The Trump Riot Aftermath (Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Proud Boys join the club)

[88Comrade2000]

50 minutes ago, Burgold said:

The problem is that the Democrats still believe this is a land of laws and the Republicans don’t. This is why everyone expects the panel to be disbanded if Republicans take the House. 

Not if but when.

[@DCGoldPants]

I'd go hard after Ginni. Being careful to never publicly mention her husband. Just solo her our as a danger to democracy and see how she and her Husband react. 

[China]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

The problem is that the Democrats still believe this is a land of laws and the Republicans don’t. This is why everyone expects the panel to be disbanded if Republicans take the House. 

 

Won't matter.  They will be done and the report will be forwarded to DOJ before the election.  The J6 Committee's work will be done.  A republican controlled Congress won't be able to stop DOJ.   It will be up to DOJ to prosecute.  We just saw recently that they asked for the transcripts  of 1000 J6 Committee interviews.  Justice is coming, but slowly.  Too slowly for many's tastes (mine included). 

[Bloodytusk]

1 hour ago, China said:

 

Won't matter.  They will be done and the report will be forwarded to DOJ before the election.  The J6 Committee's work will be done.  A republican controlled Congress won't be able to stop DOJ.   It will be up to DOJ to prosecute.  We just saw recently that they asked for the transcripts  of 1000 J6 Committee interviews.  Justice is coming, but slowly.  Too slowly for many's tastes (mine included). 

Your someone that should quit their  day job and work for a propaganda department somewhere. Your one of the best I’ve ever seen.

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, China said:

 

Won't matter.  They will be done and the report will be forwarded to DOJ before the election.  The J6 Committee's work will be done.  A republican controlled Congress won't be able to stop DOJ.   It will be up to DOJ to prosecute.  We just saw recently that they asked for the transcripts  of 1000 J6 Committee interviews.  Justice is coming, but slowly.  Too slowly for many's tastes (mine included). 

I will believe it when I see it.

 

Considering just from what little has come out; several republicans at all levels from local, state to national were involved in the planning and execution of the various schemes.  I don't see this justice going after U.S. congressmen and Senators involved; especially when those same people will have oversight when the gop takes control in January. Garland really going to go after say Ted Cruz; who plans on running for president?  Going after say Mo Brooks, MTG, etc...    I will believe it when I see it. I don't see Joe wanting that confrontation and he will tell Garland to stand down.

[Bang]

10 hours ago, China said:

 

Won't matter.  They will be done and the report will be forwarded to DOJ before the election.  The J6 Committee's work will be done.  A republican controlled Congress won't be able to stop DOJ.   It will be up to DOJ to prosecute.  We just saw recently that they asked for the transcripts  of 1000 J6 Committee interviews.  Justice is coming, but slowly.  Too slowly for many's tastes (mine included). 

I think this illustrates what Burgold was saying above. 
This is how it should work in our system by the law.

 

But the Republicans have shown that the law means nothing to them, and once they are in there is every indication that they will do everything they can to destroy the laws that run the machine. And since the Dems will remain hamstrung in their belief that the law is sacrosanct, they will be unable to stop it.

 

~Bang

[Dan T.]

9 hours ago, Bloodytusk said:

Your someone that should quit their  day job and work for a propaganda department somewhere. Your one of the best I’ve ever seen.

Clearly grammar is not your strong suit. And as for your suggestion, I doubt Fox or the RNC is hiring.

[Ball Security]

10 hours ago, Bloodytusk said:

Your someone that should quit their  day job and work for a propaganda department somewhere. Your one of the best I’ve ever seen.

What did he say that was untrue?  Do you have knowledge of a different timeline than what the J6 committee has publicly stated?  Is there/their/they’re a different body than the DOJ that will decide whether or not to prosecute?  Did the DOJ not request J6 transcripts?

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/05/17/justice-department-requests-transcripts-from-jan-6-committee-00033236
 

English is difficult language to learn.  I’ll help you with something I learned in third grade.  Your is possessive.  You’re is a contraction for you are.  
 

You’re uninformed.  Improve your uninformed mind.

[LD0506]

Tailgate's daily exercise regimen

 

[Bloodytusk]

38 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

What did he say that was untrue?  Do you have knowledge of a different timeline than what the J6 committee has publicly stated?  Is there/their/they’re a different body than the DOJ that will decide whether or not to prosecute?  Did the DOJ not request J6 transcripts?

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/05/17/justice-department-requests-transcripts-from-jan-6-committee-00033236
 

English is difficult language to learn.  I’ll help you with something I learned in third grade.  Your is possessive.  You’re is a contraction for you are.  
 

You’re uninformed.  Improve your uninformed mind.

I didn’t mean that as an insult I’m commenting on the volume and quality of his posts. Insulting someone’s grammar on the internet is what people do when they don’t have anything better to say it never makes you look good.

1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

Clearly grammar is not your strong suit. And as for your suggestion, I doubt Fox or the RNC is hiring.

Didn’t mean it as an insult look at chinas posting history and after reflecting tell me again what I said is wrong. 

[Ball Security]

1 hour ago, Bloodytusk said:

I didn’t mean that as an insult I’m commenting on the volume and quality of his posts. Insulting someone’s grammar on the internet is what people do when they don’t have anything better to say it never makes you look good.

Didn’t mean it as an insult look at chinas posting history and after reflecting tell me again what I said is wrong. 

Must be tough being the victim.  I didn’t insult your grammar.  I gave friendly advice on how to differentiate your and you’re.  Yet, you took it as an insult.  Sad!

[Dan T.]

6 hours ago, Bloodytusk said:

I didn’t mean that as an insult I’m commenting on the volume and quality of his posts. Insulting someone’s grammar on the internet is what people do when they don’t have anything better to say it never makes you look good.

Didn’t mean it as an insult look at chinas posting history and after reflecting tell me again what I said is wrong. 

Accusing someone of spreading propaganda is one hell of a backhanded compliment. Commenting on the grammar was the least I could add.  

[China]

First on CNN: Giuliani meets with January 6 committee for more than 9 hours

 

Rudy Giuliani, former President Donald Trump's onetime personal attorney and a lead architect of his attempt to overturn the 2020 election results, on Friday met with the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection, two sources told CNN.

 

Giuliani's original deposition with the committee had been postponed after the former New York City mayor asked to record the interview, with both audio and video. At the time, Giuliani's attorney Robert Costello said the committee rejected that request.

Despite Giuliani backing out of the original deposition, the two sides continued to negotiate an appearance, which led to a virtual appearance Friday that lasted for more than nine hours, sources said.

Costello declined to comment Friday. A spokesperson for the select committee also declined to comment on Giuliani's deposition.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Oh, FFS, cooperate with each other and prosecute these assholes.

 

Tensions rise between DOJ, Jan. 6 panel

 

After weeks of airing concerns the Justice Department may not be moving aggressively enough to prosecute former President Trump and others in his orbit, lawmakers on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack met the department’s request for assistance with an interesting response: Not so fast.

 

The Justice Department has asked the committee to share some of its materials, sending a letter noting that some of its work “may contain information relevant to a criminal investigation we are conducting.”

 

But the committee has said it won’t directly turn over what it’s got, suggesting it would provide only a more narrow level of assistance. 

 

“I can say broadly that the traditional tension between congressional investigative committees and the Department of Justice … about witnesses is that they have different interests,” Robbins said. “The Department of Justice wants to be in a position to prosecute people or to potentially prosecute people and the congressional committees want to be able to stage hearings that lay out for the American people what happened in a way that is designed to grab and keep the attention of the media and the American people.”

“So there is some — let’s call it jealousy and competing interests between the two branches.”

 

Members of the select committee have been calling for the Justice Department to be more aggressive in investigating and prosecuting political figures who may have played a role in instigating the Jan. 6 attack — or, as in the case of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, have defied the panel’s subpoenas.

 

“Attorney General Garland, do your job so we can do ours,” Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) said during a March hearing to weigh their third and fourth referrals to DOJ of witnesses who refused to testify. 

 

Providing federal prosecutors with the transcripts of hundreds of witness interviews by the committee would likely aid law enforcement in bringing the types of prosecutions that many in the Democratic Party have been seeking.

 

“It’s not clear that the Department of Justice would need evidence from the committee for the purpose of prosecuting Whack Job A and Lunatic B storming the Capitol. What they would be interested in is evidence that relates to the various strategies put in place before the election, after the election, leading up to January 6, and even afterwards, for the purpose of trying to get the election results flipped. And the cast as potential characters is a large one,” Robbins said.

 

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said the standoff is not a sign of “any kind of hostility between our committee and the department,” even as he called for the Justice Department to be more specific about what it’s asking of the panel.

 

“My concern, frankly, is the lack of evidence of DOJ investigating in areas where I think they should. And so that’s a greater concern for me than the breadth of what they’re asking Congress for,” he said.

 

“I think they need to be specific about what they need and why they need it. And the failure to do so raises the same questions about the scope of their investigation and why it is more than a year after Jan. 6 some things still don’t seem to be investigated by the department. … The department doesn’t wait on Congress to do an investigation. And so I think the question is: Why is the department coming to Congress at this point? Why hasn’t the department been doing a broader investigation from the beginning?”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

Confess that watching Congress simultaneously criticize DOJ for lack of prosecutions, and deny them access to sworn testimony, seems - conflicted - to me. 

[Bloodytusk]

16 hours ago, Dan T. said:

Accusing someone of spreading propaganda is one hell of a backhanded compliment. Commenting on the grammar was the least I could add.  

Propaganda to me is a more neutral term than most peoples understanding of it. He posts a lot of biased viewpoint stuff deny it if you want.  Between your post and this reply he posted two more articles you don’t find his way of posting just a little different than most?

21 hours ago, Ball Security said:

Must be tough being the victim.  I didn’t insult your grammar.  I gave friendly advice on how to differentiate your and you’re.  Yet, you took it as an insult.  Sad!

Lol yes the victim of intellectually lazy comebacks that I had thought went out of style years ago. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by Bloodytusk

[Bang]

**** the GOP.

Call that whatever you want, I couldn't care less. the time for semantics and trying to civilly find common ground is long since past, and it was the GOP who killed it. They will willingly hurt this country and their own constituents to score politically. It is a tried and true method among the idiots that can't figure it out. 
 

**** them, and anyone who stands with them.

 

~Bang

[skinsmarydu]

16 hours ago, Dan T. said:

Accusing someone of spreading propaganda is one hell of a backhanded compliment. Commenting on the grammar was the least I could add.  

And China is the last person to be attacked around here.  He does good, and loves his cats. 

[Sniffler]

28 minutes ago, Bloodytusk said:

Propaganda to me is a more neutral term than most peoples understanding of it... 

Sounds like you are the one who doesn't have an understanding of the word "propaganda."

[Burgold]

52 minutes ago, Bang said:

**** the GOP.

Call that whatever you want, I couldn't care less. the time for semantics and trying to civilly find common ground is long since past, and it was the GOP who killed it. They will willingly hurt this country and their own constituents to score politically. It is a tried and true method among the idiots that can't figure it out. 
 

**** them, and anyone who stands with them.

 

~Bang

I don't like that I feel the same, but I do. Modern Republicanism is a murderous, hateful, myopic unredeemable monster.

[Bloodytusk]

1 hour ago, Sniffler said:

Sounds like you are the one who doesn't have an understanding of the word "propaganda."

I’ll admit I use it in the more archaic way than most are used to. That said if you can’t look at his posting history and not at least understand why I said what I said than so be it.

Edited May 22, 2022 by Bloodytusk

[Sniffler]

22 minutes ago, Bloodytusk said:

I’ll admit I use it in the more archaic way than most are used to...

Archaic? Like early 19th century or earlier? 

 

I'm sorry to ask such mundane questions. Words matter, especially how they are used.

[Bloodytusk]

39 minutes ago, Sniffler said:

Archaic? Like early 19th century or earlier? 

 

I'm sorry to ask such mundane questions. Words matter, especially how they are used.

Not sure the exact timeframe it would have been neutral in English. I was told by a professor in undergrad that propaganda isn't necessarily a dirty word. I have a lot of respect for her so it stuck with me.

[Sniffler]

11 minutes ago, Bloodytusk said:

Not sure the exact timeframe it would have been neutral in English.

According to Merriam-Webster:

Propaganda is today most often used in reference to political statements, but the word comes to our language through its use in a religious context. The Congregatio de propaganda fide (“Congregation for propagating the faith”) was an organization established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV as a means of furthering Catholic missionary activity. The word propaganda is from the ablative singular feminine of propogandus, which is the gerundive of the Latin propagare, meaning “to propagate.” The first use of the word propaganda (without the rest of the Latin title) in English was in reference to this Catholic organization. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that it began to be used as a term denoting ideas or information that are of questionable accuracy as a means of advancing a cause.

I'm not too sure it's ever been used in neutral context. So, as an educator myself, it could be fair to say your professor may have misspoke.

[Burgold]

5 minutes ago, Sniffler said:

According to Merriam-Webster:

 

 

I'm not too sure it's ever been used in neutral context. So, as an educator myself, it could be fair to say your professor may have misspoke.

I have heard people talking about propaganda that can be used for good purposes. For example, people talk about Uncle Sam in WWI or the WWII efforts of Captain America, Wonder Woman, Hollywood war movies, etc. that were clearly propaganda efforts to help mobilize the nation's will against Germany.

 

So, I can sort of see his/his professor's point. Still, like the word myth, the meaning definitely has a tilt. Myth used to denote a different set of beliefs. These days, it means a belief in something that isn't true. Propaganda is generally viewed as a form of manipulation. As such, it's generally viewed in a negative fashion.