Free speech – Zuckerberg’s version and mine | An Alternative View | Diana Diamond | Palo Alto Online |

Local Blogs

An Alternative View

By Diana Diamond

E-mail Diana Diamond

About this blog: So much is right — and wrong — about what is happening in Palo Alto. In this blog I want to discuss all that with you. I know many residents care about this town, and I want to explore our collective interests to help ...  (More)

View all posts from Diana Diamond

Free speech – Zuckerberg’s version and mine

Uploaded: Oct 19, 2019
Palo Alto resident Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, decided to speak out for free speech last Thursday at a talk at Georgetown University. Unfortunately, it was his laissez-faire version of free speech: Facebook will assume little or no responsibility for what is posted on its precious pages. The American people should be the arbiter of the truths or falsehoods on what they read on his site.

Now I’ve been a strong advocate of free speech for years, and working as a journalist has reinforced my zeal for protecting free speech. I have never wanted the principle fettered or diminished in our society. I believe our governments – locally and nationally – should be as open as possible, as should public corporations.

But I do draw a big red line at allowing blatant political falsehoods that directly slam an opponent with fabrications and untruths. Even more important, I don’t want ANY foreign intrusion via social media into our elections – be those intrusions from Russia, China, Ukraine or wherever.

And that’s the important part of why, to me, Zuckerberg’s defense of totally unfettered free speech was so wrong. There are times, and these are the times, when false statements should be kicked off the Internet.

I read a lot of news daily, and I view social media daily, but I am not sophisticated enough to know what I just saw could be a Russian incursion into a political campaign or Chinese one. I don’t know who is paying for the ads that intentionally and erroneously criticize a candidate, be it Trump, Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, Sanders or Joe Blow.

There are historical constitutional precedents for limiting free speech. Justice Oliver Holmes in Schenck v. United States in 1919 said, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

In contrast to Zuckerberg’s stance, many major broadcasting stations, including cable networks CNN, MSNBC and NBCU, decline to broadcast ads that they feel contain falsehoods and violate their standards. Airwaves do not allow pornographic material; some inflammatory words are bleeped, hate speech and violent content are carefully reviewed and oftentimes removed. Some programs never get to air.

Newspapers have similar standards. An editor chooses what is to be printed, usually according to common journalistic standards of decency and honesty.

Zuckerberg tried to use the Constitution as a shield for his position to let everyone post what they want, and then each of us can decide what’s right. We should be confronted with ideas that challenge us, he said. He added that his company would not moderate politicians’ speech or fact-check their ads because these statements, right or wrong, were newsworthy.

Is he masquerading for free speech while actually thinking of profits? Just asking…well, perhaps.

I think it’s time for Mr. Zuckerberg to realize he is not just the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company ($55.8 billion in annual revenue according to The New York Times) and that he cannot do whatever he wants to make more money. He is also a publisher, and in that role conveys news and events of the world to the world. Publishing has its own responsibilities for caring what goes into print, on air, and on the Internet, and Zuckerberg should acknowledge and follow them.
What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

 +   5 people like this
Posted by Los Altos Neighbor, a resident of Los Altos,
on Oct 19, 2019 at 4:01 pm

Zuckerberg wants Facebook to be like Sproul Plaza. I agree.

That means you can hear legitimate political discussion to full on crazy people and you have to decide what is "real" yourself. People come knock on my door and ask me to sign petitions. I've read people in shopping centers are paid by unions and other organizations to get us to sign petitions. Some in San Jose are tying to make it so only some can pay others to get signatures on petitions so they can maintain their power. I think people need to understand that much of what you hear on TV, read in the newspapers, hear at shopping centers and hear at Sproul Plaza is biased and often false garbage. We're adults and should be responsible for discovering what is true. I'll tell you I've caught "respected" networks news lying about what was said for both ends of the political spectrum.


 +   15 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of Barron Park,
on Oct 19, 2019 at 4:21 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

The problem with ceding trust to make decisions on truth a company like Facebook can be seen in the behavior of Snopes.com, a former fact-checking site turned partisan. Conservatives have compiled a list where a statement by a Progressive is judged "Mostly True" and the same statement by a Conservative is judged "Mostly False". Snopes also has "fact-checked" parodies from The Babylon Bee (Web Link), labeling them "False" -- such ratings could be used by Google, Facebook ... to classify the site as pushing "Fake News" and de-rank it in search results. I have seen Snopes apply such hostile interpretations to statements that I cannot believe it wasn't intentional (and partisan).

The Project Veritas recordings of CNN President Jeff Zucker's morning call on what to cover shows him pushing known falsehoods which support his partisanship, and consequently CNN's.

The New York Times has pushed hit-pieces against Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard as news. Based on Hillary Clinton's recent outburst, this "news" is presumably part of Hillary's vendetta against Gabbard for standing up against the DNC's rigging of the 2016 primaries in favor of Hillary.

Google/YouTube and Facebook have repeatedly demonstrated that diversity of political opinion will not be tolerated and the CEO of Twitter has acknowledged that his company lacks such diversity. In such a filter bubble, one cannot expect the people making the judgments about truthfulness to be able to distinguish false opinions within their bubbles from truth. What is likely to be produced is "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert) - what the person *feels* should be true.

Facebook uses CNN, NYTimes and purported fact-checking sites in assessing what is "fake news", although Facebook, Google/YouTube/... use the term "authoritative" in describing such sources, leaving open that primary factor is not being reliably correct, but the other definitions of "authority".

Elizabeth Warren posted an ad on Facebook starting with "Breaking news: Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook just endorsed Donald Trump for re-election." to make a point about false information in political ads. However, in these days where using statements out-of-context is routine, this "hook" could easily have been used to declare the entire ad as false and thus banned.

If you trust Facebook (or Google/YouTube or Twitter or ...) to make correct, or even competent, decisions on truthfulness, you have not been following the news.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood,
on Oct 19, 2019 at 4:57 pm

I support free speech.

The trouble with monitoring and dare I say it, censorship, is who is doing the monitoring and censoring? Can we trust them to be completely neutral? Are they going to prevent intellectual discussion? Are members of say, the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) going to be sensored more than liberal celebrities who seem to be able to get their views, no matter how hateful, said without anyone minding and then passing on the information.

It seems to me that free speech is fine when people are politely and respectfully saying what the censors agree with. But when people are just as politely and respectfully sharing a position the censors do not agree with it is called hate speech or worse.

When Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Denis Prager get as much coverage as others, then we will truly be getting a balanced viewpoint.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by mauricio, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Oct 20, 2019 at 1:58 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

FB's algorithmic design amplifies content judged to attract attention and interaction (clicks, shares, likes, comments) favors extremism and powerful emotions over rational and measured expression. And the cheap and effective advertising system is monumentally profitable and thus starves other sources of good information of needed revenue.

Zuckerberg allowed FB to be used for propaganda purposes during the US 2016 election and the U.K. 2016 referendum. These are the facts, no argument. Once a social media site starts steering people's voting choices then it becomes part of the political machine and cannot be trusted.

Freedom of Speech is meant for Individuals, not fake Identities, so that individual can be held accountable for their speech and the validity of who and what they say can be judged by those who hear it.

These social media platforms assume every email address that signs up and posts is one individual person but one person can have hundreds of email addresses to post under (see the Russian election meddling) wish what the Russian bot farms have done and plan to do again on FB. This is how the extremists and hate mongers seem more popular than they actually are in society.

When one account is deleted for bad behavior, they simply make another account with a new email address so there really isn accountability required and that is why social media is the civil cesspool it is today.


 +   11 people like this
Posted by mamacita, a resident of Palo Verde,
on Oct 21, 2019 at 11:27 am

"Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Denis Prager"

Get plenty of coverage - mainstream media, rw media, radio, podcasts, books, YouTube, etc.. I've heard of each one of those Bozo's.
(portion removed)


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Anon1, a resident of Menlo Park,
on Oct 21, 2019 at 12:14 pm

The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting what appears on Facebook. That goes doubly for core political speech. The problem with Facebook censoring certain ads is: Who decides what is true or false? How about if Fox News is taken as the standard of truth? It's not always easy to agree on what is true. If an ad is mostly or partly true, should it be censored?

Facebook is not a publisher in that they don't generate their own content. I expect political ads are a small fraction of Facebook's revenue, and the controversy about them is merely a distraction for them.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Diana Diamond, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Oct 21, 2019 at 1:26 pm

Diana Diamond is a registered user.

A few commenters here are struggling with who decides what is true or not true. Or, more to their point, who decides what to let appear on a social media site or who doesn't. I can understand the concern, but I am not sure that should be the focus.

I am taking about FACTS -- NOT ALTERNATIVE FACTS, OR REWRITTEN STATEMENTS, just plain old-fashioned facts. Was Biden involved in any payoff? Yes or no and where is the proof Did Trump say something on TV or did he not? Do we have 100 or 1,000 troops in Syria? Is this the greatest expanse of our economy in a three-year period or is it not?

That's point one. Point two is foreign interference in our elections. Did Russia during the 2016 election interfere in our politics, trying to lend support to Trump, as our national security agencies have emphatically said -- or not. If yes, that's a fact.

And I don't want the Russians or Chinese claiming ir was not a fact.

Facebook is a multi-billion dollar organization which is perfectly capable of hiring 50 or 100 rigid honest fact-checkers who would be guaranteed that they would have no interference from corporate for $$$ reasons.

This can't be that hard -- it isn't. Facts are facts, and we can see if things are factual.


 +   10 people like this
Posted by Make it liability and he'll take action., a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis,
on Oct 21, 2019 at 1:45 pm

Make it liability and he'll take action. is a registered user.

It is time for Mr. Zuckerberg to be held legally responsible for proven libels that are broadly disseminated by his social media platform. He should be given jail time, not fines, for the harm he is doing.

It is time for Mr. Zuckerberg and his ilk to behave like responsible adults and to be held responsible.

I have stopped using Facebook and never started on Instagram. Make a statement. Abandon social media. It's mostly garbage anyway.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of Barron Park,
on Oct 21, 2019 at 4:02 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: Diana Diamond

> "This can't be that hard -- it isn't. Facts are facts, and we can see if things are factual."

Your comment provides two great examples of the problems with "facts", and why it is hard.

> "Did Trump say something on TV or did he not?"

The media has repeatedly taken Trump's statements out of context. While it is a fact that he said the fragment presented, the interpretation - explicit or implicit - presented with it is contradicted by the full context. You seem to arguing that an out-of-context fragment is a legitimate "fact" whereas the journalistic principles would classify it as a non-false, but disingenuous/deceptive, statement.

> "Did Russia during the 2016 election interfere in our politics, trying to lend support to Trump, as our national security agencies have emphatically said..."

This is not a fact.
1. The Russians -- like the Soviets before them all the way back to the 1920s -- have tried to interfere in the elections of many government.
However, "interfere" is a judgment and very ambiguous. For example, was it interference if they tried but did not succeed? Depending on your interpretation of the word, this may be a true statement (for you) but that dependence means that it is not a fact.
2. "to lend support to Trump" - according to intelligence assessments cited in the Mueller Report, the Russians expected Clinton to win and where taken aback when Trump won. Since this part of your statement is an assessment of the intent of the Russians to which there is credible contrary evidence, it is not a "fact".
3. "as our national security agencies have emphatically said". Again, not a fact.
3a. The implication of "our national security agencies" is that it was all of them, which is demonstrably false -- many of the agencies had no independent way of knowing, for example, the agency that manages surveillance satellites.
3b. "emphatically said": The "intelligence community" assessment was that a significant part of the Russian effort was not to support Trump, but rather to sow discord and increase strife, including inflaming likely supporters of Clinton. So this is not just not a fact, but outright false.

In court testimony to elicit facts, lawyers are admonished by judges about asking compound yes-no questions because they can be so deceptive: If only one element of a compound statement is false, that makes the whole statement false, but can create the impression that each element of the compound statement is false.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of Barron Park,
on Oct 21, 2019 at 4:13 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE my previous comment. The final sentences of (1) were omitted and "trying" was omitted from the header of (2) (my paste buffer had the pre-final version):

1. ... Similarly, what actions constitute "interference". For example, Putin regards US support for Russian pro-democracy groups as interference in Russian elections (demonstrating that it is a judgment).

2. "trying to lend support to Trump" ...


 +   10 people like this
Posted by Blondie Poems, a resident of Old Palo Alto,
on Oct 21, 2019 at 9:24 pm

Douglas denies the Russian section of the Mueller report (he probably denies the obstruction facts as well.)

And taking a trump fragment out of context? C'mon, he barely speaks in complete sentences anyway.

Please give us an example, Douglas. And a link.


 +   12 people like this
Posted by V Kleinow, a resident of Old Palo Alto,
on Oct 21, 2019 at 9:42 pm

To Douglas - today, Trump called part of the United States Constitution "phony".

Trump - “this phony Emoluments clause."

Two questions:

1. care to add context?

2. Any other parts of our constitution (the one Trump swore to uphold) that are phony?

For the sake of your limited buffer, maybe keep it to 250 words?


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of Barron Park,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 1:53 am

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: Blondie Poems and V Kleinow

Blondie: I didn't *deny* the Mueller Report -- I *cited* it as evidence.
V Kleinow: "repeatedly" does not mean always.

RE: Blondie Poems : "And taking a trump fragment out of context?"
RE: V Kleinow: similarly

The topic of this blog was determining facts and blogger Diamond used Trump quotes as an example. I was responding to that example, not defending Trump. You really should learn to make that distinction.
But since you ask for examples of out-of-context fragments:

Example 1: See critique of "Trump invited/.../pleaded with the Russians to hack Clinton's computers" well down in my blog Web Link . If you still believe the claim is true, explain why Clinton hasn't been prosecuted for multiple counts of perjury on this matter.

Example 2: Claim that Trump said that all Mexicans are rapists. My critique of this is immediately above that of Example 1. But don't bother -- instead explain how a 6 month old Mexican girl could be a rapist.

Example 3: Claim that Trump said that all immigrants were animals. He was clearly talking about the hyper-violent gang MS-13, including their dismembering their victims even while some might still be alive. The media, Pelosi and many others said that he was talking about all immigrants. If you think they were being truthful, explain why our sidewalks and streets aren't strewn with dismembered corpses.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Hiding behind a word salad, a resident of Palo Verde,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:17 am

Mr. Moran: "Claim that Trump said that all Mexicans are rapists."

Notice the bull pucky? Who said Trump said "all"? A little creative with your false claims, no?

For example, Trump didn't say *all* Nazis are fine people. He just said: 'Some Very Fine People on Both Sides'.

Mr. Moran, you were asked a couple of direct questions by a poster above, before you deflected and decided to get creative about Trump and his horrible statements about Mexicans:

1. care to add context about Trump's
“this phony Emoluments clause"?

2. Any other parts of our constitution (the one Trump swore to uphold) that are phony?


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Hiding behind a word salad, a resident of Palo Verde,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 8:24 am

So much creativity - "The media, Pelosi and many others said that he was talking about all immigrants."

I missed the Speaker's quote on that. Please share her comment.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by mauricio, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 10:46 am

mauricio is a registered user.

When Trump supported hear him say that Mexicans are rapists, they actually hear that ALL Mexicans are rapists, although he never used the word ALL. When he said that many of the white supremacists and neo Nazis supporting him were "fine people", they assume, correctly, that he sympathizes with them, although he never actually said that all neo Nazis are fine people. It's called dog whistling, which every dictatorial demagogue in modern history has used.

Back in 1995, when the Israel Right Wing relentlessly attacked Prime Minister Rabin, a former military chief of staff, for expressing willingness to dismantle Jewish settlements in the occupied territories in exchange for a peace treaty with the PLO, they used the word 'Treason" incessantly when lambasting Rabin, although the more established Right Wing politicians like Bibi Netanyau and Ariel Sharon were careful to not describe Rabin directly as a traitor, while using the word 'treason' each time they mention his name. Their supporters labeled Rabin almost immediately a traito,r and some Rabbis on the extreme religious Right even called for his death. Shortly after that, Rabin was assassinated by a religious Right Wing zealot.

It's amusing to read a certain poster get creative about Trump and how he is persistently attempting to deflect blame off him.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 11:01 am

@Mamacity

You say <<Get plenty of coverage - mainstream media, rw media, radio, podcasts, books, YouTube, etc.. I've heard of each one of those Bozo's.>>

Interesting that you say you have heard of them, but not that you have heard or listened to them. It seems to me that you have just spent time paying attention to their critics rather than to them themselves. Listening to the critics of anyone without paying attention to the individuals themselves is half the problem. The other half of the problem is paying attention to sound bites rather than understanding the context of what is being said. Almost any statement can be broken down to a phrase that sounds condemning, but heard or read in its full context can sound very differently.

Tulsi Gabbard, in an interview by Dave Rubin, said that the problem with the televised democratic debates is that giving a candidate such a small amount of time to answer a question means that there is only time for a short comment, often hateful and without content designed for sound bites, rather than a longer amount of time to actually discuss policy, strategy and become better known. For those who listen to debates and make their voting choices based on those soundbites, they know very little and understand even less on how their choice will really fulfill the empty sounding promises made in sound bites.

If you really want to know and understand anybody, politician, commentator, or activist, you need to listen to what they say and if all they are doing is making hateful comments about the opposition and empty soundbites made for the evening news, then you are not really paying attention to the subject and as guilty as anyone who votes for an honest face or a wonderful smile.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by black stream, a resident of Charleston Gardens,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 11:14 am

Trump: "We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in " and we're stopping a lot of them " but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. **These aren't people. These are animals.** And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It's crazy.

I can't find a Pelosi quote where she said what Douglas Moran claims.

The poster has a history of hiding false claims inside his filibusters. In his highly opinionated blog, he just deletes, censors and edits posts that call him on his inaccuracies. Some guys just hate to get called on their falsehoods, denials, etc.., I guess.

Where's the Pelosi quote, Douglas?

-----

**These aren't people. These are animals.** The quotes below are widely available on google, or even the fringe sites that Douglas uses to avoid some sort of google 'conspiracy'.

Pelosi: "When the president of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, 'these are not people, these are animals,' you have to wonder, does he not believe in the spark of divinity? In the dignity and worth of every person? 'These are not people, these are animals,' from the president of the United States."

"Calling people animals is not a good thing," she said

Also: "The president then said Pelosi “came out in favor of MS-13" and was “trying to find all sorts of reasons why they should be able to stay." She didn't do either of those things. Her remarks about treating “undocumented immigrants" with respect did not mention MS-13 members at all."

-----

**These aren't people. These are animals.**

Where's the Pelosi quote, Douglas?


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of Barron Park,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 1:54 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: black stream: "Where's the Pelosi quote, Douglas?"

What irony. You provided the quote and then stripped it out of the vital context of whom Trump was talking about:
"[Trump] SAYS ABOUT UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS, 'these are not people, these are animals,'" (emphasis added)

RE: many above about the claim about the quote on Mexicans being racists:

The "all" got added explicitly in some claims about the Trump quote, but was present in the dominant reporting. The context of the reporting was that "Mexicans are rapists" demonstrates Trump's racism. The definition of "racism" is prejudice against a race-similar group. So if you hold "Mexicans are rapists" is intended to apply to only certain Mexicans, the claim that this represents racism is a lie. If you start from "racism", you are implicitly adding the "all". Either way, it is a falsehood.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by black stream, a resident of Charleston Gardens,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 2:24 pm

Douglas said: "The media, Pelosi and many others said that he was talking about all immigrants."

Douglas said: Pelosi ... said that he was talking about all immigrants.

And you have nothing to support your lie. Just throw a bunch of noise out and since it's your blog, delete the poster who called you out on your baloney.

Whoops. Can't do that in someone else's thread, can you?

----

Where's the Pelosi quote, Douglas?


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of Barron Park,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 2:48 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: black stream

You are engaging in hate speech and need to be censored and cancelled -- according to the ideology, there is no difference between immigrants who are citizen, immigrants here legally (eg green cards) and those here illegally and to make that distinction is not only hate speech but a threat of violence, if not incitement, against all immigrants.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by black stream, a resident of Charleston Gardens,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 2:55 pm

"You are engaging in hate speech and need to be censored and cancelled..."


What on God's green earth are you talking about?

You claimed Pelosi said something and can't back up your lie. Admit it like a gentleman (we all make mistakes) and move on.


----


Douglas said: "The media, Pelosi and many others said that he was talking about all immigrants."
Douglas said: Pelosi ... said that he was talking about all immigrants.

Where's the Pelosi quote, Douglas?


 +   10 people like this
Posted by mauricio, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 3:35 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Speaker Pelosi never said that Trump was calling all immigrants racists. This is a blatant lie that merits that he poster who claimed it is deleted and banned for bold face lies. The same poster who also blogs occasionally has claimed numerous time that there is no support for accusations which Trump and/or his aides have actually fully admitted themselves. Just follow the testimony of the former top USA diplomat in the Ukraine to realize that if Trump is not indicted for treason when he leaves office, it would be only on a flimsy technicality.


 +   11 people like this
Posted by LOL, doug, a resident of Esther Clark Park,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 4:46 pm

Black stream- kudos for taking on Moran. And you are correct- had this been his blog he would have deleted your posting, made a derogatory comment about you and patted himself on the back for a job well done.
Regarding his ridiculous call for you to be “censored and cancelled". I have to,laugh out loud at Doug. That his typical MO on his blog.
And at least we know who is one of the local apologists for our current law breaker in chief


 +   12 people like this
Posted by black stream, a resident of Charleston Gardens,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 4:58 pm

Actually folks, I'm concerned for his well-being. Rather than a 'whoops' or mea culpa, he went straight to "You are engaging in hate speech..."

That's not a good sign. As many of us have found with an aging parent, and that kind of behavior is often an indicator. I'm unaware of his situation. I hope he has someone watching over him.

We all laugh at Trump when he goes off the deep end, but this could be serious. Either way, yes, it leaves little doubt about suitability to moderate a site (other than the fringe ones, of course.)

Be well, folks.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of Barron Park,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 6:18 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

To those who don't understand dealing with trolls:

A person declares themself to be a troll when they ignore the substantive points and focus on the trivial, especially when combined with ad hominem attacks.

"Don't feed the trolls": Don't give trolls opportunities by trying to reason with them, and do NOT, NOT, NOT ever apologize.

PC bullying, and its variant cancel culture, has been established on these forums since at least 2013. Based on years of experience, I anticipated being attacked as a racist,... and decided to punch first and not let the trolls have all the fun.


 +   13 people like this
Posted by mauricio, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 6:41 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

It's common practice for a demagogue, when all his talking points have been rebuked, to deploy a non sequiturs in order to deflect from his defeat.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Beard, a resident of Downtown North,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 7:02 pm

Live how moran tries to justify his calling another poster a racist. We know he loves trump, so Moran is probably a racist. But at least he has a nice pubic hair beard.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by V Kleinow, a resident of Old Palo Alto,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 9:03 pm

He wouldn't reply to my 2 questions. Okay. Then he wouldn't admit to his fibbing about the United States Speaker of the House.

The other guy is a troll? I was liking his blog, but gee-willikers.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by V Kleinow, a resident of Old Palo Alto,
on Oct 22, 2019 at 9:11 pm

Holy Toledo - instead of; oops I misspoke, he tells the poster...

and do NOT, NOT, NOT ever apologize.

Interesting philosophy. Sounds like someone I see on teevee a lot.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

From Tokyo to Cupertino: Afuri Ramen's first California location debuts tonight
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 3,082 views

Disposing of Disposables
By Sherry Listgarten | 13 comments | 1,327 views

Couples Counseling, Al Pacino Style
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,184 views