Since you presumably believe what you are writing, can you provide the link to the official InfoWars facebook page? If you can't find that, how about the InfoWars youtube page?
InfoWars was removed because it promoted violence, among (many) other things. Violating a stated ToS is different that posting outside of "groupthink". AJ can post whatever he wants on his site or other sites that still allow him. God bless America.
Here's some fun, taken from the InfoWars TOS:
You will not post anything libelous, defamatory, harmful, threatening, harassing, abusive, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal.
Yes, of course FB has TOS and enforces them. No one is disputing that. I am saying he wasn't banned for "thinking different". He's free to link evidence to show why he was banned and for what. I'm waiting.
Followed by a massive recession as the consequences of his ill-advised "fast money" policies came due. Also, most of the growth in the American economy at that point was actually growth in Chinese manufacturing and thus American profits, especially after unions devastated American labor in the 1980s.
You don't get it both ways, sorry. Either the sitting president is responsible for the economy when they are in office, or they aren't. You want to claim the 4% GDP growth in Trump's term is due to his policies, you have to accept the same for Clinton.
If you want to go this route, I'll just say that the 4% GDP growth we are seeing now is due to Obama's policies. Want to keep playing?
Because... I didn't provide supporting evidence that the OP didn't provide supporting evidence. Ya, makes perfect sense. Pot calling the kettle black.
Are you really supporting a world where random, anonymous persons says something on the internet with no supporting evidence and we all just accept it as true? For example, I could call your sister a whore, and it's your responsibility to prove she's not. And if you can't do that, life proceeds with the assumption that she's a whore. Because I said it. Welcome to the world you've built for yourself. Enjoy.
Yes, and the truth of your statements is obvious by the fact that you offer no supporting evidence and are afraid to even post under a pseudonym. You might live in a world where saying shit makes it true, but the rest of us don't.
Truth be told, while I (a Republican) don't like his policies or the direction they're aiming us as a country, nor do I like basically anything he's doing or saying, I can't actually point to anything he's done so far (aside from poisoning political topics to the point that we can't have civil discourse any longer) that's actually affected me on an everyday basis yet.
I hear this a lot. Sure, he's a loud mouth egotistical maniac troll, but his policies are good... or haven't really harmed us, noticeably.
I wonder, could conservatives find someone, anyone, among the ~400M Americans, that is able to uphold their values without being a loud mouth egotistical maniac troll? I just don't get why you think you need to settle for this guy? Because paying off multiple pr0n stars with hundreds of thousands of dollars and lying about it on the news just goes along with conservative values? Those personality traits are inseparable?
Though upon closer inspection, we also have a chickenshit congressional majority who refuses to do their duty to keep the president in check.
They can't. Trump's built a system where going against him equates with going against conservative values in general. Any politician that doesn't agree with him even slightly is "not on the team" and loses. Conservatives are all-in on Trump. Trump is conservatism in America.
We have the strngest economy in 20 years. How you doin?
Clinton also had 4% GDP growth, over 2 terms. And he managed to do it without dividing the country and making the rest of the world think we're retards.
Trump's policies (or the policies instituted while he's been in office) aren't terrible, he just needs to shut his mouth. Every tweet he makes is flamebait. It's pathetic.
Also, this goes both ways. If you want to applaud Trump for anything that happens while he's in office, be ready blame him if something goes wrong as well. That's how it works.
I can tell the strength of your convictions by how you aren't even able to post under a pseudonym lest someone might figure out your stand on the issues.
Also, her intent wasn't "civic duty", it was apparently hatred of the president.
So your claim is she is insane, and hated the president for no reason? Maybe she's enraged by the color orange?
If you (thought) you'd discovered damning evidence about our president's involvement with a hostile foreign power. would you consider it your civic duty to expose it? Would at the same time "hate" the president for it?
What I don't get is why they keep using contractors.
Because people don't like paying taxes and it's cheaper to hire outside, private, specialized firms than staff up within the NSA.
Assuming of course that there's some magical line between contractors and NSA employees that makes it impossible for the latter to leak information ***cough***Snowden***cough**.
There are plenty of legal contracts one might have to the mafia, and they are quite happy to prosecute inside the law as well as outside of it.
Do you have a point?
If you hold a legal contract with a member of the mafia, then you are beholden to that contract regardless of whether they are member of the mafia or your sweet grandmother. If they prosecute it outside the law, that's illegal. We all agree. What's that got to do with this case, which is a legal contract prosecuted inside the law?
Are you suggesting that it's okay to break a contract with someone you may think has committed an illegal act? Well, it's not. If you have doubts, go back and read TFA.
And I follow through with option 2 in an act of civil disobedience - not only do I get to enjoy old video games that I can't legally obtain anywhere, I will have a chance to make some noise if I ever wind up in court over it.
Sigh. It's not civil disobedience if no one knows or cares you are doing it. You are not furthering the cause of copyright reform by sitting alone and playing old video games. No one that has a say in it even knows you exist.
Okay, we know zero facts about evidence provided by the city. So why are you commenting on it? If you want to make up shit about this article let's say that Apple hired a blackops team to burn crosses in the yards of city officials. We don't know it didn't happen. Let's speculate!
What we do know is Apple submitted a silly, time and money wasting counter offer. That's all I am commenting on. If they'd submitted something within the realm of reason that was supported by data this article wouldn't exist wouldn't exist would it? No one is claiming they don't have the right to dispute the assessed value. The issue is the silly amount.
I'm suggesting the assessors need to provide their methodology to show the building's worth is $1Bn.
Do you know they didn't? If they just dumped a bill for $1b off at 1 Infinite Circle then I agree. Common sense would lead me to believe that's not the case. And TFA certainly didn't imply that.
I want to see how they got their numbers.
Good, because Random Internet Guy will be a good judge of how much taxes Apple should pay. After all, your opinion is as valid as anyone's. Nobody is ever wrong, there's no objective reality at all.
No, that is EXACTLY fascism. Fascism uses regulation to effectively nationalize businesses
No it doesn't, and you've provided nothing other than your opinion that it does. Again, the article you linked on fascism says exactly the opposite.
Now, I'm sure you'd like it to mean that because then you could call anyone that suggest any sort of regulation fascists and thereby associate them with Nazi Germany and the killing of 6 million Jewish people. Good luck with that.
Service to the State can also be "you must pay $X/hour wages. You must provide Y benefits. You must give Z% of your income to this. You must use A/B/C as your suppliers". All done via regulation.
That's not fascism. I'm not saying that those things are good or bad, but you are not using the right words to express yourself. The wikipedia article *you* linked contradicts your point. It explicitly goes out of it's way to make sure no one is confused about the point you yourself made incorrectly. You linked it. Did you read it?
I guess you have some agenda where you want to be able to claim that government regulation is actually fascism, therefore anyone that promotes regulation is a fascist? Like, requiring industry to treat water: fascism. Minimum wage? Fascist. Sounds good, after all, fascism is the naughty insult of the day. Good luck.
That's not the market value of the building; it's the value of the building to Apple.
Sure. What's your point? You and others here seem to be going on "one billion sound like a lot of money to me, can't be right".
Please present evidence that the assessors are valuing a property on it's worth to the owner and not the market value. If it is what you say, that'd be a massive conspiracy. I'd want to see some evidence of that, you know? I suspect you aren't versed in valuing commercial property, don't know the Cupertino market, nor have you seen the data that made up the assessor's report. Nor am I. I am just saying $200 is silly and a waste of time.
To some extent Apple is a victim of it's own success. They've driven the real estate market out of sight by buying up every building in the area and making it a magnet for other tech companies that want to be in the vicinity of Apple. That's just too bad. I don't get to value my home based on if there were 4 vacant homes on my street and my neighbors are all gang members. The market it is what it is, regardless of how it got there.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you presumably believe what you are writing, can you provide the link to the official InfoWars facebook page? If you can't find that, how about the InfoWars youtube page?
InfoWars was removed because it promoted violence, among (many) other things. Violating a stated ToS is different that posting outside of "groupthink". AJ can post whatever he wants on his site or other sites that still allow him. God bless America.
Here's some fun, taken from the InfoWars TOS:
You will not post anything libelous, defamatory, harmful, threatening, harassing, abusive, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal.
https://www.infowars.com/terms...
So basically, AJ's own ToS would have banned him. Just as strong if not stronger than FB, etc's ToS. Rich.
The real world does not work according to your judgmental little rules.
You are right. It works according to logic and common sense.
Yes, of course FB has TOS and enforces them. No one is disputing that. I am saying he wasn't banned for "thinking different". He's free to link evidence to show why he was banned and for what. I'm waiting.
Followed by a massive recession as the consequences of his ill-advised "fast money" policies came due. Also, most of the growth in the American economy at that point was actually growth in Chinese manufacturing and thus American profits, especially after unions devastated American labor in the 1980s.
You don't get it both ways, sorry. Either the sitting president is responsible for the economy when they are in office, or they aren't. You want to claim the 4% GDP growth in Trump's term is due to his policies, you have to accept the same for Clinton.
If you want to go this route, I'll just say that the 4% GDP growth we are seeing now is due to Obama's policies. Want to keep playing?
Pot, meet kettle.
Because... I didn't provide supporting evidence that the OP didn't provide supporting evidence. Ya, makes perfect sense. Pot calling the kettle black.
Are you really supporting a world where random, anonymous persons says something on the internet with no supporting evidence and we all just accept it as true? For example, I could call your sister a whore, and it's your responsibility to prove she's not. And if you can't do that, life proceeds with the assumption that she's a whore. Because I said it. Welcome to the world you've built for yourself. Enjoy.
of course they can. the president can't fire congress members. probably going to be moot come november anyway.
He can't fire them. He can work to get them not elected, and he does. Disagreeing with Trump as an R is political suicide.
Yes, and the truth of your statements is obvious by the fact that you offer no supporting evidence and are afraid to even post under a pseudonym. You might live in a world where saying shit makes it true, but the rest of us don't.
Truth be told, while I (a Republican) don't like his policies or the direction they're aiming us as a country, nor do I like basically anything he's doing or saying, I can't actually point to anything he's done so far (aside from poisoning political topics to the point that we can't have civil discourse any longer) that's actually affected me on an everyday basis yet.
I hear this a lot. Sure, he's a loud mouth egotistical maniac troll, but his policies are good... or haven't really harmed us, noticeably.
I wonder, could conservatives find someone, anyone, among the ~400M Americans, that is able to uphold their values without being a loud mouth egotistical maniac troll? I just don't get why you think you need to settle for this guy? Because paying off multiple pr0n stars with hundreds of thousands of dollars and lying about it on the news just goes along with conservative values? Those personality traits are inseparable?
Though upon closer inspection, we also have a chickenshit congressional majority who refuses to do their duty to keep the president in check.
They can't. Trump's built a system where going against him equates with going against conservative values in general. Any politician that doesn't agree with him even slightly is "not on the team" and loses. Conservatives are all-in on Trump. Trump is conservatism in America.
We have the strngest economy in 20 years. How you doin?
Clinton also had 4% GDP growth, over 2 terms. And he managed to do it without dividing the country and making the rest of the world think we're retards.
Trump's policies (or the policies instituted while he's been in office) aren't terrible, he just needs to shut his mouth. Every tweet he makes is flamebait. It's pathetic.
Also, this goes both ways. If you want to applaud Trump for anything that happens while he's in office, be ready blame him if something goes wrong as well. That's how it works.
I can tell the strength of your convictions by how you aren't even able to post under a pseudonym lest someone might figure out your stand on the issues.
ive had numerous posts on FB removed and banned a number of times for innocent posts simply for going against groupthink.
No, you haven't. No one is naive enough to think that FB removed your posts just because you offered a different opinion.
Also, her intent wasn't "civic duty", it was apparently hatred of the president.
So your claim is she is insane, and hated the president for no reason? Maybe she's enraged by the color orange?
If you (thought) you'd discovered damning evidence about our president's involvement with a hostile foreign power. would you consider it your civic duty to expose it? Would at the same time "hate" the president for it?
What I don't get is why they keep using contractors.
Because people don't like paying taxes and it's cheaper to hire outside, private, specialized firms than staff up within the NSA.
Assuming of course that there's some magical line between contractors and NSA employees that makes it impossible for the latter to leak information ***cough***Snowden***cough**.
There are plenty of legal contracts one might have to the mafia, and they are quite happy to prosecute inside the law as well as outside of it.
Do you have a point?
If you hold a legal contract with a member of the mafia, then you are beholden to that contract regardless of whether they are member of the mafia or your sweet grandmother. If they prosecute it outside the law, that's illegal. We all agree. What's that got to do with this case, which is a legal contract prosecuted inside the law?
Are you suggesting that it's okay to break a contract with someone you may think has committed an illegal act? Well, it's not. If you have doubts, go back and read TFA.
so maybe this will give pause to any other Obama holdovers willing to compromise national security just because they didn't like the election results
Dear Russian troll,
Get some new tricks.
Sincerely yours,
America
Like 20% of people hate their names, but consider it too hard to change.
Being named "Wilma" or "Eunice" and not liking it is different than being named "Reality Winner".
And I follow through with option 2 in an act of civil disobedience - not only do I get to enjoy old video games that I can't legally obtain anywhere, I will have a chance to make some noise if I ever wind up in court over it.
Sigh. It's not civil disobedience if no one knows or cares you are doing it. You are not furthering the cause of copyright reform by sitting alone and playing old video games. No one that has a say in it even knows you exist.
San Jose, CA. I think it was Deanza CC and SJSU. He is low income and an adult.
There are no opinions; there are only facts.
Okay, we know zero facts about evidence provided by the city. So why are you commenting on it? If you want to make up shit about this article let's say that Apple hired a blackops team to burn crosses in the yards of city officials. We don't know it didn't happen. Let's speculate!
What we do know is Apple submitted a silly, time and money wasting counter offer. That's all I am commenting on. If they'd submitted something within the realm of reason that was supported by data this article wouldn't exist wouldn't exist would it? No one is claiming they don't have the right to dispute the assessed value. The issue is the silly amount.
I'm suggesting the assessors need to provide their methodology to show the building's worth is $1Bn.
Do you know they didn't? If they just dumped a bill for $1b off at 1 Infinite Circle then I agree. Common sense would lead me to believe that's not the case. And TFA certainly didn't imply that.
I want to see how they got their numbers.
Good, because Random Internet Guy will be a good judge of how much taxes Apple should pay. After all, your opinion is as valid as anyone's. Nobody is ever wrong, there's no objective reality at all.
No, that is EXACTLY fascism. Fascism uses regulation to effectively nationalize businesses
No it doesn't, and you've provided nothing other than your opinion that it does. Again, the article you linked on fascism says exactly the opposite.
Now, I'm sure you'd like it to mean that because then you could call anyone that suggest any sort of regulation fascists and thereby associate them with Nazi Germany and the killing of 6 million Jewish people. Good luck with that.
Service to the State can also be "you must pay $X/hour wages. You must provide Y benefits. You must give Z% of your income to this. You must use A/B/C as your suppliers". All done via regulation.
That's not fascism. I'm not saying that those things are good or bad, but you are not using the right words to express yourself. The wikipedia article *you* linked contradicts your point. It explicitly goes out of it's way to make sure no one is confused about the point you yourself made incorrectly. You linked it. Did you read it?
I guess you have some agenda where you want to be able to claim that government regulation is actually fascism, therefore anyone that promotes regulation is a fascist? Like, requiring industry to treat water: fascism. Minimum wage? Fascist. Sounds good, after all, fascism is the naughty insult of the day. Good luck.
That's not the market value of the building; it's the value of the building to Apple.
Sure. What's your point? You and others here seem to be going on "one billion sound like a lot of money to me, can't be right".
Please present evidence that the assessors are valuing a property on it's worth to the owner and not the market value. If it is what you say, that'd be a massive conspiracy. I'd want to see some evidence of that, you know? I suspect you aren't versed in valuing commercial property, don't know the Cupertino market, nor have you seen the data that made up the assessor's report. Nor am I. I am just saying $200 is silly and a waste of time.
To some extent Apple is a victim of it's own success. They've driven the real estate market out of sight by buying up every building in the area and making it a magnet for other tech companies that want to be in the vicinity of Apple. That's just too bad. I don't get to value my home based on if there were 4 vacant homes on my street and my neighbors are all gang members. The market it is what it is, regardless of how it got there.
It'll probably be less than Apple is willing to take or else Apple would sell the building and move somewhere else.
Except they'd have massive employee turnover, and have massive costs to move operations somewhere else. It's not that simple.