(06-13-2017 11:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:44 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 07:07 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I actually agree with the bill. It's a form of communication and it should be public record.
The name of the bill is childish, however.

I'm sorry I have to be rude but that's absolutely idiotic.
A person doesn't lose their right to an opinion or the means of expression just because they assume a public office.

Public record = lose of right to opinion and expression.
See your first sentence.

I was having a hard time following that line of logic too. Since when does making your public statements/tweets a matter of public record, equal taking away your right to express your opinion?

Bless both your poor little hearts...
You don't get that by making something that is private public record is essentially seizing it?
The Twitter account is private, existed prior to the election, and discusses nothing other than opinion. The government has no legitimate claim to it other than to chill the speech.

I don't see how you can reasonably make any conclusion as to Rep. Quigley's intentions or motives without in turn referring to his twitter account.

In other news, I propose a new Constitutional Amendment to require that all new legislation in Congress be posted via twitter before it comes to a vote.

(06-13-2017 01:21 PM)I45owl Wrote:  In other news, I propose a new Constitutional Amendment to require that all new legislation in Congress be posted via twitter before it comes to a vote.

This, I would like. It would keep all Congress honest and if they're representing the people's wants and not their own. I tell you, a lot of Reps would be sweating their votes and it should be by announced by district or senate seat. I wouldn't want to know about some politicians from somewhere I can't vote for.

Sorta true in the sense that you are allowed to "delete" something because you technically "own" it but if you keep reading...

"By submitting, posting or displaying content on or through the services you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display, and distribute such content in any and all media or distribution mthods. This license authorizes us to make your content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the services and to make content submitted to or through the services available to other companies, organizations, or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such content on other media or services, subject to our terms and conditions for such content use."

Basically it says we can do whatever we want with it including submitting it for public records becuse as soon as you press post it's ours.

Edit: Damn ment to quote UTSA's response but were the only nerds arguing legal disclaimers so I figure he got who I was talking to lol

(06-13-2017 01:21 PM)I45owl Wrote:  In other news, I propose a new Constitutional Amendment to require that all new legislation in Congress be posted via twitter before it comes to a vote.

can we return to when twitter was limited to 144 characters? Would make legislation far more easy for average people to follow.

(06-13-2017 01:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 01:21 PM)I45owl Wrote:  In other news, I propose a new Constitutional Amendment to require that all new legislation in Congress be posted via twitter before it comes to a vote.

can we return to when twitter was limited to 144 characters? Would make legislation far more easy for average people to follow.

I'll go further. I'm in favor of legislation mandating that twitter stick to four letters. That seems to be all it's good for anyways...

(06-13-2017 11:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:44 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 07:07 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I actually agree with the bill. It's a form of communication and it should be public record.

The name of the bill is childish, however.

I'm sorry I have to be rude but that's absolutely idiotic.

A person doesn't lose their right to an opinion or the means of expression just because they assume a public office.

Public record = lose of right to opinion and expression.

See your first sentence.

I was having a hard time following that line of logic too. Since when does making your public statements/tweets a matter of public record, equal taking away your right to express your opinion?

Bless both your poor little hearts...

You don't get that by making something that is private public record is essentially seizing it?

The Twitter account is private, existed prior to the election, and discusses nothing other than opinion. The government has no legitimate claim to it other than to chill the speech.

Oh you're so kind. Bless your heart too! Go get an RC cola and a moon-pie.

(06-13-2017 11:55 AM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:44 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm sorry I have to be rude but that's absolutely idiotic.

A person doesn't lose their right to an opinion or the means of expression just because they assume a public office.

Public record = lose of right to opinion and expression.

See your first sentence.

I was having a hard time following that line of logic too. Since when does making your public statements/tweets a matter of public record, equal taking away your right to express your opinion?

Bless both your poor little hearts...

You don't get that by making something that is private public record is essentially seizing it?

The Twitter account is private, existed prior to the election, and discusses nothing other than opinion. The government has no legitimate claim to it other than to chill the speech.

Hmmmm. That's a good point.

No it's not.

(06-13-2017 12:40 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:44 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm sorry I have to be rude but that's absolutely idiotic.

A person doesn't lose their right to an opinion or the means of expression just because they assume a public office.

Public record = lose of right to opinion and expression.

See your first sentence.

I was having a hard time following that line of logic too. Since when does making your public statements/tweets a matter of public record, equal taking away your right to express your opinion?

Bless both your poor little hearts...

You don't get that by making something that is private public record is essentially seizing it?

The Twitter account is private, existed prior to the election, and discusses nothing other than opinion. The government has no legitimate claim to it other than to chill the speech.

I'm not sure how much experience on Twitter but unless you set your account to private everything you post is up for the public to see. Trump has not done this. Plus Potus doesn't own his tweets, Twitter does, when he agreed to the terms of service he agreed to relinquish all ownership and rights to decide what happens with those tweets.

Utterly and completely irrelevant.

(06-13-2017 01:20 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:44 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm sorry I have to be rude but that's absolutely idiotic.
A person doesn't lose their right to an opinion or the means of expression just because they assume a public office.

Public record = lose of right to opinion and expression.
See your first sentence.

I was having a hard time following that line of logic too. Since when does making your public statements/tweets a matter of public record, equal taking away your right to express your opinion?

Bless both your poor little hearts...
You don't get that by making something that is private public record is essentially seizing it?
The Twitter account is private, existed prior to the election, and discusses nothing other than opinion. The government has no legitimate claim to it other than to chill the speech.

I don't see how you can reasonably make any conclusion as to Rep. Quigley's intentions or motives without in turn referring to his twitter account.

Wut?

(06-13-2017 02:59 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:55 AM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:44 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 08:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Public record = lose of right to opinion and expression.

See your first sentence.

I was having a hard time following that line of logic too. Since when does making your public statements/tweets a matter of public record, equal taking away your right to express your opinion?

Bless both your poor little hearts...

You don't get that by making something that is private public record is essentially seizing it?

The Twitter account is private, existed prior to the election, and discusses nothing other than opinion. The government has no legitimate claim to it other than to chill the speech.

Hmmmm. That's a good point.

No it's not.

That's the only point...

(06-13-2017 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 02:59 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:55 AM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:44 AM)JerryJeff Wrote:  I was having a hard time following that line of logic too. Since when does making your public statements/tweets a matter of public record, equal taking away your right to express your opinion?

Bless both your poor little hearts...

You don't get that by making something that is private public record is essentially seizing it?

The Twitter account is private, existed prior to the election, and discusses nothing other than opinion. The government has no legitimate claim to it other than to chill the speech.

Hmmmm. That's a good point.

No it's not.

That's the only point...

So Comey's private memos are private. Not government and public property. OK.

There's a saying with these sites: You're not the consumer, you're the product.

Trump's tweets aren't private opinions and once you click "Tweet" he no longer owns them. It's really already public record if Twitter wants it to be.

(06-13-2017 04:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 02:59 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:55 AM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Bless both your poor little hearts...

You don't get that by making something that is private public record is essentially seizing it?

The Twitter account is private, existed prior to the election, and discusses nothing other than opinion. The government has no legitimate claim to it other than to chill the speech.

Hmmmm. That's a good point.

No it's not.

That's the only point...

So Comey's private memos are private. Not government and public property. OK.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē
noun
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

(06-13-2017 05:00 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  There's a saying with these sites: You're not the consumer, you're the product.

Trump's tweets aren't private opinions and once you click "Tweet" he no longer owns them. It's really already public record if Twitter wants it to be.

The matter of who own the 'intellectual property' of his Tweets isn't actually important.

The point is that they are taking place outside the legitimate bounds of government interference.

If he wrote a poem and showed it to two people and then threw it away...the US government would have no claim to its ownership, its contents, its management, or its retention.

Same here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

If he is a great person and great president why wouldn't you want his social media to be cataloged in the library of congress for future presidents to learn from? Obviously it's not a privacy issue his direct messages would, as far as I know, not be included.

(06-13-2017 07:47 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  If he is a great person and great president why wouldn't you want his social media to be cataloged in the library of congress for future presidents to learn from? Obviously it's not a privacy issue his direct messages would, as far as I know, not be included.

Hundreds of liberals are refreshing Twitter every two seconds 24/7 to copy off whatever he Tweets. I suspect it will all be saved without any taxpayer assistance.

(06-13-2017 08:05 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 07:47 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  If he is a great person and great president why wouldn't you want his social media to be cataloged in the library of congress for future presidents to learn from? Obviously it's not a privacy issue his direct messages would, as far as I know, not be included.

Hundreds of liberals are refreshing Twitter every two seconds 24/7 to copy off whatever he Tweets. I suspect it will all be saved without any taxpayer assistance.

And conservatives are going to take their word on the accuracy of said saved tweets? This is also not about saving taxpayers money... you could fit all of his tweets on a $10 flashdrive and a $15 paper backup including lamination and binding.

(06-13-2017 08:14 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 08:05 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 07:47 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  If he is a great person and great president why wouldn't you want his social media to be cataloged in the library of congress for future presidents to learn from? Obviously it's not a privacy issue his direct messages would, as far as I know, not be included.

Hundreds of liberals are refreshing Twitter every two seconds 24/7 to copy off whatever he Tweets. I suspect it will all be saved without any taxpayer assistance.

And conservatives are going to take their word on the accuracy of said saved tweets? This is also not about saving taxpayers money... you could fit all of his tweets on a $10 flashdrive and a $15 paper backup including lamination and binding.

I suspect that the National Archives spends a bit more to archive things than just having the janitor go out and buy a $10 flash drive. Just a guess though.