- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that turned into a level of melt rarely seen
As a retard, you not liking something does not make it a melt.
We've been down this road numerous times.
You never fare well.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:52 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
You people just do not seem to grasp that it was REPUBLICANS who released the redacted photos. It is too nice a day to continue arguing with that level of intentional ignorance.
Bye Bye liar!
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:56 pm to Jbird
quote:No, I was mistaken.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a new batch of photos from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate on Friday, including images of Donald Trump and several other powerful figures in the late sex offender’s circle.quote:
Your a liar
I had understood that the photos were released by the Committee as a whole, but you are correct. Most reports indicate that it was a unilateral act by Committee Dems. I concede the point as to "who released the photo." That being the case, I also certainly concede the possibility that the Dems on the committee had ulterior motives in redacting those faces, hoping to create a false inference that the women were Epstein Minors. I clearly DID indicate that the redaction was "ostensibly" to protect identities, and the Dems will doubtless make that claim, but it is not insane to infer otherwise.
But it does seem rather pointless. As many have already indicated, that photo has been "public" for many years.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:59 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Most reports by your credentialed liars
Possibly ulterior motives hahahaha
Alterhack
Possibly ulterior motives hahahaha
Alterhack
Posted on 1/1/26 at 2:03 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
But it does seem rather pointless. As many have already indicated, that photo has been "public" for many years.
That should be your clue right there that democrats had ulterior motives for releasing the photo redacted.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 3:06 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
A showdown is inevitable.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 3:08 pm to Timeoday
Many of the appooint4ed and elected judicial figures are traitors.....they should be removed for any political bias!
Posted on 1/1/26 at 3:24 pm to Timeoday
Several circuit opinions legitimizing citizen journalists
Posted on 1/1/26 at 3:27 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Several circuit opinions legitimizing citizen journalists
Of course they will. It is an inalienable right.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 3:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
You have that question… not me.
Journalists knocking on doors and asking questions is nothing new.
Journalists knocking on doors and asking questions is nothing new.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:22 pm to Timeoday
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:06 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Are you suggesting that "the media" should have rhetorically "sat on" that redacted photo ... until what? They were able to identify every redacted face?
I thought they did 20 hours of reasearch on their stories? They couldn't verify what they were being told?
They should have done the due diligence, what you and the other stooge on here have been crying about page after page and thread after thread.
Again. You are excusing the legacy media for what you are complaining about independent journos.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:08 pm to Timeoday
“Home” =\= daycare
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:11 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
No, I was mistaken.
You not "credentialed" either?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:This is bad even for you.
without training
Who gets to decide who is "trained" and what constitutes as "training?"
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:None of that is relevant to this case. No purpose who suspects misappropriation of federal funds should be restricted from merely asking questions. Every citizen should assume ownership of protecting federal resources, ESPECIALLY since all levels of govt are corrupt now
The issue is if that is "the press" for 1A purposes
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:There is no relevant "distinction" here. This situation involves public property and public funds
Now when anyone can show up places with a camera and live stream it, the distinction is going to become much more difficult to determine
quote:No we are not. Not in any way shape or form. You made that up in your head
We're going to have to determine that and figure out a way to make that determination on a mass scale moving forward
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Stupid and a complete waste of time
It's a new area of legal analysis for the 1A
quote:Sued and prosecuted for what? Asking questions about public resources? If you don't like someone asking questions, respond with no comment. If that person persists, call the police.
I'm sure people who are sued and prosecuted
No need for "legal analysis."
Page 13 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News