Avatar feed
Responses: 3
SSG Robert Perrotto
3
3
0
while I do not agree with any government restricting anyones rights - I will call out some deliberate manipulation tactics of this article. First - it leaves out that Hamas fired 100+ rockets at israel first, making them the aggressor. Second, it is not through lack of effort that Hamas only killed a dozen Israeli's - they fired over 4000 fucking rockets at Israeli civilians, and only through Israels defensive systems, that also protected Israeli Arabs, that the cost in lives was reduced. Third, the article fails to mention that many of the launch sites, were in highly populated areas of the Gaza strip with the intent to weaponize civilians, both as a shield, and a weapon, against Israel. and Last, many of the places Israel targeted were given warning, up to an hour in advance, in order to lessen the civilian casualties. The blood of the Palestinean Civilians is absolutely upon the hands of Hamas.
(3)
Comment
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
CW4 Guy Butler
>1 y
Probably because the article is dealing with the Georgia lawsuit, and none of those things have anything to do with that case.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SSG Robert Perrotto
SSG Robert Perrotto
>1 y
CW4 Guy Butler - The article does, in fact, go into the casualties, without the context in which the casualties occurred. That is media manipulation. What does the casualty toll have to do with the Georgia lawsuit? The author of this article has a biased slant in support of BDS, and the article itself is not an objective presentation of the facts. A journalist, writing the news, does NOT have the freedom or right to inject their personal views when reporting the news, they lose the title of journalist, and cross into opinion pieces.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
CW4 Guy Butler
>1 y
MSG Joseph Cristofaro No, it does not. Possibly because the case deals with an individual’s right under the 1st Amendment, possibly because the Supreme Court rejected Texas v. California that attempted to overturn the California law. No idea which.
(2)
Reply
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
CW4 Guy Butler
>1 y
MSG Joseph Cristofaro There’s a few more rights imbedded in the 1st Amendment, but okay.

You’ve managed to bring us back to “This will be an interesting one to watch”, since that’s the basis of the court case.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Robert Bobo
0
0
0
The BDS organization are a bunch of liars , they regularly fabricate events and pander to the intentionally blind leftist crowd
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Owner/Operator
0
0
0
Uhm - no! No matter how much I may, or may not, dislike political speech I would rather hear it than have it suppressed! Looking at you Social Media!!!
(0)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Owner/Operator
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
re read my comments!
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Owner/Operator
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
Since you brought it up...

You confuse me with your shifting stances.

"Social media isn't covered by the First Amendment, private companies don't have to allow free speech on their property." Yet you also said "He can not block what people say about him in a public forum, and his Twitter account is a public forum that provides official statements of the President."

https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/trump-violates-first-amendment-by-blocking-twitter-users-from-feed-judge-says

Either it is a private platform ALL OF THE WAY - or it falls under the Constitution. There is no hybrid mode that I know of.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Owner/Operator
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
As far as I know there is no such thing as a government branch ON twitter. If there was shutting down the POTUS account as they did on Trump would be a violation of the Constitution. I am sorry but YOU cannot have it both ways.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close