Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    53994
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    324

Everything posted by Brisketexan

  1. Is it insanely stupid and evil? Yes? Then in this timeline, of course it's real.
  2. You become the dominant power structure in the country, beholden to no laws, rules, or norms? I mean, if we're learning from current circumstances.
  3. It's like you never met these famous asian pilots: Yeah, yeah. We're all going to hell. Bonus: we're already there.
  4. You mean…pardon them, right, governor?
  5. Between our DA's likelihood of botching the prosecution of these assholes...and our governor's likelihood of pardoning them...I wouldn't be counting on justice being done.
  6. Well, being that Mary's actual name was Maryam and Joseph's was Yosef.....then......
  7. Yet....old Don will never, ever, ever get the connection between his two posts. These are idiots who praise the sky for dishing out rainstorms, then bitch about getting wet.
  8. So, my thought was "boycotting ABC advertisers, and letting them know, might be more effective." Then, I googled a list of ABC advertisers. And man, it explains why legacy media is in the shitter. Seems like 2/3 of the ads are for prescription drugs (none of which I use). Then there's a fair amount of PI lawyers. Again, I don't use them. Auto manufacturers....I'm not buying any cars anytime soon. Some bigger outfits, like Verizon and whatnot. But goddamn. Even looking for something I COULD boycott is a chore. That can't be good for the ad sales department. Shit, if you banned prescription drug advertising, I'm pretty sure every legacy broadcast company would go tits-up the next day.
  9. Yep. I read the full context of his discussion. The end-point being, use violence, all the way up to lethal force. Against -- his word -- "foreigners." Doesn't matter who they are, why they are there, anything. Child fleeing violence? Whip 'em. There's literally nothing that MAGAs won't excuse, because the truth is, THEY LIKE IT. I'm glad that you are so foolishly honest about your beliefs. Really pulls back the curtain on how y'all think and about your purported "Christianity." I remember well, in the Gospel of Trump, how Jesus said "but when the foreigner shows up, start with non-lethal force (rubber bullets, tear gas), and escalate to lethal force. It's absolutely cool if you whip the foreigner." Yep, I'm looking for a church where we can say that in some sort of prayer of affirmation. Sad thing is, I'm sure I could find quite a few.
  10. @Enchubben...I guess I don't "understand context" here, right?
  11. I have a real simple question for the MAGAs. And show you have some balls and actually answer it now. If Trump suspends all or part of the 2026 midterm elections, and/or the 2028 presidential election, will you (a) be fine with it, (b) say you're not fine with it, but still support the admin, or (c) conclude that's out-of-bounds, and fully oppose the move, including no longer supporting the administration that ended elections in America? It's actually important that you go on the record, and you know it is.....because we're rapidly moving to the point where that action is more likely than not to take place.
  12. You mean "whataboutism, built on a platform of false equivalency." For example, they respond to coercive threats against ABC's very licensure by saying "whatabout when the Biden admin pressured FB to remove disinformation during COVID??????" Those are not equivalent things (per Cornell law's nice summary of First Amendment law on such matters): So, first, they state a false equivalency, THEN use it to bolster the tu quoque logical fallacy. A fallacy on top of a fallacy. It's akin to justifying the crime of murder by saying "the other guy is a criminal too" when all he did was jaywalk. Except in this case, the action they are pointing to doesn't even violate the law. They are effectively saying their action of murder is okay because one time, some other guy said "man, I wish that dude would just die already." There is no intellectual honesty on the right. None. It's amazing to see. From William F. Buckley to....fucking this shit.
  13. Well, see, that's news they don't want to hear. They want to do their "la la la I can't hear you!" routine whenever absolutely naked fascist shit happens (by the way, "stuff that is actually happening" is called....wait for it...."news.")
  14. Joe Rogan today:
  15. FIF accuracy. Utterly ignore the fucking TORRENT of right-wing rage, countless death threats, calls for political violence, extermination, exile, etc., and calls to imprison/eliminate the entire political opposition, in favor of focusing on....I don't even fucking understand what he's focusing on. He's a giant piece of shit, that's all that can be focused on.
  16. Ahh yes, back to the the one-two punch of the false equivalency logical fallacy (the Biden admin working to persuade FB = the Trump admin threat to punish ABC) AND the tu quoque logical fallacy built on the bedrock of false equivalency. Your execution is flawless. Well-done.
  17. I'll suggest that the average prisoner is way more "redeemable" than the average MAGA. Mostly because a higher percentage of prisoners would concede that their criminal action was wrong. ZERO MAGAs would so concede.
  18. Here is how. The Cornell Law School has a great commentary site on the Constitution, including the First Amendment, which does a good job of summarizing the point: Open threats were made by the chair of the FCC. I expect that we'll also find that similar, stronger statements were sent to ABC privately. Conveying a threat of adverse government action to punish speech is 100% unconstitutional. Yet, you support and defend it still.
  19. You are answering the wrong question. Did the Biden admin threaten to use the full force and power of the US government to shut down FB altogether if it did not yield to the admin's desires? There's a rather huge difference between that, and simply making the ask, even in the form of impassioned and repeated entreaties. That's it. That's the question. AND, by the way, if the facts reveal that's what the Biden admin actually did, it would be wrong and I would oppose it completely. Because my support of this nation and the Constitution is not contingent on who I voted for or which viewpoint I support. I will not be an adherent of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy, which is apparently a bedrock principle in MAGAland: attribute some misconduct to the Biden admin, and use it to justify, excuse, and allow any and all misconduct by the Trump admin. Wrong is wrong. That's the difference between y'all and the rest of us.
  20. I'm positive you stole that from somewhere....but who cares, it's perfect. Bingo. Modern American "Christianity" is primarily used as a shield from criticism of abhorrent beliefs.....that are actually directly at odds with what the Jesus of the Gospels actually preached. And also bingo. There are many, many Christians who simply repeat the message of the Gospels (you know, the texts that actually make Christianity....Christianity): "When did we see you a stranger and invite you in?" “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Fuck, even if they want to stick to the OT, Leviticus wasn't ambiguous: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not ill-treat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt." But....those aren't the people these Charlie Kirk Christians admire and idolize. Nope. They choose Charlie because he is DIFFERENT than the people who say those things. Contrast with, apparently, America's most important Christian of the modern era: This is not some side-issue for Charlie. It's not like "Charlie was a really good Christian, but he had a weakness for betting on the ponies, or he cussed a lot, or he loved the ladies, and stepped out on his wife." Nope. That's a CORE BELIEF for him, and for those who support him. They don't support Charlie in spite of that....they support him BECAUSE of it, while simultaneously saying that they love him because he was a good Christian. Who just happened to preach ideas that are unambiguously 180 degrees in perfect opposition to plainly stated Christian values and beliefs.
  21. Every man is flawed. Don't sanctify any human. Those are good rules of thumbs. But another good rule of thumb is "what about him to you admire?" By and large, what we admire about MLK are things like his Letter from Birmingham Jail, his "I have a dream" speech.....NOT his petty grudges, womanizing, and harsh tone and words he sometimes employed. [BRISKET correcting himself -- I see you were referring to Martin Luther, not MLK - my bad. Yeah, Luther was a horrible anti-semite. But, the contrast still stands. A man who offered many profound things, and also harbored some truly abhorrent beliefs. Today, protestants don't admire Luther because of his anti-semitism; they admire his reformation ideas and ideals]. Flip that around: "what is it about Charlie Kirk that you admire?" Because it's not the stuff he said in that video Enchubben posted. A jillion people say and have said things like that (again, they are baseline human things). Nope. That's not it. What they admire about Charlie Kirk is the pilot stuff, the black women brainpower stuff, the roving gangs of blacks stuff, the whipping foreigners stuff, the great replacement theory stuff. Take THAT away, and what do you have left? Just some garden variety platitudes. That's the difference. The contrast is important. Admiring someone in spite of their flaws/worst nature can and should be a conclusion mature thinkers can reach. Admiring someone BECAUSE of their flaws/worst nature is a shitty thing done by shitty people.
  22. This is perfection. It is EXACTLY what the modern right wing does: over the course of time, say all the things. First, say the racist, cruel, inflammatory things. Because THAT is what your fanbase wants, and THAT is what energizes and draws more rage-filled eyeballs and dollars to your cause. Charlie's fans loved him BECAUSE he said he can't trust black pilots, and that black women don't have brainpower. If he didn't say shit like that, he would have a lot fewer devotees. But second, say the obvious, rational, human things. Like some of what he says in the clip Enchubben brought. That is very, very important. Because even though it's insanely stupid to think this way, saying two opposite things creates deniability. First, it creates deniability for people like Enchubben. Remember, Enchubben didn't love Charlie Kirk because of the things he said above; if that were the case, there are hundreds of voices he would love instead, who have said the same thing more often, more eloquently, and more credibly. No, Enchubben loved Charlie because of the OTHER things he said -- the pilots, the brainpower, the roving gangs of black men, the goodness of whipping foreigners at the border. But because Charlie says the things in this clip, Enchubben first gets to lie to himself: "sure, I don't trust black pilots, and I don't think black women have brainpower, and I'm cool with whipping foreigners....but I sign off on the statement that all people are made in the image of God, ERGO, I ain't racist!" Then, he gets to tell that same lie to the world, as you can see him doing here. Trump is a master of this - he says two opposite things (Medicare is a scam and we're gonna slash it, and also we're not gonna touch your medicare, etc. etc. about functionally every topic). An easy analogy for us to understand would be a leader who shows up in Austin to give a speech and says "OU SUCKS!" We all cheer, and love him for it. But then he gives a speech in Oklahoma, where he says "OU, what a great university and what a storied football program! There are so many great universities, I love all of them." Sure, we can tell ourselves and the world that we're reasonable, see, the guy we love also loves all great American universities. How can you disagree with that? But....that isn't the reason we love the guy. We love the guy because he thinks that OU sucks. To take it even another level, you can't hang your hat on the time you said "all women should be secure in their bodies and have full bodily autonomy, without fear," when you ALSO said "women have no right to refuse sex to their husband, so even if a man forces himself on his wife, it's not rape." That's not how it fucking works. But in MAGA-land, it is. It's how they get to simultaneously advance abhorrent positions, while claiming they don't agree with the very position they are working tirelessly to advance (remember "Project 2025? Never heard of it?") Here's the question the Enchubbens of the world would ask themselves if they had any interest in honest self-evaluation: would you love Charlie Kirk if he had said ONLY the things in that video, and not the racist and inflammatory stuff? And if so, why? Because if he said only the things he said in that video, he'd be just another voice saying some pretty obvious baseline decent things. What made Charlie different, and special? Everyone knows what made him DIFFERENT, and "prophetic." And it's the shit about whipping foreigners and not trusting black pilots and thinking black women have inferior brainpower and thinking that women should submit and not have agency.
  23. ....and lying, as is his nature. He has zero problems, zero concern, and will do precisely nothing, about the government of the United States simply voiding the First Amendment.
  24. The government of the United States, via multiple officials of said government, is using the power of the state and the threat of state action to silent political speech. And not a peep of concern, resistance, argument, anything from the "true American Constitution-loving patriot" supporters of the regime. Not a fucking peep. Tucker Carlson has more fucking integrity and love of the Constitution than any of them. Chew on that awful fact. Any MAGA who tells you that they are a Constitution-loving patriot is not just an idiot, they are a fucking liar. The ACLU believes in PRINCIPLES (like those in the Constitution), and will defend those principles regardless of the viewpoint; they've defended hippies, they've defended actual Nazis. But MAGA? Brian Kilmeade can call for fucking mass-murder of people. He just issues a milquetoast apology. Kimmel says something that's true -- AFTER making unambiguous statements about Kirk's murder being wrong, sympathy for Kirk's family, etc. -- and the government gives ABC a "get rid of him or else" message. Make the message that Kimmel said whatever you want. Shit, make Kimmel a right-winger who stood up and just lied and said Charlie Kirk never said anything about worrying about a black pilot because DEI....and imagine the government telling his employer "get rid of him, or we'll pull your license." If you are okay with that, even a little bit, you are a fucking fascist who literally hates America, freedom, liberty, and the Constitution.
  25. I mean....yeah. That's where we are, ain't it? Guess we need to start a new Kristallnacht thread, a new "identify enemies of the Reich here" thread, all the fun stuff. Because....we're there. We're not headed there, we're not going there. We are there. And not a peep of concern, resistance, argument, anything from the "true American Constitution-loving patriot" supporters of the regime. Not a fucking peep. Tucker Carlson has more fucking integrity and love of the Constitution than any of them. Chew on that awful fact.
×
×
  • Create New...