BillsFanNC Posted December 21, 2022 Author Share Posted December 21, 2022 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 21, 2022 Share Posted December 21, 2022 3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: Lol. Right dude. To absolutely nobody's surprise, @ChiGoose hand waves his way around excusing the FBI being involved in things they have absolutely no business being involved in. Because his team good. Let's try this one. What's your take on the DOJ spying on Devin Nunes' team? Do you think the FBI should have flagged Twitter accounts that were posting ISIS recruitment propaganda? Or would that be inappropriate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 21, 2022 Share Posted December 21, 2022 39 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Do you think the FBI should have flagged Twitter accounts that were posting ISIS recruitment propaganda? Or would that be inappropriate? You'd think they'd flag, say, the Ayatollah's account when he said death to Israel. But that's just me. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 21, 2022 Author Share Posted December 21, 2022 34 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Do you think the FBI should have flagged Twitter accounts that were posting ISIS recruitment propaganda? Or would that be inappropriate? Lol. First of all you ignored my Nunes question....again. Secondly....they were flagging mundane speech that did not align with the regime narrative. The FBI, a government agency, was flagging stuff for twitter. If youre defending this then youre defending government agencies regulating speech in concert with a private company. Fascistsezwhat? I'm certain we are soon to find out that they also censored speech via input from FBI, CDC etc. of highly respected researchers and doctors who didn't align with the regime covid narrative as well. And you'll defend that too. Do you think that Billy Baldwin was involved with isis recruitment propaganda on Twitter? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 21, 2022 Author Share Posted December 21, 2022 Key facts suck for partisan hacks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 21, 2022 Author Share Posted December 21, 2022 Yeah, remember when the OIG report found no evidence of political bias, simply because no agents were foolish enough to put their bias in writing while doing their "jobs"? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 21, 2022 Share Posted December 21, 2022 4 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: Lol. First of all you ignored my Nunes question....again. Secondly....they were flagging mundane speech that did not align with the regime narrative. The FBI, a government agency, was flagging stuff for twitter. If youre defending this then youre defending government agencies regulating speech in concert with a private company. Fascistsezwhat? I'm certain we are soon to find out that they also censored speech via input from FBI, CDC etc. of highly respected researchers and doctors who didn't align with the regime covid narrative as well. And you'll defend that too. Do you think that Billy Baldwin was involved with isis recruitment propaganda on Twitter? So you’re still living in the fantasy world where the FBI talked to Twitter about Hunter Biden, something that there is no evidence of, huh? And you still have no idea what’s actually going on, or what censorship and coercion actually are? The twitter files show that the FBI censored exactly zero things but somehow you read that as the FBI censoring things because it makes you feel good? And then you just project your ignorance to the world and make fun of people who point out the inaccuracies and leaps in poor logic based on no facts? It’s like someone made a Dunning-Krueger chat bot and unleashed it on PPP. The FBI being overzealous in flagging election misinformation is not censorship because Twitter makes the decision. Twitter screws that up a lot but if they were kowtowing to the FBI, then how come they reject 60% of the requests? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted December 21, 2022 Share Posted December 21, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 22, 2022 Author Share Posted December 22, 2022 (edited) 15 hours ago, ChiGoose said: So you’re still living in the fantasy world where the FBI talked to Twitter about Hunter Biden, something that there is no evidence of, huh? And you still have no idea what’s actually going on, or what censorship and coercion actually are? The twitter files show that the FBI censored exactly zero things but somehow you read that as the FBI censoring things because it makes you feel good? And then you just project your ignorance to the world and make fun of people who point out the inaccuracies and leaps in poor logic based on no facts? It’s like someone made a Dunning-Krueger chat bot and unleashed it on PPP. The FBI being overzealous in flagging election misinformation is not censorship because Twitter makes the decision. Twitter screws that up a lot but if they were kowtowing to the FBI, then how come they reject 60% of the requests? A good little fascist repeating regime narrative. SHOCKER!!! And you citing Dunning Kruger against others??? Whatever "expertise" you may have, I can't think of a single person here who overestimates their knowledge in direct correlation with their propensity to lap up regime lies and propaganda more than you. mISiNForMaTiOn!!!!! Still ignoring Devin Nunes team being spied on question as well I see. It's OK, we know that you're waiting for your masters to upload your programmed response on that too. Edited December 22, 2022 by BillsFanNC 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2022 Share Posted December 22, 2022 Hunter Biden's laptop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 22, 2022 Share Posted December 22, 2022 OF COURSE THEY DID: #TwitterFiles Part 7 – FBI and DOJ Worked To Discredit Reports of Hunter Biden’s Foreign Business Dealings. https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/12/twitterfiles-part-7-the-fbi-and-doj-discredited-hunter-bidens-foreign-business-dealings/ . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 22, 2022 Share Posted December 22, 2022 Is it me, or is anyone startin 3 hours ago, B-Man said: OF COURSE THEY DID: #TwitterFiles Part 7 – FBI and DOJ Worked To Discredit Reports of Hunter Biden’s Foreign Business Dealings. https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/12/twitterfiles-part-7-the-fbi-and-doj-discredited-hunter-bidens-foreign-business-dealings/ . Man, is there anything the Establishment Dems won’t lie about? Its to the point where whatever story they come out with, you automatically get the sense that it’s fake news…smh…it’s a shame… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted December 22, 2022 Share Posted December 22, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: A good little fascist repeating regime narrative. SHOCKER!!! And you citing Dunning Kruger against others??? Whatever "expertise" you may have, I can't think of a single person here who overestimates their knowledge in direct correlation with their propensity to lap up regime lies and propaganda more than you. mISiNForMaTiOn!!!!! Still ignoring Devin Nunes team being spied on question as well I see. It's OK, we know that you're waiting for your masters to upload your programmed response on that too. Absolutely anyone can flag Twitter accounts for violating the TOS. Twitter decides what to do with that. Doesn't matter if it's you, or me, or the FBI. The fact that you're spending your time railing against the people flagging the accounts instead of those making the decisions seems weird. Especially since Twitter rejects 60% of the items flagged. I suppose if you want to, you can just pretend that Twitter felt it had to act on the FBI flags despite the evidence showing otherwise (and the fact that, as people have pointed out, Twitter had a lot of ex-FBI people on staff so they would know that the FBI can't make them do anything about accounts). So we have a scenario where the FBI is flagging items (I'll even grant that they flagged things they shouldn't have), Twitter is deciding what to do about them and decides not to do anything about 60% of them (even at one point telling the FBI that if they really want Twitter to actually do anything, they better get a court order because Twitter doesn't have to take something flagged down if they don't want to). The only way that this is censorship is if you just make up what words mean or have no idea what censorship is. The frustrating thing to me is that there is a good debate about where to draw the line on the appropriateness of the FBI flagging accounts (not flagging them at all seems like a bad idea to me, having seen the ISIS recruitment on Twitter back on the day), but people just seem to insist on yelling about censorship in a story where all of the evidence points to there not being censorship. It's just Twitter not being good at content moderation (which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has used Twitter). Nunes is a nice strawman, but sure, I'll bite. I don't remember the specifics of the claim you're making but I'm sure you have plenty of evidence to share. PS: for someone who doesn't know anything, I nailed how weak the Sussman case was and what the probable outcome was. But I'm sure that's just all a deep state plot anyway... Edited December 22, 2022 by ChiGoose 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted December 23, 2022 Author Share Posted December 23, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Absolutely anyone can flag Twitter accounts for violating the TOS. Twitter decides what to do with that. Doesn't matter if it's you, or me, or the FBI. The fact that you're spending your time railing against the people flagging the accounts instead of those making the decisions seems weird. Especially since Twitter rejects 60% of the items flagged. I suppose if you want to, you can just pretend that Twitter felt it had to act on the FBI flags despite the evidence showing otherwise (and the fact that, as people have pointed out, Twitter had a lot of ex-FBI people on staff so they would know that the FBI can't make them do anything about accounts). So you're for a government agency flagging free speech to get a "private company" to go ahead and censor it. Then you're on record as anti 1st ammendment when it's speech you disagree with / "misinformation" 11 hours ago, ChiGoose said: So we have a scenario where the FBI is flagging items (I'll even grant that they flagged things they shouldn't have), Twitter is deciding what to do about them and decides not to do anything about 60% of them (even at one point telling the FBI that if they really want Twitter to actually do anything, they better get a court order because Twitter doesn't have to take something flagged down if they don't want to). The only way that this is censorship is if you just make up what words mean or have no idea what censorship is. The only way it isn't censorship is if you redefine what words mean. Par for the course these days though for the insane left, so zero surprise that you're on board with it. 11 hours ago, ChiGoose said: The frustrating thing to me is that there is a good debate about where to draw the line on the appropriateness of the FBI flagging accounts (not flagging them at all seems like a bad idea to me, having seen the ISIS recruitment on Twitter back on the day), but people just seem to insist on yelling about censorship in a story where all of the evidence points to there not being censorship. It's just Twitter not being good at content moderation (which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has used Twitter). Here's the "debate" such that it is. The FBI should be looking for actual terrorist threat content like isis recruitment, antifa threats (curious that many of those accounts remained unbothered with the FBI working so hard with Twitter, isnt it?). Actual, real terrorist threats. They have ZERO BUSINESS flagging anything beyond that. Furthermore it can all be flagged from the Hoover building or FBI field offices and not from agents working right alongside Twitter behind the scenes. But again youre fine with government and private interests working in concert to censor American citizens. 11 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Nunes is a nice strawman, but sure, I'll bite. I don't remember the specifics of the claim you're making but I'm sure you have plenty of evidence to share. An elected member of Congress carrying out his duties had the DOJ spying on his staff. In other words, while uncovering evidence of the FBI spying on a presidential campaign, the investigators were themselves spied on. Hand wave away... 11 hours ago, ChiGoose said: PS: for someone who doesn't know anything, I nailed how weak the Sussman case was and what the probable outcome was. But I'm sure that's just all a deep state plot anyway... Here's a bold statement. Anyone accused of a crime in the process of going after Trump will be found not guilty by a DC jury. Anyone remotely related to the Trump orbit charged with a crime will be found guilty by a DC jury. Where's my gold star? Edited December 23, 2022 by BillsFanNC 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 Bump because BillStime wonders when the Biden administration colluded with Big Tech…😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 5 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: Bump because BillStime wonders when the Biden administration colluded with Big Tech…😉 Please bump all of them - these threads have been so popular and hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, BillStime said: Please bump all of them - these threads have been so popular and hot. Oh Billsy…you silly goose…It’s not about being “popular” or “hot”…it’s about shining a light on how the government has been working to suppress truth and silence American citizens…😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 1 minute ago, JaCrispy said: Oh Billsy…you silly goose…It’s not about being “popular” or “hot”…it’s about shining a light on how the government has been working to suppress truth and silence American citizens…😉 Since when does MAGA care about truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 Just now, BillStime said: Since when does MAGA care about truth? Who is MAGA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 Just now, JaCrispy said: Who is MAGA? The games people play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts