RLLD

100%. It is my goal to remain philosophically honest, regardless of the content of a situation. Which is why I disdain the "doing it back to you" tactic as well, though I suspect you and I agree that it is often a feel-good to revisit things back onto those who have done it to you for so long....

Change the name in this scenario to Trump, and he would already be in jail...... Allowing this to happen, just because you dislike the political positions of the other side of the aisle, is demonstrative of how low we have sunk as a society

I would hope not.... [LiberalTacticTurnedBackOnYou] What does it say about you that you support an organization (Democrats ala liberalism) which supports the trafficking of children?[/LiberalTacticTurnedBackOnYou] I mean, really, this is the game right? So fair is fair. Now of course this is NOT FAIR, or right or in any way useful. But its how people behave. You support X or Y, well looky-loo over here so does person or group Z.....therefore YOU support some stupid thing that group does. It is a tired tactic, and somewhat lazy as well, for liberals to avoid the discussion or debate entirely....and instead point to the source and find something about them to disparage..... If your policies and prescriptions are actually good, you should be able to debate the substance instead of attacking the source.

I have a competing perspective on this. It has become rather common to villify "others" and often those "others" end up being the kind of people who drink sh!t beer like bud light. So you have a swath of people being dumped on, told how they suck and how awesome these mentally ill retards are......and then they get a chance to give it back a little, at least in their minds. In reality they have only hurt the average worker associated with making the product. But I get that it might feel good to be giving it for once instead of taking it. Maybe there something to this

Perhaps if you share the length of time people should care about topics everyone can be sure to stop discussing it.

Gotcha. So the amount and such makes this a non-issue. What if.....someone, like say oh I dont know....Andrew Weissmann were to still be talking about it. Is he one of those people you would be laughing at? I mean, it would be difficult to find a more partisan person, more defferential toward liberals, that good ole Andrew....

Beats me, he might be. I surmise that if you were to ask any FBI leadership about it they would use the "still investigating" defense. They have weaponized the investigation element. Now, they investifate until the statute of limitations expires.....all the while, because they are "investigating" they can refuse to answer any questions. Its a rather effective tool. It does seem as though at least congress is still chasing it. Who knows if they can actually prove anything. I tend to think not, and even if they can it would still be required for the DOJ to act on it....and I doubt they will.

Perhaps. As has been noted in the past, where there is smoke we should look for fire. There is enough available to at least look into it. And the fact that they tried so hard to hide it all is compelling. There is that old addage, its not the crime its the cover up. More and more is coming out. Now they are announcing they can link the racketeering money funneled to the LLC's to some actual policy actions, we shall see. This was really the only thing I cared about. Find all you want of the obvious financial crimes, but if you cannot link it to policy actions then who rally cares? It sucks that they can get away with it, but right now there are politicians getting away with stuff all the time.

What if it were true that some outlet....such as CNN, MSNBC or one of the others were still talking about this? Would that be ok, for you?

I surmise the move here is pointing out the hypocrisy. Which is a) funny given the propensity of hypocrisy on full display every day across the political spectrum AND b) likely a clapback for being called out for be hypicrits. I mean how long have people been pointing out the unabashed hypocrisy of liberalism? Of course they are going to give it back when someone else does it.

That makes sense. I think if they were to remain philosophically "true" they would have to likely boycott everything but water. I get why they are doing it, and I know I myself will often take a stand when a given brand crosses the line. Hell, after the baseball strike in the mid-90's I did not even watch a baseball game on tv until like 2021..... I will not buy Nike nor Gilette. But....are the other brands that I do buy just as involved in the poison of "wokeness", probably....oh well....

I am not clear as to what is actually being debated here. Is it whether or not the wider scope of consumers who are refusing to buy the product are "justified" or not?

Normally this would be the case. But it appears as though they were all well aware that the Hunter laptop was valid all along, and yet sought to suppress it....why? Its just a crack head son doing stupid stuff, who cares....then why move so emphatically to try to hide it all? That is what I find interesting. Look at the lengths they went to in an effort to hide, then pretend it was all made up..... and finally now they have to defend it by saying...."no link to Joe". Which is likely a lie I think BTW. I think the Bidens had a nice pay for play setup, pulling in $$ and were sure they could never possibly be caught. They had cover from the DOJ, the party and the media.... who could touch them? Well, poor Joe has a retard for a son....who has stupidly left a trail of bread crumbs that even Alvin Bragg could follow....

I do concur that it was not just the move to elevate an obviously cartoonish representation of feminity on the part of an exploitative person, it was the additional component of that company exec somewhat denigrating their core customer base.

And maybe it wont matter for them, or maybe it will. There remains far more incentive to participate in this than to not....

There was no leader to this, people walked away.... why did that do that? I think it is still tough for anyone to know, but they did it. Now, circling back to your original point which I was responding to. Sure people are hypocritcal for walking away from ony Bud, but that is the one the crossed the line enough for people who have been sitting back without participating to "participate", by not buy it anymore. It is in effect a warning.

Well played

I doubt this is Hunter, but it should be rather easy to show that is true....and yet that is not really being done. So this then foments speculation. But keep in mind, the more people focus on Hunter the less they focus on Joe. So this could be by design.

I think you have a wealth of mentally ill people, and we rarely hear from them or about them. But if it is true that folks put their sh!t out there, then people will have an opinion, and particularly in this case where its is "acknowledge me or else". So I get it. But the average tranny is just trying to live their life, we dont know it and we dont care. If it becomes true that the people who think they are cats starts making it a major social movement, putting it in our face, creating an "or else" scenario, we might point out how stupid they are as well.

Is there a statute of limitations for posession? I infer that the powers that be will be "investigating" at least until that expires....

You do not need to boycott everything. This is a principle that liberals are more than familiar with, its part and parcel of their tactics. By way of example, you do not need a police officer for every speeder, just enough around to influence behaviors. When the FBI was communicating with social media companies and "warning" them about stuff, it was not to warn them about anything other than they were being watched. In this instance the warning here is to watch how far you take it.....go ahead and do the pandering to the mentaly ill, but be aware that people with money might decide enough is enough..... This is likely an aberration. No one cares much about mentally ill trannies, but all people have a line. And if you as a vendor decide to pander to these folks, by all means do it, its likely a safe bet. But it might not be.....

Well, Mexico does not want all of these <ahem? "sanctuary seekers" entering the US since its such a racist and horrible place. They are thinking about the children.

Disney can handle it. I wont be investing in them so long as they prioritize social pursuits over profit though.

I wish I could have seen Garlands face when it was revealed that Biden had documents as well. I surmise this revelation was at first just a crushing blow for him. But he masterfully manipulated it so that he could still weaponize the issue against Trump, while allowin Biden to slide on by. I give the Democrats alot of credit for builing a rather effective system behind the scenes to protect their power structure. I think they over did it a little and wasted an awful lot of back ground currency to get after Trump. I hesitate to suggest they "shot their load". But it must be infuriating that they cannot seem to crush Trump.

I may be wrong on this but I think what he might have meant was that there was no reason to expect any backlash....the current environment practically demands that you acquiece to trannies. And who would have suspected that anyone would stand up to it? From the perspective of the company it seemed like a safe way to ride the coat tails of a social movement and suckle on it....