Are you better off today than in 2021?

[HoosierfanJM]

Have you not been paying attention to the congressional hearings? Have you not heard of the many (15+) FBI whistleblowers? Get your head out of the CNN/MSNBC asshole.

A little more -- let's see you refute this one with something other than a smiley emoji or name calling:

I rely on source material, NOT politicians or media opining, even during Congressional sessions. That goes for Democrats and Republicans. In other words, sworn witness testimony and authenticated records.

Why? Because politicians spin and lie, even when they know better. Sworn witnesses have a major problem if they do so.

Example? First, the context:

A court filing shows top executives and media personalities at Fox News dismissed former President Trump’s voter fraud following the 2020 presidential election, but expressed that fact checks of the Trump might upset their audience

Ingraham, Hannity, Carlson, and other Fox execs were quoted in texts that they were required to provide to the court:

• “Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,” Carlson wrote in one text message to Ingraham, the court filing shows.
• “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy,” Ingraham responded.
• Carlson wrote back “it’s unbelievably offensive to me. Our viewers are good people and they believe it.”
• Carlson texted an unidentified Fox employee that it was “shockingly reckless” of Powell to claim the election had been stolen from Trump.
• Neil Cavuto cut away from Kayleigh McEnany making false statements about voter fraud, telling his viewers he could not “in good countenance continue to show you this.” A Fox News brand team led by executive Raj Shah wrote to network leadership after the episode saying Cavuto’s action represented a “brand threat,” according to the filing.
• On Nov. 12, after Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich published a tweet disputing claims from Trump about Dominion, outlining how elections officials had determined the company did not engage in voter fraud, Carlson sent Hannity the reporter’s tweet saying “Please get her fired … It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”
• Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox Corp, wrote to Scott saying “it’s been suggested our prime time three should independently or together say something like the election is over and Joe Biden won,” adding it “would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election was stolen.”

 

[Riveting-]

Your worldview is so limited it's laughable.

Still waiting for you, Ted, to enlighten us on what you read that gives you such a wide worldview?

Msnbc web site, Weekly Reader, Teen Vogue, what?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Invented a reason yet why the FBI was monitoring Twitter for violations of Twitter's terms of service?

How about that they were moonlighting to make extra money for the holidays?

Please quote sworn testimony or contemporaneous records, in context.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

More quotes from Tucker Carlson:

• On January 6, Carlson texted with Pfeiffer that Trump is “a demonic force, a destroyer."
• "We worked really hard to build what we have. Those ****ers are destroying our credibility. It enrages me.” He added that he had "spoken with Laura and Sean a minute ago and they are highly upset."
• Carlson: "What [Trump]’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.” And soon thereafter that day, they put the Pillow Guy on his show to offer his 'expert opinion.'

 

[Riveting-]

Please quote sworn testimony or contemporaneous records, in context.

The FBI has not denied the twitter emails on same that I know of. But of course, the emails back and forth could have been faked by the Russians, right?

Damn that Putin. Tricked us again.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

The FBI has not denied the twitter emails on same that I know of. But of course, the emails back and forth could have been faked by the Russians, right?

Damn that Putin. Tricked us again.

How about you provide what I asked for in a straightforward manner:

"Please quote sworn testimony or contemporaneous records, in context."

 

[HoosierfanJM]

More authenticated source material:

• Ingraham’s producer Tommy Firth texted Ron Mitchell, one of the Fox executives responsible for overseeing Ingraham’s show: “This dominion shit is going to give me a ****ing aneurysm–as many times as I’ve told Laura it’s bs, she sees shit posters and trump tweeting about it–"

 

[Riveting-]

How about you provide what I asked for in a straightforward manner:

"Please quote sworn testimony or contemporaneous records, in context."

Once the FBI provides sworn testimony or its contemporaneous records in context, I will.

Of course, that doesn't happen easily in a police state so we should just not believe the FBI engaged in those published emails that went back and forth to Twitter, right?

The FBI director refused to state before a cong hearing that FBI agents or informants did not commit crimes on Jan 6, so of course police state fans like you are fine with that. Those of us who are not fine with the police state think the answer should have been, "No, the FBI does not engage in criminal activities."

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Once the FBI provides sworn testimony or its contemporaneous records in context, I will.

Of course, that doesn't happen easily in a police state so we should just not believe the FBI engaged in those published emails that went back and forth to Twitter, right?

The FBI director refused to state before a cong hearing that FBI agents or informants did not commit crimes on Jan 6, so of course police state fans like you are fine with that. Those of us who are not fine with the police state think the answer should have been, "No, the FBI does not engage in criminal activities."

.
So you are flat out guessing. Based on zero authenticated records or sworn testimony.
.

 

[Riveting-]

.
So you are flat out guessing. Based on zero authenticated records or sworn testimony.
.

Not 'guessing' but basing it on published emails and on knowledge of what transpired - namely, that a legitimate news story was covered up before the 2020 election by many sources, including an agency that had the laptop and knew the story was legit.

Guessing would be to assume the FBI acted appropriately despite the evidence to the contrary, which is what you and other police state fans are doing.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

Still waiting for you, Ted, to enlighten us on what you read that gives you such a wide worldview?

Msnbc web site, Weekly Reader, Teen Vogue, what?

I prefer the political stylings of Goofus and Gallant.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Not 'guessing' but basing it on published emails and on knowledge of what transpired - namely, that a legitimate news story was covered up before the 2020 election by many sources, including an agency that had the laptop and knew the story was legit.

Guessing would be to assume the FBI acted appropriately despite the evidence to the contrary, which is what you and other police state fans are doing.

Please link these "published emails."

 

[Riveting-]

Please link these "published emails."

No coverage of this by msnbc (or by Goofus, Ted's main news source)?

 

[Boilermaker03]

What did the “15+ FBI whistleblowers” say? Lol

Oh yeah … you’ve got NOTHING. Have you ever met an FBI Agent? Do you have any basis for contradicting any of the SWORN testimony of what happened? You only cite conspiracy theories and opinionated “questions.” Then you name call and respond with smiley emojis. But never refute anything or add anything.

Or, you can believe every state’s election officials, Republican and Democrat, that say elections are free and fair.

Yes, I have met an FBI agent as a matter of fact. You're take here is absolutely dumb.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Yes, I have met an FBI agent as a matter of fact. You're take here is absolutely dumb.

Just guessing, career day at your elementary school last month?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

No coverage of this by msnbc (or by Goofus, Ted's main news source)?

View embedded media

Still waiting.

Not for a link to a Matt Taibbi article, but to an in context source document or piece of sworn witness testimony that in any way supports your contention.

I ask for a direct piece of evidence about any of this nonsense, and instead of coming up with something, you point to the haystack, and say “there must be a needle in there somewhere”

I’ll give you this much credit though,
You’re better than the other poster in the discussion who, when asked for anything of substance, responds with a laughy emoji and schoolyard insults.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

By the way, you and that other guy both use the losing middle school debate team tactic regularly:

“No one has said anything about it, and no one has any evidence, so you can’t disprove it.”

I mean, for f’s sake, didn’t you grow past that stage of your lives?!!?

So, for that other guy who states he’s met an FBI Agent— did you ask that agent what the rate of success is in cases with no evidence, but tons of evidence that contradicts the case theory? Because that’s exactly what you’re proposing should be done.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

One more thing, and I truly, sincerely mean this. If the two of you want to stop being completely owned and humiliated in these threads, you should:

1. Respond with verifiable, authenticated stuff from those who have first-hand knowledge, or
2. If it's an opinion of yours, say so, and if applicable, state that you are basing it on no evidence and in the face of contrary evidence
3. Stop with the ridiculous middle school debate team crud and with responses that almost always consist of labeling ("you must be a liberal, rino, part of the police state, reading cnn, etc"), emojis and name calling

If you do those things, people will take you seriously, treat you like adults, and you will not be regularly shamed by verifiable evidence. That would, I would hope, be a huge positive for you.

Or, you can respond to this olive branch with labeling, emojis, and name calling, and it will be clear that

1. For whatever reason you just don't get it and don't realize you're getting owned over and over, and
2. Will continue to be owned over and over.

 

[Riveting-]

Still waiting.

Not for a link to a Matt Taibbi article, but to an in context source document or piece of sworn witness testimony that in any way supports your contention.

Still waiting.

Not for a link to a Matt Taibbi article, but to an in context source document or piece of sworn witness testimony that in any way supports your contention.

I ask for a direct piece of evidence about any of this nonsense, and instead of coming up with something, you point to the haystack, and say “there must be a needle in there somewhere”

I’ll give you this much credit though,
You’re better than the other poster in the discussion who, when asked for anything of substance, responds with a laughy emoji and schoolyard insults.

No, you said: Please link these "published emails."

The link was full of them, so now you are back to 'context source doc or sworn witness testimony', desperately seeking to defend your beloved police state despite overwhelming evidence of corruption.

 

[Riveting-]

What has happened to libs like you, H2? Libs used to be suspicious of the gov, but now you libs love the police state. Is it because of your irrational hatred of Trump, as reflected in your idiotic comment that Trump was the worst pres in 150 years despite the hundreds of thousands who died because of LBJ's stupid war.

Are all those deaths just a statistic to you, like to Uncle Joe?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

One more thing, and I truly, sincerely mean this. If the two of you want to stop being completely owned and humiliated in these threads, you should:

1. Respond with verifiable, authenticated stuff from those who have first-hand knowledge, or
2. If it's an opinion of yours, say so, and if applicable, state that you are basing it on no evidence and in the face of contrary evidence
3. Stop with the ridiculous middle school debate team crud and with responses that almost always consist of labeling ("you must be a liberal, rino, part of the police state, reading cnn, etc"), emojis and name calling

If you do those things, people will take you seriously, treat you like adults, and you will not be regularly shamed by verifiable evidence. That would, I would hope, be a huge positive for you.

Or, you can respond to this olive branch with labeling, emojis, and name calling, and it will be clear that

1. For whatever reason you just don't get it and don't realize you're getting owned over and over, and
2. Will continue to be owned over and over.

No, you said: Please link these "published emails."

The link was full of them, so now you are back to 'context source doc or sworn witness testimony', desperately seeking to defend your beloved police state despite overwhelming evidence of corruption.

So instead of verifiable evidence by first-hand witnesses, or posting records from the event to support your argument, you are going to go with "All of the above" from those terrible, terrible personal attributes.

Rather than "people will take you seriously, treat you like adults, and you will not be regularly shamed by verifiable evidence" you are going to shoot for "regularly shamed by verifiable evidence."

Got it.

 

[Riveting-]

So instead of verifiable evidence by first-hand witnesses, or posting records from the event to support your argument, you are going to go with "All of the above" from those terrible, terrible personal attributes.

Rather than "people will take you seriously, treat you like adults, and you will not be regularly shamed by verifiable evidence" you are going to shoot for "regularly shamed by verifiable evidence."

Got it.

Not sure what you are babbling about here (are you?), but the released emails from Twitter are records of the event.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Not sure what you are babbling about here (are you?), but the released emails from Twitter are records of the event.

Again--
post the specific emails, in context, that you think are illuminative.

 

[Riveting-]

Again--
post the specific emails, in context, that you think are illuminative.

All of the specific emails in the link are illuminative to those with the intelligence to discern the illumination. Libs who are blinded by their irrational hatred of Trump will not be able to discern it - or will not want to discern it.

To help you clarify your position, is there any good reason in your view why federal employees being paid by taxpayers would be monitoring Twitter for violations of Twitter's terms of service? I cannot think of any. Can you?

 

[Riveting-]

The FBI admitted they were monitoring for violations of Twitter's terms of service.

"We are providing it so that they can take whatever action they deem appropriate under their terms of service to protect their platform and protect their customers, but we never direct or ask them to take action," the FBI officials said.

Surely a police state fan like you believes the FBI.

FBI responds to Twitter Files disclosures, says it didn't request 'any action' on specific tweets

Federal Bureau of Investigation officials told Fox News that the agency didn't ask Twitter employees to "take action" on specific tweets.

www.foxnews.com

 

[HoosierfanJM]

All of the specific emails in the link are illuminative to those with the intelligence to discern the illumination. Libs who are blinded by their irrational hatred of Trump will not be able to discern it - or will not want to discern it.

To help you clarify your position, is there any good reason in your view why federal employees being paid by taxpayers would be monitoring Twitter for violations of Twitter's terms of service? I cannot think of any. Can you?

So you cannot link to or post even one of those emails that you claim are so very important and damaging.

“Look at me! I have something to show you!! Haha, no. You can’t actually SEE it!”

 

[Riveting-]

So you cannot link to or post even one of those emails that you claim are so very important and damaging.

“Look at me! I have something to show you!! Haha, no. You can’t actually SEE it!”

I did not personally receive the emails, but the link to Shellenberger showed several such emails.

"Look at you! You won't say if you think it is appropriate for the FBI to monitor Twitter for Twitter's terms of service. Haha, no, even when the FBI tried to explain why it did so. It is just like when you couldn't admit the stupidity of saying Trump was the worst president of the past 150 years. "

Yes, look at you, a modern-day disciple of Uncle Joe and his philosophy of statistics.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

I did not personally receive the emails, but the link to Shellenberger contained showed several such emails.

"Look at you! You won't say if you think it is appropriate for the FBI to monitor Twitter for Twitter's terms of service. Haha, no, even when the FBI tried to explain why it did so. It is just like when you couldn't admit the stupidity of saying Trump was the worst president of the past 150 years. "

Yes, look at you, a modern-day disciple of Uncle Joe and his philosophy of statistics.

So no link to an email

 

[Riveting-]

So no link to an email

So no answer to the question

 

[HoosierfanJM]

“Is it appropriate for the FBI to monitor Twitter for Twitter’s terms of service?”

What the hell does that mean? It depends what the subject of the monitoring is, and whether statutes, and DOJ and FBI policies and procedures are being followed.

So YOU said there are damaging emails, that I assume would show that statutes, or stated policies or procedures weren’t followed.

Link one

 

[Riveting-]

So no link to an email

Roth was the head of 'trust and security' at Twitter. Mr. Chan was an FBI exec. From the testimony:

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH):

I do not understand how that informs what’s in your term of service. So here’s what I wanna know. Here’s what I wanna know is this a violation of the First Amendment? When the government, Mr. Chan, again, sends you an email saying, we think these accounts need to be looked at because they violate your terms of service, that’s a different standard. So you got the government saying your terms of service, which don’t have to comply with the First Amendment, but the government’s saying, we don’t think these accounts comply with your terms of service. Please take him down. You see a problem there, Mr. Roth?

Yoel Roth:

Mr. Chairman, I’m seeing a flashing red light. I’m happy to answer the question. Do I think that that’s a valuable use of the FBI’s time? No, but I don’t see in a request for review a problem under the First Amendment.

Transcript: House Oversight Hearing with Former Twitter Executives

The hearing focused on Republican concerns over Twitter's handling of a 2020 New York Post story, and its interactions with government.

techpolicy.press

 

[Riveting-]

“Is it appropriate for the FBI to monitor Twitter for Twitter’s terms of service?”

What the hell does that mean? It depends what the subject of the monitoring is, and whether statutes, and DOJ and FBI policies and procedures are being followed.

Your comment reminds me of Wray in cong hearings refusing to say, "No, the FBI does not engage in criminal activities."

In your case, the answer of non-police state advocates would be, "No, the FBI might monitor Twitter for the postings of criminal suspects, but taxpayer-funded agents have no business monitoring for violations of Twitter's terms of service. "

You can't even understand that, can you, Uncle Joe Jr?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Your comment reminds me of Wray in cong hearings refusing to say, "No, the FBI does not engage in criminal activities."

In your case, the answer of non-police state advocates would be, "No, the FBI might monitor Twitter for the postings of criminal suspects, but taxpayer-funded agents have no business monitoring for violations of Twitter's terms of service. "

You can't even understand that, can you, Uncle Joe Jr?

1) who in the living hell is “uncle Joe Junior“? Especially odd, because I have no idea what the hell that means and who uncle Joe Junior is. Hell, I have no idea who uncle Joe is, never mind that he has a son named uncle Joe also! Are you talking about President Biden? Because that would mean you are saying that I am his uncle? Let me assure you, the president is not my nephew. He is way way way too old to be anyone living’s nephew

2) you have found zero testimony that takes any exception with anything — only the angry crap of a politician, who has no firsthand knowledge about anything. This is exactly what I accused you of, and now you have managed to completely, completely, completely self own yourself again. Do you really think someone like Jim Jordan or Adam Schiff decides what the facts are? They ask questions with a political bias and do not testify.

So I ask you, one more time! Do you have any witnesses or records with firsthand knowledge of any of the inappropriate actions?

 

[Riveting-]

1) who in the living hell is “uncle Joe Junior“ how are you feeling? Especially odd, because I have no idea what the hell that means and who uncle Joe Junior is. Hell, I have no idea who uncle Joe is, never mind that he has a son named uncle Joe also!

2) the only “testimony” that takes any exception with anything is that of a politician, who has no firsthand knowledge about anything. This is exactly what I accused you of, and now you have managed to completely, completely, completely self own yourself again. Do you really think someone like Jim Jordan or Adam Schiff decides what the facts are? They ask questions with a political bias they do not testify.

So I ask you, one more time! Do you have any witnesses or records with firsthand knowledge of any of the inappropriate actions?

My original question: Why was the FBI monitoring Twitter for violations of Twitter's terms of service. Obviously, the answer is, to get people they didn't like removed. Only a true police state devotee can't see that - or won't admit it (I think you are the latter, but not certain).

Uncle Joe Stalin: One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic. That must be the belief of someone who thinks LBJ was not the worst president of the last 150 years, which would be you.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

My original question: Why was the FBI monitoring Twitter for violations of Twitter's terms of service. Obviously, the answer is, to get people they didn't like removed. Only a true police state devotee can't see that - or won't admit it (I think you are the latter, but not certain).

Uncle Joe Stalin: One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic. That must be the belief of someone who thinks LBJ was not the worst president of the last 150 years, which would be you.

So —

No emails. No evidence.

Got it

 

[Riveting-]

So —

No emails. No evidence.

Got it

The testimony is evidence of the emails, as are the emails contained in the link to Shellenberger.

Time for you to go watch your beloved heroic FBI shows, Jr.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

The testimony is evidence of the emails, as are the emails contained in the link to Shellenberger.

Time for you to go watch your beloved heroic FBI shows, Jr.

So no links to any emails.

And no damaging testimony by any witness.

Got it

 

[Riveting-]

So no links to any emails.

And no damaging testimony by any witness.

Of course you don't think testimony by Twitter's Roth confirming that federal employees at the FBI were monitoring and flagging users for violations of Twitter's terms of service is 'damaging.'

As a proponent of the police state, why would you?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Of course you don't think testimony by Twitter's Roth confirming that federal employees at the FBI were monitoring and flagging users for violations of Twitter's terms of service is 'damaging.'

As a proponent of the police state, why would you?

So, nothing. Zero.

The FBI was monitoring Twitter for dangerous threats an election misinformation. In other words, doing their job. And because they were doing their job you would have overthrown the government.

Of all of your self-owns, this one may be the most telling and most pathetic.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Just guessing, career day at your elementary school last month?

No, he's my brothers father in law.