Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulitzer to Taibbi, Weiss, and others?

For what? They haven't exposed any criminality. Maybe they should be nominated for a comedy prize. Their overblown hype of "TwiTtEr iZ a SUbSidIaRy oF tHe fBi" was comically ludicrous.

Also: The only FBI involvement we heard about happened during the Trump administration. But sure, somehow that's Biden's fault.

"iT wUz tHE dEEp StATe"

Doesn’t exist:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opinion/sunday/trump-civil-service-deep-state.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

News flash: Career federal employees swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and uphold the law, and take annual ethics training They also follow their agencies' mission and strategic goals. As such they do in fact uphold the Constitution and the law, and resist Constitution-trampling chaos agents like Trump who try to dismantle the law and go against their agency mission and strategic goal.

It's called DOING THEIR JOBS. No "deep state cabal" required.

It's astounding that the right wing thinks the government should work like Game of Thrones, where everyone in the realm must bend the knee when the new king is crowned. It doesn't work that way. The constitution and the nation's laws are bigger than the President. No functioning democracy works that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulitzer to Taibbi, Weiss, and others?

For what? They haven't exposed any criminality. Maybe they should be nominated for a comedy prize. Their overblown hype of "TwiTtEr iZ a SUbSidIaRy oF tHe fBi" was comically ludicrous.

Also: The only FBI involvement we heard about happened during the Trump administration. But sure, somehow that's Biden's fault.

"iT wUz tHE dEEp StATe"

Doesn’t exist:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opinion/sunday/trump-civil-service-deep-state.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

News flash: Career federal employees swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and uphold the law, and take annual ethics training They also follow their agencies' mission and strategic goals. As such they do in fact uphold the Constitution and the law, and resist Constitution-trampling chaos agents like Trump who try to dismantle the law and go against their agency mission and strategic goal.

It's called DOING THEIR JOBS. No "deep state cabal" required.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulitzer to Taibbi, Weiss, and others?

For what? They haven't exposed any criminality. Maybe they should be nominated for a comedy prize. Their overblown hype of "TwiTtEr iZ a SUbSidIaRy oF tHe fBi" was comically ludicrous.

Also: The only FBI involvement we heard about happened during the Trump administration. But sure, somehow that's Biden's fault.

"iT wUz tHE dEEp StATe"

Doesn’t exist:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opinion/sunday/trump-civil-service-deep-state.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Twitter files is like a tiny fart. Nothing.

A tiny fart in the wind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulitzer to Taibbi, Weiss, and others?

For what? They haven't exposed any criminality. Maybe they should be nominated for a comedy prize. Their overblown hype of "TwiTtEr iZ a SUbSidIaRy oF tHe fBi" was comically ludicrous.

+1 You don’t get a Pulitzer for exposing that a secret cabal of Twitter executives were in charge of enforcing Twitter’s terms of service.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulitzer to Taibbi, Weiss, and others?

For what? They haven't exposed any criminality. Maybe they should be nominated for a comedy prize. Their overblown hype of "TwiTtEr iZ a SUbSidIaRy oF tHe fBi" was comically ludicrous.

Also: The only FBI involvement we heard about happened during the Trump administration. But sure, somehow that's Biden's fault.

"iT wUz tHE dEEp StATe"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulitzer to Taibbi, Weiss, and others?

For what? They haven't exposed any criminality. Maybe they should be nominated for a comedy prize. Their overblown hype of "TwiTtEr iZ a SUbSidIaRy oF tHe fBi" was comically ludicrous.

Also: The only FBI involvement we heard about happened during the Trump administration. But sure, somehow that's Biden's fault.

Anonymous wrote:Pulitzer to Taibbi, Weiss, and others?

For what? They haven't exposed any criminality. Maybe they should be nominated for a comedy prize. Their overblown hype of "TwiTtEr iZ a SUbSidIaRy oF tHe fBi" was comically ludicrous.

I guess that's the right wing's latest talking point now, that somehow now the left are the hypocrites, because they need to deflect away from Elon's lies and hypocrisy.

Let's unravel it all. It goes something like this: Prior to Elon Musk's takeover *some* people out of the millions of people talking about Twitter, said "well Twitter can ban conservatives because they are a private company." Reality is, not really that many people even said that in the first place, because the people defending the bans were defending bans because of hate speech, antisemitism, conspiracy theories putting peoples lives at risk, and other kinds of toxic behavior, not because of conservatism.

Do you think conservatism somehow requires that kind of toxic behavior, that it's somehow integral? Most people don't. And, the overwhelming majority of conservatives on Twitter WEREN'T banned. Was Ron DeSantis banned? No. The people calling for conservatives to be banned for no reason other than being conservative are a.) rare and b.) unhinged.

Part 2, the supposed "hypocrisy of the left" - it's premised on "the same people" who called for bans and who defended it "because twitter's a private company" - same actually means same. Person A before Musk takeover = Person A after Musk takeover. You can't just wave a half empty beer can around in the air and say "they" because... (life lesson for you here)... not everyone who ever disagreed with you is in lockstep agreement with everyone else who disagrees with you. So even IF some rando before Musk's takeover said "hey they can muzzle free speech because they are a private company" and now says "OMG they are muzzling free speech and shouldn't be allowed to do that" after Musk's takeover, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of the rest of us because the people who disagree with you are not even remotely the monolith your smooth brain seems to believe it is.

Pulitzer to Taibbi, Weiss, and others?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is anyone even still talking about "free speech?"

Elon has made it clear he no longer (and perhaps never did) care about free speech. It was always about him trying to ban people he didn't like.

He's as much as admitted it.

https://twitter.com/honestsportz/status/1604240137575170050

Because as shown in your posts, the same people that were spouting "twitter is a private company" when conservatives were banned are now criticizing the same private company for banning people.

My posts? I didn't say any such thing. Don't stupidly conflate different posters.

Meanwhile, you skipped over Elon's glaring hypocrisy and the big lie that his takeover of Twitter would be a win for free speech.

In your post, as in the one I quoted, YOU (so that’s why I said YOUR post) posted a screenshot of honestsportz complaining about the lack of “free speech" so that would the "same people" I mentioned. You call me stupid, yet can’t comprehend what you read.

No, YOU either can't comprehend anything, or are confabulating things in your own imagination.

Where did I say "twitter is a private company?" I didn't. Unless you're confusing me with someone else, which is 100% a bad assumption and entirely your own fault.

Where did @honestsportz say "twitter is a private company" prior to Musk's takeover?

Yet here you are, like an idiot, claiming that "the same people" said both of those things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is anyone even still talking about "free speech?"

Elon has made it clear he no longer (and perhaps never did) care about free speech. It was always about him trying to ban people he didn't like.

He's as much as admitted it.

https://twitter.com/honestsportz/status/1604240137575170050

Because as shown in your posts, the same people that were spouting "twitter is a private company" when conservatives were banned are now criticizing the same private company for banning people.

My posts? I didn't say any such thing. Don't stupidly conflate different posters.

Meanwhile, you skipped over Elon's glaring hypocrisy and the big lie that his takeover of Twitter would be a win for free speech.

In your post, as in the one I quoted, YOU (so that’s why I said YOUR post) posted a screenshot of honestsportz complaining about the lack of “free speech" so that would the "same people" I mentioned. You call me stupid, yet can’t comprehend what you read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is anyone even still talking about "free speech?"

Elon has made it clear he no longer (and perhaps never did) care about free speech. It was always about him trying to ban people he didn't like.

He's as much as admitted it.

https://twitter.com/honestsportz/status/1604240137575170050

Because as shown in your posts, the same people that were spouting "twitter is a private company" when conservatives were banned are now criticizing the same private company for banning people.

My posts? I didn't say any such thing. Don't stupidly conflate different posters.

Meanwhile, you skipped over Elon's glaring hypocrisy and the big lie that his takeover of Twitter would be a win for free speech.

Anonymous wrote:

Twitter files is like a tiny fart. Nothing.