why is everything so weird
Then they played the theme from "Titanic." Now it's "Funeral for a Friend" by Elton John. Whoever is in charge of the music is being either quite dumb or very subversive. https://t.co/bmF3osSyph
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 6, 2021
"And then we're stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot, and we have to live with that for four more years. We're just not going to let that happen."
More from Parker Molloy
This is what pisses me off about the constant bad faith victimhood crap people on the right do:
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
1. They wildly misrepresent something innocuous (no, Pelosi did not “ban” anything).
2. They come up with a “gotcha” example of hypocrisy... that relies on their misrepresentation.
Shot/Chaser pic.twitter.com/NwAZg7TTrL
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 2, 2021
This same exact nonsense gets trotted out constantly. “Oh, so now we’re not allowed to call ourselves husbands or mothers or uncles or aunts or men or women?! Outrage!” But no one at all is doing that, nor have they ever been doing that.
Yet the right loses its shit over this every few months. A lot of the time it’ll be something like... a lawmaker will introduce a bill that would tweak applications for marriage licenses to say “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of just “husband/wife” because the status quo ...
... will have been creating actual legal issues for gay couples who then have to put something false on legal documents designating one of them as “wife.”
It’ll be something like that, just meant to fix an issue that has no material impact on 99% of people.
And the right, like clockwork, will lose their minds over it as though anyone is trying to “ban” the concept of someone being a husband or a wife or a man or a woman or whatever.
From a few years back, here’s Bill O’Reilly doing that
This is trash, @AP. Utter garbage. Shame on the “journalists” who wrote this (really? You needed 2 people to report out this garbage?) Also, you don’t even make clear that this lady is wrong. You treat it as a legitimate position. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Look at this. This treats both views as legitimate. Fucking garbage.
Have you learned nothing?! This is such bullshit. Why the fuck do I even bother trying to push back on bad journalism? No one in positions of power ever listen.
I used to think that bad journalism was mostly the result of honest mistakes, but the past few years have really hammered home for me how much it is intentional trash. Shame on @AP for that bullshit. Shame on @ABC for letting Rand Paul rant about his election conspiracy theories.
Seriously, @AP @ClaireGalofaro @JulietLinderman? You didn’t even bother to note that this lady’s delusions are false.
She thinks the election was stolen from Donald Trump. He believes what dozens of courts and officials have found: that Joe Biden is the rightful winner. They're trying to find common ground but wonder whether they \u2013 and the nation \u2013 can do it. https://t.co/oM5XrAevkl
— The Associated Press (@AP) January 24, 2021
Look at this. This treats both views as legitimate. Fucking garbage.
Have you learned nothing?! This is such bullshit. Why the fuck do I even bother trying to push back on bad journalism? No one in positions of power ever listen.
I used to think that bad journalism was mostly the result of honest mistakes, but the past few years have really hammered home for me how much it is intentional trash. Shame on @AP for that bullshit. Shame on @ABC for letting Rand Paul rant about his election conspiracy theories.
Seriously, @AP @ClaireGalofaro @JulietLinderman? You didn’t even bother to note that this lady’s delusions are false.
2017 https://t.co/kiqQoWR57e
https://t.co/W18nqFlLru
The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.
“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”
No. Knock it off.
Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:
1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.
2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
Sen. @JohnCornyn on budget reconciliation: "Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you now. But you're sure to regret that someday." pic.twitter.com/12wwUkq43r
— The Hill (@thehill) February 1, 2021
https://t.co/W18nqFlLru
The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.
“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”
No. Knock it off.
Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:
1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.
2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
More from Government
How does a government put a legislation on 'hold'? Is there any constitutional mechanism for the executive to 'pause' a validly passed legislation? Genuine Koshan.
So a committee of 'wise men/women' selected by the SC will stand in judgement over the law passed by
Here is the thing - a law can be stayed based on usual methods, it can be held unconstitutional based on violation of the Constitution. There is no shortcut to this based on the say so of even a large number of people, merely because they are loud.
Tomorrow can all the income tax payers also gather up at whichever maidan and ask for repealing the income tax law? It hurts us and we can protest quite loudly.
How can a law be stayed or over-turned based on the nuisance value of the protestors? It is anarchy to allow that.
CJI: our intention is to see if we can bring about an amicable resolution to the problem. That is why we asked you why don't you put the #FarmBills on hold. You want time for negotiation. If there is some sense of responsibility showing that you will not implement the laws
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) January 11, 2021
So a committee of 'wise men/women' selected by the SC will stand in judgement over the law passed by
CJI: .....then we can form a committee with ICAR members to look into this. Till then you can continue to put the law on hold. Why will you insist on continuing the law anyhow
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) January 11, 2021
Here is the thing - a law can be stayed based on usual methods, it can be held unconstitutional based on violation of the Constitution. There is no shortcut to this based on the say so of even a large number of people, merely because they are loud.
AG Venugopal: none of the petitions point to any provision of three farm acts stating that it is unconstitutional
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) January 11, 2021
CJI: we are not declaring it unconstitutional
AG: laws cannot be stayed. This is drastic
Tomorrow can all the income tax payers also gather up at whichever maidan and ask for repealing the income tax law? It hurts us and we can protest quite loudly.
How can a law be stayed or over-turned based on the nuisance value of the protestors? It is anarchy to allow that.
1.
Act of 1871
This is VERY Long but it will end with a MEGA BOOM!
Bookmark it and read it in small bits to digest it all.
This info, comes from some reputable anons and my own digging, compiled together as a superthread!
InevitableET, IPOT... to name a few.
2.
https://t.co/udep5WEYUp
https://t.co/bnzeQek6zv
3.
The TL; DR version is they, by military force, and illegitimate legislature, amended the constitution against the will of The People and legally tricked us into becoming unwitting indentured slaves of human capital and resources to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the corporation)
4.
Republic vs Democracy
-They needed to get away from the Republic and create a Democracy in order to drive us towards socialism and inevitably a dictatorship (National Socialist Party aka NAZI)
5.
Flag
Act of 1871
This is VERY Long but it will end with a MEGA BOOM!
Bookmark it and read it in small bits to digest it all.
This info, comes from some reputable anons and my own digging, compiled together as a superthread!
InevitableET, IPOT... to name a few.
2.
https://t.co/udep5WEYUp
https://t.co/bnzeQek6zv
3.
The TL; DR version is they, by military force, and illegitimate legislature, amended the constitution against the will of The People and legally tricked us into becoming unwitting indentured slaves of human capital and resources to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the corporation)
4.
Republic vs Democracy
-They needed to get away from the Republic and create a Democracy in order to drive us towards socialism and inevitably a dictatorship (National Socialist Party aka NAZI)
5.
Flag
I don't normally do threads like this but I did want to provide some deeper thoughts on the below and why having a video game based on a real world war crime from the same people that received CIA funding isn't the best idea.
This will go pretty in depth FYI.
The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:
1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.
2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.
Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.
These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.
It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.
This is where one of the first red flags comes up.
The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.
When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.
This will go pretty in depth FYI.
I couldn't possibly guess why Six Days in Fallujah is being revived at a time when US army recruitment is at an all time low.
— Daniel Ahmad (@ZhugeEX) February 11, 2021
This reboot is from the same people that worked with the FBI and CIA on training systems and is basing its game on excusing US war crimes. pic.twitter.com/5H8vVqKh9s
The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:
1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.
2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.
Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.
These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.
It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.
This is where one of the first red flags comes up.
The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.
When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.
