It occurred to me yesterday that we’re on our third or fourth generation of liars. That is, those in charge are not only liars, but are the heirs of storied liars of the past. Like this:
In 1973 the Supreme Court issued the Roe decision – this was based upon a couple of lies: that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution and that the unborn child isn’t a human being and thus endowed with rights. This was the original generation of liars: people who knew full well they were lying but they felt the result – legalized abortion – was so important that they willingly lied to get it. But it didn’t just stop there.
After that lie, it went into the books as a “Constitutional right to an abortion” and the next generation was taught this as fact, especially in law schools. Arguments against were disparaged or completely ignored. It was seriously said that it was obvious the Founders intended it to be in the Constitution. Later rulings in the 80’s and 90’s struck down some pretty common sense attempts to at least restrict the practice with the Court essentially holding that obtaining an abortion is akin to free speech or going to Church…just about sacred. And this feedback loop continued into education and overall society until we got to the point where women were out there shouting their abortions and Democrats shifted from “safe, legal and rare” to Abortion Barbie in Texas and a full throated commitment to federally funded abortion on demand. All based on the original lie – right to privacy – but built up over decades with lie after lie until millions of Americans seriously believe that if we don’t pay for someone’s abortion we’re fascists. The people out there wearing the Handmaid costumes are sincere, guys: they really believe that if they can’t get an abortion then they’re nothing but oppressed breeding stock. They are third and fourth generation liars – that is, liars who think they are telling the truth.
And that is just one of ten thousand things, right? The lie that we had to engage in limited war in Vietnam was based upon the lie that limited war was a success in Korea. Later, both of those lies would create the lie that every war had to have an exit strategy and that US military action must be carefully regulated by lawyers checking us for possible war crimes. And so we’re eventually jailing our guys for killing the enemy in the Iraqi shooting gallery which was created because war had to be limited. Hegseth over at Defense is doing the most crucial work in decades right now – starting to re-implant a desire for victory in our military. Can he undo 70 years of liars? The Department of Defense is run by 5th or 6th generation liars; gonna be tough to fix.
And, overall, can we cure this in our society? The lie that freedom means we have to let a bum urinate on the street. The lie that we must let pop culture be a moral sewer or it won’t be interesting. The lie that we must maintain our alliances even if our so-called allies hate us. The lie that free trade is superior to protection. On and on and on through lie after lie after lie. Trump is getting the ball rolling…but its going to take decades…and the people we fight against will never understand why we’re doing it. They will be convinced to their dying day that we’re the actual liars…destroying all that is good. So deep have the lies implanted themselves.
Blogs For Victory 
Hegseth over at Defense is doing the most crucial work in decades right now – starting to re-implant a desire for victory in our military.
Not sure if you’re even accepting comments from posters other than yourself, Amazona and Spook, so I’ll keep this brief. The military always desires victory. Hegseth has nothing to do with that. The issue since World War II is political, and more specifically what the public is willing to tolerate.
Since the comment went through, I’ll just add that the United States is in no position to undertake the kind of regime change that was required at the end of World War II and which required over a decade to complete. Not only it the public’s appetite for it not there, but the US is not in a position fiscally to do that. Part of the reason for the latter is that we’ve chosen to provide billionaires with favorable tax policies at the expense of future generational wealth by greatly expanding the federal deficit. Whereas the government previously went into debt to fund WWII, now it goes into debt to fund billionaires. So the US is unable to do the kind of regime change you seem to long for. Fifty years from now historians will look back on the Trump era is the beginning of the end of United States hegemony.
Donald Trump has made it clear that he, and the United States, are not interested in regime change so your comment that an unidentified ” ‘you’ seem(s) to long for” it is unconnected to reality. Naturally many people hope some nations will change the direction in which they are going but this is not “regime change” imposed by us, merely an observation of suicides of nations.
I was responding to Mark’s post, so it’s pretty clear who I meant by “you” and that he is identified. If Mark disagrees with my perception of him, he is of course welcome to point that out. I didn’t bring up Donald Trump or what he’s interested in, other than to say fifty years from now historians will look back on the Trump era as the beginning of the end of United States hegemony. I’m sure you have a different opinion. We can have different opinions.
Since it is actually on topic let’s see if you can sustain an actual conversation:
The concept that casualties are decisive and we must limit them – on both sides – is, IMO, false. It is deeply implanted in the military psyche but it was a mistake out the gate. Not that Americans are indifferent to death, but that it is always a matter of risk/reward…we’ll pay, if the price is worth it.
This military attitude was visible in World War Two – greatly affecting both British and American military planning. The reason Normandy was chosen as the invasion point was in order to get ashore with the least number of casualties. The bottom line was that absolute Naval and Aerial superiority meant that the Anglo-American armies could land wherever they wanted – but the stronger the German defenses, the more would be lost in the initial assault. Normandy had formidable defenses, but nothing compared to Pas de Calais (in fact, Normandy had been put second tier by Rommel, charged with defending northern France…because it was the least strategically important point along that coast). The trouble with Normandy is that it only leads one place: Paris. The fact that a place called “Normandy” exists tells the tale: Charles III of France made the Viking (or Norman as the French called them) Chieftain Rollo Count of Normandy as a deal in which Rollo would swear allegiance to France and would block any future Viking attacks from Normandy on Paris. So, if your goal was to liberate Paris, Normandy was the place to be. But if your goal was to defeat Germany, Normandy was quite useless – the place to land was Pas de Calais…once through those defenses, you’d be deep into Germany within days taking the industrial Ruhr and that would be game over for Germany. But, Normandy – to keep costs low.
But they didn’t end up low. First off, we had to grind through Normandy (220,000 casualties) and then pursue the Germans all the way across France. By the time we came up against the German and Dutch borders it was felt that further pursuit was out of the question…which gave time for the Germans to reorganize and this necessitated Market-Garden (17,000 casualties), Hurtgen Forest (55,000 casualties), siege of Nancy (3,000 casualties) and gave the Germans their shot at the Battle of the Bulge (82,000 casualties). So much for saving lives – the Germans we fought at Normandy were the same Germans (transported) we would have fought at Calais…but once through Calais (at perhaps a higher cost than Normandy) all the rest of it wouldn’t have happened as the German capacity to wage war would have been terminated by October of 1944. But it was locked into our military mind: keep casualties low! At all costs! The only new wrinkle post-WWII was to also keep enemy casualties low…so we left Manchuria as a sanctuary in Korea and never invaded North Vietnam…just as we refused to enter Syria or Iran during the Iraq war…for fear of larger casualties…as if having our guys in an Iraqi shooting gallery was ok.
It is my view – and borne out by history – that we Americans will accept high losses if we can see progress towards total victory. The problem Lincoln was having in the summer of 1864 was that for all the bloodshed of the 1864 campaign, neither Richmond nor Atlanta were in our hands…there was a real chance Lincoln would lose the November election…not because of the losses, but because the losses looked fruitless. And then Atlanta fell on September 2nd, 1864 and that was all she wrote – Lincoln’s reelection was assured and there was no way out for the Confederacy. The blood had been balanced with success and the people supported the success.
The outrage about Tarawa was that it cost 3,100 casualties (including 1,000 dead) to take a place only a little over a half mile square. Meanwhile, Iwo Jima is forever linked with American glory even though we incurred 26,000 casualties (including 6,800 dead)…it seemed a glorious victory and it was ratified by the American people. Even relatively ignorant Americans today recognize instantly the flag raising on the island.
What we need is an American military instrument capable of fighting like they did on Iwo Jima. Quite simply, nobody quit. They fought and took casualties which were supposed to render their units combat ineffective but they kept right at it…because victory was the only thing desired. That is what Hegseth is trying to restore.
You seem to look at things entirely from a military point-of-view, which ignores the political pressures and how much the American people are willing to sacrifice, and what they are willing to sacrifice for.
It is my view – and borne out by history – that we Americans will accept high losses if we can see progress towards total victory.
To which I would say, victory at what? If it is an existential war, then yes, Americans will accept high losses and a high amount of suffering in order to win, as the citizens of most countries would. You said it: “we’ll pay, if the price is worth it.”
But your post talks about the post-WWII wars in which the US was involved. None of them were existential, and therefore the American people were not willing to sacrifice for those wars to the same extent as they did for WWII. Not only were hundreds of thousands of lives lost in WWII, but Americans back home sacrificed greatly economically in terms of rationing of goods and everything else. Do you really think Americans would be willing to do that to fight the “Iraqi shooting gallery”? Be honest: Do you truly think any MAGA supporters, for instance, would today? Of course there are exceptions, but as a group they show no willingness to sacrifice anything at all for the greater good. It’s all selfishness and greed. So it should be obvious that the answer is and was no.
as if having our guys in an Iraqi shooting gallery was ok.
Of course it was not okay. It was also not okay that we invaded Iraq and then had no plan whatsoever in terms of what to do after the Iraqi regime was toppled. The military did its job. The problem is that the administration at the time was incompetent, and the American public was not going to tolerate the massive cost of decades-long regime change that would have been required in the invasion’s aftermath (this as opposed to the American public’s willingness to do so post-WWII).
You also overlook the fact that post-WWII you had an exhausted populace in Germany and Japan with no appetite to engage in an ongoing guerrilla warfare against the occupiers. That has generally not been the case in the post-WWII wars.
And again, a big difference is the economic situation the US finds itself in now vs. coming out of WWII. Like I said, going into record debt to make rich people richer leads to a circumstance in which the US is literally unable to undertake the kinds of wars you seem to favor. The only exception would be an existential war, in which the US would emerge bankrupt whether it won or lost.
As for your D-Day history lesson, I’ll defer to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s judgement on that one.
He seems to be looking at the military from a military point of view, just as he looks at economics from an economic point of view, etc.
Just as your point of view is unfailingly one of a conviction that those on the Right are focused on “going into record debt to make rich people richer” and “(I)t’s all selfishness and greed”. That’s OK—we understand that most people are totally politically illiterate and base what they foolishly think of as “political” opinions on emotion and bias and programmed reactions to propaganda. At least when we say that the agenda of the Left is to create conflict and chaos and to destabilize our society, we can point to actual policies and actions to support those contentions.
There are no conservative policies designed to “make rich people richer” although there is strident Leftist opposition to the Right removing government programs and policies that have contributed to making Leftists richer while undermining our government. It’s odd to define an effort to cut waste and fraud in government spending as “selfishness and greed” but that is the narrative obediently parroted here.
Even a cursory examination of what is obviously an effort to posture as someone trying to discuss ideas instead of people shows that this is a difficult effort and also that it has not been successful, because barely under the surface of your discussion of “ideas” lies your antipathy to certain people, an emotion which defines you and your “ideas”.
“how much the American people are willing to sacrifice, and what they are willing to sacrifice for.”
The biggest fear of the Left (and a valid one) is they will receive a very unwelcome lesson in how much millions of American people are willing to sacrifice when what they are willing to sacrifice for is the salvation of the nation as it was created and intended to function.
There is that! The Left doesn’t want American victory, nor an actually effective military force…as long as it is strong enough to shoot Americans and is staffed with a high number of foreigners, all good as far as they are concerned.
The fact is we sustained high casualties in the past – and had we, say, taken Haiphong through which 90% of NVA supplies came in, it would have ended the war in about 60 days…and even taking 10,000 casualties to do it, while high, would have been worth it to have Vietnam about 6 months long instead of 10 years ending in defeat at a cost of 55,000 dead. Sure, if you did a public opinion poll prior asking “is 10,000 dead worth it?” you’d probably get a negative result…or, at best, just bare approval of it. But people like a winner…and an American army in Haiphong receiving the surrender delegation from the North Vietnamese would have washed away all anger.
There are no conservative policies designed to “make rich people richer”
Of course there are. That is obvious by the type of legislation that the conservatives are enacting. I suppose you could claim that conservative policies are different from the actual legislation they themselves enact, but then I would ask you why they enact such legislation if not to further their own policies. Do you think they are doing so to further someone else’s policies? That would be silly.
That’s not even a very strong effort to slither out from under an actual definitive answer. The vague reference to some “type of legislation” without a single example is evidently supposed to represent a real answer. There is the whine “I would ask you why they enact such legislation” without a single example of “such legislation”.
I said “There are no conservative policies designed to “make rich people richer” and the response was “Of course there are”—with the unwritten completion of that response being “I just don’t know what they are but I have been told they exist and it really pisses me off”.
That’s not even a very strong effort to slither out from under an actual definitive answer. The vague reference to some “type of legislation” without a single example is evidently supposed to represent a real answer.
You can start with the One Big Beautiful Bill. I thought that would be pretty obvious since it’s the only significant piece of legislation this Congress has passed.
Anyway, Mark, we’ve both made our points, though I’m happy to continue our conversation if you wish (and are able to wade through the interruptions).
Scurry, scurry, so you can pretend you would have been able to produce even one single policy in the BBB that meets or even vaguely resembles your claim of legislation designed to make rich people richer but you just couldn’t deal with the “interruptions”. And then you can pretend that you got away with it and no one noticed that you bailed out once pressed for facts and details and once you got called out on your dependence on petty bickering and personal attacks.
You will convince no one but yourself, and I have feeling that even your self-delusion will be thin and tattered. That sad claim about “American hegemony” sure died a quick and messy death once actual terms were defined. Funny how often that happens.
And BTW I went back through the thread and didn’t find anywhere where you actually made a point at all—at least other than the inadvertent point that your “political” opinions are just expressions of unfounded indefensible emotion-based dislike of those who represent a political system you do not understand but consistently try to undermine because the rest of your tribe tells you to.
Mark wrote, The fact is we sustained high casualties in the past – and had we, say, taken Haiphong through which 90% of NVA supplies came in, it would have ended the war in about 60 days…and even taking 10,000 casualties to do it, while high, would have been worth it to have Vietnam about 6 months long instead of 10 years ending in defeat at a cost of 55,000 dead.
Perhaps. But I think you are grossly underestimating the resolve of the NVA to continue a guerilla war even after the war “ended.” You don’t think they would have found a way to obtain enough supplies to continue assaulting our soldiers? You don’t think that other countries would have found a way to provide them with supplies?
To me, it would not have been like WWII in which a thoroughly defeated enemy lays down arms and acquiesces to the demands of the conquering army. It likely would have been like Iraq. Americans would be stationed in VN long after the war “ended,” and continually subjected to guerilla attacks with no apparent end. Because they didn’t want us there.
I don’t think the American public would have tolerated it. Well, I suppose as long as casualties were “low” and not on TV nightly (as they actually were in the VN war) and essentially out of sight and mind (like they were in Afghanistan and Iraq), Americans would have put up with it. But as you suggested before, that’s an immoral thing to do to our own sons and daughters, not to mention the sons and daughters of the occupied land. It just feels like you are looking at every post-WWII war through the lens of WWII, and Americans were not going to sacrifice to that degree for Viet Nam or Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever.
So Hegseth can re-instill the “warrior mentality,” as he puts it, but it really doesn’t address the other issues. The military was already a lethal force capable of overthrowing another (weaker) nation’s government (see Iraq). However, the “warrior mentality” doesn’t necessarily make for a good police force, which is what the military has been used for in recent decades, and what it would need to be if you are advocating for regime toppling wars. In fact, it probably has the effect of hardening resistance rather than quelling it.
“what it ( the military used as a police force) would need to be if you are advocating for regime toppling wars”
Cite Mark’s advocacy for “regime toppling wars”. Specifically
Artur Axmann, true blue Nazi trusted by Hitler, was given the job of setting up guerilla warfare after Germany’s defeat. Now, Axmann was the popular leader of the Hitler Youth. He had a pool of some five millions of young Germans. Heavily indoctrinated by Nazi ideology. Total failure. There was no sanctuary territory – that is, places where their enemies could not go – nor was there any third party support (that is, a nation willing to continually supply weapons and material). All those national liberation movements have had both of those things – and without those things, rag tag bands of half-trained militia can’t stand for long. Even in our Revolution, had Washington not been able to keep a regular Army in the field and had not France provided support, the whole thing would have failed.
Taking Haiphong in 1965 puts an end to the Vietnam war. No, there was no other method to bring in the necessary supplies…the only alternate method was a rail line from China which could be easily interdicted. That by strenuous efforts some supplies might still be carried into North Vietnam wouldn’t even have sustained the NVA in a serious battle…absolutely no chance anything would have been left for South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese didn’t have resolve to continue…they weren’t seriously attacked in their ability to wage war. They only won because in 1975 the ARVN was out of gas and ammunition and so couldn’t conduct the sort of very effective defense they had in 1972.
But here’s the real thing: and what I’m driving at – the views you have of war, sincerely held, are lies. Based on lie after lie after lie. Lies deeply implanted into the American mind but which vanish like a puff of smoke if you just think it over. That is what I’m driving at here – and for you I’m not asking you to become Conservative…but I am asking you to think.
“sincerely” held? What a kind and generous assumption about something said by a proven serial liar.
True – but, this is what I’m thinking right now…there is a chance he doesn’t completely know he’s lying. That is, so many lies have been piled up, one after another, over a period of decades that there might be sincerity in there. Though, of course, it would still indicate laziness and an unwillingness to think.
You look at us and we’ve all evolved over the years…because we think. Something strikes us as odd we consider it and if it leads to new or improved information, we incorporate that into our worldview. The real trouble with ol’ Rocks is an unwillingness to just think about it…probably borne of a fear that views might have to change.
I don’t think he cares if he is lying or truly believes anything…anything at all…because the underlying agenda of any of his posts is to gain attention by starting a bickerfest. He starts off relatively sanely, then quickly segues into some comment that would usually call for either a denial or disagreement, and then we’re off to the races with him the center of attention and throwing out insults and attacks. And once started there is no end until someone on this side calls a halt to it by cutting him off. Which, of course, leads to whining and victimhood, hoping for more bickering if someone tries to justify cutting it off. And so on. For decades.
I don’t care if he actually BELIEVES anything or not, because belief is not what matters. What matters is how gratifying it is to be the center of attention and the spark of discord, even if he is the only one on his side of it. Even insults like Cluster’s feed the pathology.
He is the perfect example of the saying that you never want to wrestle with a pig because you can’t do it without getting as dirty as the pig is—-and the pig LIKES it.
“it would still indicate laziness and an unwillingness to think.”
I don’t think it is an unwillingness to think nearly as much as it is a decision to be a certain kind of person, generating a certain kind of response, and laying claim to certain ideas advances that agenda. There is a lot of thought involved in his choices. He didn’t trip and fall into his mindset, but has carefully cultivated it and then even more assiduously defended it. He’s clearly smart. He writes well, has a good vocabulary, and in general illustrates that he possesses the skills needed to process information. He has chosen to accept some information and ignore or discard others. Which is one thing—but then he uses those choices to try to stir up trouble, and get people to on one level or another attack him.
He can be as masochistic and egocentric as he chooses, but for gratification he has to suck others into his game. It’s like a form of emotional parasitism, where he feeds on the emotional response he can generate.
It is strange to live that way, though. But, honestly, a huge number do, including some on our side, though we are more inclined to think plus most of us are informed by at least some semblance of religious beliefs and so we have guardrails against thinking really insane thoughts. Nobody on Rock’s side will do this:
I follow a lot of Catholic accounts on X and one of them routinely reposts a Catholic priest in Africa. As far as that goes, he just seems like a good, devout priest looking after his flock but for a while there he was posting about the terrible drought his people were experiencing and how the crops had been almost totally destroyed by it. Aid was requested (and delivered) but as I looked it over, I noticed that the priest was living something like 50 miles from Lake Tanganyika…which is the second largest freshwater lake in the world. It has 4,500 cubic miles of water in it (Lake Superior has 2,900 cubic miles). And you then pause and think of all the money which has been poured into Africa since Independence and nobody ever thought to build a pumping station and some water lines? That people who are – for an American – less than an hour from one of the largest supplies of fresh water in the world can’t water their crops? What the heck was all the aid money for?
And you understand – there is no upside for an aid organization to solve the problem. If the problem is solved then the high paid people in the aid organization are out of a job…can’t jet set to fabulous locations for conferences on how swell they are helping the poor people of the world. In other words, the whole concept of foreign aid is nonsense. It is a scam. Money laundering. A waste of resources. And that leads you to know that the best course forward is to cut it off…end the aid. It will work itself out. Someone in Africa will build that pipe line because they’ll have to or they’ll be lynched by mobs of hungry people.
But the Left never puts two and two together…
Your comment on the failure to actually fix a problem instead of campaigning on it echoes something I have thought for years.
Prime example: MANY PEOPLE CAN’T VOTE BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE PHOTO IDs
Well, if the problem is that “many” people are kept out of some important areas of life, like the ability to participate in our electoral process, because they don’t have photo IDs, a serious movement would work to help them get photo IDs. But while the Left drags this whine out year after year, to enable people to vote who might not be eligible or who have already voted, I have never seen a Leftist NGO or community program designed to seek out any of these “many” people to help them get photo IDs. This would be a great volunteer program but it would never appeal to all those virtue signalers who think that merely voting Dem is a shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground.
I haven’t even seen an effort to legislate a bill to use OPM to create an agency to do this.
They can rally and organize enough to go around to pick up homeless people and pay them with cigarettes or booze to vote and take them to polling places, but they never seem to be around to walk them through the process of getting copies of birth certificates or photo IDs.
That’s because they need the “problem” and solving it would be counterproductive to their agenda.
This used to be true. Under the Left it was no longer, as the purpose of the military was redefined in terms of social justice.
And under the Right the purpose of the military was redefined to engage in endless (and fruitless) engagements in foreign lands. Remember when we were told that we would be welcomed as liberators? Do you remember who said it?
And…here we go. How many posts did it take to get to personal attacks? How many words till the effort to shift to bickering? Not many, but then it is always a quick descent from a pretense of interest in actual productive discourse to mere sniping and venting of toxic personal bias.
You know this, Mark, yet you always fall for it and allow the viper to slither into the tent.
How many posts did it take to get to personal attacks?
Good grief. Mark and I were having a perfectly civil discussion. Maybe let us get back to it.
Everybody chimes in here and I can comment on my observations of this alleged “discussion”—especially when it so quickly devolves into the same old bickerfest, the same old coy questions designed to draw people into endless quibbling, etc.
You don’t get to make the rules here, any more than you get to use this blog to dump your toxic pathologies.
But if you want to discuss, define “American hegemony” in historical terms and then explain what will be different in half a century. Here—-I’ll help out.
Wikipedia defines it thusly: “Hegemony is the political, economic, and military predominance of one state over other states, either regional or global.” In the last six months President Trump has shown dominance in each of these arenas, both domestically and internationally. That is, regionally and globally. Dictionary.com says this: “leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others” Again, this country has shown more leadership and influence over others in half a year than it has since 2008, just to pick a year.
So trying to use a ten-dollar word you heard on CNN or MSNBC to appear knowledgeable and competent to engage in an actual political discussion is going to be an uphill battle for you, given your inability even use that word accurately.
It does; but the initial comment was on point! So, Rocks; get back to it – or you can talk about how your side is nothing but a pack of lies.
Everybody chimes in here and I can comment on my observations of this alleged “discussion.”
Of course you can chime in here. The point is that Mark and I were having a discussion (“alleged,” apparently, even though it is right in front of you) and neither of us complained that the other was resorting to personal attacks, nor did either of attack the other personally. And there was a thread to the discussion that made sense and now longer does because it devolved into something else. Anyway, I would explain why I think the era of American hegemony is coming to an end (sorry if that’s a ten dollar word to you—I thought you appreciated the use of words), but you make it clear you don’t want me to respond to you anymore. Happy to respond to Mark, though.
“I could but I won’t” has never been a compelling argument for bailing out when someone asks for an actual definition of terms and an example.
I appreciate the correct use of words as they are defined, not just the scattering of impressive-sounding words with no comprehension of what they mean, not to mention using them in direct contradiction of their meaning.
It does; but the initial comment was on point! So, Rocks; get back to it – or you can talk about how your side is nothing but a pack of lies.
Sorry, Mark, the thread’s got a lot of comments now and I don’t know what “It does” refers to or which initial comment was on point. So I don’t actually know what you want me to get back to! If you care to clarify for me, please do.
No, you just wanted to bull your way through Mark’s military commentary to a place where you could sneer about the Right legislating only to make the rich richer—which you said before I joined in and asked for an example. That is when you started to flounder because you like to toss out little snot-nuggets like that without being challenged and the request for an example of such legislation threw you off your course. So did the point that for the last 25 or so years the United States has exhibited weakness, not leadership, not influence, regionally or globally, and that the last six months has seen an abrupt reversal of that weakness, knocking your silly “hegemony” bleat into a cocked hat.
Mark’s responses have been consistent with what he said when you jumped in, but you almost immediately started in with your complaints about fantasy legislation with imaginary agendas and fell apart when challenged to provide any examples.
Paraphrase: “I’m so confused but it’s not my fault!”
That tends to happen when your agenda is to emote and sneer without any actual knowledge or fact to support the feelz.
Wow. Anyone who reads this thread can see who is personally attacking who.
I used the word hegemony knowing what it means. Sorry if that offended you.
Most of the benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill go to wealthy people. This isn’t a secret. It isn’t hard to verify. It is a fact. So conservative policies do in fact make rich people richer. This isn’t a secret and it isn’t hard to verify. It will also dramatically increase the deficit, meaning that wealthy people benefit at the expense of poor people, and at the expense of young people who will eventually have to pick up the tab. It’s a giant transfer of wealth.
Most of the rest of what you said is just personal attacks.
“his isn’t a secret. It isn’t hard to verify. ”
So verify it
“conservative policies do in fact make rich people richer. This isn’t a secret and it isn’t hard to verify.”
So verify it
hey Rocks, you could try actually answering the question and see how that works? And the bills do work to make the rich richer. And the poor richer. And the middle class richer. It works. To enrich Americans and ‘the rich’ are not a different species. You seem to unhappy unless ‘the rich’ are actively PUNISHED. (Even though it’s telling that by and large ‘the rich” is a major part of the Democrat donor base(at least of the part that isn’t active campaign fraud)
Rocks is the latest incarnation of a toxic troll from (and I kid you not) at least two decades ago. He has been kicked off the blog by every moderator during those years and blocked many times, also by several moderators, because of his obsession with the blog and determination to return, under one name after another.
The pattern is always the same: A token comment or two posturing as a sincere desire to enter into real dialogue, quickly disintegrating into increasingly rabid attacks on political figures, all illustrating a pathology only thinly veiled in fragments of political vocabulary. All of his posts are based on propaganda and lies and all seethe with irrational loathing of the Right and everyone on the Right—though if pressed he could not begin to define “the Right” in terms other than those used by Scarborough, the View, et al.
And he lies. Constantly. For example, I have repeatedly over the years cited and supported several specific aspects of the Constitution, most recently (in the last few years) the 1st Amendment and its guarantee of the right to petition the government for redress of wrongs (referring to the actual Trump supporters on January 6) and opinions on the true meaning of the 14th Amendment, as well as often citing and even quoting Founders on different aspects of the Constitution. Yet he repeatedly claims the only part of the Constitution I ever mention or defend is the 10th Amendment. This is minor, yet illustrative of his persistent dishonesty and determination to invent “facts” to shore up what are in fact nothing but eruptions of aspects of what I have come to suspect is a multi-phased personality disorder. In this thread I have pointed out several of these attempts of his to imply the existence of, and his knowledge of, “facts” that he claims are “there”, obvious, and quite easily “verified”—yet never identified and certainly not verified. It’s what he does.
And then after prompting multiple observations of his lying and invention of “facts” he whines. And whines, and whines, claiming he has been the poor innocent victim of personal attacks. For some reason he has also become fixated on me, personally, so I am blamed for the dislike, distaste and contempt he generates with his posts.
For some reason, though, even after all these years and all the examples of his game playing and efforts to slither under the tent and back onto the blog, Mark can’t seem to resist chasing after strings he drags through the blog trying to get someone to chase after them. He is canny enough to know that Mark LOVES talking about military history so today that was his bait, and sure enough Mark jumped at the chance to talk about it, opening the door to the stench that inevitably accompanies rocks when he has then received an implied invitation to come on in. Like a vampire, he can’t enter without a tacit invitation, so he constantly pops up with something he hopes will prompt such an invitation (a response) but most just ignore him.
nah, definitely is. You just aren’t that important. Get over yourself.