 60 years?

There's no significant effort by liberals to repeal the 2nd amendment.

They could easily make that position official, but they never do. Just incremental steps, "a step in the right direction" as they describe more and more gun control steps. And the "right direction" is???

Most of most states is rural, Marc, and satellite dishes are everywhere in rural America. Your claim that rural America can't watch Fox News because it's on cable was wrong.

Wasn't it you 8 or 9 months ago telling me that rural America was getting poorer and poorer because the government wasn't giving them enough free stuff? Now suddenly they can all afford premium television and internet, even though it's prices keep going up and up? Biden must be a miracle worker!

No, not at all. You're all pretty much delusional. But they're backing Trump's lies about the 2020 election and about racism because they believe it's necessary to holding on to their current offices. Why are you?

Because during the Trump administration, we had a southern border that was getting under control. We had terrorist groups in the middle east that were afraid to try him. We had low unemployment, low inflation, a promising economy, it goes on and on.

Marc, you see negative emotions in everyone who disagrees with you. You can't disagree with anyone without accusing them of being angry or frustrated or sputtering with rage and all the rest. Give it a break. The only person who sounds angry around here (not to mention uninformed and shameless in fabricating arguments) is you. You again made it through an entire post saying almost nothing true.

What criteria do you use to determine anger? I largely go by name calling - I never call names, and yet I'm on the receiving end of name calling and insults here all the time. I'm wrong about that right? I'm just like Trump, it doesn't matter what I say, it's automatically wrong because I say it?

That's what makes this place fun, but it's also a little sad. But to your tremendous relief, I'm now done in this thread, so you and your helpers can have the last word that you crave. I'd like to explore a little more in the "Is Science Atheism" thread, maybe in the climate change thread, then I'll be gone again for 6 months or a year, just maybe checking in every once in a while for amusement.

Marc is repeating lies and falsehoods, and now we find out after spending considerable time beginning to nail down the specifics of his lies and falsehoods (it's tough because he ignores old ones and adds new ones at a considerable rate)

What I have to ignore, and what I have to add, is because I'm facing a frantic gang by myself. You have no idea what it's like, you and your helpers here couldn't do it.

...we find that he's just going to abandon discussion.

From Message 65

marc9000 writes: I'll be back this weekend. If it's only to offer more fiction and error, why bother?

Sure not easy to keep you happy.