(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 worlds 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?
You just showed where it has been political in the past. There's been plenty of examples that the FCC flipped based on public outcry... err, "what is in the public's best interest". It has been used to attack "immoral" material in the name of religion more than politics, but, at least to me, that is essentially the same.
And to go back to oru's post, I fully agree, what Shumer said is ridiculous. He should be ripped for it, and questioned over and over when he goes back up for reelection. In all honesty, he should be clarifying or walking back his ridiculous statements.
(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?
Some of us dont seemingly hide in a Faraday cage like others and also dont liberally chant the highly generalized and amazingly vague (as to be utterly useless) 'they' to explain everything under creation, mind you.
(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.
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).
First, you seemingly dont have a clue what I am referring to above.
Second, I have fully supported Trump's efforts in stemming the riot in DC in the summer of 2020. His 'behavior' in with respect to the DC riot in Summer 2020 was indicative of a person who respects the Executive Office. His hiding in a fing dining room and throwing ketchup on the wall when Senators and Congress wouldnt delay the certification, and making zero attempt to exercise *any* level of leadership or action to 1/6 (aside from leading the ketchup to the wall) was fing sick.
What I am noting above doesnt even include that disgusting wholly lack of respect for the Office of the President.
Making **** up out of thin air and compounding it with a series of 'whadabouts' doesnt do you much good above. Just saying.
For glimpse, try looking the Eastman matter over instead of blindly tossing up subjects.
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2023 12:41 PM by tanqtonic.)
(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 worlds 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?
You just showed where it has been political in the past. There's been plenty of examples that the FCC flipped based on public outcry... err, "what is in the public's best interest". It has been used to attack "immoral" material in the name of religion more than politics, but, at least to me, that is essentially the same.
And to go back to oru's post, I fully agree, what Shumer said is ridiculous. He should be ripped for it, and questioned over and over when he goes back up for reelection. In all honesty, he should be clarifying or walking back his ridiculous statements.
There is such as thing as morality and it is intended to protect the children from adult perversions, so they have a chance to grow up normally. If you think this new system of government is going to help you well good luck. I lived through it in the past and you ain't seen nothing yet. You are about to lose your right to question or disagree, and when it is fully in place you'll lose your livelihood and/or life for pushing that limit. If you think morality oppressed, you just wait until immorality is fully in charge. You don't know what oppression is when the power is absolute. It will be fickle and change regularly. Purges will never end. Only this time there won't be a power in the world which believes in liberty to rescue you. We were one of the last few, and certainly the only one with means.
Communist China executes homosexuals, imposes its own morality, and the people have little say. Have at it. You reap what you sow! Where do you think religion sprang from? Before governments it was the way to keep any society somewhat orderly and to protect people from destructive abuses. It's what held tribes and villages and clans together. And it is no accident that the code of Hammurabi, the 10 commandments, the Tao Te Ching, and Native American belief systems all came up with the same moral enforcements.
You just told me all I need to know about you. You have no moral guidelines.
(04-25-2023 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote: There is such as thing as morality and it is intended to protect the children from adult perversions, so they have a chance to grow up normally. If you think this new system of government is going to help you well good luck.
Howard Stern has produced clips from other shows that were considered "moral" that were considerably worse than his own shows but never received a fine. The FCC has been used as a weapon for decades by both parties. That is my point.
Quote:I lived through it in the past and you ain't seen nothing yet. You are about to lose your right to question or disagree, and when it is fully in place you'll lose your livelihood and/or life for pushing that limit. If you think morality oppressed, you just wait until immorality is fully in charge. You don't know what oppression is when the power is absolute. It will be fickle and change regularly. Purges will never end. Only this time there won't be a power in the world which believes in liberty to rescue you. We were one of the last few, and certainly the only one with means.
Communist China executes homosexuals, imposes its own morality, and the people have little say. Have at it. You reap what you sow! Where do you think religion sprang from? Before governments it was the way to keep any society somewhat orderly and to protect people from destructive abuses. It's what held tribes and villages and clans together. And it is no accident that the code of Hammurabi, the 10 commandments, the Tao Te Ching, and Native American belief systems all came up with the same moral enforcements.
You just told me all I need to know about you. You have no moral guidelines.
Sine Dei.
Yikes... because your morals and my morals are not the same, I have no morals? Alrighty... glad to see you expect everyone to live exactly as you say they should. You sound an awful lot like your communist China comparison.
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2023 12:45 PM by mlb.)
The Soviet Unionists over in Russia love them some Tucker Carlson. The conspiracy theory woven leading to the imprisonment of Carlson is pretty interesting. Starts at the 1 minute 50 second mark.... It's time to come home Tucker
(04-25-2023 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote: There is such as thing as morality and it is intended to protect the children from adult perversions, so they have a chance to grow up normally. If you think this new system of government is going to help you well good luck.
Howard Stern has produced clips from other shows that were considered "moral" that were considerably worse than his own shows but never received a fine. The FCC has been used as a weapon for decades by both parties. That is my point.
Quote:I lived through it in the past and you ain't seen nothing yet. You are about to lose your right to question or disagree, and when it is fully in place you'll lose your livelihood and/or life for pushing that limit. If you think morality oppressed, you just wait until immorality is fully in charge. You don't know what oppression is when the power is absolute. It will be fickle and change regularly. Purges will never end. Only this time there won't be a power in the world which believes in liberty to rescue you. We were one of the last few, and certainly the only one with means.
Communist China executes homosexuals, imposes its own morality, and the people have little say. Have at it. You reap what you sow! Where do you think religion sprang from? Before governments it was the way to keep any society somewhat orderly and to protect people from destructive abuses. It's what held tribes and villages and clans together. And it is no accident that the code of Hammurabi, the 10 commandments, the Tao Te Ching, and Native American belief systems all came up with the same moral enforcements.
You just told me all I need to know about you. You have no moral guidelines.
Sine Dei.
Yikes... because your morals and my morals are not the same, I have no morals? Alrighty... glad to see you expect everyone to live exactly as you say they should. You sound an awful lot like your communist China comparison.
Your sophistry doesn't change the direction of the disintegration of this society. We are becoming more lawless, and the weaponizing of the law to political agenda removes the blindfold under which justice is intended to operate and when it isn't applied equally it is no longer moral by any definition and becomes instead a weapon to be wielded against anyone the immoral state decides to attack. Today that can be me tomorrow it might well be you. It is bigger than mere sexuality and once misused damned hard to control. We are there. The harvest that this turn away from impartiality will sow will lead to violence and violence is the absence of reason and morality. The system we had worked for those who had been constrained by sexual preference, now you would seek to replace it with one that ignores the preferences and views of others. That is the totalitarian result. Had the existing laws been totalitarian you would have a say at all. And it is that right to speak of a different way which you assault. Your right to a different view exists because the law worked. Yet you would seek to silence opposition. That makes you the tyrant, not me. Freedom exists for all or it exists for none. But societies have laws to protect people, property and rights.
This all started to turn when H.W. Bush granted law enforcement the right to confiscate property before a court adjudicated guilt or innocence. It was turned on its ear with hate crimes. An assault on any person is a crime. Making a special crime when it occurs against some and not others is not equal protection under the law. It is a feel good political stance with unintended consequences which sows division. Laws protect all equally or they protect none. Now age appropriateness is out the window in favor of subjecting children to concepts beyond their developmental stage. That's abuse. And that is why we have some censorship in any free society, to protect those who cannot yet protect themselves or who lack a basis upon which to make decisions due to a lack of maturity.
And anyone who argues for it is encouraging abuse and should be held accountable for it. Children's right to be only children should be inviable.
What you champion is anarchy whether that is what you think you are championing or not.
(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.
Google is my friend.. However, you made the claim and should back it up. As a lawyer I hope you don't present a case and tell the judge, the evidence is there, google it... That's not posting in good faith.
(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.
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.
If that's the case, we have several in DC that should be ousted..
Again looks like a bit of inferring and jumping to conclusions but now clear direction for Pence to overturn anything. I believe if there was the DC establishment would've jumped all over it and Trump would be in court over it.
(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..
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.
Can literally say that about 99.9% of all politicians
My point is to stay on topic.
You literally draw continuous comparisons to Trump when you can draw the same for 99.9% of all politicians.
(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?
Some of us dont seemingly hide in a Faraday cage like others and also dont liberally chant the highly generalized and amazingly vague (as to be utterly useless) 'they' to explain everything under creation, mind you.
Well you dolt, I'm sure as hell not going to start multiple sentences with "The FCC " once I've indicated which entity my remarks are addressing.
(04-25-2023 11:15 AM)gdunn Wrote: 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.
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.
If that's the case, we have several in DC that should be ousted..
Again looks like a bit of inferring and jumping to conclusions but now clear direction for Pence to overturn anything. I believe if there was the DC establishment would've jumped all over it and Trump would be in court over it.
It exists. Democrats tried like hell to remove it a handful of times since then. Keep in mind, dems would have tried to use it had states broke the election law when Bush or Trump were elected.
(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..
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.
Can literally say that about 99.9% of all politicians
My point is to stay on topic.
You literally draw continuous comparisons to Trump when you can draw the same for 99.9% of all politicians.
All of them suck donkey balls my man
Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk
My point is that it looks stupid as **** to on one hand jump around like a scalded gibbon monkey screeching about 'how dare' Schumer merely mentions the item while on the other hand simply ignoring the actual issues of *your* dude to piss on the Constitutional order.
(04-25-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote: Your sophistry doesn't change the direction of the disintegration of this society. We are becoming more lawless, and the weaponizing of the law to political agenda removes the blindfold under which justice is intended to operate and when it isn't applied equally it is no longer moral by any definition and becomes instead a weapon to be wielded against anyone the immoral state decides to attack. Today that can be me tomorrow it might well be you.
Fully agree with you, we've been giving away our liberties for decades. It is getting worse now. But, that being said, we were talking about the FCC specifically (or I was at least). It has been used to attack shows that quite honestly were more moral than the supposed "high character" show and/or actors. The moral high ground has continually been lowered because the people who were supposedly "moral" turned out to be hypocrites.
Quote:It is bigger than mere sexuality and once misused damned hard to control. We are there. The harvest that this turn away from impartiality will sow will lead to violence and violence is the absence of reason and morality. The system we had worked for those who had been constrained by sexual preference, now you would seek to replace it with one that ignores the preferences and views of others. That is the totalitarian result. Had the existing laws been totalitarian you would have a say at all. And it is that right to speak of a different way which you assault. Your right to a different view exists because the law worked. Yet you would seek to silence opposition. That makes you the tyrant, not me. Freedom exists for all or it exists for none. But societies have laws to protect people, property and rights.
This all started to turn when H.W. Bush granted law enforcement the right to confiscate property before a court adjudicated guilt or innocence. It was turned on its ear with hate crimes. An assault on any person is a crime. Making a special crime when it occurs against some and not others is not equal protection under the law. It is a feel good political stance with unintended consequences which sows division. Laws protect all equally or they protect none. Now age appropriateness is out the window in favor of subjecting children to concepts beyond their developmental stage. That's abuse. And that is why we have some censorship in any free society, to protect those who cannot yet protect themselves or who lack a basis upon which to make decisions due to a lack of maturity.
And anyone who argues for it is encouraging abuse and should be held accountable for it. Children's right to be only children should be inviable.
What you champion is anarchy whether that is what you think you are championing or not.
I don't champion anything. All I pointed out is that the FCC has been holding different people to different standards for decades. Howard Stern would get fines for harmless stunts while Oprah Winfrey would talk about the same things, on TV at 4PM (when kids weren't in school) and never be second guessed. Same could be said about soap operas, prime time sitcoms, and everything else.
Which goes back to the beginning... who defines what is moral and immoral? Holding different entities to different standards most certainly is immoral. But allowing 2 loving adults to marry isn't because they are of the same sex? As a divorced father, I'd say that they are a better example for stable relationships than their mom and I were. That doesn't mean my kids are going to suddenly turn gay.
(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! [b] 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?
Some of us dont seemingly hide in a Faraday cage like others and also dont liberally chant the highly generalized and amazingly vague (as to be utterly useless) 'they' to explain everything under creation, mind you.
Well you dolt, I'm sure as hell not going to start multiple sentences with "The FCC " once I've indicated which entity my remarks are addressing.
[/quote]
Well sir, I guess you overlooked your conspiracy and generalized rhetoric laced aria cresceno, bolded above.
Start on FCC, get the motors running, and hit the star studded crescendo cymbal crash of the generalized 'war on freedom' that your opera aria ends with. Oh well.....
(04-25-2023 12:11 PM)mlb Wrote: 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! [b] 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?
Some of us dont seemingly hide in a Faraday cage like others and also dont liberally chant the highly generalized and amazingly vague (as to be utterly useless) 'they' to explain everything under creation, mind you.
Well you dolt, I'm sure as hell not going to start multiple sentences with "The FCC " once I've indicated which entity my remarks are addressing.
Well sir, I guess you overlooked your conspiracy and generalized rhetoric laced aria cresceno, bolded above.
Start on FCC, get the motors running, and hit the star studded crescendo cymbal crash of the generalized 'war on freedom' that your opera aria ends with. Oh well.....
[/quote]
Keep moving those goal posts and posting nothing of substance and you'll find out what I do with dissemblers, which to me is a stage 3 cancer on any forum.
(04-25-2023 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: 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.
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.
If that's the case, we have several in DC that should be ousted..
Again looks like a bit of inferring and jumping to conclusions but now clear direction for Pence to overturn anything. I believe if there was the DC establishment would've jumped all over it and Trump would be in court over it.
It exists. Democrats tried like hell to remove it a handful of times since then. Keep in mind, dems would have tried to use it had states broke the election law when Bush or Trump were elected.
Funny. Trump specifically tried to remove *selected* elector slates in the certification on an ad hoc basis. Even where the the outcome was dispositive (see NM).
Specifically, what 'election laws' have been deemed to have been broken and sustained by *any* court in favor of *any* Trump post- or pre- election challenge? Please be specific.
(04-25-2023 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: 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! [b] 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?
Some of us dont seemingly hide in a Faraday cage like others and also dont liberally chant the highly generalized and amazingly vague (as to be utterly useless) 'they' to explain everything under creation, mind you.
Well you dolt, I'm sure as hell not going to start multiple sentences with "The FCC " once I've indicated which entity my remarks are addressing.
Well sir, I guess you overlooked your conspiracy and generalized rhetoric laced aria cresceno, bolded above.
Start on FCC, get the motors running, and hit the star studded crescendo cymbal crash of the generalized 'war on freedom' that your opera aria ends with. Oh well.....
Keep moving those goal posts and posting nothing of substance and you'll find out what I do with dissemblers, which to me is a stage 3 cancer on any forum.
[/quote]
Just saying I dont agree with the generalized war on freedom from every aspect of the government that you seemingly espouse above. Like you do here: "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."
And I certainly did call you 'sir' as opposed to your noting of myself as 'dolt'.
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2023 01:50 PM by tanqtonic.)
