GW Hayduke

The New York Times obtained recordings of police communications from Jan 6 and synced it to video. It provides the perspective of frontline police and the supervisors immediately directing them. Worth a watch. Nine minutes in length. Hopefully, this will dispel some of the disinformation pushed immediately after the siege on twitter and shared here that tried to show police as complicit by video of protesters passing through inconsequential barricades. https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007655234/weve-lost-the-line-radio-traffic-reveals-police-under-siege-at-capitol.html?playlistId=video/2020-Elections

Since folks are pondering Tucker, here is an oldy but goody in case anyone hasn't seen

I had a running list on my reddit account that I haven't' updated in a year or so. I would pop it out whenever some asks what is so bad with trump. lies: dude lies about virtually everything. It’s embarrassing. Potus should be a role model. profane behavior: it’s embarrassing and juvenile. We are a laughing stock on the world stage. kowtowing to Saudi Arabia and Russia: fuck that shit. What are his motives for this? 2 counts of conspiracy to violate election law: see the Cohen trial. Trump as individual 1 in paying off porn stars. Corruption isn’t cool. 10 counts of obstructing the investigation into Russian election interference: see part 2 of the mueller report. Corruption isn’t cool. the bribery/extortion scheme to obtain a personal political benefit from withholding military aid to an ally that is in open conflict with russia. his general disregard for the rule of law. politicizing the DOJ by stepping in and getting a lighter sentence for Roger Stone. his use of division, tribalism, and xenophobia in his politik: potus should bring the country together, not use division and fear for political gain. dude is a confessed sexual predator: that isn’t cool. giving daughter and son positions in the White House is unethical. his attacks on the fbi, DOJ, and intelligence community serve no one but trump and our adversaries, such as Russia. separating families and putting kids in cages: US loses the moral high ground from shit like that. supporting/pardoning war criminals: US loses the moral high ground and it disrupts the ability of our military to operate at its best. abandoning the Kurds: an ally. This weakens our world standing and ability to project power. What did trump personally receive in return for this? pushing conspiracy theories is dangerous: birtherism, vaccines and autism, Ukraine’s election interference, deep state, etc. trade wars: barriers to trade have historically led to military conflict. As a general rule, better and increased trade between parties leads to deescalation of tensions. tension with allies: allegiances with Canada, France, Australia, Germany, nato, etc. are good for America. Tension only benefits our adversaries, I.e., Russia. tax returns: what is he hiding? Who does his allegiances lie with? emoluments: he chose to not divest and is currently profiting from a range of domestic and foreign entities. Are these profits motivating any executive decisions? Corruption isn’t cool. tax cuts for wealthy and corporations: trading short term political gain for increased deficit and harm to future generations. Propping up our economy with deficits is poor governance. declaring manufactured emergencies to redirect funds for military families for a southern barriers that experts think is a waste. giving legitimacy to the leader of North Korea.

I still see some issues though. The exhortation would be “give em hell boys and defeat the union so we can keep our slaves.” We don’t know what Sinclair knew about Prather’s fondness for the phrase and the confederacy but it wouldn’t be a stretch for Sinclair to have heard some version of the Lee/Gregg story.

That’s fair but I don’t really see much of a difference between citing Gregg or Lee. They are both confederate generals. Seemingly Taylor in 30s misassigned statements by Gregg. But that error isn’t really consequential to the thrust that the confederacy was intertwined with the origin story of the eyes. We could say that other folks used phrases similar to the eyes (like Washington), but Prather and Taylor we’re quoting confederate generals and not Washington. Prather was UT president at the time of his Lee/Greg speech and at the time of composition of the eyes song. I may be mistaken but I also believe the debut of the song was at an event for Prather (which also happened to be a minstrel performance likely in black face). I’m not convinced the connection is fabricated

I recommend you take a look at page 11 of the report and note the discussion of Prather’s speech in November 1900. The quotes from the summary you provided do not appear to clearly line up with the contents of the report (page 11)

What do you think I am not comprehending? Are you under the impression that the report establishes the confederacy, General Lee, and General Gregg played no role in the origin of the eyes? If so, you are misreading the report. There are two speeches by Prather noted on that page. One recorded in October 1899 and another recorded December 1900. The December 1900 speech clearly established that Prather (two years before the eyes was written) linked the eyes to the confederacy. He refers to both Lee and Gregg (confederate generals) in the speech, and the quotes Gregg as stating "the eyes of texas are upon you" and "the eyes of General Lee are upon you." Then in 30's, the Dean of Engineering again links the confederacy and Lee (leaving out Gregg) back to eyes. There is no reason to hide from any of that. Those are facts in the report.

I recommend you read the report. Or at least the open letter at the beginning. A few paragraphs from the open letter composed by the chair of the committee.

I skimmed this thread and it appears folks believe that Lee and the confederacy played no role in origin of the Eyes. Have folks read the report? I recommend you get to at least page 11. There is more. Folks should read page 11 of the report. https://utexas.app.box.com/s/5o2a1klri1htyhq3mziyxdjgxvegprjj

Misinformation is inappropriate when it comes from Fox News and Steve Miller, just like misinformation is inappropriate when it comes from AOC.

We need more maturity from our elected Democratic representatives when their twitter team decides to "poke and speak up." AOC should never be parroting the same talking points as Fox News, fakebusiness, and Steve Miller. I get that folks want to find vague excuses for it but it shouldn't be acceptable.

We need our Democratic representatives to be more responsible on twitter. Has AOC clarified or retracted her tweet?

I wasn’t thinking about federal oversight. I was thinking about the deregulated marketplace that occurred 1999 or 2002 or whenever and how that led to the problems we are having

Anyone have a link, source or brief analysis on how texas’ deregulation of our electric utility has led to this fiasco? Trying to keep a fire going so can’t do much research now

I get it. You are the slow guy on the board. The GND and her tax policies are policies. Policies aren’t the same as method of politik. That’s been stated several times. I typed that slow for you. She has sound policies that mostly align with Dem platform, but that isn’t relevant to anything I was talking about.

I lied - one last point is that there aren’t just two sides to the trumpist style attack based politics issue. And this is critical. The third side includes White House press briefings that address problems and policies rather than the “others.” That side includes a Biden team hitting the circuit making the case for policies and not against “others.” Hopefully that means a legislative branch passing meaningful laws. That is the side I am contrasting against AOC’s method and resulting tribalism. I get that the context contributed to some of the excessive emotions, strawmen, and labeling. I think it has more to do with tribal instincts - I called it worshiping but maybe people felt that is a loaded term

Are you serious? What serious comment have I not responded to? My position from the beginning is that the worshiping of AOC seems to be a promotion of trumpist style politics that is based on tribalism and attacking the “others” and that that type of politics has costs. Different folks introduced their own qualifications. As I have stated, I don’t disagree with any of them. I was initially labeled as an other or trumpkin by multiple posters - evidence in my mind of the tribalism that surrounds AOC. Bernie had it too. I’ll leave it at that and stop responding since the mods seem to have an issue with something

Don’t let brisket know that she attacks unprovoked. I agree Schiff was an attack dog during the first impeachment. Lieu is rather similar to AOC in my opinion as they both seem to operate heavily through twitter.

So you agree they are both attack dogs for their side. That is the point. Your qualification is that they have different method of attacking the other side. I’m not arguing against that, just like I’m not arguing against brisket’s qualification that her attacks are only “defensive.”

Yes. It is my fault you didn't understand the sentence. I'll do better next time. I never said any of that. Reading is hard.

No need to strawman bro. We can have an adult discussion. Policies and method of politik are not the same. My sentence was "the worshiping of AOC seems to be a promotion of trumpist style of politics by the left...." The rest of the sentence was an accurate an accurate description of trumpism, IMO. My position is that they are both attack dogs for their side. That doesn't mean they are equivalent - but equivalent in that role and how they fit in the current game of trumpian attack-style politics. Are they each more than that? Sure. Of course. Some were upset with the use of attack dog and brisket prefers a shepherd with other qualifiers.

I mean, you've got brisket on here promoting the use of attack-based politics - since that is what the other side does and (per him) that it is needed in order to win - as long we qualify that those attacks are actually defensive (per him). You should look closely at what he is saying and then look closely at what I am saying.

And those two sentences are not in conflict.