ADVERTISEMENT

Chalk one up for Free Speech

fatman76 said:
Because it's one of the most idiotic points you've ever made on this board. Citing a flailing political opponent who's 30+ points behind only makes it more idiotic.

You realize you're saying Trump worked to hide Hunter's laptop from the world, when he didn't even know the laptop existed?

Trump had several things he ran on. One of them is pertinent here.

Finish this sentence so I know your IQ is higher than a soap dish:

"Drain the ________"
Click to expand...
I'm not saying Trump hid anything. I'm saying he was president when it happened. The Judge mentioned 2019 and 2020.

You attempted to link those years to Biden but he wasn't president, Trump was.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: nail1988
fatman76 said:
Because it's one of the most idiotic points you've ever made on this board. Citing a flailing political opponent who's 30+ points behind only makes it more idiotic.

You realize you're saying Trump worked to hide Hunter's laptop from the world, when he didn't even know the laptop existed?

Trump had several things he ran on. One of them is pertinent here.

Finish this sentence so I know your IQ is higher than a soap dish:

"Drain the ________"
Click to expand...
I'll try to help you out kalim. None of these words below are the correct answers to fill in the blank:

Bathtub
Sink
Oil
Blood
Oceans

You should be getting warmer.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: gatordad3 and nail1988
kalimgoodman said:
I'm not saying Trump hid anything. I'm saying he was president when it happened. The Judge mentioned 2019 and 2020.
Click to expand...

"A federal judge has made a historic ruling by partially granting an injunction that blocks various Biden administration officials and government agencies such as the Justice Department and the FBI from working with big tech firms to censor posts on social media."

The Judge mentioned Biden. Not Trump.

You voted for the fascist criminal. @fatman76 did not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nail1988, NavigatorII, Capt Ron 1 and 1 other person
NavigatorII said:
WTF was the DOJ thinking? I was listening to the radio in the truck today. Apparently the DOJ has ARRESTED The Big Guy's whistleblower? WTF? (for allegedly doing what Crackhead has been doing for years, being an unregistered foreign agent). MFers!!! :rolleyes: :mad:
Click to expand...
I think they just indicted him, but if he's in the US he's screwed.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: nail1988 and NavigatorII
fatman76 said:
Here's a complete list if you care - show me where Trump's administration's censorship reached this level (see my jaywalking analogy above):

The judge specifically found:
  • “[V]irtually all of the free speech suppressed was conservative free speech.”
  • At least 22 times, the White House engaged in “unrelenting pressure” against tech companies. “White House Defendants engaged in coercion to induce social-media companies to suppress free speech.” “The White House Defendants made it very clear to social-media companies what they wanted suppressed and what they wanted amplified. Faced with unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world, the social-media companies apparently complied.”
  • “[T]he Hunter Biden laptop story was real, and not mere Russian disinformation,” and the “FBI’s failure to alert social-media companies” to this fact “is particularly troubling” after the FBI had falsely suggested to social-media companies that the Hunter Biden laptop story was fake. “After the Hunter Biden laptop story broke on October 14, 2020, [FBI agent Laura] Dehmlow refused to comment on the status of the Hunter Biden laptop in response to a direct inquiry from Facebook, although the FBI had the laptop in its possession since December 2019.”
  • Facebook suppressed information at the demand of the White House, the FBI, and other federal agents even though the information “did not violate Facebook’s policies” and thus ordinarily would not have been suppressed. “Facebook noted that in response to White House demands, it was censoring, removing, and reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines ‘that does not contain actionable misinformation.’”
  • Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki issued a “threat of ‘legal consequences’” to social media companies “if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively.”
  • After President Biden accused social media companies of “killing people,” Facebook emailed the Surgeon General to say “it’s not great to be accused of killing people” and to say Facebook was “keen to find a way to deescalate.” Social media platforms then met with the Surgeon General. “After the meetings with social-media platforms, the platforms seemingly fell in line with the Office of Surgeon General’s and White House’s requests.”
  • The “motivation” of Dr. Anthony Fauci and other defendants was specifically “a ‘take down’ of protected free speech.”
  • The Department of Homeland Security “met with social-media companies to both inform and pressure them to censor content protected by the First Amendment.” It then “expanded the word ‘infrastructure’ in its terminology to include ‘cognitive’ infrastructure, so as to create authority to monitor and suppress protected free speech posted on social media.”
  • DHS “Defendants believe they had a mandate to control the process of acquiring knowledge.”
  • DHS helped create a pseudo-private organization “to get around unclear legal authorities, including very real First Amendment questions.”
  • Federal defendants did not just censor speech directly; they also caused social media companies to change their policies. They “used meetings, emails, phone calls, follow-up meetings, and the power of the government to pressure social-media platforms to change their policies and to suppress free speech.”
  • Although much of the past suppression involved COVID and elections, federal officials “have also shown a willingness to do it with regard to other issues, such as gas prices, parody speech, calling the President a liar, climate change, gender, and abortion” as well as political criticism about “the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the return of U.S. Support of Ukraine.”
The judge ordered the Biden administration to stop this “almost dystopian scenario” of “us[ing] its power to silence the opposition.”
Click to expand...
This. You listed years that Trump was president, and really said that Trump never did this. Dec 2019 was Trump
 
fatman76 said:
What are you talking about?

This case was about the Biden administration.

Are you ok?
Click to expand...
It wasn't. That's the POINT. People like you just recited talking points saying it was about the Biden administration. The judge actually criticized the federal government involvement with tech companies since 2019.
 
kalimgoodman said:
It wasn't. That's the POINT. People like you just recited talking points saying it was about the Biden administration. The judge actually criticized the federal government involvement with tech companies since 2019.
Click to expand...
This case was brought against the Biden administration by the Missouri AG because of the actions of the Biden administration.

Whether his ruling mentioned previous administrations or not - which you’ve said but can’t prove - doesn’t change the fact that the impetus of the case and the reason the injunction was filed was directly due to the actions of the Biden administration.

And to prove the point even further the Biden administration immediately sought a stay of the injunction and got slapped down by a different judge. They couldn’t stand that someone told them they couldn't censor social media companies’ content.

This is by far the saddest and most pathetic gaslighting attempt I’ve ever seen. Ghost is right, this one has you shook.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: NavigatorII, BamaFan1137 and GhostOfMatchesMalone
fatman76 said:
This case was brought against the Biden administration by the Missouri AG because of the actions of the Biden administration.

Whether his ruling mentioned previous administrations or not - which you’ve said but can’t prove - doesn’t change the fact that the impetus of the case and the reason the injunction was filed was directly due to the actions of the Biden administration.

And to prove the point even further the Biden administration immediately sought a stay of the injunction and got slapped down by a different judge. They couldn’t stand that someone told them they couldn't censor social media companies’ content.

This is by far the saddest and most pathetic gaslighting attempt I’ve ever seen. Ghost is right, this one has you shook.
Click to expand...
YOU provided the information that PROVED my point. Are you ok?

I know that the conservatives filed a lawsuit against Biden. Hence, why i previously said those states are making it political because they didn't care when Trump administration was doing.

I think these conversation got you lost in the weeds...
 
kalimgoodman said:
YOU provided the information that PROVED my point. Are you ok?

I know that the conservatives filed a lawsuit against Biden. Hence, why i previously said those states are making it political because they didn't care when Trump administration was doing.

I think these conversation got you lost in the weeds...
Click to expand...
The state of Missouri sued the Biden Administration for colluding with big tech to censor Americans.

No one sued the Trump Administration because they didn't do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatman76
kalimgoodman said:
YOU provided the information that PROVED my point. Are you ok?

I know that the conservatives filed a lawsuit against Biden. Hence, why i previously said those states are making it political because they didn't care when Trump administration was doing.

I think these conversation got you lost in the weeds...
Click to expand...
If "the weeds" means I understand the judges findings and the reason the suit was filed then yes, I'm totally "lost in the weeds".

The Trump administration never even got close to what the Biden administration was doing in colluding to censor content they didn't like, and you know that.

And that's why no one filed a lawsuit to stop them.

This isn't that complicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NavigatorII and nail1988
fatman76 said:
If "the weeds" means I understand the judges findings and the reason the suit was filed then yes, I'm totally "lost in the weeds".

The Trump administration never even got close to what the Biden administration was doing in colluding to censor content they didn't like, and you know that.

And that's why no one filed a lawsuit to stop them.

This isn't that complicated.
Click to expand...
You truly believe that politics played zero part in the Republican states filing that lawsuit? Cute.
 
kalimgoodman said:
You truly believe that politics played zero part in the Republican states filing that lawsuit? Cute.
Click to expand...
Is fascistic censorship and control of the media part of the Left's political platform?

If so, then yes, stopping the Left's politically motivated censorship and control of the narrative is why the suit was filed.

The proof was the immediate temper tantrum appeal for a stay of the injunction, and to a much lesser extent your gaslighting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RussellCasse, NavigatorII and GhostOfMatchesMalone
kalimgoodman said:
You truly believe that politics played zero part in the Republican states filing that lawsuit? Cute.
Click to expand...
It's quite sad to see you attempt to paint the corruption of the left as being laudable and worthy of praise. You reserve your attacks for the people that stand up to that corruption, not for the dems who commit it.

You are the model democrat.

The Biden Administration colluded with big tech to censor Americans. They have been sued over it. As they should be.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: fatman76, NavigatorII and Capt Ron 1
kalimgoodman said:
You truly believe that politics played zero part in the Republican states filing that lawsuit? Cute.
Click to expand...
Riddle me this Kamala. Did Trump sue anyone for his failure to censor social media? I'll just go ahead and give you the answer, like this was a practice test question.

200w.gif
 
Being a democrat requires you to attempt to reframe evil as being good, and good as being evil.

What happened in 2020? Around half of America did their own research, and decided that they weren't comfortable injecting an unapproved substance into their arms to protect them against the seasonal flu.

The other half of America condemned them for this. Called them murderers and many of them demanded that they be FORCED to take the shot.

This will happen again and again and again. Note what @kalimgoodman is trying to do here: He's trying to paint Hiden as an innocent victim of 'politics'. The 'real' villain, he tells us, are the states suing Biden, and Trump.

Because....reasons.

Being a democrat requires you to attempt to reframe evil as being good, and good as being evil.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: fatman76, BamaFan1137 and NavigatorII
RussellCasse said:
View embedded media
Click to expand...
Seeing the left pull stunts like this is what makes me wonder if we aren't really watching a movie. It's why many people still think Trump is really running the government.

Because almost everything the left is doing these days is perfectly exposing their corruption. It being intentional is the most logical takeaway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatman76 and RussellCasse
i love when thumpers say other people avoid logic and common sense. I mean if that’s not rich…. The lack Self awareness is beyond comprehension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R

These States Are Most Dependent on the Federal Government

Replies
38
Views
562
The Parking Lot
BamaFan1137
BamaFan1137
R

Trump's Mar-a-Lago lawsuit spotlights how difficult search warrants are to challenge – by a criminal suspect or an ex-president – until charges are br

Replies
1
Views
283
The Parking Lot
Capt Ron 1
Capt Ron 1
Capt Ron 1

Just a reminder.......

Replies
121
Views
5K
The Parking Lot
Capt Ron 1
Capt Ron 1
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back