- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Putin: Western Liberalism Has Outlived It's Purpose
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:15 pm to pizzatiger
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:15 pm to pizzatiger
quote:
So I have run a website or an app, you think I should be held to the same standards of "free speech" as the government? I have to allow all public content to exist? I can't censor at all or what's the standard
You should learn to read better. If you value free speech you don't censor it even when you legally can. The left wants to censor it everywhere they currently can get away with it. This is an indication of what they would also do were they to have the governmental power to apply their same desires
1
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:17 pm to volod
quote:I don't know what this question is referring to. are you talking about their professional relationship that's a requirement stemming from their positions in life? Or are you talkin about the fantasy version of the relationship as articulated by nutjobs on the left
As a Trump supporter, how do you feel about Trump's relationship with Putin and Xi Jiping.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:19 pm to volod
quote:I agree 100% with this so I don't know where you see irony. What I disagree with is the government having rules in place that provide these companies in unity due to their supposed platform status.
Many on here dont see the irony of there protest against big tech. According to real conservative principles, a private company should be allowed to censor whatever it wants
But again just because something is legal doesn't mean that doing it doesn't give me a window into your soul. I would never support blocking liberal views from any of these platforms. That's because I actually value free speech as a concept.
He left in 2019 openly hates the concept of free speech
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:21 pm to ShortyRob
The left wants Trump to go into meetings with world leaders and tell them to go frick themselves
And then they'll say he is being not presidential
And then they'll say he is being not presidential
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:26 pm to NikolaiJakov
quote:
A nation 20+ trillion in debt that murders children, condones perversion, and toss aside morality as a burden?
When has the United States ever had the moral high ground in our history ?
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:30 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You should learn to read better. If you value free speech you don't censor it even when you legally can. The left wants to censor it everywhere they currently can get away with it. This is an indication of what they would also do were they to have the governmental power to apply their same desires
It's funny how that type of argument never gets made when Trump squeezes every last ounce of juice out of his executive powers and then you'll be like, "technically he's following the law. He's not authoritarian or anything." You will flip flop on this.
Dems do something legal and you will say it speaks to what they really want.
Trump does something legal and you're like he's just following the law
He has to do it or else muh liberalssss If conservative media banned liberal voices, you'd immediately turn back to the legality argument.
This post was edited on 6/28/19 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:34 pm to crazy4lsu
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:41 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
But again just because something is legal doesn't mean that doing it doesn't give me a window into your soul. I would never support blocking liberal views from any of these platforms. That's because I actually value free speech as a concept.
So you wouldn't censor under any circumstances? You'd let your platform be overrun by shitposting? Threats of violence? Harassment? Spammers? No terms of service? No standards? Good luck with that platform. It will fail miserably because you have no practical concept of what it would take to have a truly "free speech" platform
This post was edited on 6/28/19 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:43 pm to Kraut Dawg
quote:
When I need a lecture from a do-gooder, I'll ask for one.
You're acting as though they moved for no reason. That's not true and I'll continue to point that out.
quote:
I notice you refuse to acknowledge that they're consumers and not being made to produce unlike the previous migration in the 50s.
The worker agreements of the 1950's and 60's in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and other countries aren't without their discontents. The easiest solution is that the Syrian migrants return to Syria once the war concludes. Otherwise the onus will have to be on countries who took them in (such as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Germany, who took in the majority of migrants) to do the work of integration.
quote:
Your type's mindset creates the entitlement they have.
Nope. I've been writing about this for years on this board about the need to create situations that prevent the mass movement of people in a short period of time, which is what made the Syrian refugee crisis somewhat unique in modern history. That's the key aspect of the situation, as that mass movement creates a situation that is unsustainable for every nation involved, from the nations which have to expend resources keeping migrants out, to nations which have to expend resources to moving them, to nations that have to expend resources taking care of them.
quote:
he warmongers start a war & the do-gooders want to coddle them & take care of them w/ other people's money.
I've been suggesting for years, at this point, to fix the UN refugee system that was put in place during the post-war years, a system that allowed European refugees who fled elsewhere, to return. The people are going to move regardless of what you or I want. What then? Sit on our hands like we have since 1991 until another unsustainable situation is created?
This post was edited on 6/28/19 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:45 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I don't know what this question is referring to. are you talking about their professional relationship that's a requirement stemming from their positions in life? Or are you talkin about the fantasy version of the relationship as articulated by nutjobs on the left
Actual professional relationships. In particular, do you believe that he is too influenced by Xi Jiping or Putin in how he conducts himself with with other US politicians and how governs as a President.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 3:58 pm to crazy4lsu
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 4:03 pm to Kraut Dawg
quote:
When I need a lecture from a do-gooder, I'll ask for one. But that time isn't now.
Since when is advocating for NO WAR a bad thing.
The Syrian Civil War being propped up by United States and Russia was the catalyst for all the ills you currently have.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 4:09 pm to volod
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 4:10 pm to Kraut Dawg
quote:
What do we do? We leave them alone & quit fighting proxy wars because they have, or are in the path, of cheaper natural resources. I don't disagree that their problems aren't caused largely by foreign influence. That should stop too.
The issue is that people, in the face of war, will move regardless. I want a situation set up where they get paperwork at the point of exit, rather than waiting to get paperwork in Europe. The paperwork issue alone would curb migration tendencies to a great degree. Returning to the era of guest-worker agreements between countries is the ideal situation for dealing with migration pressures.
I haven't denied that they are a problem, or that they are a drain on resources. But knowing human behavior, they have every incentive to move when they are faced with violence. I'm interested in preventing another refugee situation, because there is a larger disaster looming, and no governments are even discussing it.
quote:
You think the solution is to temporarily house them here & send them back after the war?
Ideally, there would be repatriation agreements to help facilitate them back to Syria. That won't happen for various reasons. Deportation will work for a segment of them. Otherwise, self-deportation will be the best bet, especially if the Syrian government takes an antagonistic view to the refugees.
quote:
But you don't dispute any of the negative remarks about them, do you? You just accept them as a "cost of doing business?"
I feel like you keep implying that I support the mass movement of peoples. I don't. I see a solution for the system being fixed, and I've pushed that. That solution would require less resources from every country involved. The mass movement of people is the situation I want to avoid going forward.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 4:12 pm to Kraut Dawg
quote:
Me & the other guy agree on the cause but not the solution.
The solutions, which range from repatriation to deportation, aren't exactly easy to enact. The repatriation agreement is of some degrees easier on the host country, while the deportation angle requires significantly more resources, while also being unpopular among certain segments of a population.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 4:14 pm to Kraut Dawg
quote:
What do we do? We leave them alone & quit fighting proxy wars because they have, or are in the path, of cheaper natural resources. I don't disagree that their problems aren't caused largely by foreign influence. That should stop too.
Basically, yes. We need to stop using these countries as the scapegoat for geopolitical wars between powerful nations. That's why they were migrated here. Had there been no war, your country wouldn't have them in the first place.
To be fair, I dont think they should be used as a political tool. I think each country should bring the matter to a vote. If the people decide to send them back after the war is over, then so be it. This issue SHOULD be used as leverage to get leaders to sue for some type of compromise.
And are they really being taught its acceptable or are politicians using them as a political tool. I'm not advocating them being violent. I think they need to go back their own country. I just wish the US and Russia would stop using it as proxy.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 4:15 pm to 14&Counting
Posted on 6/28/19 at 4:21 pm to crazy4lsu
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 6/28/19 at 4:29 pm to Kraut Dawg
quote:
While they have the incentive to move, they don't have the "right" naturally.
Of course they don't have that right. The point I've been trying to make is that having institutional control at the point of entry and exit, through paperwork, will limit that movement by necessity.
quote:
For the last time, their men don't work and their women are reproducing at astonishing rates.
I assure you, I'm well aware of the situation. I've been studying it since 2013 and just came back from North Africa. I understand the migrant situation pretty well.
quote:
And you think these folks are going to have children who know nothing but Germany are going to go back on their own accord? It's unreasonable to think that's a viable possibility.
Possibly, but that is what occurred with regards to the German-Turkish worker agreement, as it's created a class (of around 3 million or so) Turks who have some degree of German residency. Not all of them were born in Turkey either. But that isn't a direct 1 to 1 analogy, as the Syrian situations and the Turkish situations are altogether different.
One reason why I think at least some of the problems would subside is that a large portion of migrants moved because of the Syrian army's conscription program. Once the war ends, hopefully the conscription program does as well. I do believe that the Syrians will want some sort of repatriation agreement, as I'm willing to bet that Assad is going to portray himself like Gaddafi once did, as the sole leader who can hold the migrant hordes back. Gaddafi was essentially paid off by Europeans to hold migrants at Libya, and I imagine that situation will occur in Syria, and if not there, Turkey.
Posted on 6/28/19 at 4:34 pm to pizzatiger
quote:
So you wouldn't censor under any circumstances
Nope. Well. I mean. Short of planning murders or something
Freedom
quote:see above
Threats of violence
quote:for a platform? Nope.
Harassment? Spammers? No terms of service? No standards?
The bar for me to want to block your ideas from the public sphere is insanely high
quote:yes. I get it. liberals think that free speech is when they get to say what they like to say with nobody else saying anything they don't like. And liberals think that if they are forced to hear stuff they don't like that this amounts to infringing upon their free speech
truly "free speech" platform
That's because as I said at the beginning. Liberals are totalitarians
eta
By the way. None of these platforms actually have standards. Standards would apply to everybody. With these platforms have is standards that they didn't apply to the people they don't like but not to the people they like
That pretty much guts your theory that these standards are required to have a truly free speech platform
This post was edited on 6/28/19 at 4:36 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News