It rotates the cylinder. And that would be the absolute stupidest time to look down the barrel to “see if it was loaded.”
Which means you can see the chamber that is going to be under the hammer.
Not by looking down the barrel. That is the claim I was addressing.
Looks like Twitter is a big problem for king twoface.
He can’t shut up.
They won’t ban him for violence either.
Alec Baldwin Ripped for New Private ‘Protected’ Twitter Setting: ‘Too Bad Halyna Hutchins Wasn’t as Protected’ Alec Baldwin Ripped for New Private ‘Protected’ Twitter Setting
1 Like
Lol. Doing an article on what rando Twitter users tweet is literally the same as if someone wrote an article and quoted posts we randos make here. I bet Breitbart wins a Pulitzer for this hard-hitting piece of journalism.
Random Twitter user…interesting take on social media censorship.
Yeah, the mainstream press never do that. /sarcasm
Yes, I found this one by someone who couldn’t even take 5 seconds to Google the lady’s name particularly insightful -
“If only the lady he shot was protected, he wouldn’t have to protect his tweets,” wrote yet another.
Actually it was insightful, regular practice in the industry is to place a perspex shield between the cameraman/director and actor if you need a shot of the gun pointing directly at the camera, well that or use a remote camera, because industry safety standards say never to point a gun directly at anyone whether it is empty or loaded.
1 Like
You just wrote an article 100x better than Breitbart’s.
Most of the news agencies are guilty of this, something like 8% of Americans tweet yet they all act like a twitter fit is the will of the nation.
What is the difference between “randos” and somebody worth quoting?
1 Like
Censorship threshold.
For someone who is interested in what anonymous people who hate Alec Baldwin are saying on Twitter, and don’t want to go on Twitter and read it themselves, then I suppose Breitbart provided a valuable journalistic service.
They all play that game, it’s a way of pretending it isn’t just an editorial opinion. But they did the same thing before twitter with man on the street interviews, leaving opposing views on the cutting room floor.
I don’t recall man on the street interviews of anonymous people with blurred faces delivering sick burns.
Same concept though
What makes CNN better?
I didn’t compare Breitbart to CNN, but show me an example of CNN doing an article or broadcast piece consisting of nothing but anonymous tweets and I will say that they are not better.
Come on man!
