Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?

"Trump - Russia collusion!!!!", even though it was shown to be a lie / conspiracy theory after the multi- million dollar Mueller investigation,

You could not possibly know that, because you clearly have not read the actual Mueller Report.

But I notice that you didn't respond to what I wrote.

Hilarious! The same bunch of Republican assholes who voted against net neutrality are now whining like a bunch of stupid babies because it's biting them on the ass. Irony and karma are a bitch!

I think you're confusing the views of Trump and his supporters with conservatism. They're not the same thing.

I know, this is a game that liberals play. I've seen it all over the place before. I take it you think most posters here are conservative? Proper definitive terms being jacked all around to confuse straightforward discussions isn't something I'm interested in engaging in any longer.

What has been "ramping up drastically in only the past few years" is objections to Trump and his supporters' attacks upon democratic institutions.

All those recent institutions that I described in Message 24?

There's nothing about language in the Forum Guidelines, and no moderator action is ever taken for it. Faith's spreading of covid-19 misinformation (e.g., promoting hydroxychloroquine, questioning fatality statistics, etc.) was deemed a threat to life, which this forum could not in good conscience permit to continue.

But without checking right now, I seem to remember them saying something about being respectful, about attacking the argument, not the person.

I think there are a lot of liberal claims that could be a threat to life, the destruction of the second amendment , or as I'm about to make clear to PaulK in the other thread, the implication that most all the products humans need and depend on can easily be manufactured and distributed without fossil fuels, so it would be very cool for the government to meddle in the use of fossil fuels. Very dangerous.

Sounds accurate, since Rush Limbaugh's lies were pretty dangerous, e.g., “The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.” He died of lung cancer because he believed his own lies about smoking: "Firsthand smoke takes 50 years to kill people, if it does." "There’s no … major sickness component associated with secondhand smoke." "I would like a medal for smoking cigars."

He died at age 70, a lot of non-smokers die of lung cancer at an earlier age than that. My mom smoked most of her life, she died at 88. Little opinions about personal choices pale in comparison to the whoppers liberals like AOC say.

No they aren't liberal efforts against free speech. I think you're confusing criticism with free speech infringement. Rush Limbaugh was free to lie about smoking and covid-19, and other people were free to criticize him for it. It's necessary to mention that Limbaugh shares responsibility for the vaccine reluctance that will prevent the US from reaching herd immunity, because part of that reluctance is the belief promoted by Limbaugh and others that the virus isn't really dangerous.

So Trump slowed the vaccine development because of what Limbaugh said? I think not.

Did you hear the one the mainstream media told about the Capital police officer being hit and killed by a fire extinguisher, wielded by a typical Trump supporter? Fox news ran a montage of a LOT of news anchors making that statement. It's now been proven that officer died of natural causes. Some people found out the truth, most did not - the mainstream media paid no price for that lie. No investigation of just who made that up out of thin air. Little doubt it was an amateur liberal reporter. Restricting free speech because of accusations of lies is a new thing, it wasn't considered in past U.S. history.

None of this has anything to do with attempts to infringe upon free speech. You're saying "free speech infringement" but you're describing criticism, and plenty of criticism flows in both directions. The significant difference is the lies from the liar in chief that are believed and repeated by other Republicans. Most Republicans believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen and that Trump actually won in a landslide, and no one tried to take away anyone's rights to make these claims.

Trump's use of the term "landslide" was stupid, typical Trump personality that hurts him, everyone knows the election was close. I'm sure he was frustrated by the mainstream media cover up of the Biden corruption during the Obama presidency. No question the Democrat owned news media bought that election for him, combining the Biden corruption with other things. Before you say that everyone has the right to watch Fox news, the simple reality is that much of rural America doesn't have access to anything but over-the-air news, and that's what the mainstream media dominates.

Belief in a stolen election is a now requirement for membership in good standing of the Republican party. Liz Cheney will likely lose her House leadership position to Elise Stefanik for not accepting this lie. Ironically Liz Cheney has voted 82% of the time with conservatives, Elise Stefanik only 52% of the time. In their eagerness that top Republican leadership be pure on the "stolen election" claim they're replacing a staunch conservative with a tepid one.

The replacement of Liz Cheney is much more involved than just the belief in a stolen election.

No one believing this missive from Mr. Jones has engaged in any critical thinking. For the benefit of those to whom the glaring flaws aren't obvious, Mr. Jones cannot have studies showing what will happen after ten years for a vaccine that has been available for study for no more than a year. We don't know what causes Alzheimer's, and so we also don't know how to cause it. The earliest studies of the vaccines are about a year old now, and no one in the early studies has come down with neurological disorders. Alex Jones is lying, just as Rush Limbaugh was lying, and just as Donald Trump is lying. Their free speech rights give them the right to lie, and these same rights give other people the right to criticize them for lying.

These are political opinions and talking points, NO DIFFERENT than liberal talking points, like global warming will be completely out of control soon if we don't allow the government takeover of the fossil fuel industry, like U.S. coasts will be swallowed up by rising oceans, like Joe Biden's campaign lie that he had no idea how many millions Hunter Biden raked in from his Ukraine corruption, like Joe Biden's recent lie that the southern border is under control, on and on.

marc9000 writes: The list of liberals who are included on Fox News Channel discussions is long,... Could I see this list?

Donna Brazille
Christopher Hahn
Juan Williams
Jessica Tarlov
Marie Harf
Leslie Marshall
Chris Wallace

Some past ones;

Greta Van Susteren
Shepard Smith
Bob Beckel
Alison Camerota

With the possible exception of Beckel, these people are good -they can proclaim the liberal talking points without sputtering with rage. Probably a requirement of the job. Makes for good complete information at Fox, unlike CNN, ABC, and all the rest. No conservatives get anywhere near World News Tonight on ABC.

I watch the Sunday morning news programs, and on Meet the Press, Face the Nation and This Week conservatives are very well represented. Conservatives appearing recently on these programs are Senator Ron Johnson, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Republican pollster Al Cardenas, Lanhee Chen, Senator Rob Portman, National Review's David French, Senator Tim Scott, Governor Mike DeWine, the list just goes on and on.

Is Sunday morning pretty much it? I'm in church on Sunday mornings. The people I listed above could show up at Fox any time during the week.

Chris Wallace has been at Fox News since 2003. He does represent an odd man out the last few years now that his network has moved so far to the right and embraced lying and misrepresentation as news, but letting him go would greatly reduce the overall quality of their news staff since he is by far the most honest and respected newsman they have.

Yes, I noticed your praise of him here not long ago. He cuts off and smarts off to conservatives all he can, and with few exceptions, he lets the liberals off with no challenges.

This is an odd charge given the number of false and misleading statements you've made in just this post alone. I presume you don't believe a person's religion or lack of it is relevant in politics, so I don't know why you mention atheists. Many here are liberal, but you'd be going out on a limb to describe them as far left. I personally am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

So you believe in social spending, but not fiscal spending? Do you believe that borrowing trillions more, for free child care, student loan forgiveness, and most of the rest of Biden's pork, are "infrastructure"?

Science is atheistic in the way plumbing and knitting are atheistic. Religion just isn't relevant.

That's the talking point I've seen dozens of times before, and like before, still not true no matter how much its repeated. I'm just glad plumbers didn't have an emotional meltdown with the release of "Darwin's Black Box".

The word is SURELY. Don't call me Shirley.

I am baffled what motivates marc9K to post here considering that he must know that everything he says will be fact checked, skeptically scrutinized, and soundly criticized if it's false or misleading. He seems to think that violates HIS RIGHTS and should be illegal.

Oh, it's a blast! 4, or 5, or 15 frantically working together to try to shout me down, with little regard to what the truth is. I'm about to prove that in the "Climate Denier" thread, won't you join me there? (if you sputter with rage and call me vulgar names, I probably won't respond though.)

He can't possibly think that suddenly some of us are going to start believing him and how he characterizes us.

Oh no, I don't! I just like to watch you dig deeper and deeper holes, again, as I'm about to show in the other thread. I'm sure there are some conservative non-members who might happen by here, terrified to post of course, but who might get some amusement at how I get you going.

Their goals for America scare the living shit out of me. Those assholes are passing laws making it legal to run down protesters with a motorized vehicle, for fuck's sake!

See what I mean? Please link me to these "laws". Your 4 approval dot providers should be able to help you. Please include more vulgar words.

marc2k writes: Their goals for America scare the living shit out of me. Those assholes are passing laws making it legal to run down protesters with a motorized vehicle, for fuck's sake! See what I mean? Please link me to these "laws". Your 4 approval dot providers should be able to help you. Please include more vulgar words.

Multiple news sources report that "Republicans in Oklahoma's State Senate last week passed an "intimidation" bill which grants immunity to drivers who hit protesters."

GOP lawmakers in Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Utah and Florida have either introduced or already passed bills that increase penalties for protesters and provide legal protection for even potentially violent counter-protest measures.

Oh, it's a blast! 4, or 5, or 15 frantically working together to try to shout me down, with little regard to what the truth is.

Oh yeah, the shouting is really bad, and I guess you're still going to keep us waiting for the truth.

(if you sputter with rage and call me vulgar names, I probably won't respond though.)

Sputter with rage...how vulgar, I seethe with rage.

Oh no, I don't! I just like to watch you dig deeper and deeper holes, again, as I'm about to show in the other thread.

Well, you keep promising.

I'm sure there are some conservative non-members who might happen by here, terrified to post of course, but who might get some amusement at how I get you going.

Well, that could be. The last 5 years showed us that your branch of conservatives are pretty much afraid of everything, including human decency and honor.

I'm about to prove that in the "Climate Denier" thread

I sure would like to see that!

Creationists did try to inject their religious beliefs into science classes.

They're still at it. Arkansas House bill, HOUSE BILL 1701:

quote:

---

1 State of Arkansas
2 93rd General Assembly A Bill 
3 Regular Session, 2021                                              HOUSE BILL 1701
4
5 By: Representative Bentley
6 By: Senator G. Stubblefield
7
8                                     For An Act To Be Entitled
9                  AN ACT TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE 
10                EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN 
11                THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND 
12                OPEN-ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS; AND FOR OTHER 
13                PURPOSES. 
14
15
16                                                 Subtitle
17                           TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW
18                           THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN
19                           KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE
20                           CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND
21                           OPEN-ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.
22
23
24 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
25
26         SECTION 1. Arkansas Code Title 6, Chapter 16, Subchapter 1, is amended 
27 to add an additional section to read as follows:
28         6-16-152. Creationism. 
29         (a) A teacher of a kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) science 
30 class at a public school or open-enrollment public charter school may teach 
31 creationism as a theory of how the earth came to exist. 
32         (b) This section is permissive and does not require a teacher to teach 
33 creationism as a theory of the earth came to exist.
                                                                        03/10/2021 4:10:31 PM JNL069

---

It passed in the state house, but was voted down in a state senate committee.

Everybody tries to claim that they've gone away, but they're still there and still trying.

 

Hinduism teaches that the Earth is even older. Does that make Hindus atheists? It’s absurd.

Frankly, I wouldn't put if past marc to call Hindus "atheists". I've come across others in the past whose definition of "atheism" was only about rejecting their god, such that most theists would indeed be deemed to be "atheists".

He has also just demonstrated that he does not understand the extremely simple concept of something being non-theistic, but instead considers such to be "atheistic."

Conservatives are the ones opposed to common human decency for all but their white American culture. Conservatives detest differences in societies and consider others as inferior and not welcome in anything other than a menial capacity. Conservatives give $$Billions in pork to their super wealthy corporate masters while arguing against humanitarian aid inside our own southern border.

This distaste conservatives have for humanity is evident big time in their recent moves to control the vote and limit its use to conservative precincts. In controlling the vote, the will of the people can be thwarted and the social agenda is theirs to control.

No recognition for the human struggles in society against racism, sexual/gender discriminations officially coded into law, allowing vigilante justice to run over protesters. The conservative agenda is rife with hatred, discrimination and fear of others

They can make whatever excuses they want of who thought what when. None of it matters. When conservatives politic and legislate disenfranchisement for millions of entitled American citizens then conservatives are the enemy of America. When conservatives politic and legislate against easing human suffering then conservatives are the enemy of the people.

This conservative anti-human, anti-American, rhetoric is the right-wing’s path to fascism. They will be opposed.

The only one who doesn’t fear the coming of the Nazi is the Nazi.

PaulK writes: It turned out that Mueller didn’t find that things had gone far enough for charges, but there was enough to justify investigation. Didn't go far enough for charges, but it was still the truth?

Actually, Mueller couldn't find enough evidence to prove conspiracy. The reason was that Trump kept obstructing his investigation, ordering Mueller's witnesses to ignore the subpoenas, etc.

Mueller details that in Volume II of his report in which he lists and describes in detail ten (10) instances of obstruction of justice committed by Trump.

So why didn't Mueller indict Trump? Because of that OLC memo from the Nixon era that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Instead, Mueller kicked those cases of obstruction of justice up to Congress for them to impeach Trump (not stated explicitly). Instead, Congress impeached Trump the first time for the crimes he committed in his phone call with President Zalensky.

Nothing could be done because of Bill Barr, but now there's a new AG in town, an honest one this time. As Mueller testified, once Trump left office he could be indicted and prosecuted for those acts of obstruction of justice.

That's the main reason why Trump was so desperate to be re-elected and why he tried to get the election overturned and continues to do so: his very survival depends on that OLC memo protecting him from prosecution. His secondary reason was to continue to funnel government money into his own businesses (and hence into his own pocket), though he's back to fleecing his followers (the real "sheeple") through his new grift, his "Save America" "leadership PAC" ostensibly to cover legal costs but which instead is for Trump to use however he wants (after a suspiciously hefty "cost of funding" which accounts for 61% of donations gets skimmed off the top first). And the tertiary reason he craves re-election is to get his pathetic ego fluffed, though that gets stroked a bit every time he complains to a crowd.

Despite Barr's lies, the Mueller Report is filled with collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia and it does not in any manner exonerate Trump.

 
ABE:
{
Fun Fact --

Nixon's running mate for both elections he won was Spiro T. Agnew, former Governor of Maryland (he resigned from that office in order to take the office of VP). While Governor he received a steady stream of bribes and he continued that corrupt practice while serving as Vice President. Finally the corruption investigation was closing in on him. Agnew tried to take the position that a sitting Vice President could not be indicted, but that didn't hold any water. Finally he resigned his office to save it from the disgrace of his arrest while in it. That is how we wound up with Gerald Ford who went on to replace Nixon when he finally resigned.

Part of all that was that Nixon sent two questions to the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The first was regarding whether a sitting President would be immune from indictment. As we all know all too well, the OLC's response was that now infamous memo to the effect that a sitting President could not be indicted.

Most people don't know about the second question, which asked whether the President could pardon himself -- do you remember that that was one of the first questions Trump asked upon entering office, along with "what's the use of having nukes if you don't use them?"? The OLC's answer to Nixon's second question was basically, "No, because in granting a pardon you are acting as a judge and you cannot be the judge in your own case." So then, no, Nixon could not pardon himself. And neither could Trump.

{

Edited by dwise1, : ABE: fun fact

... by today's atheist science classes.

What the hell are you talking about?

dwise1 writes: ... by today's atheist science classes. What the hell are you talking about?

I think it was a slip of the finger, what he really meant was atheist shop class.

marc writes: The word is SURELY. Don't call me Shirley.

Plus they're not bright enough to pick up on a joke ... even if they've heard it before.

In Message 667 he claimed that the 10th Amendment governed science. This is an outright falsehood. (The 10th Amendment is about the division of power between the Federal Government and the States).

It seems that he can’t tell the difference between the Federalist Letters which he cited in the earlier Message 659 and the Constitution. But while very useful for interpreting the Constitution the Federalist letters do not in themselves have any legal force.

It gets worse. His quote of Federalist Papers 10 was a misrepresentation. Climate scientists are not acting as a “faction” in the way Federalist Papers 10 sees as a problem. Nor is finding out facts Marc wants suppressed “mischief” in the sense intended. Worse still, Federalist Papers 10 did not advocate government control of “factions” as a solution.

The fact is that Marc wants political control of the findings of science. Which is totalitarian to the core. He claims constitutional authority but never offers any Article or Amendment that would support his claim. Only a misrepresentation of a document which is not a part of the Constitution - or any lesser part of the law.

Today's US Conservatives are also the ones who deny Jesus teachings and are directly opposed to everything Jesus taught.

Trump was demonized for what he said on January 6th, largely because most of the mainstream media cut out his words "peacefully and patriotically".

These attempts to exonerate Trump by carefully and selectively parsing that one speech are extremely dishonest. They completely ignore the entire pattern of conduct by Trump and his operatives over the preceding 60 days -- that is not including the months of Trump repeated claims that if he lost then it would be because the election was rigged, the same claim he was making during the 2016 election campaign.

In those 60 days between the resolution of the election on 06 Nov 2020 and the Insurrection, Trump held several rallies in which he spread his lie of a "stolen election" and generated anger and rage against the election process and the duly elected government. He repeatedly issued what amounted to a "call to arms" for "his people" to rise up in rebellion and to restore him to the throne ... er, the Oval Office, but then Trump never knew the difference anyway.

His followers assembled for that 06 Jan speech were already fully indoctrinated in what they were there to do, were primed and ready to do it, and had organized and prepared themselves for the actions that the preceding two months had called upon them to do. The actual words in Trump's speech would have made no difference at all, except for his final command to start their advance on the Capitol (preceded by advance rebel units according to plan). Trump could just as well just given the old jazz count-off ("A one, a two, you know what to do.") and the outcome would have been the same. Trump had spent the previous two months priming and arming them as a weapon against democracy; all that was left for him to do was to give them a direction and turn them loose.

As the investigation proceeds, we find that the attack on the Capitol was preceded by communication between the principal groups (eg, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, other white supremacist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi, militia groups) in which they planned and organized the attack -- sounds like charges of conspiracy should result. The date and place for the demonstrations was changed to 06 Jan for the purpose of disrupting and stopping the certification of the election -- as I recall, that change was made at the direction of the White House. There was a large mobilization plan which required a lot of organization to provide those groups with transportation and lodging for that "demonstration" -- that reportedly included money from Trump's "legal PAC", about $50 million as I recall.

In addition there's the curious case of Sec Defense Mark Esper and his abrupt replacement with Christopher Miller at the same time that two other top DoD positions were filled by unqualified Trump loyalists. That happened on 09 Nov, a few days after the election had finally been decided (though Esper's resignation letter predates that). Part of that reason seems to be Esper's efforts to keep Trump from violating the law on 01 June 2020 when Trump repeatedly ordered the deployment of active duty troops against the protesters and Esper had to order them back. That was when Trump used his goon squad to clear Lafayette Park so that he could walk across for a Satanic photo-op in front of a church (displaying Christian religious symbols upside-down is a Satanic practice and Trump did in fact hold that Christian religious symbol, the Bible, upside-down -- the Beast is as the Beast does).

At the time, nobody could understand the sudden shake-up in the leadership of the Department of Defense after Trump had already lost the election. What purpose could that possibly serve? Well, we found that out on 06 Jan.

Leading up to 06 Jan, Miller placed strong restrictions on the DC National Guard that basically disarmed them against the insurrection and severely reduced their effectiveness in defending the Capitol and in assisting the Capitol Police. He banned them from touching, arresting, or searching rioters, and bringing weapons, helmets and body armor to work on 06 Jan. Then on 06 Jan he hesitated approving National Guard support from neighboring states for three hours after that support was requested because the Capitol's defenses had been overrun (his approval was explicitly required).

Now we know why Trump had placed Miller in that position.

They say that the fish rots starting at the head. And when a conspiracy (or crime mob) is investigated that you start at the ends and work your way up to the head.

The investigation is ongoing. Let's see what it leads to.

Edited by dwise1, : minor grammatical correction to last sentence

I was wondering when Trump was officially going to get served for his misdeeds documented by Mueller coupled with his misdeeds in early 2021. I just hope that justice is thorough and complete.

dwise1 writes: The investigation is ongoing. Let's see what where it leads.

Based on the information given, I think he is guilty of at least two violations of presidential authority and responsibility. And I'm a political moderate...I'm neither pro nor anti-Trump. I just want our system to work honestly the way it was intended. I believe that the election was not rigged. The Democrats are no Saints either, but lets wait 4 years before judging them.

Edited by Phat, : added features