The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warp12 said:
I think we should dismiss or accept findings based upon their individual merit. As I have already clearly stated, a partisan committee can still uncover pertinent facts.
Click to expand...

If the committee is acting on merit, by definition it is not acting in a partisan manor. You need to either prove you claim the committee is partisan by showing how it's acting in a partisan manor or drop your claim altogether.
 
Warp12 said:
You must have missed the part where I stated I was done with the partisanship debate. Sorry, Johnny Karate...time stands still for no man.
Click to expand...
It was never an actual debate. You just kept repeating the word even after it was pointed out you were using it incorrectly.
 
The Three-Fifths Compromise was bipartisan, which is part of the reason why it was so good. The 14th Amendment was borne out of partisanship, which is why it's so awful.
 
dudalb said:
He is right there; of course what people beleive is important. It determins their actions and behavior.
Problem is, of course he sees nothing wrong with it when it's very dangerous.
Click to expand...

FYI


Warp12 said:
What people believe is more important than what is actually true. I don't think that is even debatable. This is very clear when it comes to claims of election fraud, obviously.
Click to expand...
 
lomiller said:
If the committee is acting on merit, by definition it is not acting in a partisan manor. You need to either prove you claim the committee is partisan by showing how it's acting in a partisan manor or drop your claim altogether.
Click to expand...

True. But don't bet it happening. Dig hole. Dig deeper.
 
lomiller said:
It was never an actual debate. You just kept repeating the word even after it was pointed out you were using it incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. For the fun of it, dictionary time, because that was never trotted out.

Noun?

a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
Click to expand...

Adjective?

feeling, showing, or deriving from strong and sometimes blind adherence to a particular party, faction, cause, or person : exhibiting, characterized by, or resulting from partisanship
Click to expand...

No evidence has been produced that reasonably supports calling the Jan 6 investigation partisan in any remotely meaningful sense, be it as noun or adjective. It's not hard to cede that it can be called partisan when partisan is simply being misused and/or stretched into worthlessness, especially by propagandists who have quite the history of working to do exactly that and those that have vested interest in undermining truth, of course, but there's no onus to accept such usage. Adding to that, those working to undermine it would seem to be far more accurately described as partisan in actual usage, which, again, compounds the motive to stretch the term to create false equivalence.
 
Last edited:
There's something inherently wrong with a system where one is incentivized to seek the highest available public office for the protection from criminal liability that is expected to come with it.

"Rule of law" is incompatible with a standing policy not to indict the President.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Many conservatives will breath a sigh of relief when that happens. To finally be rid of him, while still calling it a partisan witch hunt!
Click to expand...


No doubt many conservatives did not want Trump in the first place.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
It was never an actual debate. You just kept repeating the word even after it was pointed out you were using it incorrectly.
Click to expand...


How confused some must feel for engaging in "not a debate" for five pages...where some even admitted it was partisan...and others proclaimed that even if true, it was the Republicans who made it that way.

The term was used perfectly correctly. I'm sorry if the highly partisan group does not agree with my assessment of their highly partisan committee. Only in a Dem valley of denial can some look at a group with a 7-2 party split and proclaim that it is not partisan.

And, extra bonus points for the member providing a definition...where it describes adherence to party ideology perfectly. And even if that wasn't obvious enough, the colloquial meaning will suffice.
 
Warp12 said:
The term was used perfectly correctly. I'm sorry if the highly partisan group does not agree with my assessment of their highly partisan committee. Only in a Dem valley of denial can some look at a group with a 7-2 party split and proclaim that it is not partisan.
Click to expand...

Only someone who doesn't understand what the word partisan means would say something like this.

Republicans refusing to participate in such an important hearing is clearly a partisan action, and so far as I can see is the only partisanship going on. There has been no evidence presented that the committee has conducted itself in a partisan way.
 
lomiller said:
Only someone who doesn't understand what the word partisan means would say something like this.

Republicans refusing to participate in such an important hearing is clearly a partisan action, and so far as I can see is the only partisanship going on. There has been no evidence presented that the committee has conducted itself in a partisan way.
Click to expand...

Warp12 simply disregards the actual, English language definition of the word partisan, makes up his own personal definition to fit his narrative and agenda, expects everyone to agree with it, calls them wrong if they don't, and refuses to justify himself for doing so... in other words, exactly what any other good, ultra-conservative fan of the Fat Orange Turd would do!

Quack + Waddle = Duck!
 
smartcooky said:
Warp12 simply disregards the actual, English language definition of the word partisan, makes up his own personal definition to fit his narrative and agenda, expects everyone to agree with it, calls them wrong if they don't, and refuses to justify himself for doing so... in other words, exactly what any other good, ultra-conservative fan of the Fat Orange Turd would do!

Quack + Waddle = Duck!
Click to expand...

Yep. Partisan= prejudiced, preferential, partial, biased, unfair, unjust, one-sided, inequitable.
 
Babbylonian said:
That would be a difficult obligation to enforce upon a political party. However, one can definitely say that the party has an obligation not to stand in the way of punishment for their members who actively participate in an attempted coup.
Click to expand...

If a Political party can't or won't police their members for unconstitutional actions, that Party should not be allowed to participate in elections.
In other countries, such a Party would get banned, or at the very least defunded.
 
Of course, as we know, Faux News chose not to air the hearings. In fact, they were so afraid that their viewers might channel surf, that they went ad-free for the whole of primetime. When they did show any footage they did so with no sound, so that their viewers could not hear what was being said, or any of the witness testimony. They also showed it with a few seconds delay. Why? So that they had time to cut away from the hearings whenever there was documentary evidence being displayed on screen, such as the text messages between Mark Meadows, Sean Hannity and Kayleigh McEnany.

This is the extent Faux News went to in order to try to hide facts, evidence and the truth from their viewers, and happily, it had impact on them... they suffered in the ratings, getting clobbered by MSNBC

https://www.indiewire.com/2022/06/fox-news-ratings-jan-6-hearing-msnbc-cnn-1234732795/


MSNBC averaged a whopping (for them) 4.161 million total viewers, trouncing both Fox News (2.957 million total viewers) by 29 percent and CNN (2.617 total million viewers) by 37 percent.​

Overall 20 million watched the hearings live and many, many millions more have watched delayed coverage or highlights.
 
smartcooky said:
Of course, as we know, Faux News chose not to air the hearings. In fact, they were so afraid that their viewers might channel surf, that they went ad-free for the whole of primetime. When they did show any footage they did so with no sound, so that their viewers could not hear what was being said, or any of the witness testimony. They also showed it with a few seconds delay. Why? So that they had time to cut away from the hearings whenever there was documentary evidence being displayed on screen, such as the text messages between Mark Meadows, Sean Hannity and Kayleigh McEnany.



This is the extent Faux News went to in order to try to hide facts, evidence and the truth from their viewers, and happily, it had impact on them... they suffered in the ratings, getting clobbered by MSNBC



https://www.indiewire.com/2022/06/fox-news-ratings-jan-6-hearing-msnbc-cnn-1234732795/





MSNBC averaged a whopping (for them) 4.161 million total viewers, trouncing both Fox News (2.957 million total viewers) by 29 percent and CNN (2.617 total million viewers) by 37 percent.​



Overall 20 million watched the hearings live and many, many millions more have watched delayed coverage or highlights.
Click to expand...
It would be quite a tasty slice of irony for some shareholders to make noise about the neglect of fiduciary responsibility in pursuit of an ideological agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom