Matt’s got a bit up at TownHall:
What will my son be taught about Barack Obama?
At two years old, he won’t remember the Obama years, but he’s most definitely going to be taught about them outside the home one day. Liberal bias in schools is well known, and one can only imagine just how slanted curricula will be about the 44th president.
When I was in school, I can remember being taught whoppers like: the Second Amendment only applies to militias and/or muskets, the Founders wanted to keep religion separate from the public square, southern Dixiecrats all became Republicans, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt ended the Great Depression….
Read the rest here.
I encourage Bob and every other conservative whether independent or republican to read this article:
If Hillary Clinton wins in November, the odds of Republicans ever winning the White House again are lower than the odds of Barbra Streisand endorsing Donald Trump for president. This may well be the last chance for Republican relevance in a national election. Do the #NeverTrumps realize this? Do they care?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/hey_nevertrumps_this_could_be_your_last_relevant_election.html#ixzz4JOWZVI92
Bob inferred the other day that a Clinton victory is just another 4 years of Democrat control and is not that much of a game changer – an opinion of which I could not disagree with more. Hillary Clinton is a wholly owned subsidiary of the George Soros open border agenda and 4 more years of uncontrolled illegal immigration combined with at least two SC appointments, and this country will be changed forever. It’s time to do what’s right for the country and set aside personal feelings. And while I applaud the notion of wanting to form a new conservative party, at the moment it is an unrealistic effort that will accomplish nothing. If people really want conservatism to gain more traction in this country, they had better start fighting off the efforts to permanently kill it, and that starts by defeating Hillary Clinton.
“The odds of Republicans ever winning the White House again are lower than the odds of Barbra Streisand endorsing Donald Trump for president”
When the Republican Party turned its back on its entire conservative agenda, it lost its soul and its voter base.
You can call it defeatist or naysaying when I say Clinton will win, in the same way Hitler’s naysaying generals advised him to not invade Russia, but it does not change the fact that she will win. The GOP will be in tatters but hopefully Conservatism will have a new home and be strong enough to win some elections several years down the line. You have the beloved GOP to thank for this.
I’ve been thinking it over quite a bit, lately – and I think that we got lost quite a long time ago. In fact, right at the beginning of the movement with WFB in the 50’s.
Conservatives, naturally, set themselves against the very largest Progressive threat – namely, the Communist USSR. But in doing that, we got wrapped up on a defense of things which were not in any way Conservative; most importantly, we got into a defense of the large corporation model of the American economy. This was fine, to a certain degree, until that model failed – which for the United States stated in the late 1960’s. But Conservatives should have seen that failure as inherent in something as Progressive as a large corporation. We also entirely screwed up on rising integration of African-Americans and Latinos into American life – but this was, in my view, part and parcel with our unwillingness to see that with the rise of the large corporation as well as the regulatory State (which decisively favors large corporations) the American Dream was becoming increasingly difficult for Americans to achieve – the American Dream not being a house in the ‘burbs and two cars, but economic independence. As more and more people slipped out of the working class into the underclass, we simply refused to acknowledge that our economic system increasingly forbade the sort of entrepreneurial spirit which had, for instance, allowed corporations like Ford and General Electric to get started (there was a brief revival of some of that entrepreneurial spirit with the rise of the personal computer, but do note that with Apple and Microsoft, we very swiftly duplicated GM and GE, as it were). Conservatives correctly identified the destructive aspects of Welfare, but Conservatives failed to see that the reason the poor were going on Welfare wasn’t because of inherent laziness, at least in the first generation, but because all avenues of economic advancement were closed off, unless they could some how make the leap from nothing to the corporate world (which meant that kids in the worst economic situations with the least chance of developing intellectual faculties had to get into college…). If you look back at the titans of industry 100 years ago you’ll find story after story of men and women who started with nothing but by hard work and grit, made it big…but they first had to start out somewhere with something small…street hustling, as it were, to get on the first rung. That is mostly illegal these days – you can’t even open up a shoe shine stand without getting a permit and paying the government for the privilege.
We Conservatives were wrong from the beginning – so, of course, have been the Progressives; and much further wrong than we have been. Trump isn’t a betrayal of the Conservative movement – he’s a culmination of it, as it has been. We have to become a genuinely Conservative movement…a movement of small businesses, moms and dads, religious groups, small social clubs…we have to speak for such people, and do things which help them…then we can start to win.
Wow, Mark, that post really rocked my world. I think I agree with it all. Wow.
In case my last post sounded sarcastic, it wasn’t. That was a really great post, Mark.
LOL – no worries. And, thanks.
Mark, while overall I think you had a very good post, there are a couple of things I don’t agree with.
“We also entirely screwed up on rising integration of African-Americans and Latinos into American life” I agree that these demographics have not integrated well into American life, but I don’t see conservative action, or inaction, as the cause. Rather I see it much more as a result of Leftist efforts of various sorts, as the Left depends on divisiveness and fosters it. It is the Left which promotes self-segregation of various demographics, identifying them as “communities” and then setting them against each other. Because the Left either does not believe in the American Dream or denigrates it, it has never encouraged anyone to pursue it, and on the contrary has denied that it exists.
“….Conservatives failed to see that the reason the poor were going on Welfare wasn’t because of inherent laziness, at least in the first generation, but because all avenues of economic advancement were closed off, unless they could some how make the leap from nothing to the corporate world (which meant that kids in the worst economic situations with the least chance of developing intellectual faculties had to get into college…)”
I don’t agree with this. While conservatives failed to rein in Progressive regulations, it is those regulations that stymie economic growth, not restricting the ability to go to college and join Corporate America. In my perspective, joining Corporate America may be a path to some degree of economic security (though a fainter path every year as people are laid off in later years to save money, business merge and cut positions, etc.) but the true path to economic success is the establishment and development of small business. I am surprised to see you post this comment, after the recent discussions on the need for vocational education.
The man who owns a plumbing company with a few employees is likely to be more economically secure and more affluent than a college graduate who is working in some big corporation. We used to have a poster here who had an HVAC company in Florida. The heavy equipment operators in our little company make well over $100,000 a year. If we are going to blame conservatives for economic stagnation, I think we have to blame them for either failing to restrict the explosive expansion of regulation or for contributing to it, because in my mind this is what is limiting the creation of small business and its expansion and success.
You go on to say it yourself: “If you look back at the titans of industry 100 years ago you’ll find story after story of men and women who started with nothing but by hard work and grit, made it big…but they first had to start out somewhere with something small…street hustling, as it were, to get on the first rung. That is mostly illegal these days – you can’t even open up a shoe shine stand without getting a permit and paying the government for the privilege.” This is the opposite of being held back from what is now laughably called “higher education” which doesn’t prepare you for much in the workplace anyway and then slots you into a specific category and level of income.
I have written here about the problems our little company had in getting started. Time after time a bank would agree to loan us money, referring to the many things about us and our industry that made them confident that we would be successful, and every time, even after the two times we were were actually approved for a loan, the rug was yanked out from beneath us by a new spate of lending regulations, We were repeatedly told that these regulations would come in nearly weekly sometimes. Credit is the lifeblood of small business, and Progressive regulations are tourniquets.
That is just it – and you had skills and, apparently, a credit rating at least as a start…some kid in Detroit who has neither is even more behind the regulatory 8 ball…and we Conservatives have to start speaking up, very loudly, about that.
But where did those skills come from? They came from work experience in small businesses started and run by other people. Where did that credit rating come from? It came from having jobs in those businesses and making enough money to pay bills.
That kid in Detroit has no small businesses available to go to for a job, where he can start to learn how to work, learn job skills, and develop an idea of how he wants to make a living.
I have often mentioned that when I have someone come to the house to do some work, such as refrigerator repair, etc. I ask “Did you go to Career Day in grade school and say you wanted to grow up to be an appliance repairman/plumber/etc?” So far the people I have asked this question have had pretty much the same answer—No, I started working here (or for a company like this) just because I needed a job, and learned that I was good at it and liked it and made good money at it, and ended up buying the business when my boss retired, or started one when I moved to an area where they needed one. That is how so many people end up owning small businesses—someone way back when starts one, no doubt before Uncle Sam started putting up speed bumps to get in the way of something like this—and he hired and trained people, and some of them just continued to work for him and some branched out and started their own businesses and hired and trained people, and so on.
I guess we have some common ground after all. It might surprise you to know that I’m very likely voting for Trump this November. If I do, it will be the first time I’ve voted Republican in my life. I have a feeling there are many more like me out there who are leaning Trump and their support is not necessarily registering in the polls.
C’mon now, really? If Rusty backing Trump isn’t enough for you to bail on your plan to vote GOP, what is?
(this is a joke, of course)
I agree with you. I think there is a large hidden Trump vote out there. Trump was not my first choice, but and it’s a big BUT, Trump has recently been doing things that I have been waiting years for a republican to do, and that is to go into minority precincts and sell conservatism and ask for their vote. I also like the fact that Trump does not cower to the media or shrink from criticism, something that both McCain and Romney were guilty of.
If Trump can just stay on message, continue minority outreach, focus on the economy, and do well in the debate – I think he wins easily.
I also have to agree with Cluster that this election is indeed a game changer. On the issue of immigration alone you could hardly imagine two more polar opposites vying for power and I believe we’re currently at a unique pressure point with the issue; decisions made within the next four or eight years are going to have lasting impact.
Rusty, I am trying to type a response saying I agree with you but am too busy dodging flying pigs and watching the sun set in the east. But yes, we do agree on this, and I am glad. I have always hoped we could find some common ground somewhere.
Well, there you go. We’ve found it. I’m sure we still disagree on many things but the truth is I think I’m pretty much the same as I’ve always been but I’ve just been noticing the left sliding a bit more left than what I’m comfortable with. Globalization. Open borders. PC suppression. I’m getting older and I have my kid’s future and the country they’ll inherit to think about. I think that can change your perspective a bit.
Rusty, my experience has been that if we can get away from issues at the federal level, and focus only on the best blueprint for governing the country, we find more common ground than we expected.
When Ronald Reagan once said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me” it was what I had been saying for quite some time. Even after I came to the conclusion that the Dem party had moved to a place I didn’t want to be, it took me a long time to actually vote Republican. It was pretty well ingrained in me that I just didn’t DO that! I think a lot of us remain pretty steadfast in our beliefs while our parties slide out from underneath us.
A lot of conservatives have been feeling the GOP slip sideways for a while now, and the latest lurch has us focusing on stopping the death spiral before it becomes totally unrecognizable. One of its problems is that it has shifted its focus from governance to issues making it divisive, contentious and subject to current social pressures.
How is what is happening to the Republican Party now different than what happened to you with the Democratic Party earlier. Both parties became bloated and vapid and strayed so far from your views as to be incompatible with them. You had the gumption to leave the Dems when they betrayed you, and yet not so much the empty husk that is the GOP.
Not to be flip, but if you’d care better for your children’s future by not electing a guy that will get them drafted into a war he accidentally starts with a 2:00AM Twitter post.
If war is your concern, seems like you should be wary about the candidate who voted for the Iraq war, destabilized the Middle East, and made Libya a hotbed for terrorist activity. Tell me, what war has Trump started?
You emphasized the “war” aspect of my post when the imporat point was the “accidentally started with a 2:00 AM tweet” part.
Er, accidentally started *what* with a 2:00 AM tweet? War. Right there in your post. Now what war was it that Trump started again?
When I left the Dem party there was a viable alternative. There is no viable alternative to the GOP. How too too precious of you to refer to this acknowledgement of reality as lack of “gumption”.
Bob, you are quite happy with the concept of giving even more control over the nation to the Left while your imaginary new party builds some imagined power base and, I assume, discovers a heretofore unknown leader that might, eventually, in a few years or a generation or two, be able to challenge the newly entrenched Left and unwind its well established Leftist programs.
Or it might not.
Yours is a vague, pie-in-the-sky fantasy that somehow some people will come together in some way and put together some movement that will morph into some kind of party. It is a hope that when this happens, it will be able to challenge the entrenched Left, and reverse what it has established.
I think this is foolish and based not on an objective analysis of reality but on a fanatical dislike for a single person, so pervasive and overpowering that it blinds you to any possibility of any outcome short of absolute total disaster for the nation. It seems to be fed by odd fears, such as the stated fear that somehow a man can start a war by posting a comment that is limited to 144 characters. Because Putin’s finger is on the button just waiting for Trump to call him a big poopy head?
You have made your point, over and over and over and over again, monotonously and without ever veering from your position. No one here fails to understand it, and no one here agrees with it. So you are just engaging in a kind of relentless intellectual self-gratification, if you get my drift, and it is increasingly annoying and quickly approaching creepy.
Evidently on Planet Bob a whole war can be started by the verbal equivalent of stubbing one’s toe.
An “oops” followed by nukes?
It’s a vaguely interesting, if somewhat cartoonish, concept of how the world works.
Apparently, on Planet Bob, I should be concerned with his personal, made-up, hysterical conjecture about Trump starting a war and be unconcerned about the hawkish candidate that has actually green-lighted several disastrous military adventures. That’s a different take, but I think I’ll stick to basing my decisions on reality.
If Trump is elected, maybe Bob can go hang out with Babs, Amy, et al. They are both, along with others, so horrified at the concept of a United States with a President Trump they claim they will move out of the country.
Wait a minute—didn’t Striesand say the same thing when Bush was elected? And Cher? And a lot of other washed-up has-beens? (Note: They are still here.) Amy Schumer is just a washed-up wannabe. But they are all
threateningpromising to move somewhere else so they won’t have to live in a nation that elected Donald Trump.
That alone ought to get him a few million votes.
Rusty, I have a question for you, as someone who has in the past posted from a position that at least appeared to be Leftist, and as one who has participated in some Left-leaning blogs or discussion groups.
I am genuinely curious about how some of Hillary’s actions are seen on the Left, by people who have been supportive of the Democrat Party, etc. This particular question is about how her actions vis-a-vis the State Department inserting the United States into the Syrian civil war by sending weapons to one side are seen by left-leaning bloggers.
That question is important to me. Because at this point there is no absolute proof that this is what State did, on Hillary’s watch, but only evidence and testimony from people involved, I wonder if this is something disputed by Leftists, or admitted.
This seems like the starting point for the whole Benghazi thing, as if it is acknowledged that this is what State did, the rest falls into place like dominoes—-Hillary’s State Department botched this involvement and the weapons, or a lot of them, fell into the hands of Al Queda, as the first Unintended (one assumes) Consequence.
At this point we would have two interrelated messes laid at Hillary’s feet—-the involvement of the United States in the internal affairs of another nation to the point of arming (or trying to arm) one side, and then the incompetence of how it was handled.
How is this topic approached on left-leaning blogs?
Wow, this election makes for strange bed mates.
OK, Amazona and Rusty, continue to play dumb and act like my post was that Trump would start a war with a tweet. Either you guys are true morons or just acting so to exclude, rather than address, my point.
Let’s try is simply, just a.b.c, then.
a. Trump has a long history of getting into Twitter wars and stating stupid, angry things and otherwise behaving recklessly on the national stage.
b. A person like that, given the President’s power, might do equally reckless and harmful acts, only with greater consequences.
c. I fear – not hate, not despise with great passion – a man like that in power
d. My party worked very hard to block this dangerous man whose views contradict almost every tenet of conservatism but, once he won the primaries they embraced him and his views as their own. There for, I hate and despise with great passion, that party’s actions and seek a new home for my conservative views.
OK, so there are no difficult aspects of English in the above. No metaphors or irony or jokes or anything else. While I do not expect you to agree with my point I surely expect you to understand it and not spend several posts congratulating each other on tearing apart a point I did not make.
Oops, I almost gave one of you geniuses an opening.
When I explained in “just a.b.c,” I did not mean that as a limit of my points to just a, b and c. I went to d, but the statement was shorthand for, let me outline by letter for you.
Rusty, if you have not been following this blog much you may not realize that most of Bob’s posts consist of “I didn’t say what I said but when I didn’t say what I said I meant something else and when I didn’t say what I said and it sounded nasty it was a joke and when I didn’t say what I said it was a joke/metaphor/over your head and you are too stupid to understand the English language”.
Just one of many examples: “you’d care better for your children’s future by not electing a guy that will get them drafted into a war he accidentally starts with a 2:00AM Twitter post.” does not really refer to a concern that Trump might “accidentally start(s) a war with a ……..Twitter post” because that is (1) not what he said (2) not what he meant and (3) we are too stupid to understand what he meant when he said what he didn’t say. Or didn’t say what he did say. Or something.
Check out Amazonka showing her “I never heard of an example” strategy.
Yes, I said to be afraid Trump could start a war with a tweet. Guilty as charged.
Apparently in Amazonka’s language, that statement meant I limited Trump’s danger to ONLY that scenario. Most speakers of what we call “English” would recognize the statement as an allusion to Trump’s recklessness and would address that topic, but ok, you beat me on the “Trump won’t start a war with a tweet.”
OK, so, Rusty, you really should care that your kids could be drafted in a war – or any harmful outcome, not just limited to war – caused accidentally by the easily – offended and mercurial Trump, via Twitter or any other mechanism.
To be honest with you, arms to Syria under Clinton’s watch as SOS is not high on the Lefty radar. Certainly not on mine or the many Lefties I talk to. I think I’ve heard of the issue before but dismissed making a judgment on it due to lack of evidence. In general, the Left is not interested in delving into Hillary’s malfeasance. There are obvious examples of graft (The Clinton Foundation, huge paychecks directly from Wall Street delivered to her in the very narrow window when she was out of public office, State Department favors to foreign interests and “special friends”, etc), but these get written off as business as usual. Sad stuff, but everybody does it, whataya gonna do?
But I can give you insight about Leftist attitudes about Hillary in general: Between the two candidates, Hillary is seen as the ONLY viable option to vote for. Some of this is identity politics; although many have well-founded misgivings about her character, she is still a woman after all so, hooray, history is being made, grrrl power, etc.
As significant as that motivator may be, it runs a distant second to the abhorrence of Donald Trump to the PC Left. A Trump presidency is unthinkable to these people and the derangement syndrome is much higher than it ever was with Bush. Most of this is due to his alleged racist and sexist remarks, much of it is due to his brash alpha male demeanor, and a lot of it is due to the correct assumption that Trump will not be knuckling under to the many PC identity movements swarming the country (this is one of the main reason I like Trump).
Another big factor is that Hillary is seen as “the grownup in the room”, which in fact she is. I must say this line of reasoning kept me in the Clinton camp for a long time. Paranoid fantasies like Bob’s are laid to rest with Clinton. She’s a pro and has been around this block many times, for better or worse.
I’m sure none of this is any news to you but hope it helps.
“Most speakers of what we call “English” would recognize the statement as an allusion to Trump’s recklessness and would address that topic”
No Bob, most English speakers would recognize your statement for EXACTLY what you said: “(Trump) will get (my kids) drafted into a war he accidentally starts with a 2:00AM Twitter post.” If you meant something different or wanted the emphasis to be different then you need to work on your communication skills and stop whining that people are responding to the exact words you type.
“Apparently in Amazonka’s language, that statement meant I limited Trump’s danger to ONLY that scenario.”
No, I’m quite sure she didn’t infer that. We are just responding to the ONLY scenario you presented. If you wish to say more than say it, don’t expect us to read your friggin’ mind.
Uh, huh. Literal, that’s how you go for everything, eh? If someone told you to go outside you must slam into the door because the original instruction wasn’t “open the door and go outside”
ok, I give, you guys won the argument (he said to the pigeon – look up the reference).
That analogy is lame even for you. My advice to work on your communication skills still stands because believe me, you’re not coming across as you wish to.
To address the more general topic that you’ve expanded upon, the dangers of Trumps mercurial nature, I think that’s been way overblown. Yes he’s mercurial and thin skinned. He has an unusual personality. This doesn’t automatically translate to someone whose going to blow things up on an impulse. To challenge your broader concerns about his temperament, what disaster has he ever created as a result of his alleged impulsiveness? The media has been telling you for months that Trump is dangerously unbalanced and now every unscripted utterance reaffirms that impression for everyone who’s been taken in by the propaganda. It’s called conformation bias.
He’s unlike any politician I’ve ever seen running for President. I find that quite refreshing. I think a lot of others do too. I’d given up hope that I would ever see a major politician talk like a human being, warts and all.
BTW, you prefaced your remarks in question with “not to be flip…” which indicates to most speakers of what we call “English” that you mean to be taken seriously. The more you know, Bob…
I already conceded the argument, why are you still chirping “coo?”
Rusty, thanks for your response. You are right, I have heard all of this, but I haven’t been able to get a very good idea of how important any of it is..
I was ardently anti-Trump. I’ve never liked him and am still not a fan. But I have also said, repeatedly, that I fear him less as a president than as a candidate.
The thing about Syria is multi-layered, and I think because of that a lot of people just dismiss it. I don’t know if it is actually against the law for the United States to quietly, secretly, participate in the overthrow of a country’s government, but I would think a lot of people would find this objectionable. But that is just the first step in the bizarre sequence of events. Then comes the utter ineptitude of how this interference was handled, and I think that should impress people on both sides of the aisle when thinking of electing a Commander in Chief. A relatively small and isolated military or paramilitary action shouldn’t be that hard to pull off, but it was a disaster, and ended up first getting a lot if not all of the weapons in the hands of anti-American Al Queda and then leading to yet another comedy of errors as the disastrous decision was made to try to cover the whole mess up by sending in our ambassador with a couple of bodyguards to try to get at least some of the arms back.
Think of the Secretary of State in this mess as Commander-in-Chief Lite, and she botched it. Repeatedly. Bad (if not illegal) original decision, horrible execution, Unintended (presumably) Consequence of actually arming our enemies with weapons to use against us, and dishonest and inept efforts to hide these actions, followed by either paralysis (as the most generous view of the refusal to help our people when they got in trouble) or callous throwing of them to the wolves to make sure they could not come home and talk.
I am looking at this whole scenario through the lens of looking at a possible Commander In Chief. I think of it as an audition for running a war, and it was a case of Curley, Moe and Larry play war and get our own people killed. That’s all without the subsequent Coverup Stage 2 which was to lie about who was responsible for the attacks.
I know it doesn’t make any difference, but I still have to comment on the double standard of women in politics. Hillary Clinton got where she is today by latching onto a skilled and charismatic man, and riding his coattails to the White House and beyond. Every time she has tried anything on her own (such as Hillarycare) it has failed, flopped, and even ended up with someone dead.
“Feminists” claim to love her, in spite of all this and the fact that without a man she would not be where she is today. “Feminists” stood by Bill and turned their backs on their reputed feminist values when they said things like “Paula Jones is too ugly to rape”, and Hillary betrayed every single supposedly feminist value when she led the attacks on the many women who tried to get justice for the attacks on them by her husband.
These are two ways Hillary has proved to be the exact opposite of what feminists claim to stand for.
Yet they love her, and are vicious as well as hypocritical when they go after women politicians on the Right, making fun of the way they look and generally using the nastiest of sexist attack forms against them.
So when I hear the Left claiming it is time to have a woman president (subtext: any woman as long as she is a Democrat) while viciously savaging competent and successful women who did not need men to blaze their trails and set them up, I kind of throw up in my mouth. It goes way beyond basic Identity Politics into some strange area of absolute disconnects.
And none of this takes into account the proven facts of her blatant and elaborate and historical dishonesty.
Yeah, I hear you. Here’s a good example of a prominent upstanding Progressive rationalizing that rape is not so bad because it was done by a major Democrat who’s wife has a fine chance of winning the White House. Contrast this to the type of prevailing Progressive rape hysteria you hear about all the time. Looks like Brock Turner is unlikely to get the benefit of the doubt Bill did even though he was convicted and served time. “Progressives” are stalking his home and suggesting murder and castration. But of course Brock is much more despicable than Bill – he’s a white frat boy Republican stereotype with no power.
She does give Bill a pass, at least partially—yes, he did rape Juanita Brodderick, but then he was young (he was the GOVERNOR !!) and he was horny and it was just “alpha male sex” (which evidently involves split lips and the woman weeping afterward) and after all he did call later and say he was sorry.
Even the “not everyone who does a bad thing is bad” excuse and the “I’m all about redemption” claim would stand up, though not very straight, if the Juanita Brodderick case was the only one. Wonkette limits serial rape to the theory that rape is about power, not sex, but it seems quite likely that someone who sees all women as legitimate prey and who is stimulated by having women “play hard to get” (that is, resisting unwanted sexual advances) can be a serial rapist. That is, rape many women.
There is a lot to indicate that Hillary did know about a lot of Bill’s escapades, if not all of them, and I would not be surprised to know that he confided in her that some woman might try to make a big deal out of an adventure that got out of hand. She had a history of covering up for him, and this pattern continued well into the White House years. She referred to his escapades as “Bimbo Eruptions” and dealt with them in various ways. She had an ally stationed outside the Oval Office to monitor visits by women—Monica Lewinsky said that Bill was aware of this and she had to schedule her visits for times the woman was away from her desk.
There is a difference between being tolerant of a husband’s affairs, for whatever reason(s), and being complicit in his predation on women. It is one thing to ignore consensual sex with other women and quite another to viciously attack women who have had some kind of sexual contact with Bill, consensual or not. She slimed these women, she attacked them on a very personal level, she tried to shame them, she slandered and libeled them, and what’s more she had help. Who can forget James “Snapping Turtle” Carville’s sneer, about Paula Jones, “What can you expect when you drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park”?
For a wide range of women, from self-described feminists to ordinary women who just have self respect and respect for the law and for human dignity to support a woman who enabled this kind of decades-long sexual predation and abuse of victims is unconscionable. I just don’t understand it. I do know that I have no respect for any woman who finds this kind of behavior acceptable, or even just says it is not related to qualification for the presidency.
The reference I found to pigeons pretty much described arguing with Bob: It’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious.
I don’t know if Bill raped her or not. There sure does seem to be a lot of smoke but I think this is a dead issue for all, including Brodderick (I believe she’s made statements about moving on and putting this all behind her). But I’m stunned by the alacrity the Regressive Left displays in dismissing such charges.
The relevance is no longer whether Bill raped Juanita, or anyone else. But there is still relevance regarding Hillary’s role as guard dog, apologist and defender of despicable acts and how this should completely disqualify her as a feminist icon, and there is still the relevance of a whole large demographic which has decided that such character defects don’t really matter.
I get nostalgic when Amazona dusts off the old “I know you are but what am I” retort. The classics never go out of style.
Poor little one-trick pony, desperate to get attention back to him. You’ve got one tiresome simple-minded message, you’ve repeated it enough, no one cares, and now all you can do is try to stir up a fight so you can pretend you are in the game. As usual, you have to invent something to whine about.
Oh, no, there goes Amazona sweating to get the last word.
Yesterday you waited five hours, long after other posts of yours, just to chime in “ooooh, oooh, I know the pigeon reference, I know things. So you dragged me back in with a well thought out “you, too, what you said.”
I guess if you want me to stop replying, you gotta stop with this last word bs. The argument ended a day or so ago. Let it go.
So whatdaya plan on doing for your twelfth birthday Bob? Ice cream involved?
You know, Rusty, you’re really starting to grow on me. Will you be my date to Bob’s Utter and Complete Lack of Self Awareness Party?
Ha! as in “good one!” ?
Ha! as in “fat chance” ?
or Ha! as in “finally someone to drive because I like adult beverages” ?
A and C. As long as we don’t discuss abortion.
It’s a deal. Can we talk about the Broncos?
Well, they sure beat the heck out of Cam – new QB does look like he has the stuff, but it’s early in the season and maybe he just had a lucky outing. Time will tell.
But #BoltUp! This is the #Chargers year!
Chicago Bears baby. Although I’d rather not talk about them. They’re still rebuilding.
I was really happy to see Matt’s article contained this:
His choices for those serving as his policy czars are also a reflection of his terrible judgment. John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar (2009-present), supports forced abortions and sterilization to combat overpopulation. Vivek Kundra, Obama’s former Information Czar (2009-2011) was a convicted criminal. Rob Malley, Obama’s ISIS czar (2015-present) is a terrorist sympathizer. And then there is Kevin Jennings, who, as a history teacher, was told by one of his 15-year-old students that he was having sex with an older man. Jennings was legally required to report the statutory rape, but instead, actually encouraged his student to maintain the relationship. Jennings was appointed as, and served two years as, Obama’s Safe Schools Czar.”
I have always been unhappy about the free pass given to Obama’s choices for the people closest to him, and was particularly upset about his choice of Kevin Jennings.
A few days ago I wrote a post opining that the Left sees three things as competition for authority, which makes them all intolerable: Religion, the family and education.
This morning I came across an article by Christopher O. Tollefsen in Public Discourse about a new book which addresses the Left’s efforts to undermine family authority. (emphasis mine)
“A new book defends the view that parents have primary authority over their children. The role of the state is to help parents, not to take over tasks that are properly parental.
Melissa Moschella begins her new book on parents’ rights and children’s education with a quotation from Melissa Harris-Perry that might be familiar to Public Discourse readers: “we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
The implications of such a claim are breathtaking. If Harris-Perry is right, where the rearing and educating of children are concerned, the community—and in particular, the political community—should determine both the ends of such care and education and the means to be pursued. The community, in other words, possesses primary authority. Even if that authority is not complete—if, for example, parents also have some authority over their children—such familial authority is at best only partial, derived from an implicit grant from the state.“
The destruction of the family has always been part of the Progressive agenda – they don’t want families to own property; they don’t want families to be economically independent; they don’t want families passing on education (especially education in a faith tradition)…the reason for this is if people are family first, then they are not State first, and in any manifestation of Progressive thought, the State always comes first.