2 Jun

Facebook – self appointed arbiter of “free speech” – tells Tea Party no more organizing

                                       

In what is an astonishing development, Mark Zuckerberg’s social media sensation, Facebook, has been slowly and quietly clamping down on the use of the site for political purposes. Kellen Giuda, an architect who started the NY Tea Party, has a column today in The Daily Caller to expose the Facebook hypocrisy, and to announce an alternative social medium to replace the FB void after a series of policy and site changes that are designed to limit the scope of use of Facebook related to political purposes.

What makes an American entrepreneur’s blood run cold is the quote from Facebook’s Adam Conner to the Wall Street Journal last month:

Meanwhile, Facebook is talking with potential Chinese partners about entering the huge China market, where the government has been cracking down on dissidents. That crackdown has come in response to the uprisings shaking authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes, movements that have used U.S.-based social-media sites like Facebook and Twitter as organizing tools.

“Maybe we will block content in some countries, but not others,” Adam Conner, a Facebook lobbyist, told the Journal. “We are occasionally held in uncomfortable positions because now we’re allowing too much, maybe, free speech in countries that haven’t experienced it before,” he said.

“Right now we’re studying and learning about China but have made no decisions about if, or how, we will approach it,” said Debbie Frost, Facebook’s director of international communications.

It’s chilling enough that a social medium that has played such a high profile role in political interaction decides that one country is “experienced” enough to be allowed free speech, and another isn’t. But considering Facebook’s attitude towards the Tea Party and other groups that are not being offered the privileged “upgrade” that allows them to keep their contacts intact, this begs the question of Mr. Conner… just what part of America, and our founding based on free speech, requires nanny censorship by a self appointed arbiter? Is this country not “experienced” enough in the eyes of the Facebook authorities.

Facebook isn’t foolish enough to outright lay on political censorship. As Guida points out, it’s been a series of steps that unmistakenly is aimed at political use of the medium. And he further suggests that the overt ties to liberal political beliefs may play a large part in thwarting Tea Party organization.

The company has changed the way Facebook’s group, newsfeed and event features work, and it has restricted the ability of users to communicate with people (via messages and wall posts) who are outside of their real-life social networks.

What’s more, it’s become clear that Facebook itself is dominated by liberals:

•98% of political donations from Facebook employees went to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

•Chris Hughes, one of Facebook’s co-founders, headed up Barack Obama’s successful website during the 2008 campaign. In 2009, he was featured on the cover of Fast Company magazine as “The kid who made Obama president: how Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes unleashed Barack’s base — and changed politics and marketing forever.”

•Facebook’s former attorney for privacy issues, Chris Kelly, ran for attorney general of California in 2010 on a far-left platform.

Many Americans and Tea Party organizers are waking up to this liberal culture at Facebook, which was on display at the recent Facebook townhall where Barack Obama and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg fawned over each other.

And speaking of this new a’political philosphy, if Facebook is so all fired dedicated to free speech and staying away from politics, why the heck are they interviewing the POTUS on political issues, and livestreaming it on Facebook anyway?

And what happens to all those Congressional owned Facebook accounts? Aren’t they entirely political in nature? Or is it only “organizing” they seem to oppose?

UPDATE: To hedge off any additional misreadings and misconceptions that have been repeatedly addressed in the vast comments below, yes… I know that FB doesn’t “guarantee” anyone “free speech” as a private company. Nor is political ideology a protected class under federal or state civil rights. I suggest none of this. This post is about Facebook’s hypocrisy – their supposed “pro freedom” beliefs that runs counter to their idea that some are capable of handling “free speech” and others are not in the US. If Facebook wishes to advertise itself as a liberal political organizing platform, that’s fine. But the overt disconnect of saying they are “pro freedom” (but may be giving some “too much free speech”), while picking and choosing who may or may not keep their organizing contacts with the privileged upgrades, is not representative of who they claim to be. Now… returning you to the program, already in progress….END UPDATE

What becomes more ironic about FB’s attempted control and tiptoe away from politics is the very political nature of both the company, and of Conner himself… who is one of Facebook’s lobbyists on staff. It was only last week that Facebook hired on two more lobbyists, both Republicans, to complement their two Democrat lobbyists, for more influence in Washington. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall for 2012, and an era that is likely to usher in even more conservatives to what has been an unhealthy Democrat balance for too many years.

Facebook now has four registered lobbyists. The new Republican hires join Democrats Tim Sparapani and Adam Conner. Facebook has 12 staffers in its Washington office, including administrative support.

“At Facebook, we’re committed to explaining how our service works; the important actions we take to protect the more than 500 million people who use our service; and the value of innovation to our economy,” spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. “This work occurs daily in Washington, at the state level, and with policymakers around the world.”

The company spent $230,000 lobbying in the first quarter, according to a recent filing with the House clerk’s office.

Apparently the company is allowed to be political for their benefit, but they do not wish to offer that same freedom of content use to their subscribers…

 Conner himself has anything but an a’political career.

Prior to Facebook, Adam was the Director of Online Communications for Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Chairwoman of the Rules Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. He previously served as the Deputy Director of Online Communications for Forward Together, the presidential exploratory committee for former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Adam holds a bachelor’s degree in political communication from the George Washington University.

Additionally, it was Egypt’s Wael Ghonim, Google’s ME marketing guru and anonymous Facebook administrator, who is credited with driving the Egyptian “Arab Spring”.

Ghonim thought Facebook could be the ideal revolutionary tool in Egypt’s suffocating police state. “Once you are a fan, whatever we publish gets on your wall,” he wrote. “So the government has NO way to block it later. Unless they block Facebook completely.”

I wonder if Ghonim ever envisioned that it would not be a government that blocks content, but the Facebook execs themselves.

The hypocrisy of such back door censorship flies in the face of the Facebook executives actions themselves during that event, where it was reported they “..took unusual steps to protect the identity of protest leaders during the Egypt uprising.” Apparently, it is their policy to monitor, meddle and control with the content sniffs of politics. Or is this their idea of a self-imposed “fairness doctrine”?

Granted, Giuda’s own Daily Caller column is a blatant advertisement for his attempt at a political “Facebook” alternative, Freedom Torch. But considering how firmly entrenched FB is in today culture, and it’s now famous association with what many consider a political success for organizing both the US Tea Party movement and rebellions overseas, it’s going to have a serious uphill climb in replacing the vast audience Facebook has already captured.

Paraphrasing Dr. Johnny Fever’s infamous line in the old WKRP sitcom, “when you move the mission, you need to remember to tell the drunks”. There’s the potential that a lot of communication with political activists could be lost. It’s difficult to drive traffic for a political organizing cause to another social medium when the originating medium is making it difficult to convey that message to begin with by stripping them with the majority of their contact database.

Or is that Facebook’s intention?

About MataHarley

Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Constitution, Fairness Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, June 2nd, 2011 at 11:03 am
| 23,731 views

225 Responses to Facebook – self appointed arbiter of “free speech” – tells Tea Party no more organizing

  1. anticsrocks says: 51

    @Cached Czech: What’s wrong with FreedomTorch for a name?

    I mean I’ll admit that it isn’t as catchy as Flopbook!!
    .
    .

    ReplyReply
  2. SDN says: 52

    “tisn’t that simple, biff. Tho I agree that the “politics” may not have as much to do with left or right politics in the US, it most certainly has to do with their desires to avoid political organizing in general. This would become more clear to you if you read the link about their reluctance in becoming involved in the Egyptian uprising. In order to limit that type of activity, they will clamp down on all features that enable reaching the larger masses. If you have no need to do so for your own purposes, you’re not affected in the least.”

    @MataHarley, as you said, ’tisn’t that simple. They’re only reluctant in favor of certain groups, as documented here and here:

    “There is a deeply disturbing development going on now at Facebook: Its management is dismantling groups, eliminating their memberships with an “upgrade” that is only available to some groups. And there is every indication Facebook is using political criteria to determine which groups get the upgrade and targeting conservative groups for elimination.”

    ReplyReply
  3. Pingback: Friday Morning Roundup

  4. SDN says: 53

    @MataHarley: Again, tisn’t that simple. I wonder if people arguing that “Facebook is a private company” are aware that private companies have been forced to do business with groups / persons they dislike since 1965. The Civil Rights Act basically said that you can’t offer goods or services to “the public” without offering them to Official Government Victim Groups. So I’d say a lawsuit is definitely in order.

    ReplyReply
  5. GaffaUK says: 54

    Facebook isn’t foolish enough to outright lay on political censorship. As Guida points out, it’s been a series of steps that unmistakenly is aimed at political use of the medium. And he further suggests that the overt ties to liberal political beliefs may play a large part in thwarting Tea Party organization.

    The company has changed the way Facebook’s group, newsfeed and event features work, and it has restricted the ability of users to communicate with people (via messages and wall posts) who are outside of their real-life social networks.

    Er…so doesn’t this restriction equally effect all political parties left and right? Why single out the Tea party? Or does that kinda blow a hole in the silly argument that somehow the Tea Party is being targeted.

    ReplyReply
  6. Thucydides says: 55

    Good old fashioned Samizdat can work as well

    The sticker campaign of putting “These prices brought to you by the Obama Administration” stickers on gas pumps and beside price tags and displays at supermarkets drives home the message in a way that can’t be countered by social media, the MSM or other enablers.

    The same principles can be applied in organizing boycotts against advertisers on Facebook, Google or the legacy media.

    Lastly, there are enough people with conservative principles to use their purchasing power to buy elements of these companies. How will networks sell their crap if you own the “affiliate” stations and start buying shows which don’t have overt “progressive” bias. Canadians are eating up “SUN TV” because it is not overtly left wing. State owned and rabidly leftist CBC consumes over a billion tax dollars a year and has an audience share of 7%, so despite the resources the liberal and progressives can throw, people are not naturally inclined to watch/listen to “progressive” tropes.

    ReplyReply
  7. Pingback: The B&R Friday Edition | Black & Right

  8. SDN says: 56

    @GaffaUK: If you had read all the articles, Facebook is offering an “upgrade” to certain groups that allow them to continue operating with no disruptions. Strangely, left leaning groups are more likely to be given the upgrade, regardless of size or activity level.

    ReplyReply
  9. anticsrocks, on you’re 22, yes, FLOPPING ACES as acquire his CREDIBILITY after all this time of managing the popular BLOG, with the AUTHORS smart people brigning the readers such posts with excellence of research
    and accuate quotes concerning all daily important events to be interesting to know for this large AUDIENCE,
    now as the political CAMPAIGN OF THE LEFT IS IN FULL GEAR, WE SEE THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE TOO BIG AND TOO INFLUENCIAL TO FAIL TAKING
    DRASTIC ACTION TO PUT A STOP ON OPPOSITION BY BECOMING DICTATOR ON WHO AND WHAT TO BE DONE BY THEIR CUSTOMERS

    that is so visible that FLOPPING ACES ARE MENTIONNING THEIR ACTIONS,
    as UNETHICAL , AND THAT SAYS IT ALL,
    CONSERVATIVES WILL NOT STAND FOR THOSE, LYING AND FOOLING THE PEOPLE WITH BIAS STRATEGY.IN THEIR MANIPULATION OF PEOPLE WHO DON’T FOLLOW THEIR POLITICAL ACCEPTANCE AND SUPPORT AS A FAMILY SITE TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE IN ELECTION MODE AS IT IS NOW, THIS IS AGAIN LIKE MANY MORE TACTICS, TRYING TO CREATE A DIVISION AMONG THE PEOPLE,
    THAT IS VERY BAD AND UNTHINKEBLE IN AMERICA,
    THIS WILL WORK OPPOSIT TO WHAT THEY ARE AIMING AT FOR THE 2012 NOVEMBER DECISION

    ReplyReply
  10. Carol says: 58

    @Ivan: Join Freedom Torch.

    ReplyReply
  11. MataHarley says: 59

    @SDN: I wonder if people arguing that “Facebook is a private company” are aware that private companies have been forced to do business with groups / persons they dislike since 1965.

    SDN, political party membership or political beliefs are not now, and have never been, a protected “class”. There is nothing “civil rights” as a foundation here.

    @GaffaUK: Er…so doesn’t this restriction equally effect all political parties left and right? Why single out the Tea party? Or does that kinda blow a hole in the silly argument that somehow the Tea Party is being targeted

    Gaffamaster, that might be perceived so by the lazy, were the post focused solely on the Tea Party being a victim. The headline is a take off from the Daily Caller op-ed by Giuda, titled “Facebook to Tea Party: No More Organizing”.

    I found Facebook’s offensive behavior far more extensive than just the tea party… i.e. “too much free speech” attitudes, and the chutzpah of being the self appointed arbiter as to what region, country of the world should they allow free speech.

    Add the hypocrisy of their own heavy political thrusts to their desires to dismantle any groups doing political organizing, and you have a very unethical company at work. If they wish to go across the board, no Congress members, no candidates, no non profits with an agenda, no PACs, or perhaps even blogs should have a Facebook presence.

    The platform changes indeed apply to all Facebook users. However as @SDN pointed out in comment #49 with links, “some” select group are not being offered the option of the upgrade, which essentially disbands and dismembers their network of contacts. And apparently, as they’ve annointed themselves the arbiter of free speech country to country – including the US – they’ve decided they also have the right to pick and choose what groups they will allow to keep their network in place with an upgrade, and who they won’t.

    ReplyReply
  12. Pingback: You’ll get over it | Not So Fast

  13. Raymond says: 60

    Facebook doesn’t realize it yet, but this “Censoring of Political Speech” will ultimately “Backfire” on them! Liberals still haven’t learned the Lesson that when You “Defend Free Speech”, It has to be for EVERYONE — Not just one Political Persuasion!!!! I guess that when it comes time for Facebook to fold, they’ll realize the mistake that they (Facebook) has made! They should have been paying attention when “Air America” filed for “Bankruptcy!” Have Fun While You Can & Enjoy Yourself, Facebook!!!! I Won’t Be Shedding Tears When You Go Belly Up Like “Air America!!!!” I guess that I’ll have to find another Social Site with My Friends On Facebook!!!!

    ReplyReply
  14. Alexander Herzdorf says: 61

    Facebook has blocked my tag option because every time when I published a picture or a caricature which satirized the policy of Obama and his party I used to tag the faces for example of Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc and my tags always appeared on their official Facebook pages. And one day I found my tag option blocked and most of my tags gone. And we call this a freedom of speech. This is not freedom this is like a pure Soviet censorship and it has took away my right of saying my opinion. This is unconstitutional for Pete sake!

    ReplyReply
  15. mosespa says: 62

    @Ivan: Infiltration does no good at all. Whenever you try to change the system from within, it never works…because you don’t change the system; the system changes you.

    ReplyReply
  16. Linda Snodgrass says: 63

    Absolutely ridiculous concept. Why are you righties always playing the victim?
    It’s quite the opposite.

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 64

    Yo… Snodgrass. When freedom of speech becomes a pick’n'choose by a precious few, you lefties are victims as well.

    ReplyReply
  18. Raymond says: 65

    @Linda Snodgrass: Be careful about the Sword that You play with, Snodgrass! Your side talks about being the “Self-Appointed Guardians of the First Amendment!” Let me give “You & Your Friends on The Left” a piece of Advice: If You Don’t Safeguard The Freedom FOR ALL, There Will Be FREEDOM FOR NONE! That’s the trouble that You & Your Friends Have Forgotten Not Only In The “Debate Of Arena Of Free Ideas,” But Also In The “News Media!” The Responsibility of the News Media IS TO REPORT THE NEWS, NOT TO EXPRESS ONE’S POLITICAL OPINION! Maybe You should watch the Movie, “Deadline U.S.A.” with Humphey Bogart! That’s What A “Free Press” Is Supposed To Do!!!!

    ReplyReply
  19. Ken Albin says: 66

    I find it frankly ironic, not to mention hilarious, that a group who has spent the past two years trying to censor and eventually shut down any group that is less conservative than Nazi Socialists would become a target of censorship themselves. What’s the matter, Tea Baggers? Is censorship only an American ideal when you do it?

    ReplyReply
  20. Bruce Brandenburg says: 67

    @Ivan:

    Apparently you haven’t done your research….typical lib! There is “Conservipedia” to counterbalance “Wikipedia” and the Koch brothers that are backing conservatives and they have way more money than George.

    ReplyReply
  21. MataHarley says: 68

    ken albin: I find it frankly ironic, not to mention hilarious, that a group who has spent the past two years trying to censor and eventually shut down any group that is less conservative than Nazi Socialists would become a target of censorship themselves. What’s the matter, Tea Baggers? Is censorship only an American ideal when you do it?

    That’s sure a lot of blubber and blather in just a couple of sentences there, albin. Not to mention the overtones of hate you display with your choice of phrases. We generally get bored quick around FA when you KOs/Huffpo types dart in and attempt to lower the debate to the level you’re used to. But we’re big on substantiating talking points around here. And perhaps you might lay aside your parroted BS and provide links to events and any censorship the Tea Party has done. Strikes me that you lib/progs – and your debasing remarks and false accusations of racist – have had plenty of press and freedom of speech. And that includes your presence here on FA, allowing you to reveal yourself as the pathetic little hateful man you are.

    ReplyReply
  22. JennyM says: 69

    This is too funny. There are TONS of political groups, pages and profiles on facebook. Plenty of them are of the hilarious Tea People screaming things like, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” while they also troll the White House page saying vile and/or stupid things. I know paranoia is fun, but you are not being censored. You are just losing a lot of support, as you should be.

    ReplyReply
  23. MataHarley says: 70

    ah… I see the FB devotees are arriving in droves.

    ReplyReply
  24. david7134 says: 71

    What bounce?

    Most feel Obama is as bad if not worse than old bin.

    ReplyReply
  25. david7134 says: 72

    Do you know anything about Medicare? Are you aware that past the age of 65 you have to take Medicare? You are prevented, by law, from buying health insurance. So yes, those of us who can’t stand the progressive/socialist/Communist movement in place now don’t want the one insurance that we can own messed with. I might also remind you that we have been compelled through our lives to pay into this system and want our money back in one way or another.

    ReplyReply
  26. Ralph says: 73

    @anticsrocks: you want better site then facebook go to Freedom Connector,only been up a few months check it out.

    ReplyReply
  27. Greg says: 74

    @david7134, #69:

    You are prevented, by law, from buying health insurance.

    Actually, under the law, if you’re working at 65 and have employee group health insurance, or are the eligible spouse of such a person, it’s illegal for a health insurance carrier to drop you just because you’re potentially eligible for Medicare. The increased premium penalty for failing to file for Medicare at 65 will also be waived, provided you’ve had employee group health insurance continuously from age 65 until the point when you finally file your Medicare application. (Such people should always contact Social Security 3 months before age 65, however. They’ll likely want to file for premium-free Medicare Part A–aka Hospital Insurance–and make certain that the late-filing penalty will in fact be waived in their individual case.)

    Before this law was enacted, private health insurance companies routinely dropped people with employee group health insurance as soon as they reached age 65. Essentially they were using the Medicare program as a taxpayer-funded subsidy of their businesses.

    If you want to know the facts, contact the Social Security office. That’s what they’re there for.

    ReplyReply
  28. Facebook misuser says: 75

    I hate to tell you guys this but facebook is private property so they can use it anyway they want even if it is unfair. I get tired of hearing how unfair Fox is or AM radio is but those are also private property which means they have the same right as facebook to run their property as they want.

    ReplyReply
  29. david7134 says: 76

    greg,
    The point that I was making is that past age 65, you can not personally buy health insurance except for Medicare and related instruments. Very few people have group insurance at 65 so the concept you are alluding to is essentially nill. For the majority of people that I see, they are stuck with Medicare, whether they like it or not.

    ReplyReply
  30. @Ivan:

    Spread the word… Use the alternate site, RTR.org and you can simultaneously post on RTR, FB, Twitter etc. It is set up a lot like FB and you’ll catch on quick! Can transfer FB friends etc. Its growing daily! Its Patriotic to America and her values! Let’s roll….

    ReplyReply
  31. MataHarley says: 78

    Greg: Actually, under the law, if you’re working at 65 and have employee group health insurance, or are the eligible spouse of such a person, it’s illegal for a health insurance carrier to drop you just because you’re potentially eligible for Medicare.

    You refer to Carter’s Medicare Second Payer Act in 1980, Greg. So you have an “almost”, save you left out the caveats. You must be actively working at a firm with at least 20 employees. Additionally, most firms require you are a full time employee to be eligible for their plan. Once the employee retires, there is a grace period for the spouse dependent to also enroll. Most enroll in Medicare A because it’s free and it acts as a MSP (Medicare Second Payer) to the primary.

    At retirement, enrollment is mandatory, and any private plans, such as Medicare Advantage, still are administered thru government. There is only one way to opt out, and that’s to give up your Social Security benefits, and pay back any you have received up to that opt out day… thanks to Clinton. Thus the Hall vs Sebelius lawsuit.

    Considering the deplorable state of the economy, and anticipated high umemployment for who knows how long, seniors are apt to be working past 65 just to get by. However if they are part time… i.e. Walmart greeters, etc… they will still be required to enroll in Medicare. If the government would allow even 1% of the wealthy seniors to opt out… without robbing them of the Social Security benefits… the system could save at least $1 bil a year, according to the research and evidence presented in the Hall vs Seblius lawsuit. It’s insane not to allow them to do so.

    ReplyReply
  32. Facebook misuser, the problem is they allowed it until the election campaign start as it is now and they are worry of the trend they see favoring the TEAPARTY CONSERVATIVES ,so it’s so eazy to say , you go and you stay when you are on the loosing side of the AMERICAN FREEDOM FOR ALL.

    ReplyReply
  33. MataHarley says: 80

    Facebook misuser: I hate to tell you guys this but facebook is private property so they can use it anyway they want even if it is unfair. I get tired of hearing how unfair Fox is or AM radio is but those are also private property which means they have the same right as facebook to run their property as they want.

    Gosh darn… but that reality has already been pointed out several times in this thread. We all agree that what Facebook is doing is not illegal. And most of us agree that what they are doing is unethical, and they do not deserve any support that enriches their pockets. Nor does it change deserved public criticism that points out their hypocrisy.

    My post was not a whining post… it was to point out that hypocrisy and preferential treatment by a politically oriented company, picking and choosing who would benefit from their business platform – all while claiming they were “pro free speech”…. except in countries where it was perhaps just “too much free speech”. Like America, I guess.

    ReplyReply
  34. david7134 says: 81

    mata,
    That is great info and I appreciate it, but I was responding to some little girl that tried to show a discrepancy in thought among TEA party people as they fight against the government in their lives and at the same time want to preserve the only insurance policy that is available to the majority of them. This is a favorite topic of the socialist and they don’t seem to want to confront the reality of the situation.

    ReplyReply
  35. MataHarley says: 82

    @david7134, no problem. Actually I thought you were being nice giving a ninny like @JennyM the time of day. No clue where some of these people manufacture their delusional talking points. The tea party folks haven’t been screaming “hands off my Medicare”… that’s the lib/prog rallying cry. Anyone with a lick of fiscal sense knows that the ponzi scheme program must be reformed, and that genuine health care reform (i.e. bringing down the costs of administering health care, not price fixing insurance premiums…) must be had to get the nation’s finances under control. Most of the tea party has that figured out.

    But, ya know, some people either can’t hear, can’t read, or simply can’t manifest a cogent thought in political reality. It becomes inconvenient to their base idea that Dem = “good” and “love the one you’re with, and GOP = “evil”, rich and “throw granny over the cliff”.

    I’d say we could use your debate engaging with those of a higher calibre of thought processes…. and hope you stick around FA for some time to come to do so.

    ReplyReply
  36. MataHarley says: 83

    @ilovebeeswarzone, Ms Beezie… I’m not under the impression that Facebook misuser is a lib/prog. Merely pointed out that as the left demonizes FOX and radio talk shows as “unfair”… which also gets tiring… that all are private enterprise that may be run… within our current rule of law… as they see fit.

    My guess is that Facebook misuser is a conservative.

    ReplyReply
  37. MATA tes, you can better read behind the lines then I do.
    You know, that someone mentionned that the owner of Facebook had brag that
    he had elected the PRESIDENT WITH FACEBOOK,
    well now he will demote the PRESIDENT with the same tool he used

    ReplyReply
  38. AmericanLass says: 85

    @anticsrocks: There is a safe site for Conservatives. Its Freedom Torch.

    ReplyReply
  39. Raymond says: 86

    @Ken Albin: I’ll answer your Question with a Question, Kevin! Why is it when Liberals “Can’t argue a Point” that they have to lower themselves to ‘Name Calling?’ Can you answer that one? Well, Can You???? When you can argue a Point without “Name Calling,” Let us know! One other thing, Your Side should “Clean Out It’s Own Closet” before You accuse the TEA Party Movement of Censorship!!!! We’re not afraid to debate ANYONE in the “Arena Of Debate” so long as long as the People arguing with us can do so without resorting to Subversive Tactics! Like Planting Agent Provocators in Our Midst! Does That Tactic Sound Familar To You, Kevin????

    ReplyReply
  40. Greg says: 87

    @MataHarley, #75:

    I’m not clear on why someone would want to opt out of Part A, since Part A remains premium-free and one can supplement the coverage with private insurance. (Assuming they can afford to, of course.) Presumably what they actually want to do is opt out of paying the Medicare portion of Social Security taxes. Such a person always has the option of moving permanently to another country to avoid U.S. taxes altogether, perhaps follow the jobs they’ve offshored to greener pastures.

    I doubt anyone 65 or over could buy coverage equivalent to Part B for less than the standard Part B monthly premium, but they’re certainly welcomed to try. No one is required to take Part B.

    ReplyReply
  41. anticsrocks says: 88

    @Ralph: I’ll check it out, thanks!

    ReplyReply
  42. anticsrocks says: 89

    @AmericanLass: Yup, I signed up already, but thanks!

    ReplyReply
  43. Pingback: An open letter to the TEA Party folks | Shelby Action News

  44. tricia says: 90

    @anticsrocks: Freedom Connector.com

    ReplyReply
  45. MataHarley says: 91

    @Greg: I’m not clear on why someone would want to opt out of Part A, since Part A remains premium-free and one can supplement the coverage with private insurance. (Assuming they can afford to, of course.)

    Greg, this is way off topic, but this is something I’ve already explained above, and in my post about Hall vs Sebelius back in August 2009.

    If you are retired, you cannot opt out of Medicare. If you are still employed and getting company benefits, you can delay your mandated enrollment until your retire. Most who are on company plans still opt into Medicare A because it’s free, and acts as a MSP (medicare secondary payer). So it’s like an umbrella.

    Period. Short story, and the end of it.

    You cannot opt out of Medicare if you are retired unless you also opt out of any SS payments, and repay any funds you have received.

    Thought you were touting how the Social Security site could educate you and others to Medicare…. uh huh…

    Now stop bothering us with off topic Medicare crap that you are clearly not knowledgeable on, and stay on topic. Take it to an open thread if you want.

    ReplyReply
  46. Greg Zotta says: 92

    It’s just not Facebook, ObaME met with other IT executives Google, Apple etc.

    ReplyReply
  47. Bad Science says: 93

    Um, we might be doing this wrong? I mean, we’re not stupid and lazy like Democrats, are we? There’s still a way this will work, we just need to figure it out. It can’t be that hard.

    ReplyReply
  48. Can we stop with the “all geeks are libs” bit? What the heck led Woz, Jobs, and the rest to start Apple? It sure wasn’t liberalism. Same deal with Microshaft, Sun, IBM, and so on. Liberals don’t start businesses, folks (duh, right?). So while Jobs may push some liberal b.s. now, that seems to be the same problem that befalls a lot of CEOs and other people who lose touch with reality after having so much success. Come to think of it, the same problem happens even to stalwart conservatives once they get inside the halls of Congress, sadly enough.

    In any case, the desire to create/build, the desire to do something “because it was there”, the pursuit of knowledge, the willingness to swim against the tide — all of these things which motivate geeks are fundamentally American instincts.

    ReplyReply
  49. inRussetShadows, hi, very nicely said, liberals dont create busynesses
    they ruin it

    ReplyReply
  50. Rebecca Franks says: 96

    This all REALLY started happening right after Obama visited FB headquarters. Anybody on FB regularly probably started noticing all the glitches the past month or so? (and no notification as to WHY it was so screwed up) Comments and messages disappear – all messages from the same person STREAMED into one ?? WHO WANTS THAT? I DONT, if I have been sending messages and answers I don’t want them all mixed up with other messages and answers. I can no longer send ATTACHMENTS on my PM’S for WEEKS now. CHATS show up in messages. THAT way you got a nice permanent record, and chats are no longer private. It also makes them easier to show up ANYwhere else. If it’s being relayed to one place it can easily be relayed somewhere else. Obama is like a damned paranoid NIXON he’s always got people up there reading our messages and overlooking the Fort Hood’s emails to Al Aqaeda recruiter; in favor of screwing with political figures.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site