I wrote "Mad Dog" today not referring to Mattis, and I felt it was a mistake; The reference was in regard to the 9/11 perps being "loose in the household" and dangerous - and having to be "put down" - as you would have to do a Mad Dog.
Later people started talking about Mattis - but I didn't mean to impugn his integrity. It was just a synchronicity and I didn't proof read as I should have before posting to make it clearer.
>>2319092 (pb)
>>2319238 (pb)
>>2316084 (pb)
Twitter;s reply to accusation of shadowbanning accusations by Nunes makes no sense and is typical lawyer talk, but weak.
-
We Don't shadow ban.
-
We Don't shadow ban on the basis of political speech
#2 contradicts one since it implies they do shadowban.
A good lawyer would say instead:
"We don't shadowban."
"And if we did, we wouldn't shadowban for political speech. "
Second line is moot, if first line is truthful.
But they didn't say it in the way that implied honesty. Goofed.
They fucked up. Crappy lawyers.
They aren't calling the censorship "shadowban" They call it ":suppression" for being "harmful to healthy conversation."
Their snowflakes don't like it? Reality disturbs them?
It's illegal to censor political speech on a public platform which forms a monopoly. Perhaps that's why their stock price is tanking. Lawsuits?
Somebody nominated a post of mine for Notables, but it was only a few posts from the end of the bread, so no one else had a chance to look at it. I'm putting the graphic from it here in case someone would enjoy to read it. - only one section of a series called "3 factions of the CIA"