When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
We could talk about how you don't wear a useless masks or social distance for: diphtheria, tetanus, measles, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis, meningitis, tuberculosis, flu, HPV vaccines, or even the common cold.
We can talk about how you're not offered donuts and cash rewards to get the HPV vaccine.
We can talk about how you're not discriminated against if you don't get the above.
We can talk about how if you do get the above vaccines, you don't somehow put others at risk.
We can talk about how you're not fired for not getting the above.
We can talk about how doctors/schools aren't secretly giving your children the above without parental permission.
We can about how powerful the covid vaccine is, except for its intended purpose considering if fully vaccinated you still need to wear a useless mask, still get a booster, still have to test negatively to do certain behaviors, and ultimately still end up in the hospital and given random anti-viral drugs that still don't treat the condition.
Nah, let's just accept the science and obey.
Bonus topic: We could talk about how bad the vaccine is for pregnant mothers and your heart -- or we could continue to blame all the ironically damaging side effects of the vaccine itself on the fake symptoms science invented when you still catch covid due to the vaccine that doesn't protect you from the virus your immunized against.
We could talk about how you don't wear a useless masks or social distance for: diphtheria, tetanus, measles, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis, meningitis, tuberculosis, flu, HPV vaccines, or even the common cold.
We can talk about how you're not offered donuts and cash rewards to get the HPV vaccine.
We can talk about how you're not discriminated against if you don't get the above.
We can talk about how if you do get the above vaccines, you don't somehow put others at risk.
We can talk about how you're not fired for not getting the above.
We can talk about how doctors/schools aren't secretly giving your children the above without parental permission.
We can about how powerful the covid vaccine is, except for its intended purpose considering if fully vaccinated you still need to wear a useless mask, still get a booster, still have to test negatively to do certain behaviors, and ultimately still end up in the hospital and given random anti-viral drugs that still don't treat the condition.
Nah, let's just accept the science and obey.
Had birthday celebration with good friends this weekend, two couples. Both women are educators, both with master’s degrees. They decry the pain inflicted on kids during the pandemic and yet one of them still masks up. Boggles the mind…
Had birthday celebration with good friends this weekend, two couples. Both women are educators, both with master’s degrees. They decry the pain inflicted on kids during the pandemic and yet one of them still masks up. Boggles the mind…
we literally had to teach people to wash their hands in 2020.
Here I am cranking out a steady stream of fresh, original, small-batch artisanal memes just for you, which actually have some thought and creativity behind them, and I get "defund the HOA"?
Why would someone even purchase a home in an HOA neighborhood? They don't do the thing they're supposed to do, and nice neighborhoods without HOAs remain nice because they attract the sort of folks who want to live in a nice neighborhood with no HOA regardless of their vaccination status or the number of masks they don't use.
And we have better block parties.
And since there's an elementary school literally across the street, my cousin the convicted sex-offender wouldn't be allowed to live here. I'm trying to find a photo of him, but goddamn, do you have any idea how many people named Paul Reed have been sentenced to prison in the state of Ohio? Is there anyone who ISN'T a criminal living there?"
Oh, well...
Here's a popular podcast host who was accused of a relatively minor crime, and then demanded a jury trial, and then didn't present any defense (like, not as in "he presented a poor defense," but literally "he offered absolutely no defense at all"), and THEN cried about how the trial was unfair and swore that he's going to win on appeal, apparently not understanding how the appeals process works, because if you literally did not present any defense at all, then there's really nothing to complain was procedurally incorrect about the trial, which is literally the one thing that appellate courts care about.
Here's a popular podcast host who was accused of a relatively minor crime, and then demanded a jury trial, and then didn't present any defense (like, not as in "he presented a poor defense," but literally "he offered absolutely no defense at all"), and THEN cried about how the trial was unfair and swore that he's going to win on appeal, apparently not understanding how the appeals process works, because if you literally did not present any defense at all, then there's really nothing to complain was procedurally incorrect about the trial, which is literally the one thing that appellate courts care about.
When you know you’ll get the opposite of the Sussman treatment at your trial, and separation of powers at the presidential level is the topic.
When you have neighbors wealthy enough for monstrous RV’s to be parked next to the homes, but have an HOA that keeps them from reverting to trailer trash.
When you know you’ll get the opposite of the Sussman treatment at your trial, and separation of powers at the presidential level is the topic.
My favorite quotation from the Sussman incident comes from Sen. Ron Johnson (R, WI), who observed that the verdict was "Further proof there are separate systems of justice in America."
Was anyone claiming otherwise? The concept of "separate but equal" a long-standing tradition among Democrats in the US, dating back to the mid nineteenth century.
It's kind of a strawman argument. Like, if someone had been claiming that the justice system in the US is unbiased, and that all criminal defendants are (or, at least, should be) treated equally, then it would make sense to point out factual evidence which opposes this notion.
Instead, Sen. Johnson is taking a page from Braineack's Rules of Legal Procedure (8th ed.), and attacking a position which no one seems to be taking.
My favorite quotation from the Sussman incident comes from Sen. Ron Johnson (R, WI), who observed that the verdict was "Further proof there are separate systems of justice in America."
Was anyone claiming otherwise?
Pretty much political status quo imo. Don't you remember BLM? No one was saying black lives didn't matter.
Here's a popular podcast host who was accused of a relatively minor crime, and then demanded a jury trial, and then didn't present any defense (like, not as in "he presented a poor defense," but literally "he offered absolutely no defense at all"), and THEN cried about how the trial was unfair and swore that he's going to win on appeal, apparently not understanding how the appeals process works, because if you literally did not present any defense at all, then there's really nothing to complain was procedurally incorrect about the trial, which is literally the one thing that appellate courts care about.
The judge literally wouldn't allow him to mount a defense.
Let's see how the appeal goes...
Remember you believed trump was in bed with russia because flynn was arrested in proceedural crimes?
Here's a popular podcast host who was accused of a relatively minor crime, and then demanded a jury trial, and then didn't present any defense (like, not as in "he presented a poor defense," but literally "he offered absolutely no defense at all"), and THEN cried about how the trial was unfair and swore that he's going to win on appeal, apparently not understanding how the appeals process works, because if you literally did not present any defense at all, then there's really nothing to complain was procedurally incorrect about the trial, which is literally the one thing that appellate courts care about.
Joe,
I believe you have this completely wrong. My understanding is Bannon was told he could not claim he did not comply with the subpoena(s) because President Trump had claimed executive privilege--it was up to congress to decide if Trump could declare that. I believe he was also told he couldn't claim that his attorney(s) advised him not to comply. I believe Bannon was also told even though he agreed to comply with the subpoena as soon as President Trump told Bannon he was revoking executive privilege in Bannon's case, he could not use that as a defense. They're just pissed off he didn't do what he was told, when he was told to. So, Bannon had nothing to claim as a defense and just said **** it--he'd deal with it in a higher court.
Remember you believed trump was in bed with russia because flynn was arrested in proceedural crimes?
Truthfully? No.
I do remember the days when you used to fact-check stuff and call people out on BS. Those were heady times indeed.
Originally Posted by poormxdad
I believe you have this completely wrong. My understanding is Bannon was told he could not claim he did not comply with the subpoena(s) because President Trump had claimed executive privilege--it was up to congress to decide if Trump could declare that. I believe he was also told he couldn't claim that his attorney(s) advised him not to comply. I believe Bannon was also told even though he agreed to comply with the subpoena as soon as President Trump told Bannon he was revoking executive privilege in Bannon's case, he could not use that as a defense. They're just pissed off he didn't do what he was told, when he was told to. So, Bannon had nothing to claim as a defense and just said **** it--he'd deal with it in a higher court.
The appeal on this one will certainly be interesting.
Don't get me wrong on this: Contempt of Congress is a bullshit charge. Any American who does not harbor at least some degree of contempt towards Congress either hasn't been paying attention or is actively cheering for the demise of reason.
And there can be no question that the Democrat-majority House of Representin' is flexing, and dogpiling onto Bannon and the rest of Trump's inner sanctum as hard as they can before they get voted out of office.
I do remember the days when you used to fact-check stuff and call people out on BS. Those were heady times indeed.
The appeal on this one will certainly be interesting.
Don't get me wrong on this: Contempt of Congress is a bullshit charge. Any American who does not harbor at least some degree of contempt towards Congress either hasn't been paying attention or is actively cheering for the demise of reason.
And there can be no question that the Democrat-majority House of Representin' is flexing, and dogpiling onto Bannon and the rest of Trump's inner sanctum as hard as they can before they get voted out of office.
All I am saying is that Bannon is an idiot.
poormx5dad laid it out pretty well. But he missed where the judge literally struck Bannon's defenses from the record.
In a nutshell:
Bannon: "I didn't obey the subpoena because the J6 Committee is illegitimate"
Judge: "You can't say that. Please strike everything after "subpoena".
He had two defenses. First, he was going after the legitimacy of the whole committee since it was formed incorrectly, therefore the subpoena was illegitimate. In proving that, he proves the whole committee is illegitimate. Again, this judge literally did not allow him to make that defense. So off to appeals we go.
He was always going to be found guilty of anything thrown at him in a DC trial, with even the best defense. He was always willing to play to long game on this and take it up to higher courts.
You apparently have only been given one side of the story -- not shockingly because the sole purpose of the 1/6 committee and news media is propaganda. An unimpeded opportunity to spew lies straight to the camera and nobody can say anything to them about it. Nobody can interrupt them, nobody can fact check them or respond. For instance, purposefully and willfully letting hearsay evidence into the record, not challenging it or following up on it, but instead taking it as gospel so the news can report orange man bad.
Bannon wasn't in the mood to legitimize these democratic presidential campaigns show trails. You, I, him, and the J6 committee know they have nothing on Bannon, and had nothing they can gain from him other than sitting in front of a camera being subjected to baseless allegations letting Democrats spew lies and conspiracy theories on national TV. And since useful idiots believe everything those people say unquestioningly and they worship there every word, I guess Bannon's willing to risk a year in jail to not give Democrats more Russia Russia Russia fodder.
I don't follow, listen to, care about Bannon, but at least I have a full painting here...
Bonus Points: Eric Holder.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the same thing Friday, saying “it is an established principle, dating back to the administration of President Ronald Reagan, that the Justice Department does not pursue prosecution in a contempt case when the president has asserted executive privilege.”
On Monday’s edition of Rising, Fauci told hosts Robby Soave and Batya Ungar-Sargon that if he “knew in 2020 what I know now, we would do a lot differently.”
“The insidious nature of spread in the community would have been much more of an alarm, and there would have been much, much more stringent restrictions in the sense of very, very heavy encouragement of people to wear masks, physical distancing, what have you,” continued Fauci.
masks proven not to work. science: we should have masked harder.
lockdowns proven not to work. science: we should have locked down harder.
vaccines proven not to work: science: we should mask and boost harder.
07-25-2022, 01:15 PM
1
