Paul Pelosi, husband of Nancy Pelosi, beaten with hammer at home

[spartan max2]

19 minutes ago, joc said:

You are completely wrong sir.  If you don't know that the President appoints Supreme Court Justices you are really not all that informed are you?  I rest my case.

Approved by the Senate. You seem to be splitting hairs. 

[+joc]

12 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Approved by the Senate. You seem to be splitting hairs. 

40 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I don't know who the president was a 100 or so years ago off the top of my head lol.

Brett is a current supreme court justice who was appointed not long ago.

Who you vote into the Senate decides who appointed the supreme court justice. So it's worthwhile knowing who they appoint to inform future voting on if their appointments made reasonable decisions or are wack jobs.

You said , Who you vote into the Senate decides who appointed the supreme court justice.  But, fine, let's just say what you meant was that it is up to the Senate to confirm the choice of the President.   You are not voting for the Supreme Court justice.   Confirmation hearings are not even relevant to who you voted for.  The vast majority of the time the Senate is going to approve the Supreme Court Justice appointed by the President, whether they like them or not.

Your original point is that it is important to know who the Supreme Court Justices are.  My point stands...it is not important.  That isn't being informed.  That is just having trivial information that isn't necessary to have to live a productive successful life.

[MGB]

14 hours ago, joc said:

See and hear what?  You watch TV...you are programmed. Wake up.

How are you so knowledgeable in political affairs without media contact? How can you be so sure of what you are saying is correct without knowing about it, since you don't watch any media?

And no, I do not watch TV. 

[+joc]

1 minute ago, MGB said:

How are you so knowledgeable in political affairs without media contact? How can you be so sure of what you are saying is correct without knowing about it, since you don't watch any media?

And no, I do not watch TV. 

Because I've been on Earth for quite some time now.  I have watched the Media change from the Monopoly Media of 3 TV Stations to the constant bombardment of BS from every platform.  

[Kenemet]

5 hours ago, Myles said:

i was in agreement until this part.   If you believe that, then they already have you snookered.  It would be like someone saying that Fox News does not portray either side as extreme.  

Agree to disagree, then (and most politely, thank you.)

I've taken courses on propaganda and tend to (in my opinion, of course) be cautious about information sources.  When I think something is "odd" or "incomplete", I look for the original source... recording/transcript of what was actually said and view material both before and after the clip in question (if possible.)

Hence, I tend to agree that the sources marked as "neutral or mostly so" really do tend to present something correctly.  I understand that others feel differently, but as long as we can be polite about it (and you most certainly were), I think a good discussion can arise and perhaps we can both learn things.

 

[Kenemet]

4 hours ago, joc said:

Rule #1...there are no set rules in concrete.  So, what you are actually disputing is the concrete...  Generally speaking, the majority of people take on their parents beliefs...political, societal, and religious.  Rule #1 applies to everything said about anything.  I am talking about the majority...not the exceptions.  When we get to the age of reason, many do find their own way out of the box of beliefs they were born into.  Most do not.

Most of the news I get  right here on this forum.  And I get local news from my weather app on my phone.  But I don't have 'television' coming into my house.  There is a huge difference between watching sitcoms or dramas or movies on NefFlix and listening to 24/7/365 news coverage of the Queen's death for instance.  What really is the news in that story?  The news is:  The Queen of England has died.  So, I am aware of what the news 'stories' are.  I know what is going on in the world.  Russia invaded Ukraine.  That is the news.  It's a war. 

(snipped for brevity)

Thanks for the interesting and detailed response.  I have always wondered how people who distrust the media approached getting information, and this does make sense to me.  "Headline reader" would indeed get the overview of things but not necessarily the nuances that a "detail reader" gets.

Clears up a lot of things for me.  

(I'm also not a television watcher, btw, and I'm still going to be a detail reader.  Much of what we discuss really does revolve around details.)

[+joc]

18 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Thanks for the interesting and detailed response.  I have always wondered how people who distrust the media approached getting information, and this does make sense to me.  "Headline reader" would indeed get the overview of things but not necessarily the nuances that a "detail reader" gets.

Clears up a lot of things for me.  

(I'm also not a television watcher, btw, and I'm still going to be a detail reader.  Much of what we discuss really does revolve around details.)

Details, details, details...

I'm kind of a detail guy...I like details...I'm an artist and a musician and a philosopher and a poet ...I like details.  But only the details of what really matters and is important to me.  Headline reader...no.  I don't even look at headlines (except here) and I don't even bother clicking on a link unless a story interests me.  Headlines are meant to do exactly that...peak interest.  Which is why I never even look at Drudge.  Most of his Headlnes are flat out lies...anything to get you to click...and I don't really care what's going on in the world unless it personally affects me.  I don't care because if it doesn't personally affect me then I have no control over it.  And if I cannot control something...War in Ukraine for example...then why should I care?  Let me just say that, I don't care, does not mean that I don't have sympathy or empathy for Ukraine...I'm very empathic and sympathetic, what it does mean is that I don't need, want or desire to know all of the details because I just have too many things to do in my own personal life and getting bogged down in the details of something that doesn't affect me seems totally unnecessary.  But that's just me.  Also, like I said, I do not find the suffering of other people entertaining in the least...so I am better off not even knowing the details of everything that goes on.  

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Had blogs condemning right wing conspiracies.

Your link says the exact opposite. 

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, joc said:

Who was the 27th President of the United States? 

I'll say Grover Cleveland just so I can get two answers from one name.

That's thinking.

[+joc]

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I'll say Grover Cleveland just so I can get two answers from one name.

That's thinking.

Two names...same guy...two different presidencies!  You win!   Actually GC was the 22nd and 24th POTUS.  He and Trump are the only Presidents to occupy the office twice for non-consecutive terms...imagine that.

[MGB]

2 hours ago, joc said:

Because I've been on Earth for quite some time now.  I have watched the Media change from the Monopoly Media of 3 TV Stations to the constant bombardment of BS from every platform.  

Here are Three articles on the attack of Paul Pelosi. Guess which one goes well beyond reporting? Two of them simple reported what happened. In other words, news.

So please stop equating brain-washed when people can differentiate between News and some parrot throwing out a narrative.

 

Live updates: Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband, attacked at couple's home | CNN Politics

Nancy Pelosi husband attack: Who is David DePape, suspected Paul Pelosi assailant? | Fox News

Man arrested in attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband faces charges | Reuters

[thedutchiedutch]

7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

https://archive.ph/2022.10.28-234405/https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/What-we-know-about-David-DePape-man-accused-of-17542056.php%23photo-23098482
 

So it turns out he may not have been the maga supporter it’s claimed he is. Member of the Green Party. Had blogs condemning right wing conspiracies. Lived as a nudist in San Francisco. 
 

hmm

Did you read the article? This was years ago. The nudist part was from 2011, 2012 & 2013. The green party was quote "years ago".

The conspiracy theories about elites, government, tech companies and media outlets, his appeal to conservative beliefs, far right q-anon theories, derogatory statements against immigrants, people of color, women, LGBTQ people and Muslims, antisemitic theories about the war in Ukraine are all recent evidence collected from his social media, blogs etc.and websites he posted on. As recent as August according to the link/article provided by yourself.

Looks like this guy literally went from left to extreme right over the last years.

[thedutchiedutch]

19 hours ago, and-then said:

The good citizens of San Fran are like the rest of us... they get what they vote for.  I have little sympathy for the Pelosi's getting a taste of what their policies have inflicted on others.  Fair is fair, after all.  Maybe it will lend some clarity to the machinations the Left are engaged in when it jumps up and bites THEM, for a change.

Fair is fair? You got to be kidding me. You think it's fair when someone comes to your house and beats you up just because they are against what you stand for or who you married too politically? 

[+joc]

1 hour ago, MGB said:

Here are Three articles on the attack of Paul Pelosi. Guess which one goes well beyond reporting? Two of them simple reported what happened. In other words, news.

So please stop equating brain-washed when people can differentiate between News and some parrot throwing out a narrative.

 

Live updates: Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband, attacked at couple's home | CNN Politics

Nancy Pelosi husband attack: Who is David DePape, suspected Paul Pelosi assailant? | Fox News

Man arrested in attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband faces charges | Reuters

What is the story MGB?  Is the story that a man attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer in their home?

Or, is the story that a Right Wing Extremist attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer in their home?

You are proving my point!  Thank you!  They call it programming for a reason.

1 hour ago, MGB said:

Live updates: Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband, attacked at couple's home | CNN Politics

Biden says attack on Paul Pelosi directly ties to right-wing extremism
President Joe Biden described the attack on the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “despicable” and directly tied the assault to growing strains of rightwing extremism.
He said the chant the intruder reported used upon entering Pelosi’s home — “Where’s Nancy?” — was the same one used during the Jan. 6 insurrection at the US Capitol.

The President said it was implausible to cultivate conspiracies like a stolen election and Covid hoaxes without also fostering an environment of extreme violence.

“What makes us think that it’s not going to corrode the political climate,” he asked.

“Enough is enough is enough,” Biden said. “Every good person of good conscience needs to clearly and unambiguously stand up against the violence.”

1 hour ago, MGB said:

ancy Pelosi husband attack: Who is David DePape, suspected Paul Pelosi assailant? | Fox News

DePape has been described on Twitter alternately as a far-right extremist and a nudist who sold handmade jewelry.

1 hour ago, MGB said:

Man arrested in attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband faces charges | Reuters

In recent posts on several websites, an internet user named "daviddepape" expressed support for former President Donald Trump and embraced the cult-like conspiracy theory QAnon. The posts included references to "satanic pedophilia," anti-Semitic tropes and criticism of women, transgender people and censorship by tech companies.

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 hours ago, thedutchiedutch said:

Fair is fair? You got to be kidding me. You think it's fair when someone comes to your house and beats you up just because they are against what you stand for or who you married too politically? 

I believe what AT meant was that the policies of Pelosi and her ilk has made home invasion, including violent home invasions, more common and less harshly treated judicially. And now, “all things being fair” they’re experiencing what a lot of others have experiences, a violent home invasion, one of the more common now events due to their policies. 

[thedutchiedutch]

24 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I believe what AT meant was that the policies of Pelosi and her ilk has made home invasion, including violent home invasions, more common and less harshly treated judicially. And now, “all things being fair” they’re experiencing what a lot of others have experiences, a violent home invasion, one of the more common now events due to their policies. 

I see. So because of democrats policies on criminal justice on the West Coast, more people are now committing crimes? Just because it's easier to get away with it? I won't doubt it. Good point. But I think this home invasion is not a result because of this. Nice try tho.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

23 minutes ago, thedutchiedutch said:

I see. So because of democrats policies on criminal justice on the West Coast, more people are now committing crimes? Just because it's easier to get away with it? I won't doubt it. Good point. But I think this home invasion is not a result because of this. Nice try tho.

This home invasion is the result of a metric (and imperial) shittonne of factors. The hands off approach to sentencing, the lack of security, someone not having anyone around him to say “brah, you gone too far”, the lack of mental health care access for the clearly needy… lots of blame to go around. But some does nest with the people who treat crime like a political football to score points with certain groups.

[Will Due]

 

Midnight tryst gone wrong?

 

 

[preacherman76]

15 hours ago, thedutchiedutch said:

Did you read the article? This was years ago. The nudist part was from 2011, 2012 & 2013. The green party was quote "years ago".

The conspiracy theories about elites, government, tech companies and media outlets, his appeal to conservative beliefs, far right q-anon theories, derogatory statements against immigrants, people of color, women, LGBTQ people and Muslims, antisemitic theories about the war in Ukraine are all recent evidence collected from his social media, blogs etc.and websites he posted on. As recent as August according to the link/article provided by yourself.

Looks like this guy literally went from left to extreme right over the last years.

Yes it does appear that way. My bad. I did read some of it, but was going on some commentary I heard on it. 
 

This whole situation is so strange though. I don’t know what to think about it. 

[Golden Duck]

15 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Yes it does appear that way. My bad. I did read some of it, but was going on some commentary I heard on it. 
 

This whole situation is so strange though. I don’t know what to think about it. 

Whose commentary. 

[preacherman76]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

Whose commentary. 

Some dude on YouTube I catch from time to time if he shows up on my list. Not sure how to spell his username. It’s like styxhammer666. Something like that. 
 

Hippy libertarian type. 

[Will Due]

 

The broken Glass was on the outside? They were both in their underwear when the cops arrived? Hmmmm

 

 

[Likely Guy]

22 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

The broken Glass was on the outside? They were both in their underwear when the cops arrived? Hmmmm

 

 

Where did you read/hear this?

[Agent0range]

1 hour ago, Likely Guy said:

Where did you read/hear this?

Probably from Alex Jones...

[itsnotoutthere]

On 10/28/2022 at 5:30 PM, Rolltide said:

 

San Francisco rebrands 'convicted felons' as 'justice-involved persons'

The city of San Francisco is trying to change the public’s perception of criminals by introducing new language to refer to someone who committed a crime.

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2019/08/22/san-francisco-rebrands-convicted-felons-justice-involved-persons/2081710001/