You know, I thought the same until I reviewed an ancient account with all the proto-creepiness and whatnot. MySpace was the least creepy, for the most part, but it laid the groundwork.
LOL .. it was all bullshit that you posted ... saying they were both found in their underwear, which isn't true, and they had "a relationship of trust" ... yeah ... sure ... I don't blame you for trying to pretend you didn't write those things ...
It didn't say they were it asked if they were so it's b******* what you're opposed to, Keep it up fantasy boy
You are probably right, I do remember plenty of scammy accounts (but not lots of ads and rampant junk 'news'), its probably just that I think of it as a more "innocent" time before all our moms and aunts were on social media or whatever, and we all know what FB has become now.
Okay, you were just asking if they were gay lovers, but not suggesting there were, huh? You look foolish now so I don't blame you for being so defensive about it.... you can just take your L and move on.
Where did I ask if they were gay lovers. With that said it wouldn't shock me if it turned out that he was playing hide the sausage and it got out of control, you guys got some crazy fantasies.
It is tough for reality to break through the cult. Imagine when aliens land. What is the overlap of Pelosi conspiratorialists and those who have signed the Baptist’s Biblical sex pact (or leave the church)
Where did you suggest that? Here, I bolded the part for you where you continue to support that false narrative.
I just said it bro after you falsely (blantly lied) about me. Admit you're the only one with a false narrative.
You posted a gatewaypundit article spreading lies that they were both in their underwear, and suggested they knew each other and had "a relationship of trust" ... and posted in this thread that "it wouldn't shock me if it turned out that he was playing hide the sausage and it got out of control" ... so just stop with the denial. You were fully in on the gay lover BS being spread from the start, and still are. You just showed your cards, so you got nothing, so stop with the bluffing.
You'd think an adult would take the "L" and move on rather than dig in on a clear falsification, right? Alas, smearing those you don't like and the resulting pleasure taking precedent over decency and maturity.
California judge orders release of footage of Pelosi attack "The district attorney’s office argued releasing the footage publicly would only allow people to manipulate it in their quest to spread false information. "But the news agencies argued it was vital for prosecutors to publicly share their evidence that could debunk any false information swirling on the internet about the attack. “'You don’t eliminate the public right of access just because of concerns about conspiracy theories,' Burke said." [Burke is The Associated Press attorney who represents them and other news agencies suing to access the evidence.] "The news agencies who sought the release of the footage includes The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Press Democrat, CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and KQED, an NPR-member radio station in San Francisco." A good idea to release it I think, as there was already so much false and salacious information floating around. As evidenced in this thread and most especially the previous one
Have any of you actually seen the footage yet?? I have looked for it but I don't see where it is actually available to view. Highly recommend withholding your opinion until we actually see it.
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...ideo-of-attack-on-paul-pelosi-to-be-released/ NBC News reported that the evidence set to be released includes body camera footage that was captured by the officer who responded to the attack at the Pelosis’ address, the 911 call that Paul Pelosi made, parts of an interview that the police had with DePape and security video of the break-in that Capitol Police recorded. The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, however, had argued in court that publishing the video would distort the facts of the case, and the office and DePape’s defense team both argued it could “irreparably harm” his right to a fair trial, the outlets reported. But Murphy noted in his ruling that the footage was already played at a preliminary hearing last month, attorney Thomas Burke, who represented the organizations suing for disclosure, told The New York Times. The evidence could be released as soon as Thursday. [Today]
What do you think it is going to show -- other than what's already been described that it shows -- from people who watched in the court proceedings a month ago? I think you are going to be disappointed. It sounds like a straight up attack was caught on video and it is going to make all the conspiracy theory crap posted in October look stupid -- that's my prediction.
Anyone remember the thread about Ms Diamond where some folks were claiming pointing out she possibly died from misinformation was “dancing on her grave?” Well, I point you to this thread and the conservative internets response to this.
