On 6/11/2022 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <rR1pK.120783$5fVf.59591@fx09.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 1:04 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 2022 at 7:39:59 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/2022 7:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 6:54 PM, RichA wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Their version of whistling in the graveyard, with everything
>>>>>>> crumbling around them, they have to show the American people why
>>>>>>> they blew $300 million investigating a riot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This "circus" has been headed to town for well over a year. So, it's
>>>>>> hard to think of it as a recently cobbled-together "distraction" --
>>>>>> unless, of course, one's aim is to distract from it...
>>>>>
>>>>> After spending $94 to fill up this morning, I could care less about
>>>>> January 6th. The Dems' obsession with J6 and Trump are going to cost
>>>>> them 100 seats in the House this November.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming that that's realistic, should Jan 6 be swept under the rug?
>>>> That sounds rather like an expedient countenancing of sedition. I'm
>>>> sure, of course, that Lindsey and Mitch wouldn't hesitate to do it...
>>>
>>> Remember when Democrat protesters stormed the U.S. Capitol in 2018, took
>>> over the Senate Building, and tried to force their way into the Kavanaugh
>>> confirmation hearings?
>>>
>>> Democrat legislators and the corporate media cheered them on. I must have
>>> missed the primetime bread and circuses theater for that...
>>
>> You consider a judge equivalent to a head-of-state?
>
> More with the "it's okay because their target didn't have some special
> sanctification" excuse?

More with the "it's okay" about something nobody said was okay?

> First you dismissed any comparison of Jan6 to the orgy of violence that
> was the 2020 Summer of Love because of all the thousands of buildings
> looted, damaged, and destroyed (to include government buildings and
> federal courthouses) that summer, none of them had the special
> sanctification of the U.S. Capitol Building, not even the White House,
> which was also put under siege by a leftist mob during the Summer of
> Love. Your theory was that of all the millions of buildings in the
> entire nation, only one is (conveniently) off limits for protesters to
> breach or damage.

No, I said Jan6 was sedition ...which is irrespective of looting, etc.

> Now, when it's pointed out that a leftist mob *also* breached that one
> sanctified building, in your efforts to excuse and dismiss it, you've
> switched to claiming that there's one special sanctified government
> official out all the hundreds of thousands in the federal government who
> must not be the subject a mob's ire.
>
> Which is weird because the building you've sanctified isn't where the
> official you've sanctified resides. The sanctified official resides in
> the White House but according to your standards, the White House is a
> legitimate target of political protest for outraged mobs to overrun,
> just not the Capitol.

My point -- which I botched -- is that almost anything to do with
Kavanaugh is less significant than almost anything to do with Trump.

On 6/11/2022 1:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <5W1pK.67512$X_i.55612@fx18.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 1:01 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 2022 at 9:48:53 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/10/2022 9:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 10, 2022 at 5:15:33 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 2:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t80bl4$1sc0c$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t80675$1s9h8$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 10:42 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I didn't express support for any of that Q nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or even support for Trump. All I did was highlight the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> media's bias with what government hearings they do and do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose to interrupt the prime time schedule for, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strange Wuhan Flu standards among Democrat legislators, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that was equivalent to 'drinking the Kool-Aid',
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is a common metaphor for someone who is delusional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and slavishly devoted to a cult.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I know what it means, and some of your posts follow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Republican party line pretty closely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And some of yours follow the Democrat party line pretty closely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you drunk the Kool-Aid, too, or is that only something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that applies to conservatives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No I haven't. I don't support the extreme left wing, just as
>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't support the extreme Qanon beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet you say I 'drank the Kool-Aid' but you haven't. How does that
>>>>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You support the Repub line that everything that's wrong with this
>>>>>>>>>> country is the fault of Democrats in general, including Biden.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not what I read in your posts. It's always a diatribe against
>>>>>>>> the Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't in any way equivalent to me supposedly believing that
>>>>>>> everything that's wrong with this country is the fault of Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you write what you do, it sure sounds like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I've never stated or implied that I believe everything that's
>>>>> wrong with this country is the fault of Democrats, you're apparently
>>>>> the one who has the problem here, not me.
>
>>>> Okay, only in your state I guess.
>>>
>>> Well, in my state, Democrats literally control every aspect of government
>>> from top to bottom, so who else would be responsible for whatever problems
>>> there are if not them?
>>
>> Well, there's Californians...
>
> Who are also overwhelmingly Democrats, hence the single-party rule.
>
>>> That's the double-edged sword of single-party rule. You get to do whatever
>>> you want without opposition, but when things go wrong, there's no one
>>> else to blame.
>>
>> And, thank God there's someone to blame. That way, we can imagine that
>> getting rid of them approximates a solution...
>
> Maybe I was too clear in what I wrote. I know you're not used to
> straightforwardness and clarity, after all. I said there's *not* anyone
> else to blame single-party rule when things go wrong.

Yes, you were "too clear" that your First Principle is to assign blame
to the lowest-hanging fruit, i.e., the Party In Power, when it might be
that you're just playing a perpetual Whack-A-Mole game with two holes.

On 6/11/2022 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2022 at 12:14:16 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <rR1pK.120783$5fVf.59591@fx09.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/11/2022 1:04 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 9, 2022 at 7:39:59 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 7:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 6:54 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Their version of whistling in the graveyard, with everything
>>>>>>>>> crumbling around them, they have to show the American people why
>>>>>>>>> they blew $300 million investigating a riot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This "circus" has been headed to town for well over a year. So, it's
>>>>>>>> hard to think of it as a recently cobbled-together "distraction" --
>>>>>>>> unless, of course, one's aim is to distract from it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After spending $94 to fill up this morning, I could care less about
>>>>>>> January 6th. The Dems' obsession with J6 and Trump are going to cost
>>>>>>> them 100 seats in the House this November.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming that that's realistic, should Jan 6 be swept under the rug?
>>>>>> That sounds rather like an expedient countenancing of sedition. I'm
>>>>>> sure, of course, that Lindsey and Mitch wouldn't hesitate to do it...
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember when Democrat protesters stormed the U.S. Capitol in 2018, took
>>>>> over the Senate Building, and tried to force their way into the Kavanaugh
>>>>> confirmation hearings?
>>>>>
>>>>> Democrat legislators and the corporate media cheered them on. I must have
>>>>> missed the primetime bread and circuses theater for that...
>>>>
>>>> You consider a judge equivalent to a head-of-state?
>>>
>>> More with the "it's okay because their target didn't have some special
>>> sanctification" excuse?
>>
>> More with the "it's okay" about something nobody said was okay?
>>
>>> First you dismissed any comparison of Jan6 to the orgy of violence that
>>> was the 2020 Summer of Love because of all the thousands of buildings
>>> looted, damaged, and destroyed (to include government buildings and
>>> federal courthouses) that summer, none of them had the special
>>> sanctification of the U.S. Capitol Building, not even the White House,
>>> which was also put under siege by a leftist mob during the Summer of
>>> Love. Your theory was that of all the millions of buildings in the
>>> entire nation, only one is (conveniently) off limits for protesters to
>>> breach or damage.
>>
>> No, I said Jan6 was sedition ...which is irrespective of looting, etc.
>
> No, you and Effa Pee Pee both maintained that the U.S. Capitol building has
> some kind of quasi-religious status that makes it special and therefore off
> limits for the same kind violent sieges we'd been seeing from BLM and Antifa
> across the country up to that point.

Feel free to quote otherwise, but... I doubt anyone said it's Mecca.
It's merely our *seat of government*. And it was attacked as such.

>>> ...

On 6/11/2022 3:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2022 at 12:29:58 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 1:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <5W1pK.67512$X_i.55612@fx18.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/11/2022 1:01 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 10, 2022 at 9:48:53 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 9:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2022 at 5:15:33 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 2:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t80bl4$1sc0c$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t80675$1s9h8$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 10:42 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I didn't express support for any of that Q nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or even support for Trump. All I did was highlight the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> media's bias with what government hearings they do and do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose to interrupt the prime time schedule for, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strange Wuhan Flu standards among Democrat legislators, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that was equivalent to 'drinking the Kool-Aid',
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is a common metaphor for someone who is delusional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and slavishly devoted to a cult.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, I know what it means, and some of your posts follow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Republican party line pretty closely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And some of yours follow the Democrat party line pretty closely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you drunk the Kool-Aid, too, or is that only something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that applies to conservatives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I haven't. I don't support the extreme left wing, just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't support the extreme Qanon beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet you say I 'drank the Kool-Aid' but you haven't. How does that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You support the Repub line that everything that's wrong with this
>>>>>>>>>>>> country is the fault of Democrats in general, including Biden.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I read in your posts. It's always a diatribe against
>>>>>>>>>> the Democrats.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which isn't in any way equivalent to me supposedly believing that
>>>>>>>>> everything that's wrong with this country is the fault of Democrats.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you write what you do, it sure sounds like it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I've never stated or implied that I believe everything that's
>>>>>>> wrong with this country is the fault of Democrats, you're apparently
>>>>>>> the one who has the problem here, not me.
>>>
>>>>>> Okay, only in your state I guess.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, in my state, Democrats literally control every aspect of government
>>>>> from top to bottom, so who else would be responsible for whatever problems
>>>>> there are if not them?
>>>>
>>>> Well, there's Californians...
>>>
>>> Who are also overwhelmingly Democrats, hence the single-party rule.
>>>
>>>>> That's the double-edged sword of single-party rule. You get to do whatever
>>>>> you want without opposition, but when things go wrong, there's no one
>>>>> else to blame.
>>>>
>>>> And, thank God there's someone to blame. That way, we can imagine that
>>>> getting rid of them approximates a solution...
>>>
>>> Maybe I was too clear in what I wrote. I know you're not used to
>>> straightforwardness and clarity, after all. I said there's *not* anyone
>>> else to blame single-party rule when things go wrong.
>>
>> Yes, you were "too clear" that your First Principle is to assign blame
>> to the lowest-hanging fruit, i.e., the Party In Power
>
> So because Democrats are running everything here, that makes them "low-hanging
> fruit" and easy to identify as responsible when things go wrong. And since
> that makes it so easy to blame them, they should not be blamed. Instead, we
> should blame the Republicans who literally have no power-- or even more
> ridiculously, blame Trump-- like Gavin Newsom and all his cronies in the state
> assembly do?

Of course they're to be blamed if their policies differ radically from
what the Republicans would (actually) do, and if those policies are
clearly responsible for the various calamities. But I doubt that any
politician or Internet-pundit has undertaken such clean-slate analysis.

> Again, if Democrats are running everything, why would Trump, a few straggler
> Republicans with no power, or anyone else be to blame for all the mess created
> by the policies and legislation *they* implement?

Take that up with someone who's made a clear assignment of 'blame'...

On 6/11/2022 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2022 at 9:45:43 PM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <VZadnVtN9cYgGz__nZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> > On 6/9/2022 6:54 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> >> Their version of whistling in the graveyard, with everything crumbling
>>> >> around them, they have to show the American people why they blew $300
>>> >> million investigating a riot.
>>
>> "$300 million" my ass, they've spent $2.5 million as of Apr. 1 and are
>> on track to spend $9.3 million by the end of the year.
>>
>> Cost of the Benghazi investigation: $7.8 million
>>
>> Republican Capitol riot costs: $30+ million
>>
>>> > This "circus" has been headed to town for well over a year. So, it's
>>> > hard to think of it as a recently cobbled-together "distraction" --
>>> > unless, of course, one's aim is to distract from it...
>>>
>>> After spending $94 to fill up this morning, I could care less about January
>>> 6th. The Dems' obsession with J6 and Trump are going to cost them 100 seats
>> in the House this November.
>>
>> <worlds smallest violin playing my heart bleeds for you>
>
> Never forget January 6th!
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/gdeehocz5okmz0l/Jan6.png?dl=0

A remarkable equivalence to draw...

On 6/11/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2022 at 3:22:09 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 2022 at 9:45:43 PM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <VZadnVtN9cYgGz__nZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> > On 6/9/2022 6:54 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> >> Their version of whistling in the graveyard, with everything crumbling
>>>>> >> around them, they have to show the American people why they blew $300
>>>>> >> million investigating a riot.
>>>>
>>>> "$300 million" my ass, they've spent $2.5 million as of Apr. 1 and are
>>>> on track to spend $9.3 million by the end of the year.
>>>>
>>>> Cost of the Benghazi investigation: $7.8 million
>>>>
>>>> Republican Capitol riot costs: $30+ million
>>>>
>>>>> > This "circus" has been headed to town for well over a year. So, it's
>>>>> > hard to think of it as a recently cobbled-together "distraction" --
>>>>> > unless, of course, one's aim is to distract from it...
>>>>>
>>>>> After spending $94 to fill up this morning, I could care less about
>>>>> January
>>>>> 6th. The Dems' obsession with J6 and Trump are going to cost them 100
>>>>> seats
>>>> in the House this November.
>>>>
>>>> <worlds smallest violin playing my heart bleeds for you>
>>>
>>> Never forget January 6th!
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/gdeehocz5okmz0l/Jan6.png?dl=0
>>
>> A remarkable equivalence to draw...
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/j1luwmx1z26svvs/YourPresident.png?dl=0

Too many words. You'll overwhelm those you mean to convince...

On 6/12/2022 12:19 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 9:35 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 2:57 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2022 9:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2022 7:24 PM, super70s wrote:
>>>>> In article <a%1pK.8073$sW.1773@fx37.iad>,
>>>>>   moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/11/2022 3:06 AM, super70s wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <9ou6ahtt4assn8641kri9a3qgkss9d0r0f@4ax.com>, The Horny
>>>>>>> Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 22:05:17 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's also fascinating to see Democrats pack into a full
>>>>>>>>>>> committee room even though many of them used fear of disease
>>>>>>>>>>> and proxy voting as an excuse not to show up to work for the
>>>>>>>>>>> past two years.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see you've drunk the kool-aid too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which Kool-Aid is that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Presumably meaning a reference to Jonestown in 1978 where many
>>>>>>>> cultists suicided by drinking poisoned "Kool-aid" (it wasn't
>>>>>>>> actually the Kool-aid brand crystals you mixed with water but
>>>>>>>> another brand but that's what it was called)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In general use "drinking the kool-aid" means blindly following a
>>>>>>>> leader when nearly everybody not one of the leader's followers
>>>>>>>> knows it's a really bad idea to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow - 44 years - who woulda thunk it....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny this was brought up, I watched a low budget film called "The
>>>>>>> Sacrament" last night, starring nobody you've ever heard of even
>>>>>>> though "Splat Pack" director Eli Roth (Hostel) wasn't too
>>>>>>> embarrassed
>>>>>>> to produce it. It's like they took the Jonestown story and just
>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>> a script about everything that happened, using the "found footage"
>>>>>>> cliche. I thought the old Powers Booth TV movie was much better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   From 2014:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No things that go bump in the night nor jump-scares (nor even
>>>>>> buckets
>>>>>> of gore) in Ti West's THE SACRAMENT, but it's unequivocally a horror
>>>>>> movie. Its found-footage news story lags a bit on credibility, but
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> message is unpleasantly effective. Because your date won't
>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>> thank you for this one, I'd (actually!) suggest you consider checking
>>>>>> out its subject before committing. I'm not sure how much I enjoyed
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> 95 minutes, but, for its respectable horror-quotient, it's
>>>>>> recommended."
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought about the goriest thing was when the guy gets his throat cut
>>>>> with a machete but they cut away just before it happens.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you're watching it for the first time and have no idea it follows
>>>>> the Jonestown tragedy so closely it's almost humorous, like a kid who
>>>>> ripped off somebody else's book report but reads the stolen report to
>>>>> the class later.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was one of my $1.95 DVD buys from HamiltonBook.com, I bought 13 at
>>>>> once a few weeks ago (including that great 195 min. Woody Allen
>>>>> documentary that aired on the PBS "American Masters" series back in
>>>>> 2011).
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, West might've wanted to make a horror-movie about Jonestown
>>>> without the audience feeling safe in the constraints of actual history.
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought you liked Ti West?  And yet you're agreeing with a guy that
>>> thinks one of his multiple excellent films is a fucking joke
>>> deserving to be found in a budget bin.  You're weird--you're not
>>> stupid, and yet sometimes just come off as utterly clueless like
>>> this.  I'm mystified.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you think I don't like West.  Quite a bit, in fact.
>
> I just gave you the reason.  I would have thought you'd put in a good
> word for West as a filmmaker to Friend.  So I'm still mystified,
> possibly even flabbergasted, but not quite discombobulated.

I understand the reaction of someone who approached the movie with no
inkling that it was a deliberate roman à clef rather than a ripoff.