Best posts made by hubrys

Looks like Heartstopper won big, which it deserves.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-03/george-santos-produced-broadway-s-spider-man-musical-at-least-he-claims-he-did?

Man, oh man, George Santos is just the gift that keeps on giving. Now, come to find out, he lied to donors and said that he was one of the producers of the Broadway musical Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark.

So, he's now been caught lying about:

• His actual name (he has at least 5-6 aliases, e.g., Anthony Santos, George Devolder, Anthony Zabrovsky and George Anthony Santos-Devolder, and Anthony Devolder).

• Faking a Jewish heritage (He's not Jewish; he now claims only to be "Jew-ish").

• Claiming his grandparents fled the Holocaust (They did not).

• Claiming his grandparents were from the Ukraine (They were born and raised in Brazil).

• Claiming his mother was the first female executive at a financial institution (She was a cleaning lady and nurse).

• Claiming his mother was in the South Tower of the Twin Towers on 9/11 (She was verifiably in Brazil at the time).

• Claiming his mother died of 9/11 induced breast cancer a couple years after 9/11 (She died in 2016).

• His early education (He never went to Horace Mann for prep school).

• His college education (He never went to Baruch College or any other college. He has no college-level degree).

• Being a volleyball champion while at Baruch College (He never went there; he never played there).

• That he worked for Goldman Sachs (They'd never heard of him).

• That he worked for Citigroup (They'd never heard of him).

• That he never committed a crime (Brazil has reopened its case involving him having stolen his mother's patients' checkbooks, now that Brazil can locate him in the US).

• That he's the survivor of an assassination attempt (No record has been produced that supports someone having tried to kill him).

• That four of his employees had died in the Pulse Nightclub shooting (He couldn't name a single victim and has since retracted this lie).

• That he did not perform as a drag queen named Kitara while in Brazil (The LGBTQ community in Brazil has come forward with photographic and video records of him performing drag).

• Claims to have ran an official animal charity called Friends of Pets United (No such charitable organization has been registered anywhere).

• As an unofficial charity, Santos (via Friends of Pets United) swindled a US veteran out of at least $3,000 in a GoFundMe scam set up to raise money to pay for surgery for the veteran's aide dog (Records of the GoFundMe account exist and GoFundMe reports that Santos email addresses have been banned by their service).

• He claims to have survived having a brain tumor (Yet no one recalls him ever being sick).

• He claims his family is rich because of real estate holdings (No one can locate any real estate holdings for his family. The only property other than his current residence reported to be owned by Santos on his financial disclosures is an apartment in Rio).

• He claimed that his campaign was funded by a $700,000 loan from himself (His attorneys have amended his election disclosures to withdraw this loan claim; however, where the money came from since it wasn't a personal loan has not been explained. He's under FEC investigation now).

• He worked at Harbor City Capital, which was declared a Ponzi Scheme by the SEC (And yet he demanded that Republicans seat him on a financial committee in Congress, which thankfully they refused).

• He has ties to Russian oligarchs, mobsters, and human traffickers.

If McCarthy had been telling the truth when he said that he wasn't going to seat certain people on committees because "integrity matters," then he should never have seated Santos on TWO committees. Yes, Santos has "voluntarily" stepped down from his committees, but that's likely because they took him into the backroom and explained to him that he's going to lose them anyway the moment he's under Federal indictment. If he didn't step down now, they weren't going to help him then when that happens.

Frankly, I think the GOP just wishes that he'd sit the fuck down and never say another word for the next two years.

NYTimes: Fox Stars Privately Expressed Disbelief About Election Fraud Claims. ‘Crazy Stuff.’

From the article:
"Newly disclosed messages and testimony from some of the biggest stars and most senior executives at Fox News revealed that they privately expressed disbelief about President Donald J. Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, even though the network continued to promote many of those lies on the air."

@raphjd said in Marjorie Taylor Greene suggests that if Democrats move to a red state, they shouldn't be allowed to vote for five years:

It figures you would downplay what liberals say, no matter how vulgar and hate-filled.

I don't agree with what Behar said either. You realize liberals aren't monolithic, right?

Again, Behar's just a talk show host. MTG is an elected official and right there alongside the GOP leadership. Is Disenfranchisement part of the official GOP platform now?

‘Bulls**t’: Senate Republicans Rip Fox News' Tucker Carlson For Whitewashing Jan. 6 Riot

No one's buying Tucker Carlson's attempt to whitewash the Jan. 6th attack. Personally, I refuse to be gaslighted. I was watching the news and twitter feeds in real time on that day, and Tucker Carlson's selective editing won't make me forget my own memories.

The modern Democratic Party is not the same party as the pre-1970's Democratic Party due to shifting demographics. For a better explanation, see:

History Channel Article Explaining How the Parties Changed over Time

9-0 SCOTUS decisions are not "extremely rare." In fact, most years 9-0 decisions represent the majority (or largest plurality) of cases. Most SCOTUS cases are about mundane elements of the law, about which the justices are often in agreement.

5-4 decisions are almost always the rarest decisions, but they often get the most media coverage because of the subject matter of those decisions.

Regardless of the facts involved in the case, the legal argument in the case sparking this post was rather esoteric and boring to non-attorneys. It dealt with the legal doctrine of "exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiffs generally must exhaust all administrative (i.e., executive branch) avenues for resolution of their dispute before being able to avail themselves of the judicial branch. It's a separation of powers concept, but also, and more importantly, a judicial economy issue (i.e., shoving as many litigants as possible off to administrative law judges makes more room on judicial branch judges' dockets for other litigants).

Here, the plaintiff brought suit under both the IDEA and ADA acts with a list of requested remedies to redress his harm; amongst those requested remedies was compensation and lost income. If all of the requested remedies were recoverable under the IDEA act, then the plaintiff would have had to exhaust all administrative methods of resolving his claim before bringing suit in federal court; however, since compensation and lost income are not remedies available under the IDEA act (but possibly recoverable under the ADA), the plaintiff was not required to exhaust all administrative avenues before filing suit.

Again, most SCOTUS decisions are as boring as you probably found reading the above synopsis.

@raphjd said in SCOTUS makes extremely rare 9-0 decision (education case):

Overall they make a lot of them, but this is due mainly to technical issues (ie is a specific type of defense allowed) that have to do with a trial, which they send back down to the trial courts.
When they make a final decision (ie Roe v Wade), they make very few of them.

This is how you tell me you're not a lawyer without telling me you're not a lawyer.

The SCOTUS is an appellate court (since it rarely uses it original jurisdiction powers); therefore, it doesn't generally render "final decisions" in the way I suspect you're thinking.

For example, the SCOTUS didn't render the final judgment and orders in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. After the SCOTUS made its determination that the lower court's ruling was incorrectly decided, it remanded (i.e., transferred) the case back to the Fifth Circuit for that court to further review the case and render the final judgment.

Again, 9-0 decisions are not extremely rare. They aren't extremely rare because most of the cases heard by the SCOTUS are mundane, boring cases where the Court is merely resolving conflicting judgments between and amongst the lower district courts on mundane, boring elements of the law.

@raphjd said in Disney is smarter than Ron DeSantis:

unless they disagree with you, then they should be canceled.

Oh, the irony of this statement.

Disney disagreed with DeSantis "Don't Say Gay" law; therefore, he tried to cancel Disney by revoking its special district status. Disney disagreed with his anti-woke administration, and he tried to cancel Disney.

But you keep pretending that only liberals have a Cancel Culture.

@raphjd said in Disney is smarter than Ron DeSantis:

No corporation deserves the power that Disney had.

The Reedy Creek District was created by elected officials and done in the sunlight. Disney generated $125 million in revenue for the local government each year.

If DeSantis had dissolved the district as he originally threatened, then he would have saddled the two counties around the district with $1.7 Billion of debt, since in exchange for its freedom, Disney had been providing all public services for the entire district as if it were the government.

Disney is central Florida's biggest taxpayer, and the deal the State had with it was a good deal. DeSantis was just a pissed off snowflake who wanted to cancel the big bad Mouse that dared to disagree with him.

@raphjd

@raphjd The contracts Disney had with the district were agreed upon with the local and state government.

These new contracts signed by Disney were done after a public notice and public hearing. Disney gave notice to the local community. Disney even provided legal service of process to the Governor. Ron DeSantis knew that the meetings within which these new contracts were negotiated were happening.

Instead of sending any of his office's legal representatives to represent his administration at the meetings, DeSantis ignored the entire process and focused his attention on his public persona and his Iowa polling numbers.

In other words, the politician that a great many of you and your conservative brethren have been whooping and hollering your support for...fucking failed you. He chose prancing and preening around like a peacock as opposed to doing the actual work to protect you conservatives' political priorities.

He wasn't convicted for posting a single meme or Twitter post. He was convicted for conspiring with a cadre of other online users to "destroy Hillary" by affecting the election with dirty tricks. They worked together to disseminate voluminous false and misleading posts and false information, even working very hard to use the same fonts as legitimate Hillary advertisements. According to the evidence presented during the trial, 4,900 unique phone numbers attempted to vote by text message to the numbers included in his fake political advertisements.

This is no different than groups in previous years being prosecuted for posting physical media, mailers, and signs directing people to wrong polling places or telling them to vote on the wrong day. He just did his rat-fucking digitally instead of analog.

@raphjd said in Is this the smoking gun? Letter from Michael Cohen claiming Donald Trump did NOT reimburse him for hush money paid to Stormy Daniels appears to fly in the face of the star witness's grand jury testimony:

So on one side you are saying that Cohen is a convicted liar and on the other you are saying he should be believed, but only if his testimony is what you want him to say.

That's a nice Catch-22 you've created. Anyone involved in a conspiracy of dishonesty cannot be convicted based on the guilty admissions of their co-conspirators, because those co-conspirators are self-admitted liars.

So your argument is that those who by covenant and conviction have dedicated themselves to being Christ-like shouldn't be called out for being un-Christ-like? If you have to act un-Christ-like to support your politics or lifestyle, then, I'm sorry to inform you, but you're not a Christian. There's no such thing as "Christian When Convenient."

Sorry, but you chose to be a Christian, and we will judge your hypocrisy.

@blablarg18

Weren't you Conservatives just the ones posting meme after meme of the Ben Franklin quote, criticizing the Libs for giving up freedoms for the sake of security?

Funny how big of hypocrites you guys become when it comes time to praise a despot.

@MrMazda said in When libs lecture right-leaning Christians:

When people say "I'm Christian" I can't help but ask "Classic Jesus, or Republican Jesus?" LOL

SUPPLY SIDE JESUS

@lololulu19 Are we 4Chan now?

Did I accidentally click into a meme subreddit? This Forum allows posting of photoshop memes without commentary?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/media/tucker-carlson-fox-news.html

Ding dong! The bitch is dead! Which old bitch? This dumb bitch!

I wonder if it was him costing them hundreds of millions of dollars in the Dominion Settlement? Or maybe the fact that FOX is being sued by a former female employee for the hostile work environment sexual harassment on Carlson's show?

I mean, I hope that it was because he's a vile racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and sexist in love with Christian White Nationalism, but it's FOX News. If they fired every bigot working there, then they'd just be left with the lunch ladies in the work cafeteria.

If he threatens to kill a few more people, then he might earn the Georgia GOP's nomination for Senate.