fact



                

                

                

            

        
    







            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    

                        


	

	
    
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Népotisme
        

            
            Népotisme
        

    

    

         
Népotisme

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        You Go
        

            
            You Go
        

    

    

         
You Go

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        The Fact That
        

            
            The Fact That
        

    

    

         
The Fact That

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Averagers
        

            
            Averagers
        

    

    

         
Averagers

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Crapping
        

            
            Crapping
        

    

    

         
Crapping

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        What To Do
        

            
            What To Do
        

    

    

         
What To Do

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Trump Words
        

            
            Trump Words
        

    

    

         
Trump Words

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Cries In
        

            
            Cries In
        

    

    

         
Cries In

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Because Im
        

            
            Because Im
        

    

    

         
Because Im

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        point
        

            
            point
        

    

    

         
point

    



                
            

        

    
    

        🔥 | Latest
    

    
    

        

        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                




    Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
urben911:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations.

You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.

I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution.

THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                
                    Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
urben911:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations.

You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.

I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution.

THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.
                    
                
            

            
            
urben911:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of ...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                




    Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
hst3000:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:


libertarirynn:

coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations.


You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.

Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. 

“Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                
                    Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
hst3000:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:


libertarirynn:

coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations.


You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.

Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. 

“Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.
                    
                
            

            
            
hst3000:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:


libertarirynn:

coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                




    Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
hst3000:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations.

You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                
                    Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama
 2020
 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase
 The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden
 to run as President and Barrack Obama as
 his VP.
 Just saying.
 Show this thread
 600
hst3000:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice).

All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining.

12th amendment, guys:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall 
be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. 
Obama is an unconstitutional selection. 

Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57

All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!”

It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it.

I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations.

You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.
                    
                
            

            
            
hst3000:

libertarirynn:
coolmanfromthepast:

libertarirynn:

hst3000:

libertarirynn:

The constitutionality of this would likely be questi...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                




    Abc, cnn.com, and Detroit: 548
 FOX 29
 News at Nine
 FOX 29
 CURRENTS
 SAN ANTONIO
 71°
 JESSICA HEAD
 LEY
 71°
 KERRVILLE
 69°
 TEXASAL CASE ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF A 10-YEAR-OLD BOY ON A WATE
 SPORTS NHL DETROIT
 2
 MONTREAL
 CARARIN SI
gangster-computer-kebab:

libertarirynn:
fernandothefox:


slatmes:

skywalkingintheair:

hello-kitty-senpai:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

pennamites:

castle-engineer:

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:



This is one of those things that I already knew was true, but seeing it so blatantly displayed makes me feel like like I am finding out about it for the first time.

CIA is getting lazy

O.o

“It’s just a script whats the problem lol” the problem is that Fox, CNN, CBS, and all the other channels repped here, despite claiming to be different companies with different viewpoints, all had the exact same script, word for word, to push the exact same viewpoint that smaller, independent news outlets are Fake News and “A Threat To Our Democracy.” The fact that they have scripts isn’t the problem. The problem is they all, each and every one, have the exact same script down to the letter and in some cases the fucking inflection, which basically reads “small news stations are untrustworthy and a Threat to your Way Of Life, only trust Us, We Are Verified.”

Uh, that’s sort of the opposite of what’s going on here. All of the stations here are local stations which have been bought by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative group which has come under fire in the past for forcing news anchors on its stations to recite right-wing propaganda. So, yes, small news stations are under attack - but not from CNN and CBS (the stations in the video are local affiliates, not the national networks), from being taken over by Sinclair.

Until recently the FCC wouldn’t allow this kind of broad ownership of the airwaves. There’s actually an active investigation into whether Ajit Pai changed rules to benefit Sinclair’s recent expansions (source: CNN, NYTimes). 


Is no one going to point out how a lot of them where Fox News??…


Are you dense? These are local media stations owned by the same parent company, not the same as the Fox News network. And several of them were CBS and ABC. This has literally nothing to do with Fox News.

When you follow the money trail, you realize there is literally no difference between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” media.  

Of course there isn’t. They’re just there to sate the masses and keep them divided. Anybody who doesn’t know this by now is kidding themselves
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                
                    Abc, cnn.com, and Detroit: 548
 FOX 29
 News at Nine
 FOX 29
 CURRENTS
 SAN ANTONIO
 71°
 JESSICA HEAD
 LEY
 71°
 KERRVILLE
 69°
 TEXASAL CASE ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF A 10-YEAR-OLD BOY ON A WATE
 SPORTS NHL DETROIT
 2
 MONTREAL
 CARARIN SI
gangster-computer-kebab:

libertarirynn:
fernandothefox:


slatmes:

skywalkingintheair:

hello-kitty-senpai:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

pennamites:

castle-engineer:

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:



This is one of those things that I already knew was true, but seeing it so blatantly displayed makes me feel like like I am finding out about it for the first time.

CIA is getting lazy

O.o

“It’s just a script whats the problem lol” the problem is that Fox, CNN, CBS, and all the other channels repped here, despite claiming to be different companies with different viewpoints, all had the exact same script, word for word, to push the exact same viewpoint that smaller, independent news outlets are Fake News and “A Threat To Our Democracy.” The fact that they have scripts isn’t the problem. The problem is they all, each and every one, have the exact same script down to the letter and in some cases the fucking inflection, which basically reads “small news stations are untrustworthy and a Threat to your Way Of Life, only trust Us, We Are Verified.”

Uh, that’s sort of the opposite of what’s going on here. All of the stations here are local stations which have been bought by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative group which has come under fire in the past for forcing news anchors on its stations to recite right-wing propaganda. So, yes, small news stations are under attack - but not from CNN and CBS (the stations in the video are local affiliates, not the national networks), from being taken over by Sinclair.

Until recently the FCC wouldn’t allow this kind of broad ownership of the airwaves. There’s actually an active investigation into whether Ajit Pai changed rules to benefit Sinclair’s recent expansions (source: CNN, NYTimes). 


Is no one going to point out how a lot of them where Fox News??…


Are you dense? These are local media stations owned by the same parent company, not the same as the Fox News network. And several of them were CBS and ABC. This has literally nothing to do with Fox News.

When you follow the money trail, you realize there is literally no difference between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” media.  

Of course there isn’t. They’re just there to sate the masses and keep them divided. Anybody who doesn’t know this by now is kidding themselves
                    
                    

                    
                
            

            
            
gangster-computer-kebab:

libertarirynn:
fernandothefox:


slatmes:

skywalkingintheair:

hello-kitty-senpai:

friendly-neighborhood-patriar...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                




    Abc, cnn.com, and Detroit: 548
 FOX 29
 News at Nine
 FOX 29
 CURRENTS
 SAN ANTONIO
 71°
 JESSICA HEAD
 LEY
 71°
 KERRVILLE
 69°
 TEXASAL CASE ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF A 10-YEAR-OLD BOY ON A WATE
 SPORTS NHL DETROIT
 2
 MONTREAL
 CARARIN SI
fernandothefox:

slatmes:
skywalkingintheair:

hello-kitty-senpai:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

pennamites:

castle-engineer:

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:



This is one of those things that I already knew was true, but seeing it so blatantly displayed makes me feel like like I am finding out about it for the first time.

CIA is getting lazy

O.o

“It’s just a script whats the problem lol” the problem is that Fox, CNN, CBS, and all the other channels repped here, despite claiming to be different companies with different viewpoints, all had the exact same script, word for word, to push the exact same viewpoint that smaller, independent news outlets are Fake News and “A Threat To Our Democracy.” The fact that they have scripts isn’t the problem. The problem is they all, each and every one, have the exact same script down to the letter and in some cases the fucking inflection, which basically reads “small news stations are untrustworthy and a Threat to your Way Of Life, only trust Us, We Are Verified.”

Uh, that’s sort of the opposite of what’s going on here. All of the stations here are local stations which have been bought by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative group which has come under fire in the past for forcing news anchors on its stations to recite right-wing propaganda. So, yes, small news stations are under attack - but not from CNN and CBS (the stations in the video are local affiliates, not the national networks), from being taken over by Sinclair.

Until recently the FCC wouldn’t allow this kind of broad ownership of the airwaves. There’s actually an active investigation into whether Ajit Pai changed rules to benefit Sinclair’s recent expansions (source: CNN, NYTimes). 


Is no one going to point out how a lot of them where Fox News??…

Are you dense? These are local media stations owned by the same parent company, not the same as the Fox News network. And several of them were CBS and ABC. This has literally nothing to do with Fox News.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                
                    Abc, cnn.com, and Detroit: 548
 FOX 29
 News at Nine
 FOX 29
 CURRENTS
 SAN ANTONIO
 71°
 JESSICA HEAD
 LEY
 71°
 KERRVILLE
 69°
 TEXASAL CASE ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF A 10-YEAR-OLD BOY ON A WATE
 SPORTS NHL DETROIT
 2
 MONTREAL
 CARARIN SI
fernandothefox:

slatmes:
skywalkingintheair:

hello-kitty-senpai:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

pennamites:

castle-engineer:

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:



This is one of those things that I already knew was true, but seeing it so blatantly displayed makes me feel like like I am finding out about it for the first time.

CIA is getting lazy

O.o

“It’s just a script whats the problem lol” the problem is that Fox, CNN, CBS, and all the other channels repped here, despite claiming to be different companies with different viewpoints, all had the exact same script, word for word, to push the exact same viewpoint that smaller, independent news outlets are Fake News and “A Threat To Our Democracy.” The fact that they have scripts isn’t the problem. The problem is they all, each and every one, have the exact same script down to the letter and in some cases the fucking inflection, which basically reads “small news stations are untrustworthy and a Threat to your Way Of Life, only trust Us, We Are Verified.”

Uh, that’s sort of the opposite of what’s going on here. All of the stations here are local stations which have been bought by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative group which has come under fire in the past for forcing news anchors on its stations to recite right-wing propaganda. So, yes, small news stations are under attack - but not from CNN and CBS (the stations in the video are local affiliates, not the national networks), from being taken over by Sinclair.

Until recently the FCC wouldn’t allow this kind of broad ownership of the airwaves. There’s actually an active investigation into whether Ajit Pai changed rules to benefit Sinclair’s recent expansions (source: CNN, NYTimes). 


Is no one going to point out how a lot of them where Fox News??…

Are you dense? These are local media stations owned by the same parent company, not the same as the Fox News network. And several of them were CBS and ABC. This has literally nothing to do with Fox News.
                    
                    

                    
                
            

            
            
fernandothefox:

slatmes:
skywalkingintheair:

hello-kitty-senpai:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

pennamites:

castle-engineer:

diarrhe...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                




    Apple, Ass, and Bitch: Apple AirPods cost $159, but they
 can't pay taxes or decent wages
 to their Chinese factory workers!
 you SAID
 ON AN iPHONE.GOTCHA
 HEH
 *POST*
 CARS SHOULD
 HAVE SEAT
 BELTS!
 YET YOU BOUGHT
 ONE. HyPOCRITE
 MUCH? OWNED.
 WE SHOULD
 YET YOu
 SOCIETY . CURIOUS!
 I AM VERY
 IMPROVE SOCIETYPARTICIPATE IN
 SOMEWHAT.
 INTELLIGENT
 BORS
celticpyro:

thespectacularspider-girl:
mattbors:

edgeworth-for-the-truth:

sindri42:

captainkupo:

mattbors:
“Mr. Gotcha” on The Nib

theres literally better alternatives to fucking buying an iphone dipshit your comic sucks dick

There’s this weird disconnect in so many apple users where they hate Apple but they cannot conceive of anybody except Apple producing a viable smartphone or computer. You can get a machine that matches or exceeds every single aspect of any apple product for half the price, easily, but they need to get the one with an apple logo on it and then complain about apple.
It’s like complaining that your car lacks a seatbelt when every other car on the road already has a seatbelt and you specifically paid extra to get your own seatbelt removed because you didn’t like the color.


If you buy from Apple and complain about their business practices, you deserve to be made fun of and especially be called a boot licker.
I am not sorry at all. You could have chosen from anyone else but you deliberately chose the most expensive and bullshit company to buy from, you pompous piece of human garbage. Stop virtue signally and maybe actually consider try helping those factory workers instead of enabling them.
Shit head

People really think this comic was some sort of pro-Apple comic and missed the point entirely. They’re real mad tho.

And yet your stupid ass doesn’t get the underlying statements about Apple still apply to your smug comic.
You don’t get to bitch about, say, capitalism when you engage in the excesses of capitalism.  To mix the two metaphors, if you bitch about capitalism from an iPhone, congrats, you just proved you’re a hypocrite because you COULD have bought a phone made with more ethical means or that didn’t have the associated brand on it, but you did.  
Because you don’t really give a shit about making the changes yourself, you just want to virtue signal and have no actual principles. That’s why people bring up this kind of double-think, yet you felt the need to portray this valid criticism as a strawman so you can look intelligent.

Seriously though! That’s why I hate this comic.The “cars should have seat belts” one is also dumb because guess what? The guy who conceptualized seat belts got them normalized in cars. The serf working under a feudalist system? Has absolutely no power to change it. In fact, they’re the one being exploited here, more comparable to the factory worker who built your iPhone than the upper-middle class person complaining about it. There’s a difference between recognizing a system is messed up while you have no control over the matter (as you’re the one personally being exploited), looking at a problem and deciding to change said problem, and doing absolutely nothing about the problem while participating in someone else being exploited when you can, in fact, choose not to be a partaker. No, not wanting to do something mildly inconvenient isn’t “the illusion of choice”. Fuck you and your shitty comic.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                
                    Apple, Ass, and Bitch: Apple AirPods cost $159, but they
 can't pay taxes or decent wages
 to their Chinese factory workers!
 you SAID
 ON AN iPHONE.GOTCHA
 HEH
 *POST*
 CARS SHOULD
 HAVE SEAT
 BELTS!
 YET YOU BOUGHT
 ONE. HyPOCRITE
 MUCH? OWNED.
 WE SHOULD
 YET YOu
 SOCIETY . CURIOUS!
 I AM VERY
 IMPROVE SOCIETYPARTICIPATE IN
 SOMEWHAT.
 INTELLIGENT
 BORS
celticpyro:

thespectacularspider-girl:
mattbors:

edgeworth-for-the-truth:

sindri42:

captainkupo:

mattbors:
“Mr. Gotcha” on The Nib

theres literally better alternatives to fucking buying an iphone dipshit your comic sucks dick

There’s this weird disconnect in so many apple users where they hate Apple but they cannot conceive of anybody except Apple producing a viable smartphone or computer. You can get a machine that matches or exceeds every single aspect of any apple product for half the price, easily, but they need to get the one with an apple logo on it and then complain about apple.
It’s like complaining that your car lacks a seatbelt when every other car on the road already has a seatbelt and you specifically paid extra to get your own seatbelt removed because you didn’t like the color.


If you buy from Apple and complain about their business practices, you deserve to be made fun of and especially be called a boot licker.
I am not sorry at all. You could have chosen from anyone else but you deliberately chose the most expensive and bullshit company to buy from, you pompous piece of human garbage. Stop virtue signally and maybe actually consider try helping those factory workers instead of enabling them.
Shit head

People really think this comic was some sort of pro-Apple comic and missed the point entirely. They’re real mad tho.

And yet your stupid ass doesn’t get the underlying statements about Apple still apply to your smug comic.
You don’t get to bitch about, say, capitalism when you engage in the excesses of capitalism.  To mix the two metaphors, if you bitch about capitalism from an iPhone, congrats, you just proved you’re a hypocrite because you COULD have bought a phone made with more ethical means or that didn’t have the associated brand on it, but you did.  
Because you don’t really give a shit about making the changes yourself, you just want to virtue signal and have no actual principles. That’s why people bring up this kind of double-think, yet you felt the need to portray this valid criticism as a strawman so you can look intelligent.

Seriously though! That’s why I hate this comic.The “cars should have seat belts” one is also dumb because guess what? The guy who conceptualized seat belts got them normalized in cars. The serf working under a feudalist system? Has absolutely no power to change it. In fact, they’re the one being exploited here, more comparable to the factory worker who built your iPhone than the upper-middle class person complaining about it. There’s a difference between recognizing a system is messed up while you have no control over the matter (as you’re the one personally being exploited), looking at a problem and deciding to change said problem, and doing absolutely nothing about the problem while participating in someone else being exploited when you can, in fact, choose not to be a partaker. No, not wanting to do something mildly inconvenient isn’t “the illusion of choice”. Fuck you and your shitty comic.
                    
                
            

            
            
celticpyro:

thespectacularspider-girl:
mattbors:

edgeworth-for-the-truth:

sindri42:

captainkupo:

mattbors:
“Mr. Gotcha” on The Nib

the...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                



            

        

        
        
        
        

            

                




    Adam Driver, Anaconda, and Apparently: Sean T. Collins
 Follow
 @theseantcollins
 weird that the person they went after
 from Ghostbusters was Leslie Jones.
 weird that the person they went after
 from Star Wars was Kelly Marie Tran.
 what on earth could explain this
 5:29 AM 5 Jun 2018
 7,482 Retweets 31,087 Likes
rockyrz:
libertarirynn:


siryouarebeingmocked:

grumpy-goompa:

siryouarebeingmocked:

skeleton-jack:

cookingwithroxy:

siryouarebeingmocked:

derpomatic:

siryouarebeingmocked:

theunnamedstranger:

siryouarebeingmocked:

theindependentconservative:

siryouarebeingmocked:

friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt:

triggeredmedia:
Bad acting and bad characters?
other actors in those movies/franchises got shit from trolls too.
melissa mccarthy. hayden christiansen. jake lloyd. laura dern.
the difference is that all these media outlets didnt declare it a public crises  keep reporting on it months after it was news.
 in fact, jake lloyd probably got it worse than anyone, being an actual child at the time  being traumatized for years because of bullying, but no one cared at the time  now it only gets brought up as a tacked on example when talking about those awful modern star wars fans.  hes a straight white man. what on earth could explain this?
 in leslie jones case, she turned it into an internet slap fight  drew much more attention to her when before that she was getting no more shit than the other leads.
look, we should always separate the actor from their role  people who attack an actor personally for a role are scumbags, but stop injecting racism  sexism into everything  then using it as a shield against actual valid criticism.

Not to mention Adam Driver. He’s still getting crapped on. People complained that he was playing a Jewish guy infiltrating the Klan in a historical Spike Lee movie, even though he isn’t Jewish, which is apparently Not Allowed.
These are popular franchises. If a fraction of a percent of their fans are knob-ends who harass people, that would seem overwhelming to the person on the receiving end.

Not to mention Rey’s a Mary Sure now and everyone called it.

You do remember that I disagree with the majority opinion, right?
Also, people were calling her a Mary Sue from the first movie. Sometimes based on things that literally didn’t happen, like “being a better pilot than Han”.

On a ship she had literally never seen before in her life until she could pilot it BETTER than someone who’s had it forever.That’s bullshit.



On a ship she had literally never seen before in her life 


You mean the ship that she explicitly called “junk”? The one she says she advised against certain modifications for? The one owned by the Quarter Portion guy, who used to be her guardian, as we see in the flashback?
How does Rey fly the ship better than Han? Please, I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence for this in over two and a half years, but it’s treated as gospel. 
Heck, he didn’t even “have it forever”, he lost it years, maybe decades ago.

Better than Han is less important than outflying two Ties on her first attempt.

Only due to home ground advantage, vs. two fighters designed mainly for space combat with horrible aerodynamics, and even then, she got Finn’s turret shot.
Also, she’s all-but-explicitly shown to be using The Force. The dialogue draws attention to the fact that she’s flying better than she expects.

‘somebody did a thing that is entirely understandable given the context of the prior movies and the actual text of the movie at hand. But for some reason I missed these obvious things so yarrr!’


No I fully accept the explanations for it. I still think it was poorly done and added to Rey’s perception as a Mary Sue who faces no real challenges and succeeds at everything.
That there’s an explanation for what she’s doing and how she’s doing it doesn’t change that I and many people think she shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

So, shedloads of people apparently ignored or missed the clear on-screen evidence to complain about this aspect of the movie, but it’s still the movie’s fault that they’re wrong, even when they’re making claims which they could not have reasonably arrived at (EG Rey’s a better pilot than Han.), and the only possible explanation is “fandom misconceptions”?

just because she succeeded (lived) doesn’t mean Rey herself experienced these things as ‘easy’. how many movies out there does the hero do something unexpectedly and benefit from the results? like maybe all of them? movies would be boring if characters are powerless the entire time until the exact one moment they need to win. they need to succeed and stumble a little bit along the way. little wins and little losses until the end. if she got her arm cut off, would that remove people’s mary sue label?

Thing is, people ignore the actual struggles she went through just because they have a Narrative. She didn’t just beat Kylo, he knocked her out pretty much instantly, and then Fin bought her time, and then she temporarily forced Ben back (IIRC, the book says she tapped into the Dark Side). We don’t even know if he would’ve been able to win if he got up, or even if he could get up. And this was while Kylo was bleeding out from a high-powered weapon, which the movie takes pain to remind us of.
But the fanbase acts like Rey apparently beat Ben with one hand tied behind her back, wearing a blindfold, while suffering from some hideous space-combination of Avian Flu and Ebola Zaire.

I’m so glad I’m not crazy. I thought I was the only one in the more conservative camp that doesn’t agree that Rey is a Mary Sue. There is lots of in-text explanation for why she excels at certain things as well as the time honored “because the Force“ answer which has applied to a lot of characters besides her. And she absolutely does have struggles even if they are primarily in emotional conflict and wrestling with her untapped strength and insecurities about her origins. These are what make the character. Calling the whole character a Mary Sue because “she fight too good“ is kind of asinine. And don’t get me started on how they bitch about her beating Kylo and forget that he was mortally wounded at the time, and bitch about her knowing something about the Millennium Falcon and mechanical engineering despite the fact that she was A PROFESSIONAL JUNKER and the ship had been on her planet probably most of her life giving her plenty of time to explore it.
But yeah pretending that only the minority actors/actresses get harrassed is bullshit.


Rey is 100% a Mary Sue. No training yet managed to beat Kylo Ren, flew a ship across space despite no experience, etc.
@rockyrz did you read literally one word from the post above you or are you just gonna keep shouting “she’s a Mary Sue!“ and ignore all evidence to the contrary?“Managed to beat Kylo Ren”BECAUSE HE WAS FUCKING MORTALLY WOUNDED.“flew a ship across space”BECAUSE SHE HAD JUST STATED SHE WAS A PILOT.Like seriously it’s fine if you don’t like the movie but you seem kind of dumb if you just straight up ignore the evidence even it’s right in front of your face so you can keep saying the same thing over and over.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                
                    Adam Driver, Anaconda, and Apparently: Sean T. Collins
 Follow
 @theseantcollins
 weird that the person they went after
 from Ghostbusters was Leslie Jones.
 weird that the person they went after
 from Star Wars was Kelly Marie Tran.
 what on earth could explain this
 5:29 AM 5 Jun 2018
 7,482 Retweets 31,087 Likes
rockyrz:
libertarirynn:


siryouarebeingmocked:

grumpy-goompa:

siryouarebeingmocked:

skeleton-jack:

cookingwithroxy:

siryouarebeingmocked:

derpomatic:

siryouarebeingmocked:

theunnamedstranger:

siryouarebeingmocked:

theindependentconservative:

siryouarebeingmocked:

friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt:

triggeredmedia:
Bad acting and bad characters?
other actors in those movies/franchises got shit from trolls too.
melissa mccarthy. hayden christiansen. jake lloyd. laura dern.
the difference is that all these media outlets didnt declare it a public crises  keep reporting on it months after it was news.
 in fact, jake lloyd probably got it worse than anyone, being an actual child at the time  being traumatized for years because of bullying, but no one cared at the time  now it only gets brought up as a tacked on example when talking about those awful modern star wars fans.  hes a straight white man. what on earth could explain this?
 in leslie jones case, she turned it into an internet slap fight  drew much more attention to her when before that she was getting no more shit than the other leads.
look, we should always separate the actor from their role  people who attack an actor personally for a role are scumbags, but stop injecting racism  sexism into everything  then using it as a shield against actual valid criticism.

Not to mention Adam Driver. He’s still getting crapped on. People complained that he was playing a Jewish guy infiltrating the Klan in a historical Spike Lee movie, even though he isn’t Jewish, which is apparently Not Allowed.
These are popular franchises. If a fraction of a percent of their fans are knob-ends who harass people, that would seem overwhelming to the person on the receiving end.

Not to mention Rey’s a Mary Sure now and everyone called it.

You do remember that I disagree with the majority opinion, right?
Also, people were calling her a Mary Sue from the first movie. Sometimes based on things that literally didn’t happen, like “being a better pilot than Han”.

On a ship she had literally never seen before in her life until she could pilot it BETTER than someone who’s had it forever.That’s bullshit.



On a ship she had literally never seen before in her life 


You mean the ship that she explicitly called “junk”? The one she says she advised against certain modifications for? The one owned by the Quarter Portion guy, who used to be her guardian, as we see in the flashback?
How does Rey fly the ship better than Han? Please, I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence for this in over two and a half years, but it’s treated as gospel. 
Heck, he didn’t even “have it forever”, he lost it years, maybe decades ago.

Better than Han is less important than outflying two Ties on her first attempt.

Only due to home ground advantage, vs. two fighters designed mainly for space combat with horrible aerodynamics, and even then, she got Finn’s turret shot.
Also, she’s all-but-explicitly shown to be using The Force. The dialogue draws attention to the fact that she’s flying better than she expects.

‘somebody did a thing that is entirely understandable given the context of the prior movies and the actual text of the movie at hand. But for some reason I missed these obvious things so yarrr!’


No I fully accept the explanations for it. I still think it was poorly done and added to Rey’s perception as a Mary Sue who faces no real challenges and succeeds at everything.
That there’s an explanation for what she’s doing and how she’s doing it doesn’t change that I and many people think she shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

So, shedloads of people apparently ignored or missed the clear on-screen evidence to complain about this aspect of the movie, but it’s still the movie’s fault that they’re wrong, even when they’re making claims which they could not have reasonably arrived at (EG Rey’s a better pilot than Han.), and the only possible explanation is “fandom misconceptions”?

just because she succeeded (lived) doesn’t mean Rey herself experienced these things as ‘easy’. how many movies out there does the hero do something unexpectedly and benefit from the results? like maybe all of them? movies would be boring if characters are powerless the entire time until the exact one moment they need to win. they need to succeed and stumble a little bit along the way. little wins and little losses until the end. if she got her arm cut off, would that remove people’s mary sue label?

Thing is, people ignore the actual struggles she went through just because they have a Narrative. She didn’t just beat Kylo, he knocked her out pretty much instantly, and then Fin bought her time, and then she temporarily forced Ben back (IIRC, the book says she tapped into the Dark Side). We don’t even know if he would’ve been able to win if he got up, or even if he could get up. And this was while Kylo was bleeding out from a high-powered weapon, which the movie takes pain to remind us of.
But the fanbase acts like Rey apparently beat Ben with one hand tied behind her back, wearing a blindfold, while suffering from some hideous space-combination of Avian Flu and Ebola Zaire.

I’m so glad I’m not crazy. I thought I was the only one in the more conservative camp that doesn’t agree that Rey is a Mary Sue. There is lots of in-text explanation for why she excels at certain things as well as the time honored “because the Force“ answer which has applied to a lot of characters besides her. And she absolutely does have struggles even if they are primarily in emotional conflict and wrestling with her untapped strength and insecurities about her origins. These are what make the character. Calling the whole character a Mary Sue because “she fight too good“ is kind of asinine. And don’t get me started on how they bitch about her beating Kylo and forget that he was mortally wounded at the time, and bitch about her knowing something about the Millennium Falcon and mechanical engineering despite the fact that she was A PROFESSIONAL JUNKER and the ship had been on her planet probably most of her life giving her plenty of time to explore it.
But yeah pretending that only the minority actors/actresses get harrassed is bullshit.


Rey is 100% a Mary Sue. No training yet managed to beat Kylo Ren, flew a ship across space despite no experience, etc.
@rockyrz did you read literally one word from the post above you or are you just gonna keep shouting “she’s a Mary Sue!“ and ignore all evidence to the contrary?“Managed to beat Kylo Ren”BECAUSE HE WAS FUCKING MORTALLY WOUNDED.“flew a ship across space”BECAUSE SHE HAD JUST STATED SHE WAS A PILOT.Like seriously it’s fine if you don’t like the movie but you seem kind of dumb if you just straight up ignore the evidence even it’s right in front of your face so you can keep saying the same thing over and over.
                    
                
            

            
            
rockyrz:
libertarirynn:


siryouarebeingmocked:

grumpy-goompa:

siryouarebeingmocked:

skeleton-jack:

cookingwithroxy:

siryouarebeingmock...