Amentep

16 here, but if you count BIS and Interplay 21ish.

Not sure at this point McConnell cares about either. He'll do it because he can and it gets him what he wants, everything else be damned. I think he's shown that over the Trump presidency, if not before.

I actually think it was more Mitch McConnell was getting exactly what he wanted, so what incentive did he have to do anything different?

Yeah. I thought when I wrote it that I should have qualified it with a 'most' or something, but then decided not to.

Legislative (congress) Executive (president, vp, cabinet, federal agencies) Judicial (Supreme court, other fed courts)

Might help to google it with a steak, I think.

New thread:

Old thread: Last few posts:

If you want to spam, take it to off-topic. This thread, too, seems to have outlived its usefulness.

^That got Junji Ito fast.

New thread:

Old thread: Last post:

New thread:

Old thread:

New thread:

Old thread: Last post:

They didn't teach me to not turn off politics because it was my lifeblood.

I don't think either are owned by the government. They're both afaik public/private non-profits. The US runs VOICE OF AMERICA, which can technically be heard in the US, but that's not the intended target.

Turning off and doing other things is always a viable plan.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying that "if someone wants to" then they will find away, even if they have to create that way (hence the reference to the various codes and industries that popped up to circumvent those codes). In this case, the willing audience flipping to CNN or Fox news or anyone who carried the broadcast would allow them access to the speech. Similarly, the unwilling audience could have flipped the channel to anything else had those broadcast networks not turned off the speech. But your argument seems to be is that private corporations who broadcast these channels don't have the right to choose to be a willing/unwilling audience, to which I would disagree.

Don't bypass the swear filter.