OK. It is noteworthy that you have put a line under this at a point where you have not explained your accusation against me, your allegation against Trump and not explained why it is OK for you to defend anti-Semitism and racism. I may be a nob. But at least no one can say I am those things. You deeply unpleasant troll.
It was the Republican equivallent to the second Trump impeachment, which used, almost exclusively, discredited media headlines, such as "Policeman bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher" to prove Trump was the Devil, and used claims of deaths on the day to infer police casualties, when they were there to support Trump. The extremists on both sides are as bad as each other, only the Democrat extremists are among their mainstream. Powell is a useful idiot and, rightly so, when her case was examined, it went no further. That is how democracy and justice is supposed to work.
Outstanding piece to camera about the bigotry surrounding the Tennessee ‘Drag Bill’, which has just passed and if approved, will ban public displays of drag. https://twitter.com/traecrowder/status/1630299355604463616?s=46&t=oqOMSJXE_g7J5C7kNPG9LA
I love drag. I go to 'drag reviews' with gay mates. We do not, however, take the kids along with us. I think everyone should watch this and think about what is being said. Imagine the guy in the video is talking about non-drag strip shows - where the girls at school were encouraged to dress up in a sexual manner and dance for the boys and the teachers - and ask yourself if that wouldn't seem a little bit disturbing. Then maybe ask yourself why anyone would find this video to be outstanding. I have liked this video, because it does what I say extremists always tend to do. Make my argument far more strongly than I can. There was a video a few years back of a head teacher, who got the sack, being given a lap dance by one of his students in drag at a school show. I don't even want to search for it. Perhaps the guy in the video was one of the students in that video. Try not to think of removing kids from the equation as an act of transphobic hate, but rather a matter of keeping kids away from sexually explicit behaviour and displays, and also consider that the reason for the law is that what society would previously have considered to be a matter of decency, is being worked around by describing 'drag queen story hour' as an educational and inclusional initiative. Consider too that the parents believe such laws are required to ensure parity is ahieved with the laws protecting children from sexual content that has nothing to do with drag. As far as I know, non-trans sexual displays have not been banned in circumstances where they are deemed safe from the view of children; there is no reason to believe that drag shows will be treated any differently (except as a very weak argument to demonise the protection of children). I can't help wondering, because protecting children seems to be such a natural thing for society to do, why some adults are so keen to oppose laws that protect children from ANY sexually explicit material, whether it is drag or not. Just why this guy's 'piece to camera' is so outstanding I do not know. To me, it is just some guy saying that sexually explicit stuff was OK when he was a kid, and ought not be discouraged. The message seems pretty clear: he enjoyed dressing up as a girl, so he has no problem with it. No probs. It's a bit of a laugh. I once spent and evening dressed as a nurse walking around the ressies at Barts, reliving great moments from the Carry On movies. However, I do think there is a bit of an issue when you are asked to do it by your teacher at school. Please note, I have not put any words into anyone's mouth here. I watched the video that a poster recommended, and have commented on it. There is a place for drag! And it is really good fun. I thoroughly recommend you give it a try. But I wouldn't expect a bloke to be walking around flashing his backside at kids any more than I would a woman, and if a State wants to clarify the law because people are trying to circumvent it on grounds of education and diversity, then I am not going to criticise them. But props to those with the nuts to openly criticise, even attack as bigoted, parents and law-makers who wish to protect kids. I very strongly disagree with them, but if they are willing to stand up in public to defend the exposure of children to sexually explicit materials, I think they are very brave and clearly very committed to their ideology.
FWIW Trae is a very good stand-up and his stuff is well worth seeking out. He has totally 'owned' all of the US late news shows he's been a guest on. Forgot his you tube link: https://www.youtube.com/traecrowderliberalredneck
Trying to figure out whether that is a calculated insult to the guy, because US late night is bereft of anything that could seriously be described as humour, or if you actually find that stuff funny. US comedy is so stilted and fomulaic that the soul has gone from it. It is like what you imagine AI comedy would be like. I guess, in that resect, they are well ahead of the curve. UK comedy isn't really much better.
There's two actually. With all your practice, I would have thought you would have sussed out this counting lark by now. But, @iamofwfc, if you would please. Greatly appreciated. Moose, after all, has done his auto-like for BW
You could explain away Trump’s bizarre conspiratorial rantings about Soros again. He seemed to like that too.
You could explain why you smeared me as anti-Semitic, but you won't. I don't think anyone liked that when you did it.
You smeared yourself, get over it. But if you are worried it didn’t get enough genuine likes, put up a poll asking whether it is dodgy for Trump to link a globalist conspiracy to Soros. Clearly the ADL thought it was.
You are a nasty piece of work Moose. I am just glad that you seem to want people on here to know it. You go off on one when people point out you are defending racism (African Asians) and anti-Semitic (Labour) by quoting your own words to you, then start smearing others without a jot of evidence, and you refuse to explain yourself. Not very impressive, mate.
We've come full circle!! Please explain which conspiracies, because at the moment they all appear to be ones of your making, supported by far left wing conspiracy nutters who think Trump is the Devil. The gift that keeps giving!!
Utter trolling to claim I haven’t explained. Worthy of a ban. But if you need it one more time. Trump linked a ‘globalist conspiracy’ to ‘puppet masters’ singling out Jewish financier George Soros. Lots of articles out there about how Soros is used as a shorthand for antisemitic tropes about Jewish financial control. I gave you one. Just google Soros, tropes and conspiracy if you need others. You chose to come out with a preposterous defence for Trump’s behaviour. When he would have been well aware of what he was tapping into, as you are now. iamofwfc shamefully liked everyone of your posts. You could open-mindedly engage with why the Jewish Chronicle, ADL and others find it such a concern. They are hardly the left. But no. End of.
I have watched the video you linked to and he did no such thing. All of the conspiracy rubbish you mention is what you have made up. George Soros is openly anti capitalist, and clearly a political enemy of Trump, without any need to mention his religion. He also criticised Biden and the Koch brothers in the video YOU linked to. Neither are Jewish. How may Trump, in your fantasy world, criticise Soros’s open and un-abashed behaviour, without you and every other ‘Trump is the Devil’ troll calling him anti-Semitic. It is pathetic. You referred to a Jewish trope, implying that Jews are extremist billionaire anti capitalist communists. That is rubbish. You have not pointed out any act of anti-Semitism regarding Trump, other than the contents of your worded, fevered imagination. And you used that to smear me as anti-Semitic for asking you, simply, what Trump said in the video you linked to that was anti-Semitic. And you still can’t answer without having to make up rubbish that he never said, and imply things about Trump and Jews that come from your own fantasies, and not from anything he has said or done. Watch the video you linked to again. You are digging your nasty hole deeper.
P.S. The ACL is a political joke. The JC has not been a publication that reflected Jewish opinion or authority for decades. It has been viewed by many in the community with contempt for years, despite the great publication that name once adorned. You quoting it as justification for calling me anti-Semitic (when the article does not refer to Trump, and was published years before the speech you linked to) is, in itself, more of a condescending trope than anything in the video. Inferring that it is the JC, therefore Jews think this. And you still haven’t explained why you get to smear others who have said NOTHING that justifies your bile, when you are the only person on here who has defended anti-Semitism in any form, when you said Labour was not as bad as the tories, despite their own internal inquiries and the official opinion of independent bodies. You are everything you accuse others of. And now you are talking about getting me banned, again. Just think about what you say before you say it. Rather than trying to stop people from quoting your own words back to you, or resenting being asked to justify your comments. Because that is all I have done. And your reaction has been most revealing.
And yet guns remain legal in America. Wonder what the leading cause of child deaths in America is - drag shows or guns? Maybe we should agree to protect the children and impose stricter gun laws in the USA.
Incredible that you level that at me Reids. I believe I have said several times that US gun laws are absolutely nuts. I have only said that Rittenhause is not guilty according to the law, vindicated by a jury decision that took a five week trial and a week's deliberation to conclude, based on the evidence and the law. My argument there is with people who deny and ignore the law and make up lies to say he got away with murder. The fact that child like minds cannot figure that out is unsurprising. But your suggestion that government and police do not protect children from exposure to sexualised behaviour until they have solved the gun problem is noted. What is it that makes you think that is in any way a good idea? Answer that before you expect to be taken seriously by anyone. You can ignore the fact that trans activists are circumnavigating existing laws by saying the exposure is educational and inclusive, and that the law is to clarify that any act of indecency be treated the same, if you like. The leading cause of death in young men from any cause is Fentanyl by the way. Should Americans not talk about guns until they sort out the drug problem. What an f'd up world some people would have us live in. The US can ban guns when it is the desire of the majority to do so. The part you miss, though, is that too many people from both sides believe in the second amendment. And until that changes, no matter what you or I think, democracy will rule the day. Meanwhile, democracy can also rule the day on the exposure if children to all forms of sexual behaviour. Personally, I would not criticise any law that sought to do that. No matter how much you think it is OK.
Cool so we do agree. That's all I was after, not much after that was needed. It wasn't levelled at you (I didn't know your views on the matter so apologies if you thought that was targeted at you, i just felt that quote was the best on the page to raise my point) but more the lawmakers in America Who said I thought that was a good idea? They don't have to be exclusive, you can attempt to solve any sexualised behaviour issues and try to tackle the gun issue at the same time. But since both sides don't want to tackle the gun issue it would seem that its not really about protecting the children. But not children. The fetantyl epidemic is another conversation, but you can also talk about multiple topics at the same time, why should you have to wait until one problem is fixed before moving to another? Agreed. Who said I think that's ok?
Well said. I may have been a nob on this occasion. That said, I think, in the context of the conversation that was being had, it was fair to assume that the addition of a new, unrelated, argument did appear to be a suggestion that there were other things with greater importance than the subject being discussed.
He, he. Fox News accused of lying and inciting, by senior Democrat and Repubican politicians for posting a video that shows Officer Brian Sicknick perfectly healthy and doing his job at a time after his reported death from bludgeoning by fire extinguisher, cited by by Biden only a few weeks ago in a public speech. The 'fatal attack', disproved by Fox showing the officer alive and healthy, was also used by Democrats in Trump's second impeachment. You could not make this up, and yet the US media and the White House are reporting it as fact. And some people think it is clever, and then say the US could never sleep walk into fascism. I know Fox is considered a political player. But I cannot see how publishing a video, proving a deliberate political lie that was used to impeach a US President, can be considered either lying or incitement, unless you consider the truth to be your enemy. Sounds familiar doesn't it. They also released video of the q anon shaman being, literally, escorted and assisted around the Capitol, at one point he actually walked through a crowd of police carrying what was described as a weapon in his trial (the stick his Stars and Stripes was on) and then, on reaching the podium, saying a prayer of thanks for the police's help (I poop you not). And this is described as a dangerous attempt to change the narrative, for which he should be banned from broadcasting. My only criticism would be 'why limit access to Fox'. Note. Not "a use of witheld video showing the police assisting rioters, thst was not investigated by the J6 comittee", but a "dangerous attempt to change the narrative". At least there is some honesty there, demonstrating that the concern is not the truth, but the narrative. That doesn't make it good though. If it is dangerous, it is only to the people who created 'the narrative' that is now being challenged by the reality. People on both sides who value justice are calling for the full catalogue of tapes to be released, and it appears that Fox are with them on that. Yet establishment politicians and the US media seem very worried that such a thing could happen. And Fox wants its clicks. Get it all out there. Some people may have to lock their bedroom doors for fear of more sleep walking tonight.
This is farking priceless: Tucker Carlson, who ‘passionately hates’ Trump, shows more Capitol footage Fox News continues to claim January 6 was peaceful while legal filings show him saying Trump is good at ‘destroying things
He hates Trump, but he shows the videos? Could it be you are describing a man who is more passionate about justice, which is what you appear to be describing, whilst citing two very different MSNBC talking points, which you have not established any link between. I am yet to hear from anyone on the right who has not called for those who behaved violently to be sent down. The videos Fox have shown have been to respond to false hoods coming from the democrats, and to show scenes that were allegedly withheld from peaceful protesters, as Chanley appears to be, that could be considered exculpatory, and potential grounds for appeal. Honestly. Saying he has a hatred of Trump and juxtaposing it with him showing videos that do not exonerate Trump in any way (do Fox even mention Trump?), appears to be futile, self defeating, and the clearest statement you could make to clarify that you really do not understand the subject you are speaking about, once again. This is what happens when people with extreme right wing views (lock them up no matter the evidence, and negative views of racial minorities) get their opinions from Twitter. And your little ‘like-puppy’ has duly given his fawning admiration to you. Don’t complain Moose, I am exercising a ‘like’ trope (people who like someone are cronies) that you yourself established. See if you can deal with it in as dignified a manner as iamofwfc.
They know they're peddling utter s**t and yet they do it anyway despite the obvious impact on the country.
Regarding the article, here is a quote from it showing the veracity of the journo who posted it… “Nine deaths have been linked to the Capitol attack, including law enforcement suicides. More than 1,000 people have been charged and hundreds convicted of offences including seditious conspiracy.” No mention that the four who died on the day were there to support Trump, or that none of the deaths were related to injuries received on the day, other than Ashleigh Babbet, executed without warning by a security officer. The mainstream press can’t even bring themselves to mention her name. Or that the total total so far convicted, following ‘more than 1000 arrests’ of seditious conspiracy is 2 (Two). Yes, 2. It is now 26 months since the
How so. They showed videos that contradicted the Democrat narrative. If you are going to call that kind of evidence utter poop, it is you that is a bigger problem for your country. If you think a false narrative used for political power needs protecting for the good of the country, I am glad you are not in the UK any more. If you are going to adopt fascistic attitudes to evidence that is inconvenient to you, you are going to be unfavourably compared to bad people. Even ten years ago, this would have had the whole country up in arms calling for oversight and resignations. But here you are complaining that journalists are allowed to show actual evidence, and discuss its ramifications. The enthusiasm for authoritarian government to suppress opposing views and evidence is very frightening. But I suspect it has peaked too early. I still think it is the ten percent of mentally ill Twitter users that give the impression that any of this is acceptable, with a large proportion of sheep who do not want to think for themselves getting angry at the right time, when they are told. When people start thinking for themselves again, they will be a little embarrassed, and likely talk about it as if they were never part of it. If my government had been shown to lie about evidence to convict people, I don’t think I’d be happy. And I’d want to know the truth of it. You, clearly, are different.
I believe that only two of the six were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, the other four were not. But I could be wrong. But even if all 11 of those people were guilty of sedition, the closest charge so far to insurrection (for which there is a specific charge, but it has not been used at all, despite the narrative), it would be a very unconvincing yield for a DOJ prosecuting the greatest threat to American democracy since the civil war. It is more than two years since the event, and if the furthest we have got is quibbling about whether it is 2 or 6 people that were actively involved in the Great Bloody Revolution of 2020, then I think it is fair for some to question what they are being told. And remember, some of the convictions they do have are now being brought into question, by the fact that the videos released this week appear to contradict the government narrative. The Shamen's lawyer is saying that his client did not have access to the videos of him being peacefully escorted TO the scene of his crimes, which, at the very least, could have been used to reduce his four year sentence and at best exonerate him), but would have given a very different impression to the public of what was actually going on. Remember, there were people asking why he was not shot on the day. This video at least answers that particularly blood thirsty question. So. I believe you are wrong, and that it is only two convicted. But even if it isn't, I don't think the figures you quote, even in an 'at worst' case scenario, are no more impressive after two years of the most intense and aggressively investigated/prosecuted case in US history, than the figures I gave.
You omit to mention a mere 484 who pleaded guilty to various charges and 40 who were found guilty at contested trials. Figures for ‘seditious conspiracy’ only are a red herring. Here’s a rundown if anyone is interested from the US Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/24-months-january-6-attack-capitol
I'm not. 4 were convicted at the end of January (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four...editious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach) to join the 2 convicted last year (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lead...r-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-and-other) As Moose stated, those are some of the most serious charges possible - hundreds more have been convicted of lesser crimes.
Thank you. I had not heard that. But I do not think it makes much difference to the discussion that was being had. Two years, and they currently have a gang of six red necks who achieved nothing, except delay business for six hours. And that is with the convictions coming in DC, where the jury pool is 92% Democrat. No one has even been charged with insurrection. No one has been charged with any fire-arms offences. Of the 484 convictions based on a guilty plea, only 125 were felony convictions for violent behaviour, the remainder is for tresspass. A bunch of guys with sticks tried to take the United States. Seriously? And people are complaining that the media is publishing videos that contradict the official narrative.
Extraordinary and silly attempt to trivialise. Only 125 were felony convictions for violent behaviour . Sounds like a riot to the rest of us. A deadly riot. You seem to believe the threshold for seriousness is how organised the mob was. The behaviour can be excused or played down if they were a bit **** at it. Your attempts to play down the deaths or injuries to police officers are particularly rank. But the 950 arrests so far are not the end of it. The FBI continues to seek the public’s help in identifying approximately 350 individuals believed to have committed violent acts on the Capitol grounds, including over 250 who assaulted police officers. You have shown yourself again and again to be too silly to really take seriously. Your love of Trump and hatred of even the most mildly left or progressive position has addled your thinking to the point where you try to make out hundreds of arrests for violent behaviour mean little or that Trump promoting conspiracies is justifiable because George Soros is rich.
