Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I'm on the fence as to how many beers it would take for this one...but I bet she is a minx.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/na...itol-riot-pennsylvania-charges-riley-williams
I don't follow.
I'm on the fence as to how many beers it would take for this one...but I bet she is a minx.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/na...itol-riot-pennsylvania-charges-riley-williams
Bannon's announced he's just going to not listen to the subpoena, furthering the Republican strategy of "Okay, make me."
I don't follow.
They'll have to, if law and order mean anything at all.
He's calling a woman ugly as a way to attack her politics as a way to get a rise out of people.
What? He thinks Nancy Pelosi is a minx?
I'm on the fence as to how many beers it would take for this one...but I bet she is a minx.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/na...itol-riot-pennsylvania-charges-riley-williams
I don't follow.
Bannon's announced he's just going to not listen to the subpoena, furthering the Republican strategy of "Okay, make me."
He is talking about the woman who stole Pelosi's laptop.
Edited by zooterkin:<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.
He is citing Trump orders as his justification.
In other words the Leadership Principal: The will of the Furhrur, excuse me ,Leader is the surpreme law of the land. Where have we heard that before?
The Dems cannot afford to back down. Send out US Marshalls to arrest his butt.
Oooh, baby, make me write bad legislation!don't be fooled, these guys all want to be punished by Pelosi
Oooh, baby, make me write bad legislation!
don't be fooled, these guys all want to be punished by Pelosi
I don't follow.
He is talking about the woman who stole Pelosi's laptop.Edited by zooterkin:<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and an abysmal fact check record.
Reasoning: Conspiracy, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Founded in 1994 by Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate government officials’ alleged misconduct. They primarily target Democrats such as the Clinton’s, Obama, and climate scientists as they label climate science “fraud science.” Judicial Watch has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, with a “vast majority” of their lawsuits dismissed. They describe themselves as “a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability, and integrity in government, politics and the law.” The current President of JW is Tom Fitton.
Analysis / Bias
Judicial Watch reports news on their website using strong emotional language that is usually pro-right or anti-left. Common topics covered are anti-immigration, in which they highlight crimes committed by illegal immigrants such as this: Busy Month for Illegal Immigrants Committing Heinous Crimes or dedicating an entire website to exposing former President Obama’s alleged IRS scandal. They have also promoted debunked conspiracy theories such as this. Further, the founder of JW, Larry Klayman, recently promoted the conspiracy that the Clintons were killing people. In general, the majority of content and story selection is anti-left.
The fact is that Ashli Babbitt was engaging in illegal activity having broken through the window with a mob behind that was just steps away from the House Chamber doors. They were were calling to hang Mike Pence and specifically looking for Nancy Pelosi. Unluckily for her, Babbitt was the first coming through the window. Lt. Byrd warned them to stop and they didn't. There is no one to blame but Ashli Babbitt and this turning her into a martyr by Trump and his ilk is just another example of their sick and twisted determination to turn her into a martyr.
Were there any other options besides deadly force? Seems obvious that there were.
As I say, I am not siding with the "report"...but I am opening my eyes to the simple fact that there were other alternatives to deadly force, certainly.
Deadly force should be the last choice for an officer, not the first. Or do you disagree?