House Hearing Breaks Down When Anna Paulina Luna Says Melanie Stansbury Lied About A GOP Witness 

BRAVO!

What a concept

Amen...

Well, in theory, you’re against being called a name that you’re not. And being called a liar, is a violation, but being a liar is not. So obviously she’d bring up the thing that is against the rules. And I’m a staunch trumper. But don’t be like leftists.

@@jamesbizs Do trump's nearly constant lies bother you at all?

didn't even say that, only that what was said were 'lies.' didn't call anyone a liar

Exactly. It's pointing out an action she took, not calling her a name.

Actually Luna, in her mind, thought some very nasty things about Stansbury, something about a female dog or so, and that is probably what Stansbury was picking up telepathically of course and therefore was quite disturbed. I'm afraid I had similar thoughts about Stansbury. Nonetheless, that doesn't give Stansbury the right to slander the witness, which is criminal behavior. That is the egregious behavior here, not Luna.

​@@yaweno9555 🫡

@@yaweno9555 That's actually part of the problem; Congresscum are allowed to lie, slander, defame, &c. &c. Remember "Filthy" Harry Reid defaming Mittens Romney on the Senate floor, and then when called out about entering lies into the Record, replied, "It worked, didn't it?" Politicians are like dirty underwear, in that they need to be changed frequently.

Huh? They use the same rooms for different kids of meetings. Sometimes it's a BIG meeting requiring lots of people attend. Sometimes it's a SMALL meeting requiring fewer people attend. That's why you see some empty chairs. Should we taxpayers pay the salaries for people so that they can attend meetings that they don't need to attend so that all the chairs are full? That sounds like a big waste. The government is pretty inefficient as it is, and you are wondering why more people aren't going to more meetings? Or is the suggestion that we taxpayers build lots and lots of different size rooms, so every meeting always fits. Not too big, not too small. That also sounds pretty dumb. But thanks for your feedback. I found it, um, "shameful."

"number" of empty chairs, not amount

@@joewinch7548 "amount," not amoount.

@@tubbytuber I am an excellent speller but a TERRIBLE texter. Peace out.

@@joewinch7548 "terrible," not TERRIBLE. Happy trails.

You sir, just witnessed an example of how the woke liberals want to rule everything: Use the correct word! Don't say liar. Instead, say she told a mistruth. My English teacher always told me to use smaller words in place of bigger words to make your point for brevity. That English rule went out the window here! Today's concern is not to use words to hurt people's feelings.....

yeah it's called politics .

@@shoehorny6844 those three letters "mis" have reinvented our legal language . in the uk plc we had one of the biggest frauds ever by our banks , custimers were sold a prduct that they did not even know they were paying for could not use it when needed an it was all kept secret . ah don't know how it came out but it was over 100 billion when it broke . no charges were filled no one went ti jail . just pay some (most) money back an we will call it mis selling it was a fraud . nice eh . another growing example lying is now a mis statmemnt . theft is mis appropriate but the best one is mis gender somone oh do that an your as bad as hitler , the west seem ti have lost there colective minds at the moment an it does not bode well for the future me thinks , aye !

And rasist

1984: "War is peace." "Freedom is slavery."

Would like to know who this witness is, he does seem to be completely in the tank for big oil? Almost everything that comes out of Luna's mouth is a fabrication.

She’s pretty and very well spoken. Doesn’t say things like we don’t need farmers or gas stoves lol

yeah she's very intelligent and well spoken, much more professional and diplomatic than boebert I can't stand that girl even if I agree with her

Decorum of Congress Slayer dude!

Theme of the day, they call gene therapy a vaccine, they changed definition of gain of function research, that is what they do...... but I'm sure you know this.

Yeah like the definition of recession, like the one we're in now and how it's not one 😂😂

HEY!!! THAT'S "DISINFORMATION" or "MISINFORMATION" or "........"!!! I CAN'T Keep Track!!! DANG U!!! 😶😏😆😆😆!!! Ur Spot On My Friend.......IF 'IT' DON'T FIT 'THE' NARRATIVE(No Matter the Subject).......CHANGE IT TILL IT DOES!!! I'm Sick of This Childish Crap. U Have a GREAT Day My Friend, God Bless & KICK a Lefty's Asss......!!!💯🤙🥃😎✌️🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🏴‍☠️

@@watchcitydog Absolutely Correct Brian. The problem with doing this is what happens to TRUE history? Our TRUE history, my great great grandkids are going to learn, is nothing but lies. UNLESS we can somehow get rid of the bloated WOKE Federal Government, or Force all States to take charge of their GDP, Currency, Law, and the Freedoms the Constitution gives us, we lose truth and freedom. As the Federal Government is dismantling the Constitution, State Governments need to take back THEIR power over the Federal Government.

Great point.

No..actually she doesn't...

@@jrzygurl Yeah, Jersey Girl, she does. Look, a boy in a dress! Run to him, girl!

Do you realize Luna is literally the female George santos!? Just look up “Anna Paulina Luna Lies” and you might be surprised to know she made up her education, her FAMILY and background, etc etc. She also lies about politics and our country. Please check it out.

@Glenn Hubbard that makes no sense..but ok,I quess🤷‍♀️

AMEN!

Now they're changing the meaning of "lie"? Color me shocked.

To be fair it is only a lie if the person speaking knows it’s a lie.

Name calling isn’t acceptable either. Acting like a grown up would be nice.

_But_ she's not directly calling the other member a liar.

She could always fix being offended by starting to tell the truth & stop lying.

@@jasperkensington2644 Hang on to that dream.... Rats always scurry when exposed to the light... In this case the light is truth.

And Stansbury with the greasy matted hair looked skanky. But liberal women do that.

Try being civil?

Stansbury slandered the witness, he should have recourse.

Oh please.

Well, I thought the witness's focus on California's large number of power failures being directly related to its eco-friendly reliance on green energy was interesting. I say interesting because another factoid (which can be googled) which he appears to have conveniently omitted, is that Texas with possibly the most fossil-fuel friendly political environment of any state has by far the most power outages per capita, i.e. most customers affected by power outages. In fact, for 2022, the Texas per capita rate for power outages was a whopping 65,382. By comparison, for California, it was only 4515 (13th in state rankings)! In other words, when Texas has power failures, they tend to be far more massive and incapacitating affecting many more residents. I mean from this grid use perspective, which state would you rather live in??? My point is, it's very easy to manipulate facts to substantiate your point of view. I don't even think he's doing so purposely, but rather his ideology is driving a search for only his thesis supporting facts. I also have similar reservations about many of the other "facts" he presented but don't have the time or energy (ok, pun I couldn't resist) to address them all...

They made it very obvious that the dims are trying to FORCE our dollars in the ONE direction they are investing their dollars in.

​@@jd-ft5fl I think maybe because California is one of the biggest pushers of"Going Green" Agenda but Texas is not pushing that agenda.

@@jd-ft5fl Texas outages was due to their GREEN energy which they produce more than any state.

@@jd-ft5fl Of course not.

She did not even say that. She asked if he'd like the opportunity 'to address the lies'. How ridiculous that that stopped a session for so long.

I agree. Basically the chair just used different terminology to state that Stansbury lied and slandered the witness.

Where free speech go?

You must not understand the difference between being a liar and being called a liar. Calling someone a liar doesn't make it true. They might be a liar, or they might not be a liar. Lying requires intent. So if you call someone a liar because they said things that were not true, you would need to be able to prove 2 things. The things were not true and they knew it. But if you say someone said things that were not true, you would only need to be able to prove 1 thing. The things said were not true. The name calling accusation was less about "the rules" and more of a challenge to the questioner to back down from asserting the two things requiring proof, to just asserting the one thing requiring proof. Calling someone a liar is not "name calling" if the person is indeed proven to be a liar. It would be a true statement. But if they are not lying, or you can't prove they are lying, they have a legitimate complaint that you are unfairly slandering them, because by so called name-calling them a liar if they are not lying, you have attacked their character, whereas whether or not they said untrue things is just a dispute over facts. That's why in situations like this name calling is just another way of saying someone is being judged based on their character, and they respond by throwing down a challenge to the questioner who is being asked, in a sense, whether to double down, and risk the exposure to slander accusations. Faced with potential downsides, if he is wrong, so he decides not to go there. In the end, it would not have ended up as a violation of the rules if the questioner would have been willing to defend themselves against charges of slander and win. It's easier to just back off from the word liar because as you point out yourself, it's almost the same getting that point across without risking an attack on your own character if you wrong or can't prove someone's intent to lie. Either side would have done the same thing. Stop making things you don't understand into phony partisan issues that divide us as Americans.

@@cb1623 - That is most definitely calling her college a "liar". Watch the video again.

Lol that should've been exactly the follow up.

That was hilarious, lol.

Oh words hurt....gotta use the latest definition WTF

I hear you! I call out the GOP, especially Trump for the misinformation, disinformation and lies all the time!

She didn't even call her a liar. She said she lied. You can say it's the same thing but it's technically not.

Untruths come from ignorant people. Lies come from malicious people.

I also love that Rep Luna didn't argue and just changed her words a bit to mean the same thing :D

She didn't call her a lair! She said she lied.

Another example of the complexity of "The system" As with many procedures its roots may have been honorable, or at least designed during a time when disputes could result in a Deadly duel. Remember Hamilton and Aaron Burr ? I reflect, today our system is verbally offensive and avoids dealing with issues. In the past disputes at times resulted in physical violence.

@@kayakuprising5914 yep gotta love that she did not further violate the House rules. that was awesome! willing to bet every single lib (and probably most fellow patriotic ultra-magas too :)), were fully expecting her to double down and escalate the situation. especially since the title of the video seemed to promise a heckuva lot more drama than we got. The hearing didn't quite "break down". It paused for a few moments while the kids, I mean the adults who are elected and paid to serve on our behalves, took a time out to check the rule book. That's good stuff! That's MAGA!!!

You must not understand the difference between being a liar and being called a liar. Calling someone a liar doesn't make it true. They might be a liar, or they might not be a liar. Lying requires intent. So if you call someone a liar because they said things that were not true, you would need to be able to prove 2 things. The things were not true and they knew it. But if you say someone said things that were not true, you would only need to be able to prove 1 thing. The things said were not true. The name calling accusation was less about "the rules" and more of a challenge to the questioner to back down from asserting the two things requiring proof, to just asserting the one thing requiring proof. Calling someone a liar is not "name calling" if the person is indeed proven to be a liar. It would be a true statement. But if they are not lying, or you can't prove they are lying, they have a legitimate complaint that you are unfairly slandering them, because by so called name-calling them a liar if they are not lying, you have attacked their character, whereas whether or not they said untrue things is just a dispute over facts. That's why in situations like this name calling is just another way of saying someone is being judged based on their character, and they respond by throwing down a challenge to the questioner who is being asked, in a sense, whether to double down, and risk the exposure to slander accusations. Faced with potential downsides, if he is wrong, so he decides not to go there. In the end, it would not have ended up as a violation of the rules if the questioner would have been willing to defend themselves against charges of slander and win. It's easier to just back off from the word liar because as you point out yourself, it's almost the same getting that point across without risking an attack on your own character if you wrong or can't prove someone's intent to lie. Either side would have done the same thing. Stop making things you don't understand into phony partisan issues that divide us as Americans.

Seems so, but it keeps the slandering liars to a five minute term as well.

If the goal hurts the country, then you are a Democrat or a RINO using fancy wording to cover crimes. If you are a Republican you want to help the country using plain language to do so.

@@suetipping4841 I think your are confusing plain language with dumb talk & lies.

@@dutchdna Not at all, darling.

@@dutchdna By all means, please give an example from this video post, that's an example of this dumb talk and lies you speak of. Unless of course, with your chosen prose (your comment), you're being ironic?! If that is the case then your irony is an intellectually comedic gold mine. 😁😁😁

@Sue Tipping Why would democrats want to destroy the country when they have the senate and the White House??

Of course the Morlock had a (D) after her name...!

@@mtman2 Big surprise there huh? I like this bright young man and he's bang on with his talking points !!

Let the record reflect your feelings were hurt when you were called out for lying

Luna didn't call her a liar! She stated that she lied!

You must not understand the difference between being a liar and being called a liar. Calling someone a liar doesn't make it true. They might be a liar, or they might not be a liar. Lying requires intent. So if you call someone a liar because they said things that were not true, you would need to be able to prove 2 things. The things were not true and they knew it. But if you say someone said things that were not true, you would only need to be able to prove 1 thing. The things said were not true. The name calling accusation was less about "the rules" and more of a challenge to the questioner to back down from asserting the two things requiring proof, to just asserting the one thing requiring proof. Calling someone a liar is not "name calling" if the person is indeed proven to be a liar. It would be a true statement. But if they are not lying, or you can't prove they are lying, they have a legitimate complaint that you are unfairly slandering them, because by so called name-calling them a liar if they are not lying, you have attacked their character, whereas whether or not they said untrue things is just a dispute over facts. That's why in situations like this name calling is just another way of saying someone is being judged based on their character, and they respond by throwing down a challenge to the questioner who is being asked, in a sense, whether to double down, and risk the exposure to slander accusations. Faced with potential downsides, if he is wrong, so he decides not to go there. In the end, it would not have ended up as a violation of the rules if the questioner would have been willing to defend themselves against charges of slander and win. It's easier to just back off from the word liar because as you point out yourself, it's almost the same getting that point across without risking an attack on your own character if you wrong or can't prove someone's intent to lie. Either side would have done the same thing. Stop making things you don't understand into phony partisan issues that divide us as Americans.

You're right about this news I just love you too and I just love Google I'm 78 years old and I'm telling you you can find anything on Google. In fact my daughter and I we had the beautiful so far but it's sunk on one side we were able to load RU-vid and they showed us every step of the way how to put that stuff back together and make a firm and we did that's just the greatest thing I mean it's just the best. God-bless you you found me friends of cats and dogs

C- Span usually has these full hearings, which I highly recommend watching. The clips will always be slanted, leaving factual information in or out of the clip depending upon what the creator of the clip wants you to believe. It takes an incredible amount of work to keep your own feed impartial, and even when I make sure I equalize content, it will recommend the political slant of the last thing I watched in my recommended feed.

Except Forbes is unpoligetically Republican.

I prefer their style of showing actual content without the commentator's opinion. As comparable to just an opinion without showing the actual content. But my favorites are watching the full unedited versions, which Forbes does frequently, so I have the information before I listen to other's opinions. I thank Forbes and C-Span.

You are all right I'm glad I finally found it..

Because they're used to smoozing with those that Love lies & liars: "birds of a feather....."

@bwtv147 - The past president still loves lying. It's his hobby, I guess.

@@MossyMozart What do you guess about the current president? Why does he lie so frequently?

Watching congress's like watching schoolchildren fired over a kickball on the playground a lot a lot of crap and nothing gets done

AGREE. If you say "she lied" that is calling out an action. Saying she is a liar is a broad characterization which may or may not be warranted by a single act of lying.

Actually, what she characterised as “lies” were actually just a differing opinion. So that IS in fact against the rules

It's not clear from the video that Stansbury lied at all. In contrast, Luna's record makes it clear that she's a serious liar. That's just a fact.

You must not understand. The difference is between being a liar and being called a liar or someone who lied. Calling someone a liar or saying they lied is the same thing. Only a liar can tell lies. Either way, it doesn't make it true. They might be a liar, or they might not be a liar. Lying requires intent. So if you call someone a liar because they said things that were not true, you would need to be able to prove 2 things. The things were not true and they knew it. But if you say someone said things that were not true, you would only need to be able to prove 1 thing. The things said were not true. The name calling accusation was less about "the rules" and more of a challenge to the questioner to back down from asserting the two things requiring proof, to just asserting the one thing requiring proof. Calling someone a liar is not "name calling" if the person is indeed proven to be a liar. It would be a true statement. But if they are not lying, or you can't prove they are lying, they have a legitimate complaint that you are unfairly slandering them, because by so called name-calling them a liar if they are not lying, you have attacked their character, whereas whether or not they said untrue things is just a dispute over facts. That's why in situations like this name calling is just another way of saying someone is being judged based on their character, and they respond by throwing down a challenge to the questioner who is being asked, in a sense, whether to double down, and risk the exposure to slander accusations. Faced with potential downsides, if he is wrong, so he decides not to go there. In the end, it would not have ended up as a violation of the rules if the questioner would have been willing to defend themselves against charges of slander and win. It's easier to just back off from the word liar because as you point out yourself, it's almost the same getting that point across without risking an attack on your own character if you wrong or can't prove someone's intent to lie. Either side would have done the same thing. Stop making things you don't understand into phony partisan issues that divide us as Americans.

We do definitely need to call out the liars loud and strong! It’s absolutely disgusting and shameful that our politicians lie so blatantly like this just like Drumpf did when he told over 30,000 lies during his presidency💯💯

And beautiful!

she's a Lair, what's that say about you ?

@@IamSkullrules actually, here she exposed the lie. 🤷‍♀️

@@IamSkullrules "she's a Lair, what's that say about you ?" Your projection says it all.

@@IamSkullrules What was the lie? I love asking that question. Rarely if ever get a meaningful response.

She has lied about her background. That's not even her real name.

He is bullshitting for Fossil fuels. We will always need coal and oil but cutting down by outsourcing is not the answer. They only mention China why not India.

Who are you bullshitting for?@@chipmarley

Demos r racists & r always ac- cusing the Rebs of being so. They use no restraint in their accusations. Truth is demos r the racists big time.

Caps Lock is a button on a computer keyboard that causes all letters of Latin and Cyrillic based scripts to be generated in capital letters. It is a toggle key: each press reverses the previous action

​@@DinoNucci what does that MEAN-- is it an utter non sequitur? Is there a useful reason for it

@@juanagallo7497 wrong

@@DinoNucci OLD PEOPLE LIKE BIG LETTERS. BUT THANK YOU ANYWAY. LIBERALS

Let’s pray she stays this fresh & sharp, part of the problem is they are their too long & become corrupt

isn't she the rep with a fabricated resume?

@@joanneskinner5169 first time hearing that...got any links?

@@joanneskinner5169 LOL!! Aren't you the commenter with the fabricated comment? Yeah, I remember you.

No, it’s not like she’s been there for years… She still appears to have some integrity

STILL FIGHTING GOD BAHAHA 😆😅😳 YEEEEEEEE FIGHTING GOD FIGHT GOD 💪 FIGHT GOD 💪 FIGHT GOD 💪 FIGHT GOD 💪 GOD IS GOOD GOD IS GREAT AND GOD IS TWO GENDER STUUUUUPIIIIIIIIID DON'T WORRY THE GOVERNMENT IS INVESTIGATING THEMSELVES AND THEY WILL HAVE A MIGHTY GOOD TIME DOING THAT I CAN HEAR IT NOW MY HANDS WERE TIED IT'S THEIR FAULT NO IT'S THEM NO IT'S HER/HIM 😱 NO IT'S THEY/THEM'S FAULT 🤣🤣🤣 🤣 YOU'RE LYING 🤥 I believe that Jeff Dunham should make a hi I'm little STUUUUUPIIIIIIIIID JO BIDEN AND IM A LITTLE FCKIN IDIOT DOLL FOR PEANUT BECAUSE PEANUT WOULD BE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN ZELENSKY SAID LOOK AT UKRAINE NEEDS BIDEN NEEDS UKRAINE 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 BAHAHA 😆😅😳 YEEEEEEEE They wanted to fight God I don't have to prove my faith to anyone but Jesus Christ and God the government and state are exempt from the LAW'S and they have separated themselves from the church and it's congregation that you congregation and they are supposed to show us their faith in Jesus Christ and belief in God and I KNOW WHY BLACK 🖤 PARENTS USE RACIST REMARKS ON THEIR OWN KIDS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THEIR KIDS GOING DOWN THE GANGLAND ROAD AND THEY WOULD THANK WHITIES TO NOT DRAG DO THAT TO THEIR KIDS AND ME SAYING THAT IS NOT RACIST OR IS IT CHILD ABUSE EITHER OPEN BORDERS UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION DEFUND THE POLICE LAWLESSNESS SUPPORT GANGLAND ACTIVITY'S AND THEY DARE FIGHT GOD AND JESUS CHRIST BAHAHA HAHAHA GANGLAND NNNNNNMNNNNGANGLANDNNN GANGLAND go ahead DEFY JESUS CHRIST if you want to bahaha 🤠🤠🤠 I don't have to prove my faith to anyone but Jesus Christ and God the government and state are exempt from the LAW'S and they have separated themselves from the church and it's congregation that you congregation and they are supposed to show us their faith in Jesus Christ and belief in God and I KNOW WHY BLACK 🖤 PARENTS USE RACIST REMARKS ON THEIR OWN KIDS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THEIR KIDS GOING DOWN THE GANGLAND ROAD AND THEY WOULD THANK WHITIES TO NOT DRAG DO THAT TO THEIR KIDS AND ME SAYING THAT IS NOT RACIST OR IS IT CHILD ABUSE EITHER OPEN BORDERS UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION DEFUND THE POLICE LAWLESSNESS SUPPORT GANGLAND ACTIVITY'S AND THEY DARE FIGHT GOD AND JESUS CHRIST BAHAHA HAHAHA GANGLAND NNNNNNMNNNNGANGLANDNNN GANGLAND go ahead DEFY JESUS CHRIST if you want to bahaha 🤠🤠🤠 it's all an act to cover their actions like hazmat classes say first containment then recovery and then clean up nowhere said SET FIRE 🔥 TO THE TRAINWRECK IN OHIO what did they say my hands are tied my supervisor told me and everyone is blaming everyone else 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 PEOPLE PEOPLE DUE TO EMOTIONAL 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 DRAMA HOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOW PRESENTING THE COWARDLY BIDEN GANGLAND ADMINISTRATION PRIVACY TOUR WE NEED PRIVACY TO SMOKE HUNTERS CRACK WITH SAM BECKMAN FREED AND CONGRESS WITH SENATE BAHAHA HAHAHA 🤣😂

Very admirable

Isn't it interesting how they blurred her out?

You are speaking of Alex Epstein - author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future.

He wasn't hired based on his gender, color, sexual orientation, or any other woke bs that Biden and his cronies are into. Makes a huge difference when someone is qualified because they are knowledgeable about the subject that they speak about.

The witness never said "I don't recall" nor "I'll have to get back to you on that"

We could use him in a much reduced government, couldn't we?

The witness has no qualms about doing whatever he wants. He knows he'll be taking his dirt nap by the time his fossil fuels overuse kills the planet. Let his grandchildren deal with having no air to breathe.

In focus on the democrat that needs to wash her hair. Slightly out of focus on the republican making valid points about untruths. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Brilliant use of RROO 👍

That is so her beuty wont blind us. 😖

​@handimanjay6642 lol. I thought I was the only one who noticed her greasy hair. Why not try to look your best knowing you would be recorded on video of you asked questions? Plus Luna is much more attractive in comparison to the liar. 😉

Ooo ouch!

Great point! name-calling never goes over well, but stating and correcting with facts goes far.

Exactly! She didn't call her a name!

Yes, and there is more than a semantic difference. Calling somebody a "liar" is a statement about who they are. Saying somebody lied is a statement about what they did. When criticizing somebody for doing wrong we should always criticize the behavior not the person themselves.

@@reasonforge9997 That difference isn't as big as you make it out to be. A lie is an act of willful deceit which _always_ reflects on a person's character, so unless you can prove a person has actually lied (rather than simply "misspoken") saying they lied is in practice no better than calling them a liar.

@@picnic66 After being captured in 1944, Master Sergent Roderick Edmonds refused to identify which of his fellow POWs were Jewish. When ordered to have just the Jewish POWs assemble outside the barracks he had all the POWs assemble and told the furious German Commandant: "We are all Jews here". This was a lie, but I do not think it is one that reflects badly on his character.

According to the Bible, so is SATAN. This guys may be well spoken but he represents an industry that simply want to be able to POLUTE as mush as they want, PERIOD. When you can't shower in your own home, maybe then you will listen???

he's not really on any side. it just sounds like he's realistic and not smoking the clean energy pipe.

Alex Epstein - he's been doing lots of research and putting out solid work about the madness of "clean" energy and the zealous (and delusional) demonization of CO2. I recommend checking out his work. He's solid. I've been following him for years.

@@herpderp3653 What do you think was meant by "our side?"

@@SquareNoggin His book on fossil fuel is very revealing. Well thought out and perhaps more importantly, very compassionate towards the worlds poor. Alex is one of the true heros putting his reputation on the line every single day to fight the madness of the left.

Exceptional observation on your part, how you not pointed this out - the obvious, I and others might have been oblivious to this. Thank you.

iMAGN This fellow obviously is well educated in his field and is a critical thinker unlike all of the employees in the Biden administration who were hired only for their skin color, ethnicity, gender, and/or LGBTQ credentials.

Alex is a true expert in the field.

Not many can even recall anything let alone research and bring facts

You can hardly be called a critical thinker if the story that you are laying out is to serve the fossil fuel industry which gives you the big bucks.

Yeah like the committee chair when he starts reading the rules, one of his staff members has to hit the mic button to speak. Really are your fingers broken or is this your first day. Ridiculous.

@@chrish4478 Sadly, but that is exactly what the staff is supposed to do. They are literally paid to "assist" the Congressperson.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

No it is not, what is or should be of concern is how little the voters understand about the complexity of our civilization and political system. "THE only person who knows everything is a Damn fool "

@@chrish4478 Lol that’s literally their job. They’re supposed to be gophers, not policy advisors. That was the point.

Absolutely, however, I would love to grill him. The first question would be his thoughts on what to do with the spent rods and other nuclear waste from the nuclear energy plants? The second question would be his thoughts on fossil fuels versus nuclear energy. Say for instance the damage that fossil fuels would cause in the next 30 years versus one nuclear energy plant meltdown 30 years from now. Which would cause greater damage?

Yes but if the shoe fits...? And with (D)'s its a given...!

Also, why do the liars always have someone behind them that they confer with? I think any staffers should be outside the room of business while it's being conducted.

You must not understand the difference between being a liar and being called a liar. Calling someone a liar doesn't make it true. They might be a liar, or they might not be a liar. Lying requires intent. So if you call someone a liar because they said things that were not true, you would need to be able to prove 2 things. The things were not true and they knew it. But if you say someone said things that were not true, you would only need to be able to prove 1 thing. The things said were not true. The name calling accusation was less about "the rules" and more of a challenge to the questioner to back down from asserting the two things requiring proof, to just asserting the one thing requiring proof. Calling someone a liar is not "name calling" if the person is indeed proven to be a liar. It would be a true statement. But if they are not lying, or you can't prove they are lying, they have a legitimate complaint that you are unfairly slandering them, because by so called name-calling them a liar if they are not lying, you have attacked their character, whereas whether or not they said untrue things is just a dispute over facts. That's why in situations like this name calling is just another way of saying someone is being judged based on their character, and they respond by throwing down a challenge to the questioner who is being asked, in a sense, whether to double down, and risk the exposure to slander accusations. Faced with potential downsides, if he is wrong, so he decides not to go there. In the end, it would not have ended up as a violation of the rules if the questioner would have been willing to defend themselves against charges of slander and win. It's easier to just back off from the word liar because as you point out yourself, it's almost the same getting that point across without risking an attack on your own character if you wrong or can't prove someone's intent to lie. Either side would have done the same thing. Stop making things you don't understand into phony partisan issues that divide us as Americans.

Did Rupert Murdock buy them? They have really turned into a right-wing rag.

Lmao

@@grantchampaign You must wear glasses.

@@KelliAnnWinkler nope, I probably need some though

@@grantchampaign We all need glasses from time to time.

He looks great.

fight club solves a lot of problems. exit the chamber, strap on the gloves, resolve the conflict, win/lose with at least a shred of humility, reenter the chamber. maybe erase some of the weakness and ego drowning our culture as well as the consequence-free shit talking many have gotten way too comfortable exploiting. you wanna claim victimhood while crying youre defamed as a liar...lace em up

I think it's hilarious when a known liar gets all butthurt for being called exactly what they are

Luna lies a lot. She lies about her past, she lies about her family, she lies about her heritage. Not seemly for her to call a member of congress a liar in official proceedings.

Agreed!

Hey, you are spot on man. When dishonest politicians are called out for being liars, like Trump or Lake or Oz, they get thrown out or not elected!

Not only startling but unusual!