Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
We need a general tweet of the day thread
Comments
-
Exageration? The pressure would be immense and it would cause excess airflow. There are questions about the entire event including the 3rd building coming down and the Pentagon but declaring it something our government knew about, planned and executed is just a bit of a reach although I am skeptical about everything we're told.pawz said:
Imagine being “shot” down 4 flights of stairs in a collapsing building and living to tell the story.RoadTrip said:Reading the comments, this does seem plausible.
-
Pacific Crest Trail at night or South Central?TurdBomber said:WestlinnDuck said:Article talks about the history of white racism and how minorities don't feel welcome in the state and national forests. For some reason, it is important to talk about hundred year old sundowner laws in which it was illegal for blacks to be out after dark. What wasn't mentioned for some reason was how wandering around in the national forests in southern Oregon can be dangerous for anyone who isn't a Mexican cartel drug grower.
How are they not embarrassed at declaring themselves to all being giant pussies? -
Yes.RoadTrip said:Would the collapsing floors start blowing out windows 10-20 floors below?
-
Both are Racial Jungles, according to our "President," no?WestlinnDuck said:
Pacific Crest Trail at night or South Central?TurdBomber said:
How are they not embarrassed at declaring themselves to all being giant pussies?WestlinnDuck said:Article talks about the history of white racism and how minorities don't feel welcome in the state and national forests. For some reason, it is important to talk about hundred year old sundowner laws in which it was illegal for blacks to be out after dark. What wasn't mentioned for some reason was how wandering around in the national forests in southern Oregon can be dangerous for anyone who isn't a Mexican cartel drug grower.
-
Imagine being a Conspiratard and being proud of it. My favorite Conspiratards of 9-11 fame were those two probably 19 y/o dudes who tried to convince the world that it was an inside job by breaking down the video. You're in fine company Pawz.pawz said:
Imagine being “shot” down 4 flights of stairs in a collapsing building and living to tell the story.RoadTrip said:Reading the comments, this does seem plausible.
-
-
I’m told the White House gets told to STFU all the time, this is nothing special
-
Imagine never questioning a word the establishment media says.46XiJCAB said:
Imagine being a Conspiratard and being proud of it. My favorite Conspiratards of 9-11 fame were those two probably 19 y/o dudes who tried to convince the world that it was an inside job by breaking down the video. You're in fine company Pawz.pawz said:
Imagine being “shot” down 4 flights of stairs in a collapsing building and living to tell the story.RoadTrip said:Reading the comments, this does seem plausible.
Imagine critical thinking.
Imagine shouting up to your two dads with glee, “I’m a fucking idiot!”
I am not debating the plumes of smoke ostensibly from falling floors. Completely reasonable.
-
“Critical thinking.”pawz said:
Imagine never questioning a word the establishment media says.46XiJCAB said:
Imagine being a Conspiratard and being proud of it. My favorite Conspiratards of 9-11 fame were those two probably 19 y/o dudes who tried to convince the world that it was an inside job by breaking down the video. You're in fine company Pawz.pawz said:
Imagine being “shot” down 4 flights of stairs in a collapsing building and living to tell the story.RoadTrip said:Reading the comments, this does seem plausible.
Imagine critical thinking.
Imagine shouting up to your two dads with glee, “I’m a fucking idiot!”
I am not debating the plumes of smoke ostensibly from falling floors. Completely reasonable.
I chortled hard at that one.
Conspiratard.
LOL….. -
The government sought to stay the injunction, but then couldn't cite any examples of the "grave harm" they allege the ruling will cause. The government is just like the Tug leftards, devoid of examples, just a wad of feelings.LoneStarDawg said:I’m told the White House gets told to STFU all the time, this is nothing special
https://ace.mu.nu/
Judge Denies Biden Administration's Motion to Stay His Injunction, Which Prohibits Biden's Censors From Contacting Social Media Companies to Urge or Pressure Them Into Censoring Protected Speech
—Lamont the Big Dummy
Boy when you put it like that, it's hard to see how the Biden Administration isn't just demanding the right to censor enemies' speech.
=====
Defendants now seek to stay the preliminary injunction, claiming that the injunction "may" cause "grave harm" by "prevent[ing] the Government from engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct." Doc. 297-1, at 1. But, after months of searching on this very issue, Defendants do not identify a single specific example of supposedly "grave harm" that the injunction might cause, or a single specific example of "lawful and responsible" government conduct that the injunction prevents. See id. at 1-6. By its plain terms, the injunction permits Defendants to engage in the full range of permissible Government speech and conduct--such as "(1) informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies;" "(2) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats posted on its platform;" "(3) contacting and/or notifying social- media companies about criminal efforts to suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;" "(4) informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United States;" and "(5) exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern," among others. Doc. 294,
at 5-6.
In the face of these clear and specific authorizations, Defendants' conclusory speculative assertion of "grave harm" that the injunction "may be read" to cause, Doc. 297-1, at 1--devoid of any specific examples or evidence of such harm--does not warrant an extraordinary stay.
