Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-30-2021, 09:53 AM)GMDino Wrote:

A garbage talking point.  Not at all surprised you swallowed it whole.  Screech all you like, rank and file LEO's have dealt with the bullshit from your ilk for the past two years, we're not forgetting it, never will, and you're never going to win us back until you own the bullshit instead of trying to deflect it.

[BigPapaKain]

(08-01-2021, 04:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ehh, people/corporations will say pretty much anything if is absolves them of troubling responsibility.  Fox is highly partisan and deliberately slanted, but no more than many far left sources.  They are certainly the largest organization with such a slant, although MSNBC is not too far behind.  

Sorry, I don't buy that. When you go under oath and say 'our network is nonsense', they can no longer be absolved by saying they were just trying to dodge the lawsuit. They are on federal record admitting they're full of shit - they're full of shit and thus not a credible source for anything without being easily waved off as being full of shit, and the people that use them as a source are equally full of shit.

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-01-2021, 07:46 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Sorry, I don't buy that. When you go under oath and say 'our network is nonsense', they can no longer be absolved by saying they were just trying to dodge the lawsuit. They are on federal record admitting they're full of shit - they're full of shit and thus not a credible source for anything without being easily waved off as being full of shit, and the people that use them as a source are equally full of shit.

Wasn't Rachel Maddow forced to do the same thing?

I may have the details mixed up.  I'm not sure if that was her position, or if it was the judge's ruling.  But I'm pretty sure one or other got the case thrown out because of almost identical logic (This is exaggerated entertainment, not scrictly the facts.)

[*Nately120*]

(08-01-2021, 04:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A garbage talking point.  Not at all surprised you swallowed it whole.  Screech all you like, rank and file LEO's have dealt with the bullshit from your ilk for the past two years, we're not forgetting it, never will, and you're never going to win us back until you own the bullshit instead of trying to deflect it.

How I long for the halcyon days when only Muslims were out to kill me.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(08-01-2021, 04:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I try and not cite any sources with a known partisan bias, unless it's a bias that would normally work against the topic of discussion.  For example, I'd use a garbage site like Vox or HuffPo if it proved a point about a liberal news item.  Same with Fox and a conservative item.  Otherwise the source become the topic of discussion instead of the actual topic.


Ehh, people/corporations will say pretty much anything if is absolves them of troubling responsibility.  Fox is highly partisan and deliberately slanted, but no more than many far left sources.  They are certainly the largest organization with such a slant, although MSNBC is not too far behind.  

Yeah I know and some of the fish still took the bait

[Belsnickel]

(08-01-2021, 07:54 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Wasn't Rachel Maddow forced to do the same thing?

I may have the details mixed up.  I'm not sure if that was her position, or if it was the judge's ruling.  But I'm pretty sure one or other got the case thrown out because of almost identical logic (This is exaggerated entertainment, not scrictly the facts.)

In all seriousness, all the major networks have news shows and then they have the entertainment shows. Fox and MSNBC have the more blatantly biased entertainment shows and the bias in their news shows lies more in their choice of stories and people to cover and how much time they spend on them than on the editorializing. They also make liberal use of "correspondents" that are usually just partisan actors, but because they aren't the actual news people, they can get away with saying whatever.

The issue is that the viewers don't understand all of this. The average viewers of these channels can't differentiate between what is news and what is editorializing. It's the same problem we see with print news or news on the web. The average person is unable to differentiate between fact and opinion. All of this being said, a good general rule of thumb in all of this is that a written story on the websites for these channels will be a little more trustworthy than their on air stuff.

I'll still stick to the wire agencies, though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-01-2021, 08:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: How I long for the halcyon days when only Muslims were out to kill me.

I've never thought anyone was specifically out to kill me.  But there's definitely a point of reasonable concern for one's safety that can be reached.

[GMDino]

(08-01-2021, 04:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A garbage talking point.  Not at all surprised you swallowed it whole.  Screech all you like, rank and file LEO's have dealt with the bullshit from your ilk for the past two years, we're not forgetting it, never will, and you're never going to win us back until you own the bullshit instead of trying to deflect it.

(08-01-2021, 08:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: How I long for the halcyon days when only Muslims were out to kill me.

Now it's Antifa and "the left" too. We should probably be put down over it. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-02-2021, 12:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've never thought anyone was specifically out to kill me.  But there's definitely a point of reasonable concern for one's safety that can be reached.

I'm just cynically saying the enemy used used to be scary foreigners that hate us but now we've just gone to other Americans being the enemies.  Its like 20 years of war got people desensitized to foreign threats so we needed to up the game.  

[BigPapaKain]

(08-01-2021, 07:54 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Wasn't Rachel Maddow forced to do the same thing?

I may have the details mixed up.  I'm not sure if that was her position, or if it was the judge's ruling.  But I'm pretty sure one or other got the case thrown out because of almost identical logic (This is exaggerated entertainment, not scrictly the facts.)

I can genuinely say I have no idea who Rachel Maddow is, so I can't answer that question.

I'd assume yes, but we're not talking about whatever network she was on. We were talking specifically about Fox News. Which is full of shit, as told under oath by they're lawyers.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-02-2021, 02:35 PM)GMDino Wrote:

I see your meme game didn't improve while you were gone.  To be expected I suppose.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-02-2021, 03:07 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm just cynically saying the enemy used used to be scary foreigners that hate us but now we've just gone to other Americans being the enemies.  Its like 20 years of war got people desensitized to foreign threats so we needed to up the game.  

The sad thing is that your statement is 100% true in both directions.

[GMDino]

(08-02-2021, 05:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see your meme game didn't improve while you were gone.  To be expected I suppose.

And I see you still think your feelings matters more than the facts.  

Can't believe I had to explain it to you.

Wait...yes I can.  


When the truth doesn't meet your opinion you attack the poster instead 'cause you "know" how it "really" is.

God you're funny.  I'm glad I came back a bit just to laugh at it.

Toodles.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-02-2021, 10:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I see you still think your feelings matters more than the facts.  

Can't believe I had to explain it to you.

Wait...yes I can.  


When the truth doesn't meet your opinion you attack the poster instead 'cause you "know" how it "really" is.

God you're funny.  I'm glad I came back a bit just to laugh at it.

Toodles.

I guess you came back to talk inane bullshit.  So more of the same.  Tell us more how the Dems, and you, love law enforcement while endlessly talking shit on them.  I do appreciate your being back though, there wasn't much low hanging fruit while you were gone. 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

Now if we could just get some good facts

[*michaelsean*]

(07-30-2021, 09:53 AM)GMDino Wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/29/1022318269/senate-approves-2-1-billion-emergency-funding-bill-for-capitol-police

[GMDino]

(08-03-2021, 01:57 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote:

Now if we could just get some good facts

Sure.  The fact is that 205 members of the GOP actually voted to defund the police.  But that goes against SSF's narrative that people of my ilk say bad things about police.

The facts go against his hurt feelings so he immediately attacks the poster...again...because he has nothing else.

It's routine and boring which is why I left in the first place.  

He hates me because he thinks he knows me and in the end all he does is perpetuate the stereotype of the officer with an agenda.  It's so dumb it's funny.

So to the topic I posted a fact.  SSF didn't like it so it was "garbage".  And facts don't care about his feelings.

Though I do wonder if he'll attack your "meme game" for reusing one in the same thread and in the wrong context?

Probably not.  

He'll just keep up the bully persona he uses here with zero repercussions.  It will be cursing and name calling and that's all.

I'm glad I stopped in just to see nothing has changed though.

I'll let him go back to screaming into the void again.

[hollodero]

(08-03-2021, 08:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure.  The fact is that 205 members of the GOP actually voted to defund the police.  But that goes against SSF's narrative that people of my ilk say bad things about police.

Here's what I see as the problem. These GOP members did not vote against funding capitol police. They voted against increasing the enacted level of funding for this year. Which, honestly, is quite different from "literally defunding the police".

Now why the GOP members (also AOC and Tlaib) voted no on that increase, I do not know. Maybe for nefarious reasons, maybe just because it appears to be a political act with little actual merit. But your meme, as it stands, is not really factual. That much seems apparent from a quick glance at the real event.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(08-03-2021, 08:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure.  The fact is that 205 members of the GOP actually voted to defund the police.  But that goes against SSF's narrative that people of my ilk say bad things about police.

The facts go against his hurt feelings so he immediately attacks the poster...again...because he has nothing else.

It's routine and boring which is why I left in the first place.  

He hates me because he thinks he knows me and in the end all he does is perpetuate the stereotype of the officer with an agenda.  It's so dumb it's funny.

So to the topic I posted a fact.  SSF didn't like it so it was "garbage".  And facts don't care about his feelings.

Though I do wonder if he'll attack your "meme game" for reusing one in the same thread and in the wrong context?

Probably not.  

He'll just keep up the bully persona he uses here with zero repercussions.  It will be cursing and name calling and that's all.

I'm glad I stopped in just to see nothing has changed though.

I'll let him go back to screaming into the void again.

Is not funding the same as defunding or are they taking away pre established funding that was already in place?

[GMDino]

(08-03-2021, 08:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: Here's what I see as the problem. These GOP members did not vote against funding capitol police. They voted against increasing the enacted level of funding for this year. Which, honestly, is quite different from "lierally defunding the police".

Now why the GOP members (also AOC and Tlaib) voted no on that increase, I do not know. Maybe for nefarious reasons, maybe just because it appears to be a political act with little actual merit. But your meme, as it stands, is not really factual. That much seems apparent from a quick glance at the real event.

Long story short they didn't plan on paying overtime that was incurred after a bunch of whiney people did some damage to property and officers...and tried to close enough to hang the VP.   

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2021/07/09/how-congressional-republicans-maneuver-against-funding-the-capitol-police-for-january-6/?sh=f0b2ee04857e

So now the GOP is blocking paying them...but *might* if they drop other items.

The GOP is actively not paying for work done.  Not funding the police.  It's a supplemental bill and they won't vote for it.

Literally not funding.

Quote:The situation starts with the Congress passing its spending bill last year to pay for the entire Capitol complex, including the Capitol Police and a projection of their expected overtime. As it was dryly put, Congress did not budget (last summer) for the January 6 insurrection. Who knew? Everything spent on dealing with that insurrection went beyond budgeted-for projections.


But the cost in funding for the Capitol Police was much more than simply what they spent that day. More than 150 Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan Police officers were injured while engaging with rioters. Dozens of officers left the department in the months since the insurrection, while others are still on leave. A Capitol Police officer died after confronting the mob, and two officers died by suicide in the wake of the attack. So the Capitol Police force has had to demand large amounts of overtime from their officers to fill the places of these other officers not on duty for medical and other reasons.


As the Senate Appropriations Chair, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), said Friday, July 9, “without action the Capitol Police will go without payment for the hours of overtime they have incurred, without proper equipment, and without sufficient mental health services to deal with the continued trauma from that day.” This is not off in the distance. House appropriators noted that the salaries account for the Capitol Police would be exhausted in August.

“At that point,” said the House appropriators, “the department will be forced into an unacceptable choice: furloughing officers or forgoing the services, like mental health and wellness support, that officers need.”


 Every single House Republican who voted on the House supplemental appropriation to cover these Capitol costs, voted “no.” On the Senate side, there was a hostile silence for a long time.  

...

Quote:Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, finally proposed a supplemental appropriation bill smaller than the Democrats in the House or Senate. It does provide money for the Capitol Police salaries. However, it allocated far less funding to the Architect of the Capitol, and none for the National Park Service. Apparently, Senate Republicans are proposing to release the funding being withheld for the Capitol Police, but only in return for dropping the projects (of the Architect, and of the Park Service) to harden the security of the Capitol.

Senator Shelby said “We should pass now what we all agree on: the Capitol Police and National Guard are running out of money, the clock is ticking, and we need to take care of them.” He indicated that projects to defend the Capitol were in a lesser category.

The GOP in the house are literally playing with the funding of the capitol police.

But because "the left" said some bad stuff and hurt people's feelings it will get fluffed off some as "garbage".

Heck, I get lumped in with the "defund the police" narrative for some reason when I'm defending them getting funded.

The issue on the board will always be one person have a personal and emotional response to me not matter what the facts are and coming back with the same boring tropes and "insults" but not caring about the facts.

But it's no skin off my nose.  I'm over it.