Ron Paul baffled at being censored by Facebook: I am a non-interventionist and preach non-violence

[Wally]

The c

You do know and are just refusing to admit it.

Admit what?

Its a special kind of privledged asshole who advocates for rights, that he assumes, because he is so special will never be used against him and then has the nerve to bitch about the very rights they espouse being used against them.

 

[Wally]

Trump canceled net neutrality. Hopefully every internet gateway blocks access to all rightwing bullshit sites. They have the right according to Republicans. You guys are so smart giving corporations all that power.

 

[RememberMurray]

The message was that Trump was banned for inciting violence. I don’t believe that a single person in America would claim Ron Paul was inciting violence. He was banned for being a conservative voice. Period.

Trump may indeed have been banned for inciting violence. If so, libertarianism says, right on!

The Trump situation may not have to have anything to do with Ron Paul. Here's the thing: Under libertarian/Republican rules the guys and gals at corporate HQ can ban Ron Paul because they don't like his tie. They can ban me, under libertarian/Republican rules, because I'm a Gopher fan, if they choose. They can ban you because you use Bill Murray in your avatar.

Under libertarian/Republican rules, they don't need a reason, they don't have to explain, and the First Amendment does not apply — when it comes to how they run their own private business.

 

[golfing18now]

Trump may indeed have been banned for inciting violence. Libertarianism says, right on!

The Trump situation has nothing to do with Ron Paul. Under libertarian/Republican rules they can ban Ron Paul because they don't like his tie. They can ban me, under libertarian/Republican rules, because I'm a Gopher fan. They can ban you because you use Bill Murray in your avatar.

Under libertarian/Republican rules, they don't need a reason, they don't have to explain, and the First Amendment does not apply — when it comes to how they run their own private business.

What about under your rules.....not whether or not they can but whether or not they should? How about the cake bakers you mentioned earlier? Did you support them refraining from providing a cake?

 

[RememberMurray]

What about under your rules.....not whether or not they can but whether or not they should? How about the cake bakers you mentioned earlier? Did you support them refraining from providing a cake?

I don't make the rules. I'm just liberal, who doesn't understand how business works. Or... so I'm told by the "conservatives" here.

 

[Wally]

What about under your rules.....not whether or not they can but whether or not they should? How about the cake bakers you mentioned earlier? Did you support them refraining from providing a cake?

The cake no. But the God Nazis won that one.

Business rights trump all and business doesn't want terrorists destroying the country. Businesses kind of need the country to be safe and stable. You surely understand..

 

[RememberMurray]

In general, I support the baking of wedding cakes for any and all consenting adults who choose to marry and who enjoy cake, but I oppose violent insurrection, sedition and treason. I hope that helps.

 

[Slim Tubby]

Hang Trump for Treason and sell his body on EBay before he gets banned on there, too.

 

[golfing18now]

In general, I support the baking of wedding cakes for any and all consenting adults who choose to marry and who enjoy cake, but I oppose violent insurrection, sedition and treason. I hope that helps.

I wasn't optimistic you would take an honest stab at dialogue but thought I would give it a shot. Carry on, I guess.

 

[RememberMurray]

I wasn't optimistic you would take an honest stab at dialogue but thought I would give it a shot. Carry on, I guess.

Cheerio, mate!

Oh, and just so you know... no homo stuff intended with the 'mate'.

 

[Wally]

I wasn't optimistic you would take an honest stab at dialogue but thought I would give it a shot. Carry on, I guess.

You want us to espouse our liberal values now?
Thats really interesting.

Will you agree to fight for net neutrality. To ban discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Ron Paul criticised the companies for blocking Trump. Is a company required to publish yoir criticism of them? I know what Ron Pauls answer would be.

 

[RememberMurray]

It's beginning to look like libertarian hero Ron Paul isn't consistent in his own stated convictions.

 

[golfing18now]

You want us to espouse our liberal values now?
Thats really interesting.

Will you agree to fight for net neutrality. To ban discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Ron Paul criticised the companies for blocking Trump. Is a company required to publish yoir criticism of them? I know what Ron Pauls answer would be.

Wally....I don't come on this site to have a penis measuring contest with people that don't believe what I do. I am genuinely interested in hearing other opinions and wade through the muck on this site to find them. There are a number of posters that will debate topics honestly from time to time who I respect even though I disagree with them. Two or three others....not so much.

I think issues like this one are messy. We probably all agree on the importance of free speech. Most of us probably agree there are limits to that free speech. But how do you define that limit? Does Twitter have the right to ban users of their product? Probably. But does Twitter have the obligation to ban users of their product. Should Twitter make sweeping generalizations on groups of people? I'm not so sure. It's a slippery slope for me. If last week proved anything, it is we have a bunch of morons in this world that will jump off a bridge for the right captain. Then you get a big enough group of morons and the mob takes over and people do things they wouldn't do otherwise. (No different than this summer, by the way). That is why Trump's words were so reprehensible and why I'm a big advocate against/complainer/whiner about our biased media and its constant anonymous sources. Far reaching consequences, in my mind.

 

[RememberMurray]

Wally....I don't come on this site to have a penis measuring contest with people that don't believe what I do. I am genuinely interested in hearing other opinions and wade through the muck on this site to find them. There are a number of posters that will debate topics honestly from time to time who I respect even though I disagree with them. Two or three others....not so much.

I think issues like this one are messy. We probably all agree on the importance of free speech. Most of us probably agree there are limits to that free speech. But how do you define that limit? Does Twitter have the right to ban users of their product? Probably. But does Twitter have the obligation to ban users of their product. Should Twitter make sweeping generalizations on groups of people? I'm not so sure. It's a slippery slope for me. If last week proved anything, it is we have a bunch of morons in this world that will jump off a bridge for the right captain. Then you get a big enough group of morons and the mob takes over and people do things they wouldn't do otherwise. (No different than this summer, by the way). That is why Trump's words were so reprehensible and why I'm a big advocate against/complainer/whiner about our biased media and its constant anonymous sources. Far reaching consequences, in my mind.

If Twitter — or any platform — has the right to ban users, they will, at their own discretion, use that right. If Twitter has that right, it won't matter what Jim thinks is wrong, nor what and Jeff thinks is right. Neither Jim nor Jeff will have a say. No ballot will be cast.

Unless, of course, Jim's side or Jeff's side organizes an economic boycott... and it would have to be a boycott that actually impacts Twitter's bottom line in a noticeable, substantial way, in order to have any influence.

Because, under libertarian/Republican rule of law, there is no moral question here; only an economic one. The almighty dollar rules — over everything.

 

[stocker08]

Wally....I don't come on this site to have a penis measuring contest with people that don't believe what I do. I am genuinely interested in hearing other opinions and wade through the muck on this site to find them. There are a number of posters that will debate topics honestly from time to time who I respect even though I disagree with them. Two or three others....not so much.

I think issues like this one are messy. We probably all agree on the importance of free speech. Most of us probably agree there are limits to that free speech. But how do you define that limit? Does Twitter have the right to ban users of their product? Probably. But does Twitter have the obligation to ban users of their product. Should Twitter make sweeping generalizations on groups of people? I'm not so sure. It's a slippery slope for me. If last week proved anything, it is we have a bunch of morons in this world that will jump off a bridge for the right captain. Then you get a big enough group of morons and the mob takes over and people do things they wouldn't do otherwise. (No different than this summer, by the way). That is why Trump's words were so reprehensible and why I'm a big advocate against/complainer/whiner about our biased media and its constant anonymous sources. Far reaching consequences, in my mind.

Except that it isn't messy. There's no suppression of free speech here. None. Trump and many of his colleagues decided to use these social media platforms to push an anti-democratic agenda. That's all there is to it. Twitter has every right to shut it down on THEIR own platform. Same goes for Facebook. There are terms that everyone agrees to when signing up. Trump has the right to say what he wants....but he doesn't have the RIGHT to use a private business to convey those words.

So basically....drop the free speech act. Trump is the President of the United States. He has the biggest platform in the entire world. If he has something he wants to say....he could get his message out on a number of television networks. If he wanted to put out short blips of treason....he could easily have something set up on his own personal website. Nobody is blocking him.

And I get that you want to laser focus on the Twitter/Facebook issue here. But considering the right's standpoint on laissez faire governance when it comes to private business....which gets BEATEN over everyone's head....the hypocrisy is absolutely a fair point to bring up. I brought up the baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple a couple of days ago. Many of the righties here whining about Twitter were 100% on the baker's side when that issue arose. Free market....they can go elsewhere. Just a couple of the reasons for saying that it was okay. So which is it? Private business can make their own decisions? Can they choose who to serve and who not to serve? You can't have it both ways.

 

[golfing18now]

Except that it isn't messy. There's no suppression of free speech here. None. Trump and many of his colleagues decided to use these social media platforms to push an anti-democratic agenda. That's all there is to it. Twitter has every right to shut it down on THEIR own platform. Same goes for Facebook. There are terms that everyone agrees to when signing up. Trump has the right to say what he wants....but he doesn't have the RIGHT to use a private business to convey those words.

So basically....drop the free speech act. Trump is the President of the United States. He has the biggest platform in the entire world. If he has something he wants to say....he could get his message out on a number of television networks. If he wanted to put out short blips of treason....he could easily have something set up on his own personal website. Nobody is blocking him.

And I get that you want to laser focus on the Twitter/Facebook issue here. But considering the right's standpoint on laissez faire governance when it comes to private business....which gets BEATEN over everyone's head....the hypocrisy is absolutely a fair point to bring up. I brought up the baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple a couple of days ago. Many of the righties here whining about Twitter were 100% on the baker's side when that issue arose. Free market....they can go elsewhere. Just a couple of the reasons for saying that it was okay. So which is it? Private business can make their own decisions? Can they choose who to serve and who not to serve? You can't have it both ways.

It's not really a free speech act that I'm trying to spew. I fully admit that I don't know what the right answer is in this case. I didn't have a problem with Twitter banning Trump. He went well beyond that "yelling fire in a movie theater" line. Way beyond. I would have a problem with Twitter banning others just because they have conservative viewpoints. Is that what Twitter was doing here with Ron Paul? I don't know their motivation. Do they have the right to do it? As I said before, yes. But I thought Facebook and Twitter were created to find out what your high school friend was cooking for dinner and other useless drivel. I would hate to see them fall in line with the CNN/MSNBC/NY Times/FoxNews ilk and be some sort of moral compass. That's just my preference, I suppose.

"You can't have it both ways". I couldn't agree more with that statement. It is why I asked the question of Murray in the first place. I was curious how he would respond.

 

[WhoFellDownTheGopherHole?]

Ron Paul Says He's Been Locked Out of His Account, but Facebook Says It Was a Mistake

UPDATE: In an email on Monday night, a Facebook spokesperson told Reason that it had mistakenly locked former Rep. Ron Paul's page. "While there were never any restrictions on Ron Paul's page, we restricted one admin's ability to post by mistake. We have corrected the error."

Loading…

reason.com

 

[Gopher_In_NYC]

Still amazes me that some posters held that we have an unbiased press. At least that assertion has been laid to rest. Looks like we are now to the point where conservatives need to build their own when they are denied. Sad that we have gotten to this place and hopefully conservatives are willing to do the work necessary to maintain a presence in the marketplace.

Good point - NewsMax, OAN and Fox are not "fair and balanced" in the least.
Nice progress!

 

[Plausible Deniability]

Here's a question:

Since businesses can, under libertarian rules, make any decisions they want to regarding their own business...

... why do they owe Ron Paul an explanation?

Holy shit. Your inability over and over and over and over again to address the issue at hand and GWG's general question is astounding. I get that you're afraid to really get to the issue but why even bother doing the dance?

 

[Wally]

Holy shit. Your inability over and over and over and over again to address the issue at hand and GWG's general question is astounding. I get that you're afraid to really get to the issue but why even bother doing the dance?

The issue is that the left has been fighting to protect people from discrimination for years and the right has been fighting it and giving more and more power to big business. You reap what you sow. Get it?

 

[golf]

Good point - NewsMax, OAN and Fox are not "fair and balanced" in the least.
Nice progress!

Of course they arent but that is not the point. However the left will make statements like yours in attempt to obfuscate. This is why in another thread i posted a interview where the lib interviewer told larry elder he uses statistics too much.

In the world of facts there is no denying extreme media bias. Even on gh we have seen thru the trump term how conservatives base their arguments on stats and facts in contrast to liberals. You can go back to any thread discussing the trump economy, middle east, race issues, immigration, china, etc. and you will see this to be the case. However, like in the larry elder example, facts/stats are seen as irrelevant.

 

[RememberMurray]

Holy shit. Your inability over and over and over and over again to address the issue at hand and GWG's general question is astounding. I get that you're afraid to really get to the issue but why even bother doing the dance?

The issue at hand — and the topic of the thread, see original post — is Ron Paul, libertarian icon, being "baffled" that a private business banned him. I've addressed that issue directly.

As to the other, ongoing, unceasing noise —constant whining about "liberal bias in the media', gay wedding cakes, butthurt conservatives playing the victim — well, my views on those things are pretty well-established, I would think.

 

[alaska]

Stop melting down you crazy snowflake.

Facebook isn't a media outlet. Furthermore....the right has already determined that anything that isn't slanted WAY to the right is fake news anyhow. Along with "tv stations, schools, restaurants, bars, football leagues".....it's only you victim righties whining like little babies.

So go ahead and make your right wing versions of those things. We'll just laugh while you continue to meltdown.

Fake News

 

[GopherJake]

Because, under libertarian/Republican rule of law, there is no moral question here; only an economic one. The almighty dollar rules — over everything.

I don't think this definition is quite correct. Libertarians are for maximum liberty. This includes limits when one person's liberty conflicts with another person's liberty. I don't really think the core belief has anything to do specifically with $. Now, that might be the result, but it's not the principle.

The issue at hand — and the topic of the thread, see original post — is Ron Paul, libertarian icon, being "baffled" that a private business banned him.

I think you can be both for allowing someone/thing to do something, yet still baffled as to why they did. I'm not sure if that applies here, because I haven't seen his reaction. Was he truly whining (did it sound like an S2 or BGA post about the media?)? Or was he asking sincerely?

 

[Wally]

Of course they arent but that is not the point. However the left will make statements like yours in attempt to obfuscate. This is why in another thread i posted a interview where the lib interviewer told larry elder he uses statistics too much.

In the world of facts there is no denying extreme media bias. Even on gh we have seen thru the trump term how conservatives base their arguments on stats and facts in contrast to liberals. You can go back to any thread discussing the trump economy, middle east, race issues, immigration, china, etc. and you will see this to be the case. However, like in the larry elder example, facts/stats are seen as irrelevant.

Stats can be easily distorted thru cherry picking, yes both sides do it.

To me the more pertinent question is the goals of the distortion. To me the rights goals are usually selfish. The right media is focused on clickbait and outrage because it brings in the bucks.

The common argument on here is, hasn't Trump made you more wealthy, why on earth would you vote against him. To me that is a morally bankrupt argument unless money is your God. Thats the lense I see Republicans thru.

 

[BarnBurner]

The issue at hand — and the topic of the thread, see original post — is Ron Paul, libertarian icon, being "baffled" that a private business banned him. I've addressed that issue directly.

As to the other, ongoing, unceasing noise —constant whining about "liberal bias in the media', gay wedding cakes, butthurt conservatives playing the victim — well, my views on those things are pretty well-established, I would think.

Murray ignores the facts, like a good lib turd.

 

[Gopher_In_NYC]

Of course they arent but that is not the point. However the left will make statements like yours in attempt to obfuscate. This is why in another thread i posted a interview where the lib interviewer told larry elder he uses statistics too much.

In the world of facts there is no denying extreme media bias. Even on gh we have seen thru the trump term how conservatives base their arguments on stats and facts in contrast to liberals. You can go back to any thread discussing the trump economy, middle east, race issues, immigration, china, etc. and you will see this to be the case. However, like in the larry elder example, facts/stats are seen as irrelevant.

You have the right to be wrong - just like me!!

I posted extensively on the following using stats: race issues , that most of the violence perpetuated against people this summer was committed by the FAR RIGHT and not BLT; furthermore, the immigration thread I never saw, but it has been statistically proven that immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate then White Folks and add more to the economy than they take - round up all the Brownies and see what happens to the cost of your veggies/fruits when the farms have to pay minimum wage or in a poultry plant etc...

To be clear, I like your bucket posting, but feel you are woefully uninformed on these issues as are most Rs. Why I don't think you are, there are some on here and in greater society who stigmatize immigration due to the color of the skin of those from Mexico/Central America and take a simplistic view of it in my opinion.

There also can be a strong economic argument made that to compete with China in the long run, we need to become a much more populated country; I read an interesting piece about it - this one isn't the specific one I read, but for more economic strategic thinkers, it is not an uncommon topic (Google it) - covered her by Harvard Business Review -

Making the U.S. Competitive Again (hbr.org)

Immigration: The inflow of talent from outside our borders has long been a key strength of the U.S. economy. But less-than-friendly immigration policies, plus growing opportunities in once stagnant countries like China and India, have lessened America’s pulling power. Immigration laws that truly encouraged skilled workers to come here would be a big plus. One specific suggestion: Staple a “green card” work permit to every advanced degree awarded in the U.S. to a foreign student.

While I worked for a boutique firm for most of my business career, many of my contacts at my clients were from Ivy Leagues schools (I never graduated from them, but did serve as a consultant to them) and I learned form them pragmatism in dealing with business - as the color that matters is green at that level. Quite frankly the that level of strategic economic thinking is not on this board, nor would I expect it to be - as that is smaller segment of the population and many of those folks stay on the coasts, as they make more money - also back when that was my life, i was pumping 60-70 hours a week. I only started posting ~3 months ago and will be done with the OTB after Biden is peacefully sworn in, while still popping on the sports board.

During the election, they mentioned that for every 9 Hispanic babies born in Texas, only one Caucasian. American Is changing and I favor a more pluralist inclusive society - I personally don't care if I make less money, as I've added a simplistic/minimalist approach to my life now and weaning myself from the hallow commercialism that is deemed so important in society.

 

[RememberMurray]

Murray ignores the facts, like a good lib turd.

I'm sorry; are you saying you have some pertinent facts to present?

I can't wait to read them!

 

[Wally]

I'm sorry; are you saying you have some pertinent facts to present?

I can't wait to read them!

He only thinks in other people's memes...

 

[forever a gopher]

I don't think this definition is quite correct. Libertarians are for maximum liberty. This includes limits when one person's liberty conflicts with another person's liberty. I don't really think the core belief has anything to do specifically with $. Now, that might be the result, but it's not the principle.

I think you can be both for allowing someone/thing to do something, yet still baffled as to why they did. I'm not sure if that applies here, because I haven't seen his reaction. Was he truly whining (did it sound like an S2 or BGA post about the media?)? Or was he asking sincerely?

This. Nobody is saying they shouldn't have the right to do it. But that doesn't mean they're above criticism.