* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Jan 11, 2021, 10:13. Reason: Don't quote people who are blatantly breaking a forum rule

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:10:

Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 07:52:
this flight?

I would have used the inflatable slide to escape.
The only thing worse was the flight to the colicky baby convention.
I have to agree with the flight attendants, put the lot of them on the no-fly list.

This pilot said he would dump them in Kansas.
In/Over, what's the difference.

This was the one to, not the one from

D-Rock wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 08:42:

Saboth wrote on Jan 10, 2021, 14:14:
If we go that route, then I'd also argue Fox, Newsmax, OANN, and the others need massive oversight and regulation. If you purport to be news, you should employ journalists with actual degrees and experience in journalism, be held to some kind of journalistic standards, have to provide at least some kind of sources for your "stories" (other than "some people believe"), etc. Hell, we also need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan scrapped that paved the way for these political propaganda outlets.

What you've described is an issue that applies to all media. Prior to the election the left media constantly cited 'anonymous sources' for their big 'stories'. An anonymous source is not a source. That's just one example of the left's integrity issues. If you want to regulate it has to apply to everyone.

Good luck finding actual fact checkers that are not biased though...

Nothing you just said is accurate.

For fucks sake, remember Deep Throat? Nixon was brought down by an anonymous source!

What you said is not reality, and an absolute lack of understanding of history.

Read a book. Learn what media is. Maybe it will help you pick better media. If you think you can "both sides" between OANN calling for a coup and the New York Times reporting, well, you belong on the block list, because by choice or nature you're incapable of adding value to these discussions

"Virtue signal" isn't a term anyone with virtue uses.

I'll keep saying it. I'm not signaling virtue by doing so. I believe it.

this flight?

Dunkirk wrote on Jan 10, 2021, 11:46:

DarkCntry wrote on Jan 9, 2021, 20:45:

Either way, the original statement is pretty idiotic but it is in no way comparable to what Trump did.

Amazon Web Services is going to ban Parler from using its servers because someone said "someone ought to show up at their data center with explosives." That, too, is merely a "desired outcome." To say that the GP post is "not comparable" is literally insane, as in, not rational thinking. The amount of moral deflection on this whole subject according to which side you favor is telling.

You're claiming Amazon took Parler down because of a tweet a single person made?
Ok. That isn't what happened, and if you're not going to be using actual reality for your discussion, why should we engage?

What people such as yourself often miss is that two people can do the same thing and have it not be at all equal. Think about two pets biting your hand. One is a kitten. The other is a 100lbs rottweiler that had been bred for dogfighting. Would the amount of damage done by each be the same? Would your response be the same? Of course not. So when Trump tweets something damaging to his tens of millions of followers, it's treated differently than when someone with 5 followers does it. Not only is the actual impact of the tweet less, but so few people saw the one with few followers that it probably wasn't even reported.

Which, incidentally, ties back to your ridiculous Parler theory. Amazon didn't bring it down because one person said something about Amazon on it.

Capitan wrote on Jan 10, 2021, 01:10:
I have to say I feel sorry for you in the United States. Now that Trump is gone, you can already now see that countries like North Korea, China, Iran will take advantage of you again.

It's funny that you think Trump wasn't totally taken advantage of by those, particularly NK

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 9, 2021, 22:57:
Hey, I do what I can. I've said it before, I'll say it again, I completely understand why people voted for Trump in 2016. Most people pay far less attention to politics than I do. Most people are busy living their lives, paying their bills, they don't know jack shit about politics -- they know they don't and that's fine with them. They didn't know Trump was a charlatan, who lies like a rug, who cares as much about the working man as he does mud on the bottom of his shoe. They listened to Fox, Rush, Hannity, and the rest of it and believed.

But if after four years of what Trump has said and done, you still believe he deserves your vote -- you're lost to me. You clearly have no connection with reality. Yes, I believe over 75 million US citizens have no connection with reality, in politics. Do I believe they should be gunned down? Of course not. However their ignorance is weighing this country down. And frankly, I don't have a lot of concern for them. Maybe that makes me a horrible person. So be it.

I had someone recently say to me that Democrats caused this by calling Trump fans deplorable.

I pointed out that it was actually Hillary, not Democrats, and what she said was that half of Trump fans belonged in a basket full of deplorables, and asked what percentage of people from the rally went to the Capitol, and if those at the Capitol could be called anything other than deplorable.

Didn't get a response.

JediPunisher wrote on Jan 9, 2021, 19:03:
Banning the current President of the United States from social media for supposedly inciting an angry mob is a bad idea.
Trump only has a few days left in office, and this sets a precedent that could come back to bite them very soon.

Soon-to-be President Harris (we all know Joe won't last long) praised those peaceful protests over the summer as the "New Coalition of Conscience" and even helped raise money to bail them out.

In August, Senator Kamala Harris spoke to former comedian Stephen Colbert about the riots that rocked the country throughout the summer. Harris gleefully said that "they're not gonna stop," come the election. "This is a movement, I'm telling you," she said.
Colbert noted that media just wasn't covering these riots by the end of August for some reason, and Harris seemed to think this was a problem.
Harris nodded, "Right, that's right," she said. "But they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop. This is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not gonna stop. And everyone BEWARE, because they're not gonna stop."
"They're not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day. And that should be–everyone should take note of that, on both levels.
They're not gonna let up," Harris said with pride, "and they should not. And we should not."
The August 30 interview came after 30 people were killed in the intensive rioting from May through August, and billions of dollars in property damage was reported.

https://channel411news.com/2021/01/07/flashback-kamala-harris-celebrated-blm-and-antifa-riots/

You do understand you come across as detached from reality. I'm sure you feel you're the only one "awake," and we're "sheeple," but the whole Harris comment is dramatically unhealthy.

Stop getting your news from wherever you're getting it (I'm wagering a lot of Ben Shapiro and YouTube channels with under 100,000 subscribers.)

What's odd is that several of our largest Trump supporters, including those overseas, haven't been seen since before the election.

Not all, but probably half.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jan 9, 2021, 15:41:
Rofl, "How I saw this coming"

Was going to make the same comment. Hindsight is 20/20, and frankly, literally everyone had concerns.

I'm so fed up with people saying Twitter banning Trump is something you'd see in China.

In China, when a business stands up to the government, the CEO disappears. Jack Ma was the most powerful Chinese businessman. He was lightly critical of the government and he disappeared. Hasn't been seen in months.

In the US, Twitter stands up to the government, is allowed to, and somehow people think this is like China.

How out of touch with reality are these people?

It's so odd that people think a guy holding large rallies during a pandemic was the obvious front runner.

Justin Bieber gets bigger crowds. Would he have won?

And weird that the same people don't understand why most Americans found those rallies horrifying and worth voting away

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 8, 2021, 22:39:
You know, I agree reasonable conversation and compromise is a normal way to resolve issues. However, the situation is beyond normal.

A call "to freely and honestly start speaking with each other" is comical after two months of Trump and his sycophants lying basically every time they opened their mouths to talk about the election. And after reading and listening to interviews of Trump supporters around the country after the riot, those people are still living in their own separate reality. Think about it this way, if you want to talk about mathematics, but the person you are talking with insists 1 + 1 = 3... there is no where to go.

Frankly, I don't know what the way forward is.

When a discussion becomes open to infinite people it stops being reasonable. So many voices enter that people can focus on the near infinite amount that agree with them.

I know you know this, but it's how flat earth caught fire. Holocaust denial. Trumpism. But trumposexuals will deny, continuing to say there's evidence and focusing on a video they're misunderstanding when literally every authority, including Trump appointed judges, mcconnell, and graham, say otherwise. Only Trump is truth, and somehow they don't see that as a problem

TriggleDiggle wrote on Jan 8, 2021, 21:44:
For hundreds of years you Americans all had the freedom to publicly dissent, question your government and each other. Even promote conspiracies, People on all sides complained that their opponents were wrong and shouldn't be permitted to speak but they were protected and in the end your country was more stable and stronger for it.
And now in just 20 years almost all public discourse has moved online, And because those protections don't "technically" apply in the same way the people with power get their wish and are able to silence their opposition. And in record time your country is on the brink of civil war.

The only solution is for people to be able to freely and honestly start speaking with each other and trying to understand and empathize with each others views, As they used to.
Using the trashing of congress as an excuse to purge dissent and silence the opposition is seriously going to keep making things worse and worse, I honestly cant understand how people don't see this.
You seriously don't see that someday this could all be co-opted by someone who turns it on you?

They never had the freedom to invite violence. What do you think this is about?

Not sure why I ask. Pretty certain you believe in widespread voter fraud

Cutter wrote on Jan 8, 2021, 13:18:

Simon Says wrote on Jan 8, 2021, 08:48:
Undoubtedly what jumped at me the most...

Cops quick and easy chart in case of protests:

"Leftists" ( centrists for mostly anywhere else in the world ) -> Baton, tear gas, cayenne, rubber bullets in the face/eyes.

BLM -> Baton, tear gas, cayenne, rubber bullets in the face/eyes.

Far right -> *Crickets*

They've "let" them run amok and "let" them enter the capitol. Any of the other groups would've been riot squad'd into submission way before they would've had a chance of entering the capitol. And this seems to be a pattern/trend when you look at other historical protests. The far right goes practically almost everywhere they want, the other groups are beaten to a pulp.

Reality distortion field much? All those BLM "marches" were actual riots resulting in the assault, crippling, and murder of first responders and other innocent people who got caught up by the mobs. The untold destruction of both private and public property, massive arson, massive amounts of looting, etc.

Yeah, there was a bit of a scrum there yesterday but it was nothing compared to all of the BLM riots. Jesus, in Portland they took over parts of the city. Give your head a shake. One of these things is not like the others. Not even remotely close.

Yes, they're not alike. One was the storming of a government building to disrupt a legitimate vote, at the direction of the losing leader, and is 1 for 1 on police officer fatalities.

The other was a bunch of widespread protests that were 99% peaceful, along with some people that rioted and looted for largely non political reasons (in other words, because of the opportunity.) Few people were significantly wounded, and a very large percentage that were were wounded by far right people that came to cause trouble, including two California police officers shot in their cruiser. The overwhelming majority of protests had no injuries and no property damage, and none involved trying to overturn an election

VaranDragon wrote on Jan 8, 2021, 03:02:
So foreign policy and hawkishness is determined simply by the number of bombs you drop? That's kind of naive thinking don't you think? Like jdreyer said, Trump is the only president that didn't open up a war front with another foreign country since Jimmy Carter.

(I'm willing to give Clinton a pass here, he really did help in the Balkans and unlike with the vast majority of American expeditionary enterprises it actually made him a whole lot more friends in the Balkans than it did enemies or terrorists.)

Isn't "dropping the most bombs" and "not hawkish" mutually exclusive? You're really going to pivot (and not admit being incorrect) into "well, he bombed the most people, but he's our most peaceful president"

For one, don't you think there will likely be consequences at some point for constantly bombing villages? People that grow up in fear of American bombs won't go "well, Trump did it, so we have no reason for anger."

edaciousx wrote on Jan 8, 2021, 02:12:

Beamer wrote on Jan 7, 2021, 23:25:

Grast wrote on Jan 7, 2021, 23:17:
So riddle me this, Why did Twitch not suspend the many creators which were supporting BLM and Antifa as they murdered and burned their way through the US for the last year? Hummmmm.

Because:

1) BLM isn't antifa, antifa isn't really a group, and most of the rioters weren't the protestors, and vice versa

2) they weren't murdering

3) they did not storm the Capitol in an attempt at a coup

How can you say any of those things...

1) they aren't the same group but they did merge together and riot together.

2) yes they were. David Dorn? Aaron Danielson? The guy in Texas protecting his business with a sword? Kenosha riots?

3) It was not a COUP. They walked in with FLAGS and literally took selfies and walked inside the cordoned off lines. They had no clue what they were doing, they were just mindlessly walking in because of mob mentality. There literally was no plan.

Your first point is entirely wrong. I'm in NYC. The protests and the looting weren't near each other. One was opportunistic and not politically motivated

And yes, one guy in antifa did murder two far right activists. But that's about it. Your Texas sword guy was A) a misleading video edited by far right news (where'd you read about it?) that the police said wasn't accurate (sword guy was instigating violence) and B) not a murder because he's alive.
Meanwhile, far right people killed at least two police officers during the riots, off the top of my head. The same types storming in Wednesday.

Finally, their flags were for Trump first, America a distant second, The Confederacy not far behind that. Their goal was to disrupt government. That's a coup. They want to steal the election for Trump.

Why do you defend them? They're the type of people that think hundreds of thousands of fake votes were cast despite no evidence and huge attempts to show them that fact. The type that think Trump won because they can't wrap their heads around how unpopular he was. The type to ignore reality because it makes them unhappy

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2021, 08:33.

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 8, 2021, 07:43:
NSFW
Trae Crowder on Instagram: “The insanity in DC yesterday beats about any damn thing I ever seen, y’all.”
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJwoXlABkDc/

Clicked expecting Tae Crowder. Was confused.

Grast wrote on Jan 7, 2021, 23:17:
So riddle me this, Why did Twitch not suspend the many creators which were supporting BLM and Antifa as they murdered and burned their way through the US for the last year? Hummmmm.

Because:

1) BLM isn't antifa, antifa isn't really a group, and most of the rioters weren't the protestors, and vice versa

2) they weren't murdering

3) they did not storm the Capitol in an attempt at a coup