ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Democratic Early Primary Free-For-All

[ Posted Friday, April 15th, 2022 – 17:01 UTC ]

It wasn't the biggest or most important political news of the week, we admit, but the one story that definitely caught our attention was the earthquake which reverberated outward from the Democratic National Committee. This Wednesday, the D.N.C.'s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to upset the early-primary applecart to allow for the possibility of a complete shakeup of the roster of early-voting states (currently: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina). For the 2024 presidential race, all the states have now been encouraged to apply for a spot on the early calendar -- with no guarantees for the four states that have previously enjoyed the privilege of going first.

This is the type of change in the political system that is usually left in the realm of arcane political-science academic theorizing ("I think the system would work better if we changed this...") that usually comes to naught in the real world. However, the D.N.C. has now officially tossed the old rules out and instituted a new set of criteria for the states which are allowed to go first. And things don't look especially good for Iowa (and, to a lesser extent, New Hampshire). One of the criteria is having a diverse electorate, which is going to be very hard for Iowa to credibly claim.

This has already set off a very quiet feeding frenzy among the states. Several are already reportedly considering applying for early status (New Jersey, Michigan, even Massachusetts). Nevada is making a bid for the absolute front of the line -- the first state in the nation to vote. And this is all going to happen fairly quickly:


The D.N.C. will require states looking to move up in the calendar to submit a letter of intent by May 6, then a formal application due on June 3. They will also make a presentation to the committee in late June. Then, the rules committee will have six weeks to make its recommendation on the new early-state lineup, which will likely be announced at their meeting in early July. Later this summer, the rules committee's roster of states will go to the full D.N.C. membership for a vote to lock in the calendar for the 2024 presidential cycle.

This means that within a few weeks, we'll at least know which states are in the running. The entire process is doubtlessly going to be fascinating to watch play out, and it could result in a very different process in the earliest days of the presidential campaign. Currently, Iowa and New Hampshire absolutely dominate all the early campaign attention. But maybe 2020 was the last time that will have been the case.

It's hard not to say that Iowa at least partially deserves getting booted. Their disastrous 2020 caucus -- complete with communications and technical screwups, dubious vote-counts, and a very long wait until the winner was announced -- showed the rest of the country that (1) perhaps caucuses should go the way of the dodo, and (2) maybe it's time to give another state a chance?

New Hampshire is unique because its state law clearly mandates that they go first no matter what. They turn a blind eye to Iowa (which actually votes first) only because it is a caucus (not a primary). But their law states that their primary will be held a set amount of time before any other primary is held anywhere else in the country. This could be a big problem if the D.N.C. decides they're not an early-voting state anymore (likely because New Hampshire has the same lack of diversity that Iowa does).

The D.N.C. has expanded the early primary states to five. Which means that they could, in theory, just add one more state to the four that currently vote early. Or they could kick Iowa out and add two new states to the early calendar. But they could also shuffle the entire deck and come up with five completely different states -- which would certainly make for a very different path to the presidential nomination.

Which is why, as we said, it may not have been the biggest story of the week to most people, but to political wonks such as ourselves, it was certainly the most intriguing.

In unrelated news, the Republican National Committee voted unanimously to boycott the accepted framework for presidential debates. Which means we could see, in 2024: no debates at all, two solo events (one Democratic and one Republican) that would be more "town hall" than debate, or some strange new way of allowing the two major-party candidates to interact with each other. After Donald Trump's disastrous performance in his debates with Joe Biden, it's pretty easy to see why the R.N.C. doesn't want that sort of spectacle to repeat itself.

But it's far too early for most people to even be thinking about the presidential election cycle, right? So let's see what else has been going on....

President Joe Biden announced some new gun safety measures this week, pledging to go after "ghost guns" that are built with impossible-to-trace parts or kits. This is a step in the right direction, but nobody has any real hope of actual legislation making it through the Senate any time soon, unfortunately. Biden also announced a new nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, who may have a better chance of being confirmed by the Senate than his last pick did.

Biden got a bit of pushback from some Democrats this week, which in our opinion was reasonable, since getting rid of the "Title 42" restrictions on immigrant entry (which was put into place for the COVID pandemic) without having an actual plan for how that is going to change things on the southern border seems like asking for a fiasco to happen. Biden did promise to follow the experts' advice on things like removing COVID restrictions, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't also prepare for the inevitable fallout from such decisions being made. One wonders, in fact, where Kamala Harris is, since this is supposed to be one of the things in her vice-presidential portfolio.

What with Congress out on another of their eternal vacations, most of the political news this week came from the states. The biggest bombshell came from South Dakota, of all places, where there is a fierce intraparty struggle among Republicans. The South Dakota legislature's lower chamber just voted to impeach the state's attorney general, Jason Ravnsborg, for a rather questionable one-car accident that caused the death of a pedestrian late at night. This is unprecedented, as it will be the state's first impeachment trial in the state senate ever. This also pits Ravnsborg against his own party's governor in a power struggle. Here's the story for those who haven't heard about it:

In its 36-31 vote, the [South Dakota] House rejected the recommendation of a GOP-backed majority report from a special investigative committee and sided with [Republican Governor Kristi] Noem, who has argued that [Attorney General Jason] Ravnsborg lied to investigators. Democrats also had pushed for impeachment, arguing that he was not "forthcoming" to law enforcement officers and had abused the power of his office.

Ravnsborg, who took office in 2019, initially told aides and a 911 dispatcher he did not know what he hit on a rural highway as he was returning home from a Republican dinner in September 2020. He went back to the scene the next day and found the body of 55-year-old Boever, who had been walking on the highway's shoulder.

The Highway Patrol concluded that Ravnsborg's car crossed completely onto the highway shoulder before hitting Boever, and criminal investigators said later that they didn't believe some of Ravnsborg's statements.

Such as his initial statement that he thought he had hit "a deer" or some other large animal. One wonders what his blood alcohol content was at the time, but because he didn't 'fess up until the next day, we'll never know. Should be an interesting trial to watch in the state senate, that's for sure.

Down in Texas, Greg Abbott is having fun disrupting the supply chain and increasing inflation for everything from fresh produce for his own state's citizens to auto parts used nationwide. He caused a massive slowdown in the truck traffic entering his state from Mexico, claiming that he was looking for people being smuggled in as well as drugs and other contraband. Except that the state police can't actually search the trucks for any of that, because they have just been searched at the border by federal agents. So he's stopping them all to check their brakelights and other safety measures, which has created -- for no reason at all other than politics -- a backup over 24 hours long in some places. Nothing like grandstanding on problem by creating an entirely different and more massive problem to score a few political points!

Texas was also in the news this week for briefly charging a woman for having a "self-induced" abortion, and then (after realizing that she broke no actual Texas law) reversing themselves and dropping the "charges." This is a vision of the future in red states, beginning right after the Supreme Court rules in June, sadly enough.

Donald Trump endorsed Mehmet Oz in the Pennsylvania race for an open Senate seat, since Dr. Oz was on television and all. No, seriously, that's about the sum total of his reasoning.

But we have to end on one bit of good news, since the citizens of the Garden State will be able to legally partake of a new product out of that garden come next Thursday -- when recreational marijuana will finally be available to all New Jersey adults. So we suppose the Jersey shore is about to get... um... even more Jersey-shore-ier? Wow, man... like... far out.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

It was a fairly quiet week for politicians, since Congress is out on yet another of their multiweek playtime periods, so we're going to give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to a new member of the Biden administration.

Dr. Ashish Jha stepped into his role as the new "COVID czar" this week in a big way. It was hard to turn on a television news program in the early part of the week without seeing his face, in fact. This is not entirely unexpected, because he was pretty obviously hired because he has been the go-to expert to interview throughout the pandemic, for multiple television networks. He always calmly explains things in relatable ways, and he is a very personable medical professional (or, at least, he projects this image well on television, which is all we really have to go on). In other words: a perfect media spokesman for the administration's response to the ongoing pandemic.

Also, probably because up until now he has not been an official spokesperson at all (appearing on television merely as a neutral expert), he has not given rise to any of the naked hatred that Dr. Anthony Fauci has inexplicably provoked among right-wingers.

Jha is a fresh new face for the administration, and hiring him was an excellent idea. We'll see how he holds up to partisan scrutiny or handles another wave of the virus, but he certainly has had an impressive start to his new gig. So we're just going to go ahead and welcome him to his new job with this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Ashish Jha via the official (but generic) White House contact page or more personally on Twitter, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the main award, we have to at least address one other situation first. We don't actually have one, but if a "Most Worrisome Democrat Of The Week" award existed, we would hand it to one of our own home-state senators, Dianne Feinstein.

We've been noting this developing story for quite some time now, but it seems the day is fast approaching when DiFi is going to say something so monumentally out of touch with reality that she is forced to resign in embarrassment. She's already said a number of borderline things, but sooner or later it seems almost inevitable she's going to wind up embarrassing not only herself but all the California constituents she represents as well. Because, at 88 years old, she is losing her focus and her memory and it's becoming more worrisome and apparent to those who actually interact with her.

That was the big scoop this week from the San Francisco Chronicle, where a story appeared that was backed up by four U.S. senators (three of them Democrats), one Democratic House member, and three of DiFi's own former staffers. The conclusion was that she has essentially lost her edge and is now mentally unfit to serve. There are plenty of on-the-record (but anonymous) quotes in the story; here's just one to serve as an example:

"It's bad, and it's getting worse," said one Democratic senator. This person said that within the Senate, Feinstein has difficulty keeping up with conversations and discussions.

"There's a joke on the Hill, we've got a great junior senator in Alex Padilla and an experienced staff in Feinstein's office," said a staffer for a California Democrat.

All of those who expressed concerns about Feinstein's acuity said that doing so was painful because of their respect for the senator and her groundbreaking career. Each spoke on condition of anonymity, because they said they did not want to jeopardize their relationship with her and their mutual friends and colleagues.

Personally, we had urged Feinstein to retire gracefully the last time she ran for re-election. This would have avoided such an embarrassing state of affairs. But she ran and won in 2018, meaning she won't have to run again until 2024. Which means California's 40 million residents will have two and a half more years of watching her deterioration.

So the disappointment for us happened years ago, when she announced she was running again, but we have to say the situation does appear to be getting a lot more worrisome -- which is precisely what we feared might happen.

But DiFi didn't even come close to being in the running for this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, because we had yet another spectacle of rancid corruption land with a wet plop in Albany, New York. And that "another" is not hyperbole, as the stats show:

For the 12th time in the past 20 years, New York this week got a new lieutenant governor. Acting lieutenant governor, yes -- but: still.

Perhaps you were under the impression that the position came with a four-year term in office. Well, you are correct! But, since the beginning of 2003, only two lieutenant governors have actually served a full, January-to-January-four-years-later term. On average, the state's second-highest ranking executives have lasted only about 500 days on average, almost always either because they were caught up in nefarious activity or because the governor was, meaning that they were tapped for the top job.

That's a pretty sad state of affairs. Here's the full story, for those who may have missed it earlier in the week:

New York Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin resigned Tuesday evening after he was arrested earlier in the day and charged in a federal bribery conspiracy case involving alleged fraudulent donations to a New York City comptroller run last year.

Benjamin pleaded not guilty at a brief arraignment in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona Wang and was released on a $250,000 bond. Shortly after 5 p.m., Gov. Kathy Hochul said he had resigned amid growing calls that he step down from Democrats and Republicans.

"I have accepted Brian Benjamin's resignation effective immediately," she said in a statement. "While the legal process plays out, it is clear to both of us that he cannot continue to serve as lieutenant governor. New Yorkers deserve absolute confidence in their government, and I will continue working every day to deliver for them."

The article didn't say whether that "New Yorkers deserve absolute confidence in their government" was supposed to be a joke or not.

What Benjamin is accused of is detailed later in the article:

Benjamin, 45, is accused of conspiring to direct $50,000 of state funds to a Harlem real estate investor in order to get the developer to ship illegal campaign contributions to Benjamin's unsuccessful 2021 comptroller campaign. The Times reported the indictment is the result of a federal investigation that has gone on for more than a year when Benjamin was a state senator from Harlem.

"Benjamin abused his authority as a New York State senator, engaging in a bribery scheme using public funds for his own corrupt purposes," the indictment reads.

The developer, Gerald Migdol, was indicted in November on charges of making straw donations to Benjamin's city comptroller campaign, and the Daily News earlier this month said Benjamin had been subpoenaed by Manhattan prosecutors in relation to Migdol before his selection as lieutenant governor.

The indictment also contends that Benjamin "engaged in a series of lies and deceptions to cover up his scheme" that included falsifying campaign donor forms and providing "false information in vetting forms" he submitted "while under consideration to be appointed the next lieutenant governor of New York State."

The alleged scheme, the indictment states, goes back to 2019 when Benjamin was able to secure the $50,000 grant through the state budget, leading to Migdol's efforts to provide fraudulent campaign funds to Benjamin's comptroller run in a bid to make him eligible for public matching funds.

The charges include one count of bribery and honest services wire fraud conspiracy; one count of bribery; and two counts of falsification of records.

Benjamin at first seemed like he was going to try to tough it out and not resign, but thankfully that changed within a few hours. But this leaves Hochul in a bind. Especially since only last week she had said: "I have utmost confidence in my lieutenant governor. This is an independent investigation related to other people, and he's fully cooperating." But having to walk back a full-throated endorsement isn't her only problem:

The resignation, though, doesn't rid Hochul of her hand-picked second in command. Benjamin is still on the June 28 primary ballot and, as of now, both are seeking full four-year terms after stepping into their roles last year following the resignation of former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The Democrats run separately in the June primaries, but would run as a team in November if they make it to the general election. And there are few options to get him off the ballot at this point.

. . .

Hochul has few options to remove him from the election ballot at this point, since petitions have already been submitted -- other than him moving out of state or seeking a judgeship. So even with his resignation from office, Benjamin at this point will still be on the June primary ballot.

What this all means is that Hochul looks bad for selecting him in the first place (when she had to take over the top spot after Andrew Cuomo resigned in disgrace) and now she's got to hope that one of the candidates that was challenging him for the Democratic nomination actually wins -- so she can run with a politician she didn't personally select. In short: a complete mess.

For causing all of this in the first place, for not revealing his legal problems during his vetting process, and for being a corrupt New York politician (realizing that using that phrase may be headed towards "but I repeat myself" territory) that Boss Tweed himself would have approved of, Brian Benjamin is without a shadow of a doubt our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Since he eventually did do the right thing and resign in disgrace, we cannot provide contact information for Brian Benjamin, as it is our blanket policy not to provide such information for private citizens. So you'll have to look him up on your own if you'd like to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 658 (4/15/22)

Another mixed bunch of talking points this week, but we do have a fun one at the end. As always, use responsibly!

 

1
   Call it what it is, Joe

The White House press corps needs to get out more, obviously.

"President Joe Biden expressed his moral outrage towards the war crimes of Russia by using the word 'genocide' to describe Vladimir Putin's brutal actions. Somehow, the press corps decided that what was outrageous was that Biden dared to use such a word. Excuse me? American presidents are somehow not supposed to express moral outrage now? Can anyone look at the slaughter of innocents in Ukraine and not come to the same conclusion -- that Russia just wants to wipe them all out? A Russian military analyst on Russian state television this week called for 'concentration camps for Ukrainians opposed to the invasion.' How else would you characterize such a statement? I would remind everyone that a long time ago Ronald Reagan got some press pushback for calling the Soviet Union an 'evil empire,' so I guess Biden's got some good company in calling Putin a genocidal war criminal."

 

2
   Meanwhile, while the body bags pile up...

And who isn't happy that Biden is at the helm, when you consider the alternative.

"This week, on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News, former president Donald Trump made it pretty obvious which side he has always been on. Trump said about Vladimir Putin: 'I knew Putin very well -- almost as well as I know you, Sean,' while footage of body bags in Ukraine rolled on the screen. Later, Hannity tried to prompt Trump into at least calling Russia 'evil,' but Trump refused to do so. Does anybody have any doubt that if Trump were still in charge, we'd be sending military supplies to Russia right now, and not Ukraine?"

 

3
   Stock up on popcorn

It's like waiting for "Muellermas" all over again... (sigh).

"The House Select Committee on January 6th seems to be upping the pace of its leaks to the press, which I have to say is a good thing. This week we got to see a bunch of texts from the relevant period which were sent between White House Chief of Staff Mark Matthews and Senator Mike Lee and Representative Chip Roy. These reveal that even some of those most committed to aiding Trump in his fight against the clear results of the 2020 election eventually had to give up when there simply was no smoking gun of evidence to be found. After begging Matthews to give them something real -- anything! -- to hang their hat on, eventually both Roy and Lee realized that there was nothing there to begin with and that the one trying to steal the election was not the dastardly Democrats, but in fact Trump and his constellation of lunatic advisors. The committee has scheduled the first of its public hearings for next month, so we should soon get a flood of information about how close Trump actually came to stealing an election he lost. I for one will be watching all of this must-see TV."

 

4
   Voter fraud has consequences!

Sometimes, karma catches up with the right people.

"I see that the very same Mark Meadows -- a man entrusted with running the White House by the former president -- has been unceremoniously booted off the voter rolls in North Carolina and is being investigated for committing voter fraud. After registering to vote in a house he never even set foot in, it seems the authorities are catching up with this criminal activity. This is on top of the news that two people from central Florida -- at least one of whom is openly Republican -- had to plead guilty to their own voter fraud crimes this week. Funny how the harder Republicans look for 'massive voter fraud' the only crimes they seem to uncover are people who somehow voted for Trump twice, or otherwise illegally."

 

5
   Hunter who?

Yet another example of Republican projection surfaced.

"So I'm sitting here waiting for all the voices on the right who have been apoplectic over Hunter Biden's business dealings to similarly denounce Jared Kushner for getting the Saudis to pony up a cool two billion dollars for him to play around with, even though they knew full well he had no idea how to run a hedge fund and it was an incredible risk to take with that much money. The crown prince -- the same guy that authorized the killing and dismemberment of a Washington Post contributor -- overruled the fiduciary recommendation and sent the money along to Jared anyway. And of course this is on top of Ivanka getting her Chinese trademarks, various Trump family members running fraudulent and grifting 'charities,' all the Russian money that propped up Trump's business empire, and all the other shady deals the entire family has been engaged in for decades, now. But, you know, I'm still waiting for any of those folks who were so outraged over Hunter Biden to denounce Jared... but I'm not exactly holding my breath, if you know what I mean."

 

6
   Nothing like citing an inspirational example

This too will likely end up in the "things the media never bothers to skewer other Republicans with" file.

"A state senator in Tennessee, during the debate on a bill this week, actually tried to use Adolf Hitler as an inspirational example. No, really -- you just cannot make this stuff up. Here's what he had to say, word for word:"

I haven't given you all a history lesson in awhile, and I wanted to give you a little history on homelessness. In 1910, [Adolf] Hitler decided to live on the streets for a while. So for two years, Hitler lived on the streets and practiced his oratory, and his body language, and how to connect with citizens and then went on to lead a life that got him in the history books.

"This was during a debate on a bill to punish homelessness, I might add. So all those homeless people in Tennessee, take heart! If you just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, maybe one day you can make a difference in the world, just like Hitler did. Strange, I don't remember Horatio Alger ever writing that particular rags-to-riches story."

 

7
   Slava Ukraini!

Helping the war effort just got more amusing.

"There's a new way to support Ukraine in their war with Russia, because they just issued their promised stamp showing a Ukrainian soldier flipping the bird at a Russian warship. Just in case anyone hadn't heard the story yet, in the borders of these sheets of this stamp is printed -- in English as well as Ukrainian -- the following helpful explanation: 'RUSSIAN WARSHIP GO ... !' What's even more amusing is that days after the stamp was released, the Russian warship Moskva that is depicted in the image was sunk by a Ukrainian missile attack. There is no easy way for foreigners to purchase the stamps directly from the Ukrainian post office online, but spending about two minutes on eBay shows lots of them for sale (at various prices, to say the least!). This stamp may go down in history as the most politically potent philatelic statement of the century, so being a stamp-lover I've personally already ordered two sheets of them! Slava Ukraini!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

242 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Democratic Early Primary Free-For-All”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    heh. great talking points. i have to say, as impressive as jha might be, biden's calling a war criminal a war criminal should probably have at least gotten some serious consideration. it's talking point number one, after all, and not without risk.

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    K, Michale.

    Here's a Beau video regarding the latest execution of a non-white Murican via cop.

    I have asked you multiple times are you here to win hearts and minds (i.e. show us Libtards the way) or are you here simply to pollute Weigantia with right-wing propaganda in order supposedly "own the Libs?" If you show me the errors of my ways that's genuine engagement. But absent that, Bashi and Liz and everybody are wasting time with you.

    So, you either are or are not any damned use. And I feel sorry for you and Fredo. Is this all that you got? Is this futility your very best contribution to the human condition?

    No way in a million years do I think that you will step up to the plate.

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Or else both you guys, #FloridaMan and #Fredo are settling for less than you could. Pity, but I'd rather see ya than be ya, you poor bastards.*smh*

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yah. This week's FTPs hit hard on all kinds of malfeasance, but right-wing media protects the rubes from such inconvenient truths, da?

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Michale. As you're #TrumpsBitch you are #PutinsBitch as well.

    Congratulations.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    TDS is the delusion that Trump wasn't our worst President in 170 years. Just because he told you rubes so.

    Trash our economy.
    Killed a half million Americans via Criminal Negligence.
    Tried to hurt NATO in a way that Vlad could never even aspire to.
    The most divisive President since we started to use the word.
    Gave rich folks the most unpopular tax cut in our history.
    Put industry captains in charge of regulating themselves which means that they get to pollute for free.
    I could go on...
    But I'm wasting time, right Michale?

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Oh, and produced honorable and upright citizens that don't break their word and then are comfortable screwing CW out of a wager whilst polluting his comments section.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You are looking at decades of data...

    I am talking about the last 3 years..

    And it's a fact that the crime has risen in NYC the last 3 years..

    why 3 years and not 2, or 5, or 6.372? it's an arbitrary distinction. unless there's an important event or change in policy to explain the particular trend observed during the 3 years in question, the trend doesn't mean anything. it's a conclusion in search of data to support it, not a logical explanation of fact.

    Murders are up.. Gun violence is up..

    rapes are down. assaults are stable. and every single category is WAY lower than it was when rudy left office. which isn't necessarily a knock on him or his mayoral policies, just evidence that the overall downward trend is much stronger than any short or medium-term fluctuation. the two recent changes that look significant are between 2019 and 2020 (i.e. the beginning of covid). since the pandemic hit, it looks like murders went up around 40-50% and rapes went down about 20-30%. no other changes jump out at me.

    is there any specific change i've missed that you think might be meaningful?

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [8]

    Gotta ask ya, nypoet22 and especially Elizabeth Miller:

    Do either of you think that #FloridaMan and #Fredo are "reachable" or even "shameable?" They duck and cover, change the subhject and even pretend that they don't understand plain English words

    I'm relatively new to Weigantia yet I see zero/zilch/nada chance that either gives a flying fuck about how bad they look.

    So. Why bother paying them the slightest shred of attention as it simply doesn't make the slightest bit of difference?

    Why feed the trolls and therefore encourage them to keep polluting these pages?

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Don't.
    Feed.
    The trolls.
    It's of no damned use.

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And you, CW!

    Why the fuck do you let these clowns chase away the sentient beings in Weigantia?

    How much are they paying you?

    This sucks.

  12. [12] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    CW,

    You had me going there with that Mark Matthews fella in TP3, but I see he morphed into Mark Meadows by TP4.

    By the way, I looked up Mark Matthews and he was an interesting person. Apparently the longest-living Buffalo Soldier (the all-Black Cavalry units that fought in the Indian wars of the late 1800s), he was still in the Cavalry during WWI (Cavalry didn't go to Europe in WWI, apparently) and served in WWII. He was 111 when he died.

    Thanks for introducing me to him.

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,

    you're asking the wrong questions.

    michale has been part of this place even longer than i have, and has in fact contributed significant value at every stage, both financially and in terms of written content. why do i enjoy his contributions? because he's consistently entertaining and completely fearless with his opinions, no matter how unpopular or contrary to conventional thought they may be. and if you've read his stuff at more conservative sites, you'll find he challenges right-wing convention with just as much fervor, which i respect. i don't feel the need to convince him of anything, i just see the interaction as a chance to hone my own reasoning and have some fun in the process.

    don's a tougher case for me. i guess as an educator i can't help hoping he really does get his act together someday and start a successful movement. i know it's not very likely, but one never knows. at this point CW would certainly be well within his rights to ban don permanently, but as i see it his eternal patience doesn't cost much.

    pie springs eternal,

    JL

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    DRILL BABY DRILL!!! :D

    Biden administration resumes oil and gas leases on federal lands as gasoline prices soar

    The Bureau of Land Management will begin issuing sale notices next week
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-administration-resumes-oil-and-gas-leases-on-federal-lands

    The Hysterical Left is gonna VAPOR LOCK!!!! :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    So we're back to childish name-calling, eh?? :^/

    I did my part by limiting the bold and such..

    But obviously, you can't handle civilized discussion and all you want is to just get high and start flame wars..

    I have tired of such games..

    When you want a REAL discussion, come talk to me.. I'll be around.. I'll ALWAYS be around.. :D

    Have a happy... :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    why 3 years and not 2, or 5, or 6.372?

    Because that's when the Democrat Party agenda of DEFUND, DEMORALIZE, DEMONIZE THE POLICE really kicked in..

    THAT is why the last 3 years is distinctive...

    The explosion of violent crime rate is SOLELY and COMPLETELY the fault of the Democrat Party and their DEFUND, DEMORALIZE, DEMONIZE THE POLICE agenda..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    i wonder if catherine hicks (i had to look her up, but she's apparently still working) has done any recent star trek cameos...

    She's been mentioned.. Well, her character has been mentioned a couple times..

    It's funny.. I DO remember "seeing" her in a Trek, but it might have been a Trek Novel and not an actual episode...

    It must have been a novel because her IMDB Filmography only shows the 1986 Trek Movie THE VOYAGE HOME..

    Are you caught up on PICARD yet??? I have SO MUCH to say!!! :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The explosion of violent crime rate is SOLELY and COMPLETELY the fault of the Democrat Party and their DEFUND, DEMORALIZE, DEMONIZE THE POLICE agenda..

    Amend that to say:

    The explosion of violent crime rate ALL OVER THE COUNTRY is SOLELY and COMPLETELY the fault of the Democrat Party and their DEFUND, DEMORALIZE, DEMONIZE THE POLICE agenda..

    I will concede that, in SOME places, it's only the PERCEPTION of an explosion of violent crime..

    But in politics and especially in campaigning and elections, perceptions are reality to the every day American voter...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    SHOT ACROSS THE BOW

    Moscow sends warning to US after Ukraine appears to sink Russia's top warship

    DAY 52 LIVE UPDATES:Moscow sends warning to US after Ukraine appears to sink Russia's top warship
    https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ukraine-russia-updates-04-16-2022

    Ya see, here's the deal.. And I have said this from the start...

    Biden's been walking on eggshells and NOT doing anything substantive, soooo afraid that Putin is going escalate things..

    What I have stated time and time again is the Putin will do what Putin will do, regardless of ANY actions the allied forces take..

    Since Putin is going to escalate no matter what, doesn't it make MORE sense to deliver a fatal blow right at the outset.. To PREVENT Putin from escalating??

    Biden is going to blunder and hem-haw this country into WWIII....

    ANOTHER point I made from the get go...

    DSWS..??? Where ya been.. Yer about the only one that has been contrary'ly rational about this whole thing..

    What's yer take???

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the funny thing..

    As I pointed out a day or so ago, the problem that everyone has here with me is that my comments show THE FACTS of how bad the Democrats are and how BAD they frak up governing.. And Weigantians being the Democrat Party sl.... devotees they are, don't like to read the facts on how bad their precious is fraking up...

    But Bashi complains that it's my proclivity...

    I have addressed that.. My comment count is WAY down from what it used to be...

    And yet Bashi STILL complains...

    MC complains that it's my excessive BOLD...

    I have addressed THAT.. The amount of BOLD in my comments is like a TENTH of what it used to be..

    And yet MC STILL complains...

    So, obviously, despite their claims of proclivity and BOLD, the REAL reason they don't like my comments is.....

    wait for it....

    .......

    Because my comments are an excessive amount of FACTS on how Democrats are frakin' up this country...

    THAT is the sole reason why my comments are disliked..

    Not because of frequency, not because of attributes...

    SOLEY because I hold up Democrats and give the FACTS on how badly they are fraking things up..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, there is Liz' complaint about "extraneous comments"..

    She is more or less accurate on that and THAT aspect of my commenting hasn't changed much..

    But, in my defense,

    1- At the end of the day Weigantia is ALL about politics (it USED to be about politics and family, but not it's just politics) and ALL of my comments (beyond the occasional foray into MOVIE REVIEWS or Trek-related) are all about politics, so it's more or less on topic

    2- I have made past efforts to maintain strict on topic to the commentary topic and I still got grief because people STILL didn't like my comments so...

    Just imagine if I wasn't here, ya'all would think that everything is rosy with Democrats.. :D

    I think the late CW said it best a while ago..

    "Michale provides a valuable service here. He brings all the whacked out Republican theories and viewpoints and such to me here so I don't have to go out searching for them."
    -CW

    I quoted that from memory so it may not be word for word, but that was the gist of what was said..

    Not to mention my military and LEO expertise...

    So, yea, with no ego whatsoever... (ok maybe a LITTLE ego :D) I can honestly say that I STILL provide that valuable that the late CW valued so much... Until his affliction of PTDS took him away from us.. :^(

    "SO, what you SHOULD be saying is 'Thank you'!!"
    "THANK YOU!???"
    "Yer welcome!!"

    -MOANA

    :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not a WORD about Titter??

    I mean, Democrats losing their BIGGEST bastion of propaganda and censorship doesn't merit a COMMENT!!???

    I wish I could say I was surprised.. :^/

    The illusion of Democrat infallibility and permanence MUST be maintained.. :^/

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of attempts to re-open old battles, I am going to maintain my limited BOLD approach.. I like the looks and the sleek of the BlockQuote approach.. :D

    Trans doctor who helps teens transition says it’s now ‘gone too far’

    A transgender psychologist who has helped hundreds of teens transition has warned that it has “gone too far” — and fears many are making life-changing decisions because it’s “trendy” and pushed on social media.

    Erica Anderson, 71 — who is transgender herself — told the Los Angeles Times that she is horrified that even 13-year-old kids are now getting hormone treatment without even meeting with psychologists.

    “I think it’s gone too far,” said Anderson, who until recently led the US professional society at the forefront of transgender care.

    “For a while, we were all happy that society was becoming more accepting and more families than ever were embracing children that were gender variant.
    https://nypost.com/2022/04/15/transitions-have-gone-too-far-trans-psychologist/

    Even those who ARE Trans are recognizing how totally and completely out of hand Democrats are on this issue!!

    I mean this guy is a trans himself and he HELPS trans people..

    And even HE says things have gone too far...

    I mean, if you are AGAINST an Anti-Groomer law, then you KNOW ya have gone far FAR off the reservation, eh... :^/

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    These Scientists Want to Send Space Aliens a Cosmic Road Map to Earth

    Their plan is to beam details about human civilization–and Earth’s location in space–to region of our galaxy that might contain potentially habitable exoplanets
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-scientists-want-to-send-space-aliens-cosmic-road-map-to-earth-11650029667

    Yea...

    Let's tell the Borg exactly where we are...

    Or tell the Wraith exactly where a new plentiful feeding ground is located..

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong!!?? :^/

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think the late CW said it best a while ago..

    "Michale provides a valuable service here. He brings all the whacked out Republican theories and viewpoints and such to me here so I don't have to go out searching for them."
    -CW

    I quoted that from memory so it may not be word for word, but that was the gist of what was said..

    Just to make sure we're clear..

    What I bring to Weigantia are NOT whacked out theories and viewpoints.. I know ya'all BELIEVE that's what they are.. But then again, ya'all BELIEVE that 6 Jan was an insurrection worse than the civil war, 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined..

    So ya'all's BELIEF is obviously a bit on the Democrat agenda based whack'ed side of things.. :D

    No, what I bring to Weigantia are the FACTS and FACT-based opinions...

    I can provide factual basis for every one of the opinions I put forth..

    As for the facts themselves??

    They are irrefutable and unequivocally factual...

    Just had to make sure we were all clear.. :D

    Don't want ya'all getting any wild ideas.. :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    With Democrats' cheating rights agenda and building back broke agenda both dead in the water???

    Inflation dooms Dems' midterm chances, so they should pass as much as they can now

    With the political situation looking increasingly bleak, Democrats have only one real option: pass their agenda.
    https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/inflation-dooms-dems-midterm-chances-so-they-should-pass-much-n1294445

    Lemme know how THAT ^^^^ works out for ya'all, eh?? :D

    Yea, Democrats... The writing is on the wall...

    The Uber Nuclear Shellacking Of Biblical Proportions is coming..

    The ol' UNSBP.. Coming in November.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, Democrats... The writing is on the wall...

    The Uber Nuclear Shellacking Of Biblical Proportions is coming..

    The ol' UNSBP.. Coming in November.. :D

    Winter's coming

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Thank you for #13...

    Between that and #20 and #21 it explains perfectly my presence here.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's this??

    Stacey Abrams denied push to use unlimited contributions in Georgia governor race
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/stacey-abrams-denied-push-to-use-unlimited-contributions-in-georgia-governor-race

    Stacey BIG LIE Abrams wants to use unlimited BIG MONEY???

    I thought ya'all Democrats were against Big Money in elections..

    DH where are you!!???

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, I can't help but with the occasional needle and teasing.. :D

    "I kid the {Democrats} a lot, because they {Democrat}."
    -Eddie Murphy, DELERIOUS {paraphrased}

    :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why the crime stats of the last 3 years are of such importance..

    The Democrats’ twisted priorities on crime
    Their ‘criminal justice reform’ policies keep enabling the bad guys

    Crime is on the rise in cities across America and the left is asleep at the wheel. Democrats are set to be routed in the upcoming midterm elections, but instead of getting onboard with tough-on-crime policies, they’ve focused their efforts on measures that are wildly out of touch with even their own voters.

    To start, Democrats have their pandemic lockdowns to thank for at least some of the crime crisis. Carjackings are up in cities, which experts attribute to teenagers who are not in school or extracurricular programs. James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, said that the pandemic has given people too much free time, which can lead to an uptick in crime. New York City has seen major crimes increase by nearly 40 percent this year, and coincidentally also has some of the strictest pandemic measures.

    Even though Americans are clamoring for a crackdown on crime, Democrats have spent the past few years going all in on criminal justice reform. They’ve advocated for “defunding the police,” which in its most generous interpretation means redirecting funds to social workers. Their bail reform policies have made it much easier for violent and career criminals to get out of jail after committing a crime. Plenty of these individuals, such as the Waukesha man who mowed down bystanders at a Christmas parade, commit even more heinous acts of violence after being released.
    https://spectatorworld.com/topic/left-twisted-priorities-crime/

    The problem are out of control violent criminals and what do Democrats do??

    Go after "ghost guns" which are a miniscule and irrelevant part of the problem..

    Democrats need to be PRO-crime victim and ANTI-criminal..

    But with their DEFUND THE POLICE and NO BAIL policies, Democrats prove every day that they are PRO-CRIMINAL...

    :^/

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    She's been mentioned.. Well, her character has been mentioned a couple times..

    It's funny.. I DO remember "seeing" her in a Trek, but it might have been a Trek Novel and not an actual episode...

    Most recently, Dr Gillian Taylor showed up in the KHAN NOONIEN SINGH trilogy.. She worked with Roberta Lincoln who was an operative for Gary Seven, Supervisor 194..

    Come to think of it, that novel had to take place PRIOR to the events of STAR TREK IV THE VOYAGE HOME...

    Cuz Dr Taylor disappeared after those events.. Hmmmm.. Paradox???

    I'll have to re-read the book..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhh Yes...

    In May 1974, as a grad student in marine biology, Taylor attended the International Conference on Genetic Research and Experimentation in Rome. The conference featured some discussions on the use of genetics in preserving endangered species, which piqued Taylor's interests. While at the conference, she briefly met a "Dr. Veronica Neary" (actually Roberta Lincoln, investigating the disappearance of several Eastern-bloc geneticists). (TOS novel: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh, Volume 1)
    https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Gillian_Taylor

    Proper timeline established..

    No need to contact Department Of Temporal Investigations... :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fox News defends 'terrific' Peter Doocy after Psaki said he 'sounds like a son of a bitch': Network says his job is 'to elicit truth from power' after Biden's press secretary's jab

    Jen Psaki was asked during a Pod Save America taping if Fox's White House correspondent Peter Doocy was a 'stupid son of a bitch' or just played one on TV

    'He works for a network that provides people with questions that, nothing personal to any individual including Peter Doocy, but might make anyone sound like a stupid son of a bitch,' she replied

    Fox News Channel called Doocy a 'terrific' reporter in a statement to DailyMail.com and said he crafts his own queries
    Earlier this month the news broke that Psaki was in talks with MSNBC to join the left-leaning network once she left her White House post

    Psaki also said President Joe Biden would not be traveling to Ukraine, despite him telling reporters Thursday morning that, 'yeah,' he was up for the trip

    'No, no,' she assured the podcast hosts. 'He is ready, he's ready for anything, the man likes a fast car, some aviators ...We are not sending th president to Ukraine'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10721853/Psaki-says-Doocy-sounds-like-stupid-son-b-h-questions-Fox-gives-him.html

    It's clear that Biden is not in charge... If he were, then if he wanted to go to Ukraine, he would..

    "They won't let me go to Ukraine"
    -Joe Biden

    "No no no.. We are not sending Biden to Ukraine"
    -Jen Saki

    Com'on people..

    Do you need a ton of bricks to fall on your head before you acknowledge the FACTS..

    Biden is told where he can and cannot go.. Biden is told what he can and cannot say.. Biden is told who he can call on for questions and who he cannot call on for questions...

    Biden is NOT in charge... The facts overwhelmingly PROVE this as fact..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Elon Musk has rattled them

    His attempted takeover of Twitter has revealed just how terrified the liberal elites are of freedom of speech.

    We stand here on the edge of tyranny… Elon Musk wants to buy Twitter. That, roughly speaking, has been the commentariat reaction in recent days as the world’s richest man has launched a takeover attempt of the social-media giant, citing his concerns about its censorious policies as his main motivation.

    Musk revealed last week that he had become Twitter’s largest shareholder, with a 9.2 per cent stake. Now he’s offered to buy the whole company for a cool $43 billion, a nice premium on its current worth. As it stands, Twitter’s board is resisting and America’s great and good have gone berserk.

    The Washington Post’s Max Boot was swift out of the blocks. ‘I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter’, Boot tweeted. ‘He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.’
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/04/15/why-elon-musk-has-rattled-them/

    Get that??

    To preserve "democracy" we need to SILENCE MORE PEOPLE who say things that Democrat elites don't like..

    President Trump hasn't said anything different as far as encouraging violence that Democrats like Maxine Waters et al hasn't said...

    But Waters' words are acceptable because they are part and parcel to the Democrat Party anti-America agenda...

    Right Wingers and Left Wingers say and do pretty much the same things but ya'all Democrats only get in a tizzy when it's Right Wingers...

    22+ years (collectively) of Democrat BLM and Anti-Fa riots prove THAT beyond a doubt..

    It's going to be GOOD for this country to get Titter back to FREE SPEECH.. GOOD for this country to return President Trump to Titter.. :D

    I LIKE the name change from Twitter to Titter..

    That means Tweets will become Tits.. And.. well... yunno.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Amid all the fume and fury we see that censorship has become a core part of liberal-elite ideology. Politicians, think-tankers and commentators have got it into their heads that the threat to democracy comes not from censorship, but from an excess of freedom of speech – and that the state, Big Tech and corporate media must all do their bit to censor and protect civilisation.

    That this is the precise opposite of what liberal thinkers used to say doesn’t seem to bother them. They use euphemisms like ‘content moderation’ and ‘fighting misinformation’ to justify the silencing of their political opponents. So rattled were these people by the Trump revolt – which they blamed on social-media algorithms and Russian bots – they now believe that censorship is all that stands between America and fascism.

    That's ya'all's Democrat Party today??

    Democrats have gone from "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend unto death your right to say it" which was the default policy of EVERY Weigantian in the early years...

    Democrats have gone from THAT to "We must kill free speech and other freedoms in order to save Democracy..."

    That's ya'all's Democrat Party today..

    How could ya'all NOT hang your heads in shame???

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The notion that free speech is somehow at odds with democracy is perverse. The two go hand in hand. And the primary threat to democracy today comes not from those fighting for free speech, but from those trying to institutionalise censorship. The Hunter Biden laptop scandal is a prime example. In October 2020, Big Tech suppressed a story that was damaging to the Democrats during an election campaign – a New York Post scoop that Twitter and Facebook labelled ‘misinformation’ at the time, but which has since been stood up by other outlets. ‘Content moderation’ just means Big Tech putting its thumb on the scale.

    Elon Musk will not save free speech online. Even if his intentions really are good ones, the scale of the problem goes beyond one platform. And free speech online is too important to rely on the benevolence of billionaires. But his attempted takeover of Twitter has already done us a great service, in revealing how important censorship now is to America’s permanently hysterical elites.

    This goes a bit beyond the quoting boundaries that have been requested and for that I apologize..

    But this is a VERY important point and the facts of this need to be known, understood and acknowledged..

    When your Democrats start treading down the path of killing free speech, killing our democratic freedoms in order to "save" democracy.... Even those that have IMPOSED this dangerous censorship, such as Jack Dorsey, have acknowledged what a dangerous and HUGE mistake it is..

    That's a VERY dangerous slippery slope indeed...

    Something that would have been READILY acknowledged and agreed with prior to the onset of PTDS that has plagued Weigantia...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    How ridiculous are Democrats???


    THIS ridiculous

    :D

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy-
    "They duck and cover, change the subject and even pretend they don't understand plain English words."

    At least when it comes to me, what you are claiming is pure projection and is therefore an outright lie.

    I don't give a flying fuck how bad I look because I don't look bad.

    I provide rational argument while you duck and cover, change the subject and pretend you don't understand plain English words.

    When you say why bother paying attention what you are really saying is that you have no rational argument and when you try to troll with your lies and deflections I make you look bad.

    You are the polluter here.

    The question on whether I am reachable or shameable is just plain stupid.

    I have nothing to be ashamed of.

    The commenters here that do not engage in rational discussion, the commenters here that stand idly by while scum like you troll here and CW not addressing One Demand or explaining why he won't are the ones that should be ashamed.

    I can be reached.

    All you have to do is make a rational argument instead of your usual duck and covering, changing the subject and lying. Trying works better than lying.

    The question is can you be reached. You are the one that is ignoring rational argument.

    Here's your opportunity to reach me by making a rational argument.

    Explain how voting for big money candidates will get the big money out of politics when that hasn't worked for decades.

    Explain how using the basic principle of democracy that if politicians don't do what we want that we do not vote for them will not work which would be explaining why democracy will not work.

    Try being a sentient being instead of a troll.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden's numbers are collapsing among a group you really wouldn't expect
    Young Americans have turned on Joe Biden.

    That's the shocking finding of a Gallup analysis of its polling over the breadth of Biden's term released this week.
    In the early days of Biden's presidency (from January 2021 to June 2021), an average of 6 in 10 adult members of Generation Z -- those born between 1997 and 2004 -- approved of the job Biden was doing. During the period spanning September 2021 to March 2022, that number had plummeted to an average of just 39%.

    Among millennials -- those born between 1981 and 1996 -- the collapse is similarly stark. Biden's approval rating among that group stood at 60% in aggregated Gallup numbers in the first half of 2021, compared with 41% more recently.
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/15/politics/biden-youth-approval-polling/index.html

    Of course, millennials aren't smart enough to actually vote for President Trump in 2024...

    But they won't vote for Biden so they will just stay home in 2024 and likely in 2022 as well..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right.. 40 comments is enough to get ya'all started.. :D

    I'll check back in a bit.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    I don't have to get my act together because unlike CW, the Deathocrats and Republikillers it is not an act.

    I put together a plan of action and am doing exactly what I should be doing to get others to participate.

    CW should get his act together or more accurately discard his act and get real.

    The commenters here should make rational arguments about One Demand. If it has such serious flaws then you should be able to make the rational argument exposing those flaws.

    The fact that you would make this comment in response to Mtn caddy's lies and completely ignore that Mtn caddy has not made any rational argument and just trolls and lies seriously damages any credibility you may have.

    CW would be well within his rights to ban me permanently?

    So what?

    CW is well within his rights to ban anyone here for any reason.

    But CW would not be justified in banning me.

    CW's eternal patience?

    More like CW's eternal COWARDICE!

    The only time CW even pretended to address One Demand he used the same dodges the rest of you use and changed what One Demand is to something else and argued against that. And that was five years ago.

    It would be one thing to say CW was being patient if CW had actually ever addressed One Demand, done so multiple times and I had responded with the dodges and trolling that I get from other commenters.

    But as that has never happened the only correct description of CW's behavior is cowardice.

    And there is a cost to that beyond CW's credibility.

    See: the world as it now compared to what it could be.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Disinformation conference’ headlined by journalists who peddled false stories

    Reporters who won't admit to past mistakes shouldn't lecture others on honesty

    Inviting CNN’s chief media correspondent to a conference aimed at combating disinformation may sound like asking Bonnie and Clyde for advice on stopping bank robberies, but that’s exactly what happened at the University of Chicago last week.

    At a symposium titled, “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy,” Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s ironically named “Reliable Sources” show, held forth as though he is a kind of warrior, fighting an endless battle to stop fake news from getting airtime.

    “Through it all, I think the theme is ‘what’s real and what’s not, what’s reliable and what’s not,’” Mr. Stelter mused during a panel discussion. “I find as we talk about disinformation, there are so many examples that we can all agree are awful and clearly wrong.”

    He was given an immediate chance to atone for CNN’s sins in that area when University of Chicago freshman Christopher Phillips rose to ask a question specifically about Mr. Stelter’s network.

    “They push the Russian collusion hoax, they push the Jussie Smollett hoax, they smear Justice Kavanaugh as a rapist, and they also smeared Nick Sandmann as a white supremacist. And yes, they dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop affair as pure Russian disinformation,” began Mr. Phillips, who writes for a conservative student publication called The Chicago Thinker. “With mainstream corporate journalists becoming little more than apologists and cheerleaders for the regime, is it time to finally declare that the canon of journalistic ethics is dead or no longer operative?”
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/apr/14/disinformation-conference-headlined-by-journalists/

    Asking the denizens of the Left Wing media to hold a conference on DISINFORMATION is the epitome of having the fox guard the chicken coop..

    Of course, no one here will concede this...

    It doesn't fit the Democrat Party agenda, eh? :^/

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (29)-
    Where Am I?

    Against Stacey Abrams and the big money Deathocrats as well as the Big Money Republikillers.

    I am right where I should be.

    The question is where is CW, the rest of the commenters and yourself and why are you still supporting scum like Abrams or her Republikiller counterpartners?

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    The question is where is CW, the rest of the commenters and yourself and why are you still supporting scum like Abrams or her Republikiller counterpartners?

    It would probably help if you gave specifics..

    Not for Democrat Hypocrites... No one here will give any SUBSTANTIVE complaints against Democrat malfeasance and impropriety... That's simply too much to ask..

    But if you get people to agree with you on SPECIFIC actions of the GOP that are bad, then you get people agreeing with you..

    One of your problems, if you don't mind my saying so, is that you don't avail yourself of opportunity to find common ground like I do..

    Of course, oft times it simply doesn't work because the Party slavery is to ingrained..

    Give you an example.. I thought FOR SURE I would be able to find common ground with people here on opposing Groomers and supporting anti-Groomer laws..

    I was surprised to find NO ONE here would take a stand against Democrat Groomers... Oh, of course, Bash took a stand against RELIGIOUS Groomers.. But he is silent on Democrat/Teacher Groomers..

    So, sometimes the search for Common Ground is futile because Party slavery is too much the make up of people..

    But that doesn't negate the value of the search.. :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    lol @ a writer for a paper owned by Michael Bloomberg ($82b net worth) appearing in a paper owned by Jeff Bezos ($190b net worth) complaining about Elon Musk's stake in Twitter being a threat to free speech...
    https://tinyurl.com/kprpp899

    Hehehehehehehehehe You can't make this stuff up!!!

    It's hilarious how utterly SCARED Democrats are about an actual FREE SPEECH forum...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH

    See??? ^^^^ That is a PERFECT example of what SHOULD be common ground for EVERYONE here in Weigantia...

    But ideology is thicker than facts and common sense..

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't avail myself of opportunity to find common ground?

    Funny, I found common ground with 80% of citizens that want the big money out of politics.

    Too bad CW and the commenters here all seem to be in the other 20%. :D

    Party slavery is not the correct term. It's more like Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome.

    The result of this syndrome is people look for confirmation of what they want to believe rather than try to find out if what they believe is true.

    When they encounter someone that exposes that what they believe is not true they use dodges and personal attacks to try to discredit the person as an excuse to discredit the argument of the person so they do not have to consider whether they have been duped.

    Very similar to a religious belief as it is voluntary and therefore not slavery which is not voluntary.

    It is one of the reason con artists (cults) are successful because they know how and are willing to take advantage of people's proclivity to want confirmation of what they want to believe and do not like to told they have been duped.

    "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink if he is used to drinking the Koolaid."
    -Me

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Koolaid. Hmmmm.

    That could be the name for a concert organized to raise money to fight against global warming! :D

  50. [50] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re Bidens use of 'Genocide (On topic for a change), I'm reasonably certain the "gen" of "genocide' represents the gen" of the (likely of Latin origin?) word "genre", originally referring to ethnic commonality.

    Far as I'm aware, the population of Ukarine is not sufficiently racially/ethnically homogenious to justify being all lumped uner one single classification, meaning Biden's usagre is likely not technically justified.

    Of course, we all understand that he used it to capitalize on the horror which the term bears as a result of th holocaust.

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Everyone that donates gets a free pack of Kools! :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny, I found common ground with 80% of citizens that want the big money out of politics.

    Too bad CW and the commenters here all seem to be in the other 20%. :D

    "In this courtroom, justice is blind."
    "We don't live in this courtroom, Your Honor"

    -Philadelphia

    Your not out in America debating issues with 80% of Americans..

    Yer in Weigantia and it's THOSE people you need to find common ground with..

    "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink if he is used to drinking the Koolaid."

    And one way to GET the horse to drink YOUR koolaid is to find common ground with the horse..

    "Whoa, Sandworms. Ya hate 'em, right? I HATE 'EM MYSELF!"
    Beetleguese, BEETLEJUICE

    Find common ground.. It's the only way.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Far as I'm aware, the population of Ukarine is not sufficiently racially/ethnically homogenious to justify being all lumped uner one single classification, meaning Biden's usagre is likely not technically justified.

    Of course, we all understand that he used it to capitalize on the horror which the term bears as a result of th holocaust.

    I wondered that myself.. Seems like Biden's handlers are pulling out all the stops...

    "They call him 'The Sand Spider'.."
    "Why do they call him that?"
    "Probably because it sounds scary."

    -TRUE LIES

  54. [54] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re DiFi's senility-related problems (On Topic AGAIN !!!) how the hell can you guys tolerate the nearly-equivalent stuff emanating from Biden while while bad-mouthing her??

  55. [55] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [3
    [5]
    [21]

    Alrighty, Gentlemen!

    My apologies for the name calling, Michale.

    I now understand that you do provide a kind of "one stop shopping" service for those readers who may be Dark Side curious-- you do the work so we don't have to!
    I'm not convinced that engaging with you serves any purpose, but that's me.

    Carry on
    ;D

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Find common ground?

    Find the secret to nuclear fusion or dark matter. :D

    Common ground can only be found if all parties involved are willing to step on it.

    I am already there as I have made rational arguments. The rest of you use dodges like find common ground while refusing to engage in rational argument which is the only way to find common ground.

    Common ground has been located, pointed out to you and it is up to you to step on to it, not me because I am already there.

    You could do that by providing the explanations I ask of Mtn Caddy in comment 39.

    If you don't you expose that your call for me to find common ground is just pure projection on your part.

    It's here. You're all invited.

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Or is that fission?

  58. [58] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [55]

    I'm your Huckleberry.

    Doc Holiday
    TOMBSTONE

    So let's experiment. As a LEO you could, if you wanted, be of great use in honing my understanding and hence my views regarding law enforcement reform. I would like your reaction to the above Beau video. (11:31)

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Re DiFi's senility-related problems (On Topic AGAIN !!!) how the hell can you guys tolerate the nearly-equivalent stuff emanating from Biden while while bad-mouthing her??

    "I know, right!??"
    -Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    My apologies for the name calling, Michale.

    Apology accepted. Thank you..

    I'm not convinced that engaging with you serves any purpose, but that's me.

    "Charlie, we can't just throw her out into the street!!"
    "How do you know if ya don't try!!"

    -TWO AND A HALF MEN

    :D

    I would like your reaction to the above Beau video. (11:31)

    Give me a few to view and digest... But if it's anything like the LAST Beau LEO-related video you had me watch.... Well.....

    But I'll watch it with an open mind..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Find common ground?

    Find the secret to nuclear fusion or dark matter. :D

    Common ground can only be found if all parties involved are willing to step on it.

    Troo... Troo... That's where persistence comes in.. :D

    I have been doing this for over 16 years here in Weigantia.. I've had some wins... But it's a long hard slog...

    "It's not the destination.. It's the journey.."
    -Ensign Harry Kim, STAR TREK VOYAGER

  62. [62] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Here is an interesting twitter thread by someone who was CEO of Reddit for a few years in the early days about social networks and thoughts on Elon Musk taking over twitter. Being twitter, total pain to read but very interesting and likely what CW goes through here...

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW goes through stuff here?

    Well kudos to him for his stoic commitment to silence about it! :D

  64. [64] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    (61)-
    Apparently you are not willing to find common ground.

    Do as I say not as as I do?

    When the destination is common ground that your ENCS (comment 48) does not want you to find you take the Billy from Family Circus route. :D

    Except that Billy eventually actually reaches the destination.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. Beau thoughts..

    Beau's wrong..

    The Lyoya shooting was a good shoot..

    It ALL could have been avoided except for ONE mistake on the subject's part..

    FAILURE TO OBEY THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF POLICE

    The time to argue your case is in front of a judge/jury or in front of a review board..

    You fight the law at the scene??

    The LAW wins EVERYTIME...

    Lyoya is dead because he was stupid and fought the law..

    It's really that simple..

    Beau says "he had no intention of using violence" may or may not be accurate..

    BUT...

    But the minute that Lyoya grabbed at the cop's tazer??

    "May or may not" becomes FULL INTENT to use violence.. At THAT moment, intent is fully and completely established...

    You want some good sound advice from a LEO professional with 30 years experience in the fields of LEO, FSO, Security, Military???

    It's what I said above..

    The time to argue your case is in front of a judge/jury or in front of a review board.. You fight the law at the scene??

    The LAW wins EVERY FRAKIN' TIME...

    THAT is my advice.. As a seasoned and well-trained professional..

    The choice was Lyoya's...

    "He chose.... poorly"
    -Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is an interesting twitter thread by someone who was CEO of Reddit for a few years in the early days about social networks and thoughts on Elon Musk taking over twitter. Being twitter, total pain to read but very interesting and likely what CW goes through here...

    Who can follow Twitter??? (Soon to be Titter) hehehehe

    Can ya sum it up for us, Bash??

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well kudos to him for his stoic commitment to silence about it! :D

    That's more true than you probably know.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS

    Re DiFi's senility-related problems (On Topic AGAIN !!!)

    Yea, you gotta stop that.. Giving this forum a bad name! :D hehehehehehehehe

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC

    Lemme ask ya something..

    What's Beau's opinions about people actually accepting responsibility for their actions vis a vis interactions with police that go bad??

    I mean, if a person is going to FIGHT the law at the time of the incident, do they EVER take responsibility??

    Do they EVER claim, "Yea, I frak'ed up.. I shoulda just done what I was told and I woulda got home OK with no muss and no fuss.."

    If one doesn't obey the lawful orders of police and they find themselves dead or worse off than they were before the encounter with police..

    They have NO ONE to blame but themselves..

    THAT is a fact...

  70. [70] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It's long. It's not what you think. You have to read it yourself...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Allow me to give you an example...

    Say a cop is on patrol and notices a car driving erratically...

    The cop hits the reds/blues and the car takes off.. The driver of the car is driving drunk, KNOWS he is driving drunk and tries to evade the police..

    The driver loses control of the car trying to run from the cops and hits a telephone pole and is killed.

    HOW is ANY of that happening the fault of the LEO??

    Answer: It's not.. The drunk driver made a BAD choice and was killed because of it..

    How is that ANY different than what happened in the Lyoya case??

    Lyoya made a bad choice and was killed because of it..

    The LEO is blameless...

    You see the point??

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's long. It's not what you think. You have to read it yourself...

    Fair enough.. I'll give it a shot..

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    (67)-
    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Not something that you could comprehend as you have shown you do not want to know as you are still avoiding common ground.

    The only other possibility is that you already know you have no rational argument and are too deep into ENCS to even consider whether you have been duped.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Bash.. I read it..

    And yer right.. It's not what I thought..

    BUT it still has a lot of Left Wing attitude.. Especially this part..

    They DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS. They really don't.

    That's not factually accurate..

    If Zuckerberg didn't care about politics he wouldn't have sunk over a half BILLION dollars to make sure President Trump lost.... Jack Dorsey would not have, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, made the HUGE mistake of banning the NY POST over the Hunter Biden Laptop FACTS...

    Those social media assholes cared a GREAT DEAL about politics, insofar as making sure President Trump lost..

    And they didn't care HOW unethical and borderline illegal it was...

    Donald Trump was not de-platformed for being right-wing.

    Of course not.. President Trump was de-platformed because he was President Trump and actually did great things for this country..

    And Left Social Media assholes could NOT STAND him winning again..

    Yishan is mostly factually accurate in how he talks about the internet both past and current..

    But he is dead wrong that social media doesn't favor Democrats...

    Yishan claims that there is ample evidence of social media censoring Left Wingers in favor of conservatives??

    Let's see it...

    Show me..

    PROVE IT

    Ya can't because it's not factually accurate??

    As far as how it compares to Weigantia?? Yea, it's a good comparison..

    How many times was Kick cautioned and taken to task by CW for her "extraneous" activities of which you have to admit there was plenty...

    Near as I can recall, not a single solitary time was she EVER rebuked publicly by management.. At MOST it was a "collective" rebuke directed at the eponymous "OK, you guys...."

    Which all culminated in ME being read the riot act for a particularly virulent flame-war that SHE herself started..

    Even LIZ commented how unfair it was that I be singled out and Kick get away scot free...

    Bitter?? No I am not bitter.. Why do you ask?? :D

    So, yea.. What happens in Titter is what happens in Weigantia.. A bias'ed management that TOTALLY favors Left Wingers..

    Gotta run..

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apologies to all..

    The above came out a little harsher than I intended.. I had to rush it to go do an Easter thing with the grankids and the nuance was lost...

    I'll go more in depth to soften it once I get the granbabies out of the pool...

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    If politics TRULY doesn't matter in Titter, then Musk should be allowed to purchase Titter with NO ISSUES..

    If Twitter is ALL about protecting Left Wing Democrat agenda, then Musk will be prevented from buying Twitter..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is not about market value, you know. You're so correct. This is about a group of left-wing lunatics who have the new public square in Twitter, they've seen the power of it with the Hunter Biden laptop story and the 2020 election. They've seen what Twitter can do in 2016, too. They've seen how you can manipulate politics using this beacon, this major world beacon, for news that all the lefty blue checkmarks are on and they're not giving it up. This is their hill to die on. It has nothing to do with shareholder value.
    -Dan Bongino

    Yep.. Yep..

    If Musk is allowed to buy Twitter and make it Titter, then it's factually accurate that Twitter is NOT a Left Wing Democrat bastion of censorship and Orwellian "freedom"...

    If Musk is prevented from buying Twitter, then it's confirmed that Twitter is nothing but a Democrat/Left Wing cesspool of authoritarian dictatorship...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Durham writes of ‘spoofed’ data, Clinton ‘conspiracy’
    U.S. District Court filings reveal a new character in U.S. v. Michael Sussmann

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/apr/15/durham-writes-of-spoofed-data-clinton-conspiracy/

    There is simply NO DOUBT left...

    The entire Democrat/Clinton/Odumbo Russia Collusion delusion was a CON from the get-go...

    The FACTS are as clear as they are conclusive..

    I know, I know.. Ya'all want to forget ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion ever happened..

    Guess what?? This is simply NOT going to go away.. All the Democrat criminality and bullshit is going to come out.. :D

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mr. Sussmann wants Mr. Martin’s testimony limited to the fundamentals of DNS traffic, not Alfa-specific.

    Mr. Durham said that if any defense testimony touches on the supposed accuracy of Mr. Joffe’s data, then Mr. Martin is prepared to testify on “the possibility that such purported data was fabricated, altered, manipulated, spoofed, or intentionally generated for the purpose of creating the false appearance of communications.”

    That sentence basically tells you the FBI thinks all those Alfa pings on Trump domains were fake.

    Mr. Durham made an additional filing on Friday which further put the Alfa Bank saga under the hoax category.

    He said that both the FBI and CIA — identified as “agency 2” — concluded the Trump-Alfa communication link allegation was not true.

    More damning, the CIA examined the thumb drives of internet data provided by Mr. Sussmann in February 2017. It concluded that Mr. Sussmann’s compilations were not “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with (itself)” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated,” the Durham filing said.

    President Trump going to jail???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

    It be DEMOCRATS who are going to jail!! :D

  80. [80] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    A stopped clock is right twice a day… and Michale is correct in what he stated in #74. It’s why I cannot support BLM… they have no program promoting COMPLIANCE!

  81. [81] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale is not right in 74.

    There are plenty of examples of people on the left being de-platformed/censured. I just finished listening to Ralph Nader who constantly talks about people on the left being ignored by MSM and other media talking to Chris Hedges about how he was de-platformed. Anyone outside the accepted parameters of the show is shut out.

    This comment thread provides another perfect example.

    Not one of you cowards can address the simple explanations in comment 39. You can comment about ME but not my arguments with rational discussion- only dodges.

    None of you have any credibility or deserve to comment here.

    But of course, Liegantia has no program promoting compliance with not being an asshole. :D

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    JL,

    Last week, you posted a response to my post telling Michale the reasons that I do not support BLM. I really appreciated your comment and wanted to respond to your comments. I knew I was going to be someplace where I didn’t have internet service, so I had copied your comments to my notes so I could work on it. I had a LOT of time to think of what I wanted to say… probably WAY TOO MUCH time.

    I am currently editing down my response for clarity, but it will be lengthy. Just wanted to let you know that I had not ignored your thoughtful comments.

    Russ

  83. [83] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    My mistake….I was agreeing with Michale on #65…not 74.

    I appreciate you pointing that out to me.

    -R

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    You're welcome. I will take unintentional credit as it is intentionally the only credit I will get here. :D

    I was wondering how BLM related to 74.

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    I was thinking the same thing about Michale's #65.

    I guess you both have taught me a thing or two. :)

  87. [87] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [39]
    [48]

    Okay, Don. I'll give it another try. It's not that I disagree about the corrupting influence of Big Money in politics (I don't understand just why you harp on that unless you think it means OD HAS to be the solution! Really? That's not working down here, have you noticed?)

    I'm researching and composing my response to Lizsplaining Ukraine so that's my priority at the moment. But I promise to come back to you, Fellow Traveler.

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy, I thought you already responded to my Ukraine lizsplainer, no?

  89. [89] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [65]

    Okay you are undeniably right that just complying should reduce the chances of getting killed. But because it doesn't guarantee one's safety (whether it's statistically true or not don't you agree that it's a common belief among non-white American citizens? Otherwise, no BLM and no nationwide George Floyd protests.)

    Are you telling me that you wouldn't have handled this situation ANY DIFFERENTLY than the Officer involved? This is not a gotcha question.

    Whatever our political differences you have EXPERTISE that I lack. You're a smart guy and you love Murica every bit as much as this Army Vet.

    I could potentially provide EXPERTISE, if you are interested, on my experiences as, uh, someone on the "consumer" side of our Criminal so-called Justice System.

    For a white collar crime I was guilty of I spent two months in San Bernardino County back in 1997.

    I straightened out my career game plan (I'm just not very good at crime and, besides, are too many ways to make money in this land of opportunity to fuck around with criminal activity.)

    Flash forward to 2014 and I spent ten weeks in County for the crime of defending myself from a couple of drunk housemates. Being sober when they started the fight I finished it, ahem.

    I'm Army strong so they couldn't break me -- couldn't make accept a plea. Faced with wasting money in my being acquitted at trial, they dropped the charges.

    But let me be clear: law enforcement is spread pretty thinly up here in the San Bernardino mountains. Sometimes I'll stop one on the street or approach them when they're parked. I tell them, "Y'all do a thousand things in a row RIGHT, but when that one officer screws up that's the only time you get any press. I know that without you guys, we simply have NO civilation. We couldn't safely drive to the grocery store because of bandits. I served in the Army and you are serving ME. The Code of Silence isn't a good look for you guys, but otherwise, thanks."

    My life is an open book and I disclose this shady past as someone who got a taste of the belly of the beast which I hope offers a different perspective.

  90. [90] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [88]

    No, Elizabeth, I was half assed about it. But you've motivated me to do some serious research and I'll include links in the exposition that I'm working on.

    It's important that I get this right for me. If I educate and perhaps enlighten you, that's a bonus.

  91. [91] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [65]

    Please expand on why Beau's "just let him go, he didn't have to kill him" is NOT the lifesaving approach, here? No hurry, do it when the opportunity presents itself.

  92. [92] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Also, Michale.

    I'm now curious about the content that you post. (For the record I thank you for modifying your use of bold icy and all caps. I'm a fucking sensitive artsy, musical kind of guy and those things are the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. I promise you it's easier and I am hence more likely to review your offerings. For what it's worth.)

    My question is, do you subscribe to EVERYTHING you post or is any of it a kind of Devil's Advocacy? No question that up to now I thought you were just trying to "own" all us wretched Libtards, to simply piss people off. Now, obviously, I'm taking a fresh look at you and Brother Don.

    Signed --

    Curious Hillbilly

  93. [93] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [89]

    So I am by no means "anti-cop" nor do I regard Beau as one.

    If you believe that any community feedback about certain events is automatically "anti-cop" then you believe society has no right to hold law enforcement accountable. Say it ain't so! Or justify it, I'm all ears.

  94. [94] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [88]

    Elizabeth my research to date has pulled me closer to your views but on the whole I still disagree with most of what you've asserted about NATO's "blame" in this matter. But I've no right to disagree if I'm unwilling to "back my play," so that's what I'll do, hopefully before Canadian Rock Music Festival and Dance Party.

  95. [95] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [94]

    A suggested theme might be TWO-FER...one's top two faves of a given band.

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sunday nights aren't JUST for fabulous Canadian music, you know.

    You can play your favourites, too! :)

    It will be another late start for me tomorrow night, if at all - making Easter dinner, so ...

  97. [97] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    It's going to be tough deciding Neil Young and Rush.

    And Prism! ;D

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [95],

    Hmmm ... I can dig that.

    My most favourite radio station, Kelowna's Classic Rock 96.3 is featuring all this weekend bands that have resurrected their careers, regardless of what country they are from. Get it? RESURRECTED!!! :)

    I love this station ... no one has more fun with music than Kelowna's Classic Rock!

  99. [99] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    G'Nite, Weigantia.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [97],

    Man oh, man ... do I have you trained well or WHAT!?

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Nite, pal!

    Wait a second ... You're calling it a night pretty early, eh?

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I should too ... I have a date at the museum tomorrow am to see UNZIPPED again ... sadly, it will be leaving Canada in a few days but, it was a blast while it lasted!

    Unzipped

  103. [103] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [98]

    That sounds interesting! Let's figure out a good theme.

    My thing is that I was usually socializing Sunday nights. But I'm making lifestyle changes in anticipation of Spinal Fusion surgery on my neck, so I quit smoking and am laying off my beloved brewskis.
    I am convinced that I'm not alone in regarding Weigantia as kind of a family, a family that helped get me through Covid. Still plan to meet you for coffee in Vancouver, even if we disagree about Ukraine.

  104. [104] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [101]

    Okay. Think of it this way: if I finish the pint of Smirnoff TONIGHT I won't be PLASTERED tomorrow. I really am a lightweight drinker nowadays.

    So I'm pounding it down -- okay, I'm sipping it down...for YOU! For US, Darlin'. No need to thank me.

  105. [105] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And yes. MADE IN MURICA Smirnoff.

  106. [106] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [102]

    Yeah, well...this Yankee is jealous of you.

    At least us Muricans still play a superior form of Football down here.

  107. [107] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Church of Football!

    Church of Football, I say!

    And the Sacramental Potion is...beer!

  108. [108] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Upon further review...

    Okay, CFL three down versus NFL four down football is arguably more exciting, but still...USA! USA! USA!

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I put together a plan of action and am doing exactly what I should be doing to get others to participate.

    it's certainly worked well so far, so why mess with success? Within the next decade maybe you'll even be able to field a softball team!

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    There are plenty of examples of people on the left being de-platformed/censured.

    Prove it..

    And prove that such de-platforming is as prevalent and as negatively impactful on our society as it's done to conservatives..

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    A stopped clock is right twice a day…

    I am betting that if we limited our discussions to LEO matters, this "clock" would be factually accurate all day, no?? :D

    It's all relative my friend. :D

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, MC...

    You have made some good points.. Warning, this is going to be a LONG response...

    So grab a cold one and pull up a chair, ya'all.. :D

    Okay you are undeniably right that just complying should reduce the chances of getting killed. But because it doesn't guarantee one's safety

    Agreed.. There are some tragic mistakes on record where a subject didn't hear the LEO properly or was trying to comply and circumstances prevented it or was mentally ill or too young to comprehend the danger or was a bystander.. Tamir Rice and Breonna Taylor come to mind..

    They were still good shoots insofar as the cops did the right thing, the ONLY thing they could have done under the circumstances..

    But they are sad events in the realm of "accidents" and they are a very VERY small percentage of Officer Involved shootings...

    (whether it's statistically true or not don't you agree that it's a common belief among non-white American citizens? Otherwise, no BLM and no nationwide George Floyd protests.)

    George Floyd was a PERFECT example of When You Fight The Law The Law Wins.. If Floyd hadn't resisted arrest, he would be alive today.. Well, probably not as the drugs he ingested (4x the lethal limits of meth and fentynal) would have killed him anyways.. Eric Gardner?? Michael Brown?? Every person EVER shot by police?? 99.9% of them would be alive/unharmed if they had simply complied with the lawful orders of LEOs..

    Are you telling me that you wouldn't have handled this situation ANY DIFFERENTLY than the Officer involved? This is not a gotcha question.

    It is, but not in a bad way... :D I would never second-guess an on-scene officer. Sure, there are instances I, knowing the aftermath, might have did something different..

    But hindsight is always 20/20.. It's EASY to be a Monday Morning quarterback..

    You're a soldier.. Ever see combat?? Being a cop in a high crime area is very close to that..

    Nobody second guesses a soldier on the battlefield, unless there is CONCRETE IRREFUTABLE UNEQUIVOCAL FACTS to support such second guessing..

    Nobody should be second guessing cops in high crime areas unless the same applies..

    Whatever our political differences you have EXPERTISE that I lack. You're a smart guy and you love Murica every bit as much as this Army Vet.

    Awwww.. Flattery will get you EVERYWHERE... :D

    I could potentially provide EXPERTISE, if you are interested, on my experiences as, uh, someone on the "consumer" side of our Criminal so-called Justice System.

    For a white collar crime I was guilty of I spent two months in San Bernardino County back in 1997.

    I've had my own minor run-ins.. Nothing more than a night once or twice.. So, we all trip now and then...

    But let me be clear: law enforcement is spread pretty thinly up here in the San Bernardino mountains.

    I spent a goodly portion of my childhood in Banning and Beaumont CA... :D Fond memories

    But these days?? You couldn't PAY me enough to be a cop in California..

    My life is an open book and I disclose this shady past as someone who got a taste of the belly of the beast which I hope offers a different perspective.

    I am glad we can have these conversations.. It makes things MUCH more fun.. :D

    Please expand on why Beau's "just let him go, he didn't have to kill him" is NOT the lifesaving approach, here? No hurry, do it when the opportunity presents itself.

    Let me tell you of an incident that occurred when I was a patrolman.. Keep in mind this was in the 80s..

    I rolled back-up on a possible Deuce Traffic Stop.. Cop had a car pulled over for a erratic driving.. Cop suspected drunk driving.. It was a guy taking his child home... I didn't really involve myself in the actual stop, just hung back in case the subject got froggy.. The cop came back to me said the guy seems OK.. Maybe had one or two, but seems OK to drive and the driver just a few miles from home.. Cop said, "I'm just going to let him go.."

    We 10-8 from the scene... The driver continues on.. Few blocks away, the driver pulled in front of a truck speeding and was t-boned.. Drive and the child were killed..

    6 months later, that cop ate his gun...

    Just letting a subject go is really not an option because one NEVER knows the future..

    The rule of thumb that all cops follow that, if you care enough to ID a subject, then it's important enough to follow thru and actually ID a subject..

    If a subject is non-compliant about IDing themselves, then it's logical to infer that the subject is being evasive for a reason.

    NOTHING triggers an LEO's radar more than an evasive subject..

    My question is, do you subscribe to EVERYTHING you post or is any of it a kind of Devil's Advocacy? No question that up to now I thought you were just trying to "own" all us wretched Libtards, to simply piss people off.

    That's a very good question.. Very rarely do I play Devil's Advocate.. I honestly believe everything I post..

    Scary, eh? :D

    Maybe not to the extent or passion that I post about it.. Abortion is a good example.. I really have no dog in that hunt..

    But, like most things about Democrats, it's the hypocrisy that simply pisses me off... The elitist DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO snobbery...

    There are so many inherent contradictions in Democrats and what they believe vs what they actually do that just rubs me the wrong way...

    "Good talk.."
    -Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michigan protesters demand justice for Patrick Lyoya, who was fatally shot by Grand Rapids police officer

    Protesters in Grand Rapids say they will continue until there's justice for Patrick Lyoya
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-protesters-demand-justice-for-patrick-lyoya-who-was-fatally-shot-by-grand-rapids-police-officer

    A perfect example of Democrat hypocrisy and elitist attitude...

    If you fight with a cop and you go for a cops weapon??

    Your life is forfeit...

    There is simply no way to sugarcoat that or deny that one fact of reality...

    If you go for a cop's weapon? Expect to die..

    It's that simple...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for Democrats....

    Wisconsin Supreme Court adopts GOP-drawn legislative maps

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court has adopted Republican-drawn maps for the state Legislature, after initially approving maps drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/wisconsin-supreme-court-adopts-gop-drawn-legislative-maps-84112513

    ..... the hits just keep on comin'!! :D

    The Democrats' legislative maps were race-based...

    The GOP legislative maps were based on the facts, the reality and the law.. Race wasn't even a consideration..

    THAT is how it should be..

    Society should be based on COLOR BLIND parameters... Race should NEVER enter the equation..

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Florida has an anti-woke law!!!!????

    What Florida employers need to know if DeSantis approves new ‘anti-woke’ law

    The bill could affect how employers present diversity training programs.
    https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/04/14/what-florida-employers-need-to-know-if-desantis-approves-new-anti-woke-law/

    Gods, I love Florida!!!! :D

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    DeSantis to push through new Florida map that will bring big GOP gains

    Leaders in the GOP-controlled Legislature have already signaled they would accept whatever proposal the governor offered to them.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/13/desantis-new-florida-map-gop-gains-00025164

    DeSantis is going to do in Florida what Democrats have done in California..

    LOVE IT!! :D

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all REALLY want to know the FACTS of the Democrats Russia Collusion Delusion con....

    Durham says CIA found data alleging Trump-Russia connection not 'technically plausible,' was 'user created'

    Durham says he will seek immunity for a Fusion GPS employee during the trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-cia-concluded-data-alleging-trump-russia-connection-not-technically-plausible-user-created

    It's really hard to imagine how things can get ANY worse for Democrats, eh? :D

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    I now understand that you do provide a kind of "one stop shopping" service for those readers who may be Dark Side curious-- you do the work so we don't have to!

    Think of it like the SOTU Address the the President gives every year.. And a leader of the opposing Party gives a rebuttal..

    Weigantia's Administrator gives the SOTDP (State Of The Democrat Party) every day..

    And I give the rebuttal... :D Granted my rebuttals tend to be all over the place...

    But hay... Ya'all can't claim ignorance when the Democrat Party goes down in flames, eh?? AMIRIGHT!!?? :D

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ohio public university to pay $400,000 in damages after punishing professor over preferred pronoun controversy

    Professor sued Shawnee State University, claiming it violated his First Amendment rights
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-public-university-to-pay-400000-in-damages-after-punishing-professor-for-misgendering-student

    This "preferred pronoun" crap is complete and utter bullshit..

    If you were born a guy, then you are a him or a he... PERIOD..

    Tough titty to what you "prefer"... Your biology and the FACTS say yer a guy.. So yer a him or a he.. Deal with it..

    *I* "PREFER" to call this GUY an asshole..

    Will he accede to MY preference?? Of course HE won't..

    People really need to get over themselves..

    Facts, reality and SCIENCE don't bend to someone's... ANYONE's "preference"...

    Gender is a matter of BIOLOGY which is to say, it's a matter of SCIENCE...

    Something Democrats *CLAIM* they follow..

    Oh, but I am sure Democrats are hard at work trying to change the definition of "gender" to fit their agenda..

    :^/

    Another example of how far off the reservation Democrats are going..

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    As an aside, this is one of those things I really don't care too much about..

    It's just the elitism and snobbery that really pisses me off.

    Who the frak are these frak'ed in the head snobs to expect society as a whole to BEND to THEIR "preference"..

    Thinking your the wrong gender (gender dysphoria) is a PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC disorder that can be treated with drugs and therapy...

    Claiming it's natural evolution is simply another way Democrats discard REAL science in favor of activism..

  121. [121] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy (87)-
    I harp on big money corrupting out political process because big money corrupting our political process is the main reason we can't implement available affordable solutions to just about every problem.

    I have heard that promise from you before. I will believe it when I see it.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I really don't care much about it.. :D heh

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH..

    You are factually accurate in your assessment of the problem..

    It's just your solution is unrealistic..

    The only way your solution will come to pass in our lifetimes is if it is imposed..

    Which is the anti-thesis of freedom..

    Put another way..

    Murder is bad.. It would be nice if we could eliminate people killing other people..

    But to do so voluntarily is an impossibility due to human nature..

    Such as it is with your plan.. It doesn't take into account the human nature.. There will always be strong people who prey on weak people.. This is human nature..

    Someday we will have a currency-less Trek based society.

    But today is not that day..

    "There will come a day when your people will be welcome back to Atlantis. But today is not that day."
    -Commander Hela, STARGATE ATLANTIS

  124. [124] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NYpoet (109)-
    Even though it has not caught on YET it has worked better than voting for big money politicians.

    Decades of voting for big money politicians has resulted in more big money with each election cycle. The only exceptions were when an occasional mid-term election where the Senate races were all in smaller states that do not cost the millions in states like California, Texas that did not have Senate elections in that election but did in the previous mid-term cycle.

    Even zero progress is better than negative progress.

    But I have made some progress. I did finally get Ralph to mention it even though it was with a dodge and false information.

    Of course, all those here that had said in the past that I just had to get someone somewhere to mention it before they would say CW should address it dismissed/ignored this and moved the goalposts.

    In ten years I could field a softball team.

    Funny.

    But funny used as a dodge is still a dodge.

    Grow a pair and provide the explanations from comment 39 that shows how your approach that has been taking us in the wrong direction for decades has any chance of turning the negative progress it has achieved for decades into even zero progress, much less positive progress.

    Otherwise you are just a coward and a troll.

    How does it make sense to continue doing what hasn't worked and not try something that if you believe democracy works can provide a solution?

  125. [125] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (110)-
    Why do you always ask for proof when I have already provided an example?

    It happens to anyone that is not spewing that company line.

    Your obsession with who it happens more to is just you buying into the show and completely missing the point of the strategy which is to keep us divided arguing over who it happens to more.

    They ring the bell- you salivate.

  126. [126] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (123)-
    You have decreed that it will never happen!

    A statement worth nothing.

    The only way it will happen is if it is imposed which is the anti-thesis of freedom.

    You are partially correct.

    The only way it will happen is if it is imposed by citizens on the politicians. The politicians will not stop taking big money voluntarily.

    Power concedes nothing without a demand.

    But citizens using their votes to achieve a goal is not the anti-thesis of freedom. It is basic democracy.

    Cut the shit with your dodges and provide the explanations to comment 39.

    Otherwise you are just a coward and a troll.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do you always ask for proof when I have already provided an example?

    OK, Bashi.. :D

    Why do you always claim you have provided proof when we both know you haven't. :D

    Your obsession with who it happens more to is just you buying into the show and completely missing the point of the strategy which is to keep us divided arguing over who it happens to more.

    So, you are claiming that frequency/duration is NOT a factor??

    In that, you are factually not accurate...

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only way it will happen is if it is imposed by citizens on the politicians.

    OK.. So let the citizens come to that determination on their own.. :D

    But citizens using their votes to achieve a goal is not the anti-thesis of freedom. It is basic democracy.

    Citizens ARE using their votes..

    You just don't like the way the citizens are using their votes.. :D

    Cut the shit with your dodges and provide the explanations to comment 39.

    #39 is a big comment..

    Exactly what do you want an explanation for??

    And if you say all of it, that's just a dodge akin to how lawyers overburden opposing counsel with a deluge of discovery..

    If you want specifics, you have to BE specific..

  129. [129] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    (127)-
    I did not provide the reference to Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges?

    Frequency/duration is not the point. The point is that it happens to anyone out side the accepted parameters and the reason they get away with it is because people like you keep arguing with each other over who it is happening to more which is exactly how the powers that be manipulate you.

    Do you even understand anything you read?

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I finally joined Titter.. With all the Musk stuff going on, I decided to follow Musk to get the scoop and the FACTS straight from the horses mouth.

    Turns out I joined Titter years ago.. And guess who I follow!! hehehehehehe

    Well, now I have TWO people to follow.. :D

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hispanic voters deserting Biden in major warning sign for Democrats

    Amid border crisis, Hispanic support for president plummets as key voting demographic shifts to GOP.

    Only 26% of Hispanic voters approve of Biden's job performance, compared to 54% who disapprove, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday.

    Perhaps most striking, the poll found a staggering 41% of Hispanic voters "strongly disapprove" of Biden's handling of the presidency, while just 12% "strongly approve."

    Hispanics represent the country's second largest voting bloc by ethnicity.

    A downward trend in Hispanic support for Biden has been ongoing for months.
    https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/polling/biden-has-hispanic-problem

    November is NOT going to be pretty for Democrats...

  132. [132] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    (128)-
    Agreed. Let citizens come to that determination on their own.

    In order to come to that determination citizens must be informed of the opportunity/option.

    So if you truly believe in your statement then you should agree that CW should do his job to inform citizens so they can make that decision.

    You are correct that I do not like the way citizens are using their votes. We have all seen the results and it is not pretty.

    That is why I am offering another option on how citizens can use their votes the way the votes were designed to be used.

    What part of comment 39?

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Well, I can't say you never provide proof.

    That was proof right there that you are a coward and a troll and are lucky that Liegantia has no program promoting compliance with not being an asshole. :D

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did not provide the reference to Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges?

    You did not provide specifics..

    Frequency/duration is not the point. The point is that it happens to anyone out side the accepted parameters and the reason they get away with it is because people like you keep arguing with each other over who it is happening to more which is exactly how the powers that be manipulate you.

    Frequency/duration is EXACTLY the point..

    It's like the 6 Jan Committee's claim of "bi partisan" committee...

    It's not TRULY bi-partisan because it's made up SOLELY and COMPLETELY of Trump/America haters...

    OK, that's not a perfect example..

    Since money is at the heart of this debate, let's use that...

    A guy gives one friend a dollar and gives the OTHER friend a million dollars...

    The guy gave BOTH his friends money so YOUR claim is that it's equal..

    But it's NOT equal because the one friend got a buttload MORE than the other friend..

    So it is with Titter and censoring users..

    If Titter censors a handful of Democrats, but censor a couple million GOP'ers, YOUR claim is that Titter censors people equally..

    The FACTS prove that this is NOT accurate..

  134. [134] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And remember an asshole is not very far away from a cunt. :D

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    You did not provide specifics..

    If you want specific answers, you have to ask specific questions..

    If you want respectful answers, you have to provide respectful questions..

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Titter saga is providing a WEALTH of entertainment.. :D

    Twitter faces the ‘nightmare’ of being forced into free speech

    Twitter’s board of directors gathered this week to sign what sounds like a suicide pact. It unanimously voted to swallow a “poison pill” to tank the value of the social media giant’s shares rather than allow billionaire Elon Musk to buy the company.

    The move is one way to fend off hostile takeovers, but what is different in this case is the added source of the hostility: Twitter and many liberals are apoplectic over Musk’s call for free speech protections on the site.

    Company boards have a fiduciary duty to do what is best for shareholders, which usually is measured in share values. Twitter has long done the opposite. It has virtually written off many conservatives — and a large portion of its prospective market — with years of arbitrary censorship of dissenting views on everything from gender identity to global warming, election fraud and the pandemic. Most recently, Twitter suspended a group, Libs of Tik Tok, for “hateful conduct.” The conduct? Reposting what liberals have said about themselves.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3270514-twitter-faces-the-nightmare-of-being-forced-into-free-speech/

    Like I said.. If Musk is allowed to buy Titter with no muss, no fuss, then Titter IS providing a fair and balanced service and I will admit that I was wrong..

    But if there is hysterical opposition to Musk buying Titter, then I was factually accurate and Titter is a bastion of censorship and bigotry that only serves to further the Democrat Party Left Wing anti-America agenda...

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem comes when you sell fear for too long and at too high a price. Recently, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) agreed with MSNBC analyst John Heilemann that Democrats have to “scare the crap out of [voters] and get them to come out.”

    That line is not selling any better for the media than it is for social media, however. Trust in the media is at a record low, with only 7 percent expressing great trust in what is being reported. The United States ranks last in media trust among 46 nations.

    Just as the public does not want social media companies to control their views, it does not want the media to shape its news. In one recent poll, “76.3% of respondents from all political affiliations said that ‘the primary focus of the mainstream media’s coverage of current events is to advance their own opinions or political agendas.'"

    How sad is THAT.. US ranks dead last in Media Trust..

    Why??

    Because the Leftist/Democrat media have PROVEN that they CAN'T be trusted..

    From censoring COVID facts to censoring Political facts to censoring SCIENTIFIC Facts, the Leftist Media prove over and over again how full of shit and agenda-driven they really are..

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thus, an outbreak of free speech could have dire consequences for many in the political-corporate-media triumvirate. For them, the greatest danger is that Musk could be right and Twitter would become a more popular, more profitable company selling a free speech product.

    Poison pill maneuvers are often used to force a potential buyer to negotiate with the board. However, Twitter’s directors (who include Agrawal and Dorsey) have previously limited their product to advance their own political preferences. This time, federal law may force them to fulfill their fiduciary duties, even at the cost of supporting free speech. The problem for the board will occur when the “nightmare” of free speech comes in at $60 a share.

    If Musk can pull this off, this would be a EPIC slap down of the Democrat Party and it's anti-America agenda that will reverberate for DECADES to come...

    Fingers crossed... :D

  139. [139] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (133)-
    I provided you a reference to the specifics. You are really grasping for straws.

    Again, do you not understand what you read?

    Frequency/duration is the point?

    Why would I say that giving one person a dollar and giving another person a million dollars is equal?

    What does that have to do with anything?

    I am not saying that Twitter or anyone does it equally.

    I am pointing out that it is happening to all outside the accepted parameters and that is what matters because of the damage it causes.

    I am pointing out that arguing over the frequency/duration is what they want people to do to keep us divided so that we don't get together to fight back against it.

    The fact that you want to keep claiming that I am saying it is equal just shows you are buying into the show and are allowing the powers that be to manipulate you.

    If you want to argue/debate/discuss with me then argue with me and not the pretend me you create to argue against because the pretend me makes arguments that fit your warped view of reality and provides the opportunity to spew your nonsense.

  140. [140] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (135)-
    BWHAHAHAHAHA!

    Like your bullshit statements and dodges are respectful.

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here ya go, DH.. This one's for you.. :D

    Still Feeling the Bern
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/16/opinion/bernie-sanders-democratic-policies.html

    Don't say I never give ya nuttin'.. :D

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    I provided you a reference to the specifics. You are really grasping for straws.

    No, you provided me a long rant.. What specifically do you require an explanation for??

    If you won't provide specifics you have no foundation to demand specifics from others..

    The fact that you go to such lengths to AVOID giving specifics gets my spider-sense tingling..

    Much like if I am on patrol and make a stop and the driver goes to great lengths to avoid identifying himself..

    It makes me wonder what's he hiding?? What doesn't he want me to find out??

    What are you hiding, DH?? What don't you want me to find out??

  143. [143] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sorry. Not signing up.

    Whatever it was about I guess I will give the benefit of the doubt that it was well intended.

    But it is still just another comment without addressing the explanations in comment 39 and just another attempt to dodge engaging in rational discussion.

    Who knows what could happen if you put even half the effort into rational discussion that you deploy to avoid it! :D

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are MANY "explanations" in comment #39...

    Which one, SPECIFICALLY, do you want me to address??

    Like I said.. You can't ask for specifics unless you are willing to BE specific...

    It's like asking, "Why is the bible good??" Or "Why is the bible bad??"..

    WHICH PART???

    Unless you are going to be specific, I can't help you..

  145. [145] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (142)-
    You can't read the part of comment 39 that asks for explanations and understand that is what I want explained?

    Are you really that incompetent?

    You are the one hiding.

    Grow up or get lost.

    You are not contributing here, just trolling.

  146. [146] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Ju know what I am talking about."
    -Scarface

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, no one can say I didn't try.. :D

    When you are ready to give me specifics, I'll be ready to give you specifics.. :D

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the smoking gun appears...

    CIA Bombshell: The Sussmann data was "user created"
    Also: Confirmation of a frame-job against President-Elect Trump

    My late Friday night involved hitting refresh on PACER every so often, incurring the $0.10 charge for each search result as I waited on Special Counsel John Durham’s latest filing in the Michael Sussmann case. (Exciting, I know.)

    The motion exceeded expectations, discussing CIA conclusions that Sussmann was providing implausible data to federal authorities, providing CIA notes regarding their meeting with Sussmann, and confirmation that they essentially spied on President-Elect Trump.

    The motion can be found here. It was filed as part of the government’s efforts to convince the court that the evidence it seeks to admit in Sussmann’s trial is relevant and admissible.

    Let’s go through the most important parts.
    https://technofog.substack.com/p/cia-bombshell-the-sussmann-data-was?s=r

    The data that implicated President Trump in Russia Collusion was fabricated. Created by Clinton operatives solely and completely out of nothing with the SOLE intent of framing President Trump..

    Democrat chickens are coming home to roost.. :D

  149. [149] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    (147)-
    Yes I can say you didn't try. And it is accurate and proven by your comments.

    You are a liar, a coward and a troll.

    There is no place for that or you here.

    Get lost.

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Zelenskyy says Biden 'should come' to Ukraine days after White House says he has no plans to go

    Zelenskyy continues to label Russia's actions in Ukraine as a genocide
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/zelenskyy-wants-biden-to-visit-ukraine-he-should-come-here-to-see

    Biden won't go to Ukraine..

    He is a skeered and his handlers won't let him.. :^/

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Come talk to me when you have specifics...

  152. [152] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And remember an asshole is not very far away from a cunt. :D

    Wow Don, you really are a crack geographer.

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    "huh uh.. huh huh uh... You said 'crack' ..huh uh huh..."
    -Beavis

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Protect the children

    In the wake of Florida’s overwhelmingly popular law prohibiting classroom instruction on sexuality to students in kindergarten through the third grade, many Americans are honestly baffled by the outcry. Why do progressive educators, Disney, and the White House all insist that 5-year-olds must be able to learn about scientifically dubious beliefs such as fluid gender identities?
    https://wng.org/opinions/protect-the-children-1650019354

    THAT is the question that no one can seem to answer... :^/

  155. [155] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I've never taught primary school, but i do have a four year old of my own, who has in fact asked me some very explicit questions. If he had asked those questions of his teacher, i would not want her to be brought up on charges for answering honestly.

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've never taught primary school, but i do have a four year old of my own, who has in fact asked me some very explicit questions. If he had asked those questions of his teacher, i would not want her to be brought up on charges for answering honestly.

    And nothing in the FL Anti-Groomer law would prevent that..

    But do YOU want a school person INITIATING sexually explicit contact or conversation with your 4 yr old child??

    Of course you wouldn't..

    No SANE parent would!??

    THAT is the whole point..

  157. [157] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Nor would I want her to refuse to answer Hugo honestly on the grounds that some other student who didn't hear him asking might mistakenly report that she'd initiated the discussion. As i see it, the law will do a lot to prevent honesty, and nothing to prevent pedophilia.

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nor would I want her to refuse to answer Hugo honestly on the grounds that some other student who didn't hear him asking might mistakenly report that she'd initiated the discussion.

    Com'on JL.. We're talking KINDERGARTNERS... Do you HONESTLY believe that's an issue??

    As i see it, the law will do a lot to prevent honesty, and nothing to prevent pedophilia.

    That's because you haven't read the law..

    By definition, it's an Anti GROOMER law... So, by definition it's preventive..

    Put it another way..

    What would you say about this law if it applied to the CLERGY and no teachers??

    You would agree with me.. :D

    See how that works?

  159. [159] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The eighteenth amendment was by definition an anti alcohol law. Did it prevent people from drinking alcohol, or did it mainly have a lot of unintended consequences?

    Many sane parents would oppose a law that made the claim to be anti-grooming but didn't deliver that, irrespective of whether it picked on teachers, clergy, cops or cat food canners.

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many sane parents would oppose a law that made the claim to be anti-grooming but didn't deliver that,

    Then we're good because the FL *DOES* deliver that..

    So, there is no problem here, right??

    Basically what Democrats are arguing for is sex-ed and ideological gender-bending for kindergartners..

    What SANE parent would be OK with that??

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    By ya'all's OWN admission, teachers in FL are now afraid to broach sexual activities and conversations with kindergartners..

    That is a GOOD thing..

    So, obviously the law IS delivering on it's Anti Grooming promise..

    Anti-Grooming law = Anti-Pedophile law

    What SANE parent would have a problem with that??

  162. [162] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Color me unconvinced.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    No problemo.. :D

  164. [164] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    JL

    every case is different.

    michael brown reached for an officer's weapon. eric garner sold cigarettes on a street corner. trayvon martin, nobody will ever know what he did or didn't do, he was 17. i don't think anybody holds these people out as role models, but at least the latter two probably qualify as victims. george floyd and ahmad arbury certainly do. Philando Castille almost certainly.

    yes, most LEO's are good people and aren't out to kill anyone. but there's a systemic problem in our country when it comes to relationships between cops and communities.

    You are correct; there is a systemic problem in our country when it comes to relationships between cops and communities — that problem being that the media keeps telling us that there is a problem between cops and communities even if the data doesn’t support that claim. The media has intentionally misrepresented the facts to encourage that rift.

    BLM had large signage made that showed a photo of Michael Brown with the word “MARTYR” across the bottom half of the sign. Martyr’s are typically revered by the people. BLM has never acknowledged that Brown’s actions (physically attacking a police officer and attempting to disarm him) played any role in his death.

    eric garner sold cigarettes on a street corner

    That is only part of the story. A court had issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Gardner and two police officers attempted to affect it, but Mr. Gardner refused to put his hands behind his back or to be taken into custody — so the two officers decided to walk away to prevent an altercation. This occurred the day before (this was a great example of police de-escalating a scene, but the media chose not to mention this for some odd reason) the encounter where Gardner lost his life.

    Gardner was a very large, strong man. If he didn’t want to go with the officers, physically compelling him to comply without injury to any involved would not be an easy task…but was possible. That’s why, the next day, the two officers returned to serve the warrant on Gardner… but this time bringing more than a dozen police officers to assist them. When the video first came out, I assumed that it had occurred inside a police department because of the number of officers involved. Only later did I find out that they had gone in masse to make the arrest. They hoped that by showing up with that number of officers, Gardner would recognize that he would not be able to avoid being taken into custody — that resistance was futile! The police brought enough officers to hopefully be able to physically force compliance with the least amount of risk of injury if Gardner still chose to resist arrest. Gardner, when he saw the officers approaching, handed his phone to a friend and told him to get what was about to happen on video for Gardner. Gardner could have complied and we would have never known his name. But he did not comply. At any point during the time Gardner screamed “I can’t breathe!” 11 times, he could have stopped fighting the officers…but he didn’t.

    The press ran with the Gardner family’s claim that the police killed Gardner using an illegal choke hold against him. This was not the truth, the officer had Gardner in a headlock. If you are in a chokehold, you cannot loudly scream “I can’t breathe!” even once…much less 11 times! Still, the press chose to mislabel the hold the police used to control Gardner’s struggle against them as a “stranglehold” because it fit the narrative they wanted to enrage the public.

  165. [165] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Continued…

    trayvon martin, nobody will ever know what he did or didn't do, he was 17.

    Ummm…we DO KNOW what Martin did that night. He was on his cell phone talking to his friend as he walked past where George Zimmerman was parked watching the neighborhood and took offense with how GZ had looked at Martin. Martin told his friend that he was “going to teach that cracker a lesson”. Martin circled back around and took GZ by surprise and began physically assaulting GZ. Minus the gunshot wound, the ME’s autopsy found that Martin had only offensive wounds from the physical altercation — scrapes and scratches to his knuckles consistent with GZ’s claim that Martin had jumped him, pinned him to the ground and punched him in the face before Martin begin bashing GZ’s skull into the asphalt. The bullet trajectory showed that Martin was on top of and leaning over GZ when he was shot — again, consistent with GZ’s claims. GZ had multiple bruises on his face and his scalp had gashes with gravel in the wounds.

    The night after it occurred, the story that the big papers were telling was that a poor black child was shot for walking thru a white neighborhood trying to get back home from getting candy. They did not give any real details, so I tried to find the real story from one of the local news sites. I searched for articles listing the deceased as Trayvon Martin. But what I found on the local site made no sense, because the only story on the local news site that had a person killed being named Trayvon Martin was reporting a story of a man, Martin, being shot in self defense after Martin had attacked a total stranger! The article, complete with photos of the gashes to Zimmerman’s scalp, made it clear that the shooter had been cleared by the police for what was a textbook definition for a justified homicide in defense of one’s own life. It took me a while for me to realize the stories were reporting on the same event, but in entirely different ways! Two days later, the news station had pulled their article and was now running the national narrative.

    GZ was only indicted after the state chose to overrule the local prosecutor’s decision that the evidence did not support criminal charges being filed. The state had not uncovered any new evidence — it simply decided to place politics over the rule of law.

    BLM has never acknowledged that Martin’s actions played any role in his death. The media created a fictional account of what occurred that night that had almost no basis in reality! Trayvon Martin was a very muscular young man who was very athletic and who was very proud of his musculature and appearance. He had lots of photos online that showed off how built he was…yet all of the networks and media outlets chose to run a picture of Trayvon from when he was a pre-teen child. To this day, that is the only photo the media uses.

    NBC edited the 911 phone call from GZ so that you did not hear the call receiver asking GZ direct questions about what the suspect he was report had been wearing. This made it appear that GZ was reporting a suspicious person based solely on the fact that they were wearing a gray hoodie. The other networks, all who undoubtedly had requested copies of the 911 call for themselves, then chose to use the NBC’s edited version — giving NBC the credit for it, but never mentioning it had been edited to remove the call receiver’s questioning of GZ!

    Martin’s death, while not a police related case, may have been the worst case of biased journalism focused on ratings over reality that we’ve seen in the 21st century…thus far. The media wove a story together a fictional tale of a poor Black child being hunted and brutally murdered by a wealthy White man simply for walking thru the wealthy neighborhood while being Black. They ignored all of the evidence and facts in telling their tale. Sadly, the fictional story is still what most Americans have come to believe as the truth.

  166. [166] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Continued…

    George Floyd’s death was horrible to watch. But the trial of Officer Chauvin was almost as disturbing. It was shocking to see the prosecution not only ignore their own medical examiner’s autopsy findings; but to bring on multiple “experts” to discredit the prosecution’s own witness’ autopsy findings that will surely damage the credibility of the ME’s office henceforth. The prosecution chose to ignore the medical evidence that showed cardiopulmonary arrest (heart disease) was the cause of death for George Floyd — telling the jury to trust their eyes to determine what/who killed Floyd. You know, because our eyes can determine “cause of death” far better than the Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy.

    The knee to neck restraint puts pressure on a suspect’s neck to control the suspect’s movement — the officer only needs to apply the minimal pressure necessary to keep the suspect from attempting to move. “Control the head and you control the body’s movement” is wisdom we’ve used in taming large animals to be used as transportation; and in training athletes in sports like wrestling, rugby, and football. It truly is a balancing act when applied properly. Too little pressure and the suspect is able to stand up; too much pressure and the officer will fall forward and lose control of the suspect. Once the suspect has been handcuffed, the officer no long needs to apply pressure and will just place his knee on the back of the neck so pressure can be applied if the suspect attempts to stand up.

    The media still says Floyd was killed by Chauvin’s knee pressing on the back of his neck for almost 10 minutes. The prosecution’s expert identified only one 15 second section of the video of Officer Chauvin where it was clear that he was applying pressure to Floyd’s neck instead of his knee just being in contact with Floyd’s neck. Much of the video shows Chauvin sitting with his full weight on his heels…his knee merely resting on Floyd’s neck.
    If you pay attention to how the prosecution worded their questions to their experts, they are always asked assuming that Chauvin was applying full pressure on Floyd’s neck.

    The ME noted that there was no bruising or even abrasions to the back of Floyd’s neck; which you’d expect to find if pressure had been applied for almost 10 minutes. The ME testified that even if the officer’s knee had been pressing on the back of the neck the entire time, there was nothing to suggest it would cause a person to die. It doesn’t cut off the person’s airway (strangulation), not does it entirely cut off blood flow to the brain — if it cuts it off even a little has never been demonstrated. Personally, I wish Chauvin’s attorney would have done his closing arguments with an officer pressing a knee to his neck in the same manner that Chauvin had done it to George Floyd to demonstrate that it is a very safe technique to keep a person in custody from standing. Thanks to this case, police departments across the country have given in to the public’s outrage and ignorance — no longer allowing officers to use the knee to neck technique…and losing one of the safest tools in the police’s practices for restraining a person.

    Officer Chauvin was guilty of negligence in not monitoring a detained person in his custody. When the officers first approached Floyd, he appeared diaphoretic, was breathing heavily, and had to be helped so he could sit on the ground as the officers questioned him. And complaining of not being able to breathe is one of the symptoms displayed by someone suffering from cardiopulmonary arrest. Sadly, this is the one case that compliance would not have changed the outcome for Floyd. The struggle and his being positioned chest down did not help his condition; but this was a death that had begun prior to the police being called on Floyd. There was no way to stop it once it started. That’s how most terminal diseases work.

    Ahmad Arbury was hunted down and murdered by the ex-cop, his son, and their friend. They deserve to rot in Hell! But this was not technically an officer involved death. The prosecutor delay in charging the men is the DA’s problem, not the police’s.

    Philando Castille was killed when he announced he had a gun as he was reaching for his wallet which was sitting atop where his gun was located. Castille might as well have screamed, “Say Hello to my little friend!!” in his best Scarface voice! I have seen videos of police training scenarios that played out the exact way that it did with Castille that night. Gun owners should always tell the officer that they have a firearm in the vehicle while keeping their hands on the wheel. You let the officer instruct you as to what they want you to do to retrieve the firearm. Castille died because he did not know/exercise proper gun safety rules. Castille’s death was tragic, but the officer acted appropriately and followed department policy.

  167. [167] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (151)-
    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    Your call for specifics was answered and provided and you just keep repeating the same asshole bullshit asking for what was already provided.

    Are you that much of a pussy that you can't engage in rational discussion- just childish bullshit designed to antagonize and cause trouble?

    There is no place for that here.

    Behave or fuck off.

  168. [168] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    This is it…I promise!

    yes, most LEO's are good people and aren't out to kill anyone.

    I am pretty sure there is a compliment in there somewhere. If I said “Yes, most teachers are good people and aren’t out to rape children,” how would that comment make you feel? Maybe because when we use “most” it suggests that there are still a significant percentage that do want to commit such disgusting acts of violence? The truth is that when compared to the total number people employed as teachers/law enforcement, the number that do commit such heinous acts is so low that they cannot be viewed as anything more than an outlier.

    The liberal media in this country has a responsibility to question our governments’ actions to make sure they are not abusing their authority. Sadly, reporting that abuse has occurred (especially in cases where race supposedly plays a factor) has proven to be a huge financial boom for media organizations.

    Media prior to 2020 loved to say that our country was experiencing “an epidemic of police violence against Black Americans”. It wasn’t until our country experienced a true epidemic — and we saw 10x the deaths from the disease in a single day compared to the total of Officer related deaths over a 5 yr period — did we see how grossly misleading such statements are!

    Every week, police in this country respond to millions of calls for service without incident. The numbers do not support the claim that the police are out of control…just the opposite, actually.

    Last year, a study was conducted on the Seattle Police Department. The findings were that Blacks was 7x more likely to have a “use of force” used against them than Whites were. Most people hear that and believe it shows just how racist the police are. But no one bothers to really look at why that is. They assume that the officers involved target Blacks to rough them up. But the data does not support that.

    When someone reports a crime that they witnessed, a description of the suspect is one of the first bits of info that is requested. When Blacks complain of being stopped by police and questioned for no reason; that is rarely the case! If we had a bunch of racist cops always targeting Blacks, then you would expect cops stopping and questioning Black males on calls where the suspect info says they are looking for a White male. That doesn’t happen.

    When I was a 911 call receiver, I had a call come in from an extremely angry Black man complaining that he’d been stopped and accused of being a rapist simply because he was Black. It sounded like he was almost in tears as he described randomly being stopped walking down the street. There were lots of whites walking around, but the police didn’t stop any of them…just him he told me. When he told me where this encounter took place, I asked him if he was between 20 -25 yo? Was he 6’ to 6’2” in height? Did he weigh between 185lbs to 215lbs? Did he have a shaved head? Did he have a goatee? Was he muscular/good shape physically? Was he wearing a white t-shirt and black workout pants or sweats? Finally I asked him if he had red hi-tops on? He said yes to every question that I asked. I asked him if he was aware that a young woman had reported being sexually assaulted one block away for him ten minutes before he had been stopped by police — and did he now understand given the description she gave why he had been stopped and questioned by the officers? I told him that the victim had cleared him as not being her attacker when a patrol car drove her by where he was being held by the police. He told me that he no longer wished to file a complaint against the officers.

    People have joked that all people of any given race look alike; but that’s not true. It’s much more true that people from any race sound like they look alike when people are asked to describe their physical appearance.

    Officers often have no say as to whether a “use of force” is required. When pulling over an occupied vehicle that has been reported stolen, officers will conduct what is called a “felony stop” — the department’s procedures call for the officers to have their guns drawn (the “use of force”) and then, one at a time, instructing each occupant out of the vehicle, lying face down with their hands behind their heads…regardless of race, gender, or age of the occupant. Consider this example:

    An Associate Pastor calls the police early one Saturday morning reporting that the church’s new 12 person van was stolen from the church’s parking lot. An officer takes a stolen vehicle report and enters it into the system.

    Cut to around 11 pm that night: the “stolen” van is stopped by police in Atlanta. They were coming back from Six Flags, the van filled with tired teenagers. Each person in the van was ordered out of the van at gunpoint — one at a time — ordered to lay facedown with their hands behind their heads, then were handcuffed and taken into custody. It seems that new Youth Pastor the church hired was not fully informed of how strict the church’s policy on filling out the proper forms when needing to use a van was. At his previous church, if no one had reserved a van prior to needing it, he could use the van as needed. Once the Associate Pastor was contacted, everyone was released and no charges filed.

    If the van belonged to a Black church and it was 11 Black teens and one Black youth pastor that got pulled over at gun point. In Seattle, every officer is required to fill out a “use of force” report identifying any person they used force with. If four officers were called out to help with the felony stop on that many individuals, then the department would have 48 (4 officers X 12 uses of force on 12 occupants) uses of force against Black citizens from that one call. That is 48 uses of force that the officers were required to carry out where the race of the occupant did not play a factor at all!

    When we say, “When encountering the police, Blacks are 7x more likely to experience a use of force against them than Whites” we often leave out that that % is based on the total overall population of the city and what percentage of the population Blacks make up. And we definitely leave off that their non-compliance is what will almost always lead to a use of force against them.

    If Blacks fear that they are going to be hurt by the police after being told countless times that they are 7x more like to have force used against them, what if that fear is what causes them not comply?

    When the officer gives a lawful command to a person and the person refuses to comply with the command; they have committed a crime (obstruction or resisting arrest). The officer is then authorized to use force to compel compliance.

    In the Seattle report, it appears that the police’s uses of force against Blacks were the result of 1) the department’s policy requiring it based on the type of crime involved, and 2) failure to comply to a lawful command given.

    The Breonna Taylor case was the first one that I realized that the WAPO (they broke the story) wasn’t reporting the story immediately after it had occurred. Instead, they reported on it only AFTER the boyfriend had filed a lawsuit against the department. In fact, the entire article came solely from info contained in the attorney’s narrative seeking millions in damage. Even the police’s comments quoted in the article did not actually come directly from the police. They were quotes that the lawsuit claimed the police had made. Once a lawsuit is filed, police departments will not comment on the case.

    Some of the cases WAPO has reported on occurred months earlier, but they only got the publicity once the lawsuit was filed. I hope that the attorney’s involved are giving the reporters a percentage of the settlements, because they truly deserve it!

    For the last decade, every year less than 4% of law enforcement agencies report even a single officer-involved shooting. Our police are extremely well trained in when deadly force is needed and appropriate. The reason that so few officers are prosecuted in officer-involved shootings is not because of corruption in the department, but is much more likely because our officers are so well trained.

  169. [169] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet(152)-
    Again, funny.

    But still a dodge until you address comment 124.

    "What's the matter McFly- no scrotes?"
    -one of the Back to the Future movies

  170. [170] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    But do YOU want a school person INITIATING sexually explicit contact or conversation with your 4 yr old child??

    But this law has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you are suggesting. There are already criminal statutes that can be used against anyone who would initiate sexually explicit contact with a child. This law provides a way for parents to make money accusing teachers of saying things, that while not considered criminal by definition, that THEY feel is inappropriate.

    All this law does is encourage parents to file lawsuits over anything they consider inappropriate for a teacher to say to their child. It is highly convenient that the law fails to define how we are to determine what language is and is not “appropriate” ; thus encouraging frivolous lawsuits.

  171. [171] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,
    I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to address each case individually. I have done a fair amount of research on these cases too, and I have to tell you some of those accounts strain credulity, especially Eric Garner and George Floyd. Whatever the bias of the media culture surrounding all these cases, you're asking me not to believe my own eyes. For most lay people that's a tough ask.

    @don,
    Don't care, but good luck with that.

    @m,
    Just because a child is young doesn't mean they're ignorant of gender or anatomy. There are plenty of age appropriate ways to explain to them the existence of people who aren't typical boys or girls, if they ask. Because they DO ask, and they're entitled to be answered honestly, even if the person they ask isn't their parents. If a parent doesn't want their child to be part of secular society, that's what religious school or homeschooling are for.
    JL

  172. [172] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    apropos to nothing, did any of you know that

    this

    came from

    this

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH

    Your call for specifics was answered and provided and you just keep repeating the same asshole bullshit asking for what was already provided.

    And your claim that specifics have been provided with NO FACTS to support your claim is annoying..

    Either provide the specifics you CLAIM you want or quit whining that no one provides you specifics..

    If you want specific answers, you need to provide specific questions..

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Excellent synopsis of the LEO incidents... Well done..

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Whatever the bias of the media culture surrounding all these cases, you're asking me not to believe my own eyes. For most lay people that's a tough ask.

    That's because ALL lay people are ignorant of the facts and get their information from the media..

    And, as Russ has proven beyond ANY doubt, the media is bias'ed against cops.

    Put it another way.. Assume for the moment that you are completely ignorant of the incidents as described by the anti-Cop media and *ALL* of your knowledge about the incidents is SOLELY from Russ' dissertations on the incidents.

    What would your opinion of those incidents be???

    You see the point..

    If you look SOLELY at the biased media, your opinion is one way..

    If you look at the ACTUAL FACTS, then your opinion is the diametric opposite..

    As to the Anti-Groomer law... You and Russ and I will simply have to agree to disagree.. Ya'all are of a younger generation and ideology where it's "proper" that children are wards of the government and are not permitted to have a normal child hood..

    I am of an older generation where PARENTS, not Party, are the center of a child's world until they are at least 10-12 years old.

    I see now that there can be no agreement on forcing sexual activities and gender bending on children.. Ya'all think it's perfectly fine.. I think it's heinous..

    It's like baby-killing.. I think it's heinous and gross and unacceptable.. Ya'all are perfectly OK with it..

    Agreeing to disagree is the only recourse..

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Twitter's Chickens Come Home to Roost
    The Great Elon Musk panic of 2022 is revealing a big fat boatload of blue-check hypocrites

    In every newsroom I’ve ever been around, there’s always one sad hack who’s hated by other reporters but hangs on to a job because he whispers things to management and is good at writing pro-war editorials or fawning profiles of Ari Fleischer or Idi Amin or other such distasteful media tasks. Even that person would never have been willing to publicly say something as gross as, “For democracy to survive, it needs more censorship”! A professional journalist who opposed free speech was not long ago considered a logical impossibility, because the whole idea of a free press depended upon the absolute right to be an unpopular pain in the ass.

    Things are different now, of course, because the bulk of journalists no longer see themselves as outsiders who challenge official pieties, but rather as people who live inside the rope-lines and defend those pieties. I’m guessing this latest news is arousing special horror because the current version of Twitter is the professional journalist’s idea of Utopia: a place where Donald Trump doesn’t exist, everyone with unorthodox thoughts is warning-labeled (“age-restricted” content seems to be a popular recent scam), and the Current Thing is constantly hyped to the moronic max. The site used to be fun, funny, and a great tool for exchanging information. Now it feels like what the world would be if the eight most vile people in Brooklyn were put in charge of all human life, a giant, hyper-pretentious Thought-Starbucks.

    My blue-checked friends in media worked very hard to create this thriving intellectual paradise, so of course they’re devastated to imagine that a single rich person could even try to walk in and upend the project. Couldn’t Musk just leave Twitter in the hands of responsible, speech-protecting shareholders like Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal?
    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/twitters-chickens-come-home-to-roost?s=r

    It's HILARIOUS to see the hysterical Democrat Titteratti go full on hypocritical vapor-lock Orwellian... :D

    "Democracy requires MORE censorship"

    Only a DEMOCRAT could come up with such a hypocritically Orwellian message.. :^/

    Sadly, this is ya'all's Democrat Party in the here and now..

    How sad it must be for ya'all to be tied to such anti-America sentiment, eh? :^/

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    The blatant hypocrisy of the Democrat Party.. :^/

    Cori Bush surpasses $300K spent on private security as she continues calls to defund the police

    Bush's campaign dropped another $70,000 in personal security during the first quarter of 2022
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cori-bush-surpasses-300k-spent-private-security-she-continues-calls-defund-police

    How ya'all can defend this with yer silence is simply beyond me...

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Free Speech Is A Threat To Democrats

    To hear liberals talk about our Founding Fathers you’d think they were nothing but a bunch of racist, sexist Neanderthals who only stopped raping and murdering anyone not white long enough to write some words conservatives revere for their awfulness. These evil monsters existed to oppress trans people and stole everything they had from black people somehow. Change just a few of a adjectives and you’re got yourself a pretty accurate description of the modern Democrat Party.

    Democrats have always been what they accuse us of being. Which party contains the “sexists” who used the full power of their party’s machine, and eventually the White House and Presidency, to quell “bimbo eruptions”? Which party consists for people who call Clarence Thomas and Tim Scott “Uncle Toms”? Which party, when not smearing him, ignores the existence of Ric Grenell, the first openly gay member of any Presidential Cabinet?

    You know the answers to those questions and all the rest like them.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2022/04/17/free-speech-is-a-threat-to-democrats-n2605959

    If Free Speech is a threat to the Democrat Party (which it is)... Then that tells you all you need to know about the validity of the Democrat Party..

    Democrat Party = Anti America Party

    The facts are clear, numerous and conclusive..

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    People with confidence in their beliefs, and facts on their side, don’t do everything possible to prevent contrary opinions from being heard. Democrats are terrified that Elon Musk has publicly stated his belief that people, even and especially people with unpopular opinions or thoughts contrary to the establishment, should be free to express them online. This terrifies the left.

    No where is this sentiment proven so valid as here in Weigantia where calls to silence me are prevalent...

    If ya'all are so comfortable in your facts and your reality, why is there such a desire on ya'all's part to silence dissenting facts???

    Fascists call for the silence of opposing opinions..

    Pure and simple...

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats can’t have this and other truths spread freely, they can’t have jokes told that belittle sacred cows on the left, they can’t be seen as anything other than magnanimous, which they decidedly are not. Anyone who dares rock that boat is a threat to what they insist the world must be. They aren’t in the business of convincing people, they are in the business of silencing dissent.

    Elon Musk threatens that. So much so that media outlets are applauding Saudi Arabia’s government, a stakeholder in Twitter, for objecting to Musk’s offer. After years of attacking Saudi Arabia for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and with a history of homophobia (try being gay there), they’re now heroes to the left because they believe in nothing but their own power, and us being able to express ourselves freely is a threat to that power.

    That kind of tells you everything you need to know about Democrats today, doesn’t it?

    It DOES tell us everything we need to know about the Democrat Party...

    It does indeed...

    So the question becomes... WHY would anyone *CHOOSE* to be a Democrat??

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    What IS it about Democrats that they are so hysterically scared of actual Free Speech??

    Five liberal media outlets run by billionaires that have criticized Elon Musk's attempted Twitter purchase

    Musk offered to buy Twitter for $43 billion and take it private
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberal-media-organizations-run-by-billionaires

    The problem as I see it is, once again, Democrats changing definitions to fit their agenda..

    In the here and now, Democrats' definition of free speech is All speech that DEMOCRATS approve of..

    Hate speech and speech one does not like is the VERY REASON why the First Amendment exists here in the US...

    Democrats have forgotten that...

  182. [182] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (173)-
    Okay FUCKWAD.

    One more time for the thinking impaired:

    PROVIDE THE EXPLANATIONS IN COMMENT 39.

    THAT'S THE TWO SENTENCES NEAR THE END THAT START WITH THE WORD EXPLAIN.

    Cut the shit and man up or get lost.

    You are not welcome here unless you are going to stop trolling and being a fucking asshole.

  183. [183] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Don't care?

    Then shut the fuck up or get lost.

    You are a scumbag and an asshole.

    Fuck off you piece of shit.

    You are also not welcome here.

  184. [184] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What the fuck is wrong with all of you here?

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    And here is a PERFECT example of the utter contemptible manipulation that gender confused morons use...

    Courtney Stodden says writing their memoir 'shined a light on’ alleged ‘grooming' that led to marriage at 16
    Stodden and Doug Hutchison divorced after nine years of marriage in 2020

    Stodden, who identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, was 16 years old when they married Doug Hutchison in 2011.

    "I am a really empathetic, sensitive person, and I always have been."
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/courtney-stodden-memoir-marriage-divorce-bullying

    This moron expects others to bow to her whacked out version of pronouns, but she can't even follow her own rules herself...

    This kind of train wreck is what happens when moron Democrats cater to the whims of the utterly moronic...

    Which explains perfectly why the Democrat Party is failing so completely and utterly...

    Stodden is the quintessential Democrat... Utterly and completely a moron...

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    What the fuck is wrong with all of you here?

    I think someone needs a nap.... :^/

    What part of comment #39 requires an explanation..

    Please provide specifics and I will be happy to explain it to you... :D

  187. [187] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (181)-
    Why are Democrats afraid of free speech?

    You are no one to be pointing out how someone else is afraid.

    You don't even have the balls to provide the explanations requested.

    That is because you know you are full of shit and that engaging with me in rational discussion without your bullshit, lies and dodges means your stupidity and being an asshole will be exposed.

    Fuck off.

  188. [188] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (186)-
    I think someone here needs to stop being an ASSHOLE or stop being here.

    Fuck off you piece of shit.

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't even have the balls to provide the explanations requested.

    Says the guy who can't even provide specifics of what questions he wants answered... :D

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is quite enough Don.

    If you can't act decently and drop your extremely foul and gratutitous language then please just LEAVE!

  191. [191] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I believe it is time for a permanent ban, Don.

  192. [192] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Wow.

    Sorry, but when Michale and nypoet keep posting bullshit and their only purpose is obviously to agitate, aggravate and cause trouble you are pointing to the wrong person when you point to me for reacting when I have had enough of their childish bullshit and nothing is done about it and trouble results.

    What they are doing is similar to going for my gun and as Michale says that justifies the shooting.

    If everyone else here can misbehave as they please then I can too.

  193. [193] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "There are rules here? Oh no, there are no rules here!"
    -Field of Dreams

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOW you've gone and done it!!!

    You've pissed off the Warden Of Weigantia!!!

    "Ooooo you in trouble now!!"

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    20 Child Stars Ruined By Disney (And What They Look Like Now)
    Nobody knows the darker side of Disney better than these child stars.

    https://www.thetalko.com/20-child-stars-ruined-by-disney-and-what-they-look-like-now/

    Now Disney is more exposed about it's childhood destroying antics...

  196. [196] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not much of a warden to let misbehavior deteriorate to the point it has reached.

    Better late than never doesn't quite cut the mustard in this case.

  197. [197] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speaking of destroying childhoods, isn't it time for you to leave your childhood out of the comments section and act like an adult as your childhood is destroying this comments section?

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL..

    Given your opinions on Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and George Floyd...

    I am curious as to your thoughts on Kyle Rittenhouse..

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH..

    What does my childhood have to do with anything??

  200. [200] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Well, these accounts of Floyd's and Martin's deaths are quite eye opening.

    Being a Lefty I naturally regard much of right-wing media as not reality based and willing to say whatever it takes to get people riled up, as people are easier to fool when they're angry or afraid. And I look down on the poor bastards as misinformed.

    Now, it's entirely reasonable to expect that left-wing falls short of completely accuracty but these two accounts are so off the mark as to really shake my confidence.

  201. [201] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Oh and it looks like Don Harris has been drunk posting.

  202. [202] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Your childhood has nothing to do with anything.

    That is why your childish behavior has no place here.

  203. [203] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [198]

    While Rittenhouse was defending himself and probably was properly acquitted, Shirley you'll agree that he was guilty of bad judgment for going there in the first place.

  204. [204] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    Nope.

    Just fed up with the toddlers.

    Do not comment again on anything until you answer comment 39 with rational discussion.

  205. [205] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Just fed up with the toddlers.

    Then stop being one.

    Do not comment again on anything until you answer comment 39 with rational discussion.

    Has dictating the actions of others on this board ever worked? The problem with "rational discussion" with you is your definition of rational discussion does not match the rest of the worlds definition...

  206. [206] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    (thinking)

    And this suggests that Officer Chavin was technically not guilty of killing Mr. Floyd and was therefore convicted. I'd argue it was for demonstrating Rittenhouse level bad judgement (move the knee a little bit to chill out the crowd, hello?)

  207. [207] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [39]


    Explain how voting for big money candidates will get the big money out of politics when that hasn't worked for decades.

    It won't...why should it? Who claims otherwise? Noone argues about the sky being blue, either.

    Explain how using the basic principle of democracy that if politicians don't do what we want that we do not vote for them will not work which would be explaining why democracy will not work.

    Um, is there a question in here? What do you want to know?

  208. [208] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    I'm not. The rest of you are.

    Dictating my actions won't work either.

    Contrary to popular belief here definitions here from most of you do not match the real world.

    Prove me wrong.

    Provide rational discussion on the explanations in comment 39.

  209. [209] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy-
    Once again you prove my point that you are acting like a child and are nothing but an asshole and a troll.

  210. [210] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [209]

    Yeah, and God bless you, too! Still wonder what [39] is about.

  211. [211] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [209]

    Um,hey...is it at least noon where ever it is you've decided to hit the bottle?

  212. [212] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    LIz-
    Where the fuck are you?

    Why are you not here telling Bashi- Mtn caddy, Michale, Nypoet to behave?

    Your selective admonishments destroy any credibility you have as board mother/warden.

  213. [213] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy (210)-
    ANOTHER OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIE.

    FUCK OFF SHITBAG.

  214. [214] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy (211)-
    I could be drunk, stoned and tripping and still run circles around your pathetic coward ass.

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Now, it's entirely reasonable to expect that left-wing falls short of completely accuracty but these two accounts are so off the mark as to really shake my confidence.

    "I know, right!?"
    -Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

    That's why I don't put much stock in Beau's YOUTUBE videos that deal w/ LEO issues..

    He seems to take the media reports on LEO activities at face value..

    And it's clear for someone who has been there and done that, it's nearly 100% assured that any Media reporting of LEO involved incidents are A> Factually not accurate and 2> Completely and utterly biased against cops..

    While Rittenhouse was defending himself and probably was properly acquitted, Shirley you'll agree that he was guilty of bad judgment for going there in the first place.

    Yes, there is an argument to be made for Rittenhouse shouldn't have been armed at a violent protest.. I wouldn't call it "bad judgement" though.. I honestly believe that KR was there to be a good citizen and help out.. And given the violence of past BLM terrorism and riots, arming oneself is a logical and rational precaution..

    So while I see your side of the argument and acknowledge it DOES have merit, the other side of the argument is more compelling..

    But he WAS armed and it WAS legal...

    That being the case, Rittenhouse's actions were completely justified.. The jury came back with the ONLY logical verdict..

    Justice was served..

    And this suggests that Officer Chavin was technically not guilty of killing Mr. Floyd and was therefore convicted. I'd argue it was for demonstrating Rittenhouse level bad judgement (move the knee a little bit to chill out the crowd, hello?)

    The minute a cop starts compromising the safety of himself and his partners to appease an angry mob is the minute the cop loses control of the situation..

    Floyd was killed by the 4x lethal limits of meth and fentynal he ingested.. His failure to follow the lawful orders of police simply hastened his end..

    The coroner's report stated specifically that, if Floyd had been found dead at this home the official cause of death would have been Drug Overdose..

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    I still say someone needs a nap...

  217. [217] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NO, not a nap.

    What I need is for you to grow up or get lost.

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Lighten up, Francis"
    -Sgt Hulka, STRIPES

  219. [219] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I will lighten up when you grow up.

    You can't provoke someone then try to appear above the fray with a call to lighten up.

    It is transparent and an insult to reality.

    It is your actions that put us where we are and only you can rectify the problem by acting like an adult.

  220. [220] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You really want me to address [39]? OK...

    I don't give a flying fuck how bad I look because I don't look bad.

    To yourself no doubt but to others? Just using "flying fuck" even if they agree with you will turn off many (Liz as a local example.) Remember, it is common to do some quick search research on people. Someone who does not know you but may be interested in supporting OD finds this thread, they might be completely turned off by your posts.

    Heh... even better example:

    ANOTHER OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIE.

    FUCK OFF SHITBAG.

    Do you really think Ralph Nader's staff would read this and think, this is someone we should work with or promote?

    Public relations 101. Don't do that. Ever.

    No one wants to work with someone who loses their shit the second a discussion does not go their way.

    Explain how voting for big money candidates will get the big money out of politics when that hasn't worked for decades.

    By passing legislation limiting "big money", you know the mechanics of how our democracy actually works. Hillary Clinton was the biggest of big money candidates but voted for every campaign finance reform law that came before her and sponsored a few herself. You need to get support from existing and future politicians. Then you need to compromise to get enough votes to pass your solution.

    Explain how using the basic principle of democracy that if politicians don't do what we want that we do not vote for them will not work which would be explaining why democracy will not work.

    The most basic answer is that there is a difference between high concept democracy and the actual mechanics of how our specific democracy works. Your idea may be high concept democracy but in the system as set up by the constitution it's advocacy. It's advocating for how one votes in a democracy. OD is not on the ballot, OD is advocating who I vote for (should you ever find a candidate to advocate for). Beyond that you seem to be the only one who thinks "big money" is the overarching problem to which all others stem. I don't think that. It's a problem among many and not the highest on my list. If a candidate matches your $200 limit it is not an automatic vote for me, it would depend on the rest of the platform whether I could support that candidate. I am also not going to throw away my vote in protest as between Trump and Brexit that has proven to move things way too far in the other direction...

  221. [221] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    Beyond your nonsense about public relations with the public here that refuses to relate as adults, I will address your attempt to make rational argument.

    Passing legislation to limit big money will not work. It has not worked in the many times it has been tried for decades.

    The reason it has not and will not work is that the problem with big money in politics is that the big money politicians only pass legislation that primarily benefits the big money interests and the big money interests have no interest in seeing legislation limiting big money passed.

    The only way to pass such legislation is to first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators that are not controlled by the big money interests.

    The problem has to be solved before the legislation to solve the problem can be passed.

    I need to get support from existing and future politicians.

    Fine. Sort of.

    In my opinion the politicians need to get support from me and the rest of the voters. But what way would a person have of getting "support" from a politician?

    They can give the politician big money. That's one way.

    Or they can say they will not vote for the politician if the politician takes big money.

    How do you compromise and pass your solution at the same time? If you compromise you only pass part of the solution.

    But since not voting for big money candidates is not legislation there is no need to compromise the demand.

    High concept democracy and the actual mechanics of how our democracy works.

    You said there is a difference but you did not explain what that difference is.

    Why is One Demand high concept democracy and not advocacy? High concept democracy is not advocating for how one votes in a democracy?

    Advocating for citizens to demand small donor candidates and enforce that demand with their votes is not advocating for how one votes in a democracy?

    One Demand is not on the ballot.

    Yes it is.

    In every state (most of them) where citizens can cast a write-in ballot even if it will not be counted toward electing a candidate in the current election.

    Write-in votes not counted for electing candidates are still counted as a vote cast and will achieve the purpose of casting those votes when matched with citizens signed up to participate in One Demand.

    OD is advocating who I vote for (should you ever find a candidate to advocate for).

    So now One Demand IS advocating? Make up your mind. :D

    The demand comes before the candidates. Citizens creating the demand will produce the candidates that want to get the votes.

    I do not think that big money is the problem from which all other problems stem. I have said it is the major obstacle to implementing available affordable solutions to problems we have no matter what the origin of the problem.

    I am not the only however, that thinks big money is a problem. Even Mtn Caddy says he agrees with that.

    And polls consistently show 80% of citizens agree with that.

    If a candidate matches the 200 dollar limit it is not an automatic vote for me or other participants in One Demand. It is a non-negotiable starting point before I will consider the rest of the positions of a candidate as big money candidates have consistently proven for decades that the rest of their positions cannot be trusted if they take big money.

    No one participating in One Demand will be throwing away their vote.

    They will be using their vote to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates so they will have small donor candidates to vote for when candidates respond to the demand to get the votes.

    So your attempt at the first explanation has been debunked.

    Your attempt at the second explanation was mostly the same old dodges that I answered again anyway and debunked with rational discussion.

    Try again or man up and admit that my argument was rational and covered and debunked everything in your comment that could be considered an attempt at rational argument.

  222. [222] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Beyond your nonsense about public relations with the public here that refuses to relate as adults, I will address your attempt to make rational argument.

    It is not nonsense and one of the larger reasons you fail. Why should CW support your foul mouth? Just because you think OD is a good idea? Reality-based is you are not going to get support because your public relations is really, really bad so why cover you?

    Passing legislation to limit big money will not work. It has not worked in the many times it has been tried for decades.

    Quite a few campaign finance reform bills have passed. Just because it hasn't worked in the recent past does not mean could not work in the future.

    The only way to pass such legislation is to first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators that are not controlled by the big money interests.

    Can you back up that all legislators in congress are "big money"? Personally I think it is much more complex and nuanced than a binary choice...

    One Demand is not on the ballot.

    Yes it is.

    No it's not. See your local ballot. Measures and initiatives are examples of voting directly on policy.

    In every state (most of them) where citizens can cast a write-in ballot even if it will not be counted toward electing a candidate in the current election.

    Write-in votes not counted for electing candidates are still counted as a vote cast and will achieve the purpose of casting those votes when matched with citizens signed up to participate in One Demand.

    Beyond the Trump/Brexit problem, how do you know a write in is supporting you and not just someones brother and law? Half a million rejected votes in 2020 with a 200,000 vote swing between 2016 and 2020. There would have to be quite a few for OD to even be a blip big enough for anyone to notice. Seems like an unlikely long shot...

    And polls consistently show 80% of citizens agree with that.

    That does not mean 80% of the population would agree with OD. It means 80% view it as a problem, not the one problem to rule them all, and in politics bind them...

    I do not think that big money is the problem from which all other problems stem.

    And yet you have admitted such in previous discussions. Change your mind?

    As to the rest, you do not get to decide what is rational discussion or what is and is not debunked. I would think the majority here do not find much of your discussion rational. Are they wrong purely because you say so? Life does not work like that. Losing your shit and tossing insults just make you look petty and not someone who should be supported...

  223. [223] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal was probably the right decision, but that doesn't mean he was justified putting himself in a position where acquittal for homicide was necessary. If citizen activism results in having to kill somebody, you're probably not doing it right.

    JL

  224. [224] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Don't care?

    Then shut the fuck up or get lost.

    You are a scumbag and an asshole.

    Fuck off you piece of shit.

    You are also not welcome here.

    ANOTHER OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIE.

    FUCK OFF SHITBAG.

    Not a lie, a figure of speech. Just like crack geographer, somebody trying hard not to take your potty mouth tendencies personally.

    JL

  225. [225] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz et al,

    Did my music selection from last night get lost in all the excitement?

  226. [226] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    No it is nonsense.

    When rational discussion is ignored and responded to with trolling, lies and dodges you can't turn around and complain when the rational discussion is replaced with vitriol.

    For every person that might be turned off there are people that would recognize that the people being called assholes are acting like assholes and like it when someone says so. Just like people liked Trump even though most of what he said was lies and I have been accurate.

    And besides that- it sort of worked.

    You actually tried to appear to make a rational argument.

    Campaign finance reform could work even though it has never worked in the past?

    Wow. Something that has never worked still could work but something that has never been tried can't possibly ever work?

    Can I back up that all candidates are big money?

    You have said many times there are no small donor candidates.

    You think it is not a binary choice?

    Do you also think the sun rises in the west?

    I provided an explanation of why your plan has not and will not work and all you offer is another dodge completely ignoring my argument and trying to deflect with some bullshit statement?

    Not very convincing.

    One Demand is on the ballot and I explained how and you did the same trying to deflect with a bullshit statement about initiatives.

    Then you pretend that I did not explain how we know why the write-in votes are cast again.

    80% does not mean they would all agree with One Demand.

    Fair enough.

    But they agree with me it is a problem and not you that thinks it is not.

    Whether they think it is the most important problem or not they still could want to do something about it if they could.

    If you are so sure they will not like One Demand then you should encourage CW to write about it and we can find out.

    No, you said that I said it was the problem from which all problems stem. I corrected you and again provided what I say about big money corrupting our political process.

    Another lie by you. And you double down on it.

    Yes I do get to decide what is rational and discussed just like everyone else here.

    Anyone that disagrees with me is free to counter my arguments.

    Are people wrong for having a position that my arguments are not rational just because I say so?

    No. That is why I explain my positions instead of avoiding rational discussions using lies and dodges.

    You should try it.

    Losing my shit?

    What, I just popped off without any provocation?

    Fuck you.

  227. [227] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    Don't try to not take my potty mouth personally.

    You deserve every bit of it personally.

    I got tired of trying to not take the trolling, lies and dodges personally.

    You reap what you sow.

    You and the other commenters sowed, watered and fertilized the seeds.

  228. [228] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Campaign finance reform could work even though it has never worked in the past?

    Never or not in the last few decades like you mentioned earlier?

    You think it is not a binary choice?

    Yes. It's what I said.

    Do you also think the sun rises in the west?

    Has no relevance...

    I provided an explanation of why your plan has not and will not work and all you offer is another dodge completely ignoring my argument and trying to deflect with some bullshit statement?

    And I disagreed. That is not bullshit, it is a counter argument. The vitriol is all you, and is very counter productive to what you are trying to achieve. Though vaguely humorous to me...

    Then you pretend that I did not explain how we know why the write-in votes are cast again.

    Again I disagree. Then provided back up to my argument by pointing out the large amount of tossed votes and the wide swings to which they vary.

    But they agree with me it is a problem and not you that thinks it is not.

    And where did I say it was not a problem?

    Whether they think it is the most important problem or not they still could want to do something about it if they could.

    But would they trade problems they see as more important to them to do so?

    No, you said that I said it was the problem from which all problems stem. I corrected you and again provided what I say about big money corrupting our political process.

    It was far from the first time I have asked you this question and previous answers were different.

    Another lie by you. And you double down on it.

    Nope, just poor memory on your side.

    No. That is why I explain my positions instead of avoiding rational discussions using lies and dodges.

    And I reply rationally without dodges but are accused otherwise.

    Losing my shit?

    Yup.

    What, I just popped off without any provocation?

    No you pop off when anyone disagrees with you and your counter arguments are not found convincing.

    Fuck you.

    And that is why you fail and will always fail. You lack self control.

  229. [229] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    Every single thing in your comment was more dodges and bullshit.

    You did not make any arguments. You spouted dodges and bullshit.

    A bullshit statement is not a counter argument.

    You are not disagreeing with me top make me pop off.

    In order to disagree you have to make arguments instead of bullshit lies.

    I do not fail due to lack of self control.

    Self control yielded bullshit trolling from scum like you and you are now reaping what you have sown.

    You fail because you are nothing but an asshole and a troll that cannot engage in rational discussion and the fuck you gives you the level of respect you deserve and earned.

  230. [230] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Every single thing in your comment was more dodges and bullshit.

    Bla, bla bla, your standard boiler plate. Boring.

    I do not fail due to lack of self control.

    OK, maybe you fail for other reasons...

    Self control is still a problem as evidenced by your most recent reply...

  231. [231] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If my standard boilerplate is boring you then stop repeating your bullshit lies and dodges and I won't have to repeat pointing it out.

    I do not fail for other reasons. I do not fail.

    At least not against you or anyone else here.

    Again, you are wrong.

    Self control is not a problem for me.

    It didn't work with scum like you as evidenced by all your replies so it has been discarded in favor of operating on your level.

    You may not use the words, but your trolling and dodges are saying fuck you.

  232. [232] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi[220],

    Very nice - it needed to be said.

    I have nothing against foul language, per se. I utter worse than Don writes in here but, as a rule, no one is ever around to hear it. And, I certainly wouldn't tap it out here just for sake of tapping out foul language, as Don has done in this thread and not for the first time, always coming from a place of mean-spiritedness.

  233. [233] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Enough, Don - go away and take your fithy, foul-mouthed and mean spirited language with you and don't let the freakin' door hit you on the way out!

    CAN YOU HEAR ME!?

  234. [234] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua[225],

    I actually saw your [172] but, I didn't realize it was from Sunday (Night) AND you gave no clue it had anything to do with music, so ... I didn't click on the links.

  235. [235] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I hear you but you have no credibility.

    I am responding to the mean-spirited-ness of the trolling dodgers.

    You could have credibility if you were to recognize those that agitate, aggravate with the intention of causing trouble are the cause of the trouble.

    You say nothing until there is an equal and opposite reaction and then only about the reaction.

    As I said in comment 231, they may not use the words but their trolling and dodging is saying fuck you.

    If you can't see that then you have no credibility.

    Being civil resulted in trolling, lies and dodges.

    So as Michale advised I looked for common ground on their level.

  236. [236] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    Now that you know it WAS music and from Sunday night did you click the links? I've been humming the chorus since Friday.

    JL

  237. [237] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, now I will click the links.

  238. [238] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I do not fail for other reasons. I do not fail.

    In that case, congratulations on your continued success.

  239. [239] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Again funny.

    Again still just a trolling dodger.

    You do not fail when engaging in rational argument because you don't engage in rational argument.

    Congratulations on your continued cowardice.

  240. [240] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I love that Spanish version - that's one fun video. The Rapper's Delight ain't bad, either ... and, that's saying a lot 'cause I don't much like rap. Nothing against that music - it just doesn't usually do much for me.

    This is more my speed ... in fact, you could say it's my theme song! :)

    The CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party will resume this Sunday night, even if it kills me ...

  241. [241] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22 [171]

    @russ,
    I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to address each case individually. I have done a fair amount of research on these cases too, and I have to tell you some of those accounts strain credulity, especially Eric Garner and George Floyd. Whatever the bias of the media culture surrounding all these cases, you're asking me not to believe my own eyes. For most lay people that's a tough ask.

    JL,

    I appreciate your comments, and I completely understand your views regarding Garner’s and Floyd’s deaths. You are only half right when you said I was asking you not to believe your own eyes — I am asking you to reconsider the limits of what your eyes are able to tell you. It’s not surprising that the Garner and Floyd accounts that I provided would be the hardest to accept. You knew before you watched the first frame of each video what the outcome for both men would be — death.

    But in both cases, the medical examiner’s determined that the police’s actions played only a contributing role in the cause of death…while both men’s pre-existing conditions played larger roles. In Garner’s death, the media tried to say he died after being placed in an “illegal choke hold” — which, typically, would be called “strangulation”. But since the ME made it very clear that Garner’s body showed no signs of strangulation — crushed trachea or larynx. Bruising on the side of the neck — consistent with having been put in a headlock. No one dies from a headlock. You know this to be true. Yet because you cannot witness diabetes, heart disease, or high blood pressure kill someone in real time; it is why you are willing to believe that the police could killed Garner with a headlock.

    The same was true with George Floyd. His death was made even more difficult to watch because he was not actively resisting at any point of the video. Chauvin’s coldness and his refusal to show any consideration to Floyd’s pleas for help makes it easy to want to find him guilty for Floyd’s death… so much so that we are willing to believe that a completely safe restraint that has been used for years, by law enforcement all over the world, could suddenly be responsible for Floyd’s death. No one can point to how Chauvin’s actions killed Floyd. Floyd had one artery that was 90% clogged and two others that were at 75% clogged.

    In the prosecutor’s closing arguments in the Floyd case, the jury was asked to trust only their eyes when determining what caused Floyd’s death…they should ignore anything they heard said during the trial that differed from what they saw. Ignore medical facts if it doesn’t jive with what you believe you saw. That is what you expect from a defense attorney, maybe; but NOT from prosecutors!

  242. [242] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can't possibly be serious, Russ ... with respect to the killing of George Floyd, I mean ...

Comments for this article are closed.