cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Convicted murders arent allowed to have bazookas while in prison. I am going to guess you support that limit on the second amendment?
First President to Advocate Suspending the Constitution
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
Convicted murders arent allowed to have bazookas while in prison. I am going to guess you support that limit on the second amendment?
You guys think this is going to get better for the Biden regime and the globalists?
Massive crimes that deserve impeachment (and even worse were committed). Note the crimes pertaining to censorship of the laptop were pushed by not only the Biden campaign and DNC but the current intelligence apparatuses. This is massive but your TDS (even for the centrist) is preventing you from seeing it.
Massive crimes that deserve impeachment (and even worse were committed). Note the crimes pertaining to censorship of the laptop were pushed by not only the Biden campaign and DNC but the current intelligence apparatuses. This is massive but your TDS (even for the centrist) is preventing you from seeing it.
The “intelligence” agencies took it upon themselves to prevent the American people from finding out that the Biden’s are compromised from our worst enemies.
Remember, the fbi had the laptop in late 2019. They know exactly what’s on it and how valid the claims are. It’s because of the validity they scrambled to censor it. Taking a wait and see approach or a NBD approach here is going to look disastrous moving forward
Chop, get on the right side of history bud. You’re better than this.
Remember, the fbi had the laptop in late 2019. They know exactly what’s on it and how valid the claims are. It’s because of the validity they scrambled to censor it. Taking a wait and see approach or a NBD approach here is going to look disastrous moving forward
Chop, get on the right side of history bud. You’re better than this.
Again, you keep saying it’s a crime, but there’s nothing indicating a crime was committed. Twitter is allowed to moderate content, even if it’s at the *request* of the government or it’s unfair. This doesn’t make it right, but there’s a big difference between something being wrong and something being criminal.
For those saying Twitter was basically forced to do it, do you not think this revelation would have led with that if it were the case? The correspondence reads like Twitter trying to keep a client happy, not saving themselves from certain doom.
Do you personally believe that Musk and Taibbi would have withheld evidence of Biden, the DNC, the FBI, etc. forcing Twitter to remove content illegally if they had it?
As it stands with the Hunter Biden stuff, I don’t see how Biden or the DNC could have been accused of breaking any laws anyway since Biden wasn’t even in charge.
I think they are extremely purposeful with all their actions. Musk is also carefully presenting this to garner maximum attention. Letting it all out at once kills that. Twitter is seeing massive growth right now.
We know for a fact the 'intelligence' agencies were meeting with twitter regularly before the laptop got censured. You think they were just having tea and crackers?
I know you'll deny it to the end because when its fully confirmed as true so many of your positions in the past seem silly. Its all good mqt...you just don't realize what point in history we are currently in.
I don’t think I’ve gone out on too much of a limb with this stuff, man. There just hasn’t been any reporting right now of a crime that’s been committed, despite the claims to the contrary.
Admittedly I’m not Constitutional Law scholar, but I think you’re incorrect unless they are threatening some action if the private actors don’t do it.
sturg33
I
He is pathetically naive
Continues to go to bat for something he never would have dreamed he would supported just a few short years ago
People are pathetically naive at best. Partisan dogs at worst.
Barring new information, yeah.
As for the rest:
I’m not sure what the line is for something to be a threat, using a tool that Twitter apparently provided to and used by people on both sides of the aisle to make requests would likely fall short of the the definition.
If the government lying to the press is to be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment now, we’d might as well not have one in the first place, because that’s just been a daily occurrence for centuries.
I promise I’m not trying to defend this in any sense other than not thinking this is legally actionable. I’m indeed willing to take the bold stance that the Government shouldn’t be involved with suggesting things to Twitter, even if Twitter is inviting the feedback. There’s just a difference between shouldn’t and can’t, and I don’t yet see where that line was crossed.
Without further context, I find that question to be incoherent. I can certainly envision a way that interaction could have gone where you’d be right, but we don’t presently have any information to show that’s the case.