More from CountDibbula

The Drama Queen's at it again. "I can tell you that I had a very close encounter where I thought I was going to die," she said during an Instagram Live. "And you have all of those thoughts where, at the end of your life…all of these thoughts come rushing to you. And that’s what happened to a lot of us on Wednesday and I did not think – I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive." Yeah... All those "Nazi's" wandering around "violently" snapping selfies in the rotunda must have been absolutely terrifying. *eye roll* https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-says-she-had-traumatic-encounter-during-capitol-riot-where-she-thought-she-might-die
107 views · Jan 13th
Yeah. It does. You're not mind readers and don't know what I think because I'm one of those nasty ass "wrong thinkers" you refuse to bother listening to before you "debunk" whatever it is you imagine I think. Now that we've gotten that out of the way.... There are some good examples in this article, BUT...the crux of your argument is the same tired ass shit we hear from teenage Twatter users every time someone is banned. "It's a private company! They can do whatever they want!" Quite the interesting "argument" since these are the exact SAME people who will insist that a certain private Bakery business does NOT have that exact same right. *eye roll* BUT...that is just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy that permeates both sides of the political aisle. Not super surprising for anyone who bothers to pay attention. What you folks seem to forget...or more likely INTENTIONALLY refuse to mention is that the precise or specific meaning behind the words in the Constitution are interpreted by The Courts. And their decisions can, and sometimes do, change precisely what those amendments mean or their limits or who exactly they pertain to, etc. So, reading JUST the amendment itself doesn't give you the best answer. Let's take your "Twatter is a private company!" argument as an example. Is Twatter a private company? Technically...no. It's a PUBLIC company. Stocks are freely traded on the PUBLIC stock market. Thus anyone can "own" a piece of Twatter. Further, Twatter has been in the Courts before and the Courts have made a previous decision that is applicable here. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals back in July of 2019 to more exact. (2nd link below) What they said was essentially: Trump's Twatter account is a public forum and as such, he may NOT block citizens from viewing it. Now then...This changes YOUR argument. Doesn't it? Because on the one side...when Trump blocked people with opinions he didn't like...The Court decided that it's a public forum and as such he can't block people from interacting with his tweets. Yet...at the same time...you're arguing the OPPOSITE for Twatter. Twatter CAN silence anyone and everyone they feel like silencing because it's a "private company." See the problem? Pick one. It's a public forum or a private company. You can't have both. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/first-amendment-explainer-2021-trnd/index.html https://thehill.com/policy/technology/452160-appeals-court-rules-trump-cant-block-people-on-twitter
153 views · Jan 13th
"...as Twitter has moved to distance itself from violent content." Uh huh.... But only CERTAIN "violent" content, right Twatter? Let's just say..."violent" content of a certain political leaning, right? Or are we going to see tens of thousands of "Antifa" and "BLM" accounts removed as well? I wouldn't want to accuse you of blatant political bias or anything without evidence, so I'll just sit over here holding my breath until that happens. *eye roll* https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/technology/twitter-removes-70000-qanon-accounts.html
134 views · Jan 12th

More from CountDibbula

The Drama Queen's at it again. "I can tell you that I had a very close encounter where I thought I was going to die," she said during an Instagram Live. "And you have all of those thoughts where, at the end of your life…all of these thoughts come rushing to you. And that’s what happened to a lot of us on Wednesday and I did not think – I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive." Yeah... All those "Nazi's" wandering around "violently" snapping selfies in the rotunda must have been absolutely terrifying. *eye roll* https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-says-she-had-traumatic-encounter-during-capitol-riot-where-she-thought-she-might-die
107 views · Jan 13th
Yeah. It does. You're not mind readers and don't know what I think because I'm one of those nasty ass "wrong thinkers" you refuse to bother listening to before you "debunk" whatever it is you imagine I think. Now that we've gotten that out of the way.... There are some good examples in this article, BUT...the crux of your argument is the same tired ass shit we hear from teenage Twatter users every time someone is banned. "It's a private company! They can do whatever they want!" Quite the interesting "argument" since these are the exact SAME people who will insist that a certain private Bakery business does NOT have that exact same right. *eye roll* BUT...that is just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy that permeates both sides of the political aisle. Not super surprising for anyone who bothers to pay attention. What you folks seem to forget...or more likely INTENTIONALLY refuse to mention is that the precise or specific meaning behind the words in the Constitution are interpreted by The Courts. And their decisions can, and sometimes do, change precisely what those amendments mean or their limits or who exactly they pertain to, etc. So, reading JUST the amendment itself doesn't give you the best answer. Let's take your "Twatter is a private company!" argument as an example. Is Twatter a private company? Technically...no. It's a PUBLIC company. Stocks are freely traded on the PUBLIC stock market. Thus anyone can "own" a piece of Twatter. Further, Twatter has been in the Courts before and the Courts have made a previous decision that is applicable here. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals back in July of 2019 to more exact. (2nd link below) What they said was essentially: Trump's Twatter account is a public forum and as such, he may NOT block citizens from viewing it. Now then...This changes YOUR argument. Doesn't it? Because on the one side...when Trump blocked people with opinions he didn't like...The Court decided that it's a public forum and as such he can't block people from interacting with his tweets. Yet...at the same time...you're arguing the OPPOSITE for Twatter. Twatter CAN silence anyone and everyone they feel like silencing because it's a "private company." See the problem? Pick one. It's a public forum or a private company. You can't have both. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/first-amendment-explainer-2021-trnd/index.html https://thehill.com/policy/technology/452160-appeals-court-rules-trump-cant-block-people-on-twitter
153 views · Jan 13th
"...as Twitter has moved to distance itself from violent content." Uh huh.... But only CERTAIN "violent" content, right Twatter? Let's just say..."violent" content of a certain political leaning, right? Or are we going to see tens of thousands of "Antifa" and "BLM" accounts removed as well? I wouldn't want to accuse you of blatant political bias or anything without evidence, so I'll just sit over here holding my breath until that happens. *eye roll* https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/technology/twitter-removes-70000-qanon-accounts.html
134 views · Jan 12th