ono:


ben, from all I’ve read about these Twitter files, and considering all these happened before/during/after the 2020 general election, isn’t it safe to conclude that although Trump was President, he was basically surrounded by people hell bent on sabotaging his second term ambition? And that includes Bill Bar - who from all we are seeing now was not just incompetent, he was probably all in on kicking Trump out of the White House!

ono:


ben, from all I’ve read about these Twitter files, and considering all these happened before/during/after the 2020 general election, isn’t it safe to conclude that although Trump was President, he was basically surrounded by people hell bent on sabotaging his second term ambition? And that includes Bill Bar - who from all we are seeing now was not just incompetent, he was probably all in on kicking Trump out of the White House!

benalvino3:

benalvino3:


You have brainless people like benalvino3
providing questionable headlines as proof of censorship by the FBI when even same headline doesn't mention them in that capacity

BraniacX:
oh I corrected it for you and no, I am not as brainless as you are to take things at face value

benalvino3:


Lol, brainless.

You said you corrected it for me and still fall back to that which you claimed to have corrected. You are indeed brainless

BraniacX:
lols, is this your get out of a tight spot go to move ? Prove your own stupidity then hurl insults around hoping I will fall for your bait and forget to demand your so called proof of FBI censorship and/or conspiracy with Facebook? Boy, your stupidity can only amuse not faze me, when you joined the conversation between me and coolusername that was the question on the table, I asked you to be well versed in argument at hand before taking the baton so eagerly, but your stupidity was/is bloated by your arrogance thinking you just have to shove a few headlines into my face and voila, I'll start clapping for you, what do you take me for? Another brainless trump loving dolt like you?
No boy, you will either prove the claim of censorship by the FBI as was the question when you joined in, or you will learn to shut up on matters being debated by your intellectual betters!
And oh! It isn't a fall back when all I'm using your argument for is highlighting your contradictions to further prove my point, I'll have expected you to get this but being the dolt you are I have to modify my expectations so no! Hard fail! Not your gotcha moment, try harder or smarter if that is even possible

BraniacX:
lols, is this your get out of a tight spot go to move ? Prove your own stupidity then hurl insults around hoping I will fall for your bait and forget to demand your so called proof of FBI censorship and/or conspiracy with Facebook? Boy, your stupidity can only amuse not faze me, when you joined the conversation between me and coolusername that was the question on the table, I asked you to be well versed in argument at hand before taking the baton so eagerly, but your stupidity was/is bloated by your arrogance thinking you just have to shove a few headlines into my face and voila, I'll start clapping for you, what do you take me for? Another brainless trump loving dolt like you?
No boy, you will either prove the claim of censorship by the FBI as was the question when you joined in, or you will learn to shut up on matters being debated by your intellectual betters!
And oh! It isn't a fall back when all I'm using your argument for is highlighting your contradictions to further prove my point, I'll have expected you to get this but being the dolt you are I have to modify my expectations so no! Hard fail! Not your gotcha moment, try harder or smarter if that is even possible

benalvino3:


I will take what I have seen so far. Mark Z... Said the FBI played a role for the information to be censored.

On this matter, you are nobody. Like I said, you can decide if the sky is blue or not... ie accept fact or reject fact. Na your own cup of tea be that. But what ever you believe is based on you... There is a reality we all adhere to.

Brainless what you accept as evidence does not matter. What matter is what is out there and what Mark z have said about it.

SlyfoxxDaBoss:
Because “she” is a man

SlyfoxxDaBoss:


In a bid to dispel the rumors and finally put the issue to rest, the Obama’s have released this official photo. Lol

basilico:


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532

Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden's son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings.

The New York Post alleged leaked emails from Hunter Biden's laptop showed the then vice-president was helping his son's business dealings in Ukraine.

Facebook and Twitter restricted sharing of the article, before reversing course amid allegations of censorship.

Zuckerberg said that getting the decision wrong "sucks".

"When we take down something that we're not supposed to, that's the worst," Zuckerberg said in a rare extended media inter

BraniacX:

Also forgive me this one foray into whattaboutism, if I concede to you the allegations part from a conservative perspective, in what terms will you then describe the actions of fox entertainment network over the years of refusing to carry news items like the January 6 hearings, anchors and hosts advising and conversing with the then President Trump on policy issues and framing of news items? Will same conspiracy and fraud accurately cover these same allegations/charges? Or do your standards apply only to one spectrum of the news outlets?

BraniacX:
good, good, you're learning, you're taking a smarter tack than the self opinionated dolt called benalvino3 and quoting directly from the report. Now my question for you is this, all the excerpts you quoted, singly or combined together, do they validate a charge of either conspiracy and/or censorship against the FBI and both Facebook and Twitter? Mind you I am asking of "charge" not "allegation", one is legally actionable the other not so much.
Also forgive me this one foray into whattaboutism, if I concede to you the allegations part from a conservative perspective, in what terms will you then describe the actions of fox entertainment network over the years of refusing to carry news items like the January 6 hearings, anchors and hosts advising and conversing with the then President Trump on policy issues and framing of news items? Will same conspiracy and fraud accurately cover these same allegations/charges? Or do your standards apply only to one spectrum of the news outlets?

BraniacX:
good, good, you're learning, you're taking a smarter tack than the self opinionated dolt called benalvino3 and quoting directly from the report. Now my question for you is this, all the excerpts you quoted, singly or combined together, do they validate a charge of either conspiracy and/or censorship against the FBI and both Facebook and Twitter? Mind you I am asking of "charge" not "allegation", one is legally actionable the other not so much.
Also forgive me this one foray into whattaboutism, if I concede to you the allegations part from a conservative perspective, in what terms will you then describe the actions of fox entertainment network over the years of refusing to carry news items like the January 6 hearings, anchors and hosts advising and conversing with the then President Trump on policy issues and framing of news items? Will same conspiracy and fraud accurately cover these same allegations/charges? Or do your standards apply only to one spectrum of the news outlets?

benalvino3:


Like a fool, he is asking of a charge against the FBI. Unless they are charged it did not happen.

Way to shift the goal post brainlessX

BraniacX:

Oh shut up and just quit yapping! Censorship and conspiracy are very very specific allegations that leave no room for doubt whatsoever about the accused being very deliberate about the actions taken to achieve it! Being vague with "played a role" fools nobody but yourself! If you accuse someone of conspiracy and censorship and you're asked to prove it in court you either prove beyond doubt the accused deliberately acted in such a manner or your accusations are invalid and as such should be honorably withdrawn! Your half arsed "played a role is hogwash!" and belongs in the dustbin. After today I want you to be certain next time you throw around your personal opinions or perhaps even frame them as such....."personal opinions"



No you simple minded dolt! Your belief is subject to your biases but "facts" which I will substitute for your "reality" leaves no room for biases and even though you say we all adhere to it you most definitely aren't adhering to it! There are standards required to establishing a charge of either censorship and/or conspiracy and that is why it remains an accusation only and never a charge, or do you think you know better than the Republican Senate that grilled officials of both companies over these accusations? And that is why you should do everybody a favour and shut your trap up! The question I asked about proving conspiracy was never a matter of partisanship or personal opinions but a matter of facts, a significant difference you are too dimwitted to appreciate or understand.

What I accept as evidence matters not if I am asking you to validate my personal opinions but that isn't what I'm asking is it? I asked you to prove your accusations for a FACT! And by that specific standard the evidence you provide must not only satisfy me, it must have also satisfied the then Republican led senate, it didn't because such facts do not exist except in the partisan tainted dredges of the excuse you claim for a brain!

basilico:



Some of these people have goats brains

benalvino3:


He comes here using big big words like he has sense... All talk not brain.

benalvino3:


Like a fool, he is asking of a charge against the FBI. Unless they are charged it did not happen.

Way to shift the goal post brainlessX

basilico:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fze0btPLCBc

FBI stone walling .

BraniacX:
that is your opinion and as such subjective, my opinion is that a partisan senator gaetz is trying to brow beat an FBI official into accepting his accusations as actionable fact and my opinion is also subjective so let's focus on facts then,
Fact, the FBI official repeatedly responded that when the FBI can establish actual evidence or facts, they don't come to Congress to yap about it, they go to court, they are not in court against the hunter Biden currently, neither did they do that when trump was president and bill Barr head of the DOJ, the logical implication is that despite gaetz's yapping, they can't establish his allegations for a fact.
Fact, hunter has been investigated by the FBI and the state of Delaware before and no such charges as gaetz insinuated was brought against him or his father Joe

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/federal-prosecutors-weigh-tax-and-gun-charges-against-hunter-biden
So basilico, facts don't care about yours or my opinions, so we should learn to distinguish between them

IjeBos:
I must be naive. I would never have imagined that I could be on a Nigerian forum and a black Nigerian is propagating a racist trope about Obama's wife. That someone could be that uninformed and/or hate themselves and people that look like them that much that they are serving as a useful idiot to advance racist narratives. Some things still shock me.

BraniacX:
establishing legally provable facts in civil and/or criminal allegations naturally lead to prosecutions or charges in court, the absence of a single charge against the FBI and/or Facebook and Twitter concerning conspiracy and censorship even after a Republican led congressional hearing under a Republican president and DOJ naturally and logically concludes that "there was no fact attached to these allegations" or there was no meat on this bone! so dimwitted dolt that you are, regret though I do the necessity of having to explain everything to you like I would a retard, charge in this case is linked to establishing for a fact the allegations of conspiracy and censorship against the FBI and SM coys!. Case in comparison, criminal trump and his trump organisation are facing many charges in court because prosecutors believe they have "FACTS" that will corroborate their accusations in court so yes, no charges no conspiracy or censorship you simple minded dolt! Even civil charges zilch so therefore zilch conspiracies and censorships

benalvino3:


See as you they dance like monkey.

You tied charging an org or person to facts. Now you they dance around legally provable facts. Na you know why you use word salad.

has there been a case where someone or org was charged then the charges were dropped?
has there been a time when someone was charged and the court finds him not Guilty and he was vindicated?
How you tie charges to facts is why I call you brainessX

Who will charge the FBI and why will they be charged?

I don't know where you are getting Trump's DOJ and admit LOGICALLY stating the FBI was not part of the effort to shut down that story. Mark Z... is saying they were involved, and on Twitter, Musk has revealed they were involved. You are just here feeding your bias.

mumu, again, charge, in this case, cannot be linked to Facts. the DOJ and FBI will not charge themselves... How much of an embarrassment can you be to yourself?

based on all the corruption that has been demonstrated by the FBI and DOJ, you are expecting them to Charge themselves. wow.

basilico:


You think hunter biden laptop contents should be investigated? Including Tony Bobulinski saying JB was getting 10% payoff or rather the feds go searching for evidence of every Trump ally
Rudy Giuliani mentioned the laptop had Child porn.

basilico:


Dogs are brighter than some people. Is all I can say.