SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> What I'm hoping for
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1736675372

Message started by JOG on 01/12/25 at 01:49:32

Title: What I'm hoping for
Post by JOG on 01/12/25 at 01:49:32

I hope we see the end of woke,and a new age, the age of Awake.
It's getting tiresome being told how wrong I am, until it's obvious I ,and a few other people here, were right all along. YaKnow, we TOLD YOU that the voices who argued against the jabs were being censored. Now, after all your PooPooing, yep,,we were Right, all along. And Seeing it was not hard. Just like Joetato, losing his marble,, singular,, we were Right,
TC Says he didn't argue against that,, I Think I would have remembered that, and I don't.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by MnSpring on 01/12/25 at 04:17:32

“… I hope we see the end of woke …”

Most were drinking the Cool Aid,
And Lovers of world order.

They did not use their cognitive facilities.

Some are STILL drinking the Cool Aid,
And sticking their fingers in their ears,
Saying, La La La La La La La La !!!!!

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by thumperclone on 01/12/25 at 05:20:53

woke means awake

alert to prejudice and discrimination

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by WebsterMark on 01/12/25 at 05:57:39

Woke creates emasculated men no longer able to recognize the difference between actual discrimination, which requires men to stand up against it, and men who have been conditioned to accept nonsensical delusions as truth.

That’s the definition of today’s “woke”.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by MnSpring on 01/12/25 at 06:19:09

The meaning of, ‘WOKE’, in this constant, means.

Feeling superior to everyone else,
because you believe in:

Fairy Dust Sprinkling.
Trophy’s for everyone.
Reparations for something done MANY years ago, by someone you never knew.
Give Tax Payer money to ANYONE who says, gimme, Gimme, GIMMIE.
Tear down a Statue of something that happened 200 years ago.
Change the name of a lake, ‘just because’.
Claim everyone is RACIST, (except the, ‘WOKE”).
And on, and On, and ON !

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by thumperclone on 01/12/25 at 06:53:13

redefining a definition to fit your rhetoric does not change fact
there is nothing wrong about caring for others
back away from the hate

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by JOG on 01/12/25 at 08:16:17

No.Awake is Seeing the woke,and understanding the destructive force that it is. Awake is Seeing and connecting the dots. Woke is Bullschitt. Awake is what I am. You may, one day, figure out just how brainwashed you are.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/12/25 at 08:56:41

Obviously anything "official" that was against Operation Warp Speed will be "censored" so to speak. Including government influence on private companies lawfully controlling their own private property. They don't have an obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, so there's no reason to expect anything different.

Of course there should be no reason to ignore the obvious anti-vaccine lies either.

For instance insisting, for years, hydroxychloroquine is a "proven cure" is different than claiming studies of efficacy are being removed from open public view. Those are two different discussions. One is about real things actually happening and one is just copy-pasting a headline you found online with data you refuse to read.

No organization or private company should be stating a research set that was admitted to be made-up is factual, and not a lie. Claiming they were "censored" changes nothing about the fact that it was completely false. Anyone that still thinks that hydroxychloroquine is a cure, or that the huge data set from India is true, are doing exactly what humans that think the Government wasn't censoring data are doing.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Serowbot on 01/12/25 at 09:57:56

6257445C4740445741250 wrote:

Considering all the censorship, I heard an awful lot of it

...and you're battling 200 years of science here
..but 200 years of science is wrong and you're right

Part of MAGA is bringing back smallpox and polio, and measles, and TB
So great
The reduction in Republican voters will be very helpful
Thanks

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by thumperclone on 01/12/25 at 10:38:34

4C796A72696E6A796F0B0 wrote:

how can compassion be destructive
your posts prove your indoctrination for nutjob conspiracies

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by MnSpring on 01/12/25 at 12:05:47

6E4E4C44594E2B0 wrote:

"... private companies lawfully controlling their own private property.
They don't have an obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, ..."

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by MnSpring on 01/12/25 at 12:13:26

1305120F17020F14600 wrote:

"... Part of MAGA is bringing back smallpox and polio, and measles, and TB ..."

Just WOW !

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by JOG on 01/12/25 at 12:35:40

They don't have an obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, so there's no reason to expect anything different.

You keep gaslighting that out.

If the Goobs walked in and erased my words, or kept me from posting them, That is a first amendment violation.

Making Someone Else do it is too.
Murder is illegal.
Having someone else do it for you is too.

Now, STOPPIT. I don't want to have to explain it again. You Know this stuff. You're not Stewpid.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/12/25 at 13:47:09

Let's say I have a company, it builds and sells 'widgets'.
It is a private company.
I hire employees for several duties of employ.

One day I say;
"All employed must only praise the Democrats"
"All employed must only condemn the Republicans"
"All employed must only be a member of the DNC"
"All employed, will be fired immediately, if they ever praise any Party, other than Democrats"

Clearly I can, because I "... don't have an obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, ..."

So I can, Fire or Hire, if:
You bake a cake for a certain person.
You belong/talk about a certain political party.
You have or not have gotten a c-19 shot.
You have a certain hair cut, believe in a certain religion, come from a certain Family Heritage, have a certain color of skin, own/use a GUN ... ... ... ... ...

You can say it, you just can't enforce it. You can not be prosecuted for expressing in a public forum your dissatisfaction with US law. You can however be stopped by a private company for trying to do that on their property - because they have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.

Again, Facebook has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights. Expecting Facebook to do that is ridiculous. You should clearly be addressing those issues with your Government.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/12/25 at 13:54:17

You keep gaslighting that out.

If the Goobs walked in and erased my words, or kept me from posting them, That is a first amendment violation.

Exactly. A private company has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, so you should not expect them to do that. You clearly provide an example of the Government violating your 1st Amendment rights.

Making Someone Else do it is too.
Murder is illegal.
Having someone else do it for you is too.

Facebook chose to do it. There's no specific information indicating FB was required by the US Government to censor anything on their property. You can't sincerely believe FB is required to protect your 1st Amendment rights.

Now, STOPPIT. I don't want to have to explain it again. You Know this stuff. You're not Stewpid.

You obviously do not understand the difference between FB choosing to cooperate with the Government, and that they have no requirements by law to protect your 1st Amendment right. The problem is what the US Government did. Not that FB has an obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights. Nobody should ever post there thinking anything they say is protected.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by thumperclone on 01/12/25 at 14:53:46

two decades ago while living in Florida there was a bumper sticker:

"s::t happens"

the court decided to outlaw it because it was in "bad taste"
the 1st amendment has limits

some will say we have to protect the children like the book banners say

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by blod on 01/12/25 at 18:09:20

Woke is bollocks.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by JOG on 01/13/25 at 00:30:59

7F637E667B6E79686764656E0B0 wrote:

Graphic sexualized books in elementary school
You know that
Grow up

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by MnSpring on 01/13/25 at 06:42:00

5D7D7F776A7D180 wrote:

"... - because they have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights. ..."

Please explain why a PRIVATE Business was fined

"... the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the state's anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a birthday cake for a trans woman, a state judge has ruled."

"... anti-discrimination laws are intended to ensure that members of our society who have historically been treated unfairly, who have been deprived of even the every-day right to access businesses to buy products ..."

"... Radical activists and government officials are targeting artists like Jack ..."

"... "This is about a business that is open to the public that simply says to an entire class of people in the community that your identity, who you are, is something that is objectional," ..."

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by JOG on 01/13/25 at 07:11:06

because they have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights

The goobs have EVERY obligation to Not ask them to violate our rights

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/13/25 at 09:47:45

Please explain why a PRIVATE Business was fined

Why don't you explain how any of those businesses were punished in court for not protecting a customer's 1st Amendment rights. You provide anti-discrimination laws, none of which require Facebook to protect your 1st Amendment rights.

I am saying nobody should be suing FB for not protecting their 1st Amendment rights, nor should FB be prosecuted by the US government for not protecting your 1st Amendment rights. There should be no expectation that FB protect your 1st Amendment rights.

FB has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/13/25 at 09:49:23

The goobs have EVERY obligation to Not ask them to violate our rights

Except Facebook is not a Government owned public forum, so you have no "rights" to be using Facebook's private property. That's like saying this forum is violating your rights if a moderator bans you because the Government asked them to.

So what "rights" do you have to use Facebook? And in what capacity is FB "violating our rights"?

In order for FB to "violate our rights" they must have a legal obligation to protect them. Do they?

Facebook has no obligation to allow you to use their private property. How many times has Facebook been prosecuted by the millions of banned accounts for violating their customer's "rights" to use Facebook's private property? Zero. Because FB has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.

The Government is in violation, not Facebook.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by JOG on 01/13/25 at 10:06:39

Government is in violation, not Facebook.
Back to top

Good for you,, you figure it out.

FB and others are victims. And also the bad guys
The goobs, everyone involved, need pain.

If you hire a hit man, who goes to jail?
Both

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/13/25 at 10:15:40

Good for you,, you figure it out.

You have not.

FB and others are victims. And also the bad guys
The goobs, everyone involved, need pain.

The problem is it is not illegal for FB to prohibit you from using their property. They never agreed to murder, or anything that is illegal. What law did FB violate?

If a moderator here voluntarily bans you from this forum, should the forum owner and moderator "feel pain" for violating your rights? If so what right do you have to use this forum?

If you hire a hit man, who goes to jail?
Both

Agreed, because killing a human is not preventing someone from using your private property. Your comparison is poor.

If the Government asks you to keep woke Liberals from going to your home, are you "violating their rights" when you do that? Should you "feel pain" for that?

The Government has no business asking you to do that, but it is completely legal for you to control your private property. Right?

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by JOG on 01/13/25 at 11:30:02

We've done it before
You're still wrong

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Serowbot on 01/13/25 at 11:41:20

If you pay a lawyer to pay-off a porn star, he goes to jail and you don't
If you pay an accountant to cook yer books, he goes to jail and you don't
If you incite an insurrection, they go to jail and you don't

You go to the White House

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/13/25 at 11:45:43

We've done it before
You're still wrong

If a moderator here voluntarily bans you from this forum, should the forum owner and moderator "feel pain" for violating your rights? If so what right do you have to use this forum?

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal or a "violation of our rights".

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by WebsterMark on 01/13/25 at 15:11:13

697F68756D78756E1A0 wrote:

If you’re Joe Biden, you sell your office to the Chinese and Ukrainians for millions and you don’t go to jail…in fact, nothing happens to you.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by WebsterMark on 01/13/25 at 15:16:57

And I’m not 100% sure Facebook is under no legal obligation to protect first amendment rights by claiming they’re a private company and participation is voluntary so they are free to do what they want.

I seem to recall a case was decided that if you have a regular space at work where you keep your personal items such as in the top right hand drawer and all the parties involved know this is your personal space, there was a fourth amendment issue when the company gave permission to law-enforcement to search that employees personal space.

Maybe there’s more to it than that, but I can imagine a lawyer would be able to make a pretty compelling case that Facebook censoring your post for political reasons, especially when it was at the request of the government is in fact, a violation of your first amendment rights.

I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you’re making it out to be.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by MnSpring on 01/13/25 at 15:32:26

634341495443260 wrote:

"... violating your rights? ..."

Great !

When I open the PRIVATE, shooting range.
And only allow,
White Skin and Conservative people to shoot there.

You will defend me when I get sued by someone,
because I,
violated their, "rights".

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/13/25 at 15:41:34

Great !

When I open the PRIVATE, shooting range.
And only allow,
White Skin and Conservative people to shoot there.

You will defend me when I get sued by someone,
because I,
violated their, "rights".

Again you are trying to use anti-discrimination law as an argument for 1st Amendment protections enforced by a private company on their property. This is no different than JoG comparing contract murders to banning a member from Facebook. Facebook has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights on their property.

If you open a gun range and voluntarily cooperate with the Government to stop any member from posting signs on your property then you are doing what FB did.

Nobody should go to your gun range thinking they have full 1st Amendment protections there. As such nobody should go on Facebook thinking they have full 1st Amendment protections there.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/13/25 at 15:56:08

And I’m not 100% sure Facebook is under no legal obligation to protect first amendment rights by claiming they’re a private company and participation is voluntary so they are free to do what they want.

I can find no reference in US law of a private company being prosecuted for not allowing the public to use their property to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. (1st Amendment rights are not anti-discrimination rights for anyone incapable of understanding what the 1st Amendment is).

Facebook does not have to allow you to use it any more than this very forum does. If you get banned can you sue because your 1st Amendment "right" was "violated"?

However other avenues that are NOT the 1st Amendment do apply. We will never be able to discuss it here on this forum because some members will continue to insist the "violation of our rights" is from FB and not the sole responsibility of the US Government. Also insisting it is the 1st Amendment FB is violating and not other, actual real violations supported by US law.

This one articulates the issue clearer:

https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/does-the-first-amendment-require-social-media-platforms-to-grant-access-to-all-users

Professor Strossen underscores that the protections granted by the First Amendment apply solely to government infringements on free speech and do not extend to privately-owned entities such as Facebook and Twitter. She clarifies that these platforms, akin to traditional media outlets like the New York Times or CNN, possess their own First Amendment rights, thereby having no obligation to accommodate content or viewpoints they deem objectionable.

However, the significant role these platforms have as a "modern public square"—acknowledged in the unanimous 2017 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina—raises profound concerns about equal and fair access. Strossen posits that due to the significance of these platforms, government officials, human rights agencies, and activists will likely continue to push for equitable access to social media through new regulations, rather than relying solely on First Amendment protections.

Bottom line is people "Want" Facebook to be at fault because they did something they do not like. Unfortunately US law isn't formulated or enforced based off what people like.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by JOG on 01/13/25 at 16:57:40

Yeah, the hit man felt bad it

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by WebsterMark on 01/13/25 at 17:14:25

Facebook does not have to allow you to use it any more than this very forum does.

But that brings up what I think might be the opening to a first amendment challenge, and it has to do with size and influence. This forum has no impact whatsoever on anything remotely resembling the big picture. Facebook, however, is regularly used by millions including the US government to alert citizens of serious issues and concerns. I think a good attorney could argue it has become an integral part of society for enough of the population, that it is a de facto brick in the foundation of free speech. At least that’s what I would argue. If I were your financial consultant, I would advise you not to bed against it!

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by WebsterMark on 01/13/25 at 17:56:38

As evidence, the Democratic Party was able to use Facebook to most likely swing the 2020 election in favor of the Democrats. By suppressing the story the Hunter Biden laptop was real, there’s a possibility Trump would’ve won in 2020.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/13/25 at 19:32:29

But that brings up what I think might be the opening to a first amendment challenge, and it has to do with size and influence.

Except courts have ruled for years that it doesn't. For instance when network television was the method to reach millions and millions of viewers a day, they still, not once, ever had to protect your 1st Amendment rights on their network. You have no right to broadcast on their channel.

When newspapers reached millions in NY per day, not one newspaper was ever required to protect your 1st Amendment rights and allow you to say anything you want in their print. Nothing about size or influence requires a private company to assume the responsibilities of the US Government in regard to the 1st Amendment.

Facebook, however, is regularly used by millions including the US government to alert citizens of serious issues and concerns. I think a good attorney could argue it has become an integral part of society for enough of the population, that it is a de facto brick in the foundation of free speech.

Government entities using social media do have to honor your 1st Amendment rights. Private companies do not. Facebook doesn't even have to allow the Government to use their platform. Again because they have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights. They can kick oh I don't know, the POTUS right off their platform, and his only recourse would be to make a whole other social media company. Surely if FB was obligated to protect our 1st Amendment rights they would have to allow the darn President to be on their property.

Unfortunately there must be zero good lawyers in the US, because not one has been able to articulate an argument that forces FB to allow all US Citizens to use their private property.

Title: Re: What I'm hoping for
Post by Eegore on 01/13/25 at 19:36:53

Yeah, the hit man felt bad it

There was no "hit man" because nothing done was illegal. You are comparing contract murder to banning a customer from a store. Nobody is fooled by that.

If Mom n' Pops General Store chooses to cooperate with the local Government and not allow certain political signs on their windows, who died? That compares to murder in what way?

By your logic Mom n' Pop should "feel pain" because they didn't let the politician you like put signs in their windows and the grounds to prosecute in court is to compare window signage to contract killing.

Mom n' Pop have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights. You have no right to put signs on their private property. Go sue the local Government because they are wrong, and don't waste your time trying to convince people mom n' Pop are contract killers.