- Joined
- Jun 2, 2019
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 3,326
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
"The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore."
This, ladies and gentleman, is how the right handles a response that they cannot answer to because they do not have an answer for it.
So, instead of admitting that, they decided that the statement they can no longer refute is no longer allowed to be discussed. Well...too bad. To paraphrase Dennis Leary, "Life's tough. Get a %^$*ing helmet."
In this case...the person wants to play the victim and say his rights are being infringed upon because of something he doesn't like. What he doesn't like isn't illegal. The Constitution is very clear that what the 1st Amendment covers is what the government can and cannot do. Not what a private company/entity can or cannot do. But he wants to argue that his legal rights are being violated but he can't because that is NOT how the law and the Constitution works.
Therefore, he tries to tell us that bringing those points up are invalid. Yet those points are germane to the discussion. They provide the framework on how the First Amendment works...but since he cannot argue against those points...he simply doesn't want to hear, wants to play the victim and wants to "win". Not understanding that while he disagrees with the actions that those companies are taking, he cannot "win" the argument by pretending that his opinion of the First Amendment is fact and we should just agree with him on that point.
Sorry, but that's like picking a fight with a guy twice your size, strength and ability...and then you getting upset because you think its unfair for him to use those advantages in a fight you started. As Trump would say, "Sad!"
This, ladies and gentleman, is how the right handles a response that they cannot answer to because they do not have an answer for it.
So, instead of admitting that, they decided that the statement they can no longer refute is no longer allowed to be discussed. Well...too bad. To paraphrase Dennis Leary, "Life's tough. Get a %^$*ing helmet."
In this case...the person wants to play the victim and say his rights are being infringed upon because of something he doesn't like. What he doesn't like isn't illegal. The Constitution is very clear that what the 1st Amendment covers is what the government can and cannot do. Not what a private company/entity can or cannot do. But he wants to argue that his legal rights are being violated but he can't because that is NOT how the law and the Constitution works.
Therefore, he tries to tell us that bringing those points up are invalid. Yet those points are germane to the discussion. They provide the framework on how the First Amendment works...but since he cannot argue against those points...he simply doesn't want to hear, wants to play the victim and wants to "win". Not understanding that while he disagrees with the actions that those companies are taking, he cannot "win" the argument by pretending that his opinion of the First Amendment is fact and we should just agree with him on that point.
Sorry, but that's like picking a fight with a guy twice your size, strength and ability...and then you getting upset because you think its unfair for him to use those advantages in a fight you started. As Trump would say, "Sad!"