"In this regard, a memorial or monument is kind of like a baby or a national park. Once people decide to build one, everybody who comes along much later should accept that they’re stuck with it."
Tom Cotton, Harvard educated Army officer, knew exactly what he was writing, and exactly how it would be taken, and exactly the phrasing to use so that very defense would be trotted out to cover him for it while still getting the meaning to the audience for whom it was intended. That's the truth, emotional and otherwise.
Now we know not only was he cornered, but struck by a vehicle, shot, then when he tried to fight they shot him twice more, after pursing him for an extended period of time.
There's another conversation here on how all American political ideologies have been coasting on the once-in-a-millennium convergence of factors a post-WW2 victorious America enjoyed, but right now I'm going to go eat this excellent German potato salad so we will have to come back to that point.
I've been having a long-running conversation/debate with a friend (non-OT person) on whether -- for lack of a better term let's call it Goldwater/Reagan/Buckley-esque Conservatism to avoid confusion with whatever-the-hell this current mess is -- around the whether Buckley's fusion stool (religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives) needed the "big bad" of the soviets to keep the fusion part together and absent that a new big bad had to come forth, and the so called "cultural wars" was already in their wheelhouse. The problem with that, of course, was that instead of the common cause of the Soviets you now just turned a large chunk of the country automatically against you on grounds of principle.
I was speaking directly, by name, of one person in that harshness. I didn't say conservatives, I didn't say republicans, I didn't say Trump supporters, or anyone else. I said Charlie Kirk. Note I made no mention of his politics at all.
You've got three years and nearly 500 articles of mine just here on OT as a reference point. I rarely go to name calling. With Charlie Kirk it is fully, justifiably earned, and the fact I reserve it for him and people like him should tell you something.
I spent an inordinate amount of my time daily helping all sorts of folks, many I disagree with if not most, get their voices heard and platformed here and elsewhere. If you want to post something I'll not only help you do so, I'll promote it on my own social media to get more folks to see it.
The Kirks of the world are not about convincing anyone. The great lie of Kirk, TPUSA, and that you just repeated here, is that they are trying to change minds, or do anything at all productive. They are not. They are laundering money from donors into their own bank accounts while they live off billable expenses to the organization. They tell their gullible donors that is what they are doing to keep the cash flowing. All they have to do is spout off enough of the proper buzzwords to keep the money train going. It has nothing to do with conservatism, the right, America, or anything else.
You can't delegitimize a con man. They've already done that to themselves. So let me reiterate: Charlie Kirk, for a list of reasons you can easily find if you so desire, is a grifter and a jackass. Not because I seek to delegitimize him, because he is, in fact, a grifter and a jackass.
If someone is incapable of looking at a grifter and a jackass and go "Hark, there goes a grifter and a jackass" because they like the flowery buzzwords the grifting jackass speaks, or they lack the integrity to attack the grifting jackass just because the jackass has co-opted the ideological team of said observer, that is their problem.
The man and the ideas are already separate. I attacked, justifiably, only the man here.
I didn't lump anyone else into Charlie Kirk. Don't defend him by lumping him in with people I wasn't referring to.
Imagine decrying something for bias and then leading off your retort with "He's clearly an Anti-Trumper" which is...what's the word I'm looking for here...oh, yes. Bias. You started with a political problem and worked your way from there. Sad!
On “Do All Lives Matter?”
The VA
On “The Confederate Flags of Comer’s Store”
Thrilled to have you writing, hope you continue to do so
"
welcome back. Stay a while
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth Edition”
Biden was told he would be the VP at least by June, and he knew he was top of the list since March.
On “Wednesday Writs for 6/24”
"In this regard, a memorial or monument is kind of like a baby or a national park. Once people decide to build one, everybody who comes along much later should accept that they’re stuck with it."
Wow. Wrong.
On “How Tan Was My MRAP”
No, it was the Bside to "Too Much Heaven"
"
Thank you Saul I was rather proud of that one and hoped folks would get it.
On “Altering the Policing Paradigm”
show your work
On “Confederate Monuments Are Everywhere in the South. Why?”
Ridiculous comment Chip...you left out the tan suit. Shame on you.
On “Red Storm Rising in My Mind”
Appreciate that thank you
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Mission Creep and Opposite the Editors Edition”
When someone's body of work informs that the words they are using are not what they intend, that is just good discernment
"
All true
"
Tom Cotton, Harvard educated Army officer, knew exactly what he was writing, and exactly how it would be taken, and exactly the phrasing to use so that very defense would be trotted out to cover him for it while still getting the meaning to the audience for whom it was intended. That's the truth, emotional and otherwise.
"
Here to help
On “Unqualified: The Winding Road of Qualified Immunity”
Reading this comment, and the fact you actually hit reply on it, makes me sad for you as a person.
On “Does Anyone Owe Colin Kaepernick An Apology?”
That Sinead O'Connor one is really one for the books
On “Ahmaud Arbery Preliminary Hearing: “He ran until he couldn’t run anymore””
Now we know not only was he cornered, but struck by a vehicle, shot, then when he tried to fight they shot him twice more, after pursing him for an extended period of time.
On “Integralists: America’s Would-be Theocrats”
There's another conversation here on how all American political ideologies have been coasting on the once-in-a-millennium convergence of factors a post-WW2 victorious America enjoyed, but right now I'm going to go eat this excellent German potato salad so we will have to come back to that point.
"
I've been having a long-running conversation/debate with a friend (non-OT person) on whether -- for lack of a better term let's call it Goldwater/Reagan/Buckley-esque Conservatism to avoid confusion with whatever-the-hell this current mess is -- around the whether Buckley's fusion stool (religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives) needed the "big bad" of the soviets to keep the fusion part together and absent that a new big bad had to come forth, and the so called "cultural wars" was already in their wheelhouse. The problem with that, of course, was that instead of the common cause of the Soviets you now just turned a large chunk of the country automatically against you on grounds of principle.
On “An Appalling Lack of Rights: From Inalienable, to meritorious, to “Yeah, but…””
However the entire system is being judged by its most heinous, and illegal, outlier action.
As it should be, until those outliers are back in alignment. It's called accountability.
On “Trouble in Lake Wobegon”
"he had the 5th Cavalry walking point in combat loadout, just like he was touring Baghdad."
That didn't happen.
On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Fire, Fury, and Frustration Edition”
And if people subsribe to those thoughts, think they are worth something, then by definition they are not conmen, or grifters or flimflam artists.
"Those taken in on the con confirm that it was not a con" is not much of defense.
"
Let me answer that:
I was speaking directly, by name, of one person in that harshness. I didn't say conservatives, I didn't say republicans, I didn't say Trump supporters, or anyone else. I said Charlie Kirk. Note I made no mention of his politics at all.
You've got three years and nearly 500 articles of mine just here on OT as a reference point. I rarely go to name calling. With Charlie Kirk it is fully, justifiably earned, and the fact I reserve it for him and people like him should tell you something.
I spent an inordinate amount of my time daily helping all sorts of folks, many I disagree with if not most, get their voices heard and platformed here and elsewhere. If you want to post something I'll not only help you do so, I'll promote it on my own social media to get more folks to see it.
The Kirks of the world are not about convincing anyone. The great lie of Kirk, TPUSA, and that you just repeated here, is that they are trying to change minds, or do anything at all productive. They are not. They are laundering money from donors into their own bank accounts while they live off billable expenses to the organization. They tell their gullible donors that is what they are doing to keep the cash flowing. All they have to do is spout off enough of the proper buzzwords to keep the money train going. It has nothing to do with conservatism, the right, America, or anything else.
You can't delegitimize a con man. They've already done that to themselves. So let me reiterate: Charlie Kirk, for a list of reasons you can easily find if you so desire, is a grifter and a jackass. Not because I seek to delegitimize him, because he is, in fact, a grifter and a jackass.
If someone is incapable of looking at a grifter and a jackass and go "Hark, there goes a grifter and a jackass" because they like the flowery buzzwords the grifting jackass speaks, or they lack the integrity to attack the grifting jackass just because the jackass has co-opted the ideological team of said observer, that is their problem.
The man and the ideas are already separate. I attacked, justifiably, only the man here.
I didn't lump anyone else into Charlie Kirk. Don't defend him by lumping him in with people I wasn't referring to.
On “Hydroxychloroquine, COVID Truthers, Trump and Science”
Imagine decrying something for bias and then leading off your retort with "He's clearly an Anti-Trumper" which is...what's the word I'm looking for here...oh, yes. Bias. You started with a political problem and worked your way from there. Sad!
On “SpaceX Launches America”
the old problem of controlled (relatively speaking) vs uncontrolled environment. Can't code for the crazy people.