BraniacX's Posts
Nairaland Forum › BraniacX's Profile › BraniacX's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (of 204 pages)
benalvino3:Oh shut up and just quit yapping! Censorship and conspiracy are very very specific allegations that leave no room for doubt whatsoever about the accused being very deliberate about the actions taken to achieve it! Being vague with "played a role" fools nobody but yourself! If you accuse someone of conspiracy and censorship and you're asked to prove it in court you either prove beyond doubt the accused deliberately acted in such a manner or your accusations are invalid and as such should be honorably withdrawn! Your half arsed "played a role is hogwash!" and belongs in the dustbin. After today I want you to be certain next time you throw around your personal opinions or perhaps even frame them as such....."personal opinions" On this matter, you are nobody. Like I said, you can decide if the sky is blue or not... ie accept fact or reject fact. Na your own cup of tea be that. But what ever you believe is based on you... There is a reality we all adhere to.No you simple minded dolt! Your belief is subject to your biases but "facts" which I will substitute for your "reality" leaves no room for biases and even though you say we all adhere to it you most definitely aren't adhering to it! There are standards required to establishing a charge of either censorship and/or conspiracy and that is why it remains an accusation only and never a charge, or do you think you know better than the Republican Senate that grilled officials of both companies over these accusations? And that is why you should do everybody a favour and shut your trap up! The question I asked about proving conspiracy was never a matter of partisanship or personal opinions but a matter of facts, a significant difference you are too dimwitted to appreciate or understand. Brainless what you accept as evidence does not matter. What matter is what is out there and what Mark z have said about it.What I accept as evidence matters not if I am asking you to validate my personal opinions but that isn't what I'm asking is it? I asked you to prove your accusations for a FACT! And by that specific standard the evidence you provide must not only satisfy me, it must have also satisfied the then Republican led senate, it didn't because such facts do not exist except in the partisan tainted dredges of the excuse you claim for a brain!
|
benalvino3:lols, is this your get out of a tight spot go to move ? Prove your own stupidity then hurl insults around hoping I will fall for your bait and forget to demand your so called proof of FBI censorship and/or conspiracy with Facebook? Boy, your stupidity can only amuse not faze me, when you joined the conversation between me and coolusername that was the question on the table, I asked you to be well versed in argument at hand before taking the baton so eagerly, but your stupidity was/is bloated by your arrogance thinking you just have to shove a few headlines into my face and voila, I'll start clapping for you, what do you take me for? Another brainless trump loving dolt like you? ![]() No boy, you will either prove the claim of censorship by the FBI as was the question when you joined in, or you will learn to shut up on matters being debated by your intellectual betters! And oh! It isn't a fall back when all I'm using your argument for is highlighting your contradictions to further prove my point, I'll have expected you to get this but being the dolt you are I have to modify my expectations so no! Hard fail! Not your gotcha moment, try harder or smarter if that is even possible ![]() |
benalvino3:oh I corrected it for you and no, I am not as brainless as you are to take things at face value
|
[quote author=benalvino3 post=119058412][/quote]yes, real evidence! Not the imaginary one, real evidence you lied that I ignored. And erm..........is the weakness of your argument now so obvious to you that a meme is your only response? ![]() |
Obrigardo:you've got kooky imagination, I can't stop laughing at the image you just painted ![]() I hope he drops soap and gets far less than he actually deserves |
IjeBos:then stop responding to the moniker and his multiple variations! He has less intelligence than a flea's maggot and engaging him is a conscious waste of your time on your part |
benalvino3:the recurrent theme of Republicans always being guilty of the very offences they accuse Democrats of also applies to their supporters like you, shouldn't be surprised but I am |
IjeBos: how come conservatives are always guilty of the crimes they accuse others of repeatedly? |
benalvino3:funny clip =1 Documented evidence of the FBI conspiring with Facebook to censor a story against hunter Biden =0 Documented evidence of the FBI conspiring with Twitter to censor a story about hunter Biden =0 Inappropriately used "bury your head in the sand" cliches =~~ Deduction = you're full of hot air and horseshit (bullshit has been overused so.....) Side note; for someone who claims his head is above ground, you're spitting far too much sand from your mouth that your point you think you are making lacks any coherence. You should never have joined in a conversation you were ill equipped to handle but like basilico your "I believe it is, therefore it is" attitude is only showcasing your foolishness as you doggedly stick to your opinions and all what I said above in simpler terms means, you believe you have presented evidence of collusion and conspiracy, your belief simply doesn't make it a fact! Try harder |
basilico:mind you, it is not up to you basilico or me to decide what qualifies as classified or not, if the FBI says non of the mails on her personal server were classified, you can classify them, as long as you acknowledge that that classification is irrelevant outside your own head. Like I said before, your arguments aren't anchored in reality |
basilico:false equivalence, the only comparison between both scenarios is being made by...................like you, fill in the blank space yourself
|
Chee59:pls lemme know what you find out |
basilico:I asked you for criminal culpability because from my perspective your arguments aren't anchored in reality, they are fed purely by partisan emotions and that's why you and others like you get deflated when asked specific questions
|
1stGenAmerican:
|
basilico:do you have difficulty with English or is the term "criminal culpability" too complex for you to understand? I asked you where criminal culpability was in all these |
Obrigardo:hypocrisy is the word! The stereotypical absentee deadbeat black father that they love to vilify for the social ills of the black community is the one the party of family values will rather vote for against an actual ordained Christian minister who shares the same actual belief that they claim to have in Jesus being the key to our salvation but without bringing it into politics and who just happens to be black |
saxywale2:it's the blatant hypocrisy for me |
IjeBos:the logic train of some people on this thread definitely requires questioning and the individuals therapy sessions with qualified professionals as in the term "professional lobbyist" is as American as apple pie and should've served as a reminder to basilico if he wasn't so deeply entrenched into partisanship so much so he wrote that convoluted logic excuse that trump is a businessman and therefore isn't beholden to money entrapment balderdash ![]() |
IjeBos:where is the pro-Republicans outrage on this thread? or are they suffering from a severe case of misplaced priorities? |
ono:lols ![]() Are you ok? The question begs asking though cos like what da hell is this post of yours supposed to mean? Make it make sense |
IjeBos:this is the exact point I was trying to make to coolusername and benalvino3, it is not enough to shout conspiracy and make allegations, one must establish causality between two events and satisfy logic to an unbiased mind but no, all they want to do is vomit partisan emotionally tinged sentiments that leave them speechless whenever anyone asks them the right questions |
basilico:the question here is, where is the criminal culpability in all these? If you can provide that answer next question will be, going by your answer who is can be factually adjudged as guilty of exactly or almost exactly the same criminal offence? |
benalvino3:zuckerberg and Facebook are private entities, when next seun and nairaland deletes posts that violate their rules are you going to scream censorship or will we have to dig your own head out of the figurative sand hoping that you're not too blinded by partisanship to see it for what it is? The CEO admitted that FBI contacted them with a non specific advisory, or did the CEO say the FBI contacted them about hunter biden and the contents of his laptop in specifics? Aren't you supposed to be smarter than the person you're picking up a baton from by virtue of the insights you gleamed while on the outside of the exchange? OK, let me extend the question to you, what came first, the FBI advisory or the NY post story? Secondly, is censorship more reactionary or proactionary when dealing with news items? |
CoolUsername:So now it was Facebook that censored it? ![]() At least we are getting somewhere, which brings me to a new question, you claimed the FBI advisory was a lie, according to whom? And what evidence do you have to back that claim? Also are you now conclusively saying the "censorship" wasn't by a government agency but instead by a private company? Additionally, is it within the ambit of FBI as an agency to give advisory of issues of political importance or suspicions pertaining to foreign partisans in America? And were they specific about the NY post article when giving the advisory? If yes, pray tell which came first, the FBI advisory or the NY post story? If you have answered these questions, can you factually prove conspiracy between the FBI and Facebook or not? If yes, conspiracy against who or whom? The FBI that has repeatedly shown bias against Trump. They had to remove two agents from a Trump investigation because text messages detailing how much they hated him were leaked. The same FBI illegally spied on Trump's 2016 campaign. The same FBI manufactured incriminating evidence against Trump. The same FBI failed to tell Facebook to be on the look out for fake news when it was damaging to Trump.provide evidence to these claims of yours if you may, as I recall trump's campaign was secretly under investigation but never announced publicly before the election so as not to influence the election but an investigation into Hillary Clinton was announced publicly by the FBI just days before the election damaging her candidacy, if I were to go by that from a partisan perspective I can claim that constitutes as circumstantial evidence that the FBI was pro trump all along, but since this is not an argument I am making I am expecting your evidence to be more factual and less circumstantial than mine. I hand the floor back to you |
benalvino3:censorship or suppression of a news item in Facebook but not on fox news flies in the face of what actual censorship is and makes a mockery of your own definition of censorship, next time before you ascribe words and definitions to events think it through before concluding your definition applies to the event and no, censorship has not been proven except to unthinking Republican bots, thinking Republicans know it doesn't apply to this scenario. Not everything is to be viewed through partisan tinted lenses |
benalvino3:prove the conspiracy then, last I checked a government agency giving an advisory within the ambits of the laws that set them up is them acting in a professional capacity, a private company formulating policy on the basis of that advisory is them acting within the law in their and their service customers best interests and who the hell are you to say otherwise? Other conservative outlets that ran amok with the story were neither investigated nor prosecuted by any government agency or what else according to your definition of censorship is suppression of the news supposed to be? Or are you going to posit here that in censorship suppression of items, news or offensive material is partial, optional or selective? |
benalvino3:I didn't ask for a definition of censorship, I asked for a proof of censorship! if you must take the baton from coolusername then you must stay on the right track |
CoolUsername:understand more slowly this time around, the accusations of censorship and conspiracy you posited that I engaged you over were between the FBI a government agency as you already agreed and Facebook a private company, you introducing twitter and newyork post into the mix was you skipping lanes, I refused to be distracted and ignored it while telling you to focus first on the argument at hand with legal judiciousness, introducing a tangent argument with dissimilar composition is scatterbrained thinking and behaviour, so, I will engage you on twitter and newyork post as soon as you can prove the censorship and conspiracy in the FBI Facebook issue, was my breakdown slow enough for you? |
IjeBos:it is an amazing plane if it is as advertised and it provides more tactical options for the US military, the price tag is meant to discourage foreign competition and fatten the cash bloated defense industry as usual |
CoolUsername:Sorry, I missed that part , take a screenshot of you proving censorship and post ![]() Also, my unrelated question pertains to your second accusation which is conspiracy so sorry not sorry to contradict you, it is very, totally related |
IjeBos:I never said it was wise or just , just excellent from a technical and tactical POV of course, but it isn't my country so I can afford to ignore the cons in favour of the pros ![]() |
IjeBos:how people claim to be republicans and never acknowledge this bemuses me, I was refraining from stating this because in an overtly partisan mind it alludes to bias but the reverse is the truth, professionalism and duty is given premium above all else |
? Prove your own stupidity then hurl insults around hoping I will fall for your bait and forget to demand your so called proof of FBI censorship and/or conspiracy with Facebook? Boy, your stupidity can only amuse not faze me, when you joined the conversation between me and coolusername that was the question on the table, I asked you to be well versed in argument at hand before taking the baton so eagerly, but your stupidity was/is bloated by your arrogance thinking you just have to shove a few headlines into my face and voila, I'll start clapping for you, what do you take me for? Another brainless trump loving dolt like you? 

