[Gerardo]

Chas_P, on 2022-June-23, 19:00, said:

Here, ladies and gentlemen, you have a perfect example of pure, unadulterated horseshit. [snip]

what's up with the fanfare? Happens most of the time you open your mouth.

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2022-June-21, 16:36, said:

You have noticed that these hearings have been pointed directly at those who deny or have doubts about the legitimacy of the election?

The true QOP believers aren't watching the hearings because they are watching Fox Propaganda Channel, One anti-America News, NewsMin, or just getting their news from russian bots on facebook. Fox Propaganda made the decision to lose hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars by going commercial free during the hearings so their users wouldn't be tempted to switch channels during the pillow guy's commercials.

[hrothgar]

Chas_P, on 2022-June-23, 19:00, said:

Here, ladies and gentlemen, you have a perfect example of pure, unadulterated horseshit. No one claims that drunken drivers have a constitutional right to drive drunk. But (I'm pretty sure) a majority of Americans share the view that they have a constitutional right to own firearms. Don't damn the law-obiding. Damn (and punish) the criminals.

Aw! Look

*****wit is trying to change the conversation

He's retreating from his original bullshit claim and switching over to a new bullshit claim!

Nice try *****wit...

Sadly for you, some of us actually have working short term memories and we're able to remember what the actual discussion was about

[Winstonm]

I see that the Bailey and Bailey circus is in town.

On a similar note, these January 6th hearings have revealed to me something that before I sort of knew but truly didn't totally comprehend, and that is the depth and power of Trump's immense understanding and utilization of the power of perceptions. Truly, if he has a superpower that is it. His sole purpose in trying to place his own AG (Clark) into the DOJ was due Clark's assurance that he would send from the DOJ a fake letter that stated there had been fraud committed in the election and that the DOJ was investigating.

Think about that for a moment-Trump's sole goal was to create the perception of legitimacy to his Big Lie. And he was willing to discredit, possibly forever, the reputation of the United States Department of Justice in his false cause.

And the Republican Senators did not convict him in impeachment proceedings. and many Republicans still say they would vote for him again if he is the nominee or the party for president.

[PeterAlan]

With yesterday's and today's Supreme Court decisions, we're seeing just how much the US has been Trumped for decades to come (with a little help from Mitch McConnell).

[mikeh]

johnu, on 2022-June-24, 02:23, said:

The true QOP believers aren't watching the hearings because they are watching Fox Propaganda Channel, One anti-America News, NewsMin, or just getting their news from russian bots on facebook. Fox Propaganda made the decision to lose hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars by going commercial free during the hearings so their users wouldn't be tempted to switch channels during the pillow guy's commercials.

It seems clear that the Murdochs have decided to jump off of the Trump bandwagon and onto that of de Santis. Fox is now showing at least some of the hearings and some talking heads on Fox are now criticizing Trump. The WSJ has openly stated that Trump should not be the GOP nominee and has thrown its support behind de Santis

It’s been widely reported that Rupert Murdoch has never been a real fan of the Donald, but supported him because he would deliver the goods for Murdoch’s agenda. Now that he’s seen as the damaged goods he was all along, it’s time to find another tool. De Santis seems to fit that criterion.

It is amusing, in a sick way, how the plutocrat Murdoch seems to have held the same view of Trump as the plutocrat Putin seems to have held.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2022-June-24, 10:45, said:

It seems clear that the Murdochs have decided to jump off of the Trump bandwagon and onto that of de Santis. Fox is now showing at least some of the hearings and some talking heads on Fox are now criticizing Trump. The WSJ has openly stated that Trump should not be the GOP nominee and has thrown its support behind de Santis

It’s been widely reported that Rupert Murdoch has never been a real fan of the Donald, but supported him because he would deliver the goods for Murdoch’s agenda. Now that he’s seen as the damaged goods he was all along, it’s time to find another tool. De Santis seems to fit that criterion.

It is amusing, in a sick way, how the plutocrat Murdoch seems to have held the same view of Trump as the plutocrat Putin seems to have held.

It's interesting the view of Murdoch in the US. In the UK, he has 2 newspapers, the Sun - tabloid, everything everybody despises about Murdoch. The Times, broadsheet much more balanced, often with a different view on big issues to the Sun (eg Sun pro Brexit, Times pro remain at the time of the referendum, got behind Brexit after the vote).

His TV station is nothing like as biased as Fox.

[Winstonm]

I am waiting next for the SCOTUS to re-institute dueling as a cost-saving and business-friendly (think funeral directors and mortuaries) alternative to civil courts.

They have moved us back to 1850 so I see no reason why 1750 should not be the ultimate goal.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-June-24, 11:37, said:

It's interesting the view of Murdoch in the US. In the UK, he has 2 newspapers, the Sun - tabloid, everything everybody despises about Murdoch. The Times, broadsheet much more balanced, often with a different view on big issues to the Sun (eg Sun pro Brexit, Times pro remain at the time of the referendum, got behind Brexit after the vote).

His TV station is nothing like as biased as Fox.

Iirc, he couldn’t legally do in the UK that which he can do in the US. Fox outright lies in the US. While the UK is currently home to a couple of right wing fringe networks, my understanding is that those networks operate under more constraints (when purporting to state facts as opposed to opinions) than their US counterparts. We have a federal body overseeing television and radio in Canada and the CRTC is, I gather, the main reason Fox has not been able to set up here.

[PassedOut]

Chas_P, on 2022-June-23, 19:00, said:

No one claims that drunken drivers have a constitutional right to drive drunk. But (I'm pretty sure) a majority of Americans share the view that they have a constitutional right to own firearms. Don't damn the law-obiding. Damn (and punish) the criminals.

Yes, criminals should be punished. But as Benjamin Franklin said in 1736:

Quote

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Punishing the shooters doesn't bring victims back to life.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2022-June-24, 11:54, said:

I am waiting next for the SCOTUS to re-institute dueling as a cost-saving and business-friendly (think funeral directors and mortuaries) alternative to civil courts.

They have moved us back to 1850 so I see no reason why 1750 should not be the ultimate goal.

Also there are some witches that we need to do something about. And vampires.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2022-June-24, 13:59, said:

Also there are some witches that we need to do something about. And vampires.

Sure, bring Hillary again.🤣

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2022-June-24, 13:25, said:

Yes, criminals should be punished. But as Benjamin Franklin said in 1736:


Punishing the shooters doesn't bring victims back to life.

Wouldn’t banning military-style rifles fall under the umbrella of prevention?We no longer worry in the US about contracting small pox, not because we arrested the spreaders but because we eradicated the underlying cause of the illness, and that is prevention writ large.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2022-June-24, 15:21, said:

Wouldn’t banning military-style rifles fall under the umbrella of prevention?

It would.

[y66]

Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan said:

With sorrow — for this court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent.