It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ZapBrannigan3030
I agree except there are great americans that live in those cities who didnt ask for this. As an american, particularly as someone who wants to represent america in politics, I can not ignore this attack on them.
And in rural pa, I see how left wing tyrants (heck even some right wing ones) have crippled my rural community and destoyed our rights in just these past few months.
Is it really so unthinkable that they would condone allowing noble tea party like patriots to come burn out us evil racist. They may not make the order, but ive no doubt some democratic leaders would not mind the suffering of rural and middle america at all.
Hyperbolic, yes, and perhaps I should avoid that.
But we are talking about people likening domestic terrorists to heros or freedom fighters, even on this thread.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler
Are we sure domestic terrorists wont kill you and your family?
But I'd rather keep all my rights and live with risk than depend on the federal government to keep me safe.
Lol, he was talking about section 230, it doesn't matter what twitter defines itself, its action define itself and if it violates anything in section 230, yes, they can be deemed a publisher and thus protections REMOVED.
originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: Grambler
I agree with some of what you say, but it's troubling watching you assign your own definitions to subject matter (like earlier you stated that twitter was now to be considered a "publisher" because you said so, but it's not...)
Establishing consistent definitions of words and ideas is vital for productive discussion.
I'm not trying to be aggressive.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vasa Croe
I think that would be a violation of Posse Comitatus, which "limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States".
On coming into office, President Lincoln took a very different view, at times using federal military power without subordination to civil authority even in loyal Union states.139Congress also enacted a new provision to replace §2 of the Calling Forth Act, adding “rebellions” to instances for which the use of the Armed Forces was envisioned and to change the standard from a situation in which a combination or obstruction to law enforcement was “too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings” to one in which the unlawful obstruction or assemblage “make[s] it impracticable to enforce the laws ... by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”