47 Empty Top Secret Folders .......

[jc456]

And who, liar, do you claim is already convicted? Get some facts on your side before you make such slanderous claims.,

She wouldn’t be a demofk then

 

[dudmuck]

that has everything to do with 2000 mules. So I ask again, you no longer believe in one person one vote?

"2000 Mules" group ignored Arizona AG requests for evidence

The Arizona AG's office said True the Vote ignored repeated requests for evidence of its "2000 Mules" allegations

www.axios.com

why doesnt the 2000 mules people provide evidence?

 

[jc456]

"2000 Mules" group ignored Arizona AG requests for evidence

The Arizona AG's office said True the Vote ignored repeated requests for evidence of its "2000 Mules" allegations

www.axios.com

why doesnt the 2000 mules people provide evidence?

They did. Watch the video. You’re being silly

 

[JoeB131]

You truly are a moron. Look up the definition of censorship and not the one your masters make up.

Having information and choosing not to make it public for your own gain is the fact of censorship. You brain must be censored to not know this, or you are intentionally not admitting a fact, which goes right along with what you and yours always do. Part of the reason you lose so much, the public sees right thru your BS.

No, it's not. It's making an editorial decision. There are a lot of thing I'd LIKE to say, but I don't say them. Why? Sometimes it's in bad taste. Sometimes I'm not sure it's true. Sometimes it's against USMB Rules.

FOr instance, USMB will delete posts if they say certain things. That's not censorship, that's a message board having rules.

That's different than the government deciding you can't say something. Trump pushed some disinformation from a fake laptop. Most media companies decided they weren't going to talk about them INCLUDING Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

 

[Catman51]

No, it's not. It's making an editorial decision. There are a lot of thing I'd LIKE to say, but I don't say them. Why? Sometimes it's in bad taste. Sometimes I'm not sure it's true. Sometimes it's against USMB Rules.

FOr instance, USMB will delete posts if they say certain things. That's not censorship, that's a message board having rules.

That's different than the government deciding you can't say something. Trump pushed some disinformation from a fake laptop. Most media companies decided they weren't going to talk about them INCLUDING Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

You are so full of it. Even your supposed examples have censorship in them.

You don't say certain things because they are false opinions and you would get called out on all of them.

As for bad taste, you are a democrat so that argument is already settled, your beliefs in politics are based in bad taste and you continue the trend.

And yes, deleting messages on a board is a type of censorship based on arbitrary rules and enforced on a whim.

Call it anything else and it is still censorship, denying people the access to information for one's own gain.

If you still can't understand this, then you are the problem.

 

[JoeB131]

You are so full of it. Even your supposed examples have censorship in them.

You don't say certain things because they are false opinions and you would get called out on all of them.

As for bad taste, you are a democrat so that argument is already settled, your beliefs in politics are based in bad taste and you continue the trend.

And yes, deleting messages on a board is a type of censorship based on arbitrary rules and enforced on a whim.

Call it anything else and it is still censorship, denying people the access to information for one's own gain.

If you still can't understand this, then you are the problem.

Hey, I got one of my posts pulled this morning.

Even though in the same thread, there was MUCH worse behavior in terms of personal attacks.

(The idea is, you do the nasty stuff in a thread later when the mods aren't paying attention anymore...that's the trick.)

Point is though, I don't own USMB. I'm a guest here. I have to follow their rules. Just like when I go to a friend's house for dinner, I don't tell dirty jokes in front of their kids.

That's not censorship. That's making a tradeoff. If I don't like USMB or Facebook's rules, then I shouldn't post there.

 

[Mac1958]

why doesnt the 2000 mules people provide evidence?

These people provide tons of evidence. The problem is, in MAGA world, the evidence doesn't need to stand up to scrutiny because they'll believe it WITHOUT scrutiny.

When they get into court with their "evidence", when it actually has to withstand scrutiny, they get laughed out and/or threatened with sanctions for presenting shit evidence. Including from Trump-appointed judges.

Quantity over quality. That's good enough for them.

 

[Catman51]

Hey, I got one of my posts pulled this morning.

Even though in the same thread, there was MUCH worse behavior in terms of personal attacks.

(The idea is, you do the nasty stuff in a thread later when the mods aren't paying attention anymore...that's the trick.)

Point is though, I don't own USMB. I'm a guest here. I have to follow their rules. Just like when I go to a friend's house for dinner, I don't tell dirty jokes in front of their kids.

That's not censorship. That's making a tradeoff. If I don't like USMB or Facebook's rules, then I shouldn't post there.

You are really squirming to try to justify your stupid statement, redefine terms just like a totalitarian you want to be.

BTW, you obviously do not feel that you have to follow rules since you claim a post of yours was pulled. You just insist that others be censored to make yourself feel better and on your own definition of censorship.

Lying hypocrite much?

 

[Catman51]

These people provide tons of evidence. The problem is, in MAGA world, the evidence doesn't need to stand up to scrutiny because they'll believe it WITHOUT scrutiny.

When they get into court with their "evidence", when it actually has to withstand scrutiny, they get laughed out and/or threatened with sanctions for presenting shit evidence. Including from Trump-appointed judges.

Quantity over quality. That's good enough for them.

I think that you should apply your argument to the democrats and their BS J6 committee, especially since those accused are not allow to defend themselves or even ask questions.

 

[Mac1958]

I think that you should apply your argument to the democrats and their BS J6 committee, especially since those accused are not allow to defend themselves or even ask questions.

Here's an idea: How about they contact the committee and come on in for a chat? They'll be able to say whatever they want, and they'll even be able to do it while under oath. Then they can tell the public what they said.

Seems like a win/win to me!

 

[jc456]

Here's an idea: How about they contact the committee and come on in for a chat? They'll be able to say whatever they want, and they'll even be able to do it while under oath. Then they can tell the public what they said.

Seems like a win/win to me!

Why, got evidence of anything?

 

[Catman51]

Here's an idea: How about they contact the committee and come on in for a chat? They'll be able to say whatever they want, and they'll even be able to do it while under oath. Then they can tell the public what they said.

Seems like a win/win to me!

Except that this committee has constantly refused their free testimony, preferring to allow only that which they approve of. With that history, do you really believe they would allow it now?

 

[Mac1958]

Why, got evidence of anything?

Um, I'm not on the committee.

 

[Mac1958]

Except that this committee has constantly refused their free testimony, preferring to allow only that which they approve of. With that history, do you really believe they would allow it now?

They're refusing testimony under oath?

 

[jc456]

Um, I'm not on the committee.

So why would someone just go talk to a committee who has no evidence

 

[Catman51]

Um, I'm not on the committee.

But you imagine information that you want the committee to consider, or manufacture.

 

[Mac1958]

So why would someone just go talk to a committee who has no evidence

First, I didn't say they have no evidence. I said I'm not on the committee.

Second, I was responding to someone who was whining that these people aren't being heard.

I'm tired of explaining the obvious.

 

[Catman51]

They're refusing testimony under oath?

The committee is making sure that there is no opposing information produced to ruin their script with unfortunate facts that they do not want to hear.

 

[Mac1958]

But you imagine information that you want the committee to consider, or manufacture.

Ah, a mind reader. Neat.

No, I just offered an obvious solution to the complaint. If I wanted the committee to hear my side of the story, I would contact them and offer to testify under oath.

That's what we do in Normal World.

 

[Mac1958]

The committee is making sure that there is no opposing information produced to ruin their script with unfortunate facts that they do not want to hear.

Link?