tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38949372024-03-08T16:08:46.959-05:00Stupid Enough Unexplanation“<i>Well, I've been in the city for 30 years and I've never once regretted being a nasty, greedy, cold-hearted, avaricious money-grubber... er, Conservative!</i>” - Monty Python's Flying Circus, Season 2, Episode 11, How Not To Be SeenBryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.comBlogger4516125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-88708385027371749392020-02-10T12:16:00.000-05:002020-02-10T12:16:59.810-05:00Remember this guy you don't remember! Stephen Smoot's <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/stephensmoot/2020/02/10/ye-shall-know-them-by-their-fruits-n2561051">latest article</a> is about how the American Left should champion Clement Attlee instead of Che Guevara. Who is Clement Attlee? Well he was the Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1945 to 1951, after Winston Churchill was voted out. But he's Smoot's example of who we leftists should emulate - totally ineffectual and useless, but tough on Commies. <br />
<br />
This is a pretty amazingly dishonest article; once again we are treated to the theory that Hitler was a Leftist. We are encouraged to believe that all leftists secretly want to impose a totalitarian dictatorship. He represents Michael Moore's position deceitfully (Moore has, in fact, championed various health systems of Western Europe, despite Smoots denial). <br />
<br />
<br />Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-76742723747475050182020-01-28T10:14:00.001-05:002020-01-29T09:46:48.153-05:00When will those weak cowardly Democrats start a violent revolution?This seems to be the question on <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/01/27/will-democrats-take-up-arms-to-remove-dictator-trump-or-are-they-all-talk-n2560115">Kurt Schlichter's mind</a>. He argues that Democrats and Liberals believe President Trump to be a dictator and that if so that we must fight him violently. If we don't it is either because we don't actually think he is a dictator or because we are cowards and weaklings.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #674ea7;">Okay, maybe you don’t have any guns like real men. Let’s assume you can find some guns. Now you need to water the kale bush of liberty with the blood of patriots. Okay, you’ll probably want to find another word than “patriots” since the term “patriots” upsets you – but because Trump is a “dictator,” we’re obviously in an extreme situation that calls for extreme measures.
It’s totally time to figuratively fire on Ft. Sumter again, Democrats. Maybe this time it will work out better for you.</span></blockquote>
Let's get one thing out of the way right away, the reference to Ft. Sumter ties back to the lie that many on the Right tell themselves, that it was really liberal Democrats who pushed for the Civil War. In fact it was Conservative Democrats who fought to keep slavery and fought to keep segregation. When that became no longer viable, they moved to the Republican Party. But the key term isn't Democrat, it's Conservative. <br />
<br />
Setting that aside, it's hard to overstate the hatred and disdain that Schlichter has for Democrats and liberals. The intensity of his hatred and mockery is kind of shocking.<br />
<br />
Looking through the comments they really hate having to press one for English. I mean it really angers them. They area also upset that Obama got to run for President. I think, maybe, just maybe, Schlichter's audience is motivated by racism.Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-64903449447459002462020-01-13T09:29:00.002-05:002020-01-13T09:37:45.198-05:00Compromise Our friends on the right are always suggesting that we on the left have positions that are two extreme, and that we need to look for solutions and to work with Republicans. Many people who are conservative leaning democrats feel the same way. So in that spirit let's look at Kurt Schlichter's <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/01/13/democrats-always-choose-americas-enemies-over-america-n2559371">latest article</a> in which he reaches out to Democrats with what he presumably believes is good advice.<br />
<blockquote>
Here’s an idea that our Democrat politician friends might want to try if they want to stop being back-stabbing garbage people. It’s kind of a radical notion and a little outside the box, but here goes: How about, just once, you stop sucking-up to the foreign bastards who are attacking our country and take America’s side?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Maybe you should not back and excuse the gay-hanging, women-stoning, airline-downing, Obama check-cashing, Israel-threatening, American-murdering cultists ruling Iran. Just a thought.</blockquote>
What great advice - I for one am going to no longer support the Mullahs of Iran. Of course it's a little hard to stop doing something I never did in the first place, but I'll do my best.<br />
<br />
But how do I take America's side? By, for example, resisting our betrayal of a President, President Trump? Nope Schlichter makes it clear that taking America's side means supporting President Trump and not questioning the timing of this attack. Attack on Iran is good; questioning President Trumps wisdom is bad.<br />
<br />
Maybe Schlichter isn't a good person to make an alliance with - he really hates Liberals and Democrats. The only compromise he's really interested in is capitulation and that doesn't work for me I have to admit. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-64485900111860885892020-01-06T10:05:00.000-05:002020-01-06T10:05:25.591-05:00Real Americans Wayne Allen Root's <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2020/01/05/my-2020-new-years-gift-to-the-democratic-party-n2558939">latest article</a> is about how Democrats should be happy that that guy who intended to kill a bunch of church goers was instead shot down by one of the attendees who was an usher had a fire arm, and that Trump ordered the targeted bombing that killed Qassem Soleimani. He says describes this as a gift to Democrats.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">Proceed with caution on the topics of good citizens with guns defending themselves from bad guys and America defending itself from evil, murdering terrorist regimes. Real Americans believe in peace through strength.</span></blockquote>
I'm not sure I've seen a lot of people condemning the Usher who defended other church goers. As for the bombing, I think people are saying that certainly it is good that he is dead, but we don't yet know the full costs of Trumps actions. Trump and his parties belligerent stance towards the rest of the world hasn't built a lot of alliances. Trumps negotiating technique does seem to boil down to "Give us what we want or else." We are already seeing push back from the region.<br />
<br />
And of course there is Trumps threat to blow up sites of historical significance, which is a war crime. He hasn't done it, but there is little doubt in my mind that he is willing to, despite the damage that does to the worlds history and our own relations with the rest of the world.<br />
<br />
Finally want to come back to the phrase Real Americans - we all know what that means right? It means conservative white folk.<br />
<br />
Hey for fun let's take a quick look at the comments.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #990000;">The democrat party of today is the party of evil power hungry zealots. Never vote democrat! - <b>DogMom4155 </b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #38761d;">It's simple: They Are I-N-S-A-N-E ! There is no logical or cognitive thoughts from mentally insane people! - <b>jmark72
</b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #741b47;">They already have ceased to exist as a viable party. They are America's mental health crises. There is no way they can exist and take their oath of office. They are null and void. - <b>BuddyBoy53 </b></span></blockquote>
So I guess Democrats like myself should be institutionalized and Democrats in office should be removed from office for violating their oath of office. Very practical suggestions there from the Trump base.
Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-51564580955553845592020-01-02T10:46:00.000-05:002020-01-02T10:46:05.816-05:00Presented without Comment<blockquote>
<span style="color: #741b47;">There are no “moderate” Democrats. All Democrats are dangerous to your life, prosperity and freedom. They prefer churchgoers die rather than be able to defend themselves. - <b>Kurt Schlichter</b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">I think of them as Demonrats. What a difference a single letter makes. <b>Richard_Reed</b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #990000;">Democrats are either EVIL or STUPID. There is no middle ground... unless, perhaps, they're both evil AND stupid. Never forget that Democrats hate normal Americans and want us crushed... or dead. <b>MickeyD69</b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #134f5c;">Hitler was a socialist. It's interesting the war reparations after WW1 which led to the rise of Hitler's nationalist agenda, were part of a larger zionist plan to establish the nation state of Israel. <b>Alfred Barnes</b></span></blockquote>
Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-45499689292531933332019-12-30T09:58:00.003-05:002020-01-02T10:38:30.180-05:00Patriotic Grace While Terry Paulson's <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/terrypaulson/2019/12/30/impeachment-a-badge-of-hope-or-shame-n2558552">latest article</a> is largely about how America will become a socialist dystopia if we fail to elect President Trump for a second term, he concludes with a few paragraphs reminding his readers that what unites us as Americans is greater than that which divides us.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #38761d;">I think that “patriotic grace” is there for the taking. We shop together, work together, serve together, worship together, and seem to have no trouble keeping politics in its right perspective. America should not need a war or a terrorist attack to bring us together. At the deepest level, we remain one republic, one people. As we launch into 2020, let’s dial down the attacks and remember how blessed we are to be Americans with opportunities others just dream of. Let’s help President Trump keep expanding those opportunities for more and more Americans.</span></blockquote>
I would agree with everything except that last part as I don't think President Trumps policies are likely to improve thing at all.<br />
<br />
This article didn't get a lot of comments, but the ones that did post were all attacking Democrats, as you would expect. This one by Momster is perhaps the most striking.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #741b47;">As the swamp sloooowly drains, observe the swamp creatures now exposed to the cleansing sunlight. See them as they writhe in agony. Listen as they snap their increasingly toothless jaws. Hear them as they bellow and hiss out their stream of lies. Watch out for their still dangerous tails as they lash about in desperation!</span></blockquote>
I don't know - if I thought my political enemies were toothless lashing swamp creatures I probably wouldn't want to work together or serve together with them. But perhaps I am looking at this the wrong way. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-7754337321347102462019-12-23T08:56:00.001-05:002019-12-23T08:56:49.632-05:00Grasping at Straws The Republicans, keen to defend President Trump, will grasp on any excuse to discredit the work the House of Representatives has done in preparing for an Impeachment Trial. This despite the clear statements by Mitch McConnell that he is a) working with Trump on how to respond, and b) has no intention of treating it as an objective trail. That's why the opening of Debra J Saunders <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2019/12/22/democrats-rush-to-impeach-trump-then-sit-on-it-n2558371">latest article</a> is such a hoot.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">Imagine there is a murder trial that takes months and involves many witnesses, and then, at the end, the prosecutor announces that he's done such a great job of arguing guilt, he's not going to send the case to the jury.</span></blockquote>
This whole article is built around one key belief of Ms. Saunders - Trump is innocent and the Democrats know it. That's not fact. Trump is guilty as hell of what he is accused of (as evidenced by the ever shifting narrative around whether he did what he is accused of doing). That is simply the core belief of Saunders and her tribe regarding this manner. <br />
<br />
If you start with the theory that he's innocent and Democrats know it than Saunders idiotic article makes sense (she does suffer from temporal confusion, unable to reconcile why Democrats said one thing when it looked like Republicans were going to be objective and something else when it was clear they were all or mostly all partisan hacks.<br />
<br />
If Saunders were capable of honesty she would imagine a trial where the defendant consulted with the judge on how best for the judge to throw the case out of court. That would be crazy - but that's also where we are. <br />
<br />Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-65980163570309037372019-12-18T11:47:00.002-05:002019-12-18T11:47:22.350-05:00Into the Filth Part 2 - Happy Holidays and Loosing The Thread So Dennis Pragers <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2019/12/17/why-the-left-doesnt-like-christmas-n2558112">latest article</a> is about how Leftists want to destroy Christmas - what an original idea for an article. But, as is the point to these Into the Filth articles, lets look at the comments. <br />
<br />
And quickly we see them loosing the thread - moving from a celebration of Christmas to attacking people who don't speak English in public. This comes from ERIC who certainly makes some calm and reasoned language.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Nope! I for one don't believe any foreigners language should be allowed in AMERICA! First you came here! We didn't go to your country and try to install ENGLISH! SO you should learn English, so you can communicate with AMERICANS CITIZEN. Speak it at home not in public!</span></blockquote>
I wonder what ERIC would say if he heard some people speaking Navaho - but I feel like I can guess. At any rate, I find it baffling that this is an extended discussion on an article about how Leftists are destroying Christmas.<br />
<br />
Then there is this exchange between Legoge47 and Andy Maxwell.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #45818e;">I like "After Thanksgiving Day Sale" I hope that will catch on rather than "Black Friday." That has a negative connotation to me.
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">Actually blacks thought it meant that they could freely loot and steal from businesses on the day after Thanksgiving.</span></blockquote>
OK - now that's pretty blatant. I should add a disclaimer that although it appears that some hard core conservatives who participate on Townhall are racist or xenophobic - I am sure that there are at least some who aren't racist or xenophobic. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-1522115433849113142019-12-16T09:20:00.004-05:002019-12-17T15:28:40.305-05:00Death Division and Destruction. Let's take a look at Jake Hoffman's <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/jakehoffman/2019/12/15/democrats-the-party-of-death-and-destruction-n2558021">latest article</a>.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #8e7cc3;">The modern Democratic Party has become the party of death, division and destruction. Presently, Democrats are actively working to divide and destroy our communities, our churches, our children’s innocence, our prosperity, our industry, our culture, our president, our presumption of innocence and expectation of due process, our Constitution and rule of law, and, quite frankly, our entire way of life.
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #8e7cc3;">This isn’t hyperbole, it’s reality, and it’s a reality that should sadden every honest, altruistic American to their very core.</span></blockquote>
But as a Democrat I am guessing that Hoffman doesn't consider me an honest altruistic American.<br />
<br />
How do you make peace with someone who believes that? What sort of truce could we work out? He's determined that people like me aren't just wrong but are evil - and as such, even if he were willing to make peace on some issues, he's still dedicated to wiping me and people like me out. I understand disagreeing without being disagreeable, but how do you do that when they are starting from a place of "America would be better off without you."Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-28197016859653501302019-11-19T10:47:00.004-05:002019-11-19T10:47:48.418-05:00Fundamental Changes to our Country part 2 or how I learned to despise Dennis PragerActually I've always despised Dennis Prager, since I first encountered him, when he was mostly focused on hating Islam and making nonsensical arguments in favor of this belief. <br />
<br />
These day he has <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2019/11/19/does-the-left-hate-america-n2556687">a different Jihad</a> - against Leftists, but not Liberals. So that lets me off the hook right? I mean I'm a liberal, right? Not so fast - he quickly includes President Obama and Elizabeth Warren as Leftists which means he probably gets to condemn me too.<br />
<br />
The difference between Liberal and Leftist is that Liberals love America and Leftists don't. Rather because Leftists make common cause with people who are critical of America and are critical of America ourselves (as I certainly have been) - we don't love America.<br />
<br />
He then goes into the canard about how we want to fundamentally change America. Did Lincoln hate America when he ran as an open abolitionist? Did FDR when he ran on a new deal? Did Reagan when he ran on morning in America? All of these are transformations (two good and one bad in my opinion). But Prager has a unified theory about what a "real" America is, and it's one that excludes anybody who isn't conservative.<br />
<br />
So when Colin Kaepernick knelt during the singing of the National Anthem to protest how many blacks were being shot down by the police in America it shows contempt for America - or his version of America. Since I want a more racially just America, I thought that what Kaepernick did was admirable. But wanting a more racially just America shows that I don't love America. Somehow.<br />
<br />
He says that we are critical of America as evidence that we don't love it - but it's a child's argument. We are critical of what America does wrong because want it to do better.<br />
<br />
Also Liberals don't love Christianity or Capitalism so we don't love America - because those two things are the core of America? Bad luck for members of any other faith in America.<br />
<br />
Finally there's this twist of the knife.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">Love is, among other things, an emotion. So, here is a question about leftists' emotions: Do any leftists get the chills when the national anthem is played or when they see the American flag waving as the anthem is played? Given their rhetoric, it is most unlikely. </span></blockquote>
Well I still do - somehow I'm able to believe in the ideals of America without needing to pretend that it is perfect. <br />
<br />
But then again I'm not a child. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-30679095579425581422019-11-04T09:23:00.001-05:002019-11-04T09:23:29.926-05:00Bridge to Far Was sick all last week and this week kind of hammered so short thought today, responding to Scott Morefield's <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2019/11/04/what-should-trump-supporters-make-of-the-latest-impeachment-polling-n2555820">latest article</a>.<br />
<blockquote>
Might there be some who want to see him impeached as a sort of punishment or check, but think tearing the country apart by removing a sitting president and essentially undoing the 2016 election is a bridge too far? It’s quite likely, but we won’t find out with any of these polling methods.</blockquote>
The thing is there's an element of truth in his contention. If it really was a perfect call and there was no quid pro quo than yeah actually bringing Trump to the Senate floor to remove him from office is a bit too much. But in the calculation of many, there is enough evidence there to justify further investigation, and everything we find out seems to paint the President as more and more guilty. <br />
<br />
Morefield's (and the President's) argument seems to be, if you don't have enough to get a conviction, end the investigation immediately. Pretty good deal for the President, but let's recall the Starr investigation which started off looking Whitewater and ended up being about the President having sex - if the Morefield investigation policy had been in place then would Clinton have still been impeached? <br />
<br />
Well of course - Clinton's a democrat, and he's surely guilty of something, but Trump is a republican so any investigation is phony baloney.Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-54083679820286314272019-10-28T09:05:00.003-04:002019-10-28T09:05:33.722-04:00Can you count?Mr. Kurt Schlichter over <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/10/28/care-about-impeachment-when-they-have-67-senators-n2555403">at Townhall</a> quotes the warriors to support his thesis that Trump will win again. Largely because he can count to 67 - and without 67 votes for impeachment, we won't be able to remove President Trump from office.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #134f5c;">And what I count to is a number that is less than 67. That’s the number of traitors to the Constitution you would need in the Senate to convict. 67. But right now, the count is about 50, maybe 49, or even 47 or 48. That’s the number of unAmerican creeps in the Senate who would vote to convict when the garbage Democrats in the house pass their garbage articles of garbage impeachment.
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #134f5c;">So, liberal elite, until you can count to 67, eat Schiff and die.</span></blockquote>
Let's take just a moment to reflect that Democrats are the party with no class and Republicans are the more respectable of the two. "eat Schiff and die." Oy. <br />
<br />
Anyway the other half of the story, and why Schlichter wants desperately to shut down this impeachment inquiry before it begins is that the more information that comes out about President Trump and his staff's dealing with the Ukraine government, the worse it looks. So while yes, if the impeachment vote was held today, he'd get another term for sure. But if its held after several months of investigation with all the facts laid out, the result would certainly change - President Trump can't continue to pretend there was no quid pro quo (well he can, and probably will, but it won't work). <br />
<br />
The real question will end up being how dumb do Republicans who support Trump want to look. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-18256380956866438952019-10-25T11:05:00.002-04:002019-10-25T11:05:42.401-04:00The Neverending War David Limgaugh's <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2019/10/25/my-new-book-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity-n2555330">latest article</a> starts with an interesting statement.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #741b47;">Ever since Trump's presidential announcement, leftists have been plotting and scheming against him.</span></blockquote>
What makes that so hypocritical is that of course we have - just as Republicans plotted and schemed and broke political norms to take down President Obama. That's what you do. From my perspective Republicans and Conservatives have a lot of bad ideas - and I am opposed to them putting those ideas into practice. Most Republicans and Conservatives would feel the same about my ideas (but just to be clear, I'm right and they are not). <br />
<br />
One key difference between Trump and former Republican Presidents is that Trumps ideas are explicitly racist. <br />
<br />
Of course the big difference between Liberals and Conservatives, as Limbaugh points out, is that Republicans and Conservatives are dedicated to wiping Liberals out. <br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #990000;">In the very beginning of the book, I dispel the myth that the political left and conservatives share the same goals for America but just have different ideas about how to achieve them. If this were ever true before, which I highly doubt, it is demonstrably false now.</span></blockquote>
So that's that - liberals are dangerous monsters that need to be dealt with. I can't speak for all Democrats or Liberals but we don't actually want to get rid of Conservatives or Republicans. You see we actually do believe that Americans with different view points and political philosophies can share a nation. <br />
<br />
If Limbaugh doesn't, maybe that says more about Limbaugh than Liberals. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-13789291749961318872019-10-23T08:56:00.004-04:002019-10-23T08:57:09.341-04:00Into the Filth Pt 1 Of what will be an ongoing series where I take an article and look through the comments - sometimes this is illuminating, more often its depressing.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #741b47;">Logically there is no way to provide more health care for more people and the resulting more operations, office visits and procedures without the cost going up. You have to be either a mush head or totally dishonest to claim otherwise. I would say Ms Warren is in the liar group.</span></blockquote>
This is from a poster named Michael Mitchell - and well, I do think I spot a mushhead. His assertion that it is illogical that we could get more healthcare without paying more falls apart when you know (as I do and as anybody should) that the left's contention is that there is a lot of waste created by an inefficient profit-driven health insurance system overlayed on our health care. And if we are going to be this simplistic let's ask an obvious question - the Insurance Companies get your money regardless of whether or not they provide services - so what incentive do they have to provide good services? Rather don't they have a clear motivation to provide the cheapest healthcare they can get away with?
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Moderate Democrats ceded control of the Party to sociopaths decades ago; it took the election of Donald Trump to expose this fact to everyone.</span></blockquote>
That's from TCop19. Sociopaths, eh? The sort of monsters that might put children in cages for example? Or the sort of people that might withhold military aid to an ally in order to force investigation of a political rival? Yep the election of Donald Trump exposed a lot of things.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">Democrats are just communists in disguise. They won't call themselves communists because too many people still remember how miserable and murderous communism was in Russia and still is in China and North Korea.</span></blockquote>
That one from Justdale just depresses me, because it reveals the truth I know but I don't want to accept - that for many on the right they aren't capable of seeing the truth. They have demonized the left so thoroughly that they are only capable of seeing democrats as the enemy who are working to destroy America. How can you share a country with such people.
If we say "Democrats want more effective democracy and workers rights and environmental protections" and conservatives say "Democrats want to destroy America because they hate everything about it" what compromise is possible. Do we admit we only want to half destroy America? Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-75236326613117673402019-10-21T08:50:00.001-04:002019-10-21T08:50:19.520-04:00A Stroke of Pure Genius You remember last week when the White House press secretary Mick Mulvaney frankly admitted that there was a quid pro quo between the Ukranian government and the White House, and then scant hours later denied that there was any quid pro quo? Sure you do - he clearly stated that the White House held up aid money in order to pressure the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden and the DNC. And spent the rest of the week and weekend pretending that's not what he did. <br />
<br />
You might have thought that would be pretty embarrassing - but you don't have the deep political understanding of <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2019/10/20/elections-do-have-consequences-policies-are-going-to-change-get-over-it-n2555056">Kevin McCullough</a>. He notes that most people think that Maculvey really screwed up<br />
<blockquote>
Excuse me if I disagree.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
It was a stroke of pure genius on the administration’s part. And for the record they would do themselves a huge favor by continuing this practice for the duration of Pelosi’s faux impeachment.</blockquote>
In fairness it appears that McCullough is focusing on the idea that elections have consequences and that corruption of our political processes is fine because the Democrats are way worse. This goes back to a truly bizarre conspiracy theory that data that proves the Russians were working for Clinton ended up on a server in the Ukraine, and that if the White House had access to that server they could prove that it was Clinton who was the real villain. <br />
<br />
In an election that she lost. Three years ago. <br />
<br />
President Trump laid out a Quid Pro Quo doing things that he wasn't allowed to do - but he did them anyway. The unlawful actions of an out of control President who is willing to strong arm or beg other countries to help dig up dirt on his political rivals is despicable. And if we give him another 4 years in office I would be very afraid of the consequences. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-58840129237565465042019-10-18T09:14:00.001-04:002019-10-18T09:14:43.594-04:00Unapologetically TotalitarianApparently the American Left (of which I am a part) is becoming more totalitarian every day, according to <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2019/10/18/the-totalitarian-american-left-n2554960">David Limbaugh</a> (Rush Limbaugh's "smarter" brother). Amazing how that works with us holding one house of congress. <br />
<br />
But let's look at the three sources that he spent literally minutes investigating (he admits as much). First of all, screenings of Jordan Peterson's latest movie have been cancelled in three cities - Toronto, Brooklyn and Portland because of leftist criticism. Well those are three pretty liberal cities - should the movie theaters have been required to show a movie they didn't think would attract much of an audience? Apparently so. <br />
<br />
For the record this goes back to a Canadian rule (An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16, 2016)) which seemingly would require people to not deliberately misgender people - i.e. if someone identifies as a female you shouldn't keep calling them with male pronouns/discriptors. It's basically considering that a form of harassment - but as is typical for the Limbaugh Clan, he's fine with harassing liberals or people the Left doesn't see as people. What really matters is protecting the right of Peterson to misgender people as he sees fit. <br />
<br />
There was also an incident involving a teachers assistant showing part of Peterson's lecture to a college class and being reprimanded for doing so - that seems to cross a line to me, and the university has since seemed to back away from that initial decision. <br />
<br />
But the core of it seems to be this - if you are calling people by the wrong gender maliciously to harass than maybe stop doing that. <br />
<br />
Limbaugh doesn't seem that interested in his other two examples. One is Presidential Candidate Kamela Harris suggesting that Trumps twitter account be taken off line. I don't think that was a very wise thing to argue, but I sort of see her point in some regards. He has used his twitter very unwisely. But I think that Warren is more correct that our goal needs to be to get Trump out of the White House. <br />
<br />
I could be wrong about this one though - it's not hard to imagine a scenario where Trump is going behind in some state so he tweets "West Dakota is trending towards my opponent because of corrupt voters. I know West Dakota - and I know there are MANY FINE PEOPLE there who will not let this meddling in the election go UNCONTESTED." Shortly there are people going to voting places to make sure that Trumps suspicions are dealt with. <br />
<br />
Also I know that West Dakota isn't real - made it up to make my point. <br />
<br />
The third one involves Beta O'Rourke's statement that religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status; a statement that nobody is taking seriously, but that Limbaugh is bring up to paint a picture. <br />
<br />
<br />Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-43684356138398357222019-10-14T16:49:00.005-04:002019-10-14T16:50:27.926-04:00Hating AmericaKurt Schlichter's <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/10/14/the-elite-hates-the-trump-doctrine-because-it-puts-america-first-n2554625">latest article</a> is about why the Elite hates the Trump Doctrine. Let's get one thing out of the way right off the bat. The very idea that Trump has any kind of Trump Doctrine is hilarious. His mind doesn't work that way - he knows what he wants and he wants to trample anything that keeps him from getting what he wants - to pretend that's a doctrine is . . . stretching the definition of a doctrine.<br />
<br />
He begins his editorial thus.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #b45f06;">Americans are sick of always getting handed the bill for some lame ruling caste priority, whether it’s paying for the privilege of defending Europe on behalf of ungrateful continentals or funding the weird climate religion or letting China get rich off of gutting our industries. Mostly, we are sick of shipping our magnificent warriors off to die in ill-conceived, poorly-planned, ineptly-executed wars where we ended up shedding our boys’ (and girls’) blood refereeing fights that go back a dozen centuries.</span></blockquote>
This is of course in relation to our abandonment of the Kurds and our willingness to let the Turkish government slaughter them. The Kurds fought along side us during the recent campaigns against the Taliban and Isis, and many of them gave their lives. You think that would incur upon us some sort of obligation, but not in Schlichter's mind. In his mind, the value of America upholding our obligations is very small indeed.<br />
<br />
I don't think I'd go to dinner with Schlichter - I feel like I'd be left with the check no matter what he claimed.<br />
<br />
He disguises this stark reality with a lot of rhetoric about how much elites hate Trump and hate "real" Americans, and how our real goal is to is to put America last.
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">. . .the Trump Doctrine – the notion that American power should be directed toward serving the interests of the American people – is a coherent foreign policy vision of the kind we have not had in the United States for decades.</span></blockquote>
In case you are wondering Schlichter is no fan of Reagan or Bush. Here's the thing, this, when it comes to the Kurds, is not serving the interests of the American people. It is teaching the world that America can't be trusted, that deals with us end in betrayal (something they already suspected). What happens if everytime you go out to lunch with someone they stick you with the bill? Eventually you stop going out to lunch with that person. We might well need allies in the Middle East, and our decision to let the Kurds get wiped out is not in America's best interests. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-68434200980284183002019-10-11T19:58:00.001-04:002019-10-11T19:58:45.615-04:00Fundamental Changes to Our CountryDavid Limbaugh, brother to Rush, has <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2019/10/11/bidens-bogus-buffoonery-n2554549">an article</a> excoriating Joe Biden that will surely play to those who hate Democrats and Liberals reflexively but won't convince many others.
<br />
<blockquote>
It is unbearably rich for any modern Democratic leader to admonish us about threats to the Constitution. One of Obama's central missions was to undermine our system as founded -- to fundamentally transform this nation.</blockquote>
What makes this claim interesting is that a lot of the policies that Democrats and Liberals suggest are pretty popular. Obama acted within the Constitution - frankly to a fault. After Sen. McConnel determined he would not hold a vote on any nomination of President Obama, there was an argument to be made that by refusing to hold a vote, they were, in effect, leaving it up to the President. President Obama could have done that to either force a vote or to get one of his nominees on the bench; but he didn't. The law wasn't clear so he erred (and I do mean erred) on the side of caution. That's what Democrats do. <br />
<br />
One way to look at the government is that it is a machine to produce justice, and that it will produce justice if everybody plays by the rules. Sometimes your policies go through and sometimes they are rejected, but as long as the machine is maintained properly it's fine. <br />
<br />
The other way to look at is that we all basically know what a good society might look like, and if the machine isn't producing a good society, than it must be busted and we should bang on it until it works right (this isn't original, I'm cribbing from ideas in <a href="https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A">this video</a> from Innuendo Studios). <br />
<br />
Limbaugh doesn't care about a fair system, he cares about a system that gives him what he wants. Despite the increasing evidence that Trump and his surrogates leaned on the Ukraine, he doesn't care. What he cares about is defeating liberals and returning America to the happy days of the 1950s (society wise, I doubt he wants to bring back Eisenhower era tax rates). Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-81392987716803712822019-10-07T08:51:00.003-04:002019-10-07T08:51:38.180-04:00The Bit You Don't SayScott Morefield's <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2019/10/07/three-things-that-could-curb-leftist-power-when-democrats-win-again-n2554254">latest article</a> is about how to prevent the loss of gun rights if Congress decides to limit them (in the case of a Democratic congress (and let me take a moment to smile at the thought of a Democratic congress)). Anyway he outlines three strategies that might come into play. One of them is Jury Nullification.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #741b47;">In truth, a jury can, in theory, declare someone innocent of a crime regardless of what the law says, regardless of actual guilt or innocence, but simply on the basis that a particular law is unjust. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #741b47;">The establishment doesn’t want you or anyone else to know that, of course, but that doesn’t make it any less true. When it comes down to brass tacks, how many small town red state juries will vote to convict, say, a mother who used her AR-15 to defend herself and her small children from a home invader, or an elderly man for keeping the gun his grandfather passed down to him?</span></blockquote>
It's a slippery argument - because how many small town red state juries would vote to convict if a white person shot a black man down because he or she was afraid. It is basically an argument in favor of letting people's initial prejudice set the terms for laws. To take Morefield's own example if a black guy fired a weapon to defend himself from a white man, would red state juries be as likely to nullify as if a white guy fired a weapon to defend himself from a black man? <br />
<br />
Morefield argues that the 10th amendment and State's rights be invoked to protect the right of individual states to allow gun usage, which seems a risky proposition to me, depending on the law in question. While I agree that allowing Tennessee to be Tennessee is fine; they have to understand that the firearm rights offered by Tennessee only apply to those in Tennessee.<br />
<br />
Finally there's this nugget.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #990000;">It’s easy to think that leftists, when and if they get total control, would resort to the practices of their 20th Century ideological forebears – leftist ‘heroes’ like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao – and just start killing people willy-nilly, particularly those they disagree with. And don’t get me wrong, they likely would if they could.</span></blockquote>
This is why democracy doesn't work anymore. If one side of the aisle believes the other side to be murderers in principle (even if current conditions preclude it) how can you make lasting agreements with them? All agreements and compromises with the conservative part of our nation have to involve the knowledge that they believe us to be murdering monsters. And there's no shame in breaking promises to murderous monsters. <br />
<br />
I don't think it's a good idea for us to look at them in the same light (for one thing, Morefield and his ilk aren't all conservatives or all inhabitants of a red state) - but it is worthwhile to remember that all compromises with them have to include the possibility of betrayal. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-67486170697149922432019-10-04T21:17:00.003-04:002019-10-04T21:24:03.840-04:00Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel are on the Case! Carlson and Patel are <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/tuckercarlsonandneilpatel/2019/10/04/the-truth-about-impeachment-n2554170">willing to admit</a> that Trump acts in a dumb fashion, but that it doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #990000;">The key question with Trump's Ukraine call, though, is whether the president's actions, advisable or not, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. It's hard to argue they do. The president did not, as was first reported, offer a quid pro quo to the Ukrainians. He did not condition any U.S. support on a Biden investigation. The Justice Department has already looked at the totality of the call and determined that Trump did not break the law.</span></blockquote>
Of course that is just a little bit disingenuous. First of all, it pretends that there was no quid pro quo, even though we are learning more about the negotiations the Trump Administration was conducting with Ukraine every day. There's also the question of how committed Bill Barr is to protecting the President (considering his round the world tour to encourage other nations to spy on an American Presidential candidate, I'd guess Barr is pretty committed).
Then there is this whopper.
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">Impeaching a president is the most extreme and anti-democratic remedy we have in our system of government. A fundamental cornerstone of our entire system is to respect the will of the voters.</span></blockquote>
Conservatives sure didn't feel that way in the 1990s when they impeached Clinton on his sexual behavior - they were comfortable with it then, but now this is extreme and anti-democratic. And this is the only way we will get to the bottom of the crimes that the Trump Team seems to have committed.
Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-77114380022540034792019-09-30T09:32:00.001-04:002019-09-30T09:35:17.057-04:00Real nice place you have here So, we will have to spend a certain amount of time talking about President Trump's meeting with President Zelensky, as it appears that this may lead into an impeachment. In my mind there are two main questions.<br />
<br />
1. Did Joe Biden, then Vice President of the United States, do anything untoward while representing the United States and calling for the resignation of Viktor Shokin serving as Prosecutor General (similar to Attorney General in the USA)?<br />
<br />
2. Did President Trump pressure the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for political reasons?
<br />
<br />
Question number 1 has been investigated thoroughly, and despite the fervent fantasies of our President and his supporters there is lots of evidence that Shokin was corrupt, and little evidence that Biden acted inappropriately. Several other members of the EU were calling for Shokin to resign, given his fairly blatant corruption, which generally manifested in not prosecuting corporate criminal cases brought before him. If Joe Biden were corrupt wouldn't he call for preserving Shokin and pay him off?<br />
<br />
Question number 2 depends on the text released by the White House last week. If you choose to interpret the Presidents words as no real threat and as simply wanting to get to the bottom of an issue, than he acted appropriately. You do, of course, have to ignore that the Biden issue had been thoroughly investigated at that point. But setting that aside, and assuming you don't see any threat in withholding earmarked financial support, than yeah, President Trump acted completely honorably.
<br />
<br />
And when the mobster says "Real nice place you have here. Hope nothing happens to it." you should just take the compliment.<br />
<br />
That may seem a bit naive but it's an blindness the right wing pundits are insisting on. Take Matt Vespa's <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/09/28/and-now-we-have-a-democratic-senator-making-stuff-up-about-trumpukraine-transcript-n2553842">latest article</a>.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #674ea7;">The Trump White House released the transcript of the call and it showed there was no quid pro quo. In fact, it’s one of the most vanilla things from this administration, but the House Democrats decided to get on the impeachment train before even reading the complaint that was declassified and released yesterday morning. </span></blockquote>
Most of the article is a relatively pathetic attempt to justify Trump by attacking Senator Chris Murphy based on a transcript provided by the Washington Free Beacon - apparently by challenging something that is not in dispute. President Trump had funds he was required to release and he delayed it to put pressure on the Ukraine. Pressure to do what?
Well investigate Joe Biden one assumes - since he said that in the call.
Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-32597551540899255062019-09-27T15:24:00.000-04:002019-09-27T15:24:09.633-04:00Back At It Haven't done this in a while, so might not be as good as it as I should be. David Harsanyi has written <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2019/09/27/the-tragedy-of-greta-thunberg-n2553787">an article</a> about Greta Thunberg - the sixteen year old who spoke out against continuing degradation to our economy. The part I love though comes right near the beginning. <blockquote>Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg lives in the healthiest, wealthiest, safest and most peaceful era humans have ever known. She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived.
In a just world, Thunberg would be at the United Nations thanking capitalist countries for bequeathing her this remarkable inheritance. Instead, she, like millions of other indoctrinated kids her age, act as if they live in a uniquely broken world on the precipice of disaster.</blockquote>If Climate Scientists are accurate, we may have done damage to our climate that will be difficult to undo - and the ferocity of weather conditions over the past years attests to that. However, I am sure that Harsanyi can point to industry shills who make a good living pretending that the environment is just fine. You have to decide which seems more credible.
At the end of the day you can't get something for nothing - as I'm sure Harsanyi would be quick to bring up if we talked about Welfare. We have mortgaged our future with the damage we have done to the environment, and we are like bums who see the bills and set them aside, hoping somehow that things will work out. We can either pay the bills we've incurred by changing our pattern of living, or we can have very rough times as our "remarkable inheritance" is repossessed. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-82136761822553653852014-11-18T11:35:00.000-05:002014-11-18T11:35:04.508-05:00Is Obama Depressed?According to <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2014/11/18/the-depression-of-obama-n1919987/page/full">Rachel Alexander</a>, conservative commentator, he almost certainly is. Among her evidence - the Onion apparently did a satirical piece which portrayed Obama as a manic depressive. Also he takes a lot of vacations despite the fact that many people are having a rough time economically.
Yep the Onion.
Also apparently Obama doesn't like it when his policy achievements are overturned - which makes him totally different from all other presidents or political leaders. So far so good - Republicans believe that Obama has done nothing but fail, so naturally he must be depressed - but then she starts to psychoanalyze him. <br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #351c75;">Obama is used to being fawned over and having things easily handed to him. As an attractive, leftist-black man in politics, people have always been eager to help him succeed. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize immediately after entering office, even though he hadn’t yet done anything. Now, as president, he is exposed to everyone and their opinions around the country, not just syncophants. He never built up the stamina and drive to get to the demanding, intense level where he’s at, so he does not have the psychological preparedness to deal with it.</span></blockquote>Poor Obama - of course his predecessor, George W. Bush, had a life of being bailed out of his many failures until he became Governor of Texas (where the Governor has little to no power) and then President of the United States where he failed to prevent the most deadly terrorist attack on American Soil in our history. Yet he took no responsibility for that failure or his many other failures - it's almost like a life in which failing produced no negative consequences produced a shallow prick who didn't see failures, even failures that lead to deaths, as not that big a deal.
But I don't know Bush 43, so I'd be hesitant to psychoanalyze him.
Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-85466951669109591542011-08-08T12:01:00.002-04:002011-08-08T12:21:22.519-04:00Back to the FrontToday's <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2011/08/08/debt_ceiling_aftermath/page/full/">article</a> comes from Bruce Bialosky in which he goes over the lessons learned from the debt ceiling. Among others, Conservatives are too nice. <blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span">Example: Senator John Thune (R-SD), a wonderful man, recently appeared on Meet the Press with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). When Ms. McCaskill accused Republicans of “giving taxpayer checks to Big Oil,” Thune should have asked her what checks she was talking about.</span></blockquote>Perhaps Thune didn't respond incredulously because earlier in the year we had a huge debate on Oil and Gas Subsidies, a debate Bialosky has apparently forgotten.
<br />
<br />Later on Bialosky brings up the rating agencies.<blockquote>The potential downgrading of America’s creditworthiness has little to do with the debt ceiling and everything to do with the gargantuan spending plans proposed by the Obama Administration.</blockquote>Pity that S&P was pretty clear in it's downgrade that it is the political atmosphere that makes compromise unlikely that created the problem. Republicans are not going to allow revenue increases, they are only going to allow draconian cuts in spending. There will be no compromise, unless it is on the Liberal side of the fence(where Obama shows himself more than willing to give in). The forthcoming Committee will recommend some structural changes in Medicare and Social Security, and some more discretionary cuts; this bill will fail. The balanced budget amendment will fail. Leaving us with the plan of across the board cuts. There will be a compromise to exempt the military from these cuts, and there you go.
<br />
<br />I could be wrong; perhaps as the weeks go on we will see the house Republicans scared by the downgrade into softening their approach a bit. But I doubt it. Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3894937.post-18592509601092595502011-07-26T10:56:00.002-04:002011-07-26T11:25:24.628-04:00Pat Buchannan Condemns and then Agrees with BreivikThat's basically <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2011/07/26/a_fire_bell_in_the_night_for_norway/page/full/">the story</a>. Breivek, the guy who killed all those people in Norway, is just evil; his ideology doesn't matter. And it's reprehensible for the European media to note that he does seem to have been a fan of many Conservatives warning about the dangers of Islam. Because of course reading about and enjoying anti-Muslim rhetoric has nothing to do with his actual act of violence, even if he said that the two were connected.<br /><br />But as it turns out, Breivak was, apparently, largely correct in his analysis of the problem.<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span">As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.</span></blockquote>in fairness to Buchannan he is an isolationist and a nativist; he prefers a strategy of keeping the Muslims in their own land and not interfering with them. Which is frustrating in a way; he's clearly an anti-Islam bigot, but he often opposes military engagement with them.<br /><br />Still this article is engaging for the way in which it condemns people like me for pointing out that conservative basically agree with Breivak, and then basically agrees with Breivak (on the problem, if not the solution).Bryanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10356055226606119829noreply@blogger.com1