“I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don’t trust coincindences.”
I have a few questions for you:
What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was on any kind of drugs when he allegedly dropped off the laptop?
What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was, at the time of this alleged event, addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug? Hell, what proof do you have that Hunter Biden is currently addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug?
What proof do you have, beyond the say-so of the computer repairman and Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden?
Why would Hunter Biden have taken his laptop to a computer repair shop so far from his home? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
Why would he have left incriminating evidence on the laptop from the time of the dropoff to any time before the story broke? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
Why did he never pick up his laptop later? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
Why would the computer repairman—who had expressed support for Trump and right-wing ideology on social media—first go to Rudy Giuliani, a known Trump agent, instead of the press or even law enforcement?
Why were the emails alleged to have been found on the laptop presented in a way that didn’t show off the metadata that could help prove the emails were legit?
Why has no one else ever seen the original emails and confirmed their veracity (or lack thereof) using that metadata?
What could possibly explain the timing of the release of the “Biden laptop” story (less than a month before the election) beyond someone in the Trump campaign saying “we need another October Surprise”?
Why did the reporters for the New York Post refuse to sign their names to a story with potentially huge political implications?
For me to believe the “Biden laptop” story is anything but bullshit, I need to see some extraordinary evidence. You haven’t provided any. So answer the questions and show me that extraordinary evidence. I want you to make me believe the story without insulting my intelligence or asking me to lower my own. If you can’t do that, don’t bother trying. Your gullibility isn’t my problem to fix.
Yes, they all deserve jail time. Yes, they deserve a felony conviction on their records. But would they have been potential terrorists if not for the “assistance” of the FBI? The answer to that question should inform the severity of their punishment.
I’m unsurprised that the FBI did more instigating than the targets of their “investigation”. I’m also amazed that the FBI keeps thinking its bullshit is anything other than the instigation of terrorism where there would’ve been none if not for the intervention of the FBI.
The people who willingly went along with the “plot” deserve some form of punishment. They’re not exactly angels here. But if their claims hold true (and I don’t see why they wouldn’t), they deserve less than they’d get if they weren’t pushed into becoming terrorists by the people who’re supposed to catch terrorists instead of creating them.
Would you prefer we argue by using the Klan as an example instead? That seems far more relevant, given how the Klan favors the kind of people who whine about “cancel culture” and “wokeness” while trying to uphold white supremacy and force women into giving birth.
A sexualized image can be both prurient and political. To be “purely prurient”, it can’t be political. That’s the difference between, say, Pam Anderson posing naked for Playboy and Pam Anderson posing naked for PETA.
Can I "flag" some Armenian idiot for saying that Coke was full of cocaine back in the day? "Yes, you can". Fu[c]k off. They do not care.
…because Facebook is as free to ignore the government’s flagging as it is to ignore yours. Nothing allows the government to order Facebook to take down legally protected content—and as much as this hurts me to say, anti-vax bullshit is still legally protected speech.
"Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked.
“Close enough” only works in horseshoes, hand grenades, and moneyshots in porn. When the law is involved, all boxes must be checked—doubly so when the law involves speech. So yes, speech that is “purely prurient” but “does have a political or artistic value” wouldn’t qualify as obscene. It might offend people, but that alone isn’t enough to allow government censorship.
They're going to have to spend money for the appeal, before I give their argument any merit beyond post election sour grapes.
Just so we’re clear: You don’t believe their argument has any merit because you don’t agree with their speech, despite all the actual caselaw and precedent going their way outside of this one wayward ruling, and you’re not willing to even consider their argument unless they pay for an appeal?
Dude, I voted for Biden, and even I think they should’ve won this case. What the fuck does that say about you.
They can flag posts all they want. Facebook isn’t obligated to do anything, and the government can’t legally make Facebook do anything, about those posts.
She meant “we’re flagging posts for Facebook to look at that we believe contain disinformation about the pandemic”. You have no proof that the federal government is ordering Facebook to delete such posts. You have no proof that the federal government is threatening Facebook into deleting such posts. Until you have such proof, your whiny-ass rambling is meaningless.
The ones who believe that [Hillary Clinton] was ever popular.
Nobody believed Clinton was popular. But she was the better choice for president in comparison to Old 45. That she lost the Electoral College is less an indictment of Hillary and more an indictment of a system designed to favor landmass over people in terms of whose votes matter more.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
“I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don’t trust coincindences.”
I have a few questions for you:
What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was on any kind of drugs when he allegedly dropped off the laptop?
What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was, at the time of this alleged event, addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug? Hell, what proof do you have that Hunter Biden is currently addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug?
What proof do you have, beyond the say-so of the computer repairman and Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden?
Why would Hunter Biden have taken his laptop to a computer repair shop so far from his home? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
Why would he have left incriminating evidence on the laptop from the time of the dropoff to any time before the story broke? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
Why did he never pick up his laptop later? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
Why would the computer repairman—who had expressed support for Trump and right-wing ideology on social media—first go to Rudy Giuliani, a known Trump agent, instead of the press or even law enforcement?
Why were the emails alleged to have been found on the laptop presented in a way that didn’t show off the metadata that could help prove the emails were legit?
Why has no one else ever seen the original emails and confirmed their veracity (or lack thereof) using that metadata?
What could possibly explain the timing of the release of the “Biden laptop” story (less than a month before the election) beyond someone in the Trump campaign saying “we need another October Surprise”?
For me to believe the “Biden laptop” story is anything but bullshit, I need to see some extraordinary evidence. You haven’t provided any. So answer the questions and show me that extraordinary evidence. I want you to make me believe the story without insulting my intelligence or asking me to lower my own. If you can’t do that, don’t bother trying. Your gullibility isn’t my problem to fix.
On the post: Senators Klobuchar And Lujan Release Ridiculous, Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill To Make Facebook Liable For Health Misinformation
No, it isn’t. That case never set any national precedent.
On the post: Court Docs Appear To Show FBI Informants Contributed Two-Thirds Of The Conspirators To The Michigan Governor Kidnapping Plot
Yes, they all deserve jail time. Yes, they deserve a felony conviction on their records. But would they have been potential terrorists if not for the “assistance” of the FBI? The answer to that question should inform the severity of their punishment.
On the post: Techdirt Has Been Released From A Gag Order Regarding A Federal Investigation Into A Silly Comment
oh shit, I was that first comment
sorry for any trouble I may have inadvertently caused 😅
On the post: Court Docs Appear To Show FBI Informants Contributed Two-Thirds Of The Conspirators To The Michigan Governor Kidnapping Plot
I’m unsurprised that the FBI did more instigating than the targets of their “investigation”. I’m also amazed that the FBI keeps thinking its bullshit is anything other than the instigation of terrorism where there would’ve been none if not for the intervention of the FBI.
The people who willingly went along with the “plot” deserve some form of punishment. They’re not exactly angels here. But if their claims hold true (and I don’t see why they wouldn’t), they deserve less than they’d get if they weren’t pushed into becoming terrorists by the people who’re supposed to catch terrorists instead of creating them.
On the post: Florida's New Law Against Blocking Roads During Protests Already Being Ignored By Cops Policing Protests The Governor Supports
A Republican was a hypocrite and this is news…how, exactly?
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Would you prefer we argue by using the Klan as an example instead? That seems far more relevant, given how the Klan favors the kind of people who whine about “cancel culture” and “wokeness” while trying to uphold white supremacy and force women into giving birth.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
A sexualized image can be both prurient and political. To be “purely prurient”, it can’t be political. That’s the difference between, say, Pam Anderson posing naked for Playboy and Pam Anderson posing naked for PETA.
On the post: Court Calls Bullshit On Cop Who Claimed He Could Smell Weed In Sealed Bags In A Moving Car From His Own Moving Cruiser
I smell something here, but it ain’t marijuana.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
No, it isn’t…
…because Facebook is as free to ignore the government’s flagging as it is to ignore yours. Nothing allows the government to order Facebook to take down legally protected content—and as much as this hurts me to say, anti-vax bullshit is still legally protected speech.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
“Close enough” only works in horseshoes, hand grenades, and moneyshots in porn. When the law is involved, all boxes must be checked—doubly so when the law involves speech. So yes, speech that is “purely prurient” but “does have a political or artistic value” wouldn’t qualify as obscene. It might offend people, but that alone isn’t enough to allow government censorship.
On the post: Court To Cop: You Need More Than 'Odor Of Marijuana' And Inconsistent Testimony To Justify A Warrantless Search
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a cop ends up on a Brady list.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Just so we’re clear: You don’t believe their argument has any merit because you don’t agree with their speech, despite all the actual caselaw and precedent going their way outside of this one wayward ruling, and you’re not willing to even consider their argument unless they pay for an appeal?
Dude, I voted for Biden, and even I think they should’ve won this case. What the fuck does that say about you.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
They can flag posts all they want. Facebook isn’t obligated to do anything, and the government can’t legally make Facebook do anything, about those posts.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Two things.
That “right?” gimmick will not work on me.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
She meant “we’re flagging posts for Facebook to look at that we believe contain disinformation about the pandemic”. You have no proof that the federal government is ordering Facebook to delete such posts. You have no proof that the federal government is threatening Facebook into deleting such posts. Until you have such proof, your whiny-ass rambling is meaningless.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Nobody believed Clinton was popular. But she was the better choice for president in comparison to Old 45. That she lost the Electoral College is less an indictment of Hillary and more an indictment of a system designed to favor landmass over people in terms of whose votes matter more.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
Flagged for malicious link.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
what the absolute fuck are you talking about
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
You forgot “moist”.
Next >>