carlimac

Sad reality is, one reliable way to get a nation to fall, is to have lots of unassimilated undocumented immigrants.  We're watching it happen in France and other European nations.   You think the US multigenerational legacy of issues surrounding slavery and race are bad?  How about areas where you "just don't go" because people are implementing Sharia law, and enforcing it with roving bands of machete-wielding enforcers.   Google "beheadings in France", and make sure you scroll down enough to get a bunch of years of results.

FWIW, my main issue with Biden's plan (and most immigration legislation pre-Trump) is that they seem to reward illegal immigration (and I'm not talking about refugees or asylum seekers). What about those persons who want to migrate legally? The system is failing them and has been failing them for years, they are waiting patiently in their home countries for decades (which I think is absolutely ridiculous) and now laws will be passed to reward those who entered the country illegally. How fair is that? We are rewarding those breaking the law and punishing those who are being honest? And even though there are plans to reduce their waiting time, it will not be a priority. I don't know if there is a solution that can benefit/help all at the same time but this particular point bugs me.

Indeed...  For example I am personally willing to help other individuals.  But if one of those individuals has a history of threatening violence against people trying to help, well my religion and faith would excuse me from going over.  My responsibly to stay alive for my family trumps, rendering temporary aid to a stranger.
When we move this up to the macro scale and immigration it still holds.  We help those we can.  But those that are threats we do not, because it is not safe to do so.  We have an obligation to protect those already here... the only way to do that is  to vet those incoming.  And large numbers make the vetting more difficult .  To have this concerned be so toxicly twisted into pure selfishness and mocking and scorning of the poor an needy shows the fundamental dishonesty of the statement.  A variation of this dishonesty is to claim that we think ALL immigrants are criminals and dangerous.  We are not saying that they ALL are.  We are saying that the odds are that small subset of them are, and that subset needs to be dealt with for the protection of all.

A perfect example of why this country is polarizing.  One side demands that we treat every issue they think is important with utmost care and concern...  Yet when the other side presents something they are concerned about, the response to attack the character of the person expressing the concern and strawmaning their statements and belief.

I fail to see anything wrong with his metaphor. How is it damaging to congregations?

I fail to see anything wrong with his metaphor. How is it damaging to congregations?

"Stormed"? What, were they armed and wearing flak jackets?
Did Antifa goons "storm" into the streets last summer? Did second-generation hippie idiots "storm" into downtown Seattle?
So you're unapologetically calling anyone who protested in DC "the mob", rather than characterizing them as angry voters fed up with a corrupt system, with just a few malcontents among them causing all the trouble. Do you see any problem with this? Is this how things were characterized last spring and summer? (No, of course not.) Why the difference? Why do you justify it? Or am I somehow mistaken?
Not sure exactly what a "right wing Trump supporter" is, but I expect it's someone like me. Do you see any media generalization going on? If so, is that okay with you? (I have not read media news in probably three months or more, but based on what I know of the liars in the media, they are not being careful to separate "right wing Trump supporters", as they brand them, from fascist criminals committing felonies. I don't know if I'm right, but I would bet a significant sum of money that I am.)
Except, it seems, when it's the Democrats sabotaging the process by disrupting proceedings. Am I wrong? I hope so, actually. Did you find that treasonous?

Looks pretty awful, even condemnable. And I condemn it, even as I recognize that these people merely fulfill the negative stereotypes, not just of Trump supporters, but of Republicans and conservatives in general.
But what I want to know is: Where was the media outrage when mobs were roaming the streets in cities across the US, robbing and looting and committing arson and murder? Where are the media cries of "Mostly peaceful?" After all, most of the "mob" weren't killing police or vandalizing.
Please explain it to me, @Godless, in terms I can understand. Seriously. Because I see no possible way to explain it except that the media plays favorites very openly and unapologetically. They are leftists, like you. And they lie, hopefully unlike you. Do you condemn the media as readily and as openly as I condemn the apparent idiots and criminals in DC?
And if so, is it possible that the media is simply playing this up, perhaps even beyond what really happened, because there is hay to be made? Sounds like conspiracy theory, doesn't it? Except if you're conservative, you know that it's completely possible. The media invents things about conservatives all the time. They openly vilify conservative thought and conservative people, and have done so for at least 30 years, just in my own recollection.
I have a hard time imagining that the media could be well enough coordinated to conspire to misreport at least the general outlines of the DC goings-on. I am forced to accept that a bunch of lunatics and anti-American morons, fueled much more by hatred of what they loath than love of country or principle, committed criminal acts. But that in no way implies that I can believe a word of what the media reports about it.
As for "photographs don't lie", that's simply ridiculous. Photographs lie all the time. It's all about presentation and context. Surely you see that.

I just deleted Twitter for good. I never did like it. Also took Facebook off my phone so I'm not tempted to spend too much time there. I also put a moratoreum on myself for posting or commenting there. ( which is probably why I showed up here again. got to get this stuff off my mind! 😁) I only broke my rule once yesterday when I read a really good post by a conservative commentator from my old stomping grounds out west. I was reading the comments and one woman said this:
"I don't know if I should say amen or a-women so I'll just say well written!" 
I burst out laughing and had to " like " that.
Unfortunately, Facebook has also got the monopoly on groups for information like our ward RS info page,  a community info page and another local group against virtual school (which is STILL going on where I live. So-long fun senior year for my daughter!)

I also just deleted my Twitter account.  Likely I only used it several times in the past.  I am a weird individual that has no Facebook account and I likely never will.

I just deleted Twitter for good. I never did like it. Also took Facebook off my phone so I'm not tempted to spend too much time there. I also put a moratoreum on myself for posting or commenting there. ( which is probably why I showed up here again. got to get this stuff off my mind! 😁) I only broke my rule once yesterday when I read a really good post by a conservative commentator from my old stomping grounds out west. I was reading the comments and one woman said this:
"I don't know if I should say amen or a-women so I'll just say well written!" 
I burst out laughing and had to " like " that.
Unfortunately, Facebook has also got the monopoly on groups for information like our ward RS info page,  a community info page and another local group against virtual school (which is STILL going on where I live. So-long fun senior year for my daughter!)

It’s not my forte, tbh.  I’d imagine that something that direct (“There is John Doe.  Let’s go hang him on Layfayette Square right now!”) would be clearly illegal; and I think even nominally “open forums” are in their rights (if not affirmatively obligated) to ban obviously illegal content even before the law/courts get involved.  But when you have less-clear cases of incitement, or when you broaden your horizons and start saying that you’re going to monitor all content for “truth”—if you then approve untruthful content that causes harm, you may find yourself in a heap of trouble.
Ditto, if you are found to have clamped down on “violent rhetoric” by your opponents but to have permitted and even affirmatively featured similar rhetoric by your allies; and again—the current clampdown by the social media giants would be a lot easier to stomach if they had an undeniable record of consistency over the past year’s events.

I just deleted Twitter for good. I never did like it. Also took Facebook off my phone so I'm not tempted to spend too much time there. I also put a moratoreum on myself for posting or commenting there. ( which is probably why I showed up here again. got to get this stuff off my mind! 😁) I only broke my rule once yesterday when I read a really good post by a conservative commentator from my old stomping grounds out west. I was reading the comments and one woman said this:
"I don't know if I should say amen or a-women so I'll just say well written!" 
I burst out laughing and had to " like " that.
Unfortunately, Facebook has also got the monopoly on groups for information like our ward RS info page,  a community info page and another local group against virtual school (which is STILL going on where I live. So-long fun senior year for my daughter!)

1. There was no call to violence. The left want to blame Trump again... what is new. (sigh)
From the transcript of his speech:
2. Kathy Gifford
She retweeted it again in Nov. 2020

I listened very carefully to your supplied video of Trump and heard no call for any violence.  Would you provide that time into the video so I know what you are talking about.  BTW, I do recall a Hollywood type posting a picture of them with the severed head of Trump - I do not recall twitter or anyone else suggesting her accounts or freedom of speech be withheld.
 
The Traveler
 
 

I just deleted Twitter for good. I never did like it. Also took Facebook off my phone so I'm not tempted to spend too much time there. I also put a moratoreum on myself for posting or commenting there. ( which is probably why I showed up here again. got to get this stuff off my mind! 😁) I only broke my rule once yesterday when I read a really good post by a conservative commentator from my old stomping grounds out west. I was reading the comments and one woman said this:
"I don't know if I should say amen or a-women so I'll just say well written!" 
I burst out laughing and had to " like " that.
Unfortunately, Facebook has also got the monopoly on groups for information like our ward RS info page,  a community info page and another local group against virtual school (which is STILL going on where I live. So-long fun senior year for my daughter!)

This is a difficult situation.  Because frankly—IF similar allegations were true, it probably *would* justify armed rebellion.  And if they are false, then they are the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater—the people behind such allegations deserve a special place in hell; and I can sympathize with Twitter not wanting to play into their hands.
But, “open forum” is “open forum”; and if social media companies want to enjoy the privileges and immunities that go with that status, then IMHO they need to leave the policing of their forums to . . . the police.  

Ah. So if you believe something that Godless doesn't like, then you lose your free speech privileges. Reckless thinking and speaking. Is that it?

It's because we live in a double standard world. It is OK for BLM, Antifa, Democratic platform to encourage, entice, promote (even fit the bill for release of criminals), and use Facebook, Google, Apple, and other outlets for their violence. We live in a very hypocritical society. If all things were issued fairly, no one would be having a complaint. If Facebook, Apple, Google, etc...called out the violence that happened for 7 months they might have a leg to stand on. But no, they encouraged it, supported it, and did nothing against those who enticed it. BLM an known marxist organization, that initiated and assisted with violence still have a Twitter account. Go figure -- shocker -- not. 

Information is essential for Human Survival.. Knowing where to find food, shelter, etc is about information as is everything else we might choose to do. If certain platforms have become dominate providers of information then yes that is an issue.  I am also old enough to remember other forms of communication that wasn't social media as well, I do not see very many of those left standing, and those that are are but shadows of there former selves (including this site).
Legally and morally... if companies want immunity to what other might say and do with there services (aka common carrier) then they can not control or restrict users or content except in the most common and general ways.  If however they wish to control the content/message then they should be liable for that content.
At this point I would love to see people sue the crap out of Facebook/Twitter etc. For all the hateful and violence promoting posts they have not removed.  Since they have abandon the pretenses of being a common carrier they should not have the protections of such.  Such arguments made in the court of law would be how we shake this out

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.

Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.