BacktoCricaddict Posted November 20, 2022 Share Posted November 20, 2022 On 11/19/2022 at 9:31 AM, coffee_rules said: "former"? That alone will pi$$ Trump off. "That Musk ... He's a bad, bad man." Khota, coffee_rules and Under_Score 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 20, 2022 Share Posted November 20, 2022 2 hours ago, ravishingravi said: 1) So how did you guage intent ? You seemed to be good at this with highly gifted intuitive sense. 2) How come ? This forum too has rules like any other forum with moderators. (1) Intent is gauged by the fact that you have multiple orgasms when you mention the name Elon Musk. (2) Read what I mentioned carefully. "Most of the time". Some people break rules, and they are correctly censored by the mods. They did it to me once and I agreed with them deleting my comments as I had crossed a fine line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 20, 2022 Share Posted November 20, 2022 1 hour ago, coffee_rules said: What is the crap that you were referring to? Is YT deleting stuff is crap or claims of rigging is crap? Claims of rigging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted November 20, 2022 Author Share Posted November 20, 2022 37 minutes ago, Khota said: (1) Intent is gauged by the fact that you have multiple orgasms when you mention the name Elon Musk. (2) Read what I mentioned carefully. "Most of the time". Some people break rules, and they are correctly censored by the mods. They did it to me once and I agreed with them deleting my comments as I had crossed a fine line. 1) More than my intent I dare say its good time to plan visit to your family doctor. Imagining anonymous posters having orgasms on chat forums is usually not a good sign. 2) Doesn't matter. I believe your intent was to say that this forum has free speech all the time. See what I did there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted November 20, 2022 Author Share Posted November 20, 2022 On 11/19/2022 at 3:31 PM, coffee_rules said: Why not Alex Jones ? First amendment should be only benchmark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted November 20, 2022 Share Posted November 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Khota said: Claims of rigging. Yes, you didn’t get the gist of the video that was blocked on YouTube. It is about both parties claiming rigging. But such an ironic viewpoint gets snubbed, is the point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted November 20, 2022 Share Posted November 20, 2022 58 minutes ago, ravishingravi said: Why not Alex Jones ? First amendment should be only benchmark One step at a time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 20, 2022 Share Posted November 20, 2022 1 hour ago, ravishingravi said: 1) More than my intent I dare say its good time to plan visit to your family doctor. Imagining anonymous posters having orgasms on chat forums is usually not a good sign. 2) Doesn't matter. I believe your intent was to say that this forum has free speech all the time. See what I did there. (1) I am now concerned about you. You need help but online I can only do so much. (2) All you have done is verified what I think of you. Stating that may get me banned. Under_Score 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 20, 2022 Share Posted November 20, 2022 59 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Yes, you didn’t get the gist of the video that was blocked on YouTube. It is about both parties claiming rigging. But such an ironic viewpoint gets snubbed, is the point Both parties did not claim rigging. Only one did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 20, 2022 Share Posted November 20, 2022 1 hour ago, ravishingravi said: Why not Alex Jones ? First amendment should be only benchmark You have deep problems if you think Alex Jones has the right to get back. Under_Score 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Khota said: Both parties did not claim rigging. Only one did. Then you didn’t get the message. All the claims of rigging from Dems was in 2016 when Hillary lost. You don’t even believe the video evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 15 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Then you didn’t get the message. All the claims of rigging from Dems was in 2016 when Hillary lost. You don’t even believe the video evidence? No, I don't. Hillary conceded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 Just now, Khota said: No, I don't. Hillary conceded. I give up. Dems claimed that Russia hacked EVMs all through 2016, all the video clips are real news. bharathh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted November 21, 2022 Author Share Posted November 21, 2022 Doesn't matter which pseudo ID he is using, he doesn't let fact come in his way. Such discipline to stay uninformed can lead one to great things. bharathh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 11 hours ago, coffee_rules said: I give up. Dems claimed that Russia hacked EVMs all through 2016, all the video clips are real news. Don't give up. That is true that Dems claimed and rightfully so that Russians did influence the elections. But at the same time, they conceded. The big difference is Dems claim is that the voters were wrongfully influenced. Trump claims that illegal votes were cast. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoCricaddict Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 (edited) Some key points that were pointed out earlier in the thread, but bear repeating a million times. So, bhaiyon aur behenon, repeat after me: (1) First amendment rights do not apply to anyone on social media platforms. (2) First amendment rights apply only when you are prosecuted by the government for saying something. (3) If you are banned from Twitter, ICF, IG, SC, FB, Faketruth etc. etc., it is not a violation of any rights under the first amendment. (4) If Elon Musk bans anyone from Twitter, whatever. His Twitter, his rules. Take your toys and go play elsewhere. (5) When Twitter banned Trump pre-Elon Musk, whatever. He was free to take his rubber mouth and go yellswhere. (6) If Elon Musk wants to reinstate Trump on Twitter and you don't like it, see (4). Toys, elsewhere. And before you dispute the above statements, please read: https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/does-the-first-amendment-require-social-media-platforms-to-grant-access-to-all-users Edited November 21, 2022 by BacktoCricaddict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 6 hours ago, ravishingravi said: Doesn't matter which pseudo ID he is using, he doesn't let fact come in his way. Such discipline to stay uninformed can lead one to great things. Quotes someone who thinks Elon Musk is restoring free speech. Dysfunction at the highest level. Under_Score 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 Just now, BacktoCricaddict said: Some key points that were pointed out earlier in the thread, but bear repeating a million times are below. So, bhaiyon aur behenon, repeat after me: (1) First amendment rights do not apply to anyone on social media platforms. (2) First amendment rights apply only when you are prosecuted by the government for saying something. (3) If you are banned from Twitter, ICF, IG, SC, FB, Faketruth etc. etc., it is not a violation of any rights under the first amendment. (4) If Elon Musk bans anyone from Twitter, whatever. His Twitter, his rules. Take your toys and go play elsewhere. (5) When Twitter banned Trump pre-Elon Musk, whatever. He was free to take his rubber mouth and go yellswhere. (6) If Elon Musk wants to reinstate Trump on Twitter and you don't like it, see (4). Toys, elsewhere. No 2 is what these guys don't understand. But they have chosen a wrong hill to die on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khota Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 Just remember Twitter is not free speech. It is a business. They restored Trump because they want money. Nothing else. If you care about free speech and true journalism, there is only one source. NYT. Under_Score, bharathh and coffee_rules 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoCricaddict Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, Khota said: They restored Trump because they want money. Or their owner is his buddy. So what? His twitter, his rules. If I hate it so much I can: (a) come up with 50 billion and buy it from him (b) quit twitter and be more productive at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts