RFK Jr Does Not Agree that Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone

[Cliff Varnell]

38 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the cooperative censorship on this issue between government and bigtech.

We are.  It looks as if the government is doing a bang-up job censoring anti-vaccine messaging when 7 - 8 million new anti-vaxx social media accounts pop up in 18 months.

38 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

It's not difficult to explain Cliff. Simply, more and more people began to realize there is something wrong about what they thought they knew about vaccines; due to people like RFK Jr's social media presence.

My point is that people have options when it comes to sources of information.  RFK Jr has options, too.  It’s hard to buy the idea anyone is being shut out.

38 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

For the good of all, I think we're done here.

I appreciate your civility.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Do we need further proof that government an social media are in tandem censoring information Cliff? Seeing you viewed the Schiff demand for "moderation" as old news, this was today.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-02-19/exclusive-white-house-working-with-facebook-and-twitter-to-tackle-anti-vaxxers

Same here, and it is regrettable to certain degree.

 

 

The trouble is, there are axes to grind. Every discussion gets derailed if parties are intent on causing mischief and playing to the gallery, as opposed to having an open minded discussion, and being receptive to the ideas of others. I read a lot of the Del Bigtree and RFK Jr Autism case last April and they have a very strong argument in relation to the government releasing data on those vaccinated vs those unvaccinated. It's very simple, the government can either prove them wrong or prove them right. I can see the implications of releasing such data too. 

[Cliff Varnell]

Let’s say for the sake of argument there is an active faction within the American Deep State devoted to a eugenicist vision of culling the human herd.

The dream is to unleash a global virus that mutates faster than medical science can mitigate it.  A Plandemic.

There are two obstacles in the way of this vision: other factions in the Deep State dedicated to containing pandemic outbreaks; the prospect of the swift development of a safe and effective vaccine.

No professional politician wants their legacy sullied with a mass death pandemic.  

But a charismatic amateur in the White House who’s entirely self-absorbed might do everything possible to make it worse. 
 
There would need to be a robust anti-vaccination movement to slow down community immunity, allowing the virus to spin off variants that might not get knocked out by vaxx.

This isn’t to say there are not reasons to be vaxx hesitant -- the better the anti-vaxx argument in general the easier to demonize the covid vaxx in particular.

Of course, this virus would have to disproportionately effect older people and non-whites.

Some people might say that’s exactly what’s happened.

It’s probably all a coincidence. 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 2/16/2021 at 9:51 AM, Cory Santos said:

If it is not press, but more of a forum for discussion, it is more like a business and can be regulated by the government.  

 

On 2/16/2021 at 9:51 AM, Cory Santos said:

It is odd that people are concerned with the government regulating -or nationalization as you call it- speech but fine with businesses regulating speech.  Regulation of speech by any entity is still regulation.

 

Cory said: If it is not press, but more of a forum for discussion, it is more like a business and can be regulated by the government.

 

Cory, I first started writing this. Then this thread became so bloody personal.  I know you see yourself as a conservative, which doesn't obligate you to dot every "i" and cross every"t".

A classic conservative, makes no distinction between the social media platforms and the Press. They are both businesses and the government should keep out of private business-period!. . One criticism by the Left of conservatives as hippocrisy is their insistence of not regulating business but wanting  to legislate personal  matters of the bedroom.

Cory said:It is odd that people are concerned with the government regulating -or nationalization as you call it- speech but fine with businesses regulating speech.  Regulation of speech by any entity is still regulation.

Europe and Canada are by in large much more regulated than the U.S. Still regulation of free speech and commerce is going on all the time. Cliff brought up an example of a man boy -love club, obviously there are businesses that all parties want to ban. But in mainstream examples. It's much more desirable for private media businesses to regulate themselves involving matters of Free Speech, but if not, they go to the courts.

 

But even in the land of the free, it's all out the widow if the political climate gets tenuous. A lot of people don't know but Lincoln shut down newspapers with Federal troops! But now 160 years later,  when private media businesses regulate themselves, people cry bloody murder, when they don't agree. The arguments you're hearing here are that the tech companies are a big cabal controlled by the CIA , invoking age old nostalgic images of "Operation Mockingbird" while providing  no real evidence, and I know you're an evidence guy. Even RFK Jr.,who is being given as an example , has never said he was booted off Facebook by the government, but in the clip I saw goes after Facebook, Google, Twitter and curiously Pinterest. But people here claim they know better than RFK Jr.

 

However "regulating themselves" doesn't give license for industry cronies to occupy cabinet posts or as lobbyists, to wholesale write legislation for legislators that they've effectively bought. You'd be surprised at some even covering Wall Street saying that corporations should get out of staking the election process. Getting the money out of politics has support of  people at both ends of the political spectrum and could do remarkable things, though the thought is inconceivable to some of the dystopian self fulfilling mindset here for example. It would seem to be the single most sweeping thing that could give the American public a sense of real power. What could they really do? Well over time they can try to maneuver around it. After all it is the right of everybody to have the ear of the congressman, and use the conservative courts, (that's why we have to get rid of Citizens United) It won't stop the corporate owned media from owning those corporations, but the corporations still wont be able to finance the politician's   elections, and that's big.

 

This thread became a joke, where  people making the allegations are being evasive and won't submit to the basic questions to identify their philosophy and proceed from there. I assume a lot of it is because some are hiding but some don't know their philosophy and are just venting all their frustrations and suspicions, like a lot of them up on capitol hill. And some of that's ok. But one thing they do know is they don't like "the elites."

 

But the truth is, a lot of the elites are grimacing, that  this pandemic and matters such as the Texas disaster are happening because they exhibit the need for a strong centralized federal government response, at a time when things were going so well for them  and they have been so successful at dismantling the" government administrative state" in their words, for many years. Unfortunately IMO, instead of being a rallying cry,  the people's response  are still fragmented, as you can see by the  responses here, blaming the "deep state government" for everything under the sun and that specific scapegoating is exactly  what the elites want, to get the other side to distrust their government to aid their plans to dismantle the government.  JMO

****

Edited February 22, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway