Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

Literally anyone with TDS accepts the russia boogeyman without a single credible thought

[Tw]1317325756217892864[/tw]



I watched the mother****er on national TV ask Russia to help his campaign. Are your ears broken?



There is actually one concrete way to prove they are real and that would be to release the original that has metadata on it. Why release pdf screenshots that dont have this information?



There is also Trumps own FBI warning of a Russia disinformation campaign. Trumps treasury department places sanctions on one of the main people Googliani is working with citing he is trying to influence the election with disinformation and has been a Russian agent most of his life as the son of a KGB agent. This is trumps people saying this.
 
Imagine looking at that “story” and going


Yep. This checks out imo. I’m gonna die on this hill


And not only that


When most anyone that isn’t bat**** insane laughs at it


They decide to add “maybe there was kiddie porn on the comp in a desperate act to try to make people care
 
At any point and time they can release the original that has metadata showing when these emails were made. This speaks volumes about the credibility of these emails. But like I said, they could have an email from Hunter directly asking Joe to fire the prosecutor and it wouldnt matter beyond bad PR sonlong as you have a legitimate motive for the action it doesnt matter if you had a corrupt motive. That's words directly from the Presidents impeachment defense. If he wants to argue against that I am all ears.
 
The New York Post’s front-page article about Hunter Biden on Wednesday was written mostly by a staff reporter who refused to put his name on it, two Post employees said.

Bruce Golding, a reporter at the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid since 2007, did not allow his byline to be used because he had concerns over the article’s credibility, the two Post employees said, speaking on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.

Many Post staff members questioned whether the paper had done enough to verify the authenticity of the hard drive’s contents, said five people with knowledge of the tabloid’s inner workings. Staff members also had concerns about the reliability of its sources and its timing, the people said.

The article named two sources: Stephen K. Bannon, the former adviser to President Trump now facing federal fraud charges, who was said to have made the paper aware of the hard drive last month; and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who was said to have given the paper “a copy” of the hard drive on Oct. 11.

Mr. Giuliani said he chose The Post because “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”

Top editors met on Oct. 11 to discuss how to use the material provided by Mr. Giuliani. The group included the tabloid veteran Colin Allan, known as Col; Stephen Lynch, The Post’s editor in chief; and Michelle Gotthelf, the digital editor in chief, according to a person with knowledge of the meeting. Mr. Allan, who was The Post’s editor in chief from 2001 to 2016 and returned last year as an adviser, urged his colleagues to move quickly, the person said.

As deadline approached, editors pressed staff members to add their bylines to the story — and at least one aside from Mr. Golding refused, two Post journalists said.

The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal have reported that they could not independently verify the data in the Post article, which included hedging language, referring at one point to an email “allegedly sent” to Hunter Biden.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html
 
Last edited:
The New York Post’s own journalists say they are skeptical of the paper’s stories about Hunter Biden, including the man who wrote most of the “smoking gun” story and would not put his name on it, four newsroom sources told Intelligencer.

Another journalist at the paper was even more blunt.

“It’s not something that meets my journalistic standards,” they said, adding that the piece “should not have been published.”

“It just makes you cringe and roll your eyes, and it’s hard to stomach, but at the same time we kind of know that you’re signing up for stuff like that,” one Post reporter said. “It’s upsetting. It’s disappointing. It sucks to, like, work for, like, a propaganda outlet.”

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-insiders-slag-flimsy-hunter-biden-stories.html
 
Last edited:
The New York Post’s own journalists say they are skeptical of the paper’s stories about Hunter Biden, including the man who wrote most of the “smoking gun” story and would not put his name on it, four newsroom sources told Intelligencer.

Another journalist at the paper was even more blunt.

“It’s not something that meets my journalistic standards,” they said, adding that the piece “should not have been published.”

“It just makes you cringe and roll your eyes, and it’s hard to stomach, but at the same time we kind of know that you’re signing up for stuff like that,” one Post reporter said. “It’s upsetting. It’s disappointing. It sucks to, like, work for, like, a propaganda outlet.”

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-insiders-slag-flimsy-hunter-biden-stories.html

That's great. They can't verify so thus they decided to censor it.

They also censored the stolen tax returns right?

hahah, right
 
That's great. They can't verify so thus they decided to censor it.

They also censored the stolen tax returns right?

hahah, right

Afaik there is no controversy about the accuracy of the Times story.

The Post could address much of the controversy surrounding its story by releasing the metadata for the relevant email (s).

It is not a hard thing to do. The reluctance to do this, combined with its reputation for being a rag, combined with the reservations expressed by some of its own editors and reporters suggests that this is more likely than not disinformation and propaganda. The sources for their information are Giuliani and Bannon.
 
Last edited:
Afaik there is no controversy about the accuracy of the Times story.

The Post could address much of the controversy surrounding its story by releasing the metadata for the relevant email (s).

It is not a hard thing to do. The reluctance to do this, combined with its reputation for being a rag, combined with the reservations expressed by some of its own editors and reporters suggests that this is more likely than not disinformation and propaganda. The sources for their information are Giuliani and Bannon.

ahh right.

glad they verify everything before allowing things to share.

i remember them suspending people who shared the steele dossier
 
Btw I don't have a view as to what twitter should do when people post lies and disinformation. That's their business as a profit-making enterprise.

I've suggested for ****s and giggles what I call the Scarlet A approach.

If they think something is a lie then make the font for that tweet red. A sort of public shaming.
 
ahh right.

glad they verify everything before allowing things to share.

i remember them suspending people who shared the steele dossier

Giuliani did volunteer he shared the story with them because he didn't want to deal with an organization that would try to vet the veracity of the information. Yet another reason to be skeptical. But hey if it makes you feel better, feel free to suspend your skepticism. I am expressing my skepticism, NOT telling you what to do with yours.
 
Last edited:
hey man... don't let me stop you from continuing to find yourself on the defense of censorship

i would appreciate it if you could show me where i am defending censorship

my only recommendation to twitter is a red font for lies

and that's a joke for my own amusement

you on the other hand seem ok with militia strutting around with guns trying to intimidate other people from exercising their freedom of expression
 
Last edited:
sure thing, fella

i accept your surrender and grant lenient terms

o-WHITE-FLAG-SURRENDER-facebook.jpg
 
It seems a little silly to say something is censored when there are 100 million different ways to get the information. Now if the NY Post was forcibly shut down and anyone who shared the information on any platform was suspended/banned and there was complete media blackout on the topic. Thats censorship. Not being able to post in on Twatter is a minor annoyance.
 
It seems a little silly to say something is censored when there are 100 million different ways to get the information. Now if the NY Post was forcibly shut down and anyone who shared the information on any platform was suspended/banned and there was complete media blackout on the topic. Thats censorship. Not being able to post in on Twatter is a minor annoyance.

I suspect the Post and anyone else interested in the widespread dissemination of this "story" are secretly pleased with twitter's "censorship."
 
the guy who tries to say others have lost their minds and says others don't care about facts and so on and so on


thinks this story checks out

122033835_876027876266607_5353074882750774350_o.jpg
 
Back
Top