benalvino3:


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.

censorship or suppression of a news item in Facebook but not on fox news flies in the face of what actual censorship is and makes a mockery of your own definition of censorship, next time before you ascribe words and definitions to events think it through before concluding your definition applies to the event and no, censorship has not been proven except to unthinking Republican bots, thinking Republicans know it doesn't apply to this scenario. Not everything is to be viewed through partisan tinted lenses

saxywale2:

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 legendary for posting misinformation.

It is true that they are a rag but they broke the news. They had the full video embedded in the article with time stamps, you can watch for yourself like I did. The article was corroborated by other reputable outlets, you can check field like I did. The article was responded to by Google who took ownership of the video you can check that out too, like I did. So it is safe to say that it was factual.

BraniacX:
censorship or suppression of a news item in Facebook but not on fox news flies in the face of what actual censorship is and makes a mockery of your own definition of censorship, next time before you ascribe words and definitions to events think it through before concluding your definition applies to the event and no, censorship has not been proven except to unthinking Republican bots, thinking Republicans know it doesn't apply to this scenario. Not everything is to be viewed through partisan tinted lenses

Zuckerberg said himself that they Censored the story but your head is buried in the sand.

the CEO has admitted to censorship and he also admitted the FBI contacted them.

The facts are glaring even if you refused to accept it.

CoolUsername:


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.

So now it was Facebook that censored it?
At least we are getting somewhere, which brings me to a new question, you claimed the FBI advisory was a lie, according to whom? And what evidence do you have to back that claim?
Also are you now conclusively saying the "censorship" wasn't by a government agency but instead by a private company?
Additionally, is it within the ambit of FBI as an agency to give advisory of issues of political importance or suspicions pertaining to foreign partisans in America? And were they specific about the NY post article when giving the advisory? If yes, pray tell which came first, the FBI advisory or the NY post story?
If you have answered these questions, can you factually prove conspiracy between the FBI and Facebook or not? If yes, conspiracy against who or whom?

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.

provide evidence to these claims of yours if you may, as I recall trump's campaign was secretly under investigation but never announced publicly before the election so as not to influence the election but an investigation into Hillary Clinton was announced publicly by the FBI just days before the election damaging her candidacy, if I were to go by that from a partisan perspective I can claim that constitutes as circumstantial evidence that the FBI was pro trump all along, but since this is not an argument I am making I am expecting your evidence to be more factual and less circumstantial than mine.

I hand the floor back to you

benalvino3:


Zuckerberg said himself that they Censored the story but your head is buried in the sand.

the CEO has admitted to censorship and he also admitted the FBI contacted them.

The facts are glaring even if you refused to accept it.

zuckerberg and Facebook are private entities, when next seun and nairaland deletes posts that violate their rules are you going to scream censorship or will we have to dig your own head out of the figurative sand hoping that you're not too blinded by partisanship to see it for what it is?

The CEO admitted that FBI contacted them with a non specific advisory, or did the CEO say the FBI contacted them about hunter biden and the contents of his laptop in specifics? Aren't you supposed to be smarter than the person you're picking up a baton from by virtue of the insights you gleamed while on the outside of the exchange?
OK, let me extend the question to you, what came first, the FBI advisory or the NY post story?
Secondly, is censorship more reactionary or proactionary when dealing with news items?

I love this enthusiasm from herschel walker who really wants to win the House. I'll be so happy if he wins the House why Warnock wins the Senate lol

BraniacX:



provide evidence to these claims of yours if you may, as I recall trump's campaign was secretly under investigation but never announced publicly before the election so as not to influence the election but an investigation into Hillary Clinton was announced publicly by the FBI just days before the election damaging her candidacy, if I were to go by that from a partisan perspective I can claim that constitutes as circumstantial evidence that the FBI was pro trump all along, but since this is not an argument I am making I am expecting your evidence to be more factual and less circumstantial than mine.

I hand the floor back to you

Boom!
But don't expect a reasonable response from him. He will try to run circles around you.

CoolUsername:


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

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

this guy self, na waoo
I don't know how to begin to pick this shambolic reasoning of yours apart.

Don't want to be so brutal on you but what the fvck is this. You are trying to sound like an intellectual but this is some low level pure shit thinking. Your view of these companies, and their perceived monopolies is so limited, you must think they are government properties.
Damn, i'm losing really losing cells reasoning how you come about things.

IjeBos:


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

Now i'm convinced the real meaning of "going deep down the rabbit hole" was a prophetic connotation for magats, no matter the situation, and even when the outcome turns out to be a dud against what they expect, they must invent one conspiracy to settle their hateful intent.
Never seen a toxic herd mentality like this.

CoolUsername:


Twitter files clearly showed that Twitter, a company with a clear left wing bias had unjustly censored a news organization for publishing an article that was damaging to the left wing presidential candidate. Even going so far as to invoke the 2016 elections, if it couldn't be clearer.

Facebook conspired with the FBI, an organization that had previously manufactured intimidating evidence and had illegally spied on the Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, to censor a posts about a news article that damaging to his political opponent during a presidential campaign.

Social media clearly favoured one party. Can you guess which one?

Let's say your wet fever dream is true, in your warped reality, then WHAT IS THE FVCKING CRIME HERE?

Criminal trump is under investigation for real crimes by multiple grand juries. So where do you want to take this your big tech epiphany to?

SlyfoxxDaBoss:


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.

You r well infomed. Hillary was Secretary of State.She was using a private server in her basement to transact national biz. How wz discovered?
Some close confidant emails leaked to wikileaks from bluementhal where he had been in comms with her using her private email address.
that was during Bengazi debacle. OI course most idiots here never heard that. Media covered it up
I will go on later

Obrigardo:
I love this enthusiasm from herschel walker who really wants to win the House. I'll be so happy if he wins the House why Warnock wins the Senate lol

Lol.

basilico:


You r well infomed. Hillary was Secretary of State.She was using a private server in her basement to transact national biz. How wz discovered?
Some close confidant emails leaked to wikileaks from bluementhal where he had been in comms with her using her private email address.
that was during Bengazi debacle. OI course most idiots here never heard that. Media covered it up
I will go on later

Media covered up the fact Hilary used a private server? Lol... Holy Revisionist History.

In fact after the elections, Media figures discussed it. And it was a general consensus that they went WAY overboard on it in comparison to Trump scandals.
Studies agree: Media gorged on Hillary Clinton email coverage
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_0fA16ZuNDkJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/25/studies-agree-media-gorged-on-hillary-clinton-email-coverage/&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

IjeBos:


Media covered up the fact Hilary used a private server? Lol Holy Revisionist History.

In fact after the elections, Media figures discussed it. And it was a general consensus that they went WAY overboard on it in comparison to Trump scandals.
Studies agree: Media gorged on Hillary Clinton email coverage
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_0fA16ZuNDkJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/25/studies-agree-media-gorged-on-hillary-clinton-email-coverage/&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

You dey mind that guy.

More shocking is that the same FBI Director that threw Clinton under the bus failed to inform the congress that Trump's campaign was also under investigation.

Obrigardo:

Damn, i'm losing really losing cells reasoning how you come about things.

Can't lose what you never had

Obrigardo:


Let's say your wet fever dream is true, in your warped reality, then WHAT IS THE FVCKING CRIME HERE?

Criminal trump is under investigation for real crimes by multiple grand juries. So where do you want to take this your big tech epiphany to?

Drumpf has been finished multiple for the past 7 years according to you lunatics

The media is missing this point about president Biden, the man is an hype man. He loves making people feel good in a rather genuine heartfelt way.
Watch the video, don't take the tweet at face value

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1599525836377440256?t=ww0SaxiHk1_4TTTdAquBjA&s=19

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.

Another crazy, lame and silly line of reasoning from none other than the notorious Obrifaggot!

Obrigardo:
President Biden and Senator Warren in a phone bank working for Warnock.
Biden working in a phone bank? Ah this man is too simple.

Damn I love the Democratic party.

This must explain the "Biden basement" campaign strategy. Reeks of corruption and vote rigging/buying - akin to what's obtainable in corrupt "democracies".

See the latest picture posted on Twitter. Anyone miss the symbolism as regards his thoughts on the black race

What was I saying a while back? Some people here be thinking they know it all because they physically reside in Muricah LMAO

Americans are globally known for their ignorance and dumbness. They have few exceptional citizens but the vast majority of the population (especially this upcoming generation) are complete dunderheads. Europeans, Asians and even African kids are smarter these days.

Listen to one of your own, liberal Trump-hating Bill Maher, tell it like it is.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMOfwUP0F0&t=130s

Some good news here. Isn't it?

Bill Maher going after crybaby liberals.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu9JGK_yHo

wirinet:
See the latest picture posted on Twitter. Anyone miss the symbolism as regards his thoughts on the black race

Hmmm. All you could see is race when it is not there. Victim mentality does not take anyone forward.

wirinet:
See the latest picture posted on Twitter. Anyone miss the symbolism as regards his thoughts on the black race.

Southern Strategy thinking.

Should a company be compelled to sell a product it does not wish to make?

If you make donuts and you sell donuts to many people in the public but refuse to sell donuts to people who have a certain color of skin then you are clearly discriminating and deserve the negative consequences headed your way.

If a feminist runs a donut shop and a man walks into her shop, she should sell the man donuts and not discriminate against him based on his sex. However if the man says please write "Restore the Patriarchy" on all my donuts because I want to hand them out to tourists to let them know about our city, is the feminist compelled to use her talent to promote a cause she finds reprehensible?

In the first case there is discrimination based on what someone is. Not nice.
In the second case there is not discrimination based on what someone is, but rather a decision of conscience to abstain from participation in another persons ideological promotion.

To embolden a government with the power to force people to use their creativity against their individual conscience is a fundamental error with terrifying possibilities.
https://wapo.st/3P9ads7

happney65:
Some good news here. Isn't it?

QT appears to be working, and interest rate is a lagging indicator - meaning the last couple of months hikes has not even filtered through the economy.
Powell's tone was also not hawkish last week. I only hope that the FEDs haven't overtighted. Well if they have, then a severe recession might be unavoidable.

happney65:
Some good news here. Isn't it?

What a coincidence that gas prices started dropping after the election. Hmmm.. On another forum I'm on, we actually had a poll as to what gas prices would be after the election. The majority thought they would drop. It's the same reason OPEC announced a decrease before the election and Putin announced he was retreating after the election. The gas industry, like OPEC and Putin was trying to make sure Biden didn't get elected. Biden should really be tougher on them.

Yeah, but I wonder what Hunter Biden was doing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2022/12/04/trump-owed-hidden-debt-while-in-office/?sh=3e239451b30e

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.

Yeah he was having a ball at a Big Boy Wedding, while deciding to write tons of posts on Nairaland in between his small chops and bottles of Hennessey. Very reasonable/plausible thing to do.

ono:



This must explain the "Biden basement" campaign strategy. Reeks of corruption and vote rigging/buying - akin to what's lobtainable in corrupt "democracies".

this guy has gone mad