@bi4smooth

Proves you are the Russian troll, since you know more about their practices than I do.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Proves you are the Russian troll, since you know more about their practices than I do.

@bi4smooth

Such a dumb ass. A business isn't a person.

And, you don't believe humans have rights. You believe, like your masters, that the unvaccinated should be welded into their homes.

Businesses aren't people (well, in some ways they are - but we'll leave the US Supreme Court to work that one out - THEY opened THAT can of worms!), but they aren't the Government either!

Typical of your Trumpist/Russian ways - you can only see black and white...

I'm sorry your butt aches every time Facebook deletes one of your posts, or Starbucks refuses to make your coffee with deer shit (the way they do it in Mother Russia)... but grow some balls and deal with it! Stop complaining about perfectly legal actions taken by companies.

Such a dumb ass. A business isn't a person.

And, you don't believe humans have rights. You believe, like your masters, that the unvaccinated should be welded into their homes.

@bi4smooth

You are the communist since you don't believe that people have rights.

people have all kinds of rights - mostly equal rights to all of them...

YOU don't get special rights... not because you're white, not because you're male, not because you're queer, not because you're in the UK, not because... well, not because of anything - you are NOT special (unless we're talking special needs here)...

You are the communist since you don't believe that people have rights.

@bi4smooth

You are in total lockstep with the CCP/DNC when it comes to hating the rights of people, except to riot and loot.

You are a communist! You want the State to enforce your vision of fairness.

Facebook has just as many rights as you - no more, no less. You want to post your stuff, post it! Just not on Facebook!

I don't know what their issue with that story would be - but that's not the point! The issue isn't whether the censorship of that post is MORALLY right or wrong, it's whether it is LEGAL... which it is, and you just get your panties in a wad every time they "decide" against you...

And to that end, I have no problems... you can be a whiny little bitch all day every day... (holding my tongue... physically LOL)

But when you take the NEXT STEP, and propose that they should be FORCED to allow your content - BY LAW.... well, that's communism (the State making decisions about who can do what, where, and when - in the name of the "common good"), and I want no part of it!

You are in total lockstep with the CCP/DNC when it comes to hating the rights of people, except to riot and loot.

@bi4smooth

Ok, Feng Feng, whatever you say.

According to the FB auto-ban on the article, it says the moderation staff found it to be a "privacy concern" and "abusive".

I do love how, as a self-proclaimed "libertarian" you don't believe that humans have rights, but businesses do. Whatever, you do you or do the CCP/DNC.

You are butt hurt and screechy about Kyle, but you try to hide Bicep Bitch's crimes. Why is that? It reminds me of how you desperately tried to downplay the summer of love.

You continue to have a problem with the difference:

• Facebook has the right (legal) to delete anything they want - it's their platform
• Facebook is not right (moral) when they choose to delete content for political or other non-safety issues.

In other words: they are wrong to do it (moral), but it is their right (legal) to do wrong (moral) things on their own services!

You have NO right (legal) to use their platform! It is a privilege that they give to you (and they clearly give to a wide swath of people!), and they have the right (legal) to rescind that privilege at a whim!

Look: @raphjd is the Administrator here - on GT.ru. He's the OLNY person I've ever seen with that label, so let's assume he's the ONLY Administrator.

As such, @raphjd has the RIGHT (legal) to censor me, or even ban my account! But exercising that right (legal) - and I am thankful that he does NOT choose to exercise that right (legal) - would be wrong (moral).

Facebook (or Meta) is a little bigger than GT.ru (just a little, tho!) - and so there are LOTS of "administrators" at Meta... EACH OF WHOM have the shared right (legal) to censor (or censure!) content on their site! That doesn't mean it is right (moral) for them to do so - and I've repeatedly said I do NOT agree with their inconsistent and overly partisan application of their own wishy-washy rules.

If understanding the difference between a legal right and a moral one makes me a "liberal elite", then I accept that... just the same as being a supporter of "Law and Order" apparently does too...

If your definition of Conservative is dumb and blindly following Donald Trump, then count me out. But I'm keeping my Republican Party membership (voter registration)...

Ok, Feng Feng, whatever you say.

According to the FB auto-ban on the article, it says the moderation staff found it to be a "privacy concern" and "abusive".

I do love how, as a self-proclaimed "libertarian" you don't believe that humans have rights, but businesses do. Whatever, you do you or do the CCP/DNC.

You are butt hurt and screechy about Kyle, but you try to hide Bicep Bitch's crimes. Why is that? It reminds me of how you desperately tried to downplay the summer of love.

These include domestic abuse, prowling, trespass, two DUIs, felony burglary and two charges of carrying a firearm while intoxicated - one of which took place when he was banned as a felon from carrying a firearm.

Because just six days before he took the stand, Grosskreutz was before a judge himself at a hearing at which a pending DUI charge – a second offense that saw him three times over the legal limit – was dismissed on a technicality.

I don't give a fuck about "disdain for the police" as they deserve it, but the POS Feng Feng creates strawmen out of total thin air.

Feng Feng also doesn't want you to know that Bicep Bitch was in illegal possession of a firearm due to his criminal record.

@bi4smooth

Umm, why the fuck are you attacking me?

All I said was that Facebook has banned news about Bicep Bitch.

Nice to see you once again siding with the liberal crowd, though. Go back to snortching Pelosi's gin-soaked pussy farts.

If it's a liberal idea to "just say no" to 17 y/o vigilante "justice", then count me in!

But since when were the Libs the "Law and Order" party?

I don't have any idea on what basis Facebook would have denied your story - it's a legit story... the guy is a police antagonist with a long list of "interactions" with the cops. That's (apparently) a fact.

Facebook (or, should i say "Meta") has been a crazy place for a LONG time - I'm not no it, and don't think I ever will be. I'm also not on Instagram, SnapChat, or most of the other social media outlets...

You haven't seen me supporting Facebook's actions - what you've seen me do is say they have the RIGHT to be idiots and assholes on their own platforms! It's a private company, not a Gov't!

Umm, why the fuck are you attacking me?

All I said was that Facebook has banned news about Bicep Bitch.

Nice to see you once again siding with the liberal crowd, though. Go back to snortching Pelosi's gin-soaked pussy farts.

Most victims deserved it?

really?

Are you fucking serious?

As for the witness in the Rittenhouse trial - did you actually READ the charges against him? Clearly not!

He has a history of being antagonistic to the local police: his "prowling" charges are for videotaping off-duty cops. His defense in some of these other charges is that he's being targeted by the cops because he's constantly revealing their abuses of power and "blue privilege"...

So, if I can summarize @raphjd: it's GREAT if you go out onto some obscure, dark-web, porn site and RAIL against the cops... but go out and actually REVEAL their bad behavior ... well, then you're a bad-guy?

Talk about (and apparently, that's all you will do) having your cake and eating it too!

Is he some angel? no! But the judge in the Rittenhouse case has a reputation for being a hard-ass, by the book jurist, and both sides (prosecution and defense) have suggested that he has shown that in this case.

The question in Rittenhouse isn't really WHETHER he's guilty of something, but rather WHAT he's guilty of - how LONG will he spend in jail. His claims of self-defense were demolished by his own testimony: he knew the one guy was unarmed, they threatened each other, and out of fear that the other guy would take HIS gun, he killed him? No. Sorry, it's not self-defense when you goad the other guy into being aggressive with you and YOU are the only one with the gun to start with! Things might be different if there had been an actual (non-verbal) struggle... but this wasn't that...

"Honest officer, it was self defense... I poked my gun into his back and told him "Hands up" - but he turned around after he put his hands up, and he had a real threatening look in his eye - I was afraid, HONESTLY afraid - so I shot him right then and there before he could hurt me."

Even with terrorists.. you often see terrorist brutally killing rival cartel members. What people fail to consider is that the people being brutally killed.. are often brutal killers THEMSELVES!