Ex-wife identified Air Force vet who stormed Senate floor with zip-tie handcuffs
Ex-wife identified Air Force vet who stormed Senate floor with zip-tie handcuffs
The retired Air Force vet who stormed the Senate floor with zip-tie handcuffs amid a pro-Trump insurrection Wednesday was positively identified thanks to a tip from his ex-wife.
Texas resident Larry Rendall Brock, 53, wore a green military helmet and body armor in dramatic photos showing him among the insurrectionists who made it all the way to the Capitol’s inner sanctums, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s private office, federal prosecutors said Sunday.
According to an FBI affidavit, Brock’s ex-wife saw one of the images, recognized his face and alarming ensemble and picked up the phone.
Nobody likes a Nazi.
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-Louis Brandeis
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
His ups can make me overlook his downs. No such thing as a perfect candidate. On the bright side he isn't biased when he talks about extremism & conspiracy theories. He's the type of guy to look at the statistics to determine if something is true. Hell, he acknowledged declining white birthrates https://mobile.twitter.com/andrewyan...42292527874048
- - - Updated - - -
No I came into this thread with an article about world leaders being against the president's twitter ban. Didn't care much about parler since Gab is superior in every way. It just came up in conversation.
I would vehemently disagree that they're the gatekeepers to information and communication. If you're getting all your info from Youtube or Twitter, you're not actually interested in informing yourself in the first place.
Even the communication methods they offer are pretty niche. It's become a very popular niche, to be sure, but there's definitely alternatives. A lot of this "but they control communication" is like when people say "but where am I gonna buy clothes if I'm banned from Wal-Mart?" Yes, Wal-Mart is big and convenient, but they're hardly the only source.
My issues with such companies goes a lot deeper, and if we wanna go there, we're gonna get into a debate about worker collectives versus private ownership and so forth. Which is pretty wildly off-topic. I don't see the size itself as a problem. Nor do I see their communication streams to be somehow a necessity. I've gotten through my life without an effective Facebook account just fine, and my Youtube and Twitter usage is entirely as a browser, not someone using it as a platform. A lot of this "but they're big communication angles" just smacks of a "want", not a "need".
If a single company was controlling all the rentable apartments in a city and was jacking rents through the roof, that would be a different story. That's really not what we're talking about, here, especially with something like Twitter.
Since they're offline their TOS is gone but I found an article that grabbed the relevant part. They too noticed that the website couldn't uphold its own TOS
"(R)eported parleys, comments, or messages sent using our service will be deemed a violation of these Guidelines if they contain:
6.1.1 a “serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals,” with either the intent or reckless disregard as to whether the communication will “place the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.”
6.1.2 an explicit or implicit encouragement to use violence, or to commit a lawless action, such that: (a) the Parleyer intends his or her speech to result in the use of violence or lawless action, and (b) the imminent use of violence or lawless action is the likely result of the parley, comment, or message."
Joe Mama
Because that TOS is deliberately phrased to be completely useless. What quantifiable measure are you using to determine if an expression of intent is "serious" or not? How do you objectively measure intent? If they don't want to ban anyone, they can just say they don't have evidence of either (since one is subjective and the other would require mind-reading), and that gives them an excuse to take no action.
Not taking action by those terms would be entirely justifiable, in legal terms. Just not in, y'know, ethical or basic human decency terms.
The law and the courts disagree with you. Move along.
Also, the tricky thing about free speech is there's a thin red line between free speech and sedition/insurrection. Trump committed the latter, so even if you were right about only physical property counting (which you're hilariously not) Trump committed a crime anyway, and Twitter took action.
- - - Updated - - -
Judging by your posting history, this is a lie and an affront to the constitution.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Bruh all of my posts in here have been about the the ability to post freely, parlor hasn't been brought up til very recently. idgaf about parlol it's gone now.
- - - Updated - - -
Yooo, is this the new and improved russian collusion nothingburger?
Enjoy!!!
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
just in case you feel like lying, again.