Comments by "Perhaps" (@NoEgg4u) on "Bloomberg Television"
channel.
-
52
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@0:24 "facebook's own community standards"
facebook writes their own rules. Then they pat themselves on the back by claiming their rules abide by community standards.
Who decides what are the community standards?
There is no elected body. It is made up mumbo-jumbo. Raise your hand if you know anyone that is in charge of "community standards", and from where they derived their authority.
And which communities? Surly in the hundreds of thousands of communities, in just America, there will be huge divides in what is a community standard.
Folks, "community standards" stands for an empty excuse to be a tyrant and claim that you are on the side of (intangible) community standards.
@0:26 "and the human rights laws that they want to abide by"
Same thing.
What human rights laws?
Where are these laws written?
Who codified these laws?
Raise your hand if you know anyone that wrote "human rights laws".
Assuming someone did right human rights laws, from where did that person derive their authority to create laws?
Who elected them?
This is all a load of crap.
When it comes to facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is king. His word is the law at facebook.
He can wave his hand and dismantle the "Oversight Board".
He does not have to listen to the oversight board. He does not have to listen to anyone. It is his company, and he can allow or ban anyone he wants, at his whim.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is codified law. Since it is the law, Zuckerberg must abide by it. Yet, he does not.
Zuckerberg is worth $123,000,000,000, he donates hundreds of millions to the Democrat controlled federal government law makers and the Biden administration, and so he gets away with being lawless.
All of this "Oversight Board" news is political theater. It is Mark Zuckerberg that has his finger on the "Enable" and "Disable" buttons for President Trump's account.
Do not let this "Oversight Board" BS distract you from the fact that it is Mark Zuckerberg, and him alone, that banned President Trump from facebook.
Cheers!
1
-
Garry G We have three co-equal branches of government. Each has different powers under our constitution. No single branch is subservient to the other branches. No single branch lords over the other branches.
All powers that any of the branches have are derived from our constitution.
Adam Shift and Jerry Nadler held secret hearings that no press and no republicans were permitted to attend. In those meetings, they interviewed witnesses of their choosing, under oath. Not one member of the press nor one republican representative nor one adviser to the President nor one republican witness nor one member of the President's legal staff, etc, were permitted to attend.
So under those outrageous circumstances, you believe that Trump should have caved to BS subpoenas issued by a wildly partisan committee chairman that has no constitutional powers over the executive branch?
Consider the following:
What should any president do, if one day the legislative branch of government were to issue daily subpoenas stating that the president must appear before them and answer questions? Is the president supposed to report to those corrupt representatives on a daily basis? Is the president no longer allowed to make his own schedule (because he will never have time to conduct other business, because he will always be forced to be present and answer daily subpoenas)?
Of course Trump is going to show the corrupt people that are issuing unconstitutional subpoenas that he does not answer to them. Of course Trump is going to show them that he will not participate in their secret hearings or any hearings where zero republican witnesses are permitted to testify.
Garry G:
-- would you have no problem being subpoenaed to appear in court and told that you are not allowed to have a lawyer?
-- would you have no problem participating in a court proceeding where you are being accused of crimes, and are told that you are not allowed to call any witnesses?
Garry G, if you did not know any of this, then I open this clarifies things for you.
If you did already know this, then grow up and stop trolling.
1
-
His apology was meaningless (other than to open the door for litigation).
His apology was empty words, because he had an opportunity to set up a fund, and refused.
So he says "I'm sorry", and offers nothing to support his assertion that he is sorry.
Ergo:
Sorry, not sorry.
Folks, he could part with $1,000,000,000.00 more easily than we could part with 10¢.
His net worth goes up and down by more than that amount every day. His life would change by nothing, by having a fund. He could still own as many mansions as he chooses, as many sport's cars as he desires, have as many servants, lawyers, etc, as his heart desires. Not a single aspect of his life would change, at all, with a $1,000,000,000.00 fund. But, still, he refuses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1