Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[pfife]

1 hour ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

 

These are the types of criminals the GOP just wants to let back out on the street.  Soft on crime.

[pfife]

49 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

They don't know much about history

Nothing of all of biology

Won't even talk about french they took?

But they are great at trolling

 

damn he sure is mad at lincoln for some reason

[pfife]

[mtutiger]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

Fantastic stuff!

Thank you!!!

[Tigerbomb13]

12 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

Good god the lack of any backbone these factory wrapped douches have. 

[Tigerbomb13]

On 1/4/2022 at 4:45 PM, Motor City Sonics said:

As a huge fan of Mr. Show, I was very disappointed to know that Jay Johnston was at the January 6th attempted coup.   

 

He told the story to his parents but every time he got to the good part of the story he's fall and knock his mother's thimble collection off the wall.   it was funny the first couple of times. 

 

 

[RatkoVarda]

There is literally no amount of sh|t that Ted Cruz would decline to eat, if he thought it would help him be president.

35 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

 

[Motor City Sonics]

24 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

 

NOBODY HELP HIM !

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

There is literally no amount of sh|t that Ted Cruz would decline to eat, if he thought it would help him be president.

 

Texas. Makes it doubly ironic that this kind of wimpy spineless creep must get be getting votes from so many wannabe cowboys. I guess they've never seen a Gary Cooper or John Wayne movie. 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

This is necessary 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/06/sweden-fake-news-psychological-defence-agency/

yeah - the more I think about it the more I believe we need a shift in the way we think about speech. For most of recorded history, the resources to spread information were limited and suppression of ideas was fairly easy. That lead to legal theories biased strongly to speech protection as a fundamental guarantor of liberty. But there really has been a fundamental shift with the IT age. Today virtually nothing can be truly suppressed. Get it on the internet once and it lives forever and can go anywhere. The real problem today is the just like the industrial age polluted the physical environment in ways unthinkable in the pre-industrial era, the internet pollutes is capable of polluting the intellectual environment in ways unimagined a generation ago. And it's even reached the point where media misinformation has become a form of international warfare. 

It seems to me the eventual result has to be that just as pollution forced a reconsideration of and limitation of the primacy of private property rights (which used to be considered inviolate) to protect the physical earth we must share, we are going to reach a point where we will need a reasonable legal regime that recognizes the media environment we have to share is also reaching a point of pollution that demands some reasonable ways to push back against. It's going to be a hard line to find, but I think we need to stop whistling past the graveyard clinging to 18th century speech theory and start looking to find a different way forward before misinformation destroys the national polity completely.

[romad1]

58 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

yeah - the more I think about it the more I believe we need a shift in the way we think about speech. For most of recorded history, the resources to spread information were limited and suppression of ideas was fairly easy. That lead to legal theories biased strongly to speech protection as a fundamental guarantor of liberty. But there really has been a fundamental shift with the IT age. Today virtually nothing can be truly suppressed. Get it on the internet once and it lives forever and can go anywhere. The real problem today is the just like the industrial age polluted the physical environment in ways unthinkable in the pre-industrial era, the internet pollutes is capable of polluting the intellectual environment in ways unimagined a generation ago. And it's even reached the point where media misinformation has become a form of international warfare. 

It seems to me the eventual result has to be that just as pollution forced a reconsideration of and limitation of the primacy of private property rights (which used to be considered inviolate) to protect the physical earth we must share, we are going to reach a point where we will need a reasonable legal regime that recognizes the media environment we have to share is also reaching a point of pollution that demands some reasonable ways to push back against. It's going to be a hard line to find, but I think we need to stop whistling past the graveyard clinging to 18th century speech theory and start looking to find a different way forward before misinformation destroys the national polity completely.

The element of mental health protection is the one that will be most controversial.  The nutters don't like to think of their behavior as nutty.

[oblong]

I watched the Ted Cruz thing again this morning and I'm not sure we grasp yet how remarkable that is.  Watch the video and understand that one guy is a US Senator, one of 100, of the 2nd largest state.  He ran for President.  He worked in a White House and argued cases for the Supreme Court. The other guy is a TV host.   Look at the dynamic between the power and observe who has the power and upper hand.  It's like Biff and Mr. McFly in Back to the Future. 

 

[pfife]

Imagine having a dude as president that's scared of tucker carlson

[Hongbit]

17 minutes ago, oblong said:

I watched the Ted Cruz thing again this morning and I'm not sure we grasp yet how remarkable that is.  Watch the video and understand that one guy is a US Senator, one of 100, of the 2nd largest state.  He ran for President.  He worked in a White House and argued cases for the Supreme Court. The other guy is a TV host.   Look at the dynamic between the power and observe who has the power and upper hand.  It's like Biff and Mr. McFly in Back to the Future. 

 

I view Tucker Carlson as an actor playing a role on a TV show.   If a liberal based show would pay him twice as much then he’d flip his script in a heartbeat and reinvent himself as a new character.   

[Archie]

I suppose its on how a "terrorist attack" is defined.  If a riot is a terrorist attack then it was one.  If the riots in Oshawa, St. Louis, Minneapolis, the western states, etc, etc, etc, are considered terrorist attacks then riots at the Capitol then would be considered the same.  There was as much organization or more in those riots than there was in DC.  Now if all those other riots are considered peaceful protests like some democrats like to think, then DC was also a peaceful protest.  Point is that no matter which way its defined they are all the same and should be described alike.

[pfife]

lol

or you could just admit what your side did and not chose to come here and defend it.

Edited January 7, 2022 by pfife

[pfife]

A dude just called into C-SPAN and said that he wanted to thank C-SPAN b/c the moderators yesterday were so unfair to Republicans and Independents that his life-long democrat wife went right down to city hall and changed her affiliation.  LOL

The dude's first name wasn't "NYTimes Pitchbot"

Of course this reminds me, it's dumb as hell that the government tracks what party you're affiliated with.   Screw off government.  Thankfully we don't have that in Michigan.

Edited January 7, 2022 by pfife

[oblong]

42 minutes ago, Archie said:

I suppose its on how a "terrorist attack" is defined.  If a riot is a terrorist attack then it was one.  If the riots in Oshawa, St. Louis, Minneapolis, the western states, etc, etc, etc, are considered terrorist attacks then riots at the Capitol then would be considered the same.  There was as much organization or more in those riots than there was in DC.  Now if all those other riots are considered peaceful protests like some democrats like to think, then DC was also a peaceful protest.  Point is that no matter which way its defined they are all the same and should be described alike.

They are not the same.  One had the intent of stopping a specific government function and interupting the peaceful transfer of power.  That's why they were there and that's why they went to the Captiol.  They were also told to do that by a sitting US President.  People were cheering for the execution of the Vice President and were in the same building as he was.  #2, #3, and #4 in the Presidential line of succession were all in the same building as there was a violent riot going on in which police officers were being attacked and overrun.

They were not the same thing.

[pfife]

I do agree with Archie though that it's bad when Proud Boys smash windows in local businesses.

[Motown Bombers]

Looting a Target and the US Capitol are the same. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

I suppose its on how a "terrorist attack" is defined.  If a riot is a terrorist attack then it was one.  If the riots in Oshawa, St. Louis, Minneapolis, the western states, etc, etc, etc, are considered terrorist attacks then riots at the Capitol then would be considered the same.  There was as much organization or more in those riots than there was in DC.  Now if all those other riots are considered peaceful protests like some democrats like to think, then DC was also a peaceful protest.  Point is that no matter which way its defined they are all the same and should be described alike.

but the point isn't really which description was more accurate. Cruz is no fool, he said what he said the first time because that is what the he wanted to say to that audience. What's unseemly is Cruz being Tucker's bitch when Carlson didn't approve of Cruz's formulation.

[Archie]

25 minutes ago, oblong said:

They are not the same.  One had the intent of stopping a specific government function and interupting the peaceful transfer of power.  That's why they were there and that's why they went to the Captiol.  They were also told to do that by a sitting US President.  People were cheering for the execution of the Vice President and were in the same building as he was.  #2, #3, and #4 in the Presidential line of succession were all in the same building as there was a violent riot going on in which police officers were being attacked and overrun.

They were not the same thing.

I agree with you that there were a few people there that actually thought they could change the outcome of the election.  However, that number of people was very small.  Those people must have very few brain cells and were as smart as the people that thought they could kidnap Whitmer and set her a sail in Lake Michigan.  To overthrow the US gov't, to change the result of an election, would probably take a military force the size of Russia and China combined and chance of success of that without total nuclear destruction would be very small.

The rest of the people were protestors and hooligans that a lot of them got out of control.  It was probably more of follow the leader and people were just stupid and did stupid things.  Do you really think a guy dressed in fur and horns is going to lead a group of people in a coup?  I saw a video a while back of people pushing through a police barricade.  A couple guy were doing all the pushing, shoving and fighting.  In the process it looked like a female officer was hurt.  While the couple guys kept getting violent at the side you could see other protestors attending to the female officer and helping her up.  

As far as Trump giving them orders that is ridiculous and there is zero proof of that.  Who knows what was going through his head during the riots but there is absolutely no proof of him telling people to attack the Capitol.  His exact words were "peacefully and patriotically protest."   We all know that if he said to attack that would still be playing on a continuous loop on every MSM channel and CNN.

This entire debacle is sensationalized by the democrats and the media.  For Biden and Harris to compare this to the attack on Pearl Harbor is a travesty.

 

[RatkoVarda]

We have many social influencers in Congress these days. They don't introduce actual legislation. They introduce resolutions about how great the US is, or how bad some Americans are, and why you need to hate them. Some of these people don't have a legislative director on staff at all. Not needed. But they do have multiple communication staff who can help get their story out from papers to tiktok

People want this; they don't want a bunch of dorks debating policy about 32 v. 38 % marginal tax rates; the public wants professional wrestling.

We're doomed as a country.

2 hours ago, oblong said:

I watched the Ted Cruz thing again this morning and I'm not sure we grasp yet how remarkable that is.  Watch the video and understand that one guy is a US Senator, one of 100, of the 2nd largest state.  He ran for President.  He worked in a White House and argued cases for the Supreme Court. The other guy is a TV host.   Look at the dynamic between the power and observe who has the power and upper hand.  It's like Biff and Mr. McFly in Back to the Future. 

 

 

[Tigerbomb13]

45 minutes ago, Archie said:

I agree with you that there were a few people there that actually thought they could change the outcome of the election.  However, that number of people was very small.  Those people must have very few brain cells and were as smart as the people that thought they could kidnap Whitmer and set her a sail in Lake Michigan.  To overthrow the US gov't, to change the result of an election, would probably take a military force the size of Russia and China combined and chance of success of that without total nuclear destruction would be very small.

The rest of the people were protestors and hooligans that a lot of them got out of control.  It was probably more of follow the leader and people were just stupid and did stupid things.  Do you really think a guy dressed in fur and horns is going to lead a group of people in a coup?  I saw a video a while back of people pushing through a police barricade.  A couple guy were doing all the pushing, shoving and fighting.  In the process it looked like a female officer was hurt.  While the couple guys kept getting violent at the side you could see other protestors attending to the female officer and helping her up.  

As far as Trump giving them orders that is ridiculous and there is zero proof of that.  Who knows what was going through his head during the riots but there is absolutely no proof of him telling people to attack the Capitol.  His exact words were "peacefully and patriotically protest."   We all know that if he said to attack that would still be playing on a continuous loop on every MSM channel and CNN.

This entire debacle is sensationalized by the democrats and the media.  For Biden and Harris to compare this to the attack on Pearl Harbor is a travesty.

 

That’s a whitewashing of 1/6 if I’ve ever seen one.