placeholder

Conservative Twitter Users Rage After 30 Million Add Threads App on Day One The successful launch of Meta's "Twitter killer" app Threads is not sitting well with some conservative Twitter users who have pledged their allegiance to self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" Elon Musk... Almost immediately after Threads started, conservatives loyal to Musk began to complain that they were being "censored" on the rival app, which is linked to Meta's Instagram and adheres to the same moderation policies. Zuckerberg has dubbed it a "friendly public space for conversation." https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-twitter-users-rage-after-30-million-add-threads-app-day-one-1811436

I've been wondering who could possibly be favorably influenced by Desantis video. Here's one take on that: DeSantis targets a significant primary demographic: Insecure men There are three obvious reasons that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign promoted an aggressively anti-LGBTQ+ ad on social media last week. https://archive.ph/FHi4k https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/06/desantis-lgbtq-insecure-men/

Stephen Colbert once said something to the effect that it's a well-known fact that reality has a liberal bias.

What do you think Andrew Mitchell's statement, if true, proves? Does that make it the kind of area where people leave their stuff upon exiting the secure areas of the White House?

He's a genuinely nasty and apparently paranoid character. DeSantis tried to bury her. Now she’s helping Trump try to bury him wo months before Election Day 2020, Susie Wiles stood uncomfortably inside a hospitality tent in Florida, caught between two proud and exacting men whom she had helped elect: President Donald Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis... A year earlier, Wiles had been one of the most powerful people in the Florida governor’s orbit, leading his political operation and plotting his path to national prominence. Then he abruptly banished her, privately questioning her loyalty and moving to blackball her across Republican politics. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/desantis-tried-to-bury-her-now-shes-helping-trump-try-to-bury-him/

I don't know about that but this comment of yours should certainly qualify for the Dumbness Hall of Fame.

Do you understand that people deposit their stuff in the storage area before they tour the White House? What do you think happens after the tour? People put their stuff in the storage room and just hang out?

except that if you were in "debunk/spoof/irony mode" why would list as well as aspirin, drugs that actually can be fatal? It doesn't really work as irony.

Yes they have a consistent message. I'm not challenging that it was consistent. I'm challenging that it was expressed as a certainty. The way you characterized their stance; "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender make me very suspicious is all." leaves out the uncertainty. Had you written "consistent message that they probably won’t be able to find the offender make me very suspicious is all." that would have been unobjectionable.

Here's how you characterized what you said: "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender make me very suspicious is all. That is an absolute characterization of their statements that they won't be able to find the offender. However, they didn't say that. What they said was that the probably won't be able which is not absolute but expresses a degree of uncertainty. You think expressions of probability don't count? Let's try this example. If I tell someone I'm going to the store later to pick up something for them, then if I don't go, they can fairly reproach me for not doing what I said. But if I say I'm probably going to the store, then it's not an absolute statement. Is it? So the reproach doesn't have the same degree of justification.

Are there cameras in the storage room? If someone removes something from their pocket and drops it on the floor or places it on a shelf in that room would it be detected? There's a big difference between "shouldn't" and "didn't".

Please. The mods already deleted your claim foir one article on the grounds that it didn't back up what you claimed. The articles claimed that certain officials claimed it was probable that they wouldn't find the culprit. You claimed that they made that claim absolutely without qualification. If not, what they said wouldn't back up your claim that was not qualified with any mention of probability.

Or, to put it another way, it's amusing and telling that the only reason they rule him out is because being in 2 places at once is impossible. Except maybe in quantum theory. But I do agree with you that there is something scandalous about them wanting "to keep things within the realm of possibility." Clearly, a deeply corrupt investigation would want to investigate only "things within the realms of possibility." Why don't they won't to investigate things outside of the realm of possibility? What we have here is another case for James Comer, investigator of fantasies, to look into.

You sent me to those articles to back up your claim. In fact, the mods eliminated one, along with your insult, precisely because the article it linked to didn't back up your claims. So, on the one hand, you cite articles to back up what you claim, but on the other, you claim that just because you cited those articles, that doesn't mean that they back up your claims. It is to laugh.

It's no wonder you believe the things you do considering how ill-informed you seem to be: CNN fires Kathy Griffin over offensive Donald Trump photo A day after Griffin released a picture holding a mock "decapitated" head of President Trump shot by self-proclaimed "provocateur" photographer Tyler Shields, CNN announced Wednesday that they have terminated their decade-long contract with the comedian to appear with Anderson Cooper on New Year's Eve. "CNN has terminated our agreement with Kathy Griffin to appear on our New Year's Eve program," spokesman Shimrit Sheetrit confirmed to USA TODAY in a statement Wednesday. The network used even stronger language a day earlier: "We found what she did disgusting and offensive," read a statement sent to USA TODAY Tuesday night by Sheetrit. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2017/05/31/cnn-fires-kathy-griffin-over-offensive-trump-photo/102349176/ Kathy Griffin: Life After The Trump Severed Head Controversy When she posed in 2017 with a mock-severed head of President Trump, comedian Kathy Griffin's career crumbled. She's out with a film: Kathy Griffin: A Hell of a Story, about life after the controversy. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/716258113/kathy-griffin-life-after-the-trump-severed-head-controversy

And here's an oddly rational comment from Kayleigh McEnany “For it to be Hunter Biden, he left on Friday, he was at Camp David. There is no way, it is inconceivable to think cocaine could sit for a 72-hour period [at The White House], so I would rule him out at this point.” McEnany, who is a Fox News host, said Thursday on the network’s flagship morning talk program. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4083457-mcenany-breaks-with-trump-no-way-cocaine-at-white-house-is-hunter-bidens/

Here's a definition of categorically: in a way that is unambiguously explicit and direct. You stated that they said they won't find who the culprit was whereas they said the probably wouldn't find the culprit. I see a difference. Apparently, you don't. And you seem to be making the exact same mistake with the Daily Mail article. downplaying the chances is not the same as saying there's no chance.

Your statement that "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender". is categorical. In fact, according to the article some officials said it was unlikely.

The aspirin cartel is a fearful thing.

I'm surprised that you don't find Elon Musk's political views disgusting. This is from the Wall Street Journal: "Tesla also has cut prices in China. But on Thursday, the company joined 15 Chinese automakers pledging to avoid abnormal pricing and promote “core socialist values.” https://archive.ph/cVD42 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ev-sales-growth-in-first-half-slows-from-torrid-pace-2bd2790e?mod=hp_lead_pos4

When someone heaps unfounded abuse on those who might disagree with an article, I think it's in the interests of forum sanitation to address their comments. Or do you believe scottiejohn's characterization that this is "The understatement of the year which all the crack heads on here will now try to "prove" is wrong!"

That doesn't say what you claimed it meant: "Some officials have cautioned that the culprit is unlikely to be conclusively identified due to the sheer number of people who pass through the area on a regular basis." does not mean that there's a "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender"

Well, I'm not too lazy to have read the entire article carefully. Nowhere in the article does it say that there is a "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender". In fact, nowhere in the article does it claim that anyone has categorically claimed that they won't be able to find the offender.

Well, then, you shouldn't have any problem finding a quote from that article to support your assertion. Can share it here with other members of ohe forum?

First off, I noticed you're not acknowledging that your claim that fingerprints weren't taken is false? Do you have any use for facts at all apart from twisting them. Only one possible reason? Really? You gonna take that to a court of law? Is your imagination so limited that you can't possibly think of any other explanations?