(04-25-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:37 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Yea.. Let's ignore that pesky First Amendment if something goes against us.

Much like "lets ignore the pesky Electoral Counting Act if something goes against us." Lolz.

A sitting US Senator is saying that the US Government should dictate what is said on the news... In my mind two different things.. Lolz..

The oath a Senator takes upon being sworn in:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Subverting the process to select the President is a big one in my book.

Aren't several of the people involved serving ungodly amounts of jail time waiting on trials?

Again.. Those people are not elected officials trying to tear down the Constitution.. They're being punished for their crimes are they not?

I think there are aspects you dont seemingly know very well. I am not referring to the storming of the Capitol.

(04-25-2023 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:37 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Much like "lets ignore the pesky Electoral Counting Act if something goes against us." Lolz.

A sitting US Senator is saying that the US Government should dictate what is said on the news... In my mind two different things.. Lolz..

The oath a Senator takes upon being sworn in:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Subverting the process to select the President is a big one in my book.

Aren't several of the people involved serving ungodly amounts of jail time waiting on trials?

Again.. Those people are not elected officials trying to tear down the Constitution.. They're being punished for their crimes are they not?

I think there are aspects you dont seemingly know very well. I am not referring to the storming of the Capitol.

I understand what you're saying.. I'm asking for proof.. Documentation... You know evidence?

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  If you can listen to what Schumer said and not be appalled, then there is nothing left to say and common ground on the most basic American freedom is out the window.

I agree that what Schumer says is horribly unpalatable. I think I made that clear.

(04-25-2023 11:45 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:37 AM)gdunn Wrote:  A sitting US Senator is saying that the US Government should dictate what is said on the news... In my mind two different things.. Lolz..

The oath a Senator takes upon being sworn in:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Subverting the process to select the President is a big one in my book.

Aren't several of the people involved serving ungodly amounts of jail time waiting on trials?

Again.. Those people are not elected officials trying to tear down the Constitution.. They're being punished for their crimes are they not?

I think there are aspects you dont seemingly know very well. I am not referring to the storming of the Capitol.

I understand what you're saying.. I'm asking for proof.. Documentation... You know evidence?

Google is your friend, my friend. Not that hard to find the actual pdf of the base documents. Try 'Eastman', for one. I think there are even a couple of 'Eastman v. The United States' cites in addition to the base documents. ND California *and* 9th Circ. iirc. As well as a whole host of video depositions germinating from the 1/6 Committee stuff. Just saying.

(04-25-2023 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:45 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Subverting the process to select the President is a big one in my book.

Aren't several of the people involved serving ungodly amounts of jail time waiting on trials?

Again.. Those people are not elected officials trying to tear down the Constitution.. They're being punished for their crimes are they not?

I think there are aspects you dont seemingly know very well. I am not referring to the storming of the Capitol.

I understand what you're saying.. I'm asking for proof.. Documentation... You know evidence?

Google is your friend, my friend. Not that hard to find the actual pdf of the base documents.

Are you guys talking about Conspiracy Theories? Please do share, we all love a good Conspiracy!

(04-25-2023 11:45 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:37 AM)gdunn Wrote:  A sitting US Senator is saying that the US Government should dictate what is said on the news... In my mind two different things.. Lolz..

The oath a Senator takes upon being sworn in:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Subverting the process to select the President is a big one in my book.

Aren't several of the people involved serving ungodly amounts of jail time waiting on trials?

Again.. Those people are not elected officials trying to tear down the Constitution.. They're being punished for their crimes are they not?

I think there are aspects you dont seemingly know very well. I am not referring to the storming of the Capitol.

I understand what you're saying.. I'm asking for proof.. Documentation... You know evidence?

He has no evidence, it's a little voice in his head telling him that story.

(04-25-2023 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:45 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Aren't several of the people involved serving ungodly amounts of jail time waiting on trials?

Again.. Those people are not elected officials trying to tear down the Constitution.. They're being punished for their crimes are they not?

I think there are aspects you dont seemingly know very well. I am not referring to the storming of the Capitol.

I understand what you're saying.. I'm asking for proof.. Documentation... You know evidence?

Google is your friend, my friend. Not that hard to find the actual pdf of the base documents.

Are you guys talking about Conspiracy Theories? Please do share, we all love a good Conspiracy!

You are a little late to this party.

(04-25-2023 11:42 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:00 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  well, except when it came to Trump. Then you were perfectly fine with it.

Funny. It was Trump that tried to subvert the ECA. You seemingly missed my point completely.

Not excusing Schumers comments.... but I find it humorous that on one hand some here jump up and down and excoriate Schumer for the comments above ( and rightfully so) but don't give a flying fk about the **** that their own team produces.

Getting into a frenzy about Schumers comments and steadfastly ignoring your demigods attempt to subvert the electoral count and certification is a pretty humorous look. Lolz.

So Trump told people to storm the capital.. In this day and age there should be video footage, a tweet, something that backs that up..

To the bolded --- I didnt say that, did I? I suggest you look up the plan Trump tried to get Pence to do. You know, the one where he told Pence --- 'simply declare me President'. Notwithstanding the ECA, and notwithstanding the Constitution..... Lolz.

So yes, when I see people screaming about adhering to the Constitution, I am all for that. No matter what the outcome is politically. And as opposed to some that get upset about it in one direction and dont seem to care when it occurs in the opposite direction.

As to the bolded, that is a completely other issue.

So surely that's documented right? Not just a he said, she said right?

Yes, it is documented:

Quote:"Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and the good of our country and if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you," Trump said in his speech.

Link: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953616107...y-test-yet

As wrong as tanq may be when it comes to the corrupt Justice Department and FBI, he is dead-on right about this one.

Donald Trump belongs nowhere near any Constitutional office.

(04-25-2023 11:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  If you can listen to what Schumer said and not be appalled, then there is nothing left to say and common ground on the most basic American freedom is out the window.

I agree that what Schumer says is horribly unpalatable. I think I made that clear.

Ah. Ok. Got it. Having the government tell the media what they can and can't say is...unpalatable.

I stand by what I originally stated.

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:00 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:37 AM)gdunn Wrote:  A sitting US Senator is saying that the US Government should dictate what is said on the news... In my mind two different things.. Lolz..

The oath a Senator takes upon being sworn in:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Subverting the process to select the President is a big one in my book.

well, except when it came to Trump. Then you were perfectly fine with it.

Funny. It was Trump that tried to subvert the ECA. You seemingly missed my point completely.

Not excusing Schumers comments.... but I find it humorous that on one hand some here jump up and down and excoriate Schumer for the comments above ( and rightfully so) but don't give a flying fk about the **** that their own team produces.

Getting into a frenzy about Schumers comments and steadfastly ignoring your demigods attempt to subvert the electoral count and certification is a pretty humorous look. Lolz.

So Trump told people to storm the capital.. In this day and age there should be video footage, a tweet, something that backs that up..

You're allowing him to shift the topic at hand here....

Just ignore him

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(04-25-2023 11:57 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  If you can listen to what Schumer said and not be appalled, then there is nothing left to say and common ground on the most basic American freedom is out the window.

I agree that what Schumer says is horribly unpalatable. I think I made that clear.

Ah. Ok. Got it. Having the government tell the media what they can and can't say is...unpalatable.

I stand by what I originally stated.

I suggest you go back and read some more from what I posted on Schumer's comments. That is before you get further into your predisposed panties in a wad thingy.

Or not, and keep up with your 'you just want to get riled up at me for agreeing that what Schumer says is horribly uncalled for.' Your choice.

(04-25-2023 12:00 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:00 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Subverting the process to select the President is a big one in my book.

well, except when it came to Trump. Then you were perfectly fine with it.

Funny. It was Trump that tried to subvert the ECA. You seemingly missed my point completely.

Not excusing Schumers comments.... but I find it humorous that on one hand some here jump up and down and excoriate Schumer for the comments above ( and rightfully so) but don't give a flying fk about the **** that their own team produces.

Getting into a frenzy about Schumers comments and steadfastly ignoring your demigods attempt to subvert the electoral count and certification is a pretty humorous look. Lolz.

So Trump told people to storm the capital.. In this day and age there should be video footage, a tweet, something that backs that up..

You're allowing him to shift the topic at hand here....

Just ignore him

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Simply pointing out how funny I find it that people (rightfully) call out Schumer's comments on blowing off the law and constitution, yet are perfectly fine with Trump not just calling out for that level of behavior, but taking active steps to actually do just that.

Schumer bad for saying that, Trump perfectly okay for *actively* trying to do an equivalently terrible act. Fairly laughable in my book.

(04-25-2023 11:56 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:42 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny. It was Trump that tried to subvert the ECA. You seemingly missed my point completely.

Not excusing Schumers comments.... but I find it humorous that on one hand some here jump up and down and excoriate Schumer for the comments above ( and rightfully so) but don't give a flying fk about the **** that their own team produces.

Getting into a frenzy about Schumers comments and steadfastly ignoring your demigods attempt to subvert the electoral count and certification is a pretty humorous look. Lolz.

So Trump told people to storm the capital.. In this day and age there should be video footage, a tweet, something that backs that up..

To the bolded --- I didnt say that, did I? I suggest you look up the plan Trump tried to get Pence to do. You know, the one where he told Pence --- 'simply declare me President'. Notwithstanding the ECA, and notwithstanding the Constitution..... Lolz.

So yes, when I see people screaming about adhering to the Constitution, I am all for that. No matter what the outcome is politically. And as opposed to some that get upset about it in one direction and dont seem to care when it occurs in the opposite direction.

As to the bolded, that is a completely other issue.

So surely that's documented right? Not just a he said, she said right?

Yes, it is documented:

Quote:"Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and the good of our country and if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you," Trump said in his speech.

Link: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953616107...y-test-yet

As wrong as tanq may be when it comes to the corrupt Justice Department and FBI, he is dead-on right about this one.

Donald Trump belongs nowhere near any Constitutional office.

Even better documentation ---

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...60.0_4.pdf

(04-25-2023 11:56 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:42 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny. It was Trump that tried to subvert the ECA. You seemingly missed my point completely.

Not excusing Schumers comments.... but I find it humorous that on one hand some here jump up and down and excoriate Schumer for the comments above ( and rightfully so) but don't give a flying fk about the **** that their own team produces.

Getting into a frenzy about Schumers comments and steadfastly ignoring your demigods attempt to subvert the electoral count and certification is a pretty humorous look. Lolz.

So Trump told people to storm the capital.. In this day and age there should be video footage, a tweet, something that backs that up..

To the bolded --- I didnt say that, did I? I suggest you look up the plan Trump tried to get Pence to do. You know, the one where he told Pence --- 'simply declare me President'. Notwithstanding the ECA, and notwithstanding the Constitution..... Lolz.

So yes, when I see people screaming about adhering to the Constitution, I am all for that. No matter what the outcome is politically. And as opposed to some that get upset about it in one direction and dont seem to care when it occurs in the opposite direction.

As to the bolded, that is a completely other issue.

So surely that's documented right? Not just a he said, she said right?

Yes, it is documented:

Quote:"Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and the good of our country and if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you," Trump said in his speech.

Link: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953616107...y-test-yet

As wrong as tanq may be when it comes to the corrupt Justice Department and FBI, he is dead-on right about this one.

Donald Trump belongs nowhere near any Constitutional office.

Oh, that. It's not a conspiracy, but rather has documents and first hand witness accounts to support it.

I'm shocked that people still debate this all these years later. Trump told Barbara Walters in 2020 that he'd accept the results of the election, then he hesitated, then said "if I win". And if he'd won, he would have supported the results. He didn't win, so he didn't support the results. It's like the wall, or so many other things that Trump talked about and then followed through on. People keep thinking that he's just a politician so he'll say anything to get elected, but unlike most he actually tries to follow through on most of the things that he says. The Good and the Bad. So when he says "immigration is a problem and I'm gonna fix it", he's actually going to wade into that mess and try really, really hard to fix it. And when he says "it would be nice to change the Constitution so that I could run for more than 2 terms" or "I'll accept the results of the election if I win", he means that, too. Pence is lucky that he escaped with a mean look rather than something more permanent, though it's hard to feel too sorry for him as he was the rubber stamp Yes Man for 4 years before finally saying No to something.

(04-25-2023 11:57 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  Ah. Ok. Got it. Having the government tell the media what they can and can't say is...unpalatable.

The FCC has been around for almost 90 years. They've been telling the media what they can and can't say (and show) since the beginning.

(04-25-2023 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:45 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Subverting the process to select the President is a big one in my book.

Aren't several of the people involved serving ungodly amounts of jail time waiting on trials?

Again.. Those people are not elected officials trying to tear down the Constitution.. They're being punished for their crimes are they not?

I think there are aspects you dont seemingly know very well. I am not referring to the storming of the Capitol.

I understand what you're saying.. I'm asking for proof.. Documentation... You know evidence?

Google is your friend, my friend. Not that hard to find the actual pdf of the base documents. Try 'Eastman', for one. I think there are even a couple of 'Eastman v. The United States' cites in addition to the base documents. ND California *and* 9th Circ. iirc. As well as a whole host of video depositions germinating from the 1/6 Committee stuff. Just saying.

We already know that the "committee" was BS and scrubbed all exculpatory information/documentation from their presentations. Worse yet, there were multiple points where they flat out lied and misrepresented "facts". If the committee's "work product" is the basis of your proof---its rates as perhaps being a slightly better political weapon than the Steele Dossier---but basically just a horrifically slanted---playing fast and loose with the the "truth"---political weapon. I mean, really---lets just start with the all the people that committee claims were "killed" in the Jan6th riots. Thats pretty indicative of the workmanship of the entire case. I would also add, that Trumps behavior on that date, which you seem bothered by, was far superior to level of cooperation and support that the White House received from the Capital Police and DC authorities when the White House was under siege in the summer of 2020 (but I never see long winded multiple chain posts railing against that incident---funny that).

(04-25-2023 12:11 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:57 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  Ah. Ok. Got it. Having the government tell the media what they can and can't say is...unpalatable.

The FCC has been around for almost 90 years. They've been telling the media what they can and can't say (and show) since the beginning.

Yeah, it's ironic that a big reason for the hard turns left and right by our 2 major parties has coincided with reduced rather than increased FCC oversight of the media. From 1949 to 1987, news shows were required to provide "balanced coverage" of controversial issues. However, this only applied to broadcast licensees, not cable providers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fact...439197002/

Fox and CNN, and many others, are only doing what was done before 1949, and started up again with the rise of Cable.

“It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell"

(04-25-2023 12:11 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:57 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  Ah. Ok. Got it. Having the government tell the media what they can and can't say is...unpalatable.

The FCC has been around for almost 90 years. They've been telling the media what they can and can't say (and show) since the beginning.

Has one of the top US Senators made public comments like this before?

That's the difference.

(04-25-2023 12:11 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:57 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  Ah. Ok. Got it. Having the government tell the media what they can and can't say is...unpalatable.

The FCC has been around for almost 90 years. They've been telling the media what they can and can't say (and show) since the beginning.

What a disingenuous crock of crap! The FCC has never taken sides between the 2 political parties. They've prevented pornography, foul language (the Carlin 7 words you can't say on Television) and they tried to prevent more Orson Welles kind of radio shows which panicked the nation with "War of the Worlds" presented as if it was actually happening. At one time the FCC would track down and prosecute telephone scams, but they can't since NAFTA because the treaty allows foreign phone banks to do it without threat of law, only arbitration. The FCC has never been run like TASS or PRAVDA until now. It is a big arse canary in the coal mine of freedom and it's dead as a doornail because of the toxic use of regulatory agencies which were never before politicized! We are in a new world and it sure as hell isn't "brave". It's anything but free. The government pimps pornography, pushes immorality on a public which rejects it, calls some crimes hate based solely on race and others in reverse not. The whole damn thing has been weaponized legally to eliminate personal freedom and liberty in general and is absolutely controlling freedom of speech and right to assembly.

This makes your explanation naive at best, obtuse at the minimum, or complicit at worst. How hot does the water have to get before your frog is boiled?

(04-25-2023 12:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:45 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Aren't several of the people involved serving ungodly amounts of jail time waiting on trials?

Again.. Those people are not elected officials trying to tear down the Constitution.. They're being punished for their crimes are they not?

I think there are aspects you dont seemingly know very well. I am not referring to the storming of the Capitol.

I understand what you're saying.. I'm asking for proof.. Documentation... You know evidence?

Google is your friend, my friend. Not that hard to find the actual pdf of the base documents. Try 'Eastman', for one. I think there are even a couple of 'Eastman v. The United States' cites in addition to the base documents. ND California *and* 9th Circ. iirc. As well as a whole host of video depositions germinating from the 1/6 Committee stuff. Just saying.

We already know that the "committee" was BS and scrubbed all exculpatory information/documentation from their presentations. Worse yet, there were multiple points where they flat out lied and misrepresented "facts". If the committee's "work product" is the basis of your proof---its rates as perhaps being a slightly better political weapon than the Steele Dossier---but basically just a horrifically slanted---playing fast and loose with the the "truth"---political weapon. I mean, really---lets just start with the all the people that committee claims were "killed" in the Jan6th riots. Thats pretty indicative of the workmanship of the entire case. I would also add, that Trumps behavior on that date, which you seem bothered by, was far superior to level of cooperation and support that the White House received from the Capital Police and DC authorities when the White House was under siege in the summer of 2020 (but I never see long winded multiple chain posts railing against that incident---funny that).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...60.0_4.pdf

All of the 1/6 depositions on this issue corroborated over 6 total cases in this string, including 3 9th Circ. appeals/

Im sorry you dont like the messenger. I suggest you get over the 'the envelope was smudged' and concentrate on the message inside.

If you have an issue with the facts set out under oath and in deposition, you are more than free to set out countervailing facts that have been developed. Or, simply bring the same old song and dance. Your choice.

I look forward to counter-issue facts instead of gnashing and wailing and caterwauling and foot stamping about the Committee itself.