Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.
The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now?
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.
The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now?
FBI Director Wray says over 200 suspects identified in the trump-incited Capitol riots
Investigators have identified more than 200 suspects in their probe of the January 6 attack at the US Capitol and arrested more than 100 individuals, FBI Director Chris Wray said Thursday in his first public appearance since the riot.
"We know who you are if you're out there, and FBI agents are coming to find you," he said during an inauguration security briefing at FEMA headquarters.
fbi coming for terrorist rumplickers
"I'm the MOST HONEST human being that GOD EVER created!" - Donald "the felon" Trump
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2:
FBI Director Wray says over 200 suspects identified in the trump-incited Capitol riots
Investigators have identified more than 200 suspects in their probe of the January 6 attack at the US Capitol and arrested more than 100 individuals, FBI Director Chris Wray said Thursday in his first public appearance since the riot.
"We know who you are if you're out there, and FBI agents are coming to find you," he said during an inauguration security briefing at FEMA headquarters.
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now?
Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way?
Not that hard to figure out.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel:
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now?
Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way?
NYT sold the Iraq invasion to the American people. Along with Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bush and Cheney. They buried any of their journalists that questioned the WMD narrative and promoted any journalist that pushed for the invasion.
biden and clinton did not sell the iraq invasion to the american people .thats a lie .
they followed their president in a time after being attacked and supported bush and so did i and 95% americans
and the invasion was always questioned , befor during and after ,never buried . bush/cheney just screamed louder .
the duelfer report exposed the errors in the run up to war in iraq .not justified
finding binladen terrorists and executing them for 9/11 = justified
"I'm the MOST HONEST human being that GOD EVER created!" - Donald "the felon" Trump
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
NYT sold the Iraq invasion to the American people. Along with Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bush and Cheney. They buried any of their journalists that questioned the WMD narrative and promoted any journalist that pushed for the invasion.
biden and clinton did not sell the iraq invasion to the american people .thats a lie .
they followed their president in a time after being attacked and supported bush and so did i and 95% americans
and the invasion was always questioned , befor during and after ,never buried . bush/cheney just screamed louder .
the duelfer report exposed the errors in the run up to war in iraq .not justified
finding binladen terrorists and executing them for 9/11 = justified
Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.
thats a fact
"I'm the MOST HONEST human being that GOD EVER created!" - Donald "the felon" Trump
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now? Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.
Why is it you simply can't say that "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned from ALL SOCIAL MEDIA. Geezus, you guys always turnb into - "I CAN'T AGREE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TRUMP and only he deserves to be punished. YHou guys always come up with the dumbest excuses on matters that deal with thw WHOLE. That ain't so hard to figure out is it?
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now? Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.
Why is it you simply can't say that "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned from ALL SOCIAL MEDIA. Geezus, you guys always turnb into - "I CAN'T AGREE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TRUMP and only he deserves to be punished. YHou guys always come up with the dumbest excuses on matters that deal with thw WHOLE. That ain't so hard to figure out is it?
A company can stop some speech upon its property ok. But at what point do we the dumbest nation of the industrialized world begin to state that this information is too sensitive or that the uneducated masses should not be aware of this type of information.
Who decides this protocol. People? People are corrupt sinners who devise strategies to hold power and this possibly is the most effective tool ever allowed.
Freedom of speech is a contradiction in terms of any true freedom and spoken or written word even Hume acknowledged the challenge to print the truth but not offend the powers who rule and keep it from being so dry that it becomes instant boredom.
At some point we must hear what the other side is saying without the spin of the ruling elite.
AS far as organic Intelligence. Our technology as humans on this planet not necessarily developed in the stupidest nation on the planet have evolved to organic wet ware systems.
At some point this keep thinking as a 5th grader to protect them from the truth has been a colossal failure in our public education.
Reference wetware.
A team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) recently announced that they have made a groundbreaking discovery that could one day allow us to develop much faster and more efficient computers. In a study published in the ACS Applied Nano Materials peer-reviewed journal, the researchers describe a method that uses a virus to create a better type of computer memory.
The idea revolves around reducing the millisecond time delays that occur during the transfer and storage of information between a traditional random access memory (RAM) chip and a hard drive. Previously, researchers have tried to achieve this by introducing phase-change memory, which can switch between amorphous and crystalline states by using a binary-type material like gallium antimonide. This allows phase-change memory to have a higher storage capacity than a hard drive, while being able to achieve the same speeds as a RAM chip. However, the problem with gallium antimonide is that it increases power consumption and has a tendency to undergo material separation at temperatures of around 345 degrees Celsius. The current process of manufacturing integrated circuits can reach temperatures of nearly 400 degrees Celsius.
“Our research team has found a way to overcome this major roadblock using tiny wire technology,” explains Assistant Prof Desmond Loke from SUTD. Using a virus known as M13 bacteriophage, the researchers were able to achieve a low-temperature construction of tiny germanium-tin-oxide wires and memory, which could enable future computers to reach speeds we can only dream about today. According to Loke, “this possibility leads the way to the elimination of the millisecond storage and transfer delays needed to progress modern computing.”
A company can stop some speech upon its property ok. But at what point do we the dumbest nation of the industrialized world begin to state that this information is too sensitive or that the uneducated masses should not be aware of this type of information.
Who decides this protocol. People? People are corrupt sinners who devise strategies to hold power and this possibly is the most effective tool ever allowed.
Freedom of speech is a contradiction in terms of any true freedom and spoken or written word even Hume acknowledged the challenge to print the truth but not offend the powers who rule and keep it from being so dry that it becomes instant boredom.
At some point we must hear what the other side is saying without the spin of the ruling elite.
AS far as organic Intelligence. Our technology as humans on this planet not necessarily developed in the stupidest nation on the planet have evolved to organic wet ware systems.
At some point this keep thinking as a 5th grader to protect them from the truth has been a colossal failure in our public education.
Reference wetware.
A team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) recently announced that they have made a groundbreaking discovery that could one day allow us to develop much faster and more efficient computers. In a study published in the ACS Applied Nano Materials peer-reviewed journal, the researchers describe a method that uses a virus to create a better type of computer memory.
The idea revolves around reducing the millisecond time delays that occur during the transfer and storage of information between a traditional random access memory (RAM) chip and a hard drive. Previously, researchers have tried to achieve this by introducing phase-change memory, which can switch between amorphous and crystalline states by using a binary-type material like gallium antimonide. This allows phase-change memory to have a higher storage capacity than a hard drive, while being able to achieve the same speeds as a RAM chip. However, the problem with gallium antimonide is that it increases power consumption and has a tendency to undergo material separation at temperatures of around 345 degrees Celsius. The current process of manufacturing integrated circuits can reach temperatures of nearly 400 degrees Celsius.
“Our research team has found a way to overcome this major roadblock using tiny wire technology,” explains Assistant Prof Desmond Loke from SUTD. Using a virus known as M13 bacteriophage, the researchers were able to achieve a low-temperature construction of tiny germanium-tin-oxide wires and memory, which could enable future computers to reach speeds we can only dream about today. According to Loke, “this possibility leads the way to the elimination of the millisecond storage and transfer delays needed to progress modern computing.”
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now? Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.Why is it you simply can't say that "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned from ALL SOCIAL MEDIA. Geezus, you guys always turnb into - "I CAN'T AGREE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TRUMP and only he deserves to be punished. YHou guys always come up with the dumbest excuses on matters that deal with thw WHOLE. That ain't so hard to figure out is it?
He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now? Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.Why is it you simply can't say that "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned from ALL SOCIAL MEDIA. Geezus, you guys always turnb into - "I CAN'T AGREE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TRUMP and only he deserves to be punished. YHou guys always come up with the dumbest excuses on matters that deal with thw WHOLE. That ain't so hard to figure out is it?
He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now? Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.Why is it you simply can't say that "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned from ALL SOCIAL MEDIA. Geezus, you guys always turnb into - "I CAN'T AGREE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TRUMP and only he deserves to be punished. YHou guys always come up with the dumbest excuses on matters that deal with thw WHOLE. That ain't so hard to figure out is it? He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out.
AS your side so eloquently about election fraud.
Prove it.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now? Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.Why is it you simply can't say that "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned from ALL SOCIAL MEDIA. Geezus, you guys always turnb into - "I CAN'T AGREE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TRUMP and only he deserves to be punished. YHou guys always come up with the dumbest excuses on matters that deal with thw WHOLE. That ain't so hard to figure out is it? He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out.
Because I have yet to have anything outside of trumps usual rhetoric. I don't have break into the capital and hang Mike Pence in any form of written or spoken statement. I don't have break8nto the building and sack that place in any form of statement written or oral.
I don't have any proof that our president state turn to violence. I do have Trump in a 6 minute video state my true supporters would not....
But if you have a smoking gun here by all means
Show here he said this that resulted in that and again to a moral certainty that a judge can say I'll take it to the grave even if results in civil war and stand on the verdict....
Because I have yet to have anything outside of trumps usual rhetoric. I don't have break into the capital and hang Mike Pence in any form of written or spoken statement. I don't have break8nto the building and sack that place in any form of statement written or oral.
I don't have any proof that our president state turn to violence. I do have Trump in a 6 minute video state my true supporters would not....
But if you have a smoking gun here by all means
Show here he said this that resulted in that and again to a moral certainty that a judge can say I'll take it to the grave even if results in civil war and stand on the verdict....
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now? Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.Why is it you simply can't say that "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned from ALL SOCIAL MEDIA. Geezus, you guys always turnb into - "I CAN'T AGREE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TRUMP and only he deserves to be punished. YHou guys always come up with the dumbest excuses on matters that deal with thw WHOLE. That ain't so hard to figure out is it? He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out.
Once again you are wrong- Where did i say i support trump. Where am I rambling? MY POINT IS RIGHT ON THE NOSE. It isn't about Trump but you can never get past your obsession with him. Equal penalties for all dumbass, that's the point. President or no president. Does he hold the president to the highest standard like the rest of you. Open up your tunnel vision mind. Now, is that too hard for you to figure out. So respond with more jibberish because you can't say "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned. AGAIN-THATS THE POINT. You can't stand being wrong and will never admit it. And I know you can't handle not getting in the last word. So common with it. Try to stay TO THE POINT_-There is no gray area- You either have no problem with inciting violence or you don't. Try to stay on topic and leave all the BS deflections out of it.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by Danelaw: No no no.. The problem is that WE deposited democracy to these companies.Trump has a right to say everything he wants (except incite violence!) and we must protect his right no matter what. These bans horrify me. He does have that right. And these companies have the right to regulate what is said on their platforms.The suspension of trumps account isn't the point.If he is banned for inciting violence, why isn't the Ayatolla, etc,etc,etc.? Why not lift the "non-liable" provision if they want to control the information as the media does now? Maybe because Twitter is an American company, and Dorsey does not give 2 $hits what happens in Iran because it does not impact him or the majority of his platform's users in any way? Not that hard to figure out.Why is it you simply can't say that "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned from ALL SOCIAL MEDIA. Geezus, you guys always turnb into - "I CAN'T AGREE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TRUMP and only he deserves to be punished. YHou guys always come up with the dumbest excuses on matters that deal with thw WHOLE. That ain't so hard to figure out is it? He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out.
Once again you are wrong- Where did i say i support trump. Where am I rambling? MY POINT IS RIGHT ON THE NOSE. It isn't about Trump but you can never get past your obsession with him. Equal penalties for all dumbass, that's the point. President or no president. Does he hold the president to the highest standard like the rest of you. Open up your tunnel vision mind. Now, is that too hard for you to figure out. So respond with more jibberish because you can't say "ALL INCITING OF VIOLENCE" should be banned. AGAIN-THATS THE POINT. You can't stand being wrong and will never admit it. And I know you can't handle not getting in the last word. So common with it. Try to stay TO THE POINT_-There is no gray area- You either have no problem with inciting violence or you don't. Try to stay on topic and leave all the BS deflections out of it.
He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out.
Good points. And you are correct!
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out. Good points. And you are correct!
NOT THE POINT - Geezus do you dudes live together? I'm totally shocked you agreed. Where's Kellys' thumbs up.
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out. Good points. And you are correct!
NOT THE POINT - Geezus do you dudes live together? I'm totally shocked you agreed. Where's Kellys' thumbs up.
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out. Good points. And you are correct!NOT THE POINT - Geezus do you dudes live together? I'm totally shocked you agreed. Where's Kellys' thumbs up.
I know. You don't typically make a point.
You should be concerned with why the POTUS is so reliant on Twitter to communicate with the public, and the type of lies he consistently spews, but you are not of course.
We are obsessed with Trump? Are you braindead? He kind of holds an important position in this country and the global system as the POTUS no?
He is going to be talked about. No $hit Sherlock.
Equal Penalties for all? No. Geezus you are dumb.
Twitter does not care what your dumb A$$ tweets, but might be concerned about the POTUS with 100 million followers, and the amount of social and political power he holds. You are not very bright.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel:
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out. Good points. And you are correct!NOT THE POINT - Geezus do you dudes live together? I'm totally shocked you agreed. Where's Kellys' thumbs up.
I know. You don't typically make a point.
You should be concerned with why the POTUS is so reliant on Twitter to communicate with the public, and the type of lies he consistently spews, but you are not of course.
We are obsessed with Trump? Are you braindead? He kind of holds an important position in this country and the global system as the POTUS no?
He is going to be talked about. No $hit Sherlock.
Equal Penalties for all? No. Geezus you are dumb.
Twitter does not care what your dumb A$$ tweets, but might be concerned about the POTUS with 100 million followers, and the amount of social and political power he holds. You are not very bright.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out. Good points. And you are correct!NOT THE POINT - Geezus do you dudes live together? I'm totally shocked you agreed. Where's Kellys' thumbs up. I know. You don't typically make a point. You should be concerned with why the POTUS is so reliant on Twitter to communicate with the public, and the type of lies he consistently spews, but you are not of course. We are obsessed with Trump? Are you braindead? He kind of holds an important position in this country and the global system as the POTUS no? He is going to be talked about. No $hit Sherlock.
WHERE IS THE REPLY TO THE SUBJECT MATTER???? You did exactly what you do best- AVOID THE QUESTION? Try answering the question without mentioning Trump. You keep proving me right and have no clue you are doing it. I guess it's to hard to figure out?? Amazing!
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel: Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out. Good points. And you are correct!NOT THE POINT - Geezus do you dudes live together? I'm totally shocked you agreed. Where's Kellys' thumbs up. I know. You don't typically make a point. You should be concerned with why the POTUS is so reliant on Twitter to communicate with the public, and the type of lies he consistently spews, but you are not of course. We are obsessed with Trump? Are you braindead? He kind of holds an important position in this country and the global system as the POTUS no? He is going to be talked about. No $hit Sherlock.
WHERE IS THE REPLY TO THE SUBJECT MATTER???? You did exactly what you do best- AVOID THE QUESTION? Try answering the question without mentioning Trump. You keep proving me right and have no clue you are doing it. I guess it's to hard to figure out?? Amazing!
The SUBJECT matter involves President Trump. I seriously did not think it was possible to be that dumb. Have fun debating yourself.
I know you are shaking not being able to follow the tweets of your Supreme Leader anymore.
Why you are bringing up the Ayatollah of Iran up on the matter? Does he have years of countless tweets on his feed that are viewed as stoking fear, violence, and division in comparison to Trump? I doubt Twitter's ban of Trump was based on one tweet, but rather a track record of this nonsense for years. At some point, it is likely the CEO said enough is enough. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Cheers.
The SUBJECT matter involves President Trump. I seriously did not think it was possible to be that dumb. Have fun debating yourself.
I know you are shaking not being able to follow the tweets of your Supreme Leader anymore.
Why you are bringing up the Ayatollah of Iran up on the matter? Does he have years of countless tweets on his feed that are viewed as stoking fear, violence, and division in comparison to Trump? I doubt Twitter's ban of Trump was based on one tweet, but rather a track record of this nonsense for years. At some point, it is likely the CEO said enough is enough. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out. Good points. And you are correct!NOT THE POINT - Geezus do you dudes live together? I'm totally shocked you agreed. Where's Kellys' thumbs up.
No I live with my mom like the Q'Anon Shahman.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel:
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: He hasn't said Twitter doesn't condone violence, and put in place tools to curb and halt inciting violence on his platform? You are just rambling to ramble and support Trump at this point. Your point is weak. That isn't an excuse, but fact. Pretty sure an American social media CEO holds the President of the U.S. to the highest standard on his platform. Not that hard to figure out. Good points. And you are correct!NOT THE POINT - Geezus do you dudes live together? I'm totally shocked you agreed. Where's Kellys' thumbs up.
The SUBJECT matter involves President Trump. I seriously did not think it was possible to be that dumb. Have fun debating yourself. I know you are shaking not being able to follow the tweets of your Supreme Leader anymore. Why you are bringing up the Ayatollah of Iran up on the matter? Does he have years of countless tweets on his feed that are viewed as stoking fear, violence, and division in comparison to Trump? I doubt Twitter's ban of Trump was based on one tweet, but rather a track record of this nonsense for years. At some point, it is likely the CEO said enough is enough. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Cheers.
I knew you couldn't do it. Let me simplify it one more time. Do you think inciting violence on a social network should be banned. Try answering yes or no. And I have never been on a social network. Social networking is for the feeble minded.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
The SUBJECT matter involves President Trump. I seriously did not think it was possible to be that dumb. Have fun debating yourself. I know you are shaking not being able to follow the tweets of your Supreme Leader anymore. Why you are bringing up the Ayatollah of Iran up on the matter? Does he have years of countless tweets on his feed that are viewed as stoking fear, violence, and division in comparison to Trump? I doubt Twitter's ban of Trump was based on one tweet, but rather a track record of this nonsense for years. At some point, it is likely the CEO said enough is enough. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Cheers.
I knew you couldn't do it. Let me simplify it one more time. Do you think inciting violence on a social network should be banned. Try answering yes or no. And I have never been on a social network. Social networking is for the feeble minded.
The SUBJECT matter involves President Trump. I seriously did not think it was possible to be that dumb. Have fun debating yourself. I know you are shaking not being able to follow the tweets of your Supreme Leader anymore. Why you are bringing up the Ayatollah of Iran up on the matter? Does he have years of countless tweets on his feed that are viewed as stoking fear, violence, and division in comparison to Trump? I doubt Twitter's ban of Trump was based on one tweet, but rather a track record of this nonsense for years. At some point, it is likely the CEO said enough is enough. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Cheers.
I knew you couldn't do it. Let me simplify it one more time. Do you think inciting violence on a social network should be banned. Try answering yes or no. And I have never been on a social network. Social networking is for the feeble minded.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81:
The SUBJECT matter involves President Trump. I seriously did not think it was possible to be that dumb. Have fun debating yourself. I know you are shaking not being able to follow the tweets of your Supreme Leader anymore. Why you are bringing up the Ayatollah of Iran up on the matter? Does he have years of countless tweets on his feed that are viewed as stoking fear, violence, and division in comparison to Trump? I doubt Twitter's ban of Trump was based on one tweet, but rather a track record of this nonsense for years. At some point, it is likely the CEO said enough is enough. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Cheers.
I knew you couldn't do it. Let me simplify it one more time. Do you think inciting violence on a social network should be banned. Try answering yes or no. And I have never been on a social network. Social networking is for the feeble minded.
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: The SUBJECT matter involves President Trump. I seriously did not think it was possible to be that dumb. Have fun debating yourself. I know you are shaking not being able to follow the tweets of your Supreme Leader anymore. Why you are bringing up the Ayatollah of Iran up on the matter? Does he have years of countless tweets on his feed that are viewed as stoking fear, violence, and division in comparison to Trump? I doubt Twitter's ban of Trump was based on one tweet, but rather a track record of this nonsense for years. At some point, it is likely the CEO said enough is enough. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Cheers.I knew you couldn't do it. Let me simplify it one more time. Do you think inciting violence on a social network should be banned. Try answering yes or no. And I have never been on a social network. Social networking is for the feeble minded.
I think the answer is pretty clear if you can read between the lines in my posts, which of course you cannot because you lack critical thinking skills.
Here is a direct answer for your simple mind. YES. Inciting violence should be banned on Twitter. Are you slow?
This is why Trump's account was banned.
Quote Originally Posted by Snorkel:
Quote Originally Posted by DeezyAZ81: The SUBJECT matter involves President Trump. I seriously did not think it was possible to be that dumb. Have fun debating yourself. I know you are shaking not being able to follow the tweets of your Supreme Leader anymore. Why you are bringing up the Ayatollah of Iran up on the matter? Does he have years of countless tweets on his feed that are viewed as stoking fear, violence, and division in comparison to Trump? I doubt Twitter's ban of Trump was based on one tweet, but rather a track record of this nonsense for years. At some point, it is likely the CEO said enough is enough. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Cheers.I knew you couldn't do it. Let me simplify it one more time. Do you think inciting violence on a social network should be banned. Try answering yes or no. And I have never been on a social network. Social networking is for the feeble minded.
I think the answer is pretty clear if you can read between the lines in my posts, which of course you cannot because you lack critical thinking skills.
Here is a direct answer for your simple mind. YES. Inciting violence should be banned on Twitter. Are you slow?
You can't help yourself from being an assh ole can you. You could have just said yes and been done with it. But that ain't you. Your the kind of guy that absolutely has to have the last word and be right about everything. Have you ever been wrong about anything? Carry on with your self righteous life. Now, watch, you'll prove yet another point within minutes. You know you have to. Hilarious, snowflake!
You can't help yourself from being an assh ole can you. You could have just said yes and been done with it. But that ain't you. Your the kind of guy that absolutely has to have the last word and be right about everything. Have you ever been wrong about anything? Carry on with your self righteous life. Now, watch, you'll prove yet another point within minutes. You know you have to. Hilarious, snowflake!
Hot Forum Topics
