Tulsi Gabbard was not difficult with Santons. To the contrary, she was fair. I was surprised to see her challenge to the liar broadcast on Fox. The GOP of the 1980s would have told Santos to resign or be unseated. Credibility has long since left the Grand Old Party. Old they are. Integrity they've lost along the way.
Woke apologies are more debasing and cringeworthy than anything MAGA puts out there, and that is a very high bar to clear, given how rancid Trump and the Clan of the Red Hats are.
serio
As for George Santos, I hope every voter in that district sues him for fraud. Seriously, what he did is so far removed from normal political embellishing to have cross the line to fraud. First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech, and this man conned voters into giving him something of value (their vote) in order to make money (winning the seat). He is a low-rent Bernie Madoff.
TWO paragraphs on illiterate, uneducated Qonservatives taking over libraries and banning everything that triggers white Christians who want to pretend America has never and will never have racism problem (and the whole slavery thing is so 1850’s). Using government power to suppress speech.
TWENTY paragraphs for TWO examples of private institutions choosing not to endorse something conflicting with their values. Not government actors/institutions, not imposing an agenda, simply taking oxygen from anti-trans messaging.
Talk about whataboutism and taking “both sides” way too far.
We know you’re smarter than this, Charlie, so who is this for? Do you think your audience wants to hear “libruls still bad!”? Is it a salve for your conscience? Projecting “balance”? Can you just not help yourself?
You’ve said so many times that right now, “both sides are not the same”, because it’s true. Trust me when I tell you we don’t appreciate these lapses into how conservatives are actually destroying America, but “liberals still do things I don’t like, and I’m going to devote more words to it”- it’s intellectually dishonest and frankly transparent and cringeworthy.
TWO paragraphs on illiterate, uneducated Qonservatives taking over libraries and banning everything that triggers white Christians who want to pretend America has never and will never have racism problem (and the whole slavery thing is so 1850’s). Using government power to suppress speech.
TWENTY paragraphs for TWO examples of private institutions choosing not to endorse something conflicting with their values. Not government actors/institutions, not imposing an agenda, simply taking oxygen from anti-trans messaging.
Talk about whataboutism and taking “both sides” way too far.
We know you’re smarter than this, Charlie, so who is this for? Do you think your audience wants to hear “libruls still bad!”? Is it a salve for your conscience? Projecting “balance”? Can you just not help yourself?
You’ve said so many times that right now, “both sides are not the same”, because it’s true. Trust me when I tell you we don’t appreciate these lapses into how conservatives are actually destroying America, but “liberals still do things I don’t like, and I’m going to devote more words to it”- it’s intellectually dishonest and frankly transparent and cringeworthy.
"...that words are not violence;..." Herein lies the dispute.
I agree that speech should be free, and I agree that this book [which I've not read] will trigger controversy and pain for spreading ideas that could bolster those who choose to harm people they fear. Harm in so many ways.
Speech can create violence, and finding a place to draw a line, well, there you go. You can't draw lines, and banning "bad" books is not the way to fight those ideas on either side of the lines. But placing out a book that, say, slandered someone so that they lose their business, their friends, their job? Or instructed people on how to kill others, how to create physical violence? It's close to the same thing as when stating or implying that trans people are not legitimate members of society.
People think, write, and publish imperfectly. If the author Shrier had any good ideas, should the "mistaken" ideas be removed, edited? Who decides, who is the umpire? Or should they be out there for discussion?
It takes incredible arrogance and narcissism to lie on on the scale Santos did. My resentment for these liars runs deep. You cannot represent a district with zero credibility. Also, am I wrong, but does he have a warrant in Brazil for stealing from an elderly man?? What a disgusting human being. I hope the Feds find some incidents fraud to arrest him. Santos lives in his own fantasy world but it’s tragic he fooled voters.
I agree, Pam, but people with zero credibility CAN and DO represent districts. Look at Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, and Paul Gosar... when not being Herschel Walker is the low bar you have to jump to be a Republican candidate... seems like the GOP sees zero credibility as feature and not a bug.
“Exit take: If you are offended by a book, (1) don’t buy it…”
You do know that independent bookstores aren’t given books for free, right? They have to, you know, BUY them. Does your exit take not apply to owners of independent bookstores?
IN RE: George Santos... far from being a disqualification this will be cheered by Republicans. After all, "owning the libs" is even more fun when they are owned by genuinely awful people--- like Herschel Walker.
And the more defective his moral compass the more he will be loved by the party.
I am sure Kevin McCarthy will probably give him a seat on the House Ethics Committee.
I really appreciate that I was encouraged to read as a child. No books were off limits. People are mistaken if they believe that books make people intolerant or cause people to behave in ways contrary to their nature. I can read a book about a transsexuals, and not become a transsexuals or I can read a book that is against transexuals and not become anti transsexuals. As a young person I read Gone With the Wind and did not become a racist, and I read Uncle Tom's Cabin and did not decide to hate white people. The more you read, the more you think.
People are blaming the newspapers, which is reasonable, but really, how many people read newspapers. Some people watch their local news, but mostly they turn it on for the sports and water which comes on right before jeopardy.
But to me, this is as bad as the Dems not making Hillary campaign in Wisconsin. They should have found this and bought TV time blasting it out. Would anyone have paid attention and cared? Not necessarily.
Now Nassau's Republican machine is as corrupt as Tammany Hall ever was, so I question whether anything will happen here, but it might just decide that they need to make Santos a human sacrifice and throw him under a bus.
OK, I get your point. So with respect to this librarian selecting or not selecting a book for her collection, what does that mean? She should have books without facts in them that further unfounded conspiracy theories?
As I said, I probably would have included such a book.
This title came to mind: The Elders of Zion. I checked my city library (80K residents). Not in the collection. I checked the city of LA library (3.8 million), and they had it.
A small city library can't have every book. The librarian has to choose based on whatever criteria her board has established, which includes what best serves the interests of the people in the community they serve.
I think you may be selling Santos short. Given the level of fidelity to truth of the present and especially the most recent president, this young man may be presidential timber.
Re book banning/burning, gotta love the inconsistency. Cancel Rowlings due to perceptions of her real-life beliefs. Cancel Mark Twain/Samuel L Clemens due to the dialog in Huckleberry Finn despite the author's standing as one of the most vociferous opponents of racism in his day. Any excuse for illiberalism will do.
Tangent: who'd expect consistency from anyone working for the ACLU?
Tulsi Gabbard was not difficult with Santons. To the contrary, she was fair. I was surprised to see her challenge to the liar broadcast on Fox. The GOP of the 1980s would have told Santos to resign or be unseated. Credibility has long since left the Grand Old Party. Old they are. Integrity they've lost along the way.
Woke apologies are more debasing and cringeworthy than anything MAGA puts out there, and that is a very high bar to clear, given how rancid Trump and the Clan of the Red Hats are.
serio
As for George Santos, I hope every voter in that district sues him for fraud. Seriously, what he did is so far removed from normal political embellishing to have cross the line to fraud. First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech, and this man conned voters into giving him something of value (their vote) in order to make money (winning the seat). He is a low-rent Bernie Madoff.
Jeez, just can’t help yourself, can you Charlie?
TWO paragraphs on illiterate, uneducated Qonservatives taking over libraries and banning everything that triggers white Christians who want to pretend America has never and will never have racism problem (and the whole slavery thing is so 1850’s). Using government power to suppress speech.
TWENTY paragraphs for TWO examples of private institutions choosing not to endorse something conflicting with their values. Not government actors/institutions, not imposing an agenda, simply taking oxygen from anti-trans messaging.
Talk about whataboutism and taking “both sides” way too far.
We know you’re smarter than this, Charlie, so who is this for? Do you think your audience wants to hear “libruls still bad!”? Is it a salve for your conscience? Projecting “balance”? Can you just not help yourself?
You’ve said so many times that right now, “both sides are not the same”, because it’s true. Trust me when I tell you we don’t appreciate these lapses into how conservatives are actually destroying America, but “liberals still do things I don’t like, and I’m going to devote more words to it”- it’s intellectually dishonest and frankly transparent and cringeworthy.
Jeez, just can’t help yourself, can you Charlie?
TWO paragraphs on illiterate, uneducated Qonservatives taking over libraries and banning everything that triggers white Christians who want to pretend America has never and will never have racism problem (and the whole slavery thing is so 1850’s). Using government power to suppress speech.
TWENTY paragraphs for TWO examples of private institutions choosing not to endorse something conflicting with their values. Not government actors/institutions, not imposing an agenda, simply taking oxygen from anti-trans messaging.
Talk about whataboutism and taking “both sides” way too far.
We know you’re smarter than this, Charlie, so who is this for? Do you think your audience wants to hear “libruls still bad!”? Is it a salve for your conscience? Projecting “balance”? Can you just not help yourself?
You’ve said so many times that right now, “both sides are not the same”, because it’s true. Trust me when I tell you we don’t appreciate these lapses into how conservatives are actually destroying America, but “liberals still do things I don’t like, and I’m going to devote more words to it”- it’s intellectually dishonest and frankly transparent and cringeworthy.
Donald Trump still hasn't paid for all of his lies.
"...that words are not violence;..." Herein lies the dispute.
I agree that speech should be free, and I agree that this book [which I've not read] will trigger controversy and pain for spreading ideas that could bolster those who choose to harm people they fear. Harm in so many ways.
Speech can create violence, and finding a place to draw a line, well, there you go. You can't draw lines, and banning "bad" books is not the way to fight those ideas on either side of the lines. But placing out a book that, say, slandered someone so that they lose their business, their friends, their job? Or instructed people on how to kill others, how to create physical violence? It's close to the same thing as when stating or implying that trans people are not legitimate members of society.
People think, write, and publish imperfectly. If the author Shrier had any good ideas, should the "mistaken" ideas be removed, edited? Who decides, who is the umpire? Or should they be out there for discussion?
It takes incredible arrogance and narcissism to lie on on the scale Santos did. My resentment for these liars runs deep. You cannot represent a district with zero credibility. Also, am I wrong, but does he have a warrant in Brazil for stealing from an elderly man?? What a disgusting human being. I hope the Feds find some incidents fraud to arrest him. Santos lives in his own fantasy world but it’s tragic he fooled voters.
I agree, Pam, but people with zero credibility CAN and DO represent districts. Look at Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, and Paul Gosar... when not being Herschel Walker is the low bar you have to jump to be a Republican candidate... seems like the GOP sees zero credibility as feature and not a bug.
“Exit take: If you are offended by a book, (1) don’t buy it…”
You do know that independent bookstores aren’t given books for free, right? They have to, you know, BUY them. Does your exit take not apply to owners of independent bookstores?
IN RE: George Santos... far from being a disqualification this will be cheered by Republicans. After all, "owning the libs" is even more fun when they are owned by genuinely awful people--- like Herschel Walker.
And the more defective his moral compass the more he will be loved by the party.
I am sure Kevin McCarthy will probably give him a seat on the House Ethics Committee.
I really appreciate that I was encouraged to read as a child. No books were off limits. People are mistaken if they believe that books make people intolerant or cause people to behave in ways contrary to their nature. I can read a book about a transsexuals, and not become a transsexuals or I can read a book that is against transexuals and not become anti transsexuals. As a young person I read Gone With the Wind and did not become a racist, and I read Uncle Tom's Cabin and did not decide to hate white people. The more you read, the more you think.
People are blaming the newspapers, which is reasonable, but really, how many people read newspapers. Some people watch their local news, but mostly they turn it on for the sports and water which comes on right before jeopardy.
But to me, this is as bad as the Dems not making Hillary campaign in Wisconsin. They should have found this and bought TV time blasting it out. Would anyone have paid attention and cared? Not necessarily.
Let’s make it simple? Is there, or was there ever, a single point written or mentioned in a press release, a CV, or a resume that was true?
New: The Nassau DA, a Republican, is going to investigate.
https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/s/ij0vk/nassau-district-attorney-to-investigate-george-santos-report?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert
Now Nassau's Republican machine is as corrupt as Tammany Hall ever was, so I question whether anything will happen here, but it might just decide that they need to make Santos a human sacrifice and throw him under a bus.
OK, I get your point. So with respect to this librarian selecting or not selecting a book for her collection, what does that mean? She should have books without facts in them that further unfounded conspiracy theories?
As I said, I probably would have included such a book.
This title came to mind: The Elders of Zion. I checked my city library (80K residents). Not in the collection. I checked the city of LA library (3.8 million), and they had it.
A small city library can't have every book. The librarian has to choose based on whatever criteria her board has established, which includes what best serves the interests of the people in the community they serve.
I think you may be selling Santos short. Given the level of fidelity to truth of the present and especially the most recent president, this young man may be presidential timber.
Re book banning/burning, gotta love the inconsistency. Cancel Rowlings due to perceptions of her real-life beliefs. Cancel Mark Twain/Samuel L Clemens due to the dialog in Huckleberry Finn despite the author's standing as one of the most vociferous opponents of racism in his day. Any excuse for illiberalism will do.
Tangent: who'd expect consistency from anyone working for the ACLU?