RT Gets Banned From Facebook Until After Trump's Inauguration - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51695271]Not entirely. You can be respectable and right wing but the Republican party is a fucking joke that spits in the face of economics, science, and often basic decency. When that's resolved then "the right," at least in America, can be taken much more seriously. You can't just assume right and left are equal because atm in America they aren't, and it goes beyond just opinions.[/QUOTE] If the left wasn't as much of a joke, they wouldn't have gotten swamped this election. Also, it's infringing on free speech.

[QUOTE=Pops;51695289]If the left wasn't as much of a joke, they wouldn't have gotten swamped this election.[/QUOTE] "swamped." oh yes, beaten by negative three million votes. I'm also not talking about popular appeal; I'm talking strictly about the claims they make. I hate the democratic party a lot, but they at least remain within reality.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51694138][B]Facebook is openly working with governments in order to stifle discussion[/B] and has been caught with a bias against conservative news, it would make sense that they would do this.[/QUOTE] Is there a source for this?

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51695293]"swamped." oh yes, beaten by negative three million votes. I'm also not talking about popular appeal; I'm talking strictly about the claims they make. I hate the democratic party a lot, but they at least remain within reality.[/QUOTE] remaining within reality apparently means hiding the same moneygrabbing and shady politics under a veneer of liberalism, tolerance and change your democratic party's president got a nobel peace prize as gaddafi was brutally executed, and bombings didn't stop it's just as much a facade as any other, and people tire of charades like this on topic, the ban is understanable, but it's obviously motivated, considering the suspicious date on the lift of the ban

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51695293]"swamped." oh yes, beaten by negative three million votes. I'm also not talking about popular appeal; I'm talking strictly about the claims they make. I hate the democratic party a lot, but they at least remain within reality.[/QUOTE] Trump may have lost the popular vote, but he won the electoral college. On top of that, Republicans in the House and Senate are now the majorty party, and even a fair amount of Republican governors won their elections. So yeah, Dems got swamped.

[QUOTE=Egevened;51695339]remaining within reality apparently means hiding the same moneygrabbing and shady politics under a veneer of liberalism, tolerance and change your democratic party's president got a nobel peace prize as gaddafi was brutally executed, and bombings didn't stop it's just as much a facade as any other, and people tire of charades like this on topic, the ban is understanable, but it's obviously motivated, considering the suspicious date on the lift of the ban[/QUOTE] Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, 2 years before anti-Gaddafi movements even started in earnest, and foreign intervention didn't happen until even later.

The ban sounds fine on paper but it's pretty obviously politically motivated considering Facebook is well-known for making tons of money off of stolen/copyrighted videos posted by huge pages that bring them tons of ad revenue. While RT, Breitbart and others are shitty news sources without a doubt, I'm a little surprised people seem to have no qualms with the idea of censoring/banning certain news sources from being shared on social media. Not a promising direction to be heading in, imo. [editline]19th January 2017[/editline] Like sure, today it's RT. Tomorrow it's Breitbart, Infowars, whatever. Then what? What happens when the line between fake news and independent journalism gets blurred? Surely people can see there's sort of a slippery slope here when you have a massive tech company with a less than stellar ethics history determining what the masses are allowed to read?

[QUOTE=Egevened;51695339]remaining within reality apparently means hiding the same moneygrabbing and shady politics under a veneer of liberalism, tolerance and change your democratic party's president got a nobel peace prize as gaddafi was brutally executed, and bombings didn't stop it's just as much a facade as any other, and people tire of charades like this on topic, the ban is understanable, but it's obviously motivated, considering the suspicious date on the lift of the ban[/QUOTE] Which is why I hate the mainline democratic party, and hope that sander's coup actually gets progress done. But you still didn't address my actual point, they're horrendously corrupt, but at a basic level they are actually competent, and don't outright deny science and macroeconomics. That's the key difference, responding to corruption by doing a complete 180 and throwing the country into the hands of a bunch of madmen is just going to leave the country in a worse state. [QUOTE=Raidyr;51695366]Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, 2 years before anti-Gaddafi movements even started in earnest, and foreign intervention didn't happen until even later.[/QUOTE] Yeah, though, though the prize was still pretty dubiously based on potential because of what Barack had said and promised, and not on anything concrete he'd gotten done.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51695409] Yeah, though, though the prize was still pretty dubiously based on potential because of what Barack had said and promised, and not on anything concrete he'd gotten done.[/QUOTE] I wasn't arguing that he deserved it, I was pointing out his skewed historical revisionism.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51694323]The Republican love affair with Russia continues to perplex me.[/QUOTE] You're really using "Republican" to mean "Trump". Theres a lot of people who distrust Russia heavily on the Republican side of things, Gingrich, IIRC, even outright said that Russia is not our Ally. As far as the article goes, I heavily distrust RT and other Russian media outlets but theres better media outlets to silence than RT. [editline]19th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Egevened;51695339]remaining within reality apparently means hiding the same moneygrabbing and shady politics under a veneer of liberalism, tolerance and change your democratic party's president got a nobel peace prize as gaddafi was brutally executed, and bombings didn't stop it's just as much a facade as any other, and people tire of charades like this on topic, the ban is understanable, but it's obviously motivated, considering the suspicious date on the lift of the ban[/QUOTE] Obama got the Nobel prize in 2009, the Libyan crisis didn't start until 2011. Furthermore, Gadaffi was executed brutally by his own people, not by Nato forces.

[QUOTE=Pops;51695236]It should be able to go both ways without serious fear of backlash or repercussions.[/QUOTE] The PEOTUS called climate change a hoax, his VP supported gay conversion therapy, and one of his first acts in office is going to be to strip tens of millions of health insurance. When the GOP accepts simple facts and stops aggressively fucking over the disenfranchised, then we can have a measure of equality. Until then, essentially every problem with the democrats is eclipsed by the GOP.

[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;51695950]The PEOTUS called climate change a hoax, his VP supported gay conversion therapy, and one of his first acts in office is going to be to strip tens of millions of health insurance. When the GOP accepts simple facts and stops aggressively fucking over the disenfranchised, then we can have a measure of equality. Until then, essentially every problem with the democrats is eclipsed by the GOP.[/QUOTE] when bills allowing for gay conversion centers and carbon emissions to go unchecked are passed, then you can talk. until then, it's just words and opinions. also, nice of you to leave out obamacare being replaced in addition to being repealed. also also, bringing up a word like "disenfranchised", are you sure you're using the right word? because those people most certainly voted for trump after feeling disenfranchised by obama for the past 8 years, as they voted for obama in 2008. the fact is, people are disenfranchised because they realized obama was nothing more than a black version of bush. that's why hillary lost, she would have been the same but with a vagina. people are disenfranchised because obama had a chance to actually get us somewhere, and instead sat on it.

[QUOTE=Pops;51696225]when bills allowing for gay conversion centers and carbon emissions to go unchecked are passed, [B]then you can talk.[/B] [B]until then, it's just words and opinions. [/B] also, nice of you to leave out obamacare being replaced in addition to being repealed. also also, bringing up a word like "disenfranchised", are you sure you're using the right word? because those people most certainly voted for trump after feeling disenfranchised by obama for the past 8 years, as they voted for obama in 2008. the fact is, people are disenfranchised because they realized obama was nothing more than a black version of bush. that's why hillary lost, she would have been the same but with a vagina. people are disenfranchised because obama had a chance to actually get us somewhere, and instead sat on it.[/QUOTE] no you don't get to tell people when to get worried about what is happening to their country even more so when their country will be ran by a giant manchild with backwater opinions and beliefs. what is this bullshit rhetoric that you can't complain about something until it's too late. what sense does that make if any ?

[QUOTE=Pops;51696225]when bills allowing for gay conversion centers and carbon emissions to go unchecked are passed, then you can talk. until then, it's just words and opinions. also, nice of you to leave out obamacare being replaced in addition to being repealed. also also, bringing up a word like "disenfranchised", are you sure you're using the right word? because those people most certainly voted for trump after feeling disenfranchised by obama for the past 8 years, as they voted for obama in 2008. the fact is, people are disenfranchised because they realized obama was nothing more than a black version of bush. that's why hillary lost, she would have been the same but with a vagina. people are disenfranchised because obama had a chance to actually get us somewhere, and instead sat on it.[/QUOTE] fine, have it your way. We shall all only be afraid of the things that are currently true. [B]The PEOTUS called climate change a hoax, his VP supported gay conversion therapy, and one of his first acts in office is going to be to strip tens of millions of health insurance.[/B] That's terrifying.

[QUOTE=Pops;51696225]when bills allowing for gay conversion centers and carbon emissions to go unchecked are passed, then you can talk. until then, it's just words and opinions. also, nice of you to leave out obamacare being replaced in addition to being repealed. also also, bringing up a word like "disenfranchised", are you sure you're using the right word? because those people most certainly voted for trump after feeling disenfranchised by obama for the past 8 years, as they voted for obama in 2008. the fact is, people are disenfranchised because they realized obama was nothing more than a black version of bush. that's why hillary lost, she would have been the same but with a vagina. people are disenfranchised because obama had a chance to actually get us somewhere, and instead sat on it.[/QUOTE] Trump supporters were [b]sure as fuck[/b] that Hillary would throw us into war with Russia but [b]that wasn't presently happening either[/b], was it? This is the most absurd line of reasoning I've ever fucking heard.

Voicing concern for the state of your country? What will the liberals think of next???

This is just another attempty by the liberal globalists to take over the mainstream media.