kelownabomberfan

try watching the idiot Don Lemon for five minutes, then ask me that question again. He is beyond biased. Just the worst.

like CNN or MSNBC?

I am still rooting for the MSM's choice for Democratic leader, Michael Avenatti. I think he can beat the charges, and still grab the the brass ring.

yup, Riders sign Andrew Scheer's brother in law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html

only issue with that ending (very well done BTW) is that I would have a hard time with believing that Jaime could kill Cersei while she is pregnant with his child.

"Where were you when we were brainstorming this ****?" David Benioff

so here's where we get into the definition of "hate" again. Hamas has called many times for the death of all the Jews in Palestine. It's safe to say that that is pretty hateful. And yet Hamas has a presence on Facebook. Why were they not banned? Should they be banned? If so, does that prove that it's not just "loud-mouthed white guys" that are banned for "hate"? Or is Hamas "hate" different than loud-mouthed white guy hate? It's so confusing.

that's pretty offensive to bananas.

no, it's not evidence.

I'm pretty offended by this. But yes, to avoid me wanting you banned for spreading hate, I can go to PM.

oh but I say that you do engage in all kinds of hateful behavior. Do you actually? Does it matter? I have decided that you do. So therefore now you can't say anything. You've lost your right. That's how it works when the lines get blurry. Understand now?

yes, that's definitely is proof all right. Just wow.

NO I obviously don't. But I do see you participating in a lot of behavior that seems to defend, deny and deflect, so there is that. I find a lot of your views incredibly repugnant, and your posting style to be beyond acceptable. So can I censor you because of that? If not, why not? You are engaging in hateful behavior. In my opinion. As for the First Amendment, here's a guy who I guess would now be lumped in with "white men" who are "unable to humanely articulate a message". This turned out to be his last speech before he was assassinated: Is free speech antithetical to racial justice? Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been surprised at the suggestion that the pursuit of racial justice requires censorship. On the contrary, he understood as well as anyone that the First Amendment was crucial to the civil rights movement. King spoke passionately in support of the First Amendment on April 3, 1968, the day before his assassination, in what turned out to be his final speech. In Memphis to support a sanitation workers strike, he proclaimed: This, he continued, was the cry of people “determined to gain our rightful place in God’s world.” But the struggle for freedom and justice faced resistance, including an injunction, and this is where the First Amendment came into play: The speech moved to other topics, coming finally to its famous conclusion: King’s vision of the Promised Land included equal rights for all, and those rights included freedoms of belief, speech, press, assembly, and protest. First Amendment rights, in his view, were crucial for reaching this land long promised, and part of what makes it the Promised Land. The Promised Land, then, is not simply a “safe space.” Social justice is not achieved by eliminating “microaggressions” or requiring “trigger warnings.” Student activists, whatever their cause, should recognize and insist on intellectual freedom for all.

you said this did you? OK - so I decide that your narrative is nasty. Do you now lose your right to say these things? If not, why not?