ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
Oh look, words have consequences. The same conspiracies that PPP loves and always falls for also leads to threats and violence against the targets of those conspiracies.
Who could have thought?!
-
9 minutes ago, B-Man said:
This is just laying the groundwork for the rubes.
The FTC already had a consent order against Twitter and will likely enforce it if Musk violates it.
Musk is also likely violating numerous employment laws which may be enforced by regulators and/or through lawsuits by former employees.
On top of that, Musks plans for content moderation will certainly violate laws in Europe and other countries, creating more legal exposure.
All of this is obvious and readily apparent. But if he can spin it ahead of time as political persecution instead of the obvious consequences of his actions, the ignorant masses will lap it up.
-
1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:
Ok I stand corrected, I apologize for calling you a liar.
No problem. And I think we can see how the media gets this stuff wrong too.
That’s why it is best to just go to the filings when they are available.
-
41 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:
I have to ask- do you think she had his DNA inside her from 25 years ago I til she filed the lawsuit? Where the hell has his DNA been for 25 years?
I suppose you could try looking into it. If you had, maybe you’d learn that she saved the dress from the incident and kept it unwashed.
No idea if anything comes of it, but this isn’t hard stuff to find.
-
24 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:
You just either lied or never read actual report before responding. The police report does not say that, and DOJ report is not what you say. The fact you say the most likely thing is the only thing that makes Pelosi not the issue says a lot about your political faith.
“10. At 2:31 a.m., San Francisco Police Department (“SFPD”) Officer Colby Wilmes responded to the Pelosi residence, California and knocked on the front door. When the door was opened, Pelosi and DEPAPE were both holding a hammer with one hand and DEPAPE had his other hand holding onto Pelosi’s forearm. Pelosi greeted the officers. The officers asked them what was going on. DEPAPE responded that everything was good. Officers then asked Pelosi and DEPAPE to drop the hammer”“DEPAPE stated that they went downstairs to the front door. The police arrived and knocked on the door, and Pelosi ran over and opened it. Pelosi grabbed onto DEPAPE’s hammer, which was in DEPAPE’s hand. At this point in the interview, DEPAPE repeated”
It literally says that the officer says the door was opened and that DePape said that Pelosi opened it. -
54 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:
Seriously I can't find the actual DOJ filing- I googled it and they only gave me articles describing it, where can I find actual DOJ filing?
Original criminal complaint from 10/28Grand Jury indictment from 11/9
Officers stated that they opened the door while DePape stated that Paul Pelosi opened it. All individuals state that Pelosi and DePape were in the Foyer when the officers entered.
Most likely explanation is that Pelosi unlocked the door and the officers came in but we will see as the evidence is made public.
Also, another example of the media sucking at these things is them not linking to the damned filings. They are public! It’s getting a bit better but some are just hosting the files on their sites instead of linking to the source.
-
Just now, Orlando Tim said:
Doj said Paul did not answer door when police video shows he did, so DOJ under Biden is a bunch of incompetent political hacks.
I haven’t seen the video. Can you share it?Also, the DoJ filings explicitly state that Paul opened the door.
-
3 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:
The issue is that media did a terrible job and then Pelosi did not correct it at any point. I still don't know exactly what happened but several statements from the initial report are straight up incorrect regardless of what @ChiGoose says. The media should have more responsibility than allowing stories to run with innuendo and lies
There is an easy solution to this. Just read the DoJ filings.
The media sucks at stuff like this. It’s a rush to be first, so they make mistakes and sew confusion.
So while it’s fine to engage in media criticism, we shouldn’t confuse it with the actual criminal case.
-
16 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Goose....speaking as the architect here....it virtually impossible to break laminated glass with a hammer. You may mean tempered glass, but that shatters into little pebbles, and is installed in doors, just for that reason, should the door unexpectedly slam shut.
The police report stated that the officers believed it was laminated. Also that DePape stated that he had a hard time breaking through it.
Maybe it wasn’t laminated but it doesn’t change the fact that the glass shards were both inside and outside of the door.
Also, this part of the conspiracy never made any sense to me. Did they get into a fight and specifically break this one window and absolutely nothing else, but then they made up which is why Pelosi supposedly went back to DePape after opening the door (he didn’t, but people believe he did)?
-
7 hours ago, JaCrispy said:
So, let me get this straight…
A call was placed, by Paul Pelosi to 911 and he hadn’t been attacked yet??? 🤔
Pelosi answers the door when police arrive and does not appear to be in any distress??? 🤔
The broken glass glass from
the window is on the outside of the home, insinuating that it was broken from the inside!!! 🤔
After police arrived at the home, Pelosi then walks back toward the “intruder”, where he is then bludgeoned with a hammer in front of police??? 🤔
Just because some people seem to think these are good points instead of what they are: terrible points, let’s take a look.Paul Pelosi called 911 before he was assaulted? How suspicious!
You wake up at 2:30am to a stranger in the house, what do you do? Apparently call 911 is the wrong answer. Maybe just sit there and see where it goes?
Paul Pelosi answered the door while wrestling a hammer with the assailant?
Pelosi opened the door with one hand while keeping the other hand on the hammer the assailant was holding. This is suspicious because… reasons!
The broken glass is outside the house?!
The broken glass is both inside and outside of the house. Which is to be expected with someone trying to break laminated glass.
Pelosi ran back to the intruder!No he didn’t. He was in the foyer when the police arrived. He was wrestling the assailant for control of the hammer and was able to open the door with one arm.
This embarrassing insanity of completely ludicrous and improbable conspiracy has already been debunked but I guess it’s always feelings over facts over here.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
It does get tough to try to explain things to the most ignorant people on the world who are suffering from internet brain worms.
But I guess somebody has to do it.
-
10 minutes ago, Doc said:
Jussie Smollett would have loved you on his jury...
If you think this is the same as the Jussie Smollett story, you need to log off from the internet for a while. It’s rotting your brain. -
2 minutes ago, BillStime said:
OK - to appease those incredibly insecure people who rely on religion to guide their moral compass - the "state" should drop the term marriage and adopt CIVIL UNIONS for all marriages (straight/gay) and leave the term marriage with church.
Problem solved...
Eh, marriage isn’t a word beholden to a specific religion. Catholics get married, Protestants get married, Jews get married, Hindus get married, Muslims get married, atheists get married, etc.In Catholicism, there is the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The government should not use that term, but to claim that “marriage” belongs to a particular religion is a big stretch.
-
3 minutes ago, Doc said:
I'm comfortable in my belief that if an employee that quits because they don't want to work hard and/or come back to the office,they aren't one of the best employees and are JAG.
Or maybe they are a good employee but value stability and/or time with their family.
Or maybe simply saying “work harder” is just a really dumb thing that was literally a Simpsons joke about bad management so smart people saw the writing on the wall.
I’m sure the other Silicon Valley firms are happy to scoop up all the new engineers out on the market.
-
Well this certainly turned into a scripture debate, but thankfully the law has enough carve outs for religions that more than 40 religious institutions including freaking LDS endorse it.
It’s a good law. Glad it passed.
-
1
-
-
So I see we are all still doing the moronic bad faith conspiracies under a fig leaf of “just asking questions,” huh?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
The lazy ones appear to be leaving. They're not the best employees.
And how do you know that?My point is that Musk could basically do the exact same thing but over 3-6 months instead of 3 weeks. It would allow for a more orderly approach that would avoid the pitfalls of having to rehire people he already laid off and wouldn’t create the MASSIVE legal exposure he’s currently facing. It also would allow the company to maintain stability which would have prevented the chaos that chased away advertisers and ensure that the top talent would stick around.
-
43 minutes ago, Doc said:
LOL. Yeah, what owner doesn’t want hard working people? If you work at a law firm, do you think they want you to work remotely or only when you want?
There’s a difference between creating a culture that incentivizes your employees to work hard and creating a culture that incentivizes your best employees to leave. -
19 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
The guy is basically yelling all his business decisions into a megaphone for everyone to hear, people are going to react.
Elon: I want anybody who is good at their job to question whether or not they should work for my company.
Normies: That seems like it incentivizes good people to leave.
Weird Nerds: Elon is a genius and if you don’t get it, you’re dumb!
-
Super fun to see people twist the words of fallible slave owners who opposed laws based on religion into the words of unassailable heroes who endorsed a very specific religious view.
I suppose that when you divide the country into “us vs them” you’ll need to find some reason to oppose the Them, even if it is completely fabricated.
-
2 hours ago, B-Man said:
No Jim.
When you make a broad over-reaching statement like that, I feel no obligation to join in your game.
Need someone to explain it to you ?
You have a "Tell".
Whenever there is an argument that you disagree with, you simply dismiss it as "nonsense"
Thankfully, it also makes it all the easier to disregard your posts.
I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.
Are you arguing that dozens of religious organizations including the freaking Mormon Church have missed a big loophole that was discovered by a random, clearly biased website basically nobody has heard of?
Can you point to the text of the legislation that supports your point?
-
10 minutes ago, B-Man said:
More on the above: (for those with actual interest)
FTA:
That understanding of the source of individual rights would shock and sadden the Founders, who declared in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …
See the difference? The American government was originally based on the understanding that the source of individual rights is the Creator and that government’s purpose is no more, but no less, than to protect those rights.
For liberals, government is the source of individual rights, and that means government defines those rights and has the power to redefine them as desired by whoever happens to be in control at any given time.
And since liberals are in control of the government, they intend to do precisely that—define the right of religious expression and practice so as to exclude from the public square all of those whose sincere faith requires them to reject same-sex marriage.
Simply put, the liberals are saying to millions of Americans that they have no right to disagree in the public square with same-sex marriage and the state can and indeed soon will take their property via taxes and use them to support the enforcement of same-sex marriage as a political right.
That enforcement is the second element here that commands attention. The bill includes provisions that authorize the IRS to jerk the tax exemption of any church or non-profit that opposes same-sex marriage. The bill also encourages litigation to be brought against those same institutions in the court system to enforce the right to same-sex marriage.
Here’s what that means: Soon after Biden signs the bill into law, there will begin to be same-sex couples demanding to be married in evangelical churches they know to be opposed to the practice.
If the pastor refuses to perform the ceremony, the church will be sued and it will lose in court. That litigation will then be used by the IRS as justification for ending the church’s tax-exempt status, as well as the tax-deductibility of congregants’ tithes and contributions.
But that’s not all. The IRS is being primed to be ready for action against evangelical and traditional Catholic social service institutions as well. As Heritage Action for America explains:
Just months after Democrats used the Inflation Reduction Act to fund 87,000 new IRS agents, the Respect for Marriage Act would be giving those new agents carte blanche to harass and target religious schools and other faith-based entities that oppose same-sex marriage and eventually strip them of their tax-exempt status.
Worse, it would create a roving license to sue anyone acting “under color of law” – a loosely defined term that would include those providing government-funded or -regulated services. As a result, adoption centers and foster care providers with religious objections to same-sex marriage would have to close down.
Talk about a slippery slope! Once government becomes the source and dispenser of individual rights, there is no such thing as a “safe space.” What follows, sooner or later, is official persecution of those who demand their right to practice their faith and then speak publicly and vote accordingly.
And don’t be fooled by claims the bill has been amended to include “protections of religious liberty.” As Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation puts it, such amendments are little more than “fig leaf, smoke and mirrors, lip service, bait and switch.”
.
Well this is all certainly nonsense.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, TH3 said:
All the crap the GOP is getting is deserved. If it’s a committee….why is it their headline lead? They had NO PLATFORM for 2020…The Trump GOP healthcare alternative was a FREAKING BLANK BINDER.
Americans are done the bait and switch…smoke and mirror show….until they show some actual substance…they are proven frauds
Well, this is why I was happy the led with it. Probably 80%+ of Americans just do not care. And the more the GOP prioritizes it, the better for the Dems.
What a responsible party would have done was lead off with their inflation plan or gas prices plan while also setting up the oversight committee to look into the Hunter claims. But apparently even the GOP leadership has terminal online brain, and as we just saw with the midterms, that's very good for the Democrats (it's also why Biden won in 2020, he was the least online candidate running).
-
Just now, SoCal Deek said:
That SubCommittee? Hopefully they’re not writing legislation, increasing my taxes, or declaring a war somewhere. You do understand the definition of a ‘subcommittee’…. right?
I generally go against the majority of the board here, but I'm mostly with SoCal Deek here. It's oversight. I think the claims against Hunter are almost certainly overblown and used as an emotional tool to motivate the Very Online Right, but the allegation that a Senator and/or President may be benefitting from corrupt family members is exactly the kind of thing the committee exists for.
The real question to me is if they're going to actually try to investigate Hunter or do a Benghazi-esque show trial solely to try to harm Joe Biden.
Big Tech/Social Media Censorship. Musk/X Files Lawsuit Against Censorship Syndicate GARM
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I don’t know what it is with this board just going straight for strawmen and failing basic reading comprehension but you all need to log off and touch some grass for a bit.