What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hunter Biden Laptop Story True - UPDATE: Zuck tells Rogan the FBI "advised" him to block it (8/25/22) (1 Viewer)

Caveman33 said:
While this is not a perfect example of censorship, it may the closest thing to censorship that I have seen anyone on this board support.  To be fair, I think others think like you, you are just the only one courageous enough to admit it.
No it isn’t at all. 
You’ll notice that in my post you quoted, I wrote what I would like to see happen, what I think should happen. But I never wrote that there should be a law forcing people to behave or speak in a certain way. I would always be opposed to such a law. 
 

It is not OK for the government to regulate most speech- that is censorship. It is perfectly OK for college students, or private companies, to attempt to limit certain speech so long as it is voluntarily and not a law- that is not censorship. 

 
Sparky Big Time said:
It discredits the behaviors of organizations and individuals to ban, censor and slander people who originally noted its validity.

Where information arises that might tend to impugn a liberal-thinking individual, they enjoy immediate protections.  Notably from the media who should be acting on the behalf of the public to seek the truth, instead they tend to serve the political class based on bias.


Maybe - but I do not see nothing to condemn news media in that article

 
No it isn’t at all. 
You’ll notice that in my post you quoted, I wrote what I would like to see happen, what I think should happen. But I never wrote that there should be a law forcing people to behave or speak in a certain way. I would always be opposed to such a law. 
 

It is not OK for the government to regulate most speech- that is censorship. It is perfectly OK for college students, or private companies, to attempt to limit certain speech so long as it is voluntarily and not a law- that is not censorship. 
You are correct, by the definitions, and maybe my analogy is bunk.  Still, I view your mindset to be the closest thing to censorship currently facing our society.  You seem to believe the MSM should report stories that support your convictions. i.e.  Corruption has been a serious issue within the Trump family but only a minor one among the Bidens.  Therefore the MSM should report every story that involves Trump related corruption, whereas stories involving Biden corruption should only be reported if they are exceptional in nature.  This Ukraine story implicated the Big Guy loosely, in vague ways, so it wasn't news worthy.

 
So you aren't aware of them lying? 
This is about Twitter and the idea of them treating conservatives unfairly. Maybe they do, not my thing. I spend very little time on there.

If Biden is spreading misinformation on there are you saying they aren’t putting the little flag thing on him?

 
This is about Twitter and the idea of them treating conservatives unfairly. Maybe they do, not my thing. I spend very little time on there.

If Biden is spreading misinformation on there are you saying they aren’t putting the little flag thing on him?
not an hour ago you were the expert on what goes on with twitter and trump....weird.. 

 
No it isn’t at all. 
You’ll notice that in my post you quoted, I wrote what I would like to see happen, what I think should happen. But I never wrote that there should be a law forcing people to behave or speak in a certain way. I would always be opposed to such a law. 
 

It is not OK for the government to regulate most speech- that is censorship. It is perfectly OK for college students, or private companies, to attempt to limit certain speech so long as it is voluntarily and not a law- that is not censorship. 


Bad ideation shld be democratically censored via extensive/continuous discourse and debate, rather than silencing. Private spaces, household or corporate can do what they want, subject to their own interests, but in public we need open debate. Good, bad, ugly, it all needs to be out there. Not because there aren't dangerous ideas - there are plenty of those. But because those dangerous ideas need to be actively debated down, for all inclined adults to consider. It's a Darwinistic/capitalistic approach, but I say the let cream rise and the dirt fall - censorship only muddies.

 
Darwinistic/capitalistic approach, but I say the let cream rise and the dirt fall - censorship only muddies.


The only problem I have here is the ability for ideas that would not survive such disourse to find incubators in more and more isolated corners of the internet.  Echo chambers.

You see this very forum resorting to kicking out the ideas rather than letting them fend for themselves.

So they go somewhere else.. ironically making this place more and more the echo chamber.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would argue a couple of the lefty posters here only survive because their counterparts have been run off.

 
not an hour ago you were the expert on what goes on with twitter and trump....weird.. 
It was pretty public info all his misinformation and the decision to flag him and ultimately ban his personal account. 

I don’t know if Biden even has a personal account. 

Does he and does he lie and spread misinformation on it that goes unflagged?

 
not an hour ago you were the expert on what goes on with twitter and trump....weird.. 


I admit im wading in midstream.. but it appears you are defending trump and his tweets?  Cause that would certainly be weird.

 
The only problem I have here is the ability for ideas that would not survive such disourse to find incubators in more and more isolated corners of the internet.  Echo chambers.

You see this very forum resorting to kicking out the ideas rather than letting them fend for themselves.

So they go somewhere else.. ironically making this place more and more the echo chamber.


I have no issue with polar positions out-debating the merits of adversarial ideas. I just don't care for cheap tactics that too many use time and again - Straw Men, Authority Appeals, Messenger Kills, Sea Lions and more abound. I wish they weren't so effective and self-reinforcing.

 
I have no issue with polar positions out-debating the merits of adversarial ideas. I just don't care for cheap tactics that too many use time and again - Straw Men, Authority Appeals, Messenger Kills, Sea Lions and more abound. I wish they weren't so effective and self-reinforcing.


Tell me more about Sea Lions.

I'm still so remedial at this... I just post what I think.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
how did 50 former intelligence officials get this wrong?   wrote and signed a letter that this had the classic earmarks of russian disinformation.     intelligence officers?   oof.


The Hunter Biden laptop was real, the data on it was real. The chain of custody was however cooked. Very likely the laptop was stolen. Let's be fair here, at the time and place, Hunter Biden was going on massive coke and crack and heroin benders.

If this was black bag media optics, the easiest way to do this ( but grim) is to honeypot Hunter Biden with a minor. Then he can't contest that the laptop was stolen without confirming that he had sex with an underaged escort/prostitute/hooker to do it.

If you source the escort, you can run a side by side in the MSM. It's not just that she's a minor, but she looks like X or Y or Z. Consider the brutal fallout for the Biden Administration is Hunter Biden is outed as paying an underage hooker who looks like his dead brother's wife. Or Jill Biden. Or any of the family in place.  Media optics cannot spin away from biological imperative. Incest or allusion to incest is treated as such because it deviates from our primary reproductive drivers inherent in our internal hard wiring. Incest risks health child birth and development. Thus it is opposed at a core visceral level. Find someone with a bad skin condition, see how people react to it. It's no longer about rational behavior and processing context, it's a natural instinctive defensive reaction based on our primary survival mechanisms. Skin lesions and bad skin condition could indicate disease which could indicate potential death.

Did the FBI intentionally sit on the laptop? Yes. Did the majority of the existing MSM pretend it didn't exist and that it was all some big lie? Yes. Did Jack Dorsey screw up in juggernaut fashion by insisting the NY Post needed to delete the old "offending tweet" to be unlocked then they could repost the article? Yes ( That decision created an instant leverage point to crush Section 230. That's indefensible from a legal standpoint. If you got that kind of legal advice in some non Western nations, those lawyers would literally be put to death)

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/792483-twitter-executives-detail-plans-for-widespread-political-censorship-124-1948-pst/?do=findComment&comment=23213651

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/792483-twitter-executives-detail-plans-for-widespread-political-censorship-124-1948-pst/?do=findComment&comment=23213653

Vijaya Gadde runs Twitter's Trust and Safety and she got her lunch handed to her by Tim Pool. Pool is not some wildly skilled savant here. I wouldn't hire him to wash my fleet of trucks in my company motor pool.

Rudy Guiliani came up with the most bizarre poorly thought out incompetent story to explain why there's a stolen laptop in the hands of "civilian" and why it needs to be investigated.  Guiliani left the opening and those in the military industrial complex/intelligence cabals had a reason to denounce the material in place.

Trump also made enemies in the military/intelligence establishment for no good reason at all. He just had to keep trying to hammer everything as if the world was set of nails in front of him.  Many despised him and he created headaches all across the board for his entire Staff, his Cabinet, the overall media, Congress, donors, special interests, the entire judicial system.

It doesn't make what happened right, there was clear suppression of viable then current information that would have made a difference in the election. But it was fruit from a poisoned tree and both Trump and Guiliani did nothing to help the entire situation.

The radical leftists here don't care but they don't realize that one day their kids might grow up to say something unpopular that violates this very tiny narrow window of acceptable woke viewpoint lest they be torched in yet another purity test.

Getting laptop and closing out Hunter Biden's counter narrative was good effective black bag media ops.

Putting it in the hands of Guiliani to bring it home was both bizarre and insane at the same time. If you want a closer for Game 7 of the World Series, you get Mariano Rivera, you don't get Mitch Williams.

The most ridiculous part of this is a pure liability like Hunter Biden should have had a full time revolving security detail around him at all times. To protect him from himself. Joe Biden could have literally gotten any number of people to do it on the taxpayer's dime. It's completely inexplicable. Just let loose an out of control crackhead with massively damaging material that could change the landscape of the future of all America. It's like seeing Warren Buffett clip coupons and shoplift from grocery stores for free cheese.

Sitcom writers couldn't come up with this. Tina Fey would shout at everyone in the writer's room that no one in America would believe this kind of story even in a single camera half hour comedy built on old tired SNL tropes. This goes beyond stupid, it goes into a realm where no one with functional competence at actual media optics would actually understand why this is happening.

That anyone at all is trying to defend any aspect of this cooked scandal is just plainly tragic.

 
Tell me more about Sea Lions.

I'm still so remedial at this... I just post what I think.


Feigning interest with disingenuous probing questions not meant to actually engage in ideation or exploration of a concept, but rather to wear down the other side and/or find a Gotcha (which is another cheap debate trick).

 
Feigning interest with disingenuous probing questions not meant to actually engage in ideation or exploration of a concept, but rather to wear down the other side and/or find a Gotcha (which is another cheap debate trick).


Hah! I wish I knew this and will credit you from now on for the enlightenment.

Perhaps more common than the Strawman.

 
The very first sentence includes "unevidenced claims"... is that the case today? It seems this thread came to life over something recent?


The first sentence says: "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma."

That is still the case. (See the multiple sources cited.)

The "something recent" is that the NYT has verified a number of emails and other files that appear to have come from Hunter's laptop.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The first sentence says: "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma."

That is still the case.

The "something recent" is that the NYT has verified a number of emails and other files that appear to have come from Hunter's laptop.


My first sentence in your link reads:

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.[


How is your link leaving out the word "unevidenced"?

eta - maybe tonight evidence came about?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I admit im wading in midstream.. but it appears you are defending trump and his tweets?  Cause that would certainly be weird.
Im not defending Trump, but one shouldn't point out that he lies when almost all lie. You know what I mean?  

 
The "something recent" is that the NYT has verified a number of emails and other files that appear to have come from Hunter's laptop.
And this is yet another great irony to this entire story: all the folks here who are pointing to this news and saying: “Aha! We KNEW the mainstream media couldn’t be trusted! Look what they did!” And yet it’s the mainstream media, in the form of the New York Times, which is reporting the story! Without that, there would be no story. 
Just as with the Hillary email scandal, the critics of the MSM rely on the MSM for evidence of their criticism. 

 
It was pretty public info all his misinformation and the decision to flag him and ultimately ban his personal account. 

I don’t know if Biden even has a personal account. 

Does he and does he lie and spread misinformation on it that goes unflagged?
Define public info please...  Also, did you answer if you are aware if biden ever lied? Sorry if I missed it.

 
Im not defending Trump, but one shouldn't point out that he lies when almost all lie. You know what I mean?  
I don’t. 
No American politician in our history has ever lied as seriously, as often, or as harmful to our nation, as Donald Trump. There’s not even a close second. 

 
I don’t. 
No American politician in our history has ever lied as seriously, as often, or as harmful to our nation, as Donald Trump. There’s not even a close second. 
These comments are just your opinion, generalizations and coming from emotion. These guys lie all the time,  There are thousands of examples that are debatable to how harmful they are/were to our nation. The OP on this was trying to make a specific point about trump as if he is the only one. 

 
Neither version says "evidenced." They both say "false," which generally implies unevidenced.


I don't even know what im arguing, but I keep clicking on it and it keeps saying "unevidenced".  Like the screenshot.  Phone and laptop.

Whatever.  Is there or is there not knew information that makes this previously silly argument valid?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would argue a couple of the lefty posters here only survive because their counterparts have been run off.


The issue that provides the largest open threat point is the fact that then CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the Twitter policy used  against the NY Post was incorrect and was immediately changed, but that the NY Post needed to "delete the offending tweet" and then the account would be unlocked, then they could repost the exact same article.

The NY Post refused to do this ( after deeply consulting with their legal counsel), then over the next week and a half, when the timing was right and the full impact of the suppression had carried weight, Twitter unlocked the account.

It was a self admission by Dorsey that Twitter was just making up it's rules as it was going along. It hyper catalyzed an immediate focus point as to why Section 230 protections need to be lifted. If you combine this with

A) Josh Hawley confronting Mark Zuckerberg about the "Centra" and "Tasks" platforms where Big Tech and Big Social Media actually coordinate

and

B) That Prager U spends more on Big Social Media advertising than any other Conservative outlet in the country and gets close to near full immunity and that no one in Congress spends more on Big Social Media advertising than AOC, and the scandal about her lying about what happened while hiding in Katie Porter's office was systematically cooked down.

Then you have a bizarre complicit pay for play influence system where third party minimum wage analysts are used to filter up and down actual free speech considerations.

I know that some people on both sides of the aisle believe we live in an authoritarian regime, but let's be clear about this, guiding this with my actual media optics career experience, that in an actual authoritarian regime anywhere around the world, if Dorsey inflicted this kind of damage on any critical industry as such, he would be executed. There is a reason he was driven out. Part of that was this issue with the NY Post. There were about 50 other ways he could have handled that without basically putting Big Social Media under the grinder as soon as 2024 rolls around. The other part was it was no longer viable to hide the inferences regarding Anti-Semetism surrounding his sphere. Combined with other elements of the Democratic Party, that caused massive losses in fundraising and trying to shift public policy as it antagonized the Jewish establishment in Hollywood and in Big Finance.

An out of control crackhead is going to help bring down the future legal insulation for Big Social Media because Joe Biden or one of his staffers refused to hire Hunter Biden a full time body man.

What Jack Dorsey did was completely indefensible. There is no pathway, I don't care what type of politics or ideology you support, where what he did will end up being a good thing for the future of America.

 
The issue that provides the largest open threat point is the fact that then CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the Twitter policy used  against the NY Post was incorrect and was immediately changed, but that the NY Post needed to "delete the offending tweet" and then the account would be unlocked, then they could repost the exact same article.

The NY Post refused to do this ( after deeply consulting with their legal counsel), then over the next week and a half, when the timing was right and the full impact of the suppression had carried weight, Twitter unlocked the account.

It was a self admission by Dorsey that Twitter was just making up it's rules as it was going along. It hyper catalyzed an immediate focus point as to why Section 230 protections need to be lifted. If you combine this with

A) Josh Hawley confronting Mark Zuckerberg about the "Centra" and "Tasks" platforms where Big Tech and Big Social Media actually coordinate

and

B) That Prager U spends more on Big Social Media advertising than any other Conservative outlet in the country and gets close to near full immunity and that no one in Congress spends more on Big Social Media advertising than AOC, and the scandal about her lying about what happened while hiding in Katie Porter's office was systematically cooked down.

Then you have a bizarre complicit pay for play influence system where third party minimum wage analysts are used to filter up and down actual free speech considerations.

I know that some people on both sides of the aisle believe we live in an authoritarian regime, but let's be clear about this, guiding this with my actual media optics career experience, that in an actual authoritarian regime anywhere around the world, if Dorsey inflicted this kind of damage on any critical industry as such, he would be executed. There is a reason he was driven out. Part of that was this issue with the NY Post. There were about 50 other ways he could have handled that without basically putting Big Social Media under the grinder as soon as 2024 rolls around. The other part was it was no longer viable to hide the inferences regarding Anti-Semetism surrounding his sphere. Combined with other elements of the Democratic Party, that caused massive losses in fundraising and trying to shift public policy as it antagonized the Jewish establishment in Hollywood and in Big Finance.

An out of control crackhead is going to help bring down the future legal insulation for Big Social Media because Joe Biden or one of his staffers refused to hire Hunter Biden a full time body man.

What Jack Dorsey did was completely indefensible. There is no pathway, I don't care what type of politics or ideology you support, where what he did will end up being a good thing for the future of America.


I feel ike I might agree with your post.

But for the love of all that is sane... learn to be more concise.  Nobody (none of us) is reading that.

 
Define public info please...  Also, did you answer if you are aware if biden ever lied? Sorry if I missed it.
Yes. I’m sure Biden has lied. 

In any case we were talking about Twitter and it’s potential unfair treatment of conservatives when posting and sharing info on their platform. If Biden were lying and spreading misinformation on Twitter I’d expect the company to flag him and perhaps ban his personal account. 

 
I don't even know what im arguing, but I keep clicking on it and it keeps saying "unevidenced".  Like the screenshot.  Phone and laptop.

Whatever.  Is there or is there not knew information that makes this previously silly argument valid?


Mine says "unevidenced" now as well.

There is new information (the confirmed authenticity of the emails), but nothing that makes the previously silly argument valid. I highly recommend reading the Wikipedia page for a summary, which incorporates the new information.

 
Mine says "unevidenced" now as well.

There is new information (the confirmed authenticity of the emails), but nothing that makes the previously silly argument valid. I highly recommend reading the Wikipedia page for a summary, which incorporates the new information.


Thank you.

@Maurile Tremblay might be the only source of information I don't immediately scrutinize these days.

 
And this is yet another great irony to this entire story: all the folks here who are pointing to this news and saying: “Aha! We KNEW the mainstream media couldn’t be trusted! Look what they did!” And yet it’s the mainstream media, in the form of the New York Times, which is reporting the story! Without that, there would be no story. 
Just as with the Hillary email scandal, the critics of the MSM rely on the MSM for evidence of their criticism. 
I disagree. I haven't even read the recent news, so I have no clue what, if anything, NYT confirmed.  But I remember my impression of the evidence available months or years ago was that the emails, notes, and witnesses seemed credible.  This very late NYT story simply offers an opportunity to dunk on the people who do still believe the MSM.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top