[** Official President Joe Biden Thread **]

[squistion 2,155]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You don’t know how drug trafficking works. Sit this one out.  

Well, I know how to read numbers/stats and what they mean, which is pretty plain here, Biden's administration is doing a better job of stopping fentanyl from entering the country.

[Dizkneelande 1,095]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

Well, I know how to read numbers/stats and what they mean, which is pretty plain here, Biden's administration is doing a better job of stopping fentanyl from entering the country.

You clearly don’t since CBP has limited capacity to locate and seize drugs at the border. Based off their own numbers, we are capturing about 5% of what's coming through the border. CBP is seizing 5 times the amount of fentanyl than previous years, which means that 5 times more fentanyl is getting through our southern border. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,299]

4 hours ago, Dizkneelande said:

You clearly don’t since CBP has limited capacity to locate and seize drugs at the border. Based off their own numbers, we are capturing about 5% of what's coming through the border. CBP is seizing 5 times the amount of fentanyl than previous years, which means that 5 times more fentanyl is getting through our southern border. 

It’s amazing squidly can’t grasp this. He thinks Blackburn was making a point for his dim witted side. She was pointing out how bad it is. They just see what they want to see. 

[squistion 2,155]

16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s amazing squidly can’t grasp this. He thinks Blackburn was making a point for his dim witted side. She was pointing out how bad it is. They just see what they want to see. 

She unintentionally made a point unless she really wants to see more fentanyl in this country. 

[RLLD 4,206]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/04/business/federal-judge-biden-social-media.html
 

Bad news for Joe, but also Democrats in general, they won’t be able to lie nearly as effectively now

[Fireballer 2,641]

 

[Beaker15 237]

I saw a great bumper sticker this week.  It said "Joe Biden is just Hillary Clinton with a smaller dickk"

[Strike 5,466]

Yup, nothing to see here.......

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jul/3/obama-white-house-looped-in-hunter-biden-in-email-/

[squistion 2,155]

12 minutes ago, Strike said:

Yup, nothing to see here.......

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jul/3/obama-white-house-looped-in-hunter-biden-in-email-/

The Washington Times? 

[Strike 5,466]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

The Washington Times? 

Says the guy who was lamenting his loss of Twitter followers over at FBG's, and whining because after Twitter put a limit on how many tweets a person could read a day that limited him since he reads 1000 tweets an hour.   1000 tweets an hour?  Seriously dude, get a life.

[RLLD 4,206]

21 minutes ago, squistion said:

The Washington Times? 

.....unless that source says something you agree with....then its ok....

[squistion 2,155]

15 minutes ago, Strike said:

Says the guy who was lamenting his loss of Twitter followers over at FBG's, and whining because after Twitter put a limit on how many tweets a person could read a day that limited him since he reads 1000 tweets an hour.   1000 tweets an hour?  Seriously dude, get a life.

Reading is fundamental.

I never said I read 1000 tweets an hour. 

I said that if you are quickly scanning hashtags, trending topics and threads, you can be credited with reading 300 in an hour, even though you only actually stopped and read a fraction of them. 

 

[squistion 2,155]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

.....unless that source says something you agree with....then its ok....

I have never in my life quoted or used The Washington Times as a source as they have no credibility. 

[Strike 5,466]

Just now, squistion said:

Reading is fundamental.

I never said I read 1000 tweets an hour. 

I said that if you are quickly scanning hashtags, trending topics and threads, you can be credited with reading 300 in an hour, even though you only actually stopped and read a fraction of them. 

 

Bullsh*t.  You said they put a limit of 1000 tweets read per day, and then in the next sentence you said you hit the limit in an hour.  Simple math, PigeonFocker.  You're such a pathetic, lieing POS.  You probably still think the alphabet people don't have any rights. 

[posty 2,682]

27 minutes ago, squistion said:

The Washington Times? 

Says the guy that has a "man"-crush on Tweets and thinks that is a viable source...

Oh and what @Strike said...

[squistion 2,155]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Bullsh*t.  You said they put a limit of 1000 tweets read per day, and then in the next sentence you said you hit the limit in an hour.  Simple math, PigeonFocker.  You're such a pathetic, lieing POS.  You probably still think the alphabet people don't have any rights. 

Reading is fundamental.

Yes, the limit at the time I posted had been raised to 1000 a day, however I was referring to the prior reading limit of 300 a day, which I and may others were able to reach very quickly because we read a lot of trending topics and hashtags, plus popular threads.  

[RLLD 4,206]

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

I have never in my life quoted or used The Washington Times as a source as they have no credibility. 

I understand completely.  There was a time when CNN was credible, now I would not trust anything they might communicate.  I do think we should be discerning when it comes to our sources for information, and still we should use multiple sources to vet what we are ingesting. 

[Strike 5,466]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

Reading is fundamental.

Yes, the limit at the time I posted had been raised to 1000 a day, however I was referring to the prior reading limit of 300 a day, which I and may others were able to reach very quickly because we read a lot of trending topics and hashtags, plus popular threads.  

1)  You never mentioned a limit of 300 per day.

2)  Even if the limit were 300 per day, which you're acknowledging you hit, that's pathetic. 

3)  As I said before, get a life.

[Strike 5,466]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I understand completely.  There was a time when CNN was credible, now I would not trust anything they might communicate.  I do think we should be discerning when it comes to our sources for information, and still we should use multiple sources to vet what we are ingesting. 

You understand completely?  So you're agreeing with the Pigeonfocker that the WT isn't credible?  I just want to see if you're simply pandering or actually support his position?  Because I'll bet either one of you $1000 this story is true.  Come on PigeonFocker, put your money where your Tweet is.

[squistion 2,155]

Just now, RLLD said:

I understand completely.  There was a time when CNN was credible, now I would not trust anything they might communicate.  I do think we should be discerning when it comes to our sources for information, and still we should use multiple sources to vet what we are ingesting. 

Can't argue with that. 

[RLLD 4,206]

Just now, Strike said:

You understand completely?  So you're agreeing with the Pigeonfocker that the WT isn't credible?  I just want to see if you're simply pandering or actually support his position?  Because I'll bet either one of you $1000 this story is true.  Come on PigeonFocker, put your money where your Tweet is.

No, I am not agreeing with him as to the credibility of the source.  But I do understand the notion of not trusting a source. 

Right now we have a scarcity of media with integroty that we can trust, instead we have activist journlism....propogandists for political movements. It would take some time to vet information coming from any source i think.  I struggle to find a source that I really "trust".

[Strike 5,466]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

No, I am not agreeing with him as to the credibility of the source.  But I do understand the notion of not trusting a source. 

Right now we have a scarcity of media with integroty that we can trust, instead we have activist journlism....propogandists for political movements. It would take some time to vet information coming from any source i think.  I struggle to find a source that I really "trust".

Sure, but PigeonFocker and his ilk simply dismiss the source whenever they don't like what that source is saying. This isn't about credibility to him; it's about only wanting stories that support his "side."  And PigeonFocker ONLY posts from Twitter.  I mean, if you're going to talk about lack of credibility, that should be at the top of the list.  And, as I'm sure you know, the only places that cover some of these stories are the ones Pigeonfocker would discount due to "credibility" issues.  So, while I try to post stories from places they can't dismiss when I can, that's not always possible.  Look how long it took the MSM to cover a story about Cocaine being found in the WH. 

[squistion 2,155]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

1)  You never mentioned a limit of 300 per day.

2)  Even if the limit were 300 per day, which you're acknowledging you hit, that's pathetic. 

3)  As I said before, get a life.

This is what I said"

"He raised the limit to reading a 1000 posts a day but it doesn't take long to reach that if you are viewing what is trending or items that are in the news (like Baltimore mass shooting). I reached my rate limit after a hour yesterday and am OK so far, but don't know how long that will last today (I have been using Google to look at breaking news items)."

It was 1000 posts a day at the time I said that. The rate limit the day before ("yesterday") was 300 a day. I didn't phrase this very clearly that I was talking about the prior 300 limit before, but that is what I was referring to.

[Strike 5,466]

Oh, and for the record, the e-mail in question is also located on Hunter's laptop:

https://bidenlaptopemails.com/biden-emails/email.php?id=20160526-220800_72156

[Strike 5,466]

Just now, squistion said:

This is what I said"

"He raised the limit to reading a 1000 posts a day but it doesn't take long to reach that if you are viewing what is trending or items that are in the news (like Baltimore mass shooting). I reached my rate limit after a hour yesterday and am OK so far, but don't know how long that will last today (I have been using Google to look at breaking news items)."

It was 1000 posts a day at the time I said that. The rate limit the day before ("yesterday") was 300 a day. I didn't phrase this very clearly that I was talking about the prior 300 limit before, but that is what I was referring to.

So no mention of a 300 post per day limit.  For those of us who don't spend 24 hours a day on Twitter this reads like you hit a 1000 post limit in an hour, because we aren't aware of those limits and/or when they were imposed.  So, from the above all I can take from it is that you hit a 1000 post/day limit in an hour.  Even if it was 300, that's pathetic.  Get a life, beyond focking pigeons.

[squistion 2,155]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

So no mention of a 300 post per day limit.  For those of us who don't spend 24 hours a day on Twitter this reads like you hit a 1000 post limit in an hour, because we aren't aware of those limits and/or when they were imposed.  So, from the above all I can take from it is that you hit a 1000 post/day limit in an hour.  Even if it was 300, that's pathetic.  Get a life, beyond focking pigeons.

Dude, look it up, he started it the day before and the limit on the first day was 300. And I actually didn't read 300 posts in an hour although I scrolled past that many.

[RLLD 4,206]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

Sure, but PigeonFocker and his ilk simply dismiss the source whenever they don't like what that source is saying. This isn't about credibility to him; it's about only wanting stories that support his "side."  And PigeonFocker ONLY posts from Twitter.  I mean, if you're going to talk about lack of credibility, that should be at the top of the list.  And, as I'm sure you know, the only places that cover some of these stories are the ones Pigeonfocker would discount due to "credibility" issues.  So, while I try to post stories from places they can't dismiss when I can, that's not always possible.  Look how long it took the MSM to cover a story about Cocaine being found in the WH. 

 

Your point is valid.  A source that parrots things we believe will seem more credible to us.  Its something I know I have to actively work against. Whereas a source we are less familiar with, or one that seems to not support what we beleive will seem less credible.

[Strike 5,466]

8 minutes ago, squistion said:

Dude, look it up, he started it the day before and the limit on the first day was 300. And I actually didn't read 300 posts in an hour although I scrolled past that many.

No, I'm not going to look it up.  Anyone who reads ANYWHERE between 300/1000 tweets in an hour is pathetic.    Holy sh*t , you don't even realize how sorry that is. 

[Strike 5,466]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

 

Your point is valid.  A source that parrots things we believe will seem more credible to us.  Its something I know I have to actively work against. Whereas a source we are less familiar with, or one that seems to not support what we beleive will seem less credible.

This is why our schools are failing our children by not teaching critical thinking skills.  I can easily read an article on an MSM site and recognize the stuff that's being downplayed or is misleading.  I tend to read articles from multiple sites before forming an opinion, assuming articles from multiple sites exist.  And this is why this campaign to get rid of "disinformation" is a joke.  They want to remove critical thinking from the skill set of the next generation while at the same time turning the media in to a government propaganda arm.  The judge yesterday was not exaggerating when he referred to the government's actions regarding social media as the ministry of truth.

[Strike 5,466]

26 minutes ago, Strike said:

You understand completely?  So you're agreeing with the Pigeonfocker that the WT isn't credible?  I just want to see if you're simply pandering or actually support his position?  Because I'll bet either one of you $1000 this story is true.  Come on PigeonFocker, put your money where your Tweet is.

2nd call for @squistion.  Come on buddy.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Make an easy grand. 

[RLLD 4,206]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

This is why our schools are failing our children by not teaching critical thinking skills.  I can easily read an article on an MSM site and recognize the stuff that's being downplayed or is misleading.  I tend to read articles from multiple sites before forming an opinion, assuming articles from multiple sites exist.  And this is why this campaign to get rid of "disinformation" is a joke.  They want to remove critical thinking from the skill set of the next generation while at the same time turning the media in to a government propaganda arm.  The judge yesterday was not exaggerating when he referred to the government's actions regarding social media as the ministry of truth.

We grew up in a diffrent time, and I think our education was less than the one our parents got.  I think my class was the last one to have civics as a class.

[squistion 2,155]

24 minutes ago, Strike said:

No, I'm not going to look it up.  Anyone who reads ANYWHERE between 300/1000 tweets in an hour is pathetic.    Holy sh*t , you don't even realize how sorry that is. 

I never said that I actually read 300 individual tweets in an hour. I quickly scrolled past that many and credited with reading 300, even though I hadn't 

[Strike 5,466]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

I never said that I actually read 300 individual tweets in an hour. I quickly scrolled past that many and credited with reading 300, even though I hadn't 

Sure buddy, whatever you say

[squistion 2,155]

35 minutes ago, Strike said:

Sure buddy, whatever you say 

Look it up. Read what I said in context of the discussion.

[Strike 5,466]

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

Look it up. Read what I said in context of the discussion.

Sure buddy.  Just like you never said the alphabet people don't have rights.  Except you did.  I'm not wasting my time on your lies.   Dude reads hundreds or thousands of tweets an hour

[squistion 2,155]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

Sure buddy.  Just like you never said the alphabet people don't have rights.  Except you did.  I'm not wasting my time on your lies.   Dude reads hundreds or thousands of tweets an hour

No, I asked people to prove it with a link to where I said it (or links of others quoting what I said) and no one could do it (because I never said it and it doesn't exist). 

[Strike 5,466]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

No, I asked people to prove it with a link to where I said it (or links of others quoting what I said) and no one could do it (because I never said it and it doesn't exist). 

Anyone COULD do it.  They chose not to waste their time.  Anyone who read it knows what it said, and a lot of people read it.  That's why you were mocked mercilessly at FBG's over it by a lot of posters.  But you're welcome to do it.  You had no issues posting your Twitter limits post here.  Go ahead.  Get that one and post it here too so I can mock you on that one as well. 

[squistion 2,155]

14 minutes ago, Strike said:

Anyone COULD do it.  They chose not to waste their time.  Anyone who read it knows what it said, and a lot of people read it.  That's why you were mocked mercilessly at FBG's over it by a lot of posters.  But you're welcome to do it.  You had no issues posting your Twitter limits post here.  Go ahead.  Get that one and post it here too so I can mock you on that one as well. 

But they didn't. It should be pretty easy to find in a search, particularly since Blade Runner said he quoted me when I said it (he claimed he had proven it several times but never was able to provide one link). And it would be easy for others who supposedly quoted me to find their quote too (which would still exist even if I had deleted my post) but none of them could either, because I never said it. 

[Strike 5,466]

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

But they didn't. It should be pretty easy to find in a search, particularly since Blade Runner said he quoted me when I said it (he claimed he had proven it several times but never was able to provide one link). And it would be easy for others who supposedly quoted me to find their quote too (which would still exist even if I had deleted my post) but none of them could either, because I never said it. 

Yes, you did.  I read it, and a lot of other people did too.  Just because we all realize you're just a little troll who reads hundreds of tweets an hour, by your own admission, and not worth our time, doesn't mean you didn't say it.  It's been confirmed by too many people for it not to be true.  And I read it myself so I know for a FACT that it's true.  I do understand why you keep trying to rewrite history.  Just like Tim defending Roman Polanski.  Some things are just indefensible so you feel compelled to just deny it happened.  But it did.

[squistion 2,155]

26 minutes ago, Strike said:

Yes, you did.  I read it, and a lot of other people did too.  Just because we all realize you're just a little troll who reads hundreds of tweets an hour, by your own admission, and not worth our time, doesn't mean you didn't say it.  It's been confirmed by too many people for it not to be true.  And I read it myself so I know for a FACT that it's true.  I do understand why you keep trying to rewrite history.  Just like Tim defending Roman Polanski.  Some things are just indefensible so you feel compelled to just deny it happened.  But it did.

Nope you didn't. You remember Blade Runner's Straw Man mischaracterization of what I said, which he or no one else could ever find (because you can't find something that isn't there). 

If I had said it, anyone could find it in a simple search. And if my post somehow got deleted then people who claim they quoted me (like Blade Runner and Ivan the snarky, sarcastic JC professor) would just have to find their quote of me saying that for proof (as those should still exist, assuming they ever did).

 

I didn't say it and no one can prove that I did. If anyone wants to shut me up once and for all about this, then just find the effing quote you said I made.