- Dec 3, 2006
- 7,927
- 5,737
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The illustration y'all are talking about is nothing more than a distraction.I will cast iron guarantee you that if you went to a MAGA rally and told anyone that the Dems were trying to stop Republican officials meeting with social network companies to help prevent disgusting sexual content by perverts and homosexuals being made available to children and to help prevent our elderly being scammed out of their money and to stop them showing graphic violent videos to our kids then they'd be up in arms.
'They will refuse to allow us our constitutional right to have a say in what these people put out on their so called 'social networks'. I mean, ma'am, do you want these sort of people spreading lies and propoganda about our party and our elections? Sir, do you want these people to publish whatever they want without our elected officials having no say in the matter?'
'Well, hell no! This is the US of A. Not some commie country where these companies can just put out any garbage they want'.
Of course not. Thank y'all for your support.
Unless y'all can demonstrate otherwise, there are not any objections towards Democratic OR Republican officials, and/or government agencies "meeting with social network companies to help prevent disgusting sexual content by perverts and homosexuals being made available to children and to help prevent our elderly being scammed out of their money and to stop them showing graphic violent videos to our kids."
Last edited:
Upvote
0