fixed that for you. 
1 Like
They really just want crazylunatics to stop destroying their property. That’s the only reason anyone even listens to the crazydemands of the looneys trying to convince everyone the world is a racist garbage pile when every single empirical data shows the complete opposite is true.
Please just stop, you are making a fool of yourself.
3 Likes
The total of the stimulus bill is $2 trillion. $560 billion went to individuals through $1200 check, as well as extra unemployment. So we got more than corporations.
Also, keep in mind, a lot of corporations like Ford, for instance, were repurposed to manufacture hospital equipment.
How are they gonna be arrested and prosecuted if there are a bunch of protesters in the way?
They have plenty to do with it if they choose to continue to protest when the looting starts. When the looting and rioting starts, the peaceful people need to go the hell home!
Is that why the liberal media constantly silences people who don’t agree with them? So much for holding up free speech.
3 Likes
I mean I agree with you that the civil rights movement which actually began in the 1940s 
started a long time ago. I’m just differentiating between that and the current visible push that started after the death of Trayvon Martin and coming up with the slogan Black Lives Matter.
No “we” didn’t. Individuals got a small fraction than what corporations received. It would even be understandable if people saw what corporation received what money so people could see where their money is going. I see you still have no defense to that fact, because there is none. They are hiding it for a specific purpose, the same purpose that caused large businesses to receive millions of the small business funds. The only reason some of those companies gave the money back is because there was public scrutiny and outrage when people saw where the money was going.
Which is why people would have no problem if they saw the amount Ford received, but they’re hiding it. It will come out with a new administration and then people will wakeup to the fact that a serial conman easily conned them because they’re the type of idiots that conmen always choose to grift from.
“Muh librul media”. In the same breath that you argue for people’s rights of freedom of assembly to be trampled on. Save your breath hypocrite.
Free speech is not being stifled, the fact that the protests are happening in a time when it’s dangerous just to be outside.
Taking down comments, videos on youtube and free speech have 0 to do with each other as youtube is still a private company and you are allowed to have videos there at their sole discretion.
1 Like
It’s annoying when people say “Police Reform” they think “OMG they want get rid of Law Enforcement.” No that’s not what they are saying when they say”Defund.”
Don’t get me wrong there are some who want to abolish it. I don’t think we’re there yet. But there needs to be accountability. And I gotta say the fact that you see some cops kneeling with protesters is somewhat progress. That would of never happened 6 years ago. That shows that even some cops knew the killing was wrong.
1 Like
Companies don’t care about you, nor could they care about what is happening in the world, as long as they are making money, they could care less, they may seem like the care but in reality, it’s a marketing technique.
Report for Abusive Chat, it is racist and will get those people banned.
Didn’t it start with Michael Brown? That’s the first time I heard of BLM was Michael Brown. I could be wrong.
That is still stifling free speech? How the hell does them being private magically change precisely what it is? You people get so fixated on the constitutional right and try to be overly pedantic to the point where your argument is essentially on par with claiming that the sky is not blue. No, censoring people is stifling the concept of free speech. Everyone understands you do not have the right to it on YouTube. They are still objectively anti free speech regardless.
1 Like
There’s laws that were past in Canada that force people to use certain unconventional gender pronounce. That’s definitely a threat to free speech, and that was pushed by the left.
Yeah, that’s what it is on paper.
If they’re a private company, then why aren’t they neutral? I could understand having company policy of “no racism, no sexism etc…” but to just outright silence anything conservative, but not liberal implies that a certain political party has their hands deep in it.
the constitution deals with the power of the GOVERNMENT not private entities, what private entities allow or do not allow is 100% at their own discretion.
Youtube is not the government and therefore have the right to refuse service to anyone.
Of course they are not neutral, nor do they need to be, Youtube can have whatever political leaning they want, they are not a government power and are not ruled under the constitution.
1 Like
Yes, we established that, and by doing so they are stifling free speech willfully. How do you disagree with the above statement? A statement of FACT.
It was Trayvon, I think Michael Brown happened the next year.
Because you have no free speech on a private platform. It’s simple logic. You can’t come into my home and say or do whatever you want and you can’t come into my business and say or do whatever you want.
People are fixated on a constitutional right because that is the only “freedom” you’re afforded. Its also a problem because people try to strawman what is being “stifled” on some of these internet platforms. People aren’t getting shut down for having a difference of opinion, they get shut down for inciting hate speech, or spreading conspiracies or breaking rules that they agreed to in the use of the platform.
If you don’t like the rules make your own platform.
1 Like
They are NOT stifiling free speech, they are exercising their right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, you may disagree with their reasoning and that’s fine, but as free speech does not apply with private companies it does not apply in this case.
1 Like
Imagine owning a restaurant and having someone crazy come in and start talking about how some of the other patrons stink and then that person crying about free speech when you ask them to stop that or leave.
1 Like
Nobody is talking about the constitutional right. As I stated quite clearly therefore making this follow up statement a blatant straw man fallacy. They are stifling the ability for people to speak freely. Is that easier to comprehend now that I removed the buzzword?
which is their right. Agree or disagree with it you have 0 rights to speak freely in a private business.
The real question is have they actually question Black people on this? Those who probably in the mob just to be part of something will say yes, but guarantee majority of them will say it’s just a video game because it has nothing to do with real toxic cops. Right now people just milking the movement name. People forget good cops exist.
Problem with cops is there training like majority needs mental and physical training. If a kid can knock down a cop with little effort. Then it goes to shows most cops are not physically fit.
Absolutely agreed, but they are stifling their ability to speak freely, yes? Because you said no earlier which was extremely childish and antithetical to the reality of the situation.
Why is it that people who are overly pedantic get so defensive when I SHOW them exactly what being pedantic is really about? That is relatively hypocritical given your prior argumentation.
No I said they are not stifiling free speech, they are stopping people they disagree with from speaking freely. Big difference.
Here is the thing even if you decided ‘hey I will just post my own page’ the web hosting company that owns the server your post on, the internet provider (yours or the web hosting) all have the right to say ‘nope don’t like it, tear it down’