1032004

Which Mr Knox?

About what specifically are you saying I should have cared more about? Like I said above, can you provide a recent example of someone notable on the left copying someone else’s report word for word?

Can you provide a recent example of someone notable on the left copying someone else’s report word for word?

I don’t always, but I probably trust them more than a random private investigator from Erie PA.

does that make it okay? They’re also sheep

Sheep

Laura Loomer fired up that she wasn’t one of the x users given the binder, has now posted the link

He also pretty much admitted it by saying “I was just trying to defend my family”

If a random private investigator from Erie PA says it, it must be true

1. If “the left” has begun targeting Musk, doesn’t that mean they don’t need government funding to be motivated to do so? Not everything is a conspiracy 2. I’d disagree that Musk “has been himself.” He certainly became more right-leaning after he purchased Twitter. Maybe that was justified with what he discovered about old twitter’s biases, but that doesn’t change the fact that he did in fact change. Most notably IMO by going from saying “Twitter must be politically neutral,” to using his power as the owner of the site to confiscate the “America” handle in order to directly support Trump’s campaign (so no, I’m not just talking about him sharing his personal opinions).

What the heck is happening? One of the “influencers” in the photo op now claiming Bondi knew there was nothing worthwhile in the binders, but they still made a show of it anyway?

Also, hopefully the government did not pay for any travel expenses for these “influencers” to travel to the WH. Talk about waste if so

DC Draino going live on Twitter to show them apparently. Hopefully Elon didn’t have any influence in this decision now driving clicks to X

Wasn’t “DC Draino” proven to be a paid shill?

Verizon might have a claim for defamation too. Musk didn’t even delete the incorrect tweets

Well, if he doesn’t even know what company is currently providing the service, I’d be skeptical that he knows how to prove that his is better

Yet another whoopsie from Elon

Well Verizon is not working! I know this because Elon says so

Semantics because I said separate divisions and you said “well one is actually a division of the other” Even when corrected on the previous story about Thompson Reuters getting a contract for social engineering DEFENSE, you still claimed they could have had a conflict of interest (and after I asked, you never provided clarification on what the conflict would be), so clearly you’re very concerned about conflicts of interest. Curious, are you concerned about Elon’s conflicts of interest with DOGE? But anyway, you never addressed the other points in my prior post that would actually make the supposed conflict relevant, primarily: 1. There was nothing saying the contracts that Thompson Reuters received from the government even had anything to do with Musk’s companies, just that “Thompson Reuters received money from various government agencies, and these agencies oversee Musk’s companies, and some of them (but not all, according to the cited graphic) had investigated these companies.” That is a major leap to then suggest that the money from the government ultimately lead to Reuters the news company writing about negative things at Musk’s companies. 2. Was there anything false in the reporting that earned the Pulitzer Prize? You mention here about “planting stories,” that would imply they were fabricated, but I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate that the stories about Musk’s companies were, and winning the Pulitzer Prize would seem to suggest that they were accurate

lol at this semantics callout being all you could argue from my post

I saw this claimed but then was countered with that it actually appeared that his mom went in after him?

Vak is a lawyer. Or is that what you’re saying, I’m confused by your wording

Also, can we give some credit to the ref that got in the middle of it trying to break it up? Going way beyond the call of duty there

Well if they determined that Knox threw a punch then they should be able to use that as the reason for DQ’ing him. But if they’re going with “leaving the bench during an altercation” or whatever, that seems shaky.