Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, God forbid we fund the arts when there are oil companies that need a tax break!
Do you even know what the Kennedy Center is? Did you know that it was founded by the republicans under Eisenhower in 1958 and renamed to honor Kennedy after his assassination? The whole point of it is to promote and preserve performing arts in America. Is that something you seriously oppose?
Actually, I do oppose it at this time. Americans are losing their jobs and their businesses. If the Hollywood elite want to send their money to the Center to help it stay afloat, they can do that. And if the Center has to cut salaries, costs and tighten their belts to stay open, that's nothing different than every business owner suffering from the lockdowns is doing. The difference is that the Center knows it can always count on Congress to fill in the gaps. They've already received $25 million in the first stimulus. That gravy train just keeps on rolling.
I happen to think both parties want censorship. Republicans seems like they want to get rid of forums, comment sections, and the like, claiming it is the source of misinformation. Democrats seem like they want to keep these things but moderate so that any opposing viewpoints are squashed.
Ultimately, I do wonder if this tactic to make sure people don't get a $2,000 stimulus check will backfire on the Republicans and give the Democrats the Senate seats in Georgia. And if that happens, I would really have to ask the Republicans was it worth the cost? That would give the Democrats all three branches of the government.
I happen to think both parties want censorship. Republicans seems like they want to get rid of forums, comment sections, and the like, claiming it is the source of misinformation. Democrats seem like they want to keep these things but moderate so that any opposing viewpoints are squashed.
Ultimately, I do wonder if this tactic to make sure people don't get a $2,000 stimulus check will backfire on the Republicans and give the Democrats the Senate seats in Georgia. And if that happens, I would really have to ask the Republicans was it worth the cost? That would give the Democrats all three branches of the government.
The stimulus and also the election fraud is seemingly having an effect on the Georgia races. Now yes, Perdue and Loeffler are both for the checks, Perdue has been lambasted for not wanting previous stimulus checks. If that is remembered, it can be a problem for him..
I happen to think both parties want censorship. Republicans seems like they want to get rid of forums, comment sections, and the like, claiming it is the source of misinformation. Democrats seem like they want to keep these things but moderate so that any opposing viewpoints are squashed.
Ultimately, I do wonder if this tactic to make sure people don't get a $2,000 stimulus check will backfire on the Republicans and give the Democrats the Senate seats in Georgia. And if that happens, I would really have to ask the Republicans was it worth the cost? That would give the Democrats all three branches of the government.
" Republicans seems like they want to", and your presumption would be WRONG!
True but i am getting sick and tired of monopoly big tech favoring left of center groups while hiding behind section 230. No I did not vote for Trump.
Either be a regulated monopoly or free, unregulated and broken up.
In all likelihood, your comment (and the message you're trying to convey) wouldn't exist if section 230 was repealed. That's the problem with the throw out the baby with the bath water mentality. It's not just about politics.
Being a a repub and all the other repubs I talk with.
What was your post based on? How may repubs did you interview to come to your claim?
It certainly was NOT me or any of my friends.
So in other words, based on your echo chamber.
I came up with my conclusion based on the fact that if you make a site liable for comments made from individuals on a forum or a comment section, you are indeed limiting free speech. Personally. I rely on many product reviews, and other type of reviews when I make purchases. I hardly think I would like to have that eliminated just because a site is concerned about a lawsuit. If there are fraudulent comments, the party being offended always has the right to sue that individual. But why would I hold a site responsible for that?
Of course, there's the other side of the coin (which is all people like you want to look at). Yes, sites should also not be censored so that one doesn't get to hear both sides of an issue. I agree with that. But I'm not one to throw out the baby with a bath water. You have a choice as to what sites you choose to read. And if the Republicans are concerned about censorship, they certainly have an opportunity to do the same on any sites that are biased toward their belief system. By the way, you do realize there's a lot of censorship on this site? Why are you on here?
Pairing it with a repeal of section 230 Social Media shield, is ingenious. GOP Senators will overwhelmingly approve it, so Senate Dems are now going to be the ones who kill the $2k stimulus checks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
