In article <_x9zN.224966$yEgf.53390@fx09.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2024 2:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <Yh8zN.73292$zqTf.50619@fx35.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S. adversary?
> >>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
> >>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries
> >>>>> and by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, wait...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
> >>>>
> >>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
> >>>
> >>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
> >>
> >> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
> >
> > But we're not lobbing missiles at Russia ourselves, are we?
>
> No we're not. And that's how Tucker might be only *quasi*-treasonous.

*That's* the semantic difference on which you're hinging a charge of
treason?

Sheesh.

In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S. adversary?
> >>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
> >>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries and
> >>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, wait...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
> >>>>
> >>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
> >>>
> >>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
> >>
> >> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
> >
> > Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>
> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.

I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
nowhere other than your own opinion.

In article <jv9zN.224965$yEgf.124439@fx09.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2024 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <qg8zN.73291$zqTf.49143@fx35.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/14/2024 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <C_5zN.329278$PuZ9.33522@fx11.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/13/2024 11:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 8:43:09 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2/13/2024 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 4:00:03 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 5:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot
> >>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
> >>>>>>>>>> adversary? Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Russia has *always* been a U.S. adversary. And it's worth noting
> >>>>>>>>> that at least one of the non-traitorous "journalist" interviews
> >>>>>>>>> took place after Putin had invaded and annexed Crimea. But again,
> >>>>>>>>> not treasonous because reasons.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Were we actively, publicly supporting Crimea?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Kind of, in the Obama wishy-washy rhetoric-only kind of way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rather than in the Biden $60bn weaponry kind of way?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ($94 billion to secure the borders of Ukraine and Israel; only $20
> >>>>> billion for our own borders and even then not to secure them but
> >>>>> rather to hire more people to more efficiently facilitate the
> >>>>> invasion.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, less spent when the "invaders" are actually seeking membership...
> >>>
> >>> For all definitions of membership equal to receiving social benefits,
> >>> sure. Otherwise, not so much.
> >>
> >> What membership aspects do they reject?
> >
> > Well, when I drive through East L.A. all I see are Mexican and
> > Venezuelan and Honduran flags flying from homes and businesses. Not an
> > American flag to be seen.
> >
> > They don't want to join the club. They want to milk the club.
>
> You mean flags like "Aquí se habla español", analogous to Chinatown?

No, there are no flags that say "We speak Spanish here"-- that's
understood. I'm talking actual Mexican (et al) flags. When they have
marches and demonstrations to demand more freebies and concessions from
Americans, those are the flags they're holding as well.

> Also, are those East L.A. neighborhoods perhaps a domain of ethnic
> gangs?

No! We're not allowed to say that otherwise someone might think we're
claiming they're not sending their best, which, as we all know, is
raaaaciiiist to say.

> Meanwhile, since when is "receiving social benefits" -- a.k.a.
> "milking the club" -- not a thoroughly American activity?

The club can barely afford the Americans who are milking it. It will
collapse if the entire Southern Hemisphere pushes up to the teat. (And
if you don't think collapse is part of the overall goal, I have some NY
bridges to sell you.)

On 2/14/2024 4:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <jv9zN.224965$yEgf.124439@fx09.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <qg8zN.73291$zqTf.49143@fx35.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <C_5zN.329278$PuZ9.33522@fx11.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 11:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 8:43:09 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 4:00:03 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 5:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> adversary? Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Russia has *always* been a U.S. adversary. And it's worth noting
>>>>>>>>>>> that at least one of the non-traitorous "journalist" interviews
>>>>>>>>>>> took place after Putin had invaded and annexed Crimea. But again,
>>>>>>>>>>> not treasonous because reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Were we actively, publicly supporting Crimea?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind of, in the Obama wishy-washy rhetoric-only kind of way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rather than in the Biden $60bn weaponry kind of way?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ($94 billion to secure the borders of Ukraine and Israel; only $20
>>>>>>> billion for our own borders and even then not to secure them but
>>>>>>> rather to hire more people to more efficiently facilitate the
>>>>>>> invasion.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, less spent when the "invaders" are actually seeking membership...
>>>>>
>>>>> For all definitions of membership equal to receiving social benefits,
>>>>> sure. Otherwise, not so much.
>>>>
>>>> What membership aspects do they reject?
>>>
>>> Well, when I drive through East L.A. all I see are Mexican and
>>> Venezuelan and Honduran flags flying from homes and businesses. Not an
>>> American flag to be seen.
>>>
>>> They don't want to join the club. They want to milk the club.
>>
>> You mean flags like "Aquí se habla español", analogous to Chinatown?
>
> No, there are no flags that say "We speak Spanish here"-- that's
> understood. I'm talking actual Mexican (et al) flags. When they have
> marches and demonstrations to demand more freebies and concessions from
> Americans, those are the flags they're holding as well.
>
>> Also, are those East L.A. neighborhoods perhaps a domain of ethnic
>> gangs?
>
> No! We're not allowed to say that otherwise someone might think we're
> claiming they're not sending their best, which, as we all know, is
> raaaaciiiist to say.
>
>> Meanwhile, since when is "receiving social benefits" -- a.k.a.
>> "milking the club" -- not a thoroughly American activity?
>
> The club can barely afford the Americans who are milking it. It will
> collapse if the entire Southern Hemisphere pushes up to the teat. (And
> if you don't think collapse is part of the overall goal, I have some NY
> bridges to sell you.)

A collapse is *whose* goal? Certainly not an ethnic milker's...

On 2/14/2024 3:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <_x9zN.224966$yEgf.53390@fx09.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 2:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <Yh8zN.73292$zqTf.50619@fx35.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S. adversary?
>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries
>>>>>>> and by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>
>>> But we're not lobbing missiles at Russia ourselves, are we?
>>
>> No we're not. And that's how Tucker might be only *quasi*-treasonous.
>
> *That's* the semantic difference on which you're hinging a charge of
> treason?
>
> Sheesh.

Firstly, we're speaking of, as you would put it, treason-*adjacent*.
Secondly, yes, an open declaration carries weight. Or used to.

On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S. adversary?
>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries and
>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>
>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>
>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>
> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
> nowhere other than your own opinion.

I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
official U.S. policy than the others. You still want to consider Tucker
a champion of free speech rather than an example of it more worthy of
Skokie, knock yourself up.

On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S. adversary?
>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries and
>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>>
>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>>
>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>>
>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
>
> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
> official U.S. policy than the others.

I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
thingy, inconvenient as it is.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
>adversary?
>>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries and
>>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>>>
>>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>>>
>>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
>>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
>>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
>>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
>>
>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>
>I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
>interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
>thingy, inconvenient as it is.

moviePig doesn't believe in civil rights.

On Feb 14, 2024 at 7:09:23 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
>> adversary?
>>>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries and
>>>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>>>>
>>>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>>>>
>>>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
>>>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
>>>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
>>>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
>>>
>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>>
>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
>> interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
>> thingy, inconvenient as it is.
>
> moviePig doesn't believe in civil rights.

Apparently.

On 2/14/2024 9:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S. adversary?
>>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries and
>>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>>>
>>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>>>
>>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
>>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
>>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
>>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
>>
>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>
> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
> interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
> thingy, inconvenient as it is.

Stop channel-surfing past the news.

On 2/14/2024 10:09 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
>> adversary?
>>>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries and
>>>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>>>>
>>>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>>>>
>>>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
>>>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
>>>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
>>>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
>>>
>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>>
>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
>> interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
>> thingy, inconvenient as it is.
>
> moviePig doesn't believe in civil rights.

moviePig believes in responding to posts without first censoring them.

In article <vBfzN.52075$9cLc.6444@fx02.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2024 9:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
> >>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig"
> >>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot
> >>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
> >>>>>>>>>> adversary?
> >>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
> >>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
> >>>>
> >>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
> >>>
> >>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
> >>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
> >>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
> >>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
> >>
> >> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
> >> official U.S. policy than the others.
> >
> > I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
> > interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
> > thingy, inconvenient as it is.
>
> Stop channel-surfing past the news.

Is that some moviePig-vague way of you claiming there actually *is* an
official U.S. policy on who journalists can interview and who they can't?

In article <wmczN.224969$yEgf.163051@fx09.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2024 4:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <jv9zN.224965$yEgf.124439@fx09.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/14/2024 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <qg8zN.73291$zqTf.49143@fx35.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/14/2024 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <C_5zN.329278$PuZ9.33522@fx11.iad>,
> >>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2/13/2024 11:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 8:43:09 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 4:00:03 PM PST, "moviePig"
> >>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 5:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> adversary? Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Russia has *always* been a U.S. adversary. And it's worth noting
> >>>>>>>>>>> that at least one of the non-traitorous "journalist" interviews
> >>>>>>>>>>> took place after Putin had invaded and annexed Crimea. But again,
> >>>>>>>>>>> not treasonous because reasons.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Were we actively, publicly supporting Crimea?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Kind of, in the Obama wishy-washy rhetoric-only kind of way.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rather than in the Biden $60bn weaponry kind of way?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ($94 billion to secure the borders of Ukraine and Israel; only $20
> >>>>>>> billion for our own borders and even then not to secure them but
> >>>>>>> rather to hire more people to more efficiently facilitate the
> >>>>>>> invasion.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, less spent when the "invaders" are actually seeking membership...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For all definitions of membership equal to receiving social benefits,
> >>>>> sure. Otherwise, not so much.
> >>>>
> >>>> What membership aspects do they reject?
> >>>
> >>> Well, when I drive through East L.A. all I see are Mexican and
> >>> Venezuelan and Honduran flags flying from homes and businesses. Not an
> >>> American flag to be seen.
> >>>
> >>> They don't want to join the club. They want to milk the club.
> >>
> >> You mean flags like "Aquí se habla español", analogous to Chinatown?
> >
> > No, there are no flags that say "We speak Spanish here"-- that's
> > understood. I'm talking actual Mexican (et al) flags. When they have
> > marches and demonstrations to demand more freebies and concessions from
> > Americans, those are the flags they're holding as well.
> >
> >> Also, are those East L.A. neighborhoods perhaps a domain of ethnic
> >> gangs?
> >
> > No! We're not allowed to say that otherwise someone might think we're
> > claiming they're not sending their best, which, as we all know, is
> > raaaaciiiist to say.
> >
> >> Meanwhile, since when is "receiving social benefits" -- a.k.a.
> >> "milking the club" -- not a thoroughly American activity?
> >
> > The club can barely afford the Americans who are milking it. It will
> > collapse if the entire Southern Hemisphere pushes up to the teat. (And
> > if you don't think collapse is part of the overall goal, I have some NY
> > bridges to sell you.)
>
> A collapse is *whose* goal?

Who's running U.S. immigration policy right now?

On 2/14/24 8:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S. adversary?
>>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries and
>>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>>>
>>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>>>
>>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
>>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
>>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
>>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
>>
>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>
> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
> interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
> thingy, inconvenient as it is.

I think it would take a Constitutional scholar to comment on whether or
not the First Amendment trumps national security. I wonder what Reality
Winner would say.

On 2/14/24 9:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2024 at 7:09:23 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
>>> adversary?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries and
>>>>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
>>>>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
>>>>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
>>>>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>>>
>>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
>>> interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
>>> thingy, inconvenient as it is.
>>
>> moviePig doesn't believe in civil rights.
>
> Apparently.

Hey, here's an example. Suppose one of the Mar-a-Lardo guests was
gifted a Classified document from the shitter where they were kept and
posted it on the internet. Free speech? Or a violation of national
security? Hint: it can't be both.

On 2/14/24 10:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <vBfzN.52075$9cLc.6444@fx02.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 9:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> adversary?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
>>>>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
>>>>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
>>>>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>>>
>>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
>>> interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
>>> thingy, inconvenient as it is.
>>
>> Stop channel-surfing past the news.
>
> Is that some moviePig-vague way of you claiming there actually *is* an
> official U.S. policy on who journalists can interview and who they can't?

There's no way you're a lawyer. The Constitution is open to infinite
amounts of interpretation. That's what the Supreme Court does. Because
they fucked the country in the ass on the Second Amendment, for example,
citizens are being shot and killed every day of every year.

On 2/14/24 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <qg8zN.73291$zqTf.49143@fx35.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <C_5zN.329278$PuZ9.33522@fx11.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/13/2024 11:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 8:43:09 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 4:00:03 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 5:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> adversary? Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Russia has *always* been a U.S. adversary. And it's worth noting that
>>>>>>>>> at least one of the non-traitorous "journalist" interviews took place
>>>>>>>>> after Putin had invaded and annexed Crimea. But again, not treasonous
>>>>>>>>> because reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Were we actively, publicly supporting Crimea?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind of, in the Obama wishy-washy rhetoric-only kind of way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather than in the Biden $60bn weaponry kind of way?
>>>>>
>>>>> ($94 billion to secure the borders of Ukraine and Israel; only $20 billion
>>>>> for our own borders and even then not to secure them but rather to hire
>>>>> more people to more efficiently facilitate the invasion.)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, less spent when the "invaders" are actually seeking membership...
>>>
>>> For all definitions of membership equal to receiving social benefits,
>>> sure. Otherwise, not so much.
>>
>> What membership aspects do they reject?
>
> Well, when I drive through East L.A. all I see are Mexican and
> Venezuelan and Honduran flags flying from homes and businesses. Not an
> American flag to be seen.
>
> They don't want to join the club. They want to milk the club.
>

He sees what he wants to see pig.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 2/14/24 11:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <wmczN.224969$yEgf.163051@fx09.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 4:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <jv9zN.224965$yEgf.124439@fx09.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 2:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <qg8zN.73291$zqTf.49143@fx35.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <C_5zN.329278$PuZ9.33522@fx11.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 11:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 8:43:09 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 4:00:03 PM PST, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 5:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adversary? Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russia has *always* been a U.S. adversary. And it's worth noting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that at least one of the non-traitorous "journalist" interviews
>>>>>>>>>>>>> took place after Putin had invaded and annexed Crimea. But again,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not treasonous because reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Were we actively, publicly supporting Crimea?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind of, in the Obama wishy-washy rhetoric-only kind of way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rather than in the Biden $60bn weaponry kind of way?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ($94 billion to secure the borders of Ukraine and Israel; only $20
>>>>>>>>> billion for our own borders and even then not to secure them but
>>>>>>>>> rather to hire more people to more efficiently facilitate the
>>>>>>>>> invasion.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, less spent when the "invaders" are actually seeking membership...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all definitions of membership equal to receiving social benefits,
>>>>>>> sure. Otherwise, not so much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What membership aspects do they reject?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, when I drive through East L.A. all I see are Mexican and
>>>>> Venezuelan and Honduran flags flying from homes and businesses. Not an
>>>>> American flag to be seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> They don't want to join the club. They want to milk the club.
>>>>
>>>> You mean flags like "Aquí se habla español", analogous to Chinatown?
>>>
>>> No, there are no flags that say "We speak Spanish here"-- that's
>>> understood. I'm talking actual Mexican (et al) flags. When they have
>>> marches and demonstrations to demand more freebies and concessions from
>>> Americans, those are the flags they're holding as well.
>>>
>>>> Also, are those East L.A. neighborhoods perhaps a domain of ethnic
>>>> gangs?
>>>
>>> No! We're not allowed to say that otherwise someone might think we're
>>> claiming they're not sending their best, which, as we all know, is
>>> raaaaciiiist to say.
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, since when is "receiving social benefits" -- a.k.a.
>>>> "milking the club" -- not a thoroughly American activity?
>>>
>>> The club can barely afford the Americans who are milking it. It will
>>> collapse if the entire Southern Hemisphere pushes up to the teat. (And
>>> if you don't think collapse is part of the overall goal, I have some NY
>>> bridges to sell you.)
>>
>> A collapse is *whose* goal?
>
> Who's running U.S. immigration policy right now?
>

As always, Donald Trump makes the decisions.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 2/14/2024 11:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <vBfzN.52075$9cLc.6444@fx02.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 9:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2024 3:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <HC9zN.358891$xHn7.10343@fx14.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 2:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ri8zN.73293$zqTf.847@fx35.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <D76zN.309658$q3F7.171268@fx45.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2024 12:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2024 at 1:58:55 PM PST, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2024 2:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of these things is not like the other. See if you can spot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/ZmY3R2h
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it the interview that's taking place with a current U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> adversary?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Has Tucker RSVP'ed yet to Kim Jong Un?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Upon further reflection, you're right. There needs to be harsh
>>>>>>>>>>> consequences for prominent people who meet with U.S adversaries
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> by doing so give them legitimacy and propaganda victories.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/jzcr0BB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with China? Is Newsom one of them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are we exchanging hostilities with Russia?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we're openly supporting an armed conflict against Russia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just as we would with Taiwan if China got frisky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And *then* a U.S. interview with Xi Jinping might be inappropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm struggling to know where you're finding these distinctions other
>>>>> than your own butthole. In other words, these lines you're drawing
>>>>> between appropriate/inappropriate and journalism/treason are found
>>>>> nowhere other than your own opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>>>
>>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
>>> interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
>>> thingy, inconvenient as it is.
>>
>> Stop channel-surfing past the news.
>
> Is that some moviePig-vague way of you claiming there actually *is* an
> official U.S. policy on who journalists can interview and who they can't?

Sure. Go with that.

In article <H9lzN.332470$7sbb.14475@fx16.iad>,
trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/24 8:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:

> >> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
> >> official U.S. policy than the others.
> >
> > I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
> > interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
> > thingy, inconvenient as it is.

> I think it would take a Constitutional scholar to comment on whether or
> not the First Amendment trumps national security.

No, it doesn't, Hutt. One only need to read the Supreme Court's opinion
in the Pentagon Papers case to find out the answer to that.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)-- the Supreme
Court ruled that the New York Times and the Washington Post were free to
publish the contents of the then-highly classified Pentagon Papers
without risk of government censorship or reprisal.

Crack a book every now and then, Hutt, you screeching gibbon, and you
won't look like such an idiot.

In article <ElrzN.357625$c3Ea.220219@fx10.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2024 11:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <vBfzN.52075$9cLc.6444@fx02.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> >>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
> >>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
> >>>
> >>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist
> >>> may interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st
> >>> Amendment thingy, inconvenient as it is.
> >>
> >> Stop channel-surfing past the news.
> >
> > Is that some moviePig-vague way of you claiming there actually *is* an
> > official U.S. policy on who journalists can interview and who they can't?
>
> Sure. Go with that.

Rather than answer the question clearly and directly, this is what you
get from moviePig.

In article <7clzN.332471$7sbb.145610@fx16.iad>,
trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/24 9:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 2024 at 7:09:23 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>> wrote:

> >>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
> >>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
> >>>
> >>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist
> >>> may interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st
> >>> Amendment thingy, inconvenient as it is.
> >>
> >> moviePig doesn't believe in civil rights.
> >
> > Apparently.
>
> Hey, here's an example. Suppose one of the Mar-a-Lardo guests was
> gifted a Classified document from the shitter where they were kept and
> posted it on the internet. Free speech? Or a violation of national
> security? Hint: it can't be both.

Free speech.

So long as you come into possession of the information legally-- i.e.,
you didn't break into a secure facility or hack into a computer to
obtain it-- then you're under no restrictions on disseminating the
information.

That was the heart of the ruling in the Pentagon Papers case. The
newspaper was given the classified documents by an informant. It did not
seek them out. It did not pay an employee to steal them. It did not
break into a building and take them. It did not hack into a computer and
download them. As such, it was not bound by the classified restrictions
on the documents and was free to publish them.

That's the difference between Reality Winner and the NY Times. Reality
Winner stole the information from her employer contrary to law. The
Times did not.

Here endeth the lesson, Hutt, you psychotic coprophage.

On 2/15/2024 2:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ElrzN.357625$c3Ea.220219@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 11:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <vBfzN.52075$9cLc.6444@fx02.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>>>>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist
>>>>> may interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st
>>>>> Amendment thingy, inconvenient as it is.
>>>>
>>>> Stop channel-surfing past the news.
>>>
>>> Is that some moviePig-vague way of you claiming there actually *is* an
>>> official U.S. policy on who journalists can interview and who they can't?
>>
>> Sure. Go with that.
>
> Rather than answer the question clearly and directly, this is what you
> get from moviePig.

Clearly and directly (and repetitively): Current U.S. policy towards
Russia is openly actively hostile, making Tucker's interview with that
quasi-enemy a more dubious one than the other three you cited.

On 2/15/2024 2:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <H9lzN.332470$7sbb.14475@fx16.iad>,
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/24 8:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 2024 at 4:05:41 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
>>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
>>>
>>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist may
>>> interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st Amendment
>>> thingy, inconvenient as it is.
>
>> I think it would take a Constitutional scholar to comment on whether or
>> not the First Amendment trumps national security.
>
> No, it doesn't, Hutt. One only need to read the Supreme Court's opinion
> in the Pentagon Papers case to find out the answer to that.
>
> New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)-- the Supreme
> Court ruled that the New York Times and the Washington Post were free to
> publish the contents of the then-highly classified Pentagon Papers
> without risk of government censorship or reprisal.
>
> Crack a book every now and then, Hutt, you screeching gibbon, and you
> won't look like such an idiot.

And that judicial opinion was/is controversial, since the Times/Post
knew the information had been originally stolen. A sharply divided
SCOTUS was guided by the nature of the information, whose revelation was
deemed ultimately to be strongly in the public's interest. Try posting
stolen images from an upcoming Disney movie.

In article <OcvzN.44634$Wbff.26097@fx37.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/15/2024 2:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <ElrzN.357625$c3Ea.220219@fx10.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/14/2024 11:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <vBfzN.52075$9cLc.6444@fx02.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> I've explained how one of your four interviews is more contrary to
> >>>>>> official U.S. policy than the others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I had no idea that there was official U.S. policy on whom a journalist
> >>>>> may interview. That sounds suspiciously contrary to that whole 1st
> >>>>> Amendment thingy, inconvenient as it is.
> >>>>
> >>>> Stop channel-surfing past the news.
> >>>
> >>> Is that some moviePig-vague way of you claiming there actually *is* an
> >>> official U.S. policy on who journalists can interview and who they can't?
> >>
> >> Sure. Go with that.
> >
> > Rather than answer the question clearly and directly, this is what you
> > get from moviePig.
>
> Clearly and directly (and repetitively): Current U.S. policy towards
> Russia is openly actively hostile, making Tucker's interview with that
> quasi-enemy a more dubious one than the other three you cited.

You said his interview was contrary to U.S. policy, which means there's
a U.S. policy on who journalists are allowed to interview-- or at least
you think there is.