Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

Based on the pet portraits posted on this site it seems that an overwhelming majority of photographers prefer dogs. Could be also due to the fact that cats are owned primarily by women who are under represented on this forum.

Real women photographers don't waste their time here.  They're out shooting pictures. 

[JoeKitchen]

Based on the pet portraits posted on this site it seems that an overwhelming majority of photographers prefer dogs. Could be also due to the fact that cats are owned primarily by women who are under represented on this forum.

Not my photography, but worth the look. 

Photographer Captures The Majestic Beauty Of Maine Coons

Anyone of these would be a better book cover involving a dog. 

Perhaps not #10. 

[James Clark]

Yeah, this will all work.  De-platforming and isolating people clearly has a history making them less radical.  Not to mention clearly engaging in rhetoric of insisting everyone in the party believes in conspiracy theories really breeds unity. 

James, you have gone off into lay lay land.  Let us know when you get back and are acting like an American again, not wanting to censor people. 

Really, you sound no better then a Soviet here calling for censorship.

Yep.  I'm all for censoring QAnon. Anyone that subscribes to that stuff is self-evidently unqualified to be part of public discourse, so f 'em.  I'll worry about the slippery slope if it becomes a problem.  As for being "Soviet," the idea that any American can advocate for any insanity they like without consequence, up to and including advocating for the overthrow of a duly elected government, is patently false, and always has been, whether your theory of "America" strictly originalist or more sensible.

[faberryman]

It's been going on a long time, for decades.  The media has distorted the news so that the left gets primetime on Pg 1 and conservative views get buried on pg 47.  Now it's the electronic media like Twitter that cancels the president's account and shuts down conservative speech under the phony complaint it's not truthful.  As if only the left has a monopoly on the truth.

I have heard that view for a while now and can't understand why the right doesn't have a newspaper so that they can put their views on page 1 and the left's views on page 47. They seem to be doing okay on TV. Fox is the most watched news channel or so I've heard. Now you've got Newsmax and OAN too. I do think the right does have an advantage on radio. You never hear too much about left wing radio except NPR. Can you think of a left wing radio show on the AM band. And I have got to ask: do you think Trump was truthful on his post-election Twitter feed. Is that a phony complaint?

[JoeKitchen]

Yep.  I'm all for censoring QAnon. Anyone that subscribes to that stuff is self-evidently unqualified to be part of public discourse, so f 'em.  I'll worry about the slippery slope if it becomes a problem.  As for being "Soviet," the idea that any American can advocate for any insanity they like without consequence, up to and including advocating for the overthrow of a duly elected government, is patently false, and always has been, whether your theory of "America" is originalist *or* sensible.

Well then, I fully nominate you for the Leni Riefenstahl Award for Photography Propaganda for your courage on insisting censorship and re-education camps be implemented in the USA along with deeming all republicans to qualify for such measures.

You are a true follower of the footsteps of Riefenstahl. 


PS, only that is not what the majority of Republicans advocated for, and you did not quantify that you were only talking about those people.  The majority of the base you said, but don't let facts get in the way of your propaganda . 

[digitaldog]

Anyone of these would be a better book cover involving a dog. 

That sounds about right for the fellow who hasn't examined all book covers involving dogs.
Here's a start, keep scrolling down and scrolling down until it's flight time to Florida:
https://www.google.com/search?q=book+cover+with+dogs&client=safari&rls=en&sxsrf=ALeKk02nWOkz4K6zhFSdVLb4Jqzfkn3TDA:1613527060652&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiS_6Pa6O_uAhUGnZ4KHQFrCb0Q_AUoAXoECBYQAw&biw=1735&bih=1334
That sounds about right for the fellow who stated incorrectly then ignored the fact check:

Let's face it, more people like cats.

You are entailed to your opinion and bias. Not your own made up facts.

Time to watch Biden, a president who can complete a coherent sentence.

[Alan Klein]

Could you give me an example of the ACLU winking at whatever you think they are winking out?

Is saying the news media is publishing "fake news" accusing them of lying, or is that something different?

There was an ACLU person I heard who was wishy washy about the right of free speech and seemed to favor silencing Trump's speech.  I can't find the article now; it goes back a few weeks.  But before, they would have come pout very strongly against silencing Trump.

Fake news isn't about lying for the main.  It's about biasing the presentation so you don't hear all the truth.  It's like cherry-picking a statistic to make your point and leaving out the statistics supporting the other side. It's the NY Times blasting Trump on page 1 above the fold in a four column spread, while praising something he did on pg 47 that no one ever reads. 

[JoeKitchen]

That sounds about right for the fellow who hasn't examined all book covers involving dogs.
Here's a start, keep scrolling down and scrolling down until it's flight time to Florida:
https://www.google.com/search?q=book+cover+with+dogs&client=safari&rls=en&sxsrf=ALeKk02nWOkz4K6zhFSdVLb4Jqzfkn3TDA:1613527060652&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiS_6Pa6O_uAhUGnZ4KHQFrCb0Q_AUoAXoECBYQAw&biw=1735&bih=1334
That sounds about right for the fellow who stated incorrectly then ignored the fact check:You are entailed to your opinion and bias. Not your own made up facts.

You're really going hard on this one.

I mean I am trying to understand your perspective of someone who prefers an emotionally shallow animal, but I am at a loss.  As they say, the first step is admitting you have a problem. 

PS, I clicked on your link and the first two books I saw was of pooping dogs and Trump, for some reason. 

[faberryman]

Anyone of these would be a better book cover involving a dog. 

I'm guessing if you like cats you like cat book covers, so it may be difficult to convince a cat owner your dog book cover is better,  and vice versa.

[TechTalk]

The main purpose of impeachment is to get the guy out of office.

This viewpoint matches Judge J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the podcast I posted above if you wish to listen to it. I came to my similar views before hearing Luttig.  So my views aren't that extreme or illogical.

I listened to the podcast and the view of Michael Luttig that "The primary purpose [of impeachment] is removal from office" which aligns with your view of the "purpose" of impeachment. The understanding of what "purpose" means is a perfect illustration of the difficulty that language often presents in finding common ground. I have a view and understanding of purpose that is very different from you and Luttig.

In the case of impeachment, removal and disqualification are punishments provided by the Constitution after impeachment, trial, and conviction. The view that punishment is the "main" or "primary" purpose of any undertaking is a concept I find illogical and alien to my thinking. In my view, the Framers' desire and purpose in their inclusion of impeachment was to protect the nation from what Hamilton, in writing about impeachment, referred to as individuals guilty of "intrigue and corruption". I view their purpose as a desire to protect the nation from those in high office engaged in conduct violating their oath and trust—impeachment, trial, conviction, and punishment were the means chosen to achieve that purpose.

My view is that the purpose of anything of true importance transcends the means used or end result achieved. I credit the Framers with having a higher and larger purpose in mind for impeachment than the punishment of individuals. I think that their concern was for the nation as a whole and its protection from the dangers of corruption, treachery, and treason—and not merely an end result of punishing individuals for misconduct.

[Alan Klein]

I have heard that view for a while now and can't understand why the right doesn't have a newspaper so that they can put their views on page 1 and the left's views on page 47. They seem to be doing okay on TV. Fox is the most watched news channel or so I've heard. Now you've got Newsmax and OAN too. I do think the right does have an advantage on radio. You never hear too much about left wing radio except NPR. Can you think of a left wing radio show on the AM band. And I have got to ask: do you think Trump was truthful on his post-election Twitter feed. Is that a phony complaint?

FOX is a conservative outlet although their straight news is more balanced.  The problem is that the mainstream news like the Washington Post and the NY Times, papers one would think provide balanced news, actually present biased news and have for decades.  Similar to NBC, CBS, and ABC and their evening news broadcasts daily. No one watches FOX like these others.  Plus the liberal press provides liberal bylines to other newspapers around the world.  Other papers buy the Times articles and news feeds because they don't have the same number of reporters covering the news especially in Washington.  So the rest of the world reads the biased NY Times articles, not FOX.  It's why foreigners have such a distorted view of American politics and can't understand how 74 million people voted for Trump.  It's because they see a distorted view of America that they just repeat.

[James Clark]

Well then, I fully nominate you for the Leni Riefenstahl Award for Photography Propaganda for your courage on insisting censorship and re-education camps be implemented in the USA along with deeming all republicans to qualify for such measures.

You are a true follower of the footsteps of Riefenstahl. 


PS, only that is not what the majority of Republicans advocated for, and you did not quantify that you were only talking about those people.  The majority of the base you said, but don't let facts get in the way of your propaganda .

You accusing someone of being loose with facts is goofy as hell.

[faberryman]

FOX is a conservative outlet although their straight news is more balanced.  The problem is that the mainstream news like the Washington Post and the NY Times, papers one would think provide balanced news, actually present biased news and have for decades.  Similar to NBC, CBS, and ABC and their evening news broadcasts daily. No one watches FOX like these others.  Plus the liberal press provides liberal bylines to other newspapers around the world.  Other papers buy the Times articles and news feeds because they don't have the same number of reporters covering the news especially in Washington.  So the rest of the world reads the biased NY Times articles, not FOX.  It's why foreigners have such a distorted view of American politics and can't understand how 74 million people voted for Trump.  It's because they see a distorted view of America that they just repeat.

Sounds like you are saying your team doesn't have any good players. You need to get some good players.

[Alan Klein]

I listened to the podcast and the view of Michael Luttig that "The primary purpose [of impeachment] is removal from office" which aligns with your view of the "purpose" of impeachment. The understanding of what "purpose" means is a perfect illustration of the difficulty that language often presents in finding common ground. I have a view and understanding of purpose that is very different from you and Luttig.

In the case of impeachment, removal and disqualification are punishments provided by the Constitution after impeachment, trial, and conviction. The view that punishment is the "main" or "primary" purpose of any undertaking is a concept I find illogical and alien to my thinking. In my view, the Framers' desire and purpose in their inclusion of impeachment was to protect the nation from what Hamilton, in writing about impeachment, referred to as individuals guilty of "intrigue and corruption". I view their purpose as a desire to protect the nation from those in high office engaged in conduct violating their oath and trust—impeachment, trial, conviction, and punishment were the means chosen to achieve that purpose.

My view is that the purpose of anything of true importance transcends the means used or end result achieved. I credit the Framers with having a higher and larger purpose in mind for impeachment than the punishment of individuals. I think that their concern was for the nation as a whole and its protection from the dangers of corruption, treachery, and treason—and not merely an end result of punishing individuals for misconduct.

I don't think our views on the purpose of impeachment are at any basic odds with each other.  It's just that impeachment in my view applies to current officeholders, not ex-officials who are no longer in office. We have other procedures in our justice system using Federal civilian courts to deal with any crimes the official may have done while in office.

[JoeKitchen]

You accusing someone of being loose with facts is goofy as hell.

No, I am not accusing you of being loose with facts.  You stated pretty clearly you feel the majority of the base believes in QAnon (they don't), were okay with the riots (they were not) and that all of them should be censored.  So, I am accusing you of giving into liberal authoritarian tropes the Dems are pushing with censorship. 

If you think that censorship, in any form, is okay than you are more of a sucker for totalitarians then you sound like. 

[TechTalk]

Not to mention clearly engaging in rhetoric of insisting everyone in the party believes in conspiracy theories really breeds unity. 

Trump's insistence on the Republican party believing in conspiracy theories—and the majority of the party going along with it—certainly hasn't helped breed unity in either the party or the country.

[Alan Klein]

I don't think our views on the purpose of impeachment are at any basic odds with each other.  It's just that impeachment in my view applies to current officeholders, not ex-officials who are no longer in office. We have other procedures in our justice system using Federal civilian courts to deal with any crimes the official may have done while in office.

To continue, using the higher charged political impeachment process on a civilian does not allow that person to defend himself in a way that most would consider American.  There was a rush to judgment, no witnesses, a judge who was a juror, etc.  That's not how I would want to defend myself, nor would you, I believe.

[JoeKitchen]

I don't think our views on the purpose of impeachment are at any basic odds with each other.  It's just that impeachment in my view applies to current officeholders, not ex-officials who are no longer in office. We have other procedures in our justice system using Federal civilian courts to deal with any crimes the official may have done while in office.

Some state constitutions that predated the US constitution, and were used for a basis, had in them that officials out of office could still be impeached.  My understanding is this came from common English law due to the fact that royalty were not elected.  So, impeaching a royal who was not liked yet not in power made sense since regardless if he was licked, he could still become in power. 

The framers knew of this and knew of these provisions in state constitutions, yet did not include the language in the US constitution.  This, to me, implies the framers deliberately meant impeachment to only be used on officials still in office. 

[James Clark]

No, I am not accusing you of being loose with facts.  You stated pretty clearly you feel the majority of the base believes in QAnon (they don't), were okay with the riots (they were not) and that all of them should be censored.  So, I am accusing you of giving into liberal authoritarian tropes the Dems are pushing with censorship. 

If you think that censorship, in any form, is okay than you are more of a sucker for totalitarians then you sound like.

If you think that kicking a bunch of Dunning Kruger poster children off of Twitter is the second coming of totalitarianism, then you’re not capable of having a serious discussion on the subject.

[TechTalk]

The right generally doesn't want to silence the left.

That's probably of little comfort to Republicans that are being censured and attacked by their own party for disagreeing with their colleagues in voting to impeach and convict Trump.