Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump, Obama and the book wars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

    Not sure who told you this 'shadow ban' lie. Sounds like Tonto was asked to politely delete his tweet or stay banned. Sounds like a TOS violation to me. Of course Tonto will politicize it so he can go sell more books and tac glasses.
    Let's see. An ad hominem using an unsupported claim, followed by a non sequitur. That's followed up by another unsupported claim and ends with another ad hominem.

    The four links I gave list and review actual cases of prominent Conservatives who have had their accounts shadow banned to one extent or another. The methods for doing this used by Twitter are explained in some detail. Ex-Twitter employees say the company practices it. All of these also can demonstrate that Twitter doesn't extend these methods and policies to Progressive, Democrat accounts but instead only targets Republicans and Conservatives.

    In fact, several members of Congress now say this might amount to political contributions in-kind and are investigating Twitter over the practice.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      No, I actually blame the Saudis for their marriage of convenience with the Wahabist sect of Islam, the most radical, violent and anti-West of them all, and yes, I blame the Saudis for the acts of their citizens, just as they blame the entire West for the acts of ours.

      I suppose you don't blame Pakistan for sheltering bin Laden, either.

      And "Obama threw Saudi under the bus"? Seriously? His fellow Muslims? Because he catered to Iran instead of them for a change? After wearing their robes and bowing to their monarch? I think you meant to say "Obama threw America under the bus".

      "Odd view of history"? Not at all, because I am a realist, but the views of many here are highly questionable at best since they seem to live in a fantasy world not inhabited by real people. For example, you overlook the fact that the Saudi family "owns" millions of people and an entire nation, unique on the planet at this time. They are not a "government", but a business family dictatorship focused on their own objectives to the detriment of most everything else. Their personal behavior, constantly reported in the news, confirms that.

      BTW - one of the principles of Islam is that one need not trust nor treat non-Muslims fairly. It is permitted to lie to non-Muslims in business dealings as well.
      You and I will have to disagree on this one MM. Iran is the enemy of Saudi Arabia, when Obama courted Iran and made the nuclear deal that was a knife in the back to our strongest allied in the Arab world.
      I recommend you read Storming Normans autobiography. It will enlighten you greatly about the Saudi Government and the attacks of 9/11.
      One of the reasons for the attack was because the radical Islamist were and are still upset that the Saudi Royal familynot only asked the US to invade Iraq during Desert Storm, but paid us 2billion dollars to do so and supplied the coalition with fuel and bases and sea ports.
      We were not the only targets of Bin Laden, just google how many terror attracts Bin Ladens followers carried out against Saudi Arabia and the royal family.
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        Let's see. An ad hominem using an unsupported claim, followed by a non sequitur. That's followed up by another unsupported claim and ends with another ad hominem.
        Does that actually surprise you anymore? A leftist that only joined this forum, the main purpose is to talk about military and military history, just to troll the politics sections, can't support his/her claims, makes up lies as he/her types, and then attacks anyone the instance they prove his/her wild claim wrong.

        Yeah, business as usual.

        The four links I gave list and review actual cases of prominent Conservatives who have had their accounts shadow banned to one extent or another. The methods for doing this used by Twitter are explained in some detail. Ex-Twitter employees say the company practices it. All of these also can demonstrate that Twitter doesn't extend these methods and policies to Progressive, Democrat accounts but instead only targets Republicans and Conservatives.

        In fact, several members of Congress now say this might amount to political contributions in-kind and are investigating Twitter over the practice.
        Good. Facebook as well.
        The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          Let's see. An ad hominem using an unsupported claim, followed by a non sequitur. That's followed up by another unsupported claim and ends with another ad hominem.

          The four links I gave list and review actual cases of prominent Conservatives who have had their accounts shadow banned to one extent or another. The methods for doing this used by Twitter are explained in some detail. Ex-Twitter employees say the company practices it. All of these also can demonstrate that Twitter doesn't extend these methods and policies to Progressive, Democrat accounts but instead only targets Republicans and Conservatives.

          In fact, several members of Congress now say this might amount to political contributions in-kind and are investigating Twitter over the practice.
          Your links proved nothing. Twitter says they don't shadow ban.

          https://blog.twitter.com/official/en...w-banning.html

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post

            Does that actually surprise you anymore? A leftist that only joined this forum, the main purpose is to talk about military and military history, just to troll the politics sections, can't support his/her claims, makes up lies as he/her types, and then attacks anyone the instance they prove his/her wild claim wrong.

            Yeah, business as usual.
            You didn't prove me wrong, you don't have to make stuff up and troll. There are subforums here if I want to talk about military history. Which I don't. That's why I'm here posting in the North America section.

            Current Events =/= History

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              Your links proved nothing. Twitter says they don't shadow ban.

              https://blog.twitter.com/official/en...w-banning.html
              Your rebuttal is worthless. Corporations and individuals lie. Twitter saying they don't do something that their customers have proved they do is hardly a valid claim.

              There are now a number of shadow ban check sites running for those who want to check if they're being hit. Some are trolls and virus sites, others are not. Here's a valid one:

              https://shadowban.eu/

              The links I gave are included actual verified examples of being shadow banned. Yet, you claim Twitter saying they don't do it is more valid than their claims? I think not.

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X