BraniacX:
stick to one argument at a time and see it to conclusion, stop skipping from argument to argument, gather your thought process and pretend you're in a court of law, now to our current engagement, I painted a scenario, did it qualify as conspiracy or not from your POV?

He can't. He has become emotionally and personally invested in his argument. Admitting he is wrong may destroy his psyche. So it is easier to pretend that facts that don't align with his perspective don't exist or when confronted with truths he can't ignore (Trump not being President), he makes up wilder conspiracies to rationalize the disconnection.

There has been a lot of discussion in the US about it esp. concerning those who went down the "Q" rabbit hole.

benalvino3:




this dude come on Nairaland looking for apology from a faceless forum. some of you are sick. did you paint your hair blue or pink?

Lol. I laughed so hard reading that post. Some take this forum too serious.

Obrigardo:


It's mind boggling. They are calling out the FBI while leaving out Bill Barr, because there's no way the FBI will run this without going through Bill Barr.

They've actually gone deeper. Bill Barr is now part of the Deep State and has been hurting Trump all along. They are saying the Special Prosecutor he appointed to investigate the Russia allegations was appointed to cover up for the FBI. Bonkers

SlyfoxxDaBoss:


Okay. If you were not the one and I falsely accused you then I apologize. And I won’t repeat it again.

You see. It’s not so hard. I’m not dead.

Now tell 1stGenAmerican and IjeBos to apologize to me for the unprovoked insults they initially hurled at me otherwise this trolling may never stop lol.

The insults you hurled back at
1stGenAmerican in that screenshot were an overkill, an attack on her parentage which is wrong!... Way more than whatever she said which is much milder.

And she was defending the POTUS,
Joe Biden who you refered to as a "senile old dunce" in the earlier post before you took the screenshot.

How does what she said diminish you as a person since June 2022? Ronu (Think). Let it rest!

Donjazet2:


I have never read any of the Maga links posted here but I don't know what made me click this one. Boy oh Boy, are you guys not Soo bat shit Cray Cray?

My eyes was filled with tears from the laughter of reading the most crazy shit my eyes have ever seen.

You Maga people need help. I don't want to believe that people who appear normal physically have these things in their heads and truly believe them.

If you believe even a quarter of the drivel on this sir, you need mental amd psychological evaluation. No wonder basilica sounds so idiotic. So these are things you guys read? Chai!!

pls summarise for us, I have a default setting of not seeing or reading posts from certain monikers who are of the hinges, but I don't mind the comic relief they provide every now and then

IjeBos:


He can't. He has become emotionally and personally invested in his argument. Admitting he is wrong may destroy his psyche. So it is easier to pretend that facts that don't align with his perspective don't exist or when confronted with truths he can't ignore (Trump not being President), he makes up wilder conspiracies to rationalize the disconnection.

There has been a lot of discussion in the US about it esp. concerning those who went down the "Q" rabbit hole.

at some point or another I expect that everyone in this thread despite their political leanings will accept that not everything is about partisan politics, I'm just surprised that there are still some people who can never see beyond partisan politics

Obrigardo:


The inner maga cultist in you won't see anything wrong here, at all.
Because criminal trump can do no harm, according to you.

That's completely messed up but a false equivalence nonetheless.

I've already addressed this previously, the National Enquirer and similar publications have always been known as a right wing rag that people don't really take seriously, similar to Salon magazine on the left. You can simply move to another outlet. You cannot do that with Twitter and Meta because of the control they have over the social media market

Obrigardo:


Twitter and facebook are private companies, you this ever annoying boy.
Just like criminal trump got his Liessocial so he can censor anything critical of him.
The other stuff you typed is pure conspiracy theory bullshit.

So you agree that they have a left wing bias

adamusuleiman11:
The U.S. has presented its newest bomber.

The B-21 Raider will be a dual-capable, penetrating-strike stealth bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions.

now this is excellence, they should also upgrade their military warthogs and Apaches

BraniacX:
now this is excellence, they should also upgrade their military warthogs and Apaches

~$700 million per plane.

BraniacX:
stick to one argument at a time and see it to conclusion, stop skipping from argument to argument, gather your thought process and pretend you're in a court of law, now to our current engagement, I painted a scenario, did it qualify as conspiracy or not from your POV?

>argues with person online
>asks person to prove censorship
>person proves censorship
>"why are changing your argument? answer my completely unrelated question?"

IjeBos:


Even deeper than that. There has never been a Democratic FBI Director. Even Democrats have appointed Republican FBI Directors. Simply because the FBI(culture/agents) is so conservative.

how people claim to be republicans and never acknowledge this bemuses me, I was refraining from stating this because in an overtly partisan mind it alludes to bias but the reverse is the truth, professionalism and duty is given premium above all else

IjeBos:


~$700 million per plane.

I never said it was wise or just , just excellent from a technical and tactical POV of course, but it isn't my country so I can afford to ignore the cons in favour of the pros

I blinked and thread was already 3 pages ahead

BraniacX:
I never said it was wise or just , just excellent from a technical and tactical POV of course, but it isn't my country so I can afford to ignore the cons in favour of the pros

I was just marveling at the price tag. It looks like it it's going to be an amazing plane. The first test flight supposed to be next year. Wonder if the flight will be classified as well.

Obrigardo:


If person no understand you ehn, he go die from exhaustion with this your running round in circles.
Can you link this your take with this doozy of a twiiter files? I don't want to waste time with you arguing baselessly.

True.

CoolUsername:


>argues with person online
>asks person to prove censorship
>person proves censorship
>"why are changing your argument? answer my completely unrelated question?"

Sorry, I missed that part , take a screenshot of you proving censorship and post
Also, my unrelated question pertains to your second accusation which is conspiracy so sorry not sorry to contradict you, it is very, totally related

AlphaTaikun:

The insults you hurled back at
1stGenAmerican in that screenshot were an overkill, an attack on her parentage which is wrong!... Way more than whatever she said which is much milder.

And she was defending the POTUS,
Joe Biden who you refered to as a "senile dunce" in the earlier post before you took the screenshot.

How does what she said diminish you as a person since June 2022? Ronu (Think). Let it rest!

So I insult Joe Biden and that gives her the right to insult me personally? Baba you sef ronu na. Is Joe Biden her father? Has she not hurled worse insults at Trump during and after his presidency? Both men are public figures and fair game for insults from anybody here, Joe Biden more so because he is the current President as opposed to Trump who is a private citizen. You only cross a line when you attack someone personally for their views on either men.

And if she insults me by saying I can’t afford 2 square meals then that is also an indirect insult of my parents. That’s how I see it okay?

I will “try” to let it go. But the temptation will always be there till she swallows her pride and apologizes lol.

And the same goes to Mr. “us abroad” AKA IjeBos

BraniacX:


Sorry, I missed that part , take a screenshot of you proving censorship and post
Also, my unrelated question pertains to your second accusation which is conspiracy so sorry not sorry to contradict you, it is very, totally related

Read real slow this time around.

Twitter told The New York Post to delete the post with the article or face a ban. The New York Post refused, so the post deleted and they received a ban. Y'know the article that actually completely factual.

BraniacX:
so it is also conspiracy now ehn? you've not proven censorship and you are adding conspiracy, riddle me this, when the US embassy under the aegis of the secretary of state I think gave advisory against travelling to abuja and peradventure foreign airlines immediately cancelled flights to Nigeria, will that qualify as a conspiracy between the embassy and the airlines against Nigeria?

how has he not proved Censorship?
they conspired with the FBI to censor a legitimate story... isn't that enough? at the same time, they let all lies and unverified stories about trump fly.

IjeBos:


I was just marveling at the price tag. It looks like it it's going to be an amazing plane. The first test flight supposed to be next year. Wonder if the flight will be classified as well.

it is an amazing plane if it is as advertised and it provides more tactical options for the US military, the price tag is meant to discourage foreign competition and fatten the cash bloated defense industry as usual

CoolUsername:


That's completely messed up but a false equivalence nonetheless.

I've already addressed this previously, the National Enquirer and similar publications have always been known as a right wing rag that people don't really take seriously, similar to Salon magazine on the left. You can simply move to another outlet. You cannot do that with Twitter and Meta because of the control they have over the social media market

You were quoting Breitbart a few page ago. You think people take Breitbart seriously.

tamudabu:


Actually, you're here wailing about me while responding three times to the same posts and lying that you are doing something different to what we all see you doing here.

Just thought to tell you in case you think we are all mindless and blind like you are. I wouldn't respond to your uneducated foul mouth otherwise.

Yes that’s what you get for calling me a pig unprovoked. I call your mother and your entire useless family pigs. Okay. If you can’t take it then don’t start it.

And who is uneducated between me and you? Hehehe. You want us to go down that path again? Lol. Just let it go bro. I only come for those who come for me.

saxywale2:

You were quoting Breitbart a few page ago. You think people take Breitbart seriously.

1. Because Breitbart posted the source video. 2. Other outlets corroborated the report.
3. Google released statement admitting the video was from them but disrupting the conclusions drawn in the article.

I think it's fair to say the article was well-sourced.

BraniacX:


Sorry, I missed that part , take a screenshot of you proving censorship and post
Also, my unrelated question pertains to your second accusation which is conspiracy so sorry not sorry to contradict you, it is very, totally related

censorship

the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

CoolUsername:


Read real slow this time around.

Twitter told The New York Post to delete the post with the article or face a ban. The New York Post refused, so the post deleted and they received a ban. Y'know the article that actually completely factual.

understand more slowly this time around, the accusations of censorship and conspiracy you posited that I engaged you over were between the FBI a government agency as you already agreed and Facebook a private company, you introducing twitter and newyork post into the mix was you skipping lanes, I refused to be distracted and ignored it while telling you to focus first on the argument at hand with legal judiciousness, introducing a tangent argument with dissimilar composition is scatterbrained thinking and behaviour, so, I will engage you on twitter and newyork post as soon as you can prove the censorship and conspiracy in the FBI Facebook issue, was my breakdown slow enough for you?

benalvino3:


censorship

I didn't ask for a definition of censorship, I asked for a proof of censorship! if you must take the baton from coolusername then you must stay on the right track

basilico:


Look up Crossfire hurrricane. 2016. Hillary Clinton manufactured the lie about Russia colllusion and the FBI ran with it.
John Brennan briefed Obama about HC using the Russia to divert attention from mishandling official communications.
Peter Strzyk opened an investigation based on Cris Steele fake dossier.
Look inwards into yourself.

Her campaign even paid the British spy (Christopher Steele) who concocted the fake dossier that was the basis of the whole Russia investigation. Her campaign was guilty of the same “collusion with a foreign agent to interfere with an election” that they accused Trump of. But these mindless liberals here ain’t ready for that discussion.

BraniacX:
I didn't ask for a definition of censorship, I asked for a proof of censorship! if you must take the baton from coolusername then you must stay on the right track

Because he has proved it already and you cannot seem to get it or realised he has done just that... i concluded that you have no clue what censorship means.

benalvino3:


how has he not proved Censorship?
they conspired with the FBI to censor a legitimate story... isn't that enough? at the same time, they let all lies and unverified stories about trump fly.

prove the conspiracy then, last I checked a government agency giving an advisory within the ambits of the laws that set them up is them acting in a professional capacity, a private company formulating policy on the basis of that advisory is them acting within the law in their and their service customers best interests and who the hell are you to say otherwise? Other conservative outlets that ran amok with the story were neither investigated nor prosecuted by any government agency or what else according to your definition of censorship is suppression of the news supposed to be? Or are you going to posit here that in censorship suppression of items, news or offensive material is partial, optional or selective?

CoolUsername:


1. Because Breitbart posted the source video. 2. Other outlets corroborated the report.
3. Google released statement admitting the video was from them but disrupting the conclusions drawn in the article.

I think it's fair to say the article was well-sourced.

I wasn't talking about the article you posted. Since you called national examiner a rag right wing website because they got caught pants down, it's safe to also call Breitbart rag because they are have been caught too many times for posting misinformation.

BraniacX:
understand more slowly this time around, the accusations of censorship and conspiracy you posited that I engaged you over were between the FBI a government agency as you already agreed and Facebook a private company, you introducing twitter and newyork post into the mix was you skipping lanes, I refused to be distracted and ignored it while telling you to focus first on the argument at hand with legal judiciousness, introducing a tangent argument with dissimilar composition is scatterbrained thinking and behaviour, so, I will engage you on twitter and newyork post as soon as you can prove the censorship and conspiracy in the FBI Facebook issue, was my breakdown slow enough for you?

Tends to happen when you are taking to multiple people at a time.

Facebook censored the New York Post by surpressing the distribution of a story that was damaging to Biden, Trump's political opponent. The conspiracy was that this was done in line with the direction of the FBI who told them about potential fake news from foreign actors—which was a lie.

The FBI that has repeatedly shown bias against Trump. They had to remove two agents from a Trump investigation because text messages detailing how much they hated him were leaked. The same FBI illegally spied on Trump's 2016 campaign. The same FBI manufactured incriminating evidence against Trump. The same FBI failed to tell Facebook to be on the look out for fake news when it was damaging to Trump.