There are injustices. The system isn't perfect by any means. However, most of these situations aren't moms divorcing the dads. They are dads who never married the moms and never tried to.
WE made it acceptable to be an unwed mother by creating programs that use taxpayers money to support and "rear" a child.
One potential solution to the Facebook, Youtube, Twitter censorship of conservatives is to have them declared 'common carriers.' Common carriers may not discriminate -- for example, mail delivery, delivery of electrical service or even satellite uplinks (i.e., you cant cut off aggy's electrical just because they are aggy, no matter how much you might want to). http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm
That seems like a big government solution. I would prefer competitors come in and satisfy the obvious market need now.
The only problem is that the big boys don't give the upstarts an opportunity to even begin to get a foothold. This is why we are stuck with things like Windows and why phones only have iOS and Android to work with. The moment an upstart DOES begin to gain a following, the big boys come in and acquire it, an act that kills off all that was good with the new product.
That assumes that the $ the big corporation can pay is more than the new company thinks they can make. Buying off competitors at some point becomes a huge drag on Microsoft's business. The more inefficient they become the easier it becomes to replace them. Personally, I don't sell to Microsoft and even if I do, I start working on something else to compete with them.
We now have access to records that establish what we suspected all along -- Twitter is run and controlled by Democratic donors and activists. They are using it to their political benefit at the exclusion of other, opposing political views. The common carrier idea is hardly radical -- treat everyone the same. It's an idea as American as apple pie, or the Declaration of Independence itself. Do you think it un-American that public utilities or Fedex are considered common carriers? What is your solution to this issue, given what Twitter has been doing? https://nypost.com/2018/08/04/how-twitter-is-fueling-the-democratic-agenda/
Yahoo is my home page and it is full of Liberal bloggers. They have made Twitter into a human being. Twitter is now a major voice and they act like it is a poll or a scientific study or some wise human being. Always Liberal.
Can you imagine how they would squeal if Rs took financial control of these same companies through stock purchases, stacked the boards, tossed the current wanker leaderships out and then had them start to censor the libs? Is not a crazy idea, it is the same model (in reverse) the Hearst Corp has followed with its newspaper acquisitions and ownership
MrD I agree that the cultural acceptance is a big contributor and not sure which came first. Acceptance or the means to rear a child without the father.
Instgram (also Zuckerberg) took this meme down today after they saw it going viral Is posting this meme "hate speech?" Is pointing out the hate speech of others hate speech in and of itself? Or, does the only thing that really matter who posted it?
It has been possible to rear a child without the father since at least the New Deal, and in some states, it became possible even earlier. However, illegitimacy was far less common even in the 1970s. Prior to that, there was cultural shame. If a dude fathered children out of wedlock, he wasn't a chick magnet the way he is now. He was viewed as a jackass. A girl who was a single mom was viewed as a slut with "baggage." Furthermore the pregnant girl's dad had shame. He was embarrassed to have a daughter who was a single mom. All of that's gone now.
I agree that Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube should treat information more or less like a common carrier, but I also like private organizations to determine what they do and don't do. I would rather the market punish Zuckerberg and the like by taking all their business away not entrenching their companies as de facto monopolies. I prefer removing their place of power and influence and give it to someone who actually cares about free speech. There are other platforms out there that could be successful if the market was upset enough at how crooked they have become.
What I don't understand is what kind of a mind believes Trump and those who voted for him are Nazi's or Fascists to the degree that they must be physically attacked and destroyed. I think there is a basic obsessive-compulsive disorder at a minimum in play here. And our society has unfortunately veered into equality of opinion regardless of how extreme. And the extreme is what sells. There is no filter or regulating mechanism from society towards this kind of vile aggressive behavior. Republicans are being told that they have no empathy and are racists, haters and scum who would enslave and lynch blacks, stone gays, take voting rights and equality away from women, separate the families of all immigrants from south of our border and willingly start WW III. In my opinion, these people are killing our country and ironically are possibly the primary reason Trump won the election. But who will reign them in?
Scared of her why? She's not conservative but rather an opportunist. Owens was a liberal activist before she flipped sides. The only thing she deserves harassment for is that she's not genuine based on her history. This is an activist vs. activist tiff.
Is it possible that at least one person in all of this political mess might actually decide they think differently (especially as they get older)? I understand that many people learn what they learn before they leave their parents then spend the rest of their life justifying their knowledge versus challenging it. But some people change if something traumatic happens to them or something they were not expecting (My Dad's wife was a Catholic from Argentina; then it turns out that her grandson is gay. It completely changed her views). Others somehow get the idea to reject the teachings of their youth and seek new answers. I'm not sure what drives these types of people. Maybe a new friend or something they learned or experienced in college. But in the end, there are all types and I don't know if we should hold fast to the idea that you are bound to your beliefs for all time. I don't think that's what you were saying but it sort of sounded like it. I'd like to hear her reasoning for changing on any given subject. David Horowitz is a famous former Leftist (turning on his former comrade at the magazine "Ramparts," Robert Scheer) who is now a Conservative activist. And he spends time explaining why. That's what is most important. The why...
Yeah. Clearly, Seattle has not stopped to wonder why Candace Owens espouses a different viewpoint these days. He simply rushes to judgement, dismissing and demeaning Ms. Owens as a cheap opportunist. Typical. It may turn out she is nothing more than an attention-seeking media ***** who will say and do anything to keep herself in the spotlight - a black version of Hillary, if you will... But I think she probably has more depth to her than the likes of Hillary Clinton, and I think she has probably has come to her new life perspective via one or several events that forced her to mature. As you say, bystander, it will be nice to learn the "why".
Because every model for Democratic victory assumes and relies on almost unanimous black support. Without it, they have no chance to win a national election, because the swing states are off the table. Even small cracks are enough to do it. That is why a black person who's openly conservative takes a lot of heat for it. He or she is not only undermining the voting bloc, that person is making an example that others might follow. So yes, they are definitely afraid of her and others like her. I'll readily admit that I know nothing about Owens' background. I've never even heard her speak. She seems like a bit of a provacateur. Her conversion might have been self-serving and insincere. However, I'm less suspicious of people who covert in their 20s than I am of people who convert in their late 30s (David Brock), mid 40s (Ed Schultz) or 50s (Arianna Huffington).
I agree with this. In my opinion, there is a concerted effort going on to remind black people about what happened long ago. History is glorified in America in many ways; the 4th of July, D-Day, Memorial and Veterans Day, landing on the moon etc. Then we have 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. We honor our dead and the outrage associated with it. Black people celebrate Juneteenth here in Texas and certainly the Selma bridge march was a most courageous moment. But it seems that slavery and Jim Crow laws wounds are deliberately kept alive and I don't know what the point of it is anymore. I think it inflames the black community and creates mistrust of whites. How can we ever come together if we don't think along the lines of today and not about a time that was horrific but gone with the wind as it should be? The political stakes are very high and the only way it seems to get a black Christian family to vote for the party that is in favor of gay marriage, abortion on demand and is dominated by white elitists is to remind them that they should be outraged.
I want to add something to what I said above. I'm not complaining about black people remembering their past. It's the white Liberal bloggers online (especially on Yahoo) that are constantly beating the drum.
The point of it is to discourage the cultural assimilation of blacks into American society and to divert their attention away from issues on which the Democratic Party is out of touch with large numbers of black folks. They do not want what happened with Irish and Italian immigrants to happen with black voters.
I'll accept that, except Candace Owens started as an activist. She's founded multiple websites (degree180, socialautopsy) that were liberal sites. Only in 2017 did she flip to conservatism and burnished an image as black conservative. I'm skeptical of anyone that seems to crave the media spotlight.
I hear you about the media spotlight. I don't know anything about her. There are two kinds of people; a flip-flopping politician who remains Liberal or Conservative and a flip-flopper who completely changes sides. The former happens all the time and I have come to expect it because they are constantly positioning themselves in the best possible light with an ADD public. The latter is very interesting to me. That is a major switch. There is something more to it you would think than just being popular with your crowd. I don't know why she would not remain a Liberal but I can see how a black woman switching to Conservative politics would be a true novelty and would garner lots of attention. You can't ignore that part of the equation. In the end, does she make sense or not?
What they don't tell you is that all that + the KKK was brought to you exclusively by the Democrat Party.
I guess I don't get why Candace Owens being an activist means anything regarding her change in political view. She was an activist for progressivism. She changed her mind and now she does the same thing for conservatism. Seems like none of that has anything to do with her getting suspended on Twitter, except for you know, espousing a conservative political viewpoint.
I have to admit I don't know much about Candace Owens' background either, but there's one thing I do know. She's 100% accurate with her message. The liberal elitists have used $ and media to create a powerful propaganda message that whites are the root of all black peoples problems to keep them on their welfare drug and voting democratic. It's the same strategy used by Goebbels and the Nazi propaganda machine in the 30's. 50 million lives were lost until the naive Germans woke up and saw the real picture. Blacks like Candace are serious threats they all finally wake up and realize the truth. Once that happens like others have stated, the democratic party is ded.
