After the latest WE GOT HIM, NOW!!! in the MSM about Trump failed, it started to occur to me that the problem our Liberals and Never Trump have is that they are working from the assumption that Trump is just like them. Meaning, that Trump is as much a garbage person as they are, or at least as much garbage as those they prefer to have in power.
Think about it: all of these people who really go after Trump, can you name anything constructive they’ve ever done in their lives? They are pundits and activists and consultants and think tank denizens…but have they, in any real sense, ever had a real job? Lived the real life?
Now, to be sure, Trump is rich, and he was born rich. I think and wonder what I might have been like at 30 with an essentially unlimited supply of money. Unlimited supply of money and also famous. All that money and fame and beautiful women always circling around. I don’t know what I would have been like – but the temptation to at least take advantage of certain things offered would have been mighty hard to resist. And, it seems, that at times Trump didn’t resist the temptation. But, that he sinned merely means he’s human. And there’s a huge difference between a good man who sins (the Bible says that even the righteous man falls seven times a day, after all), and a bad person who positively enjoys sinning.
The reason we’ve got things like the Mafia is because some people simply like to do bad. They consider it fun. They also consider it far more worthwhile to get via screwing over someone else than it is to get by work. It is just part of the run of humanity. Most people resign themselves – in joy or sorrow – to merely doing what needs to be done and assuming that the proper reward will come of that. But some, and it isn’t a small number, are forever seeking the angle – the con which will get them what they want without all that tedious necessity of earning it. Some of the people like that – the more “successful” ones – are rich. But not all of them are; and not all people who are rich are like that. Some rich people are actually quite decent. And I think Trump is one of them.
Trump, from what I can see, doesn’t seek ill for anyone. He’ll punish anyone who crosses him (though he should, at times, turn the other cheek), but he doesn’t seek the destruction of others. He’s one of those people – my grandfather was another – who are entirely ok with other people doing well. My grandfather’s mot was “better to have 10% of something than 100% of nothing”. Meaning, if you can help others win while you’re winning, it is all to the good. Trump seems to be like that. But think about the people who essentially run things in America: it is a gigantic, vicious competition to see who gets on top and the way you get to the top is by crawling over the lives of those you destroyed. Matt and I experienced this when we were blogging and trying to break into writing for money: outside a few gems, no one would help us. They were fearful that if we got, they’d lose. They didn’t see it as something where if we all teamed up, all of us would do well. They didn’t want that – they all wanted themselves to be Number One…and in their minds, that meant keeping people like me out and down.
But, as I said, Trump doesn’t seem to be like that. The Democrats and Never Trump are going to keep on tripping over themselves because they keep looking for the evidence that Trump is just like they are, and he’s not. They’ve found out he’s not perfect – but that didn’t take much effort as it was in the news all along. But they will not, I suspect, ever find the kind of evidence to prove he’s like the Clintons, or Pelosi or any one of a hundred Establishment grifters. He’s not on the take. He hasn’t destroyed anyone. He hasn’t abused anyone. He’s just a normal man – meaning, he’s a good man (who sins).
Blogs For Victory 
A very sad day for Journalism, a great day for our country.
It is now known by everyone that MSNBC and CNN are not in the business of journalism, but rather in a concerted effort with Democrats to unseat the POTUS, and those two media outlets will have to clean house and purge their payrolls if they hope to regain any respect.
Trump will win this shutdown standstill and make the Democrats look petty in the process.
It’s a good day
That is why I call them the Complicit Agenda Media. They are there to advance an agenda and they are complicit in the efforts of the Left in general to accomplish this.
This, by the way, is not journalism. There was a time when it or something like it was called “yellow journalism”—I should look up the origin of that term—–but the modern media, for the most part, have abandoned all pretense of objective reporting in favor of openly working FOR a certain political agenda. Oh, some think they are working for social agendas, but that is just because, like so many who support the Left, they just haven’t taken the time or made the effort to learn that what they THINK they are supporting is just a thin layer of disguise over the true political structure underneath.
I can’t think of a medium that I consider wholly honest, in terms of simple objective reporting. The medium of radio comes closest, though the reporting is then accompanied by opinion. But at least the reporting aspect is usually straightforward. Print media, from newspapers to magazines, are nearly all in the bag for Leftist agendas. The medium of television is hopeless, ditto for entertainment. The internet offers some avenues to simple reporting but you have to seek them out.
There is overt political bias in the media, and then there is just plain stupidity—sometimes showing political bias.
A few days ago I was checking the weather and the site tends to just go ahead and run its silly video even if you haven’t clicked on one. So what I heard was some simpering urban elite sneering that a wolf shot in Wyoming was shot by “a trophy hunter”.
Except, no, you inane little twinkie, it was probably shot by a rancher protecting his livestock. I have not heard of “trophy” wolves being stuffed and displayed. But this is the mentality of the Left and it shows up all over the place. Killing a wolf is by definition badbadbad, and anyone who does so only does it out of some evil spiteful inexcusable motive such as wanting to kill a beautiful wild creature to get a “trophy”.
I’d like to drag her out by her over-sprayed hair and make her watch a wolf rip a partially born calf out of the cow as she is giving birth and start to eat it while it is still alive and see how long she lasts in the real world before she changes the color of the front of her designer jacket.
And today I saw a short article about the young bull rider who was killed in a Denver rodeo the other day. I quote, from the ignorant writer’s story: “.. the angry animal, named Hard Times, stomped on the young rider’s chest.”
Except no, you ignorant twit. The bull was not necessarily “angry” but just doing his job. They are trained to buck, and it’s nothing personal. And no, you empty-headed fool, the bull did not “stomp” on the rider’s chest. He was spinning in the air as he was bucking, the rider fell and the bull happened to come back down with a foot on his chest. Watch a little PBR, you phony baloney excuse for a reporter, and you will see that bulls can’t control gravity and land where their trajectory is taking them. The entire event was filmed and studied and the bull remains in the lineup because there was absolutely nothing to indicate that this was anything more than two objects trying to occupy the same space at the same time. I happened to be at the National Western the next day and there was plenty of discussion about this.
I just have no patience with these empty-headed, smug, smirky know-nothings and their injections of their personal opinions, based on ignorance, into their “news” stories.
Interesting article:
We didn’t hire Trump to go to church with us. We hired him to clean house.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/trump_puts_schumer_and_pelosi_in_a_brilliant_vise_grip.html#ixzz5d3erssBv
I hope his assessment is correct.
You know we often hear progressives talk about the “browning of America” which in my opinion is terribly racist …. but of course if it weren’t for racism the Democrats would have nothing to run on. But I thought it would be fun to think of the “whiting of Mexico” – why not?
I will trade the United States for Mexico any day. They can have Minnesota and we will take Playa del Carmen. They can have North Dakota and we will take Mazatlan, etc., etc.. Then in a couple decades after socialism and laziness has destroyed North Dakota and Minnesota, the phenomenon will repeat itself. It’s really not to hard to think thru.
I’ve even heard some Libs say that if Mexicans really want to be Americans, let’s make it happen. Let’s just annex Mexico, get rid of its corrupt government, send in the military to treat the cartels like enemy insurgents and wipe them all out, put their billions into developing infrastructure and setting up English language schools, add some states to the flag and some Senators and Representatives to Congress, and get ‘er done. We get all those natural resources the corrupt Mexican government has never been able to fully develop and put into the economy, we get some great beaches, we get a much smaller and more easily defended southern border, and everyone is happy. Ten years later, after taking lessons in US history and civics classes, native Mexicans can be officially US citizens, and we’ll all have a wonderful big glorious country.
And this would, of course, lead to the “whitening” of Mexico, as millions of Americans flood the country to buy land and houses, build businesses and in general get into some of that great weather.
Which leads me to the suggestion that we take the hundred billion or so of El Chapo’s ill-gotten gains we have frozen and use THAT money to build the wall. That would be irony, wouldn’t it? And poetic justice as well.
…take the hundred billion or so of El Chapo’s ill-gotten gains we have frozen and use THAT money to build the wall.
This is such a common sense solution I am surprised that we are not doing it …. there is no reason not to take and use that money.
After all, most if not all of it came from the United States anyway……
Trump outlines a common sense deal here. How long before Americans turn on Democrats?
https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5991477635001&w=466&h=263Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Fielding has yet to chime back in on the BuzzFeed fake news … weird. What happened Fielding? Hard to believe those “journalists” were wrong.
Here’s some more fake news for you courtesy of the NYT:
“Boys in Make America Great Again” Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March”
Sadly the headline and the story is completely false.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59696&fbclid=IwAR13iBSksqmRE7mqSTVCmq5xyfWUKBLdak5_Wr9AHx1UxAUMroaFzXb77TU
In fact, this is what was heard from the Indigenous crowd:
“You white people, go back to Europe where you came from! This is not your land!”
Now can you see why conservatives like me get tired of this shit? You, and Casper, and all of your mindless progressive little cohorts are nothing more than over emotional children who can not be taken seriously. And that includes everyone in the media. In fact, this is how HuffPo characterized the event:
Video posted online captures the unsettling incident in Washington, D.C., after a group of teens surrounds Nathan Phillips, mocking and harassing him as he sang the American Indian Movement song on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
There was no surrounding, no mocking, and no harassing but trigger words like that foam up the progressive base, right?
So let’s take a look at what we have in this story.
We have a group, in this case a group of minors, being approached, yelled at, harangued and threatened because of their beliefs
We have Leftist supporters publishing severely edited videos with the intent to mislead, accompanied by completely false headlines and commentary
We have black racists approaching white people and making racist comments in a threatening and intimidating manner
We have a supportive Leftist soliciting a criminal attack on a minor, and offering to pay for it
We have someone spewing vitriol and hatred at a minor because he doesn’t approve of the kid’s uncomfortable smile as he tries to deal with being publicly attacked
We have the internet “blowing up” over a completely false narrative—a narrative that is, by the way, not just a misunderstanding but a purposeful lie
We have a school rushing in to condemn the alleged actions of those who, as shown by the video, did nothing wrong
We have some names associated with conservatism jumping on the hysteria bandwagon without bothering to learn the facts.
Just another day in America, Cluster. What’s your point?
Just heard on MSNBC:
“The Mueller probe is not about getting Trump, it’s about getting to the truth”
That should keep you laughing the rest of the day … you’re welcome
The Mueller probe is about stalling the ability of the DOJ to prosecute known criminals. The Left’s strategy has not been to indict Trump for any existing obstruction of justice, but to get that concept and that wording out there, firmly embedded in the minds of the public and firmly linked to interference, real or imagined, into any action against any of the old cadre of government insiders.
Now that they have been so successful in planting that in the consciousness of the nation, any effort to prosecute any of the lawbreakers will be portrayed as an effort to derail or influence the Mueller “probe” and cast as “obstruction of justice” and even as a panicky effort by a guilty man (Trump) to divert attention away from his crimes.
We have been outplayed, and the game is still going on. Mueller knows that the fate of his co-conspirators, and his own, are in his hands and dependent on him being able to keep the “investigation” going till they can get a Dem president to get the DOJ to ignore his, and his buddies’, crimes and abuses of power. Mueller knows that the day after he puts out a report clearing Trump of any wrongdoing, which is the only thing a report of his CAN conclude, he and the rest of the conspirators and bad actors will just be waiting to be arrested, arraigned and charged with a variety of crimes. He’s got to keep that balloon in the air.
And, of course, the Right lets him, because we have been cowed into accepting it and going along with it by fears of being called names if we don’t.
I do think that when Trump is running the whole show, and playing his own cards, as we saw in the Pelosi/trip showdown, he is too smart to be suckered in by the bait thrown out by the Left. I will bet that he went by the advice of his advisers in appointing Mueller, and they got thumped soundly for being so easily snookered into a modern version of “Oh, please don’t throw me in that woodpile”.
Trump’s entire background has been the equivalent of playing three dimensional chess, and complex schemes within schemes within schemes identify the Left and its tactics. But the GOP is the equivalent of the doofuses at the carnival, sure they can tell which walnut shell is hiding the pea. They are so easily led, confused, deceived and outmaneuvered it is embarrassing. We always forget that the Left plays the Long Game, and get distracted by the short-term plays, the equivalent of sacrificing a pawn to get a better position on the board.
We have our own tacticians, if by “we” we mean putative conservatives wearing bright red Rs but who maneuvered to try to take Trump down, either by refusing to just resign their Congressional offices so governors could appoint replacements, providing Republican incumbents for the midterms, or by playing the Kristol game and just overtly trying to undermine the position and authority of Trump, openly siding with the Left. Ryan and Kristol and their ilk have had the agenda of getting rid of Trump, which has driven everything they have done. But even they are amateurs when it comes to the interlinked strategies of the Left, and right now I think Trump is the only one with the brains to figure most of them out.
I think the conservative movement needs to lose people like Ann Coulter. Her actions ultimately benefit progressives, not conservatives.
The thing about a truly conservative movement is that it wouldn’t “weed out” anyone, especially for lack of purity of thought. That is territory occupied and best left to the Left.
Ann can be obnoxious and sometimes very very wrong. But she can also be very very right, and the only people who are going to try to make her the poster child of what is essentially a political philosophy and not a personality poll are those on the Left who think that way.
And as a political philosophy, about the best blueprint for governing the nation (that just happens to have elected and still supports Donald Trump because he is acting on that philosophy) the only way to be part of the movement is to be, well, part of the movement.
As Bill Kristol, et al, are finally realizing, the only way to be part of the conservative movement is to be part of the conservative movement. All the self-identification and posturing in the world won’t make you a conservative if you would, for example, vote for a hard-core Leftist dedicated to either ignoring or eroding or even overturning our Constitution, because you can’t stand the PERSON running against the Leftist. It’s a spin on the saying “pretty is as pretty does”. In this case, it is “conservative is as conservative does”.
There is a point where the rubber meets the road, where talk doesn’t matter, where self-identification doesn’t matter, where the little letter pinned to your lapel doesn’t matter, where the letter after your name as an elected official doesn’t matter, and if we are not quite there yet we are —-finally—-getting really close. I think we are nearing the point where personality is less important than a firmly held belief system about how best to govern the nation, and at that point there is room for people whose personalities, and outbursts, are sometimes irritating as long as they remain committed to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Ann sometimes comes across as the relative you hate to invite for Thanksgiving dinner because she can blurt out the most obnoxious and sometimes offensive things—but she is still a member of the family because her true political philosophy is conservative. Let the Left continue in its policies of competing Thought Police punishments as they constantly turn on their own for committing sins of lack of purity.
My point is … she is completely unbending and that rigidity has hurt us more than helped. There is no way Dreamers get sent back, it’s just not going to happen and my hope is that people like Coulter could see that and use that as leverage as Trump has done.
The Rolling Stones said it best – “you can’t always get what you want” and smart people realize that and get what they can and move on. Coulter’s rigidity is as much to blame for our problem as the Democrats are.
I agree, there are times I think Ann is doing us no favors because she feeds the Left sound bites that they can, and do, use to try to smear us all. But the real problem is not that she says what she says, but that we are so helpless in dealing with it.
We could deal with that, if we only had a voice, by simply saying what I just said: “Conservatism is not about personalities, it is a commitment to a certain approach to how to best govern the nation, and to a conservative that is according to our Constitution. That leaves a lot of room in the movement for people who have conflicting ideas. But we don’t censor people or impose rigid Thought Police rules on them. If Ann Coulter believes that the only right way to govern the nation is according to our Constitution, she is a political conservative, but her personal views are her own and don’t reflect the beliefs or opinions or attitudes of others who are only joined by their belief in governing the nation according to its Constitution. We leave demanding and enforcing Thought Purity to the Left, where it is a basic component of its philosophy.”
Something along those lines would subtly slap Ann down, indict the Left for its Thought Police and demands for absolute obedience to its dictates, and point out that merely having a different point of view is not a crime.
We have to be careful to be on guard against falling into the trap of adopting Leftist tactics. The GOP used to be known as the Big Tent party, because it had so much room in it for so many different ideas and opinions. It was, at heart, simply the party that believed in Constitutional government, and under that broad umbrella a lot of different and often conflicting ideas and beliefs were found.
At some point the party drifted, or was driven, away from that basic POLITICAL identity, as people started to graft on social and personal and religious values and issues and then demand allegiance to things that were not political at all, but moral or religious or social beliefs in how things SHOULD be. When the party started to demand allegiance to all sorts of personal, social, religious and moral concepts that some found imperative—in other words, when it became more like the Left in setting up its own version of Thought Police—-it started to narrow its scope and appeal, and started to lose support.
Right here on this blog I was castigated for having this opinion. When I said homosexuals and abortion providers and all sorts of people with different societal and moral values would still be conservatives if they believed that the federal government should stay out of anything that is not a delegated duty and that their issues should be resolved at the state or local level, according to Constitutional law, a couple of “conservative” posters had major hissy fits boiling down to “This is MY party and I don’t want THAT KIND of people in it”.
This is what happens when people lose track of the importance of the actual architectural structure of Constitutional governance and the need for a party that supports it and demands it, and starts to obsess about the curtains and the color it should be painted.
A true Big Tent party has plenty of room in it for opinionated people who disagree on details, as long as they agree on the basic structure.
If in fact “Coulter’s rigidity is as much to blame for our problem as the Democrats are” that is because we are so inept at handing internal conflicts.
We just don’t have a voice that laughs off her outrageous opining, that says “Hey, that’s Ann’s opinion and it doesn’t have anything to do with the opinions of millions of other people. She gets to have her own opinions and we get to disagree with them. That’s the kind of personal liberty true Conservatives fight for. It’s also the kind of personal liberty the Left wants to eliminate. Don’t take our word for it—-check out the fate of opposition opinions in Leftist nations.”
Odd to hear Democrats like Chuck Todd express deep sympathy for federal workers missing paychecks, but not utter one word of sympathy for the tens of thousands of American victims of illegal immigration.
Federal workers miss paychecks. American families miss dead relatives. What’s more important?
If a former link of yours is right, it’s possible that a lot of these poor folks will be RIFfed and looking for other work anyway.
I thought the part of your link that discussed the timing necessary to implement a Reduction In Force was fascinating. I hope it happens. I have been saying for years that one of the priorities in Congress should be changing the laws regarding the ability to fire unproductive federal workers, and if this is a way to achieve the same objective and weed out the unproductive (but expensive) on the federal payrolls I would be thrilled.
RIF half a million or so parasites and slackers, trim down the agencies to people who actually do their jobs, and Trump will be making progress on part of his commitment to drain the swamp.
Then he can go after the alligators who run the swamp. And knowing this is going to happen is exactly why Mueller is dragging out his “investigation”. It’s the only think standing between the DOJ and a flurry of indictments and prosecutions for some very serious crimes.
Last night I was busy cleaning out my pantry and just left the TV on, so ended up listening to and even stopping to watch part of a cheesy old movie running in the background called The Demolition Man. I say “old” because it is old in Movie Years—I think it was made in ’93 but the date used in the movie was ’96. It was kind of fun because it featured a very young Sandra Bullock and a nearly unrecognizable Benjamin Bratt, along with Sylvester Stallone.
I kept it on because of the premise. In the movie, Stallone had been a hero cop who was also considered responsible for the deaths of a lot of civilians back in ’96 so his punishment was to be put in cryogenic stasis for something like 40 years. (That part was really funny—-they just dumped him into a tub and filled it up as he fought to get out and then froze him into a giant ice cube.)
Anyway, the plot was that far far into the future—-2032, I believe—–society had been whipped into shape by a massively powerful Central Authority (and you can see my take on this showing through, of course) and the city that used to be Los Angeles and some surrounding cities, now mashed into one newly named city, had been made into an idyllic city of peace and love. Everyone was chipped so the authorities could find anyone, and no matter where you were if you used an offensive word a voice would scold you for violating a Morality Code and spit out a citation. The most horrible crime was tagging a wall with graffiti, and it horrified the police.
So a viciously violent criminal from 1996, the archenemy of the Stallone character who had also been frozen, was thawed out for a probation hearing and escaped, into a society totally unable to deal with him. Here is where my politics kicked in. He was violent, they didn’t know how to deal with violence because they had legislated it out, and he was a wolf in the sheep pen. It was a society of malleable sheep. He learned that all guns were now in museums, so he went into a museum and armed himself. (You can see where this is going…..)
An old cop who had been around in ’96 and the idealistic young cop (Bullock) who was fascinated with ancient history (the American 90s) realized that the only way to catch the bad guy was to bring back the guy who caught him last time, so they thawed out Stallone.
This is where I started to pay attention. When he was thawed out, he turned to Bratt and said “Bring me a Marlboro” and no one knew what he meant. When they realized he meant a cigarette they were a little freaked out, and this is when Bullock explained, and I will try to get most of it—“Cigarettes are not good for you, and what is not good is bad. So bad things are not allowed now—“cigarettes, alcohol, meat, sugar” and she went on through a pretty long list, ending with “anything spicy”. I was laughing. I wondered if Hollywood in 1993 realized it was making an indictment of Leftism in 2019 because her list was the wish list of Leftist officials. It was like a future Los Angeles as dreamed of by Jerry Brown and Bill de Blasio.
Then, of course, it was total mayhem with many gunfights and explosions and ridiculous feats by Stallone, who was the only armed person fighting a newly armed gang led by the old-timer criminal. It was an actual explanation of why people need to be able to be armed to defend themselves, an ad for the NRA and defense of the 2nd Amendment. It was also an object lesson in what it would be like if the Leftist scolds get their way and get to impose their own views of what is “good for us” on us. Sex was virtual because any exchange of body fluids was bad.
And when, at the end, when the architect of the new society was killed, the people were terrified and wondered what they could do now, with no one to lead them.
I am kind of surprised that Hollywood has not confiscated this movie to keep it from being seen, as it indicts nearly every wish list of the Left and illustrates the kind of society they want to create.
I’m sure it was considered by the entertainment industry 23 years ago to be a funny take on the future, with every restaurant named Taco Bell because after Taco Bell won the Great Franchise War every restaurant was named Taco Bell, and people wearing long flowing robes and little hats that reminded me of Nehru. I wondered if there was a seditious element in the creativity group purposely planting warnings of what it would be like if the Left got its way in deciding everything that was “good” or “bad” and then herding a meek and compliant society into its pens of acceptable behavior, and of the dangers of an unarmed populace and law enforcement, knowing it would fly over the heads of the executives, or if this just evolved as a simple plot line with no awareness of the underlying messaging.
Anyway, cheesy as it is, it stands as an object lesson on the dangers of Leftist control.
As Stallone said “You can’t try to stop people from being assholes”. (He got a citation for that.)
I found the quote about what is banned because it is not good for you: Huxley is Bullock, Spartan is Stallone.
“Lenina Huxley: Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it’s been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat…
John Spartan: Are you shitting me?
Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
John Spartan: What the hell is that?
Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
Lenina Huxley: …….bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don’t have a licence.”
When I went to look for quotes from the movie, sure that I could find some, I realized that it is full of good stuff.
One character, played by Dennis Leary, is a rogue living with other rejects (“Scraps”) underground. He says:
“You see, according to Cocteau’s plan I’m the enemy, ’cause I like to think; I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder – “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing “I’m an Oscar Meyer Wiener”. (This far into the future, “classic 90s” music is just old advertising jingles.)
When Stallone is talking to Bullock about virtual sex, she says “The exchange of bodily fluids? Do you know what that leads to?” And he responds “Yeah, I do! Kids, smoking, a desire to raid the fridge.”
It’s Sunday. Kick back and check out the quotes site and have a laugh or two.
https://www.quotes.net/movies/demolition_man_2973
Will do …. it’s Sunday and there is some good football on …. Go Chiefs. Go Rams
The language is rough but he’s got a point and it’s good for a laugh …
The language isn’t as bad as what you hear at a “women’s march”. Yeah, there is some crudity, but it’s a Stallone movie. And besides, the movie needed the vulgarity to generate the Morality machine spitting out citations, an important visual of the end result of the Nanny State.
And you gotta love this, because it is only about 25 years after the movie was made and it has come true: I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake…
“…it’s good for a laugh…”
It’s also an accurate prophesy, much like Idiocracy. It was supposed to be funny, and it turned out to be prophetic, just as Orwell’s work has turned out to be.
They finally might be getting it:
It is concerned that global organisations and national governments are no longer seen as being on the side of the people.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-6613227/Furious-voters-losing-trust-globalisation-wreck-world-order-warns-IMF.html
Fielding has yet to chime in on the false BuzzFeed attack on the President. Do you feel used Fielding? Poor ol Chuck Todd is not happy:
In the midst of their overall discussion of the Buzzfeed story, towards the end of the program, Todd turned to New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker so they could lament together.
“We could all say we did the ‘if trues’, and ‘if trues’, and we said ‘we could not confirm it’. And that’s all true. But let’s – It was something the entire media world was telling the public, this is probably true. By the way, we covered this. Now, look,” Todd bemoaned.
And proving once again that Progressives can dish it ….. but can not take it:
“Now, unfortunately, it’s blowback on all of us. We all own all of the media in effect. Anybody gets anything wrong, it’s used as a weapon and a cudgel against all of us and against all of the other thousands of other stories…”
Poor babies. They sure like to use weapons against their opponents but cry like little kids when it’s turned on them. Now you know why I despise them.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2019/01/20/chuck-todd-irritated-dubious-buzzfeed-used-tar-all-media
“I think the fact the Special Counsel chose to correct this one says that they weren’t troubled by the vast majority of those thousands of other stories and a lot of the reporting has been, in fact, pretty right,”
What a panicky desperate spin on reality. Just as the Left wants to own the dictionary, it wants to own the ability to characterize actions and lack of actions, to “explain” what they “mean”. In this case, the fact that the Special Counsel (who was, lest we forget, a man who helped weaponize a federal agency to bring down Donald Trump and committed perjury and fraud upon the court to do so) did not add to its constantly-expanding scope of responsibility that of correcting every lie told in every medium about the President means that the lies were, in fact, “pretty right”.
Pretty right. As in kinda right. Maybe right. Maybe kinda right. Or, as we have seen over and over again, not right at all. As in, wrong. As in, often purposely and knowingly wrong. As in, lies. As in, Fake News.
The only reason Mueller spoke out on this is because the fake, invented, story claimed to be based on information straight from his own posse, and he couldn’t afford to add to the already mounting skepticism about the legitimacy of the “investigation”.
And not being troubled by lies created for the same reason he abused his powers as head of the FBI—to destroy Trump—-is far from being the same thing as believing they are true. This is, after all, the same guy who was “not troubled” by the act of lying to the FISA court and basing warrant applications on a document he knew was an invention. While Mueller was head of the FBI, it was also paying Christopher Steele, who was also being paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. That didn’t “trouble” him. He knew Steele was being paid to create a fake “dossier” to bring down Trump. That didn’t “trouble” him. Why should a flood of equally false stories suddenly “trouble” him?
OF COURSE Mueller wouldn’t be “troubled” by additional lies from other sources. He’d be thrilled. The more fake dirt invented by other enemies of Trump, the better and more legitimate his “investigation” looks.
Duh
“We could all say we did the ‘if trues’, and ‘if trues’, and we said ‘we could not confirm it’. And that’s all true. But let’s – It was something the entire media world was telling the public, this is probably true.
Hmmm. It looks like Chuckie is forgetting that what “the entire media world was telling the public” could very easily be a complete lie. We recently saw a great example of this. Remember, the corrupt FBI anti-Trump cabal fed lies to the lapdog media, which then dutifully circulated them to “the public”—–and then Meuller and his crew used the media coverage of the lies to “verify” the legitimacy of the lies. This was based on the assumption that anything that appeared in media coverage was then by definition true, because the media people would of course (OF COURSE !!!) be honorable and ethical enough to verify it before publishing it. So what is published, if published often enough and repeated often enough, is by definition factual.
This is basically an example of the Left’s strategy—-truth is never an objective verifiable fact but only what the most people believe. It is infinitely fluid, much like gender. It is what people think it is, for whatever reason.
Now Chuckie is trying the same scam—-if “…it was something the entire media world was telling the public…” then of course it was “probably” true. Probably. Maybe. Possibly. But equally probable, given the death spiral of American journalism, complete fabrications. Which Chuck knows because he is part of it, from publishing lies under the feeble disclaimers to then using the publication of the lies to justify publishing the lies.
And here Chuck also admits the standard he finds acceptable: PROBABLY TRUE.
So here he explains the circle of “journalism”—–a medium is handed a salacious story that fits into its political agenda and it likes the story so much it runs with it, sometimes with a token effort to cover its backside with feeble disclaimers such as those Chuck described: “We could all say we did the ‘if trues’, and ‘if trues’, and we said ‘we could not confirm it’”. This gets the story out there, where it is picked up and repeated over and over again, by (as he puts it) “the entire media world”. That coverage is then used to excuse continuing to publish the lie, because the volume of coverage of the lie is considered to prove the lie is not a lie.
This is a great peek into the workings of the Left and how the Leftist media operate.
I have often mentioned the imagery of a scene from “Catch-22” in which a patient in a war zone is in a bed, immobile and covered entirely from head to toe in bandages, with one tube running into his body from a bottle hanging near his head and one running out of his body into a bottle on the floor at about his midsection. A couple of times a day a nurse comes in and switches the bottles, hanging the filled one from the floor near the head and hooking it to that tube and putting the emptied bottle on the floor near the midsection.
This seems to accurately describe the system Todd just explained.
Of all the problems confronting this world, I think climate change is the most alarming and I am glad Democrat candidates are making that issue their top priority for 2020. It’s only going to be 70 degrees in Phoenix today and ideally if I can get that to be 75 degrees I would be much happier, so I am looking to Bernie Sanders to make that happen for me ….. go Bernie!!
I’ve become a big fan of global warming. I live at over 5000 feet in altitude along the Front Range of the Rockies, and we finally, toward the end of January, have had to deal with a little snow. In the meantime, we have had to take off our hoodies by noon because it was so warm. In January. People are wearing shorts.
We’ve had massive snow storms in the mountains, so we will have runoff for irrigation and to water the people fleeing the Peoples’ Republic of California so they can recreate that nasty mess here in Colorado. It’s like rats fleeing a sinking ship, but carrying the blueprint for the ship so they can build another one just like it.
It’s like rats fleeing a sinking ship, but carrying the blueprint for the ship so they can build another one just like it.
LMAO
Meanwhile, in northeastern Indiana it was eleven below zero at 8 AM this morning with close to a foot of snow on the ground. It would be most appreciated if you could send some of that “shorts” weather our way.
It’s been in the mid to low 20s at night, but at this altitude, with the dry air and so much less atmosphere between us and the sun, a sunny windless day is pretty comfortable. But it snowed a little yesterday and will snow again overnight—hoping to avoid minus-zero temps, though.
Sorry Spook …. I grew up in that weather hence my current residence in AZ
Every American should understand this – with the BuzzFeed lie and the Covington kids, our media has spent the entire weekend doing their best to divide this country and destroy our President.
So why is everyone concerned about Russia? We should all very be concerned about our media.
When you read the stories about the real efforts made by the Russians, those efforts had little if anything to do with who was elected and everything to do with fomenting internal conflicts and promoting societal fracturing and instability.
I’m sure they realized that electing a Republican would add to this, as a Dem president only generates a sense of gloom in the Right while a Republican president results in riots, death threats, members of Congress using the vilest vulgar language about him, overt efforts to overturn an election and by doing so eroding our entire electoral process and public announcements of seditious intent to “resist” the entire administration.
So when I see the Left whining about Trump “working for Russia” I have to laugh, because the only people working for Russia in this Country are the Left and the so-called “conservative” Never Trumpers. They are the ones aiding and abetting the Russian desire for the United States to be splintered into warring factions and undermined from within.