Slander on Social Media is not a new thing

2017-12-16 09:15:44 by AdventVoice

 Tales of a Head Hunter (continued)

In light of all the sexual harassment allegations flying around, Conservative radio is suggesting that those using Social Media should only speak to those that they know personally and trust. Leaders in the conservative circles believe that business's and personal lives will fair better if people remain secure in there fields of influence and do not try to venture out in any other pools of communities lest one is to risk accusations because a lot of people are allegedly receiving payment in some form; for these stories.

 Can someone explain to me how this advice is good for advertising a love for the free market?

The internet was not developed so that people could pool themselves into clichés like we are all perpetually stuck in high school and only if you are promoting what is largely considered acceptable can you expect to be paid for your supply. Nor was the idea ever invented, until the conservatives desired to protect themselves from the potential of slander and feel the world is now threatened by the same political bias as those with the clout to pay for the silencing of slanders and has always paid slanders to keep quite on unprovable issues. (That was really not news conservative radio) What is news is the idea that you believe the internet and Social Media could at anytime help to influence people into making these decisions to slander and that there should be no more free market soliciting outside of our spheres of influence from fear of slander.

Conservative radio has been boycotting Social Media every chance they get, while using Social Media mind you. It is this hypocrisy I can not stand. I don't believe anyone can stand it. The allegations poised against anyone male or female have all proven to be questionable on both sides. In times past when something could not be proven and no formal charges could be given, the concession was the pay-out; now the pay-out was never to be interpreted as guilt and if the public viewed it that way, who cared what the public thought. If the shoe was on the other foot, and they were offered to pay money or go to prison, that very same poor public would sell there whole family down the river just to avoid the sting of slander.

I am in the line of thinking that everyone is so broke that insurance companies are no longer willing to pay out on all the scams the rich have been trying to get away with. I would hate to believe that the fires that ate up nearly all of California will be proven later to be an attempt to off set the price of housing out there and make room for many poor people that are going to being missing out the rich opportunities afforded the public through the avenues of the internet. I would only think that because it has been reported to have been started due to drought and that no one started this massive blaze. Hard for me to believe both sides. Conservatives lie about slander and Social media and major net works lie about the motivations behind all of this slanderous talk. Clearly it is money, it is always about the bottom dollar, and when there is no money to be found from even one of the richest men on earth what do you do?

Burn down the farm and your home like the many acres in California and  ask the insurance to take care of it. When they can't or won't because the job is too big, We can always count on the Government to bail us out like they did the banks in the past eight years. Of course the Republicans don't think this way and so no one would ever do that. They don't desire to be accused of slander, so without proof they just don't mention it and find ways to pay-out. 

I just don't understand how talk radio or any media source can get away with suggesting that everyone should hunker down in there homes and not speak to anyone via social media; There should be zero solicitation via the internet because people are not grown enough to understand how to conduct themselves and slander is too big in court right now.

They would deny why Bill Clinton was really impeached. Everyone knows he was impeached for sexual allegations, the first and only president to be impeached for lying to the federal government about what he did with that woman! Conservative radio would lie and suggest that he was impeached for lying under oath. They would really splice apples about this issue because they don't want it ever said a man can be sent to prison and serve Fed charges for the things that go in the privacy of our homes.

Did you hear that Anthony Wiener it will later be proven that you did not go to a Federal Prison and cried like a baby for the words spoken on your phone and the whore you never touched. It was simply because you lied about having the thought; As a man and a man with clout you should always have had the thought. The real joke is if he had pulled a Clinton and told the world, "I never touched that woman." it was proven that this like of speech was true. He really touched a man guised as a woman and we have a bunch of trannies running the Democratic party and that is why the Republicans and conservative members are running scared; If it came out, through slander that all these grown men in politics can't tell the difference between a tyranny and "Real Woman!" I am talking about a natural attraction and have been committing the biggest story yet to be uncovered. That story is almost as big as the one yet to be uncovered about Wendy Williams; How she pulled the shades over a lot of yawl for years.

Then if all of that could be proven, then yes, all of the grown men of the conservative party are about to loose it all to the woman's march committee's.

Why is this such a big deal. It is always about that bottom dollar.


Comments

You must be logged in to comment on this post.