please prove this.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Liberal social media censorship
- Thread starter flylowgethigh
- Start date
please prove this.
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
There is a strong case for self protection according to the video I watched which his lawyer put together. I don't really care what you think about the situation to be honest.
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
I don't feel I have to prove a damn thing to you. You already showed me how ignorant you are in our private messages.
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
I asked you to carry a conversation past the logic of a 12 year old child, not post pictures of a 12 year old child.
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
The Russian collusion nonsense has been debunked, the Hunter allegations have not been debunked despite your false claims.
X
xavier7995
Hmmm, I was going to say that I bet the dems will circle back to Russia if they win...but I guess it won't really be in the hands of the senate if trump gets voted out.
In all honesty I would like to see an apolitical investigation of the role of both sides. One side or the other has some explaining to do for lying to the American people. I don't think that investigation can happen while trumps in office, given the crazy polarized world it probably can't happen after either.
In all honesty I would like to see an apolitical investigation of the role of both sides. One side or the other has some explaining to do for lying to the American people. I don't think that investigation can happen while trumps in office, given the crazy polarized world it probably can't happen after either.
…meanwhile, Trump's personal attorney Rudy the ruble whore, DNI leader Ratcliffe and GOP senators collude with Russian intelligence to promote Russian disinformation aimed at Biden...
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
Attachments
jjonahjameson
Active member
Categorically false.
There are literally thousands of footnotes and evidence spread all over books and articles that point to collusion with Russia.
If you want to argue the merit of the "help" or if it's even a big deal (I think it is) then that's fine. But we must see what's in front of us.
You said on page 1 of this thread: "nobody will change my mind."
So I'm not going to try. I'll just interject that this quoted statement is false.
There was, and is, collusion. There are just too many examples and too much evidence to credibly argue against that point.
And regarding Hunter, they have not been debunked is a really slippery argument considering the burden of proof that these "allegations" are true just doesn't pass the most basic of smell tests.
Burden of proof is on the accusers, the ones who put forth the allegations. They can not.
Simple as that.
One more point on the Russian connection.
We know they have troll farms. Fact.
We know they actively use online attacks to undermine liberal democracies.
This whole false equivalence of Russia Collusion = "Libtard" Soros arguments are disingenuous and outright false.
Soros funds are given to implement change, not force it by sabotage.
GRU funds and efforts are given to implement change by sabotage.
And finally, to flood the zone with bullshit, as Bannon likes to say, is a tried and true mechanism. If Russia is involved (and it is) and we keep hearing Jan from Brady brunch saying "Russia, Russia, Russia" with eyerolls, it can (and does) make people question their premise - even as they are correct. This is a key point of propaganda warfare. And it behooves us to think critically and not let this constant attack from many angles fatigue us.
You can yell all you like that we're equivocating, that we're insane, that we don't have a grasp of the actual facts. But you'd be wrong.
So in closing, not trying to change your minds, it's already clear they're not moving to accept any new information or arguments. I am simply speaking to the people who are using their critical faculties to ascertain the truth. You're not alone, you're not crazy, and this is a powerful attack on truth which in turn attacks the very concepts and foundations of liberalism, progressivism, and democratic norms.
Don't fall for the subterfuge and weak arguments and straw men. Save your energies for those willing to engage in rational discussion.
X
xavier7995
Good damn post dude!
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
Categorically false.
There are literally thousands of footnotes and evidence spread all over books and articles that point to collusion with Russia.
If you want to argue the merit of the "help" or if it's even a big deal (I think it is) then that's fine. But we must see what's in front of us.
You said on page 1 of this thread: "nobody will change my mind."
So I'm not going to try. I'll just interject that this quoted statement is false.
There was, and is, collusion. There are just too many examples and too much evidence to credibly argue against that point.
And regarding Hunter, they have not been debunked is a really slippery argument considering the burden of proof that these "allegations" are true just doesn't pass the most basic of smell tests.
Burden of proof is on the accusers, the ones who put forth the allegations. They can not.
Simple as that.
One more point on the Russian connection.
We know they have troll farms. Fact.
We know they actively use online attacks to undermine liberal democracies.
This whole false equivalence of Russia Collusion = "Libtard" Soros arguments are disingenuous and outright false.
Soros funds are given to implement change, not force it by sabotage.
GRU funds and efforts are given to implement change by sabotage.
And finally, to flood the zone with bullshit, as Bannon likes to say, is a tried and true mechanism. If Russia is involved (and it is) and we keep hearing Jan from Brady brunch saying "Russia, Russia, Russia" with eyerolls, it can (and does) make people question their premise - even as they are correct. This is a key point of propaganda warfare. And it behooves us to think critically and not let this constant attack from many angles fatigue us.
You can yell all you like that we're equivocating, that we're insane, that we don't have a grasp of the actual facts. But you'd be wrong.
So in closing, not trying to change your minds, it's already clear they're not moving to accept any new information or arguments. I am simply speaking to the people who are using their critical faculties to ascertain the truth. You're not alone, you're not crazy, and this is a powerful attack on truth which in turn attacks the very concepts and foundations of liberalism, progressivism, and democratic norms.
Don't fall for the subterfuge and weak arguments and straw men. Save your energies for those willing to engage in rational discussion.
Since we know that the Russian dossier came from a Russian agent then by your logic Hillary, the DNC, and the FBI colluded with Russia to take down President Trump.
oldschoolnitro
Member
Categorically false.
There are literally thousands of footnotes and evidence spread all over books and articles that point to collusion with Russia.
If you want to argue the merit of the "help" or if it's even a big deal (I think it is) then that's fine. But we must see what's in front of us.
You said on page 1 of this thread: "nobody will change my mind."
So I'm not going to try. I'll just interject that this quoted statement is false.
There was, and is, collusion. There are just too many examples and too much evidence to credibly argue against that point.
And regarding Hunter, they have not been debunked is a really slippery argument considering the burden of proof that these "allegations" are true just doesn't pass the most basic of smell tests.
Burden of proof is on the accusers, the ones who put forth the allegations. They can not.
Simple as that.
One more point on the Russian connection.
We know they have troll farms. Fact.
We know they actively use online attacks to undermine liberal democracies.
This whole false equivalence of Russia Collusion = "Libtard" Soros arguments are disingenuous and outright false.
Soros funds are given to implement change, not force it by sabotage.
GRU funds and efforts are given to implement change by sabotage.
And finally, to flood the zone with bullshit, as Bannon likes to say, is a tried and true mechanism. If Russia is involved (and it is) and we keep hearing Jan from Brady brunch saying "Russia, Russia, Russia" with eyerolls, it can (and does) make people question their premise - even as they are correct. This is a key point of propaganda warfare. And it behooves us to think critically and not let this constant attack from many angles fatigue us.
You can yell all you like that we're equivocating, that we're insane, that we don't have a grasp of the actual facts. But you'd be wrong.
So in closing, not trying to change your minds, it's already clear they're not moving to accept any new information or arguments. I am simply speaking to the people who are using their critical faculties to ascertain the truth. You're not alone, you're not crazy, and this is a powerful attack on truth which in turn attacks the very concepts and foundations of liberalism, progressivism, and democratic norms.
Don't fall for the subterfuge and weak arguments and straw men. Save your energies for those willing to engage in rational discussion.
Dirty fucking Hillary and Oboomba colluded with the Russians to try to soil Trumps good name... Oboomba the dirtiest president in American history and likely the last black president in history
St. Phatty
Active member
I was banned from Facebook for a week, yesterday.
Then they said it was for 3 days.
Then they said it was for 3 days.
please do describe what you feel I am ignorant of or are you trying to use the word as an insult?
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
It happens to me all the time, violated the Facebook community standards or some shit like that. Just make a backup account with a different email account and keep going they can't really do shit to stop you. I have 4 different accounts that I jump around on.
I 2nd that
Okay then. (in my Jim Carrey voice) I figure I'll attempt the objective view.
The person, Joeseph Rosenbaum, who I believe was the first to be shot by Kyle Rittenhouse was 36 years old. This is one of the people you claim was a pedophile and deserved the shooting anyway. You claim you do not need to prove this, based upon my ignorance displayed in PMs to you.
First let's take a look at Rosenbaum's criminal record from Arizona;
https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=172556
I'm not sure how well this will copy but one can see that the approximate age of Rosenbaum at the time of the offence [2002] was 18 years. By reading the law under which he was sentenced one can ascertain [guess] that the age of the supposed 'victim' was between the age of 15 and 17.9.
This is ascertained because Rosenbaum was convicted under statute 13-1405 and not 13-705 which apparently carries a life sentence.
Now, I do not know about you but when I was 18, I had a 16 year old girlfriend who I did have sex with. If we were caught in the act by her father, I don't know what lengths he may have gone to; Maybe phone the cops.
Do you not think accusing someone of being a pedophile is irresponsible without being apprised of the facts, to the best of your ability? Somewhat akin to accusing someone of being a snitch online?
If Rosenbaum were to be labeled as it appears, a more appropriate term may be ephebophile (sexual attraction to 15 to 19 year olds) or might I say 'teenage boy', rather than pedophile (sexual attraction to under 11 years old).
I do not condone Rosenbaum's behavior exhibited on video. He appeared out of control.
What were you saying about ignorant?...oh right my PMs to you. Was it perhaps the one asking you to state what you object to about the North American indigenous people's way of life or was it something else? Not that it has anything to do with this subject...right?
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
Doubting my ethnicity due to my political views.
