daz28

A guy just went on a political rant with his father's head literally cut off in a plastic bag. I don't think there's many things that anyone can do worse to illustrate what ridiculous, dangerous political times were living in. The BS has to stop, and reasonable, sensible discussions have to resume.

I wouldn't call it getting around it, I'd call it a breach of the 1st Amendment. Too bad the ones investigating it are the same ones doing it. Again, both sides, and take our country back. If the oligarchy wasn't in their pockets, this likely isn't happening at all.

Maybe Kamala will find the strength to do the right thing. If not, maybe Biden can just sit and watch what "things happen when an election is unceremoniously stolen". Thanks for finally admitting that if the Democrats do it, it's wrong and an actual insurrection. Too bad yoy can't admit that when trump does EXACTLY this, it's a peaceful protest. BUNCH OF CLOWNS!

Israel just "retaliated". Isn't it now their duty to go home, and not let things "spiral"? It's such a shame I can't put a "coherent" debate together. LOL

When it's the governments doings, it is censorship, and it's wrong. The small amount we've seen has been more bi-partisan than you're claiming, though. When a private company, or anyone else does it, it shouldn't be called censorship in the legal, politically driven sense. The media doesn't even count, because they're just selling lies and manipulation. Anyone who is consuming that is the actually problem, not the silencing part. It's each person's own obligation to not be swindled. A personal responsibility.

Ok Chamberlain. Peace in our time. Wave that treaty around, bud. You terrorize my country or my family, and I'm coming for you. Spirals be damned.

I just think you're using the word "censor" poorly. That's pretty common right now, though. It's become a politically charged term.

You have openly used your voice(your influence) to support attacks on Americans by terrorist, because of some retaliation doctrine you're holding onto. You did this on a public forum(your power). The tariffs are a mixed bag of good and bad. Like most things, it's more complex than the average internet poster understands. That's not meant to be some kind of insult to you personally, btw

I think they know how it works, and they're perfectly fine with it. There may come a day when someone calls them a fascist, and they'll turn around and finally smugly admit it, and say, "yeah, but what are you going to do about it". Most Americans aren't smart enough to see this, but I'd hope Supreme Court justices are. People are basically championing clear threats to our democracy, and they will eventually find out that it was a horribly bad idea. These people do not understand that history is basically dramatic mathematics. This plus this gets you this EVERY TIME.

Agreed, but lets celebrate the free part, while still shunning the dumb part. I'm well versed in the Bund, and it was scary. They were trying to take over America. Worse than the KKK.

it's a scam for sure, but it's part of the world economic game. All we can control is our response to it, and soft leaders, who are in the pockets of the oligarchy isn't a good one. Step one to actually making America great again would be getting OUR government back. Getting rid of citizens united and the Washington lobby would be a great first start to achieve that goal.

There ya go champ, let it all out. Maybe you're not 100% Jimmy Carter Chamberlain. **** our enemies. Now if I can just get you to stop letting them retaliate, and harm American soldiers, we'll be getting somewhere.

History. Like I said, I could list dictators that it was a horrible idea to give a pulpit to, but I figured everyone already knew who they were. I can't stress enough how Tucker has the right, but good sense should tell him it's not a good idea. Money and popularity are the worst reasons possible to do it. Would it have been absurd if a journalist went to Japan to ask them why they bombed Pearl harbor? It's amazing that the same people who DESPISE Jane Fonda for her pro-Vietnam stance, are the same ones who are proponents of Tucker. Again, this is so absurd to me, that I should just recuse myself from the discussion if i don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Some of the arguments are practically saying, FAFO if the seal team 6 theory works, and we'll deal with that after the fact. If your party refuses to punish the president, then it's a fair, sound legal strategy. heck why not go the full 9 yards, and say they have full immunity from all crimes after their terms to almost ensure that they could not only do it, but do it without any chance whatsoever of repercussion. I don't think anyone is fully grasping the significance of what is happening right now. Trumps attorney LITERALLY threw that example out there, and the SC is basically saying, yeah I guess that could happen, and be perfectly legal and safe from their standpoint. Well leave the future of our country in the hands of a political party. This has already been done in Nazi Germany, and how'd that work out????

No free speech should continue, but the consequences of using it should be heavily weighed. People can do lots of things legally that are really bad ideas. The fact that Tucker is getting good publicity for doing something really stupid is proof that free speech has consequences that can be good for some, but really bad for others.

I'm talking about Putin invading Ukraine, but yeah, terrorism is worse than naked aggression, and requires an even stronger response, which they aren't entitled to retaliate, and cause American casualties. Sheesh. Are you pro-terrorism now? Comparing giving airtime with American right wingers vs Hitler death squads is quite the stretch. I can't believe anyone would consider American journalists not giving Hitler a platform from which to defend genocide to be "censorship". Again, it's not and shouldn't be illegal, but just a really, really stupid idea.

You'd think a justice on the SCOTUS would know there's no legal interpretation/definition of insurrection in the US code. It simply states that it's a crime, and who would have to decide how to interpret that? The SCOTUS of course. Lay off the booze Brett.

You're confusing censorship with just not doing what has been historically proven to be a really bad idea. A good example of this is that one could go to an all black ghetto, and shout racist remarks just to see what happens, but it's a terrible idea. Giving an audience to your enemies and known naked aggressors is a bad idea. Suppose Kim Jong Un nukes America. Should we interview him to find out why? To me this is all COMPLETELY ABSURD. Mr. Hitler, why did you exterminate the Jews, the American people need to know if and why that was justified. Oh vey. Campaigning for stopping dictators from naked aggression, but you call it whatever you like.

The man said what he said, and was very clear. Because you guys want his jock, you choose to willfully misinterpret what is clearly being said. Maybe next time we kill one terrorist, you'll be ok with 100 US casualties as a proper "retaliation" by a terrorist nation. Hope it's no one in my family that has to die in your required retaliation by the terrorist country.

It was 109, and the number has been revised many times. Trump literally said in his interview, that Iran called him, and said they were going to hit back, and that they told him where they were going to do it, so there would be no casualties. You're willfully ignoring the facts. Where did I say there were zero casualties, there were 109 OFFICIAL casualties, and ZERO American response after them. You're going from willful ignorance, to simple ignoring facts.

What's the difference between barring an opponent, and creating fake electors to keep yourself in office after you lost? Really none, because the result is the same. I can't believe you thought Putin was running free and fair elections in the first place. Maybe watch your Putin interview tonight, and he can explain how and why his elections are so free and fair. LOLOL

While this is true, it's extremely common for it to happen in Congress, because that's how you get compromise. If a rep is completely against aid to Ukraine, but for aid for Israel, the compromise is what keeps both sides from just negating each others bills every single time. That's how politics works.

So you do need the list of dictators who were given the spotlight, which turned out to be a complete disaster causing literally hundreds of millions of deaths and suffering? No one is saying it's illegal, they're saying it's immoral, and just a really bad idea. Should we have an Isis tv channel, so people can make up their own minds about beheadings, too? The GQP has made what a short time ago was preposterous now the norm, but somehow they still claim to have common sense. Conservative Judge Royce Lamberth NAILED it: Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee to the bench, said the “destructive” misinformation, spread by political leaders who have downplayed and misrepresented the attack, had become pervasive. “In my thirty-seven years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream,” Lamberth lamented in a seven-page public court filing. Though he did not mention Trump by name, Lamberth specifically called out language used by Trump and, more recently, Trump allies like Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), describing Jan. 6 defendants as “hostages.” “I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history, claiming rioters behaved ‘in an orderly fashion’ like ordinary tourists, or martyrizing convicted January 6 defendants as ‘political prisoners’ or even, incredibly, ‘hostages,’” he wrote. “That is all preposterous. But the Court fears that such destructive, misguided rhetoric could presage further danger to our country.”

Your screen name, on a football site no less, LITERALLY has TDS in it, but me stating facts about him on a political page is laughable???? Sounds like you're the one with the obsession.

Not the decision to close the border. That's automatic. Also, the bill is only for 3 years. The president's actions are already limited to executive decisions, ie DOJ. The complaints about the DC court provision have to do with the states, not the executive branch.