Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 24, 2023 Posted February 24, 2023 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/21/us/politics/trump-mitch-mcconnell-kevin-mccarthy.html
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 24, 2023 Posted February 24, 2023 1 hour ago, redtail hawk said: Not analogous at all. The R's were offered their choices of members on the committee barring those that may have actually been involved in the insurrection. There were R members in the end. You are therefore saying that those R's promoted lies from the committee. Comparing Liz Cheney to Tucker Carlson is like comparing cashmere to burlap. ask yourself what motivation Cheney had to lie...to lose her next election? We all now know what Carlson's prime motivation is and it's not altruistic 47 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: not you. tried to equate the committee to Carlson. pelosi rejected 2 members of congress which is her prerogative and now McCarthy's which he has used against certain D's.. McCarthy had nearly 200 others to choose from for the Jan 6 committee..@Over 29 years of fanhood quote me 3 times… it doesn’t change reality. the Jan committee production was as partisan Hollywood as Fox News just a different polarization. Like many issues there are the wacko extremes; 1) it was the worst day since Pearl Harbor, violent crazy lunatic’s nearly toppled our democracy secretly led by orange man (the Russian asset) and AOC almost died. vs 2) a bunch of patriots peacefully protesting the hijacking of DJT election victory were secretly egged on by the deep state to storm the capital so they could for ever imprison MAGA republicans Trump who is also a sworn enemy of the deep state And you haven’t figured out Liz’s strategy?? She took a political risk that the R base and moderates might pivot towards her and give her some momentum to run for office. It backfired. oh no, you didn’t think it was just “doing the right thing, did you?” 😂 1 1 1 1 1 2
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 24, 2023 Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, redtail hawk said: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/21/pelosi-rejects-republicans-banks-jordan-jan-6-select-committee/8042839002/ No they didn't want Jordan and Banks. plenty of other choices they could have made just like the dems did when McCarthy refused some committee members The committee charter called for 13 members, 5 chosen after consultation with the minority leader. Fact The actual committee consisted of 7 democrats and 2 republicans. Fact 2 which were certainly not approved in consultation with the minority. Fact The House Speaker violated the committee's charter both in size and composition of the committee. Fact The Speaker vetoed the minority appointments and the minority determined opting out of the process was a prudent course of action. Sure plenty of other choices could have been made as long as Pelosi approved. That's dictatorial which is ironic as that type of behavior alleged to have been expressed by somebody else was a focus of the entire committee expressing constant concerns for democracy while violating the very rules governing their committee. The message, democracy only if we win. Edited February 24, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills 1 5
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 24, 2023 Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: And you haven’t figured out Liz’s strategy?? She took a political risk that the R base and moderates might pivot towards her and give her some momentum to run for office. It backfired. OMG. you actually believe that? I'll concede she needs the $200k salary like a whole in the head but she ran again so she wanted it. U really believe her (and her father's) political instincts are that bad? the things you people have to tell yourselves to get thru the day.... 2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: The Speaker vetoed the minority appointments and the minority determined opting out of the process was a prudent course of action. Sure plenty of other choices could have been made as long as Pelosi approved. McCarthy opted out on trump's command cuz he thought it would play the best with his cult. Later, trump questioned that decision. but it turns out the base is more stupid than even he thought. btw, you skipped the first step in the committee process" The big news on the Hill this morning is that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced his opposition to a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission. He issued a statement against the proposal and spoke out against it at the House GOP Conference this morning, even though his ally John Katko (R-N.Y.) negotiated on his behalf and secured almost all the concessions McCarthy had sought. By all accounts, there's no real ambiguity as to what happened. The House GOP leader encouraged one of his allies to work on a deal, and McCarthy made sure to include unreasonable demands he expected Democrats to reject. Instead, the minority leader's ally "secured almost all the concessions McCarthy had sought." Indeed, John Katko said the agreement he reached with House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) is "nearly identical" to the one House Republicans originally proposed in January. (source Politico and MSNBC). The R's showed from the outset, they didn't want Jan 6 investigated at all. Then: "Late last month, on near-party lines, the House approved the select committee after Republicans blocked the formation of an independent commission to investigate the incident. One of the Republicans who voted to approve the committee, Wyoming's Liz Cheney, was picked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to be on the panel." (source Politico) McCarthy appointed 5 congressmen, 3 of whom voted to deny the election results, ie a poison pill. Pelosi accepted 3/5 and McCarthy refused further negotiations on the committee. Banks, on being appointed said: "If Democrats were serious about investigating political violence, this committee would be studying not only the January 6 riot at the Capitol, but also the hundreds of violent political riots last summer when many more innocent Americans and law-enforcement officers were attacked," employing a familiar Republican talking point of questioning Democrats' responses to a summer of largely peaceful demonstrations against racism and police brutality."(source MSNBC) Then, as the investigation was underway: “Unfortunately, a bad decision was made,” the former president said in his best passive voice. Though he didn’t call out McCarthy by name, Trump added that it “was a bad decision not to have representation on that committee. That was a very, very foolish decision.” But actual documented history is irrelevant to your side...because it doesn't fit your narrative. Edited February 24, 2023 by redtail hawk 1
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 24, 2023 Posted February 24, 2023 16 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: OMG. you actually believe that? I'll concede she need the $200k salary like a whole in the head but she ran again so she wanted it. U really believe her (and her father's) political instincts are that bad? Not sure what is more insightful about you ‘whole’ in the head or suggesting the Cheney’s are bastions of instinctive election tactics. I suppose Liz just really believed in upholding the ideals of democracy irrespective the damage done to her career. 😂 😂 Hell I bet she has no political ambition at all … 🙄 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 24, 2023 Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: I suppose Liz just really believed in upholding the ideals of democracy irrespective the damage done to her career yes, there are a few (very few these days) patriotic Republicans. and wow, I missplellled "whole" - big win for you. I'll critique your prose more closely henceforth. Edited February 24, 2023 by redtail hawk 1
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 24, 2023 Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: Let me edit for you… it should be this; “yes, there are a very few if any, patriotic politicians.” And she isn’t one of them Edited February 24, 2023 by Over 29 years of fanhood 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 24, 2023 Posted February 24, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: Let me edit for you… it should be this; “yes, there are a very few if any, patriotic politicians.” if I chose that sentence structure, I would prefer: yes, there are few if any, patriotic republicans. What I actually chose is perfectly acceptable and aptly conveys my point. even you understood my meaning. Edited February 25, 2023 by redtail hawk
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 24, 2023 Posted February 24, 2023 8 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: if I chose that sentence structure I would prefer: yes, there are few if any, patriotic republicans. What I actually chose is perfectly acceptable and aptly conveys my point. even you understood my meaning. Oh I see, a subscriber to the good guys vs bad guys fairy tale. - completely understood good luck with that. 🐑 1 2
B-Man Posted February 26, 2023 Posted February 26, 2023 (edited) This is a stunning admission. The news organizations are saying that if more January 6 footage is released, it “risks…the legitimacy of…the various federal investigations and prosecutions of January 6 crimes.” Gosh, why might that be? Where have they been for the last two years? Why haven’t they wanted to see the footage until now? To date, apparently, they have been happy with the isolated clips and spin provided by Nancy Pelosi. This is the hilarious part: “Without full public access to the complete historical record, there is concern that an ideologically-based narrative of an already polarizing event will take hold in the public consciousness… But wait! Until now, we haven’t had “full public access to the complete historical record,” because Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t permit it. An “ideologically-based narrative” of the “polarizing event” has been propagated–by Pelosi and her Democrats–and has “take[n] hold in the public consciousness.” It has taken hold largely because it was eagerly adopted by the very news organizations who now, belatedly, are demanding “full public access.” You can’t make this stuff up. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/02/a-january-6-narrative-we-cant-have-that.php Edited February 26, 2023 by B-Man 1
Buffarukus Posted February 26, 2023 Posted February 26, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, B-Man said: This is a stunning admission. The news organizations are saying that if more January 6 footage is released, it “risks…the legitimacy of…the various federal investigations and prosecutions of January 6 crimes.” Gosh, why might that be? Where have they been for the last two years? Why haven’t they wanted to see the footage until now? To date, apparently, they have been happy with the isolated clips and spin provided by Nancy Pelosi. This is the hilarious part: “Without full public access to the complete historical record, there is concern that an ideologically-based narrative of an already polarizing event will take hold in the public consciousness… But wait! Until now, we haven’t had “full public access to the complete historical record,” because Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t permit it. An “ideologically-based narrative” of the “polarizing event” has been propagated–by Pelosi and her Democrats–and has “take[n] hold in the public consciousness.” It has taken hold largely because it was eagerly adopted by the very news organizations who now, belatedly, are demanding “full public access.” You can’t make this stuff up. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/02/a-january-6-narrative-we-cant-have-that.php its insanely obvious who even needs a investigation. why did police wave them in move barricades and open doors?...period. why is it the feds are now proven to scour twitter and every other social media platform yet could not see any intent to go in the capital? they then blame and unilaterally in lockstep destroy parler on lies. most likely because parler would not play ball with the first amendment and they were looking for a false flag to destroy them. if the above is obviously false. they knew full well then why did they provide minimal security? pipe bomb "terrorist". aoc crying about a police escort "attempt on her life" from another building and before it happened. the corp media praying capital officers were killed. when they didnt get it LIE about a officer head being smashed. a medical report talking to responders or simply using their eyeballs (the most basic journalistic technique known to mankind) to see a head wound would immediately discredit this story. camera footage hidden. on and on and on. seriously its either leftists are too biased or stupid to know these are legitimate questions that their full "investigations" intentionally avoided. my issue is republicans should have already gotten the answers. they are well funded and connected to have already asked them but for some reason they are waiting. WHY!? why does it routinely take years to out russia gate to the point its been ground into dummies that still echo it. to investigate social media collusion we all were aware of. we are still learning more covid lies every day..but not by Republicans! its great they pushed back but GET SOUND PROOF AS ITS HAPPENING. its more impactful then 10 years later saying the dems do what they do best and everyones attention has moved on to the new jack boot scheme they are under. their foot dragging has left their own people to the full weight of gov persecution. lost lives buisnesses. their inaction is just as bad because they have the power to stop it in its tracks. there is no time to let tucker carlsons team watch videos. wait for slow drip stories. i don't want ANY narrative. RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC ALREADY. Rs have a duty to quit fing around! if they uncover this was full blown orchestration from top to bottom. ashley babbit was flat out assassinated. im thinking at this point libertarians PLEASE moderate yourselves and cut out the crazy ideas. the nazis and commies can obliterate each other with the culture war crap while they silently slip through the cracks to become a dominate force to fix this broken fdup country. Edited February 26, 2023 by Buffarukus 2
Doc Posted February 26, 2023 Posted February 26, 2023 2 hours ago, B-Man said: This is a stunning admission. The news organizations are saying that if more January 6 footage is released, it “risks…the legitimacy of…the various federal investigations and prosecutions of January 6 crimes.” Gosh, why might that be? Where have they been for the last two years? Why haven’t they wanted to see the footage until now? To date, apparently, they have been happy with the isolated clips and spin provided by Nancy Pelosi. This is the hilarious part: “Without full public access to the complete historical record, there is concern that an ideologically-based narrative of an already polarizing event will take hold in the public consciousness… But wait! Until now, we haven’t had “full public access to the complete historical record,” because Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t permit it. An “ideologically-based narrative” of the “polarizing event” has been propagated–by Pelosi and her Democrats–and has “take[n] hold in the public consciousness.” It has taken hold largely because it was eagerly adopted by the very news organizations who now, belatedly, are demanding “full public access.” You can’t make this stuff up. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/02/a-january-6-narrative-we-cant-have-that.php The horror! Eliminating the bias that was present sounds terrible. 1 2
BillsFanNC Posted February 26, 2023 Author Posted February 26, 2023 And just leave Ray Epps alone why don't you! 1
B-Man Posted February 27, 2023 Posted February 27, 2023 Why J6 Transparency Frightens the Democrats by David Catron For two years, the Democrats have insisted that, on Jan. 6, 2021, the republic was shaken to its foundations by an “insurrection” mounted by wild-eyed MAGA extremists. They attempted to reinforce this claim with a series of hyper-partisan hearings, complete with video edited for dramatic effect by a professional television producer. This left most of the footage captured by Capitol surveillance cameras on the cutting room floor, and the Democrats refused to release any of the unused video to the public. Thus, after the midterms, Kevin McCarthy pledged to make it public if elected speaker of the House. He kept his word, and the Democrats are clearly alarmed. more at the link: https://spectator.org/why-j6-transparency-frightens-the-democrats/ 1
BillsFanNC Posted February 27, 2023 Author Posted February 27, 2023 Seems like a normal situation. I mean it's crazy and you're clearly a conspiracy theorist if you even think about asking why law enforcement would abandon a breach point where insuuectionists could easily gain access and overthrow our democracy. Right? 2
Tommy Callahan Posted February 28, 2023 Posted February 28, 2023 20 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: Seems like a normal situation. I mean it's crazy and you're clearly a conspiracy theorist if you even think about asking why law enforcement would abandon a breach point where insuuectionists could easily gain access and overthrow our democracy. Right? the feds need to come up with some better costumes. more and more it feels like the J6 hearing was to cover up more than find out. 1
B-Man Posted March 2, 2023 Posted March 2, 2023 Tom Elliott’s thread of ‘journalists’ arguing against J6 footage release is a thing to behold Now that Tucker Carlson and his producers have access to about 44,000 hours of surveillance camera footage from the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, a panic seems to have set in on the Left. But most Americans believe all the footage should be released: However, the Guardians of the Democrat Narratives in the nation’s lib media are not of the opinion that Americans should see any more of the footage from that day than the January 6th Committee wanted. To what level of hackery will the media take their spin against releasing the footage much to the delight of Democrats? Grabien News’ Tom Eliott’s thread helps answer that question: Thread at the link: https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2023/03/02/tom-elliotts-thread-of-journalists-arguing-against-j6-footage-release-is-a-thing-to-behold/ . 1
Recommended Posts