January 6 - How much do you care?

[Winterborn]

Ok…so I’m guilty of a little hyperbole.

Satisfied?

It was hyperbolic but a point worth making.

Technically BDKalmR is correct, there are people who believe Tucker. There are kool-aid drinking right-wing radicals who consider Tucker and his ilk at Fox credible. Just like there are kool-aid drinking left-wing radicals who consider Lawrence O'Donnell and his ilk at MSNBC and CNN credible. I feel sorry for both sets of pathetic suckers.

Valid, but even broken clocks are right twice a day. So just because somebody like O'Donnell or Tucker says something, doesn't automatically make them wrong. It needs to be evaluated strongly against other evidence and viewpoints, but we can't just ignore them. (And here I thought you were a moderate )

The idiocy surrounding the Jan 6th hearings and now being able to view the videos, Tucker does have a point about the situation. IMHO, he is not wrong, but he is not completely right about the events that day either. The truth is somewhere in between, but he is more right (barely) than other news groups/people covering it.

Now I need a shower after saying we should not just ignore people like O'Donnell or Tucker.....

[kalm]

[kalm]

“Wait your turn! Wait your turn!”

[UNI88]

It was hyperbolic but a point worth making.

Technically BDKalmR is correct, there are people who believe Tucker. There are kool-aid drinking right-wing radicals who consider Tucker and his ilk at Fox credible. Just like there are kool-aid drinking left-wing radicals who consider Lawrence O'Donnell and his ilk at MSNBC and CNN credible. I feel sorry for both sets of pathetic suckers.

Valid, but even broken clocks are right twice a day. So just because somebody like O'Donnell or Tucker says something, doesn't automatically make them wrong. It needs to be evaluated strongly against other evidence and viewpoints, but we can't just ignore them. (And here I thought you were a moderate )

The idiocy surrounding the Jan 6th hearings and now being able to view the videos, Tucker does have a point about the situation. IMHO, he is not wrong, but he is not completely right about the events that day either. The truth is somewhere in between, but he is more right (barely) than other news groups/people covering it.

Now I need a shower after saying we should not just ignore people like O'Donnell or Tucker.....

Tucker (or O'Donnell) might be right sometimes but I don't have enough time to sift through his bullsh!t to figure out what's accurate and what isn't. I'd rather find more reliable sources and save myself the headache.

I'm on record as stating that the Democrats turned the Jan 6 hearings into a dog and pony show. They were more interested in presenting the evidence that supported their partisan views just like Tucker is more interested in presenting the evidence that supports his partisan views. As you said the truth is somewhere in between.

[Winterborn]

Valid, but even broken clocks are right twice a day. So just because somebody like O'Donnell or Tucker says something, doesn't automatically make them wrong. It needs to be evaluated strongly against other evidence and viewpoints, but we can't just ignore them. (And here I thought you were a moderate )

The idiocy surrounding the Jan 6th hearings and now being able to view the videos, Tucker does have a point about the situation. IMHO, he is not wrong, but he is not completely right about the events that day either. The truth is somewhere in between, but he is more right (barely) than other news groups/people covering it.

Now I need a shower after saying we should not just ignore people like O'Donnell or Tucker.....

Tucker (or O'Donnell) might be right sometimes but I don't have enough time to sift through his bullsh!t to figure out what's accurate and what isn't. I'd rather find more reliable sources and save myself the headache.

I'm on record as stating that the Democrats turned the Jan 6 hearings into a dog and pony show. They were more interested in presenting the evidence that supported their partisan views just like Tucker is more interested in presenting the evidence that supports his partisan views. As you said the truth is somewhere in between.

I do the exact same as I find that the few "facts" are so far and few between, along with being covered in a mountain of bullshit and personal bias (which is the same thing), that I do not bother.

But some people do bother and it behooves those of us that are more centralist to acknowledged when they do make a good point, along with pointing out when they do not. We should be able to begrudge them that one little point since it comes by only once in a blue moon. We are on the "high road" after all.

I fully agree with your second paragraph and am fine with charging those that broke the law with the "appropriate" sentence to fit their crime. What I am not good with is changing the rules to fit a particular agenda or denying defendants their right to due process.

[kalm]

Tucker (or O'Donnell) might be right sometimes but I don't have enough time to sift through his bullsh!t to figure out what's accurate and what isn't. I'd rather find more reliable sources and save myself the headache.

I'm on record as stating that the Democrats turned the Jan 6 hearings into a dog and pony show. They were more interested in presenting the evidence that supported their partisan views just like Tucker is more interested in presenting the evidence that supports his partisan views. As you said the truth is somewhere in between.

I do the exact same as I find that the few "facts" are so far and few between, along with being covered in a mountain of bullshit and personal bias (which is the same thing), that I do not bother.

But some people do bother and it behooves those of us that are more centralist to acknowledged when they do make a good point, along with pointing out when they do not. We should be able to begrudge them that one little point since it comes by only once in a blue moon. We are on the "high road" after all.

I fully agree with your second paragraph and am fine with charging those that broke the law with the "appropriate" sentence to fit their crime. What I am not good with is changing the rules to fit a particular agenda or denying defendants their right to due process.

1). I’m genuinely curious to see what you both go to for news and commentary. I’m always looking for new sources.

2). You do realize you don’t get more “centralist” (not to mention corporatist) than O’Donnell, right? Grant you he’s totally partisan but on the political spectrum he’s in the middle.

(This might indicate a deeper problem with our two party system).

[houndawg]

It was hyperbolic but a point worth making.

Technically BDKalmR is correct, there are people who believe Tucker. There are kool-aid drinking right-wing radicals who consider Tucker and his ilk at Fox credible. Just like there are kool-aid drinking left-wing radicals who consider Lawrence O'Donnell and his ilk at MSNBC and CNN credible. I feel sorry for both sets of pathetic suckers.

Valid, but even broken clocks are right twice a day. So just because somebody like O'Donnell or Tucker says something, doesn't automatically make them wrong. It needs to be evaluated strongly against other evidence and viewpoints, but we can't just ignore them. (And here I thought you were a moderate )

The idiocy surrounding the Jan 6th hearings and now being able to view the videos, Tucker does have a point about the situation. IMHO, he is not wrong, but he is not completely right about the events that day either. The truth is somewhere in between, but he is more right (barely) than other news groups/people covering it.

Now I need a shower after saying we should not just ignore people like O'Donnell or Tucker.....

Call me when the untuckered version comes out.


Capitiol Police got caught with their pants down by their fellow travelers.

[houndawg]

Valid, but even broken clocks are right twice a day. So just because somebody like O'Donnell or Tucker says something, doesn't automatically make them wrong. It needs to be evaluated strongly against other evidence and viewpoints, but we can't just ignore them. (And here I thought you were a moderate )

The idiocy surrounding the Jan 6th hearings and now being able to view the videos, Tucker does have a point about the situation. IMHO, he is not wrong, but he is not completely right about the events that day either. The truth is somewhere in between, but he is more right (barely) than other news groups/people covering it.

Now I need a shower after saying we should not just ignore people like O'Donnell or Tucker.....

Tucker (or O'Donnell) might be right sometimes but I don't have enough time to sift through his bullsh!t to figure out what's accurate and what isn't. I'd rather find more reliable sources and save myself the headache.

I'm on record as stating that the Democrats turned the Jan 6 hearings into a dog and pony show. They were more interested in presenting the evidence that supported their partisan views just like Tucker is more interested in presenting the evidence that supports his partisan views. As you said the truth is somewhere in between.

Bullshit - and SGPTNSBTCH level bullshit at that...

They didn't present anything but people who were there at the time giving their version of what they saw and heard. All of them Republicans and/or Trump appointees. Please.

[houndawg]

Absolute bald faced lie from Garland. ZERO officers died on Jan 6..

"because of " and "on" are not the same thing.

Stupid fuck.

[BDKJMU]

Tucker (or O'Donnell) might be right sometimes but I don't have enough time to sift through his bullsh!t to figure out what's accurate and what isn't. I'd rather find more reliable sources and save myself the headache.

I'm on record as stating that the Democrats turned the Jan 6 hearings into a dog and pony show. They were more interested in presenting the evidence that supported their partisan views just like Tucker is more interested in presenting the evidence that supports his partisan views. As you said the truth is somewhere in between.

Bullshit - and SGPTNSBTCH level bullshit at that...

They didn't present anything but people who were there at the time giving their version of what they saw and heard. All of them Republicans and/or Trump appointees. Please.

Wrong.

[houndawg]

Bullshit - and SGPTNSBTCH level bullshit at that...

They didn't present anything but people who were there at the time giving their version of what they saw and heard. All of them Republicans and/or Trump appointees. Please.

Wrong.

I knew that would smoke you out.

The hearings had none of the grandstanding of the Benghazi witch hunt. The committee just sat there and let the people who were on the scene tell us what happened. And tell us they did

[BDKJMU]

Wrong.

I knew that would smoke you out.

The hearings had none of the grandstanding of the Benghazi witch hunt. The committee just sat there and let the people who were on the scene tell us what happened. And tell us they did

The democrat 1/6 hearings were one giant, grandstanding, dog and pony show. And not all were conks/and or Trump appointees as you claimed. Not even remotely close.

[houndawg]

I knew that would smoke you out.

The hearings had none of the grandstanding of the Benghazi witch hunt. The committee just sat there and let the people who were on the scene tell us what happened. And tell us they did

The democrat 1/6 hearings were one giant, grandstanding, dog and pony show. And not all were conks/and or Trump appointees as you claimed. Not even remotely close.

Who wasn't a Republican or a Trump appointee and what was their testimony about?

All the first-hand testimony from the White House was from Republicans.

[BDKJMU]

The democrat 1/6 hearings were one giant, grandstanding, dog and pony show. And not all were conks/and or Trump appointees as you claimed. Not even remotely close.

Who wasn't a Republican or a Trump appointee and what was their testimony about?

The J6 committee interviewed over 1,000 witnesses, including donk members of Congress and their staffs. + people's whose political isn't known- like Capitol Police and Georgia election workers.

[kalm]

Who wasn't a Republican or a Trump appointee and what was their testimony about?

The J6 committee interviewed over 1,000 witnesses, including donk members of Congress and their staffs. + people's whose political isn't known- like Capitol Police and Georgia election workers.

Tucker must have interviewed a ton of them.

[houndawg]

Who wasn't a Republican or a Trump appointee and what was their testimony about?

The J6 committee interviewed over 1,000 witnesses, including donk members of Congress and their staffs. + people's whose political isn't known- like Capitol Police and Georgia election workers.

small fry - the people that were closest to the President, working in the White House, on-the-scene eyewitnesses - all Republicans and/or Trump appointees telling what they saw in their own words. And don't try to pass off that bullshit about the Capitol Police political views being unknown - right up to Jan.6 LEOs were overwhelmingly Trumplets, still are - how do you think the CP got caught so poorly prepared? If that were a BLM protest they would have been armed to the teeth and in full body armor

[UNI88]

The J6 committee interviewed over 1,000 witnesses, including donk members of Congress and their staffs. + people's whose political isn't known- like Capitol Police and Georgia election workers.

small fry - the people that were closest to the President, working in the White House, on-the-scene eyewitnesses - all Republicans and/or Trump appointees telling what they saw in their own words. And don't try to pass off that bullshit about the Capitol Police political views being unknown - right up to Jan.6 LEOs were overwhelmingly Trumplets, still are - how do you think the CP got caught so poorly prepared? If that were a BLM protest they would have been armed to the teeth and in full body armor

Of course they would be but what would the Capitol Police be wearing?

[BDKJMU]

The J6 committee interviewed over 1,000 witnesses, including donk members of Congress and their staffs. + people's whose political isn't known- like Capitol Police and Georgia election workers.

small fry - the people that were closest to the President, working in the White House, on-the-scene eyewitnesses - all Republicans and/or Trump appointees telling what they saw in their own words. And don't try to pass off that bullshit about the Capitol Police political views being unknown - right up to Jan.6 LEOs were overwhelmingly Trumplets, still are - how do you think the CP got caught so poorly prepared? If that were a BLM protest they would have been armed to the teeth and in full body armor

Of course of the 1k people the committee got testimony from, they only put a few doz conks in front of the cameras for their prime time dog and pony show.

And don’t be a and think that all the CP officers were conk Trump supporters. One of the J6’s committees star CP officer witnesses was a huge donk lefty, going by his social media. The one that Tucker interviewed last night- also a Biden voter.

[BDKJMU]

WH deputy press secretary telling the same lie. I guess the WH thinks if they and their lapdogs in the MSM repeat the lie often enough, people will belive it.

[Winterborn]

I do the exact same as I find that the few "facts" are so far and few between, along with being covered in a mountain of bullshit and personal bias (which is the same thing), that I do not bother.

But some people do bother and it behooves those of us that are more centralist to acknowledged when they do make a good point, along with pointing out when they do not. We should be able to begrudge them that one little point since it comes by only once in a blue moon. We are on the "high road" after all.

I fully agree with your second paragraph and am fine with charging those that broke the law with the "appropriate" sentence to fit their crime. What I am not good with is changing the rules to fit a particular agenda or denying defendants their right to due process.

1). I’m genuinely curious to see what you both go to for news and commentary. I’m always looking for new sources.

2). You do realize you don’t get more “centralist” (not to mention corporatist) than O’Donnell, right? Grant you he’s totally partisan but on the political spectrum he’s in the middle.

(This might indicate a deeper problem with our two party system).

1) I read the same news articles and sources you do. We just have different lens we wear due to our experiences, beliefs, and dreams, etc..

2) Depends on your lens. Your lens says he is a Centrist. Mine says he is the same as Tucker and isn't worth the gas to race a piss-ant's scooter around a cheerio.

In the name of science (and if you agree), lets do an experiment. The following article is from the Washington Post and I read it on MSN News Feed (something I regularly do). In one or two words, describe what you think when you read it. And there are no wrong answers.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/covid ... r-AA18mBh0

When the next pandemic sweeps the United States, health officials in Ohio won’t be able to shutter businesses or schools, even if they become epicenters of outbreaks. Nor will they be empowered to force Ohioans who have been exposed to go into quarantine. State officials in North Dakota are barred from directing people to wear masks to slow the spread. Not even the president can force federal agencies to issue vaccination or testing mandates to thwart its march.

Conservative and libertarian forces have defanged much of the nation’s public health system through legislation and litigation as the world staggers into the fourth year of covid.

At least 30 states, nearly all led by Republican legislatures, have passed laws since 2020 that limit public health authority, according to a Washington Post analysis of laws collected by Kaiser Health News and the Associated Press as well as the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the Center for Public Health Law Research at Temple University.

[kalm]

1). I’m genuinely curious to see what you both go to for news and commentary. I’m always looking for new sources.

2). You do realize you don’t get more “centralist” (not to mention corporatist) than O’Donnell, right? Grant you he’s totally partisan but on the political spectrum he’s in the middle.

(This might indicate a deeper problem with our two party system).

1) I read the same news articles and sources you do. We just have different lens we wear due to our experiences, beliefs, and dreams, etc..

2) Depends on your lens. Your lens says he is a Centrist. Mine says he is the same as Tucker and isn't worth the gas to race a piss-ant's scooter around a cheerio.

In the name of science (and if you agree), lets do an experiment. The following article is from the Washington Post and I read it on MSN News Feed (something I regularly do). In one or two words, describe what you think when you read it. And there are no wrong answers.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/covid ... r-AA18mBh0

When the next pandemic sweeps the United States, health officials in Ohio won’t be able to shutter businesses or schools, even if they become epicenters of outbreaks. Nor will they be empowered to force Ohioans who have been exposed to go into quarantine. State officials in North Dakota are barred from directing people to wear masks to slow the spread. Not even the president can force federal agencies to issue vaccination or testing mandates to thwart its march.

Conservative and libertarian forces have defanged much of the nation’s public health system through legislation and litigation as the world staggers into the fourth year of covid.

At least 30 states, nearly all led by Republican legislatures, have passed laws since 2020 that limit public health authority, according to a Washington Post analysis of laws collected by Kaiser Health News and the Associated Press as well as the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the Center for Public Health Law Research at Temple University.

Mostly true. (Two words or less is limiting)

O’Donnell is a good example of corporatism and legacy news propaganda.

MSNBC’s niche is left leaning/neo-liberal infotainment…hosted by fair percentage of Republicans and former Republicans. Their job is profit and support of corporate owners and sponsors fit within a center left framework.

[Winterborn]

Mostly true. (Two words or less is limiting)

O’Donnell is a good example of corporatism and legacy news propaganda.

MSNBC’s niche is left leaning/neo-liberal infotainment…hosted by fair percentage of Republicans and former Republicans. Their job is profit and support of corporate owners and sponsors fit within a center left framework.

I know it is limiting and that limit was deliberate as it forces one to think holistically about an article and really distill down what it means to a reader.

My word or two to describe that particular article was "satisfaction". In that there are consequences in betraying the trust people have in a particular institution and that at least some people are willing to question the government scrip and push back.

You say "mostly true", I say it is above that (again just my opinion) and the article indirectly (I doubt the author meant to do this) highlights what I consider victories that happened during COVID and that the only people health officials have to blame is themselves.

This is pretty basic, and I am sure you know this from reading my posts, but I am in favor of less government and more freedom to choose. You are have a big heart towards others and that concern influences your beliefs in what role the government should play and how you interpret data. Both viewpoints are needed and while we will not agree in most areas, the discussion we will have makes us both better.

Again, depends on how you define those "Republicans". They may have called themselves that and stumped under that banner but it doesn't mean they are that. I am a firm believer that definitions of a word need to be considered very closely to see if those words should be used (and I am not a fan of big buckets, I like nuance ), to me they just used that term out of convenience, because they had to choose, and depending on where they were from, they chose who gave them the best odds of winning (Half of ND state "Republicans" are really neo-liberals at best and vote in line with the "Democrat" reps 75% of the time).

I like the term neo-liberal because that describes them much closer than Republican, I wouldn't call them conservative in anything but the very broadest sense of the word. The term Republican or Democrat, IMHO, shouldn't be used to describe a person except in the most basic of senses as it really doesn't describe that persons beliefs nor how they vote. MSNBC knows its audience (and it is why O'Donnell is there) and that leans very corporate (like you said) but it also is barely center (again per my left, center, right definition). I know there was a long couple of posts on that very topic (how one defines left, center, right) but for most people I know MSNBC is seen as a shill for the Democratic party first and big corporations second. Nothing in their reporting the last 8+ years has shown me otherwise.

[UNI88]

WH deputy press secretary telling the same lie. I guess the WH thinks if they and their lapdogs in the MSM repeat the lie often enough, people will belive it.

They're parsing words and you're peddling their bullsh!t. No officers died on January 6 does not mean that no officers died as a result of January 6. You can argue that the events of January 6 did not cause the stroke or suicides but you cannot definitively proove it.

[BDKJMU]

WH deputy press secretary telling the same lie. I guess the WH thinks if they and their lapdogs in the MSM repeat the lie often enough, people will belive it.

They're parsing words and you're peddling their bullsh!t. No officers died on January 6 does not mean that no officers died as a result of January 6. You can argue that the events of January 6 did not cause the stroke or suicides but you cannot definitively proove it.

No, when they’re definitely stating it, its beyond parsing words. Its flat out lying.

[UNI88]

They're parsing words and you're peddling their bullsh!t. No officers died on January 6 does not mean that no officers died as a result of January 6. You can argue that the events of January 6 did not cause the stroke or suicides but you cannot definitively proove it.

No, when they’re definitely stating it, its beyond parsing words. Its flat out lying.

She stated that it was a violent attack that cost police officers their lives. What did she lie about?

• That it was a violent attack? It was not a completely peaceful demonstration, there was violence involved so that wasn't a lie.
• That cost police officers their lives? Police officers died in the days and month following the attack and it could be argued that the attack was the root cause of at least some of those deaths.

It was an attempt to subvert our electoral process and thus an attack on our republic. You can try to whitewash it to make it look better for the MAGAt right if you want but that's no better than the loony left trying to make it into a near coup that almost ended the republic.