WingdwheeL

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

Yeah... that's what I said... Qtard hopium. You will be waiting forever and that is the psyop, by design. Again, go research Operation Trust. History repeats. How many years you gonna wait. You will be sayin' same shit two years from now and another 2 after that.

Patriots are in control and the white hats are winning. So much winning i can't stand it.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@JoeCooldax @ninoboxer Obama has been gone? Let me guess.. He was executed at Gitmo 😂

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

"LOSERS ALL!"

Nobody talks like that. It doesn't even mean anything. But he capitalized it, so somewhere in his head that was the knockout line.

This whole thing reads like a 5th grader having a meltdown, and the man cannot see it. He's calling other people low IQ in the same paragraph.

It's pretty embarrassing.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

Everyone complains about the prices, yet those people keep paying them. The number was on the screen before you swiped your card and you still said yes.

It's both overpriced and toxic garbage. It's engineered to be cheap and addictive, not to feed you.

They will never improve the quality or change prices as long as people keep showing up an buying it. Why would they?

Stop buying! They either change or they close!

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@HealthRanger Can't wait to download it and be able to run it locally.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@AmeraucanaLover @shakeshack I got an idea.... You never have to complain about a tip you don't want to pay if you just stop eating out at places that intentionally feed you poison and call it food.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@OwenShroyer1776 It is sad.... I don't like this at all. There is a place by me in the burbs of Chicago that has one of these in a similar box with glass windows. If you are going to keep one captive you should spend the money to actually make it a paradise. At least that is what I would do

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

Agreed on this one. Jawboning is jawboning.

"Because of our work" is Jordan admitting the exact
conduct he built a committee to condemn. Same mechanism,
different direction. No defense from me.

Good back and forth. We disagree on plenty and still
landed on the same thing here. That's how it's supposed
to work.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

Fair on the legal record. Murthy went on standing, not
merits, and CHD lost the state actor argument in the
Ninth. I'm not going to dress a standing dismissal up as
a merits win.

Where I still land: standing is about who can sue, not
about what happened. Zuckerberg put the pressure on the
record himself in his 2024 letter to Jim Jordan, and that
sits outside any of these rulings.

Good exchange. You brought sources. Leaving it there.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

We agree on standing. That is what I stated in my last response.

The word doing the work in your post is evidence. Standing is not about evidence. It is about whether the people suing are allowed to sue at all. The Court never got to what actually happened.

Look at your own screenshot. The plaintiffs pointed at NIH and NIAID. Those agencies were not even defendants in the case, so the Court said it could not consider them. Then it said without that, they could not tie their censorship back to the people they did sue. That is a tracing problem. Not a finding that nothing happened.

Three justices read the exact same record and said officials spent months leaning on Facebook and making it clear there would be consequences. Same evidence. They were just answering a different question.

And then the government turned around and signed a ten year consent decree binding the Surgeon General, CDC and CISA. Nobody signs that over something that never happened.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

Fair on 230. The platform versus publisher thing does not exist and people repeat it constantly.

Two things though.

Murthy was standing. Six to three. The Court never got to whether the conduct was legal. They said plaintiffs could not connect a specific platform action to a specific government message. That is not the same as saying it was fine.

Vullo is the one that matters and it went nine to zero. Officials cannot coerce private parties into suppressing speech, informal channels included. Vullo was a regulator talking to insurers she licensed. Nobody said a consequence out loud. Did not need to.

Same setup here. 230 comes back up in Congress every session, antitrust is live, Google sits on the JWCC ceiling at nine billion. A company in that spot does not hear a federal request as a suggestion.

And there is a consent decree in that case now, March 2026, barring the Surgeon General, CDC and CISA from threatening platforms for ten years. Read the text. It says calling something misinformation does not make it unprotected.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@bennyjohnson Materclass? You are paid to sell this as such. Zero charges. Zero indictments. Zero consequences. You know that. Your audience deserves to know it too. The clip gets millions of views and nothing happens. That is the product. Outrage content for profit while accountability dies.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@WallStreetApes Bugs or no bugs, why are you feeding your dog processed kibble in the first place? Dogs are not designed to eat that. Same rule as humans. Real food. Whole food. Stop trusting corporations to feed your family, including the four-legged ones.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@Skriptkeeper17 This is what courage looks like. Jewish voices standing against Zionism are the most powerful voices in this fight because they destroy the lie that criticism equals hate. Zionism is not Judaism. More people need to hear them say it.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@JasonCoursey Three times here too. Saw the Adelson money but wanted to believe the words were still his. First term it was invisible. Second term Biden made it easy. Third term the mask came off. We didn't abandon the principles. He did. That's the part that hits hardest.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@ThinkingSapien @OffGridzzNL @VProtocol_76 @DavidWolfe The First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship. It does not make corporate censorship virtuous. Legal and moral are not the same thing. Section 230 is a law - not the Constitution. She censored life-saving information. People died uninformed. That is the point.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@ThinkingSapien @OffGridzzNL @VProtocol_76 @DavidWolfe When a CEO admits to authorizing the removal of a million videos containing health and safety information during a pandemic where people were dying - yes, "admitted" is the correct word. That is not cereal. That is censorship with a body count.

[WingdwheeL @WingdwheeL]

@OffGridzzNL @VProtocol_76 @DavidWolfe Nobody mentioned liability. The point was she made the decision. You just confirmed it by citing the law that protects her from consequences for making it. Thank you for proving the point a third time.