I never spoke with him about his business dealings

[ceeboo]

I doubt that either Ceeboo or Ajax has read that Breitbart article

Doubting (as long as it is practiced with balance and consistency) plays a significant role in wisdom.

and I try to avoid getting suckered into putting 100x the time a right-winger puts into their own claims

Are you inventing things that I have claimed again?

Below - in blue - is my post (in full) that you are supposedly replying to.

Ajax,

Biden family corruption articles (including the one you posted here) are Russian disinformation. All of them! The whistleblowers are Russian disinformation. The Apple subpoena that resulted in finding the Hunter text message is Russian disinformation. The laptop is Russian disinformation. The several bank suspicious activity reports that were filed isn't true either, again, more Russian disinformation. The DOJ did not place obstacles in the way of people trying to investigate crime, that is another example of Russia/Putin trying to destroy our democracy. They are all nothing burgers. I for one am quite pleased that investigative journalism isn't a thing anymore among major news/media in America. Thankfully, these platforms have evolved into simply telling us what to think and how to think. They provide the powerful storytelling and we the people just need nod our head in agreement. Easy.

Plus - As Joe Biden has said several times now that he has never spoke to his son about his foreign business dealings. Never. Not even once. Not even when they flew to these foreign countries together on Airforce 2. Joe said that he has never spoken to his son about it and I believe him. Why do I believe him? Because I am also a dad with a son and I couldn't imagine talking to my son about anything important in his life. A father talking to his son about something important in his son's life (career, money, business) is absurd. It never happens.

My reply to Ajax made exactly one claim about the article. The one and only claim that I made about the article was that it was "Russian disinformation" and that one claim was clearly satire. As a matter of fact, in the very first sentence, I said "Biden family corruption articles (Including the one you posted) are Russian disinformation." My obvious use of satire was to label information or articles as "Russian disinformation" with the desired result being a rejection of the information. Surely you have heard the "Russian disinformation" bit before?

[ajax18]

Right. The cart before the horse. Let's first establish the CCP paid the Bidens a lot of money, if that's your claim.

The weaponization committee has the bank transfers. How did the Biden family become so rich on a lifelong Senators salary? How many drug addicted sons pay their Dad $55k/month in rent? The money coming from China, Ukraine, and Romania is not in dispute. And the fact is that the only thing the Biden's had to sell Burisma, the superchairman in the CCP, was political influence, unless you believe it was Hunter Biden's art. Then on top of that Hunter never paid taxes on it and you're perfectly fine with him getting away with this even though you believe so firmly in tax the rich economics.

ETA: By the way, how many of you on this board are going the extra mile and paying more taxes than the government is requesting. Is the free rider problem not that big of a problem as long it's Democrat politicians cheating on their taxes? Just tax the rich, so long as that doesn't include Democrats. Do you really think communism is going to work out much differently in the USA than it did in Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, CCP? We're already seeing exceptions made out of political loyalty for the elites right now.

[ceeboo]

Hi Canpakes,

I don't mean to talk over Ceeboo, but since you were away, it's possible you missed some context. I had pointed to several examples of accusations of weaponization upstream from OANN (?) news network, Google displaying 840 hits on their site to variants of "weaponized" and all from 2022 - 2023 (many in regard to Trump). See, Ceeboo had complained elsewhere that we can't trust corrupt media because media is just creating the narrative they want. So I wanted to know how he was safe in his fears of government since the language "weaponized government agency" that he himself is repeating regularly is rather new to media and is being repeated ad nauseum by right-wing rags and tabloids. I mean, it seems most likely that Ceeboo is the poster-child victim of unrelenting media that he fears is the norm within society today.

It's possible that what he meant by "media" was CNN, MSNBC, an non-rightwing non-tabloid outlets; maybe he didn't mean his news sources.

Anyway, this sparked a conversation between Ceeboo and others where Ceeboo introduced this thought experiment. Suppose the DOJ had been weaponized, how would we know about it? The problem with your question is that I've already put on the table just about everything conservative outlets are going to have in their arsenal so he's going to be hard-pressed to find something I didn't beat him to the punch with, and he has good reason to suspect given my post that you will dismiss all of it because it comes from sources you'll just say aren't credible. So he's kind of in a bind where he can't answer that question because it relies on having common epistemological grounding.

And so his hypothetical is less about what examples are out there, and more about epistemology, how could we possible come to know about such examples, since liberal enablers would likely be in on the plot? It's not a bad hypothetical to contemplate. Let me provide another example.

Steven Anderson, an up-and-coming Baptist preacher who loves Trump and for years preached the great evils of Barack Obama, has taught some other harsh truths such as, Hitler didn't exterminate millions of Jewish people, but rather put them to work as laborers to build his empires, which entailed putting them on trains that sent them where they were needed to work. Suppose this good Trump-supporting Christian is right that there was no holocaust, how would we know about it? Certainly, CNN, MSNBC, AP; none of these places are going to cover it, Fox news and even OANN may steer clear, and so you're down to Alex Jones and only a few other places. And so if we were to say regarding Anderson's claims, "Oh come on, nobody takes Alex Jones seriously!" then there would be literally no way for the truth to ever see the light of day on this matter.

Gad - This post is another post that I find troubling and concerning. For personal reasons, I am going to take a break from engaging you on the board for a while. You might see this as me running away and/or my inability to defend a position that you have suggested I have taken. I am fine with that.

[Marcus]

Hi Canpakes,

I don't mean to talk over Ceeboo, but since you were away, it's possible you missed some context. I had pointed to several examples of accusations of weaponization upstream from OANN (?) news network, Google displaying 840 hits on their site to variants of "weaponized" and all from 2022 - 2023 (many in regard to Trump). See, Ceeboo had complained elsewhere that we can't trust corrupt media because media is just creating the narrative they want. So I wanted to know how he was safe in his fears of government since the language "weaponized government agency" that he himself is repeating regularly is rather new to media and is being repeated ad nauseum by right-wing rags and tabloids. I mean, it seems most likely that Ceeboo is the poster-child victim of unrelenting media that he fears is the norm within society today.

It's possible that what he meant by "media" was CNN, MSNBC, an non-rightwing non-tabloid outlets; maybe he didn't mean his news sources.

Anyway, this sparked a conversation between Ceeboo and others where Ceeboo introduced this thought experiment. Suppose the DOJ had been weaponized, how would we know about it? The problem with your question is that I've already put on the table just about everything conservative outlets are going to have in their arsenal so he's going to be hard-pressed to find something I didn't beat him to the punch with, and he has good reason to suspect given my post that you will dismiss all of it because it comes from sources you'll just say aren't credible. So he's kind of in a bind where he can't answer that question because it relies on having common epistemological grounding.

And so his hypothetical is less about what examples are out there, and more about epistemology, how could we possible come to know about such examples, since liberal enablers would likely be in on the plot? It's not a bad hypothetical to contemplate. Let me provide another example.

Steven Anderson, an up-and-coming Baptist preacher who loves Trump and for years preached the great evils of Barack Obama, has taught some other harsh truths such as, Hitler didn't exterminate millions of Jewish people, but rather put them to work as laborers to build his empires, which entailed putting them on trains that sent them where they were needed to work. Suppose this good Trump-supporting Christian is right that there was no holocaust, how would we know about it? Certainly, CNN, MSNBC, AP; none of these places are going to cover it, Fox news and even OANN may steer clear, and so you're down to Alex Jones and only a few other places. And so if we were to say regarding Anderson's claims, "Oh come on, nobody takes Alex Jones seriously!" then there would be literally no way for the truth to ever see the light of day on this matter.

Great post. In the end, it’s the theory that since we didn’t hear about someone hiding something, then surely something must be hidden. It describes a mindset far more than it describes facts.

[Dr Exiled]

It seems more like the emperor and his new clothes or how Mormon leaders handled their history over the years. Or maybe we are just conspiracy theorists when it comes to Mormonism? Anyway, its not too much to consider that perhaps the corporate oligopolists and the media and politicians they control want to box in the message so that the results end up what the corporate leaders want. Democracy is at stake, right?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] It's also likely that China started thinking that Joe was irrelevant in 2017 and didn't want to pay anymore. Hence Hunter had to really put the heat on him claiming that his Dad still had influence inside the Beltway. [...]

So, they figured his dad didn't have any influence, so Hunter knowing this decided to use the person they though had no influence as leverage.

God, I love Ben Shapiro.

[canpakes]

Hi Canpakes,

I don't mean to talk over Ceeboo, but since you were away, it's possible you missed some context. I had pointed to several examples of accusations of weaponization upstream from OANN (?) news network, Google displaying 840 hits on their site to variants of "weaponized" and all from 2022 - 2023 (many in regard to Trump). See, Ceeboo had complained elsewhere that we can't trust corrupt media because media is just creating the narrative they want. So I wanted to know how he was safe in his fears of government since the language "weaponized government agency" that he himself is repeating regularly is rather new to media and is being repeated ad nauseum by right-wing rags and tabloids. I mean, it seems most likely that Ceeboo is the poster-child victim of unrelenting media that he fears is the norm within society today.

It's possible that what he meant by "media" was CNN, MSNBC, an non-rightwing non-tabloid outlets; maybe he didn't mean his news sources.

Anyway, this sparked a conversation between Ceeboo and others where Ceeboo introduced this thought experiment. Suppose the DOJ had been weaponized, how would we know about it? The problem with your question is that I've already put on the table just about everything conservative outlets are going to have in their arsenal so he's going to be hard-pressed to find something I didn't beat him to the punch with, and he has good reason to suspect given my post that you will dismiss all of it because it comes from sources you'll just say aren't credible. So he's kind of in a bind where he can't answer that question because it relies on having common epistemological grounding.

And so his hypothetical is less about what examples are out there, and more about epistemology, how could we possible come to know about such examples, since liberal enablers would likely be in on the plot? It's not a bad hypothetical to contemplate. Let me provide another example.

Steven Anderson, an up-and-coming Baptist preacher who loves Trump and for years preached the great evils of Barack Obama, has taught some other harsh truths such as, Hitler didn't exterminate millions of Jewish people, but rather put them to work as laborers to build his empires, which entailed putting them on trains that sent them where they were needed to work. Suppose this good Trump-supporting Christian is right that there was no holocaust, how would we know about it? Certainly, CNN, MSNBC, AP; none of these places are going to cover it, Fox news and even OANN may steer clear, and so you're down to Alex Jones and only a few other places. And so if we were to say regarding Anderson's claims, "Oh come on, nobody takes Alex Jones seriously!" then there would be literally no way for the truth to ever see the light of day on this matter.

Gad - This post is another post that I find troubling and concerning. For personal reasons, I am going to take a break from engaging you on the board for a while. You might see this as me running away and/or my inability to defend a position that you have suggested I have taken. I am fine with that.

Ceeboo - In my opinion, the best source for what you believe, will be you.

I’m still interested in what you consider to be examples of recent weaponization of the DOJ.

[canpakes]

How did the Biden family become so rich on a lifelong Senators salary?

ajax, you can page through their tax returns for any shenanigans. Joe and Jill have publicly released 25 years of returns.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... x-returns/

Is the free rider problem not that big of a problem as long it's Democrat politicians cheating on their taxes?

You might also be able to compare the returns available through the link above to whatever Trump has released, with the limitation being the problem of getting Trump to be open and forthright with his own tax history.

[Gadianton]

It seems more like the emperor and his new clothes or how Mormon leaders handled their history over the years. Or maybe we are just conspiracy theorists when it comes to Mormonism? Anyway, its not too much to consider that perhaps the corporate oligopolists and the media and politicians they control want to box in the message so that the results end up what the corporate leaders want. Democracy is at stake, right?

When it comes to Mormon history, there are firmly pro-Mormons who confirm much of the worst that apostates fear. If I were to pick through works by
Arrington or Bushman and then present my case to most of my family, they'd stone me as an anti-Mormon. In other words, no matter how much the Church leaders and Mormon culture itself work -- I think Mormon culture is as much or more to blame than leaders -- to create a true information vacuum, they have failed to do so.

Barack Obama may still be hell-bent on prosecuting Edward Snowden, but Snowden found a great shovel full of dirt, and nobody that I know of thinks he's lying about it and everyone in big tech in my experience acted as if his leak was 100% accurate. If there's damning evidence against Sleepy Joe as a "crime family boss" then it's perfectly feasible to get the dirt brought to light. In no way are corporate leaders and government officials so powerful that they're all aware of Joes crimes and all working together to keep them suppressed. Not to mention that there's plenty of "alternative" media outlets going strong venting their spleens and nobody appears able to shut them down; now that Musk owns Twitter the room for alternative view points is greater than ever. If there's a case, I think it should be able to get made. So, bring the evidence, and I'll look at it. But don't just say that "corporate oligarchs and the media and politicians" want to control the narrative, therefore they are controlling the narrative and therefore, it's impossible to bring evidence against Sleepy Joe's crimes because it will all be suppressed.

[Gadianton]

The weaponization committee has the bank transfers

In the article you linked, can you cite the points 2-19 that cover this? If the damning evidence isn't part of your article, why did you link to it?

Can you link to your source for the transfer information?

Look, if Biden is a big crime boss behind the scene I'm sure there's plenty of gas in the tank to get him prosecuted and sent to prison. If that happens, *shrug*, with both Biden and Trump in prison maybe we can start 2024 with fresh candidates.