The acknowledgment in the news, and hearings, etc. The FBI has had it as well. The "hunter biden'slaptop" has been continuous for a very long time now. Democrat and republican. Not once has Hunter denied it. Isn't that pretty close to not denying it is his?He was such a mess in those days that he can't give a definitive answer. However, the burden of proof is on the accuser, of course.
Oh yeah, Perfesser 'I was for impeachment before I was against impeachment.'Jonathon Turley is a well respected legal scholar and professor.
Since when does "the news" have the authority to confirm its existence? In which hearing did law enforcement confirm it?The acknowledgment in the news, and hearings, etc.
What exactly did the FBI have, and when and where did they have it?The FBI has had it as well.
What exactly has been continuous?The "hunter biden'slaptop" has been continuous for a very long time now.
What?Democrat and republican.
"Pretty close to not denying it" is an interesting concept. Please tell me more about it. But first, what's on this alleged laptop?Not once has Hunter denied it. Isn't that pretty close to not denying it is his?
I never said it confirmed it. Rather they, Identified it, labeled it.Since when does "the news" have the authority to confirm its existence? In which hearing did law enforcement confirm it?
Are you saying the laptop was not in the possession of the FBI, it after the computer store contacted authorities?What exactly did the FBI have, and when and where did they have it?
The labeling, or identifying it as "hunter bidens laptop"What exactly has been continuous?
The hearings concerning twitter etc, of censorship by government officials on social media. Calling it Russia propoganda that it existed.What?
Since the laptop has been continuously referred to as Hunters, and he has not denied it is interesting, that he would not allow it to be identified as his.."Pretty close to not denying it" is an interesting concept. Please tell me more about it. But first, what's on this alleged laptop?
Speaking for myself, I am saying that 'a' laptop is in the possession of the FBI.Are you saying the laptop was not in the possession of the FBI,
No confirmation, then.I never said it confirmed it. Rather they, Identified it, labeled it.
I'm saying there has been no confirmation from the FBI.Are you saying the laptop was not in the possession of the FBI, it after the computer store contacted authorities?
No confirmation, then.The hearings concerning twitter etc, of censorship by government officials on social media. Calling it Russia propoganda that it existed.
Still no confirmation from someone in a position to do so.Since the laptop has been continuously referred to as Hunters, and he has not denied it is interesting, that he would not allow it to be identified as his..
It is pretty easy to verify that. I think it is probably a matter of custody issues at this point, not so much property.. But ok.No confirmation, then.
I'm saying there has been no confirmation from the FBI.
No confirmation, then.
Still no confirmation from someone in a position to do so.
Good. You agreed. So discussions need to take place with social media companies so that agreement can be made to restrict certain content. That cannot happen unless you are in some sort of dialogue with them. So the brief needs to succeed to allow for that to happen.Well, first we would need to have a discussion...
It is not uncommon for academicians, professors, and lawyers to change their opinions or beliefs within a 21+ year time period.Oh yeah, Perfesser 'I was for impeachment before I was against impeachment.'
Odd, that doesn’t sound “conservative“ at all.It is not uncommon for academicians, professors, and lawyers to change their opinions or beliefs within a 21+ year time period.
What I would see as a reasonable middle ground would be an environment in which people shouldn't be getting bent out of shape because a gay character exists in a book, while simultaneously understanding that it's not unreasonable for people to put the nix on books in Jr High Schools that feature illustrated erotica.Not sure what in your mind would be the reasonable middle ground.
Of course people who make movies or tv shows have every right to cast whomever they wish for parts regardless of race, skin colour, sexuality or gender.
Of course public schools are looking to protect children from discrimination regardless of race, skin colour, sexuality or gender.
I know this was a reply to someone else...Again, if you want to discuss how we control what a government does in persuading a company to delete content then I'd like to hear it. It's an important discussion to have. But if you say you don't want any regulations then I've no interest in discussing anything further.
No problem. Although this thread was about whether they should be allowed to discuss any problems at all with the companies in question. Individual matters, and whether the authorities are justified in requesting the content be removed, must be dealt with individually.I know this was a reply to someone else...
But how I see it is that the regulatory framework would need to take into account the "State Actor Doctrine"
OK, sure. I can agree with that.What I would see as a reasonable middle ground would be an environment in which people shouldn't be getting bent out of shape because a gay character exists in a book, while simultaneously understanding that it's not unreasonable for people to put the nix on books in Jr High Schools that feature illustrated erotica.
Maybe in the next film he should kiss Spock.When Captain James T Kirk kissed Uhura in 1968. This came as a huge shock to many in USA. But now no one batters an eye lid.