The longer they take the less relevant they become.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So much for a "bare metal" build, this is a classic DR scenario and should have been handled in a more timely manner.
|
The longer they take the less relevant they become.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So much for a "bare metal" build, this is a classic DR scenario and should have been handled in a more timely manner.
I got on , There are limited messages from site owner and from conservative celebs Sean Hannity ,Mark Levin and Sen Rand Paul .
Parler Status Updates
Meanwhile Congress is aiming to pile on .House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney asked the FBI to investigate Parler for a possible role as a 'facilitator ' in the Jan 6 riot in the Capitol .
There seems to be no end to the insanity. But if they want to press that, wouldn't Amazon have to be included? After all, it was their very own AWS that was hosting the Parler site.Quote:
House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney asked the FBI to investigate Parler for a possible role as a 'facilitator ' in the Jan 6 riot in the Capitol .
Now on Netflix, well worth the watch, goes a long way to explain alot about how Social Media actually works.
/The Social Dilemma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaC57tcci0
IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11464826/
Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224
Well crud. We dropped Netflix months ago. Even at that, after watching documentaries like that one, you still don't know if you have seen the unvarnished truth since you don't hear the counter arguments. Frustrating.
Is the problem the technology, or the people that use it or more specifically what it's used for? Is this the same as nuclear energy that can light cities being used to blow away humans? Anything in the irresponsible hands is dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
Amazon says Jeff Bezos will step down as CEO.
As for the documentary ,I am not fond of that format . The whole thing could've been condensed . I'm a personal responsibility type of person. I take ownership of my actions . So no matter how much so called manipulation I am subject to ;my thoughts and actions are my own,
Hahahalolol - that's rich! You couldn't even take ownership when directly asked about your "socialism" infecting Democratic politics. You ran away unable to respond with specifics.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, socialist? You are riding the wrong horse there athos
Read again. Tom is anti - without knowing why.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I take ownership of choosing to not answer your questions Deal with it .
tom is anti what a strange ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
There you go again - true to form, running away.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
consider this conversation over .
Just mention the word "Aquinas".
Lol - You already ended it when you couldn't answer A SIMPLE QUESTION about your "socialism" nonsense. If it makes you feel any better, your inability to answer is common among your fellow-travelers when confronted with THEIR "socialism" nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Speaking of nonsense this qualifies
Couldn't agree moreQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
In the meantime another defamation lawsuit against Faux News and dufus true believers.
Smartmatic's $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News: Legal experts give their opinions - CNN
Quote:
"When you are making statements that are knowingly false, and you make them with malice, and you actually tarnish reputations and it has a financial consequence — that's why you have defamation lawsuits in the first place," Coates said, explaining the seriousness of the lawsuit.
Coates is not alone in believing Smartmatic's suit poses real threat to Fox. University of Georgia media law professor Jonathan Peters noted on Twitter that "libel law makes it difficult to prevail where the plaintiff is a public figure and/or where the speech involved a matter of public concern. In various ways, these will be key issues in litigation." But, Peters added that he believed the "smart money" is on Smartmatic.
That seemed to be the general consensus among legal experts who commented on the case Thursday. Despite Fox describing the suit as "meritless," Powell calling it a "political maneuver," and Giuliani saying he looked forward to discovery, most legal experts believed it to have some bite. "This lawsuit is a legitimate threat — a real threat," CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig said. "There is a real teeth to this." And Roy Gutterman, who directs the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, echoed to WaPo, "This complaint establishes a compelling narrative in its 270-plus pages. It will certainly be interesting to see how the defendants frame their responses."
discovery
Discovery works both ways. Dobbs was fired from Faux, will the others be far behind? Regardless, I see a BIG settlement in their future.
You can now be punished for other people's absurd misinterpretations of your words including the following punishments .... social media ban, cancellation, boycott, loss of job........oh yeah and impeachment .
The words were not "absurdly interpreted". They were plain as day needing no interpretation. What you call punishment is the right of an organization to manage its business.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The impeachment quote reflected an incitement to overthrow the government by not allowing Congress to perform its duly authorized business by murder and mayhem. Over 200 insurrectionists have now been arrested and charged. Do you consider that absurd?
Except, of course, that trump never said any such things. It just comes back to an absurd interpretation allied with extreme hatred. Maxine Waters said much worse with no complaints at all from liberal dems.
Trump tells Capitol rioters to ‘go home’ but repeatedly pushes false claim that election was stolen (cnbc.com)
When you blow a dog whistle the dogs will respond. Maybe you ain't a dog and can't hear the whistle but obviously the dogs heard it.....DUH!!
When people deny the obvious reality, it becomes increasingly difficult to break through the shield of what has become a cult. Accounts of the disaffected QANON followers supporting Trump are frighteningly similar to the Jim Jones tragedy years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
"Like clockwork, the once loud and abrasive pro-Trump rioters who stormed the capitol building just a few weeks ago are starting to lose some of their once strong convictions to the failed second-term president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
One participant in the insurrection, the virally pictured shirtless, horned man Jake Angelo, who was later identified and imprisoned after the riot, has now said that he would be willing to testify at Trump's impeachment trial after his hopes of being pardoned were slashed."
https://www.complex.com/life/horned-...eachment-trial
All of this complaining about 1/6 would sound much more genuine if it hadn't been for the appalling silence when BLM, Antifa, and others were burning city blocks and federal buildings, and then occupying entire city blocks for weeks on end.
The simple truth is this. At no time did DT ever instruct or suggest that his supporters go out and try to take over the Capital Building. Case closed.
no but he told them to fight so mixed messagesQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If there was a riot every time a pol told people to fight for their values, there’d be ten riots a day.
You do seem to have a lot of riots over there
Sadly true.
Simple it is, truth it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
How frikkin' blind can a person be when it comes to Trump's behavior? The video evidence, eyewitness evidence, the testimony of participants in the riot, senators and congressmen in imminent danger for their lives - all are overwhelming. How anyone can fail to see the truth is beyond belief.
It's very "frikkin" simple. If you have a quote where Trump instructed his followers to go and take over the Capitol Building, then post it. Otherwise, waste your breath on something else.
Go turn your TV on - you'll find all the quotes your heart desires.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Which means, of course, that you don't have any. If you did, then you would post them. It's that "frikkin" simple.
Here's one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
“Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election,” Trump, a Republican, tweeted on Dec. 20. “Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
They turned out in the thousands and heard the president urge them to march on the Capitol building to express their anger at the voting process and to pressure their elected officials to reject the results.
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and Congressmen and women,” Trump told the crowd, speaking with the White House as a backdrop.
“We will never give up, we will never concede,” Trump said, delighting the crowd by calling Democratic victories the product of what he called “explosions of bulls---.”
“Bulls---! Bulls---! Bulls---!” people chanted in reply.
Trump has sought for weeks to thwart a peaceful transfer of power, aided by groups such as "Stop the Steal," which promoted stopthesteal.us the day's protest and peddled false claims about voter fraud on Facebook and other social media.
But Wednesday’s events were the culmination of his efforts to thwart a peaceful transfer. About 50 minutes into the speech, some of his supporters, waving Trump flags, began heading toward Capitol Hill, where unprecedented mayhem ensued.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN29B24S
Oh my! "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and cheer!!" No wonder there was a riot.Quote:
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and Congressmen and women,” Trump told the crowd, speaking with the White House as a backdrop.
(Sarcasm meter on overload.)
The question remains. "If you have a quote where Trump instructed his followers to go and take over the Capitol Building, then post it."
That's exactly the problem with your demand. You want to cherry pick a quote so you can be sarcastic about it. You're hardly seeking the truth. If you were, you would do what the rest of the world has been doing - watch the events on tv. You know that if you do, you won't have a leg to stand on.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Trump's behavior stretched from November 3 to the day of his gathering on January 6 when his supporters attempted to prevent Congress from carrying out their duty to count the ballots. Trump had been loudly claiming for months that the election was fixed and doing everything in his power to overturn it. Even to criminally trying to influence the secretary of state of Georgia to "find" votes to make him the winner - an act that is currently under review in Georgia to determine its criminality.
There is not a doubt in anyone's mind (including the Republican senators) who disagree that the rioters were marching to the capitol on behalf of Trump. Only the senator's lame reading of free speech and the Constitution will give them an out from convicting Trump for inciting the insurrection. Make no mistake about it - it was an insurrection, much more than a riot. They and Trump were responsible for the murders, suicides, other deaths, eyes gouged, fingers cut off, and a hundred other injuries.
There has been nothing like it in American history. The senators who will vote to acquit will have sold their souls for a price. Their oath means nothing.
So it's not a matter of a quote here and there. It's an entire pattern of behavior lasting for months since the election. Are you up to examining that pattern? Then read on.
If you are disturbed by anything I've written here, and I hope you are, then watch the impeachment trial tomorrow. There will be all the evidence you need and that you have been asking for. Then come back tomorrow and tell us what you think.
I ask for evidence. You reply that I should watch TV. Try that in any court of law and see how long they laugh at you. A simple admission that Trump never called for insurrection or riots would be suitable here. Hatred is not evidence. The man has a big mouth, but that is not a cause for impeachment.Quote:
That's exactly the problem with your demand. You want to cherry pick a quote so you can be sarcastic about it. You're hardly seeking the truth. If you were, you would do what the rest of the world has been doing - watch the events on tv. You know that if you do, you won't have a leg to stand on.
Do I believe that you have some sort of special knowledge about what everyone does or does not believe? No.Quote:
There is not a doubt in anyone's mind (including the Republican senators) who disagree that the rioters were marching to the capitol on behalf of Trump.
That and the inconvenient (for you) fact that Trump never actually called for violence or insurrection gives them, not an out, but an obligation to point out that this is nothing more than a second Democrat party kangaroo court. It is driven by an irrational hatred of a man who is not even in office, and is purely a political vendetta.Quote:
Only their lame reading of free speech and the Constitution will give them an out from convicting Trump for inciting the insurrection.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:57 PM. |