Swordsmyth
Member

Of course, cuz we can smell ya a mile away! :p

Like from DeVry University? Did you ever see any of those ridiculous commercials back in the day?

Basically just reinforcing Search and Seizure without warrant, or probable cause, which many pretty much IGNORE because a lot of drug charges are considered Civil thus bypassing the 4th Amendment, so it allows police to confiscate all property and bank accounts if "drugs" are accused. So if someone is genuinely innocent, they can no longer afford Legal Defense if they have any money at all because it has been confiscated prior to a determination of guilt or innocense. Right now I think we have MUCH BIGGER things to worry about, but 4th could also be used to defend Republicans from the agreses of the Democrats. If youve been paying even a small iota of attention, you know that the Democrats are trying to CRIMINALIZE Political Beliefs, even the most moderate or politically inactive. tod evans could hopefully weigh in as he has a MUCH better take on this topic.

Its not just "tabs". It is coercing obedience without consent. IE, Obey OR DIE. And I think we are there where they are ready to KILL people.

Fuck. You. Cornell. Skin Color should never determine who gets what. How much you wanna bet that the higher ups are all exempt too?

Very nice. I hope this helps to keep both the civilians and the Police safe. I think any uniformed Police Officer will have enough brains to recognize that the Law (if this bill passes) no longer forcibly places them in harms way. Police can get shot by a law abiding citizen just as easily as a burglar when breaking into a home. Any plans for 4th Amendment protections? (off topic of original post)

Fully agree. Lots of people out there that DO have access to the forums and what not that may cause just as much trouble as Law Enforcement or the Communist Party.

Yeah, and since its plugged into the power grid, are they also gonna collect data on where you have been too? They are doing that without plugging in anyway, trying to tie EVERYTHING to your Cell Phone or Internet anyway. Where is AF? FUCK A BUNCH OF COMPUTER CARS? I really have no idea why that stuck in my head the way it did. Oh, and I am sure if they "revoke your chip" or "cancel your bank accounts for your political views", they can just as easily and permanently "turn off your car".

Electric Vehicles are the most idiotic thing I have heard yet. Especially when they first announced them, next actually came out with them. First things first. Produce the electricity at the POWER COMPANY. Either by Coal or Nuclear. Yeah, thats WAY better for the environment. Next, about HALF your electricity is lost in transmission over the power lines. Next, it is NOT SELF SUFFICIENT. IE no recharge panels on the car itself. Then they keep using Friction Brakes. Electric Cars are WORSE for the environment than even Gas Guzzlers. Why? Why not just make it mandatory to have it ALL NUCLEAR POWER?

I doubt anyone will answer you, except in sarcasm. You are Gaslighting in your questioning. If I were to ask "why didnt you do something about the Corporate World Government Takeover", that would effectively be a Gaslighting question, and we all know it and quite frankly are sick of your bullshit.

Agree and slightly disagree. One upside is we are not required to use real names. Downside is lack of HTTPS, which can be gotten for Free with Certbot by EFF. Due to that, when we create accounts or login with an Email, that Email can be sniffed by Man in the Middle attacks. And I am pretty sure most of the folks here use GMail anyway. Another downside is Google Analytics. Still, this site is no where nearly as dangerous as Google or Facebook or Amazon on Data Collection. One thing I know is that the majority of users, although concerned about their privacy, lack the necessary skills to do something to protect their privacy. Even shit like basics like deleting tracking cookies is getting harder and harder due to the Browsers that most people use. Chrome is by far the #1 most commonly used Browser, and Firefox is trailing in like single digits, and Chrome is by far THE MOST DANGEROUS BROWSER, ESPECIALLY when the Default Settings are to allow everyone to see everything about you by sending it ALL back to Google. So when your Social Credit Score is now based on what information Google sells to your Financial Institutions (without compensation I might add), dont complain to me. Still, here, there is room for improvement.

Sorry Comrade! Thank you for the kind unbad correction to my abhorrent thinking!

Right back at it. No the Thread Title does NOT state the Facts.

Stating something that has not been determined in a COURT OF LAW as OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. They would have originally made the statement because they BELIEVE the statement they made to be true, and were coerced into redaction. It is NOT FACT. Look, I believe that YOU believe Trump lost, and there is no election fraud. And you can believe that. You can even express those beliefs all you want. But now youre basically demanding that "False Claims" are Objective in their nature and we must change ourselves to suit your view of the world. You are twisting information to suit your narrative. That is called BIAS. And exactly WHY we have such a problem with MSM. Youre merely repeating what the MSM has said because you believe it. Fine if you believe it but it does not make it Objective or True. The type of thinking down the road will lead you to want to pass laws to censor us, but it will backfire on you and you wont be given permission to speak either. If this was Twitter, everyone who has expressed doubt in you would already be banned and ONLY YOU would remain. Fortunately for all of us we have some great Moderators here, and they are not about to ban us. Kind of like the Fact Checkers ONLY "Fact Checking" those expressing Conservative views, but anyone on the Left gets a Free Pass. And for the record, "Fact Check" just means they googled something, which, again does NOT make it true. I am not sure that you understand the difference between Objective and Subjective.

Ministry of Truth has regained power?

You just did.

Again BULLSHIT. You can NOT use the phrasing of a Title as evidence that there is no election fraud. -REP

OMG Dominion sues Rudy Giuliani therefore Giuliani MUST BE LYING! Rudy Giuliani Sued by Dominion Voting Systems For Defamation https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/rudy-giuliani-sued-by-dominion-voting-systems-for-defamation See? Since they are suing then there can not be ANY election fraud!

Bullshit. "American Thinker Statement Retracting False Claims about Dominion" The difference between False and Not False is subjective. The thread title is presented as Objective, as if it is Fact and Evidence. I believe Trump WON the election. And I believe there IS massive election fraud.

One other thing that needs to be pointed out is Correlation does NOT mean Causation. Here is an example of how that can go wrong. Statistically crime is much higher in summer than winter. Also, ice cream sales are much higher in summer than winter. Thus, Ice Cream CAUSES Crime. That is associating Correlation and Causation. Same thing as a Correlation is being manufactured between Republican / Libertarian / Christian / Conservative and Terrorist. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. The Title of the thread is using that Correlation as Causation. This is akin to using the number of people that believe that there is Election Fraud as evidence. They are pissed, I believe they do believe, but it is NOT evidence. With the Title of this thread, the Correlation is that American Journal withdrew their statement as evidence. It is not evidence, they simply redacted their statement because it was challenged, but does not mean that the statements were in fact "False". Period.

Its a setup. When the vaccines start killing people en masse, the plan is going to be to blame it on some new strain of COVID. Thing is, I think there very well may be a very dangerous bioweapon that is planned to be deployed, but it sure as fuck aint COVID. COVID is just an excuse to deprive the people of their property and ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. ... which are now words of Terrorists.

Far too often the difference between true and false is subjective. It very much sounds like what you may be insinuating is that people should not have ANY RIGHT to speak, instead, make it a PERMISSION that is ONLY GRANTED if the individual will express statements that are in line with "official narrative". And THAT is DANGEROUS. Guess what. I make mistakes. I own them. I learn from them. And I look at those "mistakes" as an "opportunity to learn". Thus, if I am not making mistakes at something, then I am not trying. The current narrative does not allow for ANYONE to make a mistake, or to change their minds. Also HIGHLY DANGEROUS and ONE SIDED NARRATIVE. Guess what else. I express beliefs that I DO NOT AGREE with quite frequently. Its not necessarily about ONLY BEING PERMITTED to express things that "I agree with" because what I am trying to do is express a train of thought and how I arrive at certain conclusions. And I dont think there is ANYTHING MALICIOUS about that. Nor do I think American Journals words are MALICIOUS by any reasonable interpretation. Now, would you hold the same point of view if instead of it being American Journal it was a Petty Criminal and Known Liar? The "damage" is only done to themselves. So by all means I would allow them to continue expressing themselves as much as they want. Many people believe that everyone else does not challenge information that is presented to them. I said "cats are tasty", which implies that I have eaten a cat. I have not. Well thats a good expression of something I dont agree with. But more importantly I do not believe that everyone that reads that statement will accept it without challenge. Thats what idiots do. "I told that cop I did not eat no chocolate cake" while having a face covered in chocolate. Its childish, immature, and shows an inability to recognize that other people have intelligence enough challenge information.

Even if they are flat out WRONG, they still have a Constitutional RIGHT to express their Beliefs. Freedom comes in two parts, the Freedom to do what you want, and the Freedom to do what you ought. What we OUGHT to do is protect the Right of the People to express beliefs than we do NOT agree with, rather than ONLY those which support an "official narrative". That means you are just as protected, and we can disagree, and STILL get along just fine because we will agree on MANY other things. The thing is, the Popular thing to say will NEVER need to be afforded the Protections of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment exists to protect the Unpopular thing to say. And right now on this topic, the Unpopular thing depends on who you ask and where you are. Unpopular here means "the election was not stolen" but I still have to take the higher road and DEFEND your Right to express that belief. The Unpopular thing pretty much country wide is still that "the election was not stolen". But, the Unpopular thing as far as Media (not all journalists are MSM, like Ben Swann) is "the election was stolen". The 1st Amendment exists so we ALL have the right (notice how that is inclusive of EVERYONE without regard to race color or gender?) to express our beliefs. Now, in a court of law, we also have Innocent Until Proven Guilty. So is American Journal Guilty of expressing incorrect information? Not until it is PROVEN in a Court of Law. Until it is PROVEN, to me, it is simply a Belief, which does allow room for errors and lets me and everyone else change their minds. Which would you prefer? A one sided narrative, or expression of beliefs that differ by everyone equally?

Dont believe ANYTHING that ANYONE says to be true. Even things that I say. Do some actual research and not just "Fact Check" which mostly means "ask Google", I mean to get your own hands on the ACTUAL EVIDENCE or as close as you can. That is the difference between BELIEVING and KNOWING. I believe, but I do not KNOW. I think it is worth while to have someone with integrity examine the EVIDENCE, the same EVIDENCE that has NOT BEEN EXAMINED and is thrown out "for other reasons" other than being not true. Peoples Belief Systems can shift quickly, but what I always think is funny is how hard they will fight to protect those beliefs, even if those beliefs are not true. The ability to change their mind lets a person be a bit more mentally flexible where by they can change their minds, which really allows them to decide what kind of person they want to be, and not defined by Identity Politics. Mind if I ask you something else? Are you happy with who you are? Not so much what other people think of you, but by yourself, left to your own devices and decisions, are you happy? What if you could "just choose" to be happy? What would allow you to be able to make that choice?

Well, I do think Dominion is guilty of Election Fraud. I have seen enough evidence, as well as understanding that they have motive and opportunity. I will maintain that redaction does not mean that the fraud did or did not take place. That really is something that needs to be determined in a court of law where the evidence is examined. There is a problem tho. If the PRESIDENT OF THE FUCKING UNITED STATES can not get SUPREME COURT JUDGES to examine the evidence, which has been dismissed on "technicalities" and not "interpretation of evidence presented", how the hell could a tiny online website publisher have a snowballs chance of a FAIR TRIAL IN COURT? This would be the most politically influenced legal case in history, and they would lose. Not because there is no evidence, but because the JUDGE HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. I suppose a good analogy would be a guy swimming with little rubber ducky arm floaties having the ENTIRE US NAVY POINT THEIR BIGGEST WEAPONS against him. What is that guy gonna do? Spit water at them? I believe that the American Journal was INTIMIDATED into redacting their statements.

Perhaps "Double Think"? Let them understand what the definition of Double Think is. Two types of incorrect thinking that usually mirror each other. Cognitive Dissonance, and Double Think. Cognitive Dissonance is a conflict in the mind between two conflicting ideas. "I want to buy my kid the cool shoes but I cant afford it. Which do I do?" Double Think is kind of the OPPOSITE of Cognitive Dissonance, where two ideas that should conflict exist in the mind, but do not conflict because they have not been compared. "Republicans are Pro Life but Pro War", vs "Democrats are Pro Abortion and Anti War". The idea to focus on there is that an individuals chosen party "protects the sanctity of life". Really, BOTH support DEATH, Republicans by War, and Democrats by Abortion. Both worship DEATH. Same people pulling strings on both sides. One of the things they do that paralyzes people mentally is to CONFUSE people. They achieve this by trying to to confuse as many people as they can. MSM does this all the time, where in a debate, if they can not win based on FACTS, they try to CONFUSE their opponent with Cognitive Dissonance and Double Think. The only way that people can overcome their confused types of thinking REQUIRES that first it is identified and explained to them.

Of course they do. What they claim is not always truth. What do you think? Was the election taken in a Fraudslide? Are they innocent or guilty of Election Rigging? Is the retraction the right move for American Thinker?

Well yeah! If you helped to take a major part in a Political Coup, you would not only be compensated quite well, you would also have an ARMY OF LAWYERS ready to defend the lie. No small publisher would be able to defend themselves in court against this. The retraction is more of a Legal Move of not making themselves a target than to say they presented information that "is not true". Not too many actually KNOW if the election was stolen based on HANDS ON EVIDENCE. Many of us have seen the RESULTS and can easily conclude the "facts do not add up", and have seen a very small HANDFUL of the evidence of Election Fraud.