Dr. Fauci And The "Very Fine People."

Ah, I would think it is those who would rather follow Trump's narrative rather than the experts.

Trump, mind you, who was so dumb that he had to ask his aides if it were possible in any capacity to inject disinfectant to the body to combat the virus. One has to wonder why his followers do not question Trump's credibility with anything having to do with biological/medical sciences.

So he should have armed guards he has threatened people. It's to be expected that someone would wish to harm him.

You mean kind of like Brett Kavanaugh? Whose supporters threaten him and his family?

From the left-leaning "Atlantic," "Still, the frequency of unlawful threats is not fixed. And those directed at Ford and Kavanaugh provide an unusually opportune moment for law enforcement to deter some future threats by showing that those who’ve issued them on either side of this highly visible, intensely polarizing matter have put themselves at risk of legal punishment. For that reason, more resources than usual should be dedicated to pursuing those who sent intentional, unlawful threats about this matter." The people who threatened Kavanaugh had no major political leader call them "Very Fine People," and excuse them. We called for their prosecution. We did not make excuses for them, as you are now making for those who threaten Dr. Fauci.

Hey shit-for-brains, who called anyone threatening Fauci "very fine people"? Be specific please.

You failed to answer the question.

I didn't answer it because I never said that anyone did. Read my statement verbatim. I just mentioned them in passing to suck people into reading the post. It seems to have worked.

What excuses am I making? Who called those threatening Fauci "very fine people"? Be specific please.

Also, what about Maxine Waters instructing her followers to harass any members of the Trump administration they see in public? Is that a problem? Should she be condemned, perhaps even officially censured, for that?

I have actually been confronted by Congresswoman Waters in a past job. She would argue that "Free Speech," guarantees cover verbal confrontation with a public figure you encounter in public. I remember the event in question. It had to do with Sarah Sanders being harangued while having dinner in a public restaurant. No one threatened to kill her. But, that does not matter because actually finding a comparable event to the one being discussed, is not important. Directing attention away from the many shortfalls of President Pandemic and onto one of his many "enemies," appears to, once again, be the objective. Well done. I hope he remembers you in his farewell rant.

Cool, so if groups of white people started constantly harassing and shouting at Maxine Waters every time she went anywhere public, you'd be cool with that? As long as no one threatened to kill her?

Your free speech is just as important to me as mine is.

So you're very upset with Facebook, YouTube and Twitter for silencing people who think like me, right?

I also believe in free enterprise. These sites are private businesses. Their owners have a right to protect their product, so they have rules for use. We all acknowledge that we have read and accept these rules before we are allowed access. It was Republican President Ronald Reagan who did away with the "Fairness Doctrine," in FCC rules. So, we are no longer guaranteed equal access for our ideas and input in media broadcast over public airwaves. One of the arguments in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine," is that media sources can be powerful influencers of how people think. "Fairness" allowed for more than one set of facts to be presented, debated, and judged.

At the same time activist journalism allowed for opinion to have the same weight as facts. I am sure that our democratic republic will survive the loss of an occasional voice of social criticism. However, I don't think we can survive unfettered lying and misrepresentation contained in communications. That appears to be where the companies you cite, draw the line. Their product's value is as a "reliable source." Allowing information they suspect to contain lies to be broadcast on their sites threaten that status, thus their profits.

There are no shortages of venues for insincere, unreliable, and biased presentations of opinion costumed as fact. Fox News comes to mind.

So no, you don't actually give a shit about our free speech. Stop your lies, you hack.

"That appears to be where the companies you cite, draw the line. "

Seriously? Go f--k yourself. They allow all kinds of vicious, destructive lies, as long as the lies serve the right cause. Anyone with a functioning brain could see that Jussie Smollett was a liar from day one of his claims. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. never censored him.

His claims were vicious lies which incited racial hatred against white people, but none of them attempted to silence him. Publishing true information which damages the Joe Biden campaign, though? Oh, that's not allowed.

Go f--k yourself.

"I also believe in free enterprise. These sites are private businesses. "

So you support Jack Philips's right not to engage in speech he disagrees with, right? His bakery is a private business.

I believe in Philip's right to be a bigot based on his flawed interpretation of Christianity. But, his right to refuse to serve people based upon their gender identity is undermined by Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr.'s admonition, " "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." This was the philosophical base that led to the Civil Rights laws that forbade discrimination against Blacks, some of it tied to religious beliefs. Further, commerce laws require that businesses not use bigoted excuses to deny services to one group that are available to others. Equality under the law is an essential element that guarantees all of our other freedoms. Here is another quote from Justice Holmes to consider:

“When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.” I underlined the word "truth." in my copy of this quote.

Right, so huge megacorporations have the right to not deal with people with views they disagree with, but small-time bakers do not. Understood.

F--k you.

"President Pandemic"

Seriously, just f--k you with this smooth-brained shit. Seriously, if you think you're proving a thing with this, you are too stupid to breathe independently.

It is simply an apt nickname I gave him. Why does it get you so upset? Does it strike a nerve or something?

Yes, I'm tired of retards like you telling the same stupid lies over and over and over like that makes it the truth.