World War Three?

[Sparko]

Have you verified that what's she's saying is not true? I honestly don't know.

I did. I posted it in another thread.

[seanD]

I did. I posted it in another thread.

Giving me the link might help.

[Ronson]

Have you verified that what's she's saying is not true? I honestly don't know.

1) Misleading. Gabbard claims Ukraine not a "democracy." Yes, that's correct. It is a "constitutional republic." Like us.
2) The TV stations that Zelensky shut down were funded by Russia and supported the rebels in the east in the ongoing conflict. Most of the complaints against Zelensky was that he shut them down without using the courts, like Trudeau shutting down the convoy. The biggest complaint was from Moscow.
3) Poroshenko was investigated by the Ukrainian prosecutor's office after Zelensky accused him of treason (assisting Moscow in the rebel cause), but he wasn't arrested (at least not for long). Poroshenko has reportedly joined the resistance in Kyiv.
4) As far as opposition leaders being arrested, there is only one that I can find, and that is Medvedchuk. The guy is a close - close - friend of Putin (they've allegedly vacationed together for decades). He was arrested for treason.

These reports can be found via NYT, Reuters, WaPO and Guardian. Many predate the invasion.

[Ronson]

A lot of people are unwilling to consider the possibility that between the two governments in the conflict, there are no good guys. It doesn't justify what Putin is doing. It's just another piece in a complicated puzzle.

Very much a complicated puzzle.

IMO, it's just a matter of holding those "Biden family is corrupt" cards for the moment. The black-and-white world says you are either with us or you're with the enemy. They don't see nuance.

[seanD]

1) Misleading. Gabbard claims Ukraine not a "democracy." Yes, that's correct. It is a "constitutional republic." Like us.
2) The TV stations that Zelensky shut down were funded by Russia and supported the rebels in the east in the ongoing conflict. Most of the complaints against Zelensky was that he shut them down without using the courts, like Trudeau shutting down the convoy. The biggest complaint was from Moscow.
3) Poroshenko was investigated by the Ukrainian prosecutor's office after Zelensky accused him of treason (assisting Moscow in the rebel cause), but he wasn't arrested (at least not for long). Poroshenko has reportedly joined the resistance in Kyiv.
4) As far as opposition leaders being arrested, there is only one that I can find, and that is Medvedchuk. The guy is a close - close - friend of Putin (they've allegedly vacationed together for decades). He was arrested for treason.

These reports can be found via NYT, Reuters, WaPO and Guardian. Many predate the invasion.

Okay, but I wouldn't consider that "conspiracy stratosphere." She seems to be giving facts for the most part, but you could accuse her in this case of spewing Russian propaganda since it seems to be more in favor of Russia's side of the issue. Although I also acknowledge the fact that leaders often lie about why they take certain authoritarian actions, much like Trudeau used every lie in the book (including that they were Russian influenced) to justify shutting down the trucker protests against his government.

[Terraceth]

1) Misleading. Gabbard claims Ukraine not a "democracy." Yes, that's correct. It is a "constitutional republic." Like us.

While it is true that the term "democracy" in the past meant more specifically direct rule by the people, its meaning has been broadened to refer to republics in which people rule indirectly through elected representatives.

Now, if Gabbard were trying to argue that we should be using the older and more restrictive definition of democracy, and that Ukraine therefore doesn't count, that would be one thing. But it's clear that Gabbard isn't trying to draw a democracy vs. republic distinction, but a democracy vs. dictatorship distinction. So I don't think you can give her technical points for that.

[Ronson]

While it is true that the term "democracy" in the past meant more specifically direct rule by the people, its meaning has been broadened to refer to republics in which people rule indirectly through elected representatives.

Now, if Gabbard were trying to argue that we should be using the older and more restrictive definition of democracy, and that Ukraine therefore doesn't count, that would be one thing. But it's clear that Gabbard isn't trying to draw a democracy vs. republic distinction, but a democracy vs. dictatorship distinction. So I don't think you can give her technical points for that.

If that's the case, then she needed to back that up with some evidence or argument. Ukraine has an established constitutional republic government. If she wants to complain that it is so corrupt that it doesn't function as such, then she must elaborate. Otherwise, she's blowing smoke.

[seanD]

Never let a crisis go to waste...

"Guilty Until Proven Innocent" - Biden Signs New Backdoor Gun Control Into Law

President Biden has signed a $1.5 Trillion spending bill that sends $13.6 Billion to Ukraine and funds the Government until September. The bill itself passed the Senate with a bipartisan 68-31 vote.

As we've reported before, the Biden administration's only way to pass gun control at all is by backdoor means. So, of course, they've hidden gun control in a massive spending bill designed to fund the Government. Hidden within this 3000-page bill were two significant pieces of gun control.

But that's only half of this shady gun control strategy. The second half is to wrap gun control into a bill that is difficult to vote against for fear of social stigma.

So, inside the omnibus bill is a previously failed act called VAWA, or the Violence Against Women's Act. This act contains significant backdoor gun control that stands to harm gun owners. But you wouldn't know that just by reading the title. The swamp creatures in the Senate took the opportunity to revive VAWA (which initially failed explicitly because of the gun control provisions), placing the gun control section 2207 pages into the overall bill itself.

VAWA contains two major changes to current law.

The first is titled the NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022. This act will require the criminal investigation of all denials on the National Instant Criminal-Background-Check System. For those unaware, the NICS system is used any time a sale occurs, and a firearm is transferred from a Federal Firearms Licensee (also known as an FFL) and an individual. This process happens thousands of times per day all over the country. It happens almost every time a legal gun sale takes place.

Here's the thing, though, the NICS system isn't perfect. It's actually not even close to perfect. Many people experience never-ending delays or even flat-out denials because they have a common name, or the system confuses them for someone else entirely.

In fact, according to Gun Owners of America, the FBI itself admits that it's often wrong on gun-related background check denials. GOA filed an FIOA request, and the FBI revealed that around "27.7 percent of NICS appeals received during the requested time period were overturned, and the firearm purchase/transfer were proceeded." (proceeded is when the NICS check completes, the FFL is given a green "proceed" status)

Additionally, GOA mentions that according to claims from John Lott, a Second Amendment researcher and economist, 99 percent of NICS denials are false positives, which means that most denied people are not actually prohibited from owning a firearm.

So, the fact that the Government is compelling law enforcement to act upon a system that produces so many false positives is insane. This change to the law treats people who simply want to purchase a firearm and are falsely denied as guilty until proven innocent.

To make matters worse, the act allows the Federal Government to deputize local police and attorneys to act on behalf of the ATF.

This deputization of local police is a massive overreach for the ATF. It's also likely a direct response to the popular Second Amendment Sanctuary County movement, which composes about 62% of counties in the entire United States as of September 2021 and has continued to grow since. These counties have pledged not to enforce federal gun control laws.

This act is another example of anti-gun politicians using dirty tricks to pass unpopular legislation. Anti-Gun Politicians had brought VAWA itself before Congress in 2019, but many in Congress opposed it because they did not support the gun control portions of the bill itself. Who knew that it would eventually be resurrected and hidden into a 3000-page government spending bill.

[Gondwanaland]

If that's the case, then she needed to back that up with some evidence or argument. Ukraine has an established constitutional republic government. If she wants to complain that it is so corrupt that it doesn't function as such, then she must elaborate. Otherwise, she's blowing smoke.

Unfortunately she seems to have a soft spot for strongarm thugs and dictators. Going way back to her support of Modi and his party (and their support of her), on through her defenses of Assad (and Russia by proxy), all the way up to now with Putin.

It's sad because she's actually quite reasonable outside of that (though her recent politicking whilst wearing her Reserve uniform has been a disturbing turn even from that)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Wow, so the democrats are now going into full-on McCarthyism mode?

Liberals have become the very thing they claim to hate: Authoritarian Fascists.

Once again you are confusing some with all.

This whole issue is beginning to look rather like a storm in a thimble.

A few individuals voice their opinions on a television talk show and suddenly several here consider that there is a McCarthy style witch-hunt taking place. It is also being suggested that Tucker Carlson is under criminal investigation.

As I noted earlier, Carlson is a useful idiot for Putin and is presenting himself as a believable [and reliable?] source for Kremlin propaganda.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"Dispassionate" is not a word I would use to describe Tucker Carlson

I was being judicious in my choice of words.

[Ronson]

Okay, but I wouldn't consider that "conspiracy stratosphere." She seems to be giving facts for the most part, but you could accuse her in this case of spewing Russian propaganda since it seems to be more in favor of Russia's side of the issue. Although I also acknowledge the fact that leaders often lie about why they take certain authoritarian actions, much like Trudeau used every lie in the book (including that they were Russian influenced) to justify shutting down the trucker protests against his government.

Gabbard is a complicated figure. I respect her stance against needless US military engagements; this constant war machine that kills American kids. But I suspect she is so fervent in that cause that it affects her judgement in other areas.

[Ronson]

Unfortunately she seems to have a soft spot for strongarm thugs and dictators. Going way back to her support of Modi and his party (and their support of her), on through her defenses of Assad (and Russia by proxy), all the way up to now with Putin.

It's sad because she's actually quite reasonable outside of that (though her recent politicking whilst wearing her Reserve uniform has been a disturbing turn even from that)

In the case of Assad, I believe it is more about not wanting to see the US embroiled in Syria, and I agree with that stance.

However, I think she's latched onto some weird positions regarding Ukraine to justify keeping the US out of there as well, and that can be construed as support for Putin. More than anything, she is anti war - a complete hippie in that sense. So much so that she will believe anything that supports the position. Bias confirmation.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Um, okay, read it, and I still don't see how someone's comments being taken out of context makes them a "useful idiot". But based on your other remarks, I have you mentally noted as someone who does not respect freedom of speech, so I'll let the matter rest.

I do not receive Fox News but he is being criticised by other journalists. The following is four days old.

If that article is accurate, should someone commenting on current events and who has openly admitted to lying be trusted?

Do you think that Carlson's [unsubstantiated] claim about Ukrainian biolabs is serving any useful purpose?

Why, according to Jonathan Karl, is Carlson effectively parroting what Putin has been saying? Is he being paid to say these things?

Who knows.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jonat...b0d1329e82ffb6

Ed Mazza
Mar. 11, 2022, 06:55 AM EST | Updated Mar. 11, 2022Jonathan Karl, ABC’s chief Washington correspondent, blasted Fox News host Tucker Carlson for consistently repeating Russian propaganda on his show.

“What is sort of inexplicable here is that what is being said is almost a plagiarism of Vladimir Putin,” Karl told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace on Thursday:


Karl also debunked some of Carlson’s latest conspiracy theories.

“These are statements that are not only not true, but are precisely what is being said in Moscow by Vladimir Putin,” Karl said.

Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Carlson repeatedly defended Putin, noting that the Russian leader had never called him a racist. He’s also admitted to “rooting” for Russia and said the U.S. should butt out, and claimed Putin “just wants to keep his western borders secure.”

This week, Carlson, who has openly admitted to lying, blamed the United States for Russia’s attack on Ukraine. And on Thursday night, Carlson appeared to attack one of his own network’s reporters for debunking some of the conspiracy theories he’s spread on his show.

[rogue06]

A lot of people are unwilling to consider the possibility that between the two governments in the conflict, there are no good guys. It doesn't justify what Putin is doing. It's just another piece in a complicated puzzle.

Some said the same thing about WWII