visionary Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 Apparently there are pictures of her brushing a staffer's hair while naked.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 18 minutes ago, visionary said: Apparently there are pictures of her brushing a staffer's hair while naked.... Do I wanna see 'em? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, Larry said: Do I wanna see 'em? Meh, tits are blocked out and there are other more graphic pics....lol....Redstate.com through new York post article you can Google, will show you the pics... Yeah she was naked... Not a bad body I guess for mid 30 year old woman.. But not too attractive... I guess if I was desperate.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 You people got a problem with nudity now? not bad for a congresscritter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 Just your usual Republican shenanigans. When you have no good ideas that appeal to voters, just block em from voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 5 hours ago, No Excuses said: Just your usual Republican shenanigans. When you have no good ideas that appeal to voters, just block em from voting. Strong candidate for the Streisand Effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 26, 2019 Author Share Posted October 26, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 To the folks who are attacking Facebook by pointing out that a policy of forbidding ads based on their degree of truth is . . . difficult to establish simple, binary, decisions on how untrue is allowed, . . . . Should I point out that the alternative is "anything is allowed"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 Oops. This should be in the other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 27, 2019 Author Share Posted October 27, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 Why is Facebook silencing a politican's speech? I thought Zuck was okay with outright lies? Edit: should have refreshed So Facebook is cool as long as it's original lies? So if a politician was to put up an ad saying Lindsey Graham joined ISIS Facebook wouldn't take it down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 14 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: So Facebook is cool as long as it's original lies? So if a politician was to put up an ad saying Lindsey Graham joined ISIS Facebook wouldn't take it down? what they are showing is that they will take down the ads that are anti-republican lies but will leave up Trump and other GOP lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 On 10/26/2019 at 7:05 PM, Larry said: To the folks who are attacking Facebook by pointing out that a policy of forbidding ads based on their degree of truth is . . . difficult to establish simple, binary, decisions on how untrue is allowed, . . . . Should I point out that the alternative is "anything is allowed"? No, the alternative is banning political ads. Zuckerberg said it's hard to categorize what would be a political ad, hes full of ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 It's so stupid. Look at all these clown candidates running for office. All it takes is a network of funders to start a massive disinformation campaign. Just get candidates who have no shot at winning and use their status spread lies on Facebook. Now you can target people he's not even running against. Zuckerberg is really the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 6 hours ago, Renegade7 said: No, the alternative is banning political ads. Zuckerberg said it's hard to categorize what would be a political ad, hes full of ****. Uh, no, actually, he's not. (At least, not on that one statement.) "Political", like "truth" is something that gets really fuzzy around the edges. Is "protect life" political? How about "I just want to pee"? How about "Teach science"? I can't list all of the times in which I've seen twa, here, make the argument that well, the GOP has been paid to deny that X is actually true, and therefore anybody who says that X is true is expressing a Democrat political opinion. But I can tell you it's happened dozens, if not hundreds, of times. Heck, just drop a quarter in his "Letting the CDC study people who die from getting shot is letting them get involved in pushing a political agenda" slot. It's a problem with all attempts at censorship (and I'm talking all kinds, not just when the government is doing it). No matter where you try to draw a line, there will be people who will feel that so-and-so belongs on the other side of said line. (Some will be genuine, some will be intentionally trying to get away with crossing it.) Heck, ask the mods on this board how many times they have a difference of opinion about what should be done about one poster or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 13 minutes ago, Larry said: Uh, no, actually, he's not. (At least, not on that one statement.) "Political", like "truth" is something that gets really fuzzy around the edges. Is "protect life" political? How about "I just want to pee"? How about "Teach science"? I can't list all of the times in which I've seen twa, here, make the argument that well, the GOP has been paid to deny that X is actually true, and therefore anybody who says that X is true is expressing a Democrat political opinion. But I can tell you it's happened dozens, if not hundreds, of times. Heck, just drop a quarter in his "Letting the CDC study people who die from getting shot is letting them get involved in pushing a political agenda" slot. Did you read his speech at Georgetown? https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/17/zuckerberg-standing-voice-free-expression/ Quote Given the sensitivity around political ads, I’ve considered whether we should stop allowing them altogether. From a business perspective, the controversy certainly isn’t worth the small part of our business they make up. But political ads are an important part of voice — especially for local candidates, up-and-coming challengers, and advocacy groups that may not get much media attention otherwise. Banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media covers. Even if we wanted to ban political ads, it’s not clear where we’d draw the line. There are many more ads about issues than there are directly about elections. Would we ban all ads about healthcare or immigration or women’s empowerment? If we banned candidates’ ads but not these, would that really make sense to give everyone else a voice in political debates except the candidates themselves? There are issues any way you cut this, and when it’s not absolutely clear what to do, I believe we should err on the side of greater expression. There's a difference in paying for a ad that's controversial and one that's full of **** expecting people to just "figure it out" as long as its from the actual person. Facebook doesn't deserve credit for taking down the ad saying Lindsey Graham supports the Green New Deal, that's what they are supposed to do. But does that mean if AOC did it and not some PAC they would've left it up? There is a solution, and its not calling that Free Speech and taking the money for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 3 hours ago, Renegade7 said: There's a difference in paying for a ad that's controversial and one that's full of **** expecting people to just "figure it out" as long as its from the actual person. Facebook doesn't deserve credit for taking down the ad saying Lindsey Graham supports the Green New Deal, that's what they are supposed to do. But does that mean if AOC did it and not some PAC they would've left it up? There is a solution, and its not calling that Free Speech and taking the money for it. I will note that our society long ago noted that the press has incredible power to sway the public (and therefore, the government). And I'm pretty sure that we've come up with rules for newspapers and politics. 1) They have to take everything. Can't pick and choose what can or can't be said. 2) They have to change everybody the same. (In fact, they have to charge everybody "full list price". No discounts of any kind.) 3) And they have to say who paid for it. Any reason why Facebook/Amazon/whoever can't use the same rules we apply to newspapers/TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Larry said: I will note that our society long ago noted that the press has incredible power to sway the public (and therefore, the government). And I'm pretty sure that we've come up with rules for newspapers and politics. 1) They have to take everything. Can't pick and choose what can or can't be said. 2) They have to change everybody the same. (In fact, they have to charge everybody "full list price". No discounts of any kind.) 3) And they have to say who paid for it. Any reason why Facebook/Amazon/whoever can't use the same rules we apply to newspapers/TV? Missing the point, UK bans political ads, we should do the same if we dont want to parse through which ones are BS. I think about the Cambodia socialism ad during the debates, airing someone's BS should not be confused with being impartial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 11 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: Missing the point, UK bans political ads, we should do the same if we dont want to parse through which ones are BS. Well, "political ads" is tough to define. I'm not saying your position isn't a good one. Just be aware, if you try to do that, then it is guaranteed that you are going to have: 1) Cries of favoritism or bias or censorship. 2) And people who will intentionally try to create loopholes. To claim that their contribution to society isn't political because (insert excuse here). If you think that you're willing to put up with those costs, in order to achieve your position, then well, that's a value judgement. (And one that I'm not sure is wrong.) Just be aware that your position will have those costs. It can't be done without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 "Women's empowerment" what a crock of **** when FB allows posts about violence against women to stand as not being part of its "community standards ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: "Women's empowerment" what a crock of **** when FB allows posts about violence against women to stand as not being part of its "community standards ". Pointing out, 1) You just made a post about violence against women. 2) And I'm pretty sure ES will allow it to stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.