I certainly admired Mace's no-nonsense, take-no-prisoners, summary-execution style. It has its merits.
It's also worthwhile comparing Mace's approach to that of Lauren Boebert, another Republican woman on the House Oversight Committee into twitter. Boebert gives the ex-twitter executives more of a chance to account for themselves; but she too has done her homework, so it's 'summary execution' for the ex-twitter execs from her as well. The drawback with Boebert's style is that she's a bit on the excitable side.
There are other you tube videos of the House Oversight Committee available, but if I had to plonk for just one, I'd go for Mace.
One last point of comparison, since the parallels between the Nazi era and the world of today just keep on surfacing: at the end of WW11 at the trial of the appallingly sadistic camp guard Irma Grese, otherwise known as 'The Hyena of Auschwitz' and the 'Beast of Belsen', she confessed to her crimes, saying she did it for the Fuhrer. Looking backwards, I find something amid the moral stain of her life that resembles a touching, residual commitment to honesty, something one would be hard-pressed to find today among the executive class, who all seem to be well-trained in the art of lying and admitting to nothing. Of course, the ex-twitter execs never set killer dogs on anyone or capriciously shot anyone, but I'm pretty sure their ruthless suppression of scientific knowledge would have harmed or killed many. Are they not to be held accountable for this? Why is it so easy today, in this moment, to hide, overlook or excuse the orchestration of death from a safe distance?
In the end, not even honesty could save Grese; her crimes were too great. As she stood on the trapdoor, she called out "Schnell" to Albert Pierrepoint, Britain's hangman, who then sent her quickly and cleanly to her death with his customary professionalism. She was only 22.
If there was no mitigation for her honesty back then, how should we deal with present-day, professional liars, who are well-schooled in the art of corporate fibbery? Appearing before a House Committee is not a criminal trial, but it was utterly transparent to anyone watching that only lies and memory lapses were going to be offered up. We've all observed this too-clever-by-half, phoney kind of testimony too often; its easy recognisability should make it difficult for anyone, especially someone on a prosecutorial mission, to indulge it, collude with it or accommodate it. And Mace, to her credit, seemed determined to tolerate none of it.
Just love it. That is what I call putting a 'baboon' in their place! Great to see in the public domain. The change will be slow but it will come as we see more and more health injuries from these genetic injections across the world.
I don't have those skills. Whenever I debated people online and offline re c19-related I uncontrollably went feral mode. Those offline people were surprised at my "passions". They definitely did not expect to be brow-beaten, with waves of angst washing over them. However, they realised I did not direct my ire at them personally.
The two principles I am implacably opposed to are freedom-restrictions and deceits. They deployed both. Shish kebab!
I don't think you're Robinson Crusoe in having 'lost the plot' when debating people who don't have any problems whatsoever in having their human rights trampled all over by transparently criminal petty tyrants!
It is well-known in geopolitics that people care more for their INTERESTS than their RIGHTS.
For that reason I don't listen to any protesters unless they can prove to me they opposed the c19 measures in some way.
How can I listen to the sobs of any nurse/teacher, for example, who did not protest to protect their colleagues from being coerced into getting the poisons and but protest over their own working conditions? So, who are being selfish there? I actually asked a guy who works in Rails that very question. He looked at me wide-eyed!
I am still shocked that two people I talked to did NOT see "no jab, no job" as "forced" - or coercion. Even after I "slapped" them around; they still won't accept it!
Mace stated that CDC is considered an accurate source by Twitter. I doubt that she herself views CDC as a credible source anymore.
I take your point that Mace didn't give Gadde much opportunity to reply, but the replies that she did give were stock-standard corporate-speak, so I doubt that anything terribly enlightening would have emerged from her mouth if she had been permitted to answer.
I don't think we should closing the gates now, or at any other time. Quite frankly, we DO need them, because our numbers are too few at this point to mount any kind of opposition to what's coming down the pike. From what I've seen of Nancy Mace (especially the interview that Glenn Greenwald did with her) she's a straight shooter and she got into politics not for self-aggrandisement, but to represent her electorate. Many people, including plenty of those who should have known better, got sucked in by the propaganda. I have compassion for them, even though I still shake my head in wonderment at how they were snowed.
Of course, we welcome all GENUINE comers, however late they are. After all, the aim is to help inform and save as many as possible. The parable of one and 99 sheep. A life is a life.
My concerns are:
1. Their sincerity; motives
2. They are getting unwarranted attention and accolades, like Karl S. It is like people joining the winning team when the game is effectively won. The bandwagon riders; the fair-wicket batters. Sure, they can receive the same winning medal; but they must recognised when they actually joined the game.
The accolades should always be reserved for those who risked much from the start; the leaders.
Re Mace
Did she immediately publicise her injuiries? If not, why not?
Re Karl S
A wagon rider. He still has one arse-cheek on each side of the fence.
I certainly admired Mace's no-nonsense, take-no-prisoners, summary-execution style. It has its merits.
It's also worthwhile comparing Mace's approach to that of Lauren Boebert, another Republican woman on the House Oversight Committee into twitter. Boebert gives the ex-twitter executives more of a chance to account for themselves; but she too has done her homework, so it's 'summary execution' for the ex-twitter execs from her as well. The drawback with Boebert's style is that she's a bit on the excitable side.
https://youtu.be/gy7mtoyrlXI
There are other you tube videos of the House Oversight Committee available, but if I had to plonk for just one, I'd go for Mace.
One last point of comparison, since the parallels between the Nazi era and the world of today just keep on surfacing: at the end of WW11 at the trial of the appallingly sadistic camp guard Irma Grese, otherwise known as 'The Hyena of Auschwitz' and the 'Beast of Belsen', she confessed to her crimes, saying she did it for the Fuhrer. Looking backwards, I find something amid the moral stain of her life that resembles a touching, residual commitment to honesty, something one would be hard-pressed to find today among the executive class, who all seem to be well-trained in the art of lying and admitting to nothing. Of course, the ex-twitter execs never set killer dogs on anyone or capriciously shot anyone, but I'm pretty sure their ruthless suppression of scientific knowledge would have harmed or killed many. Are they not to be held accountable for this? Why is it so easy today, in this moment, to hide, overlook or excuse the orchestration of death from a safe distance?
In the end, not even honesty could save Grese; her crimes were too great. As she stood on the trapdoor, she called out "Schnell" to Albert Pierrepoint, Britain's hangman, who then sent her quickly and cleanly to her death with his customary professionalism. She was only 22.
If there was no mitigation for her honesty back then, how should we deal with present-day, professional liars, who are well-schooled in the art of corporate fibbery? Appearing before a House Committee is not a criminal trial, but it was utterly transparent to anyone watching that only lies and memory lapses were going to be offered up. We've all observed this too-clever-by-half, phoney kind of testimony too often; its easy recognisability should make it difficult for anyone, especially someone on a prosecutorial mission, to indulge it, collude with it or accommodate it. And Mace, to her credit, seemed determined to tolerate none of it.
Just love it. That is what I call putting a 'baboon' in their place! Great to see in the public domain. The change will be slow but it will come as we see more and more health injuries from these genetic injections across the world.
I don't have those skills. Whenever I debated people online and offline re c19-related I uncontrollably went feral mode. Those offline people were surprised at my "passions". They definitely did not expect to be brow-beaten, with waves of angst washing over them. However, they realised I did not direct my ire at them personally.
The two principles I am implacably opposed to are freedom-restrictions and deceits. They deployed both. Shish kebab!
I don't think you're Robinson Crusoe in having 'lost the plot' when debating people who don't have any problems whatsoever in having their human rights trampled all over by transparently criminal petty tyrants!
It is well-known in geopolitics that people care more for their INTERESTS than their RIGHTS.
For that reason I don't listen to any protesters unless they can prove to me they opposed the c19 measures in some way.
How can I listen to the sobs of any nurse/teacher, for example, who did not protest to protect their colleagues from being coerced into getting the poisons and but protest over their own working conditions? So, who are being selfish there? I actually asked a guy who works in Rails that very question. He looked at me wide-eyed!
I am still shocked that two people I talked to did NOT see "no jab, no job" as "forced" - or coercion. Even after I "slapped" them around; they still won't accept it!
Mace stated that CDC is considered an accurate source by Twitter. I doubt that she herself views CDC as a credible source anymore.
I take your point that Mace didn't give Gadde much opportunity to reply, but the replies that she did give were stock-standard corporate-speak, so I doubt that anything terribly enlightening would have emerged from her mouth if she had been permitted to answer.
Indeed. Gadde certainly didn't seem like she was there to shed light on anything!
There wasn't exactly time for Gadde to reply. She was shot down by Mace each and every time!
Basically, she was just a gaddefly there.
(Look at her face. Imagine having to work with or under a face like that. Eew!)
I see what you did there - gaddefly :).
Don't trust any John or Jane come-latelies. We don't need them.
Beware those late-comers: they could be double-agents or imposters.
Of course, we should welcome any genuine change of hearts. However, they were not on the frontlines.
Always check their deeds against their words.
I don't think we should closing the gates now, or at any other time. Quite frankly, we DO need them, because our numbers are too few at this point to mount any kind of opposition to what's coming down the pike. From what I've seen of Nancy Mace (especially the interview that Glenn Greenwald did with her) she's a straight shooter and she got into politics not for self-aggrandisement, but to represent her electorate. Many people, including plenty of those who should have known better, got sucked in by the propaganda. I have compassion for them, even though I still shake my head in wonderment at how they were snowed.
Of course, we welcome all GENUINE comers, however late they are. After all, the aim is to help inform and save as many as possible. The parable of one and 99 sheep. A life is a life.
My concerns are:
1. Their sincerity; motives
2. They are getting unwarranted attention and accolades, like Karl S. It is like people joining the winning team when the game is effectively won. The bandwagon riders; the fair-wicket batters. Sure, they can receive the same winning medal; but they must recognised when they actually joined the game.
The accolades should always be reserved for those who risked much from the start; the leaders.
Re Mace
Did she immediately publicise her injuiries? If not, why not?
Re Karl S
A wagon rider. He still has one arse-cheek on each side of the fence.