heybruce

It would be interesting to know why they were re-banned. I assume it was for posting lies about the 2020 election.

Location doesn't matter. The electromagnet pulses from a few high altitude nuclear explosions would destroy most satellites in orbit and fry digital electronics around the world. The entire global economy would shut down for an indefinite period of time. A high altitude test in 1962 disrupted electrical systems in Hawaii, which was 900 miles from the detonation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime That was during the days of vacuum tube electronics. Modern technology is far more sensitive.

And you can't come up with a single liberal tweet that you think should be banned under Twitter's terms of service.

I'm guessing that not one single liberal on your list posted lies about a stolen election and attempted to overturn the legitimate results. That is the primary thing that distinguishes them from those you listed who were banned from Twitter.

I don't know what chron.com is, but it is mischaracterizing the situation. Trump's lawsuit against Orange County was settled without reference to admissions of minorities. After that, during another dispute with the city, Trump referenced the open admission policy of the golf club when attempting to have traffic restrictions around the club lifted. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/11/viral-image/trump-did-open-mar-lago-blacks-and-jews-business-m/ Presenting the opinion on Twitter (isn't that what Twitter is for?) that Donald Trump is a white supremacist does not incite to violence in any direct manner. Besides, Trump does have a documented history of actions many would consider racist. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/every-moment-donald-trumps-long-complicated-history-race

I see, you are attempting to deflect by being offensive. I asked you to prove your claim about fact free left wing echo chambers and the origins of your peculiar avocado toast comment. I think that Twitter, as a business, has a right to establish terms of use and enforce them. I think Twitter decided Trump's tweets were intended to incite violence. I agree. I assume inciting violence violated the terms of use. I don't know why Twitter allows the Taliban an account. I've never had a Twitter account and don't know what is and isn't allowed.

People are allowed to think that sportsmen should not take the knee and express that view. It's actively attempting to deny the right of sportsmen to take a knee that is unacceptable. Freedom of speech allows one to express views, including the view that other views are wrong. Only speech that can reasonably be assumed to lead to violence or other serious crimes should be banned.

You know about this because neither side of the conflicting views have been censored. How does this apply to free speech?

Oh good, I look forward to your examples of fact free left wing echo chambers. You can also tell us what your description of liberals as "weeping onto their Lattes/Avocado toast" is based upon. However I suspect you won't. I hate to tell you this, but the Taliban is more honest than Trump. The Taliban make it clear that they want to overthrow western forms of government. Trump gave a long, loud rant about a fictitious stolen election, told his followers to march to the Capital and fight, did nothing to denounce or call off the ensuing violence for hours, then insisted he never called for an insurrection. No doubt he will do it again as soon as he has the right platform.

Did you really not know about this? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/19/twitter-admits-far-more-russian-bots-posted-on-election-than-it-had-disclosed https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-russian-twitter-bots-banned-election-meddling-probe-700703 https://www.vox.com/2018/10/19/17990946/twitter-russian-trolls-bots-election-tampering

Give an example of a social media post of a liberal opinion you think should have been censored.

I'm curious, is your stereotype of what a liberal eats and cries about based on real world experience, or did you develop it in fact-free far-right echo chambers?

NATO is involved militarily. I can see reasons for NATO to get more deeply involved other than the opportunity for military sales. I don't know what Russia would do if NATO sent troops in. I don't think that will happen unless Russia further escalates the mess it already got into.

"I see no other reason for all the sabre rattling going on." Seriously? You can think of no other reasons to oppose Russia's invasion of a neighboring country other than the opportunity to sell arms?

The country that was invaded can claim innocence, Russia is clearly committing many war crimes, and I don't know anyone who wants the conflict to drag on, though some think it will.

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post and Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal along with a lot of other media. So what's your point? I don't know why you think Mark Zuckerberg is an ultra-liberal, but it doesn't matter. Social media is not a news outlet, is not regulated like a news outlet, and anyone who gets their "news" from social media is a fool.

"The claims, which requested that U.S. President Joe Biden reconsider the purpose of the consulate, were made in an open letter by Nitithorn Lumlua, a representative of the "Peoples of Thailand" group. It also urged the U.S. to lift its arms embargo on Myanmar, citing Thailand’s neutral stance on Myanmar’s internal political situation." An arms embargo is neutral. Supplying arms to a brutal military dictatorship is not. Funny that a group that calls itself "Peoples of Thailand" supports such a dictatorship.

Thailand's military is primarily focused on, um, matters internal to the country. It doesn't need F-35's for that.

It will take a few years for Europe to build the facilities to import energy from other countries, and it will take Russia a few years to build the pipelines to export energy in significant quantities to Asia (probably with Chinese money that will come with significant conditions attached). At the end of that time Europe will have diversified its energy sources to prevent future dependence on Russia, and Asian countries will know better than to become overly reliant on Russian energy. Russia's ability to intimidate the world will be greatly reduced. Nice job Putin; shooting Russia in the foot today and for years to come.

Thanks. Just a shade under a half a Troy ounce.

That's true today. That won't be true in a few years. Europe has learned the lesson of being critically dependent on Russia for energy and is working to diversify suppliers. At that time Russia will have lost its only real leverage on Europe and the world economy. Of course I'm sure China will buy Russian oil. At a discount. After pipelines are built to deliver it in sufficient quantity. And China will not make the mistake of relying only on Russia for oil, so while China will have leverage over Russia, Russia will not have leverage over China. Instead of Ukraine becoming Russia's lapdog, Russia will become China's lapdog. Nice work Putin.

What is a baht weight of gold?

Refresh my memory; when was the left anti-Disney?

Orlando was a small city of less than 100,000 people before Disney came to Florida. Now it is a city of 2.5 million and a major tourism draw for the state. Because Disney Corp. had the temerity to criticize a bit of ridiculous regulation backed by DeSantis, the governor wants to "cut off his nose to spite his face". "Orange County Tax Collector Scott Randolph tweeted that if Reedy Creek is gone, so is the $105 million Disney collects from itself annually to operate those services." "Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings says the financial impact on his county could be "catastrophic." Randolph predicted in a WFTV-TV interview that it could mean a 20% to 25% increase in property taxes for Orange county residents." https://www.yahoo.com/news/desantis-dissolves-disney-reedy-creek-100040635.html

The special tax district also required Disney to maintain roads, utilities, sanitation, fire department, etc. Services normally provided by local governments, with varying degrees of competence Disney has been doing very well at providing these services. The local governments are suddenly being tasked with taking over. We'll see how well that goes, and how much taxes will have to be raised to pay for the services that will not longer be provided by Disney.