If I host a space, what should my topic be?

Weiner dog Mike! The biggest pussy ass simp boy on X

So you’re standing by/repeating your defamatory claim that these are “cop killers”? You really never learn, do you?

So, it’s the same tactic I’ve noticed in these Spaces: Bryce comes in seeming like a reasonable calm guy, when he has an ulterior 🐢 motive. This is a pattern.

🚨ATUALIZAÇÃO | Dois envolvidos na morte da moça que foi lançada da ponte sem estar presa na corda elástica fugiram do local. A PM foi acionada e o helicóptero águia segue na procura dos foragidos. O caso aconteceu em Limeira, interior de São Paulo, Brasil.

RT @MikeDury: instagram.com/reel/DZN_U_Wy4…

“Reasoning will never correct a man wholly void of reason; and since he is convinced without reason, he can never be reasoned out of it." -Jonathon Swift

Fair commentary is objective. It is not taking a position before hearing all of the evidence. It is not becoming so closely aligned with a murder defendant that you purchase her used mattress. It is not escorting her out the doors of political events, dressing up in an inflatable duck costume while rubber ducks are used around to accuse a young man of murder. Fair commentary is not overlooking objective data because it conflicts with a preferred narrative. It is not dismissing cell phone data, Techstream data, or expert testimony simply because the conclusions are inconvenient. Fair commentary asks questions of everyone. It scrutinizes all claims equally. It follows the evidence wherever it leads, even when the answer is not the one you were hoping for. Advocacy is allowed. Commentary is allowed. But they are not the same thing. Calling advocacy "commentary" is a lie.

Oh, shut up, turtle ass. 🐢 🧦

No one owes you any explanation whatsoever. You invented a conspiracy and demand answers to demented questions about the comings and goings of free citizens in exchange for their peace and freedom. It’s beyond creepy. They have never been suspected by any government agency that does actual investigations. The only logical conclusion is that you are lathered up for that young man and it’s gross.

RT @TuesdayGazette: @theginnyjamz Anyone continuing to push the “knuckles” narrative or the “227” narrative are either intentionally smeari…

No one cares Mike you support the framing of KR and the disgusting investigators who bye the way have been exposed as diabolical racists pigs who hate women. Hth.

RT @jtlynch60: @jk_tidwell You really should have taken that Econ 101 class, Kiddo. Your net "worth" has absolutely nothing to do with havi…

You’re not asking questions. Questions require the person asking to listen to the answer. You’re making creepy accusations with a scale that’s speeding headlong into stalking. You want to know his movements. You want to know what he did in high school. You’re a creepy scumbag.

Karen was your speaker @adamdeitch Can you tell us how come when you were a sitting @TheJusticeDept you leaked her and a blogger confidential information about her murder trial ? Isn’t that actually CORRUPTION? @FBIBoston @USAttyPirro @MACourts @scooperon7 Is this normal ? Are we all ok ?

RT @theginnyjamz: “Read and her counsel have nothing to do with unidentified individuals on the internet who commented on Colin's depositio…

This woman is an absolute lunatic and a menace to the justice system. In her sick, twisted mind she truly believes that she is entitled to invade the privacy of American citizens if she has a some wild thought in her demented head that there may be something in their private data she would be able to exploit. "Well I don't know what I don't know." So, everyone must open up all their most personal information so that Karen Read can decide what's beneficial to her even though there is no legal valid reason to allow that type of invasion of privacy. She is dangerous and the attorneys assisting her with her attempted abuse of other people's constitutional rights are not, in any way, shape or form, upholding or protecting the Constitution.

Why was @BostonDefender sharing with Aidan Kearney information about hearing requests for defense filings that was not yet public? Even more concerning, why was David Yannetti coordinating with Kearney to keep the sharing of that information concealed from the prosecution? Why did all parties involved, Read, her attorneys, and Kearney repeatedly lie to the public about their communications? Why would such a plan to obscure and mislead be necessary?