Fox and Dominion settle for $788 million

[Eacaraxe]

Or the liars and propagandists of the Russian state media and its proxies, who fabricated invasion pretexts that are cheerfully repeated by the susceptible today.

Except of course, that's not the subject of the conversation and at this point, you're just engaging in whataboutism.

We're to draw moral equivalence between the American useful idiots that did the government's work for it by endlessly shifting any conversation about the bankruptcy of invasion onto how evil Saddam is, and the useful idiots who do.... well, exactly the same thing with Ukraine.

No, that's entirely a machination of your own in attempt to derail. The rest of this goes into spoiler tags, just to highlight your brazen attempt to shitpost and derail this.

Spoiler

It's almost adorably gullible that you believe that flimsy pretext for imperial annexation. As if the Russian imperial designs on Ukraine just wouldn't have materialised if the big bad Americans had kept their hands to themselves.

"Flimsy pretext for imperial annexation"

Ukraine’s Success after 25 years - NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY

Read the remarks made by NED President Carl Gershman at the Ukraine in Washington Conference 2016 on September 14, 2016.

www.ned.org

"Russian propaganda"

Ian Traynor: US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev

Analysis: Ukraine, traditionally passive in its politics, has been mobilised by young democracy activists and will never be the same again.

www.theguardian.com

Oh my god, the Rooskies have infiltrated the US Department of State.

https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/209017.pdf

Let's see what one of the most preeminent American political scientists and foremost experts on international relations and foreign policy has to say.

Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

For years, the political scientist has claimed that Putin’s aggression toward Ukraine is caused by Western intervention. Have recent events changed his mind?

www.newyorker.com

Oh, guess he's one of those time-traveling Rooskie Propagandists too. Damn good one too, considering he predicted this shit going down in 2014.

I guess we can add that to the dozens of other links I provided in the Ukraine thread, including the very one I quoted earlier. Are we done here?

I am indeed aware; You'll notice the scornful speech marks around "supposed".

I really don't think you were.

I think you were trying to make an ill-conceived "silence is assent"/"nonintervention is appeasement"/"with us or against us" argument entirely consistent with the Bushian rhetoric you've been shoveling thus far, and got caught with your pants down not expecting the historian to know the history of British involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Because, unfortunately for you, I'm entirely aware the British didn't just use "non-intervention" as an excuse for allowing the Republicans to lose, but rather intervened on behalf of the Nationalists.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have made this nonsense argument, intentionally trying to muddy the waters conflating noninterventionism with interventionism.

And what exactly did starving the Republicans of desperately-needed defensive support actually do?

Put Spain in fascist, rather than socialist, hands. In other words, exactly the preferred and intended policy outcome for the conservative UK government.

In short: you categorically do not want "non-intervention". Providing defensive arms at the express request of the elected government is not an aggressive "intervention" when the country is under invasion. What you want is purely unopposed intervention by one side-- and that's patently obvious by how you echo their talking points and warmongering lies.

Let me get this straight. "Non-intervention" is actually intervening on behalf of a belligerent, but to intervene on behalf of a belligerent is not "intervention". But of course, nowhere in this calculus actually comes "just don't intervene", because apparently to just not intervene is still a deliberate choice made in support of one party or the other, because one might have made the choice to support one party or the other, and therefore "non-intervention" is still intervention.

So, a choice to support neither party somehow transmutes into a choice to support Russia, because one chose to not support Ukraine, and is therefore advocating intervention on Russia's behalf anyway. In other words, if I'm not for Ukraine, I must be for Russia; or to put it another way, if I'm not with you I'm against you.

Yeah, you're not helping your case spouting Bushian newspeak.

So if ya want to hold the warmongering press narratives of the American media complex in sceptical disdain, then good! Absolutely go for it. But be consistent, for Bast's sake; do it out of genuine scepticism and principled opposition to the lies that drive a country to invasion, not just because they have the wrong flag.

Ah yes, my noteworthy and damning inconsistency in...let me just check my notes here...skepticism of American media over Iraq, and skepticism of American media over Ukraine. How dare I.

The press had evidence from some organisations saying that Iraq had WMDs and evidence from other organisations saying Iraq didn't. Most of the press chose wrong.

The press had unsourced rumors and unfounded allegations from people who already lacked credibility saying Iraq had WMD's, which were quickly and rather effortlessly debunked by actual experts bringing receipts, and actual evidence from those same experts who had been in the country to inspect Iraq's military capabilities saying Iraq didn't. And the press had leaks and whistleblowers -- with receipts -- saying the unsourced rumors and unfounded allegations were entirely false.

The press chose to run with the unsourced rumors and unfounded allegations, just as they chose to suppress and defame experts.

 

[Ag3ma]

The press had unsourced rumors and unfounded allegations from people who already lacked credibility

The government and its agencies are, themselves, sources. They are to at least some degree trusted. So when the government says something, such as when it said it had intelligence that Saddam had WMDs, many people including journalists - with justification - trust the government and intelligence services.

We now know the evidence was cooked up - but that was the result of painstaking work exposing the lies of the government which was only clear well after the invasion had already occurred. This is one major reason the Iraq War was such a problem politically: people trusted the government, and it lied to them: on just about the biggest issue imaginable of starting a war. That colossal damage to trust rolls on to today, and is a major element contributing to cynicism about politics.

What you are attempting to do here is ignore the position journalists were realistically in at the time. You're using the advantage of hindsight to make dubious claims about what journalists should have known. The other thing you're doing is to talk about the media like it's some sort of omniscient hive mind in order to push blame onto it. It's not - ultimately the media are a load of individuals each with very limited information, even if they are connected in all sorts of ways and to some degree sum up to more than the constituent parts.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The GOP has infected European news sites?!?!

Sweden puts brakes on treatments for trans minors

Sweden, the first country to introduce legal gender reassignment, has begun restricting gender reassignment hormone treatments for minors, as it, like many Western countries, grapples with the highly-sensitive…

www.france24.com

Lotta news sites have an anti-trans bias, yes. This is how I know you didn't bother reading mine: Sweden's *public* health service is ratcheting down care except for research purposes while the GOP is banning care entirely regardless of public or private

So teens don't know about gay people?

Not inherently, no. That's how kids work, dumbass

"'Drag queen', a male or female performer who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup"
A guy can dress like a woman and read kids a book...

Because enforcers of the law are going to overlook properly demure men in dresses? Be fucking real, conservatives think Fran Drescer dressed to provocatively in '90s broadcast sitcoms

Why? I don't live in Oklahoma

Thanks to the power of the internet, that's irrelevant Mr Law understander.
Christmas alive, you pretending to be anything but conservative is just secular Christian Apologetics at this point

 

[Eacaraxe]

The government and its agencies are, themselves, sources. They are to at least some degree trusted. So when the government says something, such as when it said it had intelligence that Saddam had WMDs, many people including journalists - with justification - trust the government and intelligence services.

It's on journalists to look for multiple sources, compare and contrast the word of all available sources as well as their veracity and biases, and proceed to report impartially on the available information. That isn't what happened.

We now know the evidence was cooked up - but that was the result of painstaking work exposing the lies of the government which was only clear well after the invasion had already occurred.

We knew before the invasion even started pro-war claims were bunk. That's my point. The idea there wasn't ample evidence disproving each and every one of governments' claims at the time, and that it was only discovered after the war the rationale for invasion was a lie, is in itself a falsehood. I've been very careful to source the links and information I've given here to before 2003, to paint a picture of what was actually known at the time.

What you are attempting to do here is ignore the position journalists were realistically in at the time. You're using the advantage of hindsight to make dubious claims about what journalists should have known.

Again, I'm not employing hindsight. I'm providing you the information and sources that were publicly available in 2002 and early 2003, to paint the picture of what was and was not known at the time, to demonstrate what the media did in fact know in contrast to how the media chose to report on the war's rationale. This isn't about hypotheticals.

The other thing you're doing is to talk about the media like it's some sort of omniscient hive mind in order to push blame onto it. It's not - ultimately the media are a load of individuals each with very limited information, even if they are connected in all sorts of ways and to some degree sum up to more than the constituent parts.

Your frame of reference is more restrictive than mine; your commentary thus far has been limited to reporters themselves. I'm speaking not just about reporters, but also editors, producers, and executives -- the people who decide which stories get published where, when, how, and in what context; the people who book guests; the people who make hiring decisions. In other words, those who make business and political decisions about outlets' agenda, priorities, and biases.

And yes, it's absolutely valid to indict post-'95 Telecoms Act media as a singular institution. Even in 2002, it was highly-consolidated, insular, rife with conflicts of interest, with a handful of stakeholders across all conglomerates, and lousy with revolving-door politics.

 

[Silvanus]

Except of course, that's not the subject of the conversation and at this point, you're just engaging in whataboutism.

Apologies, we should both get back onto Fox and Dominion, eh.

Oh my god, the Rooskies have infiltrated the US Department of State.

[...]

Oh, guess he's one of those time-traveling Rooskie Propagandists too. Damn good one too, considering he predicted this shit going down in 2014.

I guess we can add that to the dozens of other links I provided in the Ukraine thread, including the very one I quoted earlier. Are we done here?

Huh, that's odd, I can't seem to find a single one of those links actually supporting the horseshit Russian narrative that Ukraine would be free of invasion and annexation if the yanks just hadn't stuck their nose in, and so therefore the invader isn't responsible for its invading.

Put Spain in fascist, rather than socialist, hands. In other words, exactly the preferred and intended policy outcome for the conservative UK government.

So in short, cutting the irrelevant waffle: starving the defender of requested aid while it's under invasion, is actually not helping the subject stay free of outside intervention, but rather completely the opposite.

Is it your position that the Soviets and international brigade should've stayed out of Spain, then? They intervened in defending the Spanish government against the Fascists at their request, after all, which is surely unforgiveable intervention. They should've just sat it out. While the fascists invaded.

Let me get this straight. "Non-intervention" is actually intervening on behalf of a belligerent, but to intervene on behalf of a belligerent is not "intervention".

Nope, but a really impressive effort to twist this beyond all recognition. Let me spell it out: invading and deposing the government, annexing its territory, and attempting to destroy the country as an independent State is intervention.

Providing material support to the defending government to repel invasion is "intervention".

So, a choice to support neither party somehow transmutes into a choice to support Russia, because one chose to not support Ukraine, and is therefore advocating intervention on Russia's behalf anyway. In other words, if I'm not for Ukraine, I must be for Russia; or to put it another way, if I'm not with you I'm against you.

You're categorically not supporting neither party. You're advocating that one side be unopposed, while also repeating the falsehoods they spat out to lay the groundwork for war.

Ah yes, my noteworthy and damning inconsistency in...let me just check my notes here...skepticism of American media over Iraq, and skepticism of American media over Ukraine. How dare I.

And uncritical parroting of Russian media on the same. Yeah, it's inconsistent if your "scepticism" depends wholly on whether a claim comes from a certain country, and will melt away as soon as a different set of imperialist plunderers employ exactly the same warmongering tactics.

 

[Ag3ma]

snip

What you're talking about here is media bias and manipulation of the media by various other factors (such as the government itself).

And as Silvanus notes, you appear to be happy enough to tolerate bias and manipulation of the media as long as it's Russian.

 

[Casual Shinji]

This is your daily reminder to be kind to your brains and don't interact with Phoenixmgs.

 

[Silvanus]

This is your daily reminder to be kind to your brains and don't interact with Phoenixmgs.

My brain knows what it did. Interacting with Phoenixmgs is the equivalent of making it sit in the corner and think about its choices.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Lotta news sites have an anti-trans bias, yes. This is how I know you didn't bother reading mine: Sweden's *public* health service is ratcheting down care except for research purposes while the GOP is banning care entirely regardless of public or private
Not inherently, no. That's how kids work, dumbass
Because enforcers of the law are going to overlook properly demure men in dresses? Be fucking real, conservatives think Fran Drescer dressed to provocatively in '90s broadcast sitcoms
Thanks to the power of the internet, that's irrelevant Mr Law understander.
Christmas alive, you pretending to be anything but conservative is just secular Christian Apologetics at this point

Do you not understand what research purposes mean? The nature of any research is that it's exempt from such laws.

I guess kids don't know swear words because they were never taught them...

You see how fast a case will be thrown out in any court (no matter how conservative) if a guy dresses like a woman or vice verse gets arrested for reading kids a book.

Why would I care about laws (any law) in some state I don't live in? Did you message Senator Bullard?

The government and its agencies are, themselves, sources. They are to at least some degree trusted. So when the government says something, such as when it said it had intelligence that Saddam had WMDs, many people including journalists - with justification - trust the government and intelligence services.

What about when Trump said there was no collusion, why didn't the press trust that government source?

The WMD claim never even passed the fucking sniff test. I was was an adult living during 9/11, the WMD claim was obvious bullshit then, I don't need hindsight to know that. I don't know why you're defending such horrible reporting.

 

[Ag3ma]

What about when Trump said there was no collusion, why didn't the press trust that government source?

Dude, seriously? Just think about that for a moment.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Do you not understand what research purposes mean? The nature of any research is that it's exempt from such laws.

Correct. So our "progressive peer countries" aren't banning gender affirming care for minors to nearly the extent as the GOP here

I guess kids don't know swear words because they were never taught them...

Good point, why have school, kids learn by osmosis anyway

You see how fast a case will be thrown out in any court (no matter how conservative) if a guy dresses like a woman or vice verse gets arrested for reading kids a book.

You don't get points for your shitty law just because somebody else rules it unconstitutional

Why would I care about laws (any law) in some state I don't live in? Did you message Senator Bullard?

"Show me a law that does this"
*shows*
"Why do I care, I don't live there"

 

[Eacaraxe]

Huh, that's odd, I can't seem to find a single one of those links actually supporting the horseshit Russian narrative that Ukraine would be free of invasion and annexation if the yanks just hadn't stuck their nose in, and so therefore the invader isn't responsible for its invading.

Then you're simply refusing to read them, especially in the case of the Mearsheimer article -- in which the exact case for this is laid, in plain language. That would be the New Yorker article from 2015, by the way. Just putting a pin in that, for the date and outlet of publication.

So in short, cutting the irrelevant waffle: starving the defender of requested aid while it's under invasion, is actually not helping the subject stay free of outside intervention, but rather completely the opposite.

Alas, were it only the case in the Spanish Civil War. Because lest we forget, the British actively defended Nationalist-controlled ports and vessels, aided the Nationalists in attacking Republican-held ports and positions, informed Nationalists as to Republican aid shipments, allowed Nationalists free access to Gibraltar, and gave both Germans and Italians permission to enter Gibraltar airspace for the express purpose of delivering armament shipments to the Nationalists. That's the stuff I can name off the top of my head (save one), atop the notably one-sided embargo.

All of which is far in excess of "starving the defender of requested aid", and well into the definition of intervention (on behalf of the Nationalists).

This is the position you would argue is equitable to opposing weapons shipments to Ukraine, and withdrawing intelligence and political assets from the country. In other words, Bushian false dichotomies and poisoning the well -- the same nonsense which is the foundation of any forthcoming debate with you.

Is it your position that the Soviets and international brigade should've stayed out of Spain, then? They intervened in defending the Spanish government against the Fascists at their request, after all, which is surely unforgiveable intervention. They should've just sat it out. While the fascists invaded.

There's that last example. Who tried to prevent British volunteer reinforcement of the International Brigade through force of law, again?

Nope, but a really impressive effort to twist this beyond all recognition. Let me spell it out: invading and deposing the government, annexing its territory, and attempting to destroy the country as an independent State is intervention.

Providing material support to the defending government to repel invasion is "intervention".

More Bushian nonsense. That you think these situations are equitable at all speaks more to you and your intent, than it does me.

You're categorically not supporting neither party. You're advocating that one side be unopposed, while also repeating the falsehoods they spat out to lay the groundwork for war.

Here, you finally outright admit that this is a case of "with us or against us", entirely consistent with your Bushian take. One wonders why you suddenly, strangely, take issue with my criticism of how the media collaborated with the Bush administration in 2002-3. Perhaps it's a little too close to home for your taste, considering your incapacity to put forth a single identifiable point that isn't an elaborate "no u"?

And uncritical parroting of Russian media on the same. Yeah, it's inconsistent if your "scepticism" depends wholly on whether a claim comes from a certain country, and will melt away as soon as a different set of imperialist plunderers employ exactly the same warmongering tactics.

And, we're back to the time-traveling Russian narrative. The overwhelming majority of my citations either come direct from the US government, US government-funded non-profits, and US media prior to 24 February, 2022.

Now, please tell me exactly how and why you seem to think, for example, a New Yorker article from 2015 showcasing an American scholar who is an Air Force veteran and teaches at the University of Chicago, is actually secretly Russian propaganda all along.

What you're talking about here is media bias and manipulation of the media by various other factors (such as the government itself).

Different phenomena, and yes, media bias can and does in fact involve the act of lying. Once again, we're well past the concept the media was in any way manipulated by the Bush administration and its periphery, as they were active, knowing, participants in the charade.

 

[Silvanus]

Then you're simply refusing to read them, especially in the case of the Mearsheimer article -- in which the exact case for this is laid, in plain language. That would be the New Yorker article from 2015, by the way. Just putting a pin in that, for the date and outlet of publication.

Oh, I can see that Mearsheimer /pushes/ that particular line, in an interview peppered with execrable falsehoods and apologia.

Alas, were it only the case in the Spanish Civil War. Because lest we forget, the British actively defended Nationalist-controlled ports and vessels, aided the Nationalists in attacking Republican-held ports and positions, informed Nationalists as to Republican aid shipments, allowed Nationalists free access to Gibraltar, and gave both Germans and Italians permission to enter Gibraltar airspace for the express purpose of delivering armament shipments to the Nationalists. That's the stuff I can name off the top of my head (save one), atop the notably one-sided embargo.

All of which is far in excess of "starving the defender of requested aid", and well into the definition of intervention (on behalf of the Nationalists).

This is the position you would argue is equitable to opposing weapons shipments to Ukraine, and withdrawing intelligence and political assets from the country. In other words, Bushian false dichotomies and poisoning the well -- the same nonsense which is the foundation of any forthcoming debate with you.

There's that last example. Who tried to prevent British volunteer reinforcement of the International Brigade through force of law, again?

In so much waffle about how badly the British acted during that conflict (which is utterly irrelevant to my point) you've still failed to address the core question.

You're encouraging unilateral non-intervention, and zero support for a defending nation under invasion. So would that also be your position in (as an example) Spain? Do you believe the USSR was unacceptably wrong to defend Madrid at the Republicans' request?

Here, you finally outright admit that this is a case of "with us or against us", entirely consistent with your Bushian take. One wonders why you suddenly, strangely, take issue with my criticism of how the media collaborated with the Bush administration in 2002-3. Perhaps it's a little too close to home for your taste, considering your incapacity to put forth a single identifiable point that isn't an elaborate "no u"?

Wouldn't be wasting my time if your position actually was just to not be "with Ukraine". But it ain't-- when you repeat the warmongering lines from known liars and state propagandists, and respond to any criticism of them with immediate and intense hostility, you're quite clearly hitching your horse to a specific wagon. Especially clear when you decry the press manipulation in some countries, while endorsing it and repeating its output for others.

You're dressing up alignment with non-alignment.

And, we're back to the time-traveling Russian narrative. The overwhelming majority of my citations either come direct from the US government, US government-funded non-profits, and US media prior to 24 February, 2022.

And the overwhelming majority of your narratives and talking points don't. We have uncritical parroting of the warmongering excuses vomited out by the Russian state and its in-house media (Ukrainians are all Nazis!! Ukraine is just a US puppet! Russia is existentially threatened by Ukraine somehow! American meddling in Ukraine is massive!)

The fact that you can find /other/ useful idiots in the West who've also swallowed them isn't particularly meaningful or compelling.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

"(c)untgate"?

Inside the 'Death Match' that Helped Doom Tucker Carlson at Fox

The host tried to get a top executive canned. It backfired spectacularly

www.rollingstone.com

IN THE SPRING of 2020, Tucker Carlson went to war with one of Fox News’ most powerful figures.

Carlson had grown so furious with Fox’s communications and PR chief, Irena Briganti, that he attempted to get her fired, people familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone. Briganti, formerly a key lieutenant to the late, disgraced Fox News mastermind Roger Ailes, had been an influential figure in the cable-news industry for years, as an infamously aggressive enforcer within Fox’s public-relations apparatus.

But after years of mutual antipathy between the executive and the high-profile host, Carlson attempted to force her out. The sources say Carlson made his case to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott, Fox’s chief legal officer Viet Dinh, Murdoch family heir and Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch, and even other Fox News personalities such as Sean Hannity.

In pleading his case, Carlson argued Briganti spent too much time badgering on-air talent and the channel’s personnel; that she was generally incompetent and mean-spirited; and that she regularly engaged in dirty tricks against him and other hosts and contributors, when her job was ostensibly to protect them. One current Fox source with knowledge of the matter described the Carlson-Briganti feud as an intra-network “death match.”

“I do know that he was telling [Fox executives] that [Briganti] should be fucking fired,” a former Fox News commentator tells Rolling Stone. “She’s terrible. He was very bold there.”

But despite Carlson’s high ratings, influence in Republican political circles, and hyper-devoted fan base, he lacked the juice to oust Briganti. Her ties to other top executives were too tight for Carlson to overcome. In some cases, executives laughed off Carlson’s attempt to get Briganti fired, assuring him and others that Briganti was not going anywhere anytime soon.

Word of Carlson’s attempt to get her fired got back to Briganti, exacerbating an already terrible relationship. Briganti “hates all the talent,” the former Fox News commentator says. “She was so disgusted by the level of fucked up idiots who work there, in her opinion, and had to clean up their messes and their overblown egos.”

More importantly for Carlson, the failed attempt to oust Briganti helped erode his goodwill among the Fox News executive class.

“He really thought he was going to make a change, and I kind of shook my head,” says a different former Fox News talent. “It was such a terrible idea. It was such a clear suicide mission … But then again at the time I guess he thought he was big enough to do anything.”

Carlson wasn’t, and last month, he was forced out of Fox News, shocking the political media ecosystem and, within Fox, marking a decisive victory for Briganti.

The precise cause of Carlson’s sacking remains unclear, as high-level Fox sources and others have pushed out a variety of explanations. But it’s widely accepted, inside of Fox and out, that Carlson’s tensions with senior executives — particularly Briganti — helped lay some of the groundwork for his ouster.

One of many factors that looms large in their years-long feuding is a chapter nowadays often described internally at Fox as “cuntgate,” according to current Fox personnel who spoke to Rolling Stone. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that, in the wake of the Dominion lawsuit, redacted legal filings revealed Carlson referred to an unidentified senior Fox executive as the c-word. Several people familiar with the matter are confident the executive in question is Briganti.



“One thousand percent” it was Briganti, the former Fox News commentator says.

Multiple people familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone that Carlson has repeatedly in recent years, in text messages and elsewhere, referred to Briganti as a “****” and other extremely pejorative terms.


In recent months, as Fox’s legal brass pored over discovery documents in advance of the high-profile Dominion-Fox defamation lawsuit (which has since been settled), some of Carlson’s private messages and texts were flagged for high-ranking executives and board members, some of whom now claim to have been utterly floored by them. In this still mostly concealed trove, there were messages written by Carlson calling multiple people the misogynist epithet, including Briganti, according to two sources familiar with the situation. When Fox lawyers asked Carlson about the messages and Briganti, the then-host privately told them that his characterization of the senior Fox exec was “objectively true,” and showed zero contrition for it.

Now, Carlson and Briganti may be gearing up for another round.

Axios reported Sunday that he was “ready to torch” Fox News, saying he hoped to unleash allies in bid to free the former host to start a rival media operation. And in the time since details of some of his private messages have leaked into the press, Carlson has stressed to people close to him that he does not regret sending nor is he ashamed by some of the now-public texts,” sources familiar with the matter say. That includes the vulgar text about the top female executive, as well as a racist text revealed by The New York Times about how white men supposedly fight.

On Briganti’s end, as Rolling Stone previously reported, high-level executives at Fox have kept a secret dossier of workplace complaints and alleged dirt on Carlson — and have been prepared to leak portions of their files.

“Fox News staffers live in fear of Briganti and that’s by design,” says Megyn Kelly, a former marquee name at Fox who also became a target of Briganti’s ire. “They know she will plant negative stories about them, release private unflattering details about them [and] their work that may or may not be true, and generally do what it takes to remind them how dangerous it is to challenge her. She is one of the main reasons Roger Ailes was able to cover up his harassment of women for so long. She was his most loyal protector. Crossing him meant making an enemy of her, which would invite attacks, public embarrassment, and even ruination of one’s career. It’s stunning they kept her after Ailes’s downfall. Clearly, they like what she does.”

Using 'kunt' as a gender exclusive pejorative only flags Carlson as the actual kunt there. They might as well release the blackmail material they claim to have on him now he's apparently on the offense, but to be honest there likely isn't much left that could lower opinions of him, or shock any further after all the years of his bullshit. A clearer image of these pompous freaks' thoughts and behaviours is always appreciated nonetheless - a public service worth raising taxes on the rich for.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Dude, seriously? Just think about that for a moment.

And just think about how dumb believing the government about WMDs was, even more dumb than believing Trump actually...

Correct. So our "progressive peer countries" aren't banning gender affirming care for minors to nearly the extent as the GOP here
Good point, why have school, kids learn by osmosis anyway
You don't get points for your shitty law just because somebody else rules it unconstitutional

"Show me a law that does this"
*shows*
"Why do I care, I don't live there"

OMFG dude, if the GOP banned gender affirming care in all circumstances except for research, you'd be just as mad. I'm pretty sure you can still do studies because they can be exempt from such laws or else you'd have to have a law amendment for quite a bit of research and I doubt is how research gets approved.

Kids learn social skills and stuff by being social.. You know there's book smart and street smart right?

Why don't you complain about DNC laws that get struck down because they're unconstitutional?

There's levels of care. And I asked for an actual legit bad law because all you post are rather reasonable laws that you b!tch about mainly because you don't read them. I asked for an actual law or bill that's actually limiting trans rights in some unreasonable way because I saw none ever posted here and you all b!tch about trans rights and then I have to go "what rights don't they have?" because you post laws that aren't actually limiting trans rights constantly. Also, why would I (or anyone) be writing legislators from other states trying to get a state bill passed or vetoed?

 

[Ag3ma]

And just think about how dumb believing the government about WMDs was, even more dumb than believing Trump actually...

Lies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...isleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/
More lies: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
Fraud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
Cheating: https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/...rtners-cheating-at-highest-level/69857594007/
etc.

As for WMDs, I have said before that I am remarkably unimpressed by the claims that people make about credibility once they have the advantage of hindsight.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

...but to be honest there likely isn't much left that could lower opinions of him, or shock any further after all the years of his bullshit.

Anything they have on him would probably only bolster his prestige in the eyes of his fans. Anything normal people find disgusting, they celebrate.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

OMFG dude, if the GOP banned gender affirming care in all circumstances except for research, you'd be just as mad. I'm pretty sure you can still do studies because they can be exempt from such laws or else you'd have to have a law amendment for quite a bit of research and I doubt is how research gets approved.

The GOP doesn't *want* to do research and, unlike our "peer countries", is also banning private gender affirmative care. Just because I'm mad at Sweden and Finland doesn't mean that I can't recognize that the GOP is worse. Much like gender and sex, mad/not mad are not binary, static emotions.

Kids learn social skills and stuff by being social.. You know there's book smart and street smart right?

When I was a kid, gay meant stupid and weird, lesbian meant girl you didn't like, and blue balls were a dangerous affliction that needed a girl to help, or are you a lesbian?

Maybe we don't leave this shit up to street smarts

Why don't you complain about DNC laws that get struck down because they're unconstitutional?

Because they're usually either A) trying to be helpful instead of trash, and/or B) wildly off topic.

There's levels of care. And I asked for an actual legit bad law because all you post are rather reasonable laws that you b!tch about mainly because you don't read them. I asked for an actual law or bill that's actually limiting trans rights in some unreasonable way because I saw none ever posted here and you all b!tch about trans rights and then I have to go "what rights don't they have?" because you post laws that aren't actually limiting trans rights constantly. Also, why would I (or anyone) be writing legislators from other states trying to get a state bill passed or vetoed?

And you got several legit bad laws and have decided to defend them to the ends of the earth, and you're currently throwing a hissy fit because you can't actually defend this one outside of claiming it doesn't say what it's drafters say and celebrate that it does

 

[Absent]

As for WMDs, I have said before that I am remarkably unimpressed by the claims that people make about credibility once they have the advantage of hindsight.

What fascinates me, what is really quite surreal, is how conservatives have the gut to mention the WMD falsehoods, after having been the ones yelling hysterically for the urgent carpet bombing of Iraq, and after having ostracized all those who doubted the WMDs narratives as "anti-american cowardly pinko traitors".

No shame whatsoever. No lesson. No humility. And actually no hindsight. Simply always the same energy for whichever eastasia/eurasia of the day is being pointed at by their same unquestioned moral authorities.

 

[Trunkage]

What fascinates me, what is really quite surreal, is how conservatives have the gut to mention the WMD falsehoods, after having been the ones yelling hysterically for the urgent carpet bombing of Iraq, and after having ostracized all those who doubted the WMDs narratives as "anti-american cowardly pinko traitors".

No shame whatsoever. No lesson. No humility. And actually no hindsight. Simply always the same energy for whichever eastasia/eurasia of the day is being pointed at by their same unquestioned moral authorities.

No, the biggest problem was the fact that ANYONE took the claim that WMD was a necessary cause for invasion seriously

All the evidence or fruad or whatever is literally irrelevant. Almost every newspaper, government and citizens had totally the wrong KPI. Not just in the US.

Blame all the newspapers you want over Iraq. I doubt that if newspapers were all against Bush it would have made any difference. Iraq still would have been invaded How can you tell? Because Bin Laden predicted the actions of the US and was pretty accurate. He was counting on it to prove how bad the US is and the US fell for it, hook, line and sinker