Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 10:58:26 AM
No. Specific social media companies were started with taxpayer money.
The current big social media companies, yes.  If I start a new social media service, and it takes off, I did that with my own money and ingenuity.  I shouldn't be regulated, no matter how big I get.
Then what rules are Solar and I subject to in regards to banning someone on this forum?
The social media companies that were started with taxpayer money, like Facebook, should not be allowed to ban anyone for political leanings, nor should they be allowed to sell data.

You do not realize that without our money, social media would not exist? As I said, the concept took off because of the earlier ones, and the money they received. Going from writing on a specific page to sending a general message is irrelevant.

Forums are a dime a dozen. If I was not at C.P.F. then I could go to another Conservative minded forum or I would could go to an opposite-minded political minded forum or I can go to a non-political forum to discuss politics. That's more a free market idea than a Twitter or Facebook monololizing what is left and wrong.

Obviously, you guys have to control spam. This is a political forum that leans Conservative so we would think that freedom of speech and thought is practiced here. We both know that Liberals come here not to be a practicing member but to be a nuisance and troll.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 03, 2019, 04:27:49 PM
How long do they really need to be in DC? How many times are they voting anyway?

I'd take the Presidential vote away from DC, along with removing any local elected official. DC should be a federal district. Don't like it, move to a real state.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 11:29:08 AM
You do not realize that without our money, social media would not exist?

Incorrect.  Facebook probably wouldn't (or would in it's original capacity, Lifelog).  Google probably wouldn't, as the old search engines likely would have won out.  Chrome probably wouldn't have happened, along with other social media/internet companies launched from our tax dollars.

Quote
As I said, the concept took off because of the earlier ones, and the money they received.

Google wasn't the first search engine.  Facebook wasn't the first social media company.  Chrome/IE weren't the first browsers.

Quote
Going from writing on a specific page to sending a general message is irrelevant.

That's what, say, Twitter is.

Quote
Forums are a dime a dozen.

So are social media companies.

Quote
If I was not at C.P.F. then I could go to another Conservative minded forum or I would could go to an opposite-minded political minded forum or I can go to a non-political forum to discuss politics. That's more a free market idea than a Twitter or Facebook monololizing what is left and wrong.

We're circling back to those specific companies you mention.  I agree, those launched with taxpayer money should not be able to ban users for political beliefs.  Those launched with private dollars can do whatever they want (Gab, etc).

Quote
Obviously, you guys have to control spam. This is a political forum that leans Conservative so we would think that freedom of speech and thought is practiced here. We both know that Liberals come here not to be a practicing member but to be a nuisance and troll.

True, but members could be banned here just because Solar or I get out of the wrong side of the bed.  However, if we did that, the forum would go to shit, since the free market would kick in and members would go elsewhere.

Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 11:41:57 AM
Incorrect.  Facebook probably wouldn't (or would in it's original capacity, Lifelog).  Google probably wouldn't, as the old search engines likely would have won out.  Chrome probably wouldn't have happened, along with other social media/internet companies launched from our tax dollars.
Google wasn't the first search engine.  Facebook wasn't the first social media company.  Chrome/IE weren't the first browsers.
That's what, say, Twitter is.
So are social media companies.
We're circling back to those specific companies you mention.  I agree, those launched with taxpayer money should not be able to ban users for political beliefs.  Those launched with private dollars can do whatever they want (Gab, etc).
True, but members could be banned here just because Solar or I get out of the wrong side of the bed.  However, if we did that, the forum would go to shit, since the free market would kick in and members would go elsewhere.

We can bicker on semantics but a mega social media company is way different than a run of the mill forum.

Ultimately, if Liberals are going to attack our personal business practices (not serving than gay Wedding cake), I have no problem forcing Twitter to serve Conservative though. You don't have to be a fan of Milo to see he was generally wronged while vile behavior from the left gets a pass.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 12:06:28 PM
We can bicker on semantics but a mega social media company is way different than a run of the mill forum.

I'm saying Gab, for example, is a social media company like Twitter.  Gab, however, should be able to ban whomever they want for any reason.  Twitter is a different story.

Quote
Ultimately, if Liberals are going to attack our personal business practices (not serving than gay Wedding cake), I have no problem forcing Twitter to serve Conservative though.

That's different. I agree with you on this, but only if Twitter took government dollars.  If it were Gab, then no, they can bounce whomever they want.

Quote
You don't have to be a fan of Milo to see he was generally wronged while vile behavior from the left gets a pass.

I agree, but if Twitter took government money, then it was wrong.  If they were private, like Gab, then they are free to do whatever they want.

While serving my term as the First Consul of the United States:

(1)Repeal the 16th Amendment. Congress needs to learn what and what isn't necessary to the running of the country. Stop buying stuff, our descendants will have to pay for.

(2)Repeal the 17th Amendment. Senators should be beholden to the State legislatures that elect them, NOT the national party. No out of state money in these elections either.

(3)Repeal the 20th Amendment. Unless that female has served in the armed forces of the United States
.
(4)Repeal the 26th Amendment. Raise the voting age to 25, unless you have served in the armed forces of the US. Then your age to vote started the day you enter the military.

(5)Term Limits. 3 two year terms for Reps. 1 six year term for Sen. 1 ten year term for the USSC, 1 six year term for the POTUS.

(6)NO Civil Service. Every Bureaucrat in the US government serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. Bring back the Spoils System.

(7)A Federal Election Bureau, staffed by the same number of members from each state. Their job will be to check voting roles in any state chosen by random, and not their own state. To make sure that only citizens are voting. To make sure that elections are overseen to counter fraud.

(8)Marriage and Abortion returned to each individual state. No California rules being forced on the people of Utah.

(9)All US citizens who are not have not committed a felony or who having committed a felon, have served their full sentence and have a spotless record in the following ten years, shall be allowed to carry a weapon on their person or keep one in their homes.

(10)The business of the Federal government shall be restricted to the national defense, foreign diplomacy, treasury, internal jurisprudence and interior government properties (national parks, forests, Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, etc.).

(11)The US military shall hold live fire exercises along unwalled sections of the border.

(12)Outlaw Protected Classes

(13)Allow no immigrants into the United States whose religions or customs don't allow them to fully embrace, and assimilate into, the laws and customs of the United States.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 09:47:42 AM
They do that anyway. What if I lived in one of those Liberal areas and was forced to pay my employees $15 an hour?

If you are going to allow the government to set the highest price a company can charge, can the government also set the lowest price a company can charge too? And don't complain about the pay forced upon employers, if we want them to "prevent" price gorging, then also accept wages which "do not take advantage of the workers"

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 10:50:08 AM
I know if I buy a multipack of said soda at a grocery store, it will be (per item) cheaper that buying it individually at a convenience store. But the gauging that occurs at places like an airport just because you are a captive audience is overkill; especially, since they have the monopoly and you as a consumer can't bring anything in through TSA considered normal. This is a step below overcharging for that generator during a hurricane. It's all taking advantage of a situation. A free market would allow different convenient shops at the airport to have different prices. Where is that 2 for $3.00/2 for $3.33/2 for $3.50 like a Sheetz, Wawa, or 7-11?

I see you left out the "militant" part. Besides, some of the things that aught to be implemented, is going to be tough (even extreme). It is what is needed.

Pushing for Marxist policies doesn't make you a militant libertarian.  It makes you a Marxist.

...and, regarding the airport vendors, also take into consideration security, compliance, etc.  I'd imagine there's extra cost for those vendors as well. Nevertheless, if I am stuck in the desert and someone is selling water, I imagine I'll be paying a premium for that water.

Quote from: s3779m on March 09, 2019, 01:30:46 PM
If you are going to allow the government to set the highest price a company can charge, can the government also set the lowest price a company can charge too? And don't complain about the pay forced upon employers, if we want them to "prevent" price gorging, then also accept wages which "do not take advantage of the workers"

Exactly.  He also doesn't take into account how supply and demand also gives others a chance to purchase something.  If there's a run on a product, and the price is jacked down, then they have to then regulate how many a person can buy.  Then, is it all one family? Did one guy send his friend in there to buy something he doesn't need on behalf of the guy who just maxed his quota?  On the other hand, naturally adjusting the price to the demand prevents a run on the product -- or at least greatly curbs it.

Quote from: s3779m on March 09, 2019, 01:30:46 PM
If you are going to allow the government to set the highest price a company can charge, can the government also set the lowest price a company can charge too? And don't complain about the pay forced upon employers, if we want them to "prevent" price gorging, then also accept wages which "do not take advantage of the workers"

A low skilled worker (fast food) is not worth $15 an hour versus a semi-skilled worker (low-level technical) that earns $15 an hour. Pay for technical knowledge, not standing around holding up the counter while tables and floors are dirty.

And we, as an society, seem to forget it's not just about the wage, it is the cost of living. If most of us ran things as this thread is about, hopefully there will be less cost of living because of the low federal, state, and local taxes because there would be no unnecessary spending on social programs, small government, and balanced budget.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 02:29:28 PM
A low skilled worker (fast food) is not worth $15 an hour versus a semi-skilled worker (low-level technical) that earns $15 an hour. Pay for technical knowledge, not standing around holding up the counter while tables and floors are dirty.

True, but the free market determines that.  If there was a high demand of low skilled fast-food workers, their value would go up.

Quote
And we, as an society, seem to forget it's not just about the wage, it is the cost of living.

The free market should determine that as well.  If wages are jacked up, that increased the cost of goods, services, and housing, and everything else.

Quote
If most of us ran things as this thread is about, hopefully there will be less cost of living because of the low federal, state, and local taxes because there would be no unnecessary spending on social programs, small government, and balanced budget.

...and no minimum wage.  That's the first thing I'd eliminate... along with the Sixteenth Amendment.

Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 02:06:23 PM
Pushing for Marxist policies doesn't make you a militant libertarian.  It makes you a Marxist.

...and, regarding the airport vendors, also take into consideration security, compliance, etc.  I'd imagine there's extra cost for those vendors as well. Nevertheless, if I am stuck in the desert and someone is selling water, I imagine I'll be paying a premium for that water.

That's not the intent of my stance. However, I do believe there is a fine line that should be addressed(socially, morally, legally. or financially).

We also need to realize that this thread is just a discussion and is never going to happen in real life. We need an army of Trumps to fight the good fight to the extreme as we are discussing regardless if it's doable or not.

Quote(low-level technical)that earns $15 an hour. Pay for technical knowledge, not standing around holding up the counter while tables and floors are dirty.

I know the food establishments I managed throughout my younger years.  IF you have time to lean you can clean, or you were out the door.  Technical knowledge don't mean shit if your not making the  business money. 

Quote from: walkstall on March 09, 2019, 02:45:44 PM

I know the food establishments I managed throughout my younger years.  IF you have time to lean you can clean, or you were out the door.  Technical knowledge don't mean shit if your not making the  business money.

From my experience, the low level technical guys were running from job to job as was I was. As much as I think a specific low level guy was overall useless and should be gone, he is not the sole reason the company sucks.

I have lost track going to fast food drive thru's and having a order wrong in some way or missing something important like a straw or a fork/spoon. Even in a foreign country, person could not even count when I order a numbered meal from a well known American fast food establishment.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 02:44:50 PM
That's not the intent of my stance. However, I do believe there is a fine line that should be addressed(socially, morally, legally. or financially).

What is that line, and how do you determine it?

Quote
We also need to realize that this thread is just a discussion and is never going to happen in real life. We need an army of Trumps to fight the good fight to the extreme as we are discussing regardless if it's doable or not.

I agree, but it's a good exercise to see where members stand.