In article <nnvzN.288899$Ama9.37804@fx12.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> 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.

A Disney movie has nothing to with national security and is irrelevant
in this discussion.

On 2/15/2024 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.

'contrary' - opposite in nature, direction, or meaning

If you think Tucker's interview accords with current U.S. policy, then
like I said, go right ahead and think that.

On 2/15/2024 4:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <nnvzN.288899$Ama9.37804@fx12.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> A Disney movie has nothing to with national security and is irrelevant
> in this discussion.

SCOTUS's decision was purportedly based on 'free speech', but was
actually based on the documents' *contents*. One could argue that if
the contents warranted illegally gained exposure, then the government
was guilty of concealment *before* Ellsberg ever arrived on the scene.

On Feb 15, 2024 at 3:59:14 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/15/2024 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 'contrary' - opposite in nature, direction, or meaning
>
> If you think Tucker's interview accords with current U.S. policy, then
> like I said, go right ahead and think that.

I think U.S. policy is irrelevant to the practice of journalism. No reporter
worth the title should be asking himself, "Before I do this interview, will it
make the government happy or not?"

On 2/14/24 12:11 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?

By proxy in Ukraine we obviously are. As opposed to when your man Trump
was in office when we were swapping spit with Russia. That was sickening.

On 2/14/24 1:33 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.

Am I hearing you correctly? You're whining because America is a melting
pot? We stole the fucking land from indigenous people asshole. And yes,
"we all came from Africa" is still a horseshit argument. Maybe this
will help: if an ethnicity inhabited land more than several hundred
years before the invaders, they are the native people. That's a good
working definition, don't you think?

Sorry, of course you don't think. Ha!

> They don't want to join the club. They want to milk the club.

On 2/14/24 1:34 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.

Yes, I heard if the Taiwanese army was propped up by the U.S. they could
fight like hell against the Chinese. Does Taiwan even have an army?
You've gone full MAGA with your level of stupid and ignorance. It's
like that time when you literally drove off a cliff.

On 2/14/24 1:35 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?

You may not have heard this expression because you're stupid as fuck but
it's the thought that counts. You don't think Putin hears "fuck you"
fron the U.S. every time he sees another pile of dead Russian army guys?

On 2/14/24 2:55 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.

Treason: aiding and abetting the enemy. I claim Russia is an enemy of
the U.S. and Putin was aided by being given a voice in places he
otherwise wouldn't have had on. Stop lying you stupid Twat.

On 2/14/24 2:57 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 totally agree. This is real life, it isn't a MAGA cartoon. Hell, I
wonder how you can even see Russia as an enemy when your own party has a
leader that performs sexual favors on the guy. So yeah it's blurry, but
at least the Dems generally have their heads extricated from their own
asses so the can make the distinctions. Totally not the case with right
wing assholes. Just make gurgling sounds if you agree.

On 2/14/24 3:03 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.

So what, this example of free speech is worse than when the Nazi party
marched in Skokie, IL? You are one dumb fucking son of a bitch if
that's the case. Or even if it isn't.

>> 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 2/15/24 1:30 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.

I'm your huckleberry, fuckface.

On 2/15/24 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <nnvzN.288899$Ama9.37804@fx12.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> A Disney movie has nothing to with national security and is irrelevant
> in this discussion.

Your gal Gina Carano doesn't thinks so. Okay, so I'm speculating about
whether she's capable of human thought or not.

On 2/15/24 7:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2024 at 3:59:14 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> 'contrary' - opposite in nature, direction, or meaning
>>
>> If you think Tucker's interview accords with current U.S. policy, then
>> like I said, go right ahead and think that.
>
> I think U.S. policy is irrelevant to the practice of journalism. No reporter
> worth the title should be asking himself, "Before I do this interview, will it
> make the government happy or not?"

I would suggest you see the movie "All the President's Men."

On 2/15/24 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.
>

This was more of a reach around than an 'interview".

--
"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 2/15/2024 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2024 at 3:59:14 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> 'contrary' - opposite in nature, direction, or meaning
>>
>> If you think Tucker's interview accords with current U.S. policy,
>> then like I said, go right ahead and think that.
>
> I think U.S. policy is irrelevant to the practice of journalism. No
> reporter worth the title should be asking himself, "Before I do this
> interview, will it make the government happy or not?"

I think your question had to do with why Tucker's interview might've
been less well received than others. And I think it's been answered.

In article <G9PzN.81726$Sf59.59205@fx48.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 2/15/2024 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 2024 at 3:59:14 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/15/2024 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> 'contrary' - opposite in nature, direction, or meaning
> >>
> >> If you think Tucker's interview accords with current U.S. policy,
> >> then like I said, go right ahead and think that.
> >
> > I think U.S. policy is irrelevant to the practice of journalism. No
> > reporter worth the title should be asking himself, "Before I do this
> > interview, will it make the government happy or not?"
>
> I think your question had to do with why Tucker's interview might've
> been less well received than others. And I think it's been answered.

No, it had to do with why his is being labeled treasonous and the others
were not.

That's several orders of magnitude beyond "well received".

On 2/16/24 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <G9PzN.81726$Sf59.59205@fx48.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 2024 at 3:59:14 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/15/2024 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <OcvzN.44634$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.
>>>>
>>>> 'contrary' - opposite in nature, direction, or meaning
>>>>
>>>> If you think Tucker's interview accords with current U.S. policy,
>>>> then like I said, go right ahead and think that.
>>>
>>> I think U.S. policy is irrelevant to the practice of journalism. No
>>> reporter worth the title should be asking himself, "Before I do this
>>> interview, will it make the government happy or not?"
>>
>> I think your question had to do with why Tucker's interview might've
>> been less well received than others. And I think it's been answered.
>
> No, it had to do with why his is being labeled treasonous and the others
> were not.
>
> That's several orders of magnitude beyond "well received".
>

He is treasonous. He's not been charged with the crime of treason, but
that doesn't mean you can't be treasonous.

trea·son·ous adjective
involving or guilty of the crime of betraying one's country.
involving or guilty of the betrayal of someone or something.

Tucker is a treasonous prick. He betrays everything his profession and
his heritage stands for.

--
"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 2/15/24 8:56 AM, FPP wrote:
> 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.
>

Yeah, to wit isn't his failure to build the wall what's causing all our
problems? Per the fat fuck's own words?

On 2/14/24 5:11 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2/13/24 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.)
>>
>>
>
> Nope.  The Border Bill was negotiated by Republicans and is the
> conservative wish list wet dream.  Even Border Patrol supported it.
>
> You can't spin this one, Sparky.
>

What if Hunter's laptop has something to do with it?

On 2/16/24 2:00 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 2/15/2024 8:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2024 at 3:59:14 PM PST, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/15/2024 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 'contrary' - opposite in nature, direction, or meaning
>>>
>>> If you think Tucker's interview accords with current U.S. policy,
>>> then like I said, go right ahead and think that.
>>
>> I think U.S. policy is irrelevant to the practice of journalism. No
>> reporter worth the title should be asking himself, "Before I do this
>> interview, will it make the government happy or not?"
>
> I think your question had to do with why Tucker's interview might've
> been less well received than others.  And I think it's been answered.
>

Yeah but you have an advantage because you think.

On 2/15/24 3:29 PM, moviePig wrote:
> 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.

Notice how I shut him down on his bullshit response and he never responded.

On 2/15/24 8:54 AM, FPP wrote:
> 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.

From the Simon and Garfunkel song The Boxer: "Still a man hears what he
wants to hear and disregards the rest."

On 2/15/24 1:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.

Interesting, because in my next response I would have cut your balls off
if you had any. It's tough being right all the time.