Jump to content

Infidel Dog

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Infidel Dog

  1. The problem now is one of plausible deniability. The FBI is leaning heavily on it through their friends in the media. Especially those Prog fact checkers. God, does anybody seriously take them seriously anymore? On the other hand the terrible trio here would be saying the same thing about the independent journalists working on the Twitter files like Schellenberg, Weiss and Taibbi. The way the most damning evidence against the FBI and their connection with Twitter goes right now concerns the unchallenged report that the FBI was making payments of between 3.4 and 3.5 million dollars to Twitter. Now a Prog "fact checker" will tell you there's nothing to see here. The practice is common when gathering personal information concerning bad actor, criminal types they'll say. The company needs to be paid for their assistance in gathering the information. However, when you hear from somebody like Taibbi and Schellenberg who have been investigating the Twitter files from the bottom up since Musk opened them up they tell a different story. Looks like pressure to censor. " In the sixth installment of the Twitter Files, published Friday, Taibbi revealed that the bureau was so aggressive in sending Twitter “possible violative content” to review that an employee described one set of materials as a “monumental undertaking” that required several colleagues to pitch in and help. On Monday, Shellenberger reported that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies repeatedly primed Twitter’s former head of trust and safety Yoel Roth to dismiss The Post’s bombshell October 2020 report on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop as a Russian “hack and leak” operation. The files reveal the FBI could communicate with top Twitter executives through multiple channels, including email accounts and specially built encrypted portals. The bureau would often send the company lists of users they wanted investigated for terms of use violations. " Here's a link to Congresswoman Elise Stefanik having just grilled someone at committee. Prog "fact checkers" haven't convinced her a 3.5 million dollar payout to Twitter was just one of those things and not an attempt to influence social media to censor the Hunter laptop story.
  2. And hey, what is it with you three that you go all Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe when somebody shows you Schiff lying? Is he like some sort of saint of your new religion or something? The liar Saint? Saint of all liars. And no, Hodad. WCM was not lying. He was incorrect. Led to the lie by your liar saint, Adam Schiff. And it didn't actually matter in context to all his other truthful examples and the larger point he was making. You've gotta lay off the "hasty generalizations," Bud. Especially now that we're wise to them.
  3. Well first of all your link is not the one I quoted. Mine showed Adam Schiff lying about the FBI being connected with the story. Yours is explained in its title: Schiff: 'Smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin'. That has nothing to do with the FBI. There's nothing in it that does. So where's this missing context? That story is also a lie from the liar Adam Schiff. So it has that in common but it contains no context on the separate lie I was talking about that the FBI supported it. But if you would really like some context on that one I'll give you some.
  4. Hey, I didn't start it. The guy who likes to grab wonky little tidbits from larger points that might be a bit off and project them as proof the larger point and any other examples are false, did that. It's interesting that your better half tries incorrectly to accuse me of the same thing in the post that followed yours. He must have looked up "fallacy of hasty generalization" when I mentioned it and thought he could just stuff it in anywhere.
  5. Well, that is interesting. I did F3s on "FBI". I should have done them on "disinformation." But this is more interesting...there was a story on the date mentioned concerning the FBI and disinformation. But it was the FBI denying they had information on Hunter's laptop being Russian disinformation. https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-doj-fbi-confirm-hunter-biden-laptop-is-not-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign Turns out the original story concerning the FBI and Hunter's Laptop as Russian disinformation was one of Adam Schiff's lies. The FBI specifically fingered Schiff as the perp spreading the lie. And here's where it started: The rest of what WCM claims (and there was a lot) appears to be true though. Do you know what the fallacy of hasty generalization is yet, btw? I think we covered it before but I'm starting to notice a pattern.
  6. As I heard it the wall was just going to be the first line of defense. When finished there were going to be censors, drones, added checkpoints and quick access to any point along the wall. The Israel/Palestine wall is at points just a fence but you really don't want to hop that section of fence.
  7. Released a statement? I think you're going have to produce that quote before we decide who the liar is. I went back as far as page six looking for it. I couldn't find it. The closest thing I could find to that was WCM's belief Biden knew the FBI didn't believe it was Russian disinformation when he claimed it was. The FBI had the laptop and had been examining it for about a year was his reasoning. Seriously. Produce the quote you're talking about, or don't then we'll decide who gets to call whom a liar.
  8. Now apply your superior wisdom to his next example of policy insanity. You know if you try I'm going to make you admit women can't be fathers, right?
  9. Oh damn, I just realized something. This is the thread I left, promising not to return because it was the same old insults ad nauseum in reply to any attempt at rational argument. Sorry about that. I forgot. OK, gone again. And I tied a string around my K finger so I won't forget.
  10. I might say the same to you. But I don't need to. The people I'm talking to are already open to the rational and obvious. I'll give you some examples. The problem with say, "Equity, diversity, and inclusion" is that it requires control. The decision on what is equal, diverse and inclusive must come from an authority above. They'll need power above the populace to enforce it. They need authority to say, equify (my word, spelling Nazis) and include a new diversity by say opening the border to let 7 million invaders enrich their new society. That is not equal opportunity. It is not choice for American citizens. It is enforced equity of outcome. Here's another one: The people I'm talking to (sometimes called the silent majority) don't need data to know Rachel Levine and Sam Brinton are ostensibly abnormal. The American Constitution allows Sam and Rachel to be weird, so that's OK to the average guy or gal. However, if you tell these average people you're going to stuff these weirdos into positions of authority and that openly appears to be based on nothing more than not just normalizing their weirdness but by prioritizing it the average person immediately rejects that. Inductive reasoning tells them that is a bad hiring practice and suggests no good can come of it. Some of us wonder why such a ludicrous thing would even be proposed, much less enacted. Deductive reasoning tells us the most likely answer when you consider the overwhelming evidence of not just this but similar nutty policies would be a strategy coming from somewhere that some sort of hopeful PTB force wishes to tear down 'what is' followed by the mistaken belief they can "build back better."
  11. It is a conspiracy and it's larger than just the courts. It's in education, religion, technology, media anywhere administrative structure can be invaded and hijacked by a pernicious ideology. The evidence is available to the eyes. It is is openly available to anybody who wants to look around and consider it. We used to call it cultural Marxism but others such as Globalists seem to have adopted its strategies. If your ideological mindset doesn't allow you to observe the obvious then no, you won't see it and you're trained to cry conspiracy against those who do. As far as the blatantly, sore thumb, obvious election thefts from Arizona candidates including Kari Lake you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Don't feel bad. I've seen your media. You can't be expected to. And "denialism" is just the new term for heresy against the new "Progressive" religion.
  12. American courts are worthless against cases of mass chicanery perpetrated by Democrats. One knows how the court will decide by watching how legacy media deals with the case or cases. Neither courts nor media are reflective of each other. It's something else they reflect. Some other darkness. You can see this playing out before your eyes by watching what's happening as we speak in Arizona. That whole mess needs a comprehensive court trial of all parts of the issue, but so far they can't get one. It's 2020 all over again, only more so for Arizona. What court "justice" they did get was a farce. This while the mismanagement, rule-breaking and general injustice of their 2022 midterms was so blatant it could only be intentional. It all can only be explained by some internal rot within the American legislative infrastructure that each day gives it a more obvious 2 tier system of justice. If you're Prog it's one system for me and a different one for thee. "Nya, nya."
  13. In general, I'm opposed to normalizing stupidity that does harm. An example might be pushing the idea men can have periods. Impressionable kids watch such crap and it normalizes their confusion to adopt the idea their mental discomfort has to be gender related. Men can be women right? They can have periods. More telling of harm would be something like "Admiral" Rachel Levine in America wanting to push sex change procedures on kids for potential revenue. https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2023/02/17/unearthed-emails-show-rachel-levine-discussing-potential-revenue-from-child-sex-change-procedures/ Grooming kids to accept the trans before they can think for themselves is wrong. Parents, activists, teachers who go along with it are a special kind of criminally stupid. Accepting that kind of nuttiness leads to where anything and everything is OK. This, for example:
  14. So basically Hodad and I can't agree on what is ostensibly radical. So be it. Barbie is convinced transsexualism and homosexuality are the same thing. No real world facts will ever penetrate the comforting fantasy of his delusion on that one. Look, it's been fun but we're just repeating ourselves and nobody else seems to care. Give yourselves some high fives and tell yourselves you won or something. I'm out of here.
  15. Ok, and here's what I think. If you push traditionally abnormal people into positions of power; not based on their merit but a sad need to signal your hope of appearing to possess superior virtue the abnormality will manifest itself in radical ways. As it did and does with Levine and Brinton. There were WTF moments when their appointments were announced and those who expected radical weirdness to come of it have not been disappointed.
  16. Well no, not to you. You only hear what you want to believe so how can anything else make sense to you when you're not capable of hearing it much less understanding it. Did you ever hear the saying "common sense is not that common?" With you it's completely foreign.
  17. It's pretty important to you to believe that, is it? They can be. Just as anybody can. But no, it's not in the definition. Ask the female prisoners that were raped in female jail by transsexual men if they think trans can only be homosexual. Or read this one from the BBC: The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women
  18. I know Brinton was caught on multiple occasions stealing women's undergarments from airports. Not the kind of mind I'd want managing anything to do with anything nuclear. A little too radical for me. And in my mind Levine's a groomer. Same thing. Brain's not on right.
  19. I think I get it. You're not on board with the male tran types mad at lesbians for not being attracted to you. You'd like to pretend they don't exist. You prefer to think trannies are all out for same sex action. Would it interfere with your visits to your local porn site if I tell you that's not the case?
  20. Will you bozos never learn to read your own sources? That post has no suggestion the study it references has anything to do with "Trans" anything. Look if Ru Paul is your thing, good for you but don't be trying to do tell me grooming kids for radical medical procedures isn't radical? I have to wonder why that would be important to you. And why is it so important to you that transsexualism be the same thing as homosexuality? It isn't, you know. Is this a personal thing for you to insist it is? I have to wonder why.
  21. I don't know where you thought you saw me 'fighting an attraction to homosexuals.' In fact, I'm kind of chuckling that you're so sure I'm not homosexual. I'm saying some, and more everyday homosexuals, don't want to be associated with the weird psychosis of the transsexual groomer movement. I've said it a few times now. Why is it so important to you to pretend I'm saying something else. That's abnormal. You've got me thinking. What are you hiding?
  22. Actually what this is about is what's radical. Is Rachel Levine's appointment radical. I think it is. You think it isn't. Very well, what about Joe's other political appointee, Sam Brinton - the Transsexual airport lingerie thief? Is he/she/mx radical?
  23. Why are you so opposed to homosexuals when they don't support your hidden attraction to transsexuals? Are you homophobic or transophobic? A little of both maybe.
  24. It's been done 6 times since 1989 when the practice began and one of them did come up through the ranks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Public_Health_Service_Commissioned_Corps_four-star_admirals And push a tranny through there, especially one pushing for radical medical procedures on children and you're entering the Twilight Zone.
  • Create New...