Winners only.

[Buck]

Trove Of Nearly 10K Hunter Biden Laptop Photos, Docs Appear On Organized Website | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Eggs]

U.S. Women's Soccer Team Thrashed By Wrexham Men's Team Made Up Of Older Players

A U.S. women's soccer team was eviscerated by a Wrexhman men's team made up of current and former players by the score of 12-0.

www.outkick.com

 

[Eggs]

LMFAO

 

[Jimi77]

Are Asian lumped with other so called supremacist? So confused?
View attachment 49434

As an Asian American we get it from both sides. I've actually had a black man call me "the man."

 

[RobGMN]

I am guessing this is why people like you get so confused so easily. I am not advocating nor insinuating in any way be it directly or round-a-bout that anyone keep anyone else from any information. Furthermore this is a direct example of why people don't get along with you.

You very clearly said the information should only be available through and FOIA request. If the information is only available through an FOIA request as per your directive, then the information is controlled by the government. That means that you are advocating for government control of the information. There is no other way around it.

How many crimes are committed where the criminals information is never even mentioned? The ones that get mentioned are the ones that fit a narrative so they can bring in viewers or are interesting enough to bring in viewers.

This statement has no relevance. The thing about free information is that people can choose to disseminate what they want and what they don’t want to. I can tell you the color of my car if I feel like it, or I can choose not to tell you. And infotainment Nettwerk can tell you who the shooter is, or choose not to; if they have the information it’s their freedom of choice what to do with it.
Our media is not state-sponsored or run.

On to your dumb example of the roofing book. A roofing book would have information that will help with the construction of a roof. I am NOT a roofer so I don't NEED the book. So using your bullshit example, tell all of us how you or Jimi77 knowing a shooters sexual identity gives you information that will help you do anything.

You call it a dumb example, then you illustrate why it’s a good example.
You’re not a roofer, so you don’t NEED to read a book about it. It you CHOOSE to, you think you should have to file an FOIA request to be able to see it.
How do you feel about public jail rosters or warrant lists? Should they exist, and if they should, what information to you deem acceptable for the lists?

Now, Rob, I will dumb it down. Here is a STATEMENT: I do not think it is necessary or necessarily safe for NEWS MEDIA to give out an alleged criminal or suspects information before a conviction is made. This information does nothing for the general public. It's like a mother bringing home groceries and the kids asking how she got the money to get the groceries. The information is available but it does the kids no good to know the information. They can't do anything with the information.

What does a conviction have to do with it? A conviction doesn’t change a person’s skin color, age, sexual orientation, political leanings, etc.
And your analogy of the kids and their mother’s income is not valid. People get to choose what they want to share about themselves. If she chooses not to give her kids that info, so be it.
But she doesn’t get to control what other people might say to her kids. A family acquaintance might tell the kids without knowing mom has a secret.
Welcome to societal living.

I could go on but you are already demonstrating that it is getting difficult to comprehend what I am saying without jumping to conclusions then running with what your mind makes up as reality or facts.

I comprehend you just fine. You made it clear multiple times that you think information should be kept under lock and key by the government unless said government deems we have the correct “need” to know such information, and that information outlets such as “news” networks should be prevented from sharing information unless the government sees a demonstrated “need” for that information to be released.

Its a concept well known in other places.
State-run media, heavily filtered and monitored internet, etc.
The people benefit from it greatly.

 

[Jimi77]

I thought you were thinking along religious lines as the reason we would eliminate evolution in school. We have an accountability problem in America. No one is responsible for their own actions, especially our spoiled weak children. Of course, our system is really about money and power, not creating critical thinking adults. Between public AND private money (liberals love to compare government funding here to socialist countries where private money isn’t used), we fund our schools per student more than any country in the world by far, yet our teachers have to beg in the streets with “red for Ed” signs to get more pay. it seems like their is a black hole that ***** in money somewhere in the school system causing teachers to buy their own school supplies and whine to the public about the lack of funding while simultaneously working in the richest education system in the world. But I suppose that’s probably all just conspiracy and the real problem is that we just havent thrown enough cash at the problem, since that’s the way to fix everything in this country.

IMHO adding private money into the equation is disingenuous. The comparison should be per pupil spending in the public sector. Spending isn't a good comparison, ie (what if) Ireland doesn't count the money spent on mentally challenged students in the education budget and we do? What if Ireland is more willing to spend on mental health issues than the US, etc.

There are lots of problems in the US - $hitty parents who don't believe Johnny could possibly do anything wrong, the lack of proper spending/facilities for kids with mental/behavioral disabilities, crappy policies, drugs, political agendas, crappy teachers, crappy students...

 

[Jimi77]

LMFAO

Interesting. Theft has shot up in Denver too. Works on a small scale, but how does a Walmart Super Store pull this off?

 

[Jimi77]

Interesting. Seems to me the right got away with alot of vague/broad abortion bans, maybe the courts are seeing the error of that approach.

Trump-appointed judge rejects Tennessee's anti-drag law as too broad, too vague

A federal judge says Tennessee’s first-in-the-nation law designed to place strict limits on drag shows is unconstitutional. In a ruling late Friday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker wrote that the law was both “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad” and encouraged “discriminatory...

apnews.com

 

[ThxOne]

You very clearly said the information should only be available through and FOIA request. If the information is only available through an FOIA request as per your directive, then the information is controlled by the government. That means that you are advocating for government control of the information. There is no other way around it.

No I didn't. That is a lie and you cannot prove otherwise.

This statement has no relevance. The thing about free information is that people can choose to disseminate what they want and what they don’t want to. I can tell you the color of my car if I feel like it, or I can choose not to tell you. And infotainment Nettwerk can tell you who the shooter is, or choose not to; if they have the information it’s their freedom of choice what to do with it.
Our media is not state-sponsored or run.

No shit Sherlock. You are making it more obvious that YOU missed the point.

You call it a dumb example, then you illustrate why it’s a good example.
You’re not a roofer, so you don’t NEED to read a book about it. It you CHOOSE to, you think you should have to file an FOIA request to be able to see it.
How do you feel about public jail rosters or warrant lists? Should they exist, and if they should, what information to you deem acceptable for the lists?

Again, you missed any point that was made and now you will argue like you know something.

What does a conviction have to do with it? A conviction doesn’t change a person’s skin color, age, sexual orientation, political leanings, etc.

Are you asking in earnest? Or are you really that stupid?

And your analogy of the kids and their mother’s income is not valid. People get to choose what they want to share about themselves. If she chooses not to give her kids that info, so be it.
But she doesn’t get to control what other people might say to her kids. A family acquaintance might tell the kids without knowing mom has a secret.
Welcome to societal living.

Again, any point that was made missed you like light on the backside of the moon.

I comprehend you just fine. You made it clear multiple times that you think information should be kept under lock and key by the government unless said government deems we have the correct “need” to know such information, and that information outlets such as “news” networks should be prevented from sharing information unless the government sees a demonstrated “need” for that information to be released.

If you comprehended me just fine as you say then you wouldn't keep saying this same dumb shit.

Its a concept well known in other places.
State-run media, heavily filtered and monitored internet, etc.
The people benefit from it greatly.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Eggs]

LMFAO

C19 made its easy and prefect for curbside pick but will eliminate many jobs too. Chicago must have some kind incentive for them keep their business open to prevent food/drug dessert. As for Walgreens just wants push pharma drugs that were poisoned food we consume.

 

[Eggs]

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/report-capitol-police-stopped-childrens-choir-from-singing-national-anthem-in-rotunda-it-might-offend-someone-mace/?utm_source=endwoke&utm_medium=twitter

 

[RobGMN]

No I didn't. That is a lie and you cannot prove otherwise.

“It's not about censoring anything or not being transparent. It's just not important for the general public to know. If it is really that important that you just NEED to know then you should be able to get that information through a FOIA request.”
Here is your proof. Your own words. If info is only available by the FOIA request you advocate for, then it is controlled by the government.
If you think information should only be available by FOIA than you by default think the government should be controlling that information.

No shit Sherlock. You are making it more obvious that YOU missed the point.

So you think a book that you do not NEED to read should be made unavailable until/unless you demonstrate the need.
So much for education, huh?

It's not about censoring anything or not being transparent. It's just not important for the general public to know. If it is really that important that you just NEED to know then you should be able to get that information through a FOIA request.

Again, you missed any point that was made and now you will argue like you know something.

I know plenty. I know that I don’t want my government censoring information that should be public.

Are you asking in earnest? Or are you really that stupid?

Asking in earnest. Answers to both questions would be appreciated.

Again, any point that was made missed you like light on the backside of the moon.

Did you mean dark side?
Regardless, your example of a parent and a child is not analogous to a criminal and society.

If you comprehended me just fine as you say then you wouldn't keep saying this same dumb shit.

I understand you advocate for censorship, but my attempts to understand WHY you do have fallen on deaf ears, it seems.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Not a conspiracy at all. Very real. Very factual. A few small places that do it:
“Internet access is available in North Korea, but is only permitted with special authorization. It is primarily used for government purposes, and also by foreigners.”
“China censors both the publishing and viewing of online material. Many controversial events are censored from news coverage, preventing many Chinese citizens from knowing about the actions of their government, and severely restricting freedom of the press. China's censorship includes the complete blockage of various websites, apps, video games, inspiring the policy's nickname, the "Great Firewall of China", which blocks websites. Methods used to block websites and pages include DNS spoofing, blocking access to IP addresses, analyzing and filtering URLs, packet inspection, and resetting connections.
China's Internet censorship is more comprehensive and sophisticated than any other country in the world.”

I thought the fact that this happened outside of the US was common knowledge.

 

[ThxOne]

“It's not about censoring anything or not being transparent. It's just not important for the general public to know. If it is really that important that you just NEED to know then you should be able to get that information through a FOIA request.”
Here is your proof. Your own words. If info is only available by the FOIA request you advocate for, then it is controlled by the government.
If you think information should only be available by FOIA than you by default think the government should be controlling that information.

I gave ONE example. I never said it should be the only means of obtaining the information, idiot. If you weren't so hell bent on reading into shit, arguing and speaking for others you might have been able to COMPREHEND what was actually said.

So you think a book that you do not NEED to read should be made unavailable until/unless you demonstrate the need.
So much for education, huh?

Do me a favor, do all of us a favor. If you plan to lie in the future about how well you comprehend, save it. We don't need you to lie to us.

I know plenty. I know that I don’t want my government censoring information that should be public.

Not one time did I say they should you dramatic woman.

Asking in earnest. Answers to both questions would be appreciated.

People knowing all the information ahead of a trial taints the public and future potential jurors. Your I.q. just hit 50.

Did you mean dark side?
Regardless, your example of a parent and a child is not analogous to a criminal and society.

It is if you can comprehend.

I understand you advocate for censorship, but my attempts to understand WHY you do have fallen on deaf ears, it seems.

Hard to understand that which I did not say.

Not a conspiracy at all. Very real. Very factual. A few small places that do it:
“Internet access is available in North Korea, but is only permitted with special authorization. It is primarily used for government purposes, and also by foreigners.”
“China censors both the publishing and viewing of online material. Many controversial events are censored from news coverage, preventing many Chinese citizens from knowing about the actions of their government, and severely restricting freedom of the press. China's censorship includes the complete blockage of various websites, apps, video games, inspiring the policy's nickname, the "Great Firewall of China", which blocks websites. Methods used to block websites and pages include DNS spoofing, blocking access to IP addresses, analyzing and filtering URLs, packet inspection, and resetting connections.
China's Internet censorship is more comprehensive and sophisticated than any other country in the world.”

I thought the fact that this happened outside of the US was common knowledge.

I couldn't care less.

 

[RobGMN]

I gave ONE example. I never said it should be the only means of obtaining the information, idiot. If you weren't so hell bent on reading into shit, arguing and speaking for others you might have been able to COMPREHEND what was actually said.

Yet you are still advocating “means if obtaining”, which suggests it is not readily available or allowed to be freely disseminated.
‘Can’t be locked down but also free.
Sorry.

Do me a favor, do all of us a favor. If you plan to lie in the future about how well you comprehend, save it. We don't need you to lie to us.

I think maybe you have difficulty comprehending the conversation, then just blurt stuff out that you don’t understand.
This is not the first time you have presented two contradictory arguments and backed BOTH.

Not one time did I say they should you dramatic woman.

Then you obviously have no idea what the FOIA has to do with. YOU brought it up. Maybe don’t bring up things you do not actually understand.

People knowing all the information ahead of a trial taints the public and future potential jurors. Your I.q. just hit 50.

You’re demonstrating childishly simplistic thinking, and once again asking Daddy to control our lives by deciding what we can and cannot know.

It is if you can comprehend.

If you think a mother deciding whether her child needs to know her income source is analogous to the public being able to know the identity of a criminal, you are really living in an alternative reality.

Hard to understand that which I did not say.

Thinking it’s a good idea for government to control information is the same as advocating for censorship.
Different words, same effect.

I couldn't care less.

Your usual response to seeing something you obviously don’t know about but choose to speak of anyway.

 

[ThxOne]

Yet you are still advocating “means if obtaining”, which suggests it is not readily available or allowed to be freely disseminated.
‘Can’t be locked down but also free.
Sorry.

I think maybe you have difficulty comprehending the conversation, then just blurt stuff out that you don’t understand.
This is not the first time you have presented two contradictory arguments and backed BOTH.

Then you obviously have no idea what the FOIA has to do with. YOU brought it up. Maybe don’t bring up things you do not actually understand.

You’re demonstrating childishly simplistic thinking, and once again asking Daddy to control our lives by deciding what we can and cannot know.

If you think a mother deciding whether her child needs to know her income source is analogous to the public being able to know the identity of a criminal, you are really living in an alternative reality.

Thinking it’s a good idea for government to control information is the same as advocating for censorship.
Different words, same effect.

Your usual response to seeing something you obviously don’t know about but choose to speak of anyway.

You are about as dumb as they come. Nobody said anything about the government censoring and controlling anything. If the police arrest someone then they have all the information of the person in custody. It is public record. All one has to do is go ask for the information. All I said is that it is pointless for the news to give out the alleged criminal or suspects information as it does nothing for the general public and allows morons to form ideas and opinions which lead to people doing dumb things to people who have nothing to do with the crime. So go phuck yourself and all your dumb asss comments and conclusions. You don't know shit. Idiot.