Justus

Mark Hamill (of anyone ever associated with SW) attacked on Twitter. SMH.

Exactly what are attackers trying to get out of that?

As expected, Kamala Harris tried to grandstand, as if that's ever going to win her the nomination, while others actually think trying to paint "high crimes" fantasies is ever going to move the needle toward Trump being found guilty of anything. I come from a very political family, and I've followed politics for decades, and through all of the maneuvering, lies, big and bit players, honest and dishonest players/supporters, I've never witnessed such a desperate, childish group like those trying to grill/"expose" Barr, a man who remained as unflappable and sticking to the facts of the report as ever.

So Biden announced. It will be interesting for the Biden camp (with angry Symone Sanders as one of senior advisers) try to explain away his history, including taking a hardline position against busing, with the spurious, slight of hand argument that busing took black kids from their neighborhoods and culture. Before anyone says that was the past, remember, this is a presidential campaign, where every important detail of public and private life is placed under the microscope.

...oh, and then there's the Anita Hill issue...

Oh well, its just a building. Buildings can be re built. Like Met said, nobody was hurt so that's the main thing.

 

Everyone on social media crying at the tragedy need to put it into perspective. Its just a building. And nobody cried when the ancient city of Petra was pillaged by ISIS. Or the countless historical treasures lost in The Cradle of Civilisation (Iraq, Syria, Egypt et al). But I suppose antiquities of ancient Babylon, Assyria and Egypt aren't as important as a flagship of the Holy Christian empire.

 

One cathedral catches fire in France and people lose their ****.

Its not a tit-for-tat situation. The cathedral burning down is a tragedy whether any other locations were destroyed or not.

But your "Holy Christian empire" line says it all.

They've gotta stop releasing TV spots. I can't not watch them, and I'm trying hard to go in as spoiler free as possible. Normally I don't get bothered by spoilers and sometimes even seek them out, but decided against it for this one. I'm too hyped.

I would not be too concerned with the TV spots or trailers. I recall just about everyone thinking the IW trailer where Cap was struggling with Thanos just meant Cap was going to die, but the opposite happened. Remember the trailer's fake out Hulk in Wakanda shot? That was the polar opposite of the film having Banner incapable of Hulking-out once he returned to earth. I think A4 will still be able to surprise audiences.

 

1. The problem with these reactionary gun nut types is they're way way WAY too individualistic and eccentric to ever organize into anything other than a small band of weekend warriors. The political power required to wage a civil war requires competent leadership and an organized body of followers willing to play the role of soldier, or else be part of an organized political and economic administrative structure able to sustain a war effort over any length of time. Naturally, this entails submission to a bureaucracy and the taxation necessary to sustain it all. Do I really need to explain why this is completely at odds with the "freeman" mentality so prevalent in reactionary circles? Even were they to be able to muster some sort of citizen's militia, it lacks the equipment and training necessary to have a hope in hell against a professional fighting force of a modern day high tech nation. This is why they prefer their LARPy little militias - if they even get off of 4chan and reddit long enough to bother even with these any more - to the actual military. The army is the consummate socialist organization. It's all about command, control and discipline, as it has to be.

 

 

 

 

2. This also applies to left wing LARPers, who equally foolishly fantasize about revolution, violent seizure of worker's control over the means of production, etc. Little bands of Antifa style arts and humanities majors are going to do this in the face of professional military and militarized law enforcement? Ha ha ha! Good luck sunshine! They couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery, let alone effectively manage any scale of economic enterprise. They need professional management and they damn well know it. That's why they LARP and fight entirely with one another or their right wing counterparts and aren't really serious about it.

 

1. Its not about fighting like its Plymouth, 1864. Since the 1980s, the "gun nuts"/fringe Right have embraced the idea of fear forcing their enemies to change policy, or said enemy weakening themselves where it would be easy for the fringe Right to make sociopolitical gains (David Duke was the most significant, post 1960s model of that), not raising armies for "the big campaign."

Additionally, yes, they do feed into their egos with rallies, marches and internet threats, but the dual tactics of "Leaderless resistance" was embraced because they knew there was no toe-to-toe battle they could win. Terror strikes like McVeigh (Oklahoma, and why he said he committed the act) had more of an impact on domestic relations/policy than any group of shaved killers trying to take it to the streets. They are well aware of this, so through that "It could happen to you" concerns, they first inspired anger, but ended up getting moderates to agree with what was once seen only as hate speech, or treasonous behavior.

Despite the horrors of Oklahoma, I will never forget how the "yes, but" conversations fired from one end of America to the other--even in liberal circles, as McVeigh and Nichols' alleged motives--the attacks at Ruby Ridge and Waco--were not justified, but the public, courts and mainstream media ended up echoing many of their sentiments about government abuses.

That kind/level or response was absolutely unthinkable among the mainstream Americans of the 1950s/60s America, but in the wake of those two attacks, the fringe Right won a significant victory against the government they want to take over or take down.

So, while the fringe Right racists and militia groups certainly exist, and yes, they do train for their long-predicted darker days, more often than not, they ended up moving certain political needles in their direction with means other than attempting an open, mass insurrection they know would end in the blink of an eye. The most frightening outcome of that is the post David Duke era of the fringe Right have successfully learned the American political game, and know how to tweak their play on the emotions and questions of those who would have never dreamed they had even a fragment of a shared belief with the fringe, or Alt-Right. Once they convinced more than a few moderates to say, "yes, but," they have won yet another war, particularly during election time.

No battlefields required for that.

2. Regarding the Left wing end of this, aside from the Antifas of the world trying to be some Thing-like amalgamation of the Weather Underground, SLA and Black Liberation Army, the modern fringe Left is less likely to take their rage to the streets, opting to wage war in social media through outright propaganda, fiction, and silencing dissent (where possible) than anything even on the outskirts of the once routine, extremist acts of the aforementioned groups. Like the fringe Right, they are honest enough to know how that would end.

 

You didn't lose interest, you lost your mind. You played the stereotypical Democrat game, ignored everything I actually posted and made up a story that suited your purposes. Quote what you thought was such a negative generalization about Democrats in my OP, or surrender your base to me.

 

EDIT

 

I had a response written out about the irony of how everything you accuse me of is exactly what you do, which is the point I was trying to make. But you're so willingly obtuse, or an ***hole, that awaiting your response would just ruin my weekend.

 

You're a troll.

 

And despite posting here for 20 years, so is Justus. That's why instead of engaging Kurgan who actually gave him a lengthy response, he chose to snipe at me.

 

 

I was responding to something you posted...directed at me. That's how it works.

Jeeze.

But that's not important, since you choose to live in a world where you rail against anything not marching to your narrow world view, then cry when anyone calls you out on it. You're just the other side of all of the former Nightly members of the fringe Right I used to fight who also resorted to your kind of crap when hypocrisy was called out.

I have to say CaptainBleh has a point in that I remember seeing the OT in the 1980s and early 1990s before the EU and PT, and I never got the feeling back then Luke was all-powerful. Or Vader for that matter, because I saw him as a slave to the Emperor. Luke was special, and had a destiny for sure. Back then Luke was the ONLY jedi, so I suppose by default he was the most powerful jedi at the time, but it didn't even occur to me he was an extremely powerful jedi.

 

The point of Luke being important--THE gravitational pull of the galaxy (which includes the expectation of his being unlike any who came before him)--comes from a number of obvious set ups and dialogue: from the conversation in Kenobi's home in ANH, Vader noting how strong the force was with that pilot in the Death Star trench, to being capped off with ESB, where Palpatine flatly warns that Luke is not only strong in the force, but could destroy them.

Remember, this is Palpatine and Vader--the powerful rulers of a galactic empire, yet the emperor is clearly afraid of Luke and his potential. One man. Not his rebellion, but one man. What does Kenobi warn? "It is you and your abilities the Emperor wants..." At no point are we led to believe Luke was just another Jedi--just another student or trainee. From the dialogue, he's got something even his two powerful masters did not, so that only leaves the conclusion that Luke was--or on his way to being all-powerful.

Conservative media made fun of it almost all throughout his vice presidency. Which is part of why I don't see the GOP even caring about this. 1) it's not a serious enough offense to use with Trump as your candidate. Maybe it's he was caught slamming an ass or cupping a boob maybe. 2) the Dems are already doing it to him. Why waste the energy?

 

I don't want to be contrarian, but I don't think #meToo was ever about standing up for women. I think it was always a tool to beat down whoever they movement felt needed to be beat down. They've been awfully selective about who they go after.

Exactly. The very reason they did not come a-runnin' with torches and pitchforks against Virginia's Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax (D), saying you "must believe" Vanessa Tyson and Meredith Watson's accusations--the argument used to support Kavanaugh's accusers.

So you're sticking to the binary rhetoric, this making your post a lesson in irony, if not hypocrisy. Got it. : :

This from a guy who habitually stereotypes and rails against anyone with a meter even close to moving from the Left fringe to the center. Ohh, thy mirror....

For a smart guy you sure do miss frame of context a lot.

 

I was doing what the original post did to make the point that generalizations are a non-starter. You've basically just done the same thing, with adding on assumptions. I vote democrat therefor I must worship Clinton.

 

Wrong.

 

Congrats to both of you for exemplifying the very problem wrong with this country that politics and news media have reduced everything to if/than binary thoughts.

 

Also, congrats on mastering the most simple-minded political debate device ever: deflection.

 

I say: Trump murdered a puppy, he should step down.

You say: Clinton stomped a kitten in 1994! hypocrite!

 

You can't invalidate the fact Trump killed a puppy but pointing out that person who stated this is politically favoring the party of somebody else that killed a house pet.

Talk about missing things. I understood what your needling Marc's post. but in that mockery rests what many on the Left believe about Trump and by association, Republicans. There's not a day that goes by where that's not happening.

Regarding Clinton, I was not talking about you, but a great number of the Left who did (in the 90s) and continue to handwave his history of rape, etc., to claim (erroneously) that he was one of the greatest presidents, and in recent years treat him like he's a statesman of the highest order / character. How often do you see the "Trump is the worst thing e-v-v-err!" group attacking Clinton for his history of abuses? Never, yet this same party dares to cry about morals in regards to Trump. That's not deflection, its pointing out--as you tried to mock--hypocrisy. Much like the hypocrisy in their lack of MeToo and Democratic action in the case of the accused Fairfax, when they screamed their way into the Kavanaugh hearings, damn near threatening anyone who did not believe his accusers from the jump.

The point you miss--mocking Marc or not--is either one has a clear moral view that knows no party affiliation, or they do not. The Left cannot cry about alleged lack of morals on the Right for supporting Trump while Mount Rushmore-izing Bill Clinton, a proven rapist...unless we're not believing women in that case. Hard to tell. The moral outrage chess pieces continue to be moved around based on ideological whims instead of a desire for truth.

I feel sorry for you Republicans. You've compromised anything close you have to morals and sense to support your elected leader who is a game show host with clear mental health issues.

 

I may have never aligned morally with the GOP, but at least they upheld some American values.

Morals? You mean like that pillar of virtue named Bill Clinton, the man accused of rape (several times) and was a serial adulterer before and during his term as president? Where's the Left outrage over that? Nowhere. He's treated like a national treasure and is a hero to many on the left, despite his abuses. Nahh, its all about Trump.

Or perhaps you mean the morals which had the MeToo crowd jumping into the Kavanaugh hearings screaming that you "must" believe anything his accusers said, yet when Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax was recently accused of rape by two women, next to none of the MeToo movement and Democrats are demanding that we "must" believe the alleged victims. We know why they do not want Faifax out of his job, so his accusers are essentially being told to f*ck themselves--a Democrat has to stay in office.

Yes, those darned, immoral Repub....

Sadly this isn't over. This will be dragged out, and by the end of the week at least ONE senator/congressman will say "well Mueller is Republican". Someone will throw him under the bus this week.

I expect that, despite the Left--at the start of this--were giddy with dreams of "proven" Russia collusion, with claims that Muller was the best thing since air and Eliot Ness all rolled into one, and he was going to find exactly what they fantasized about.

Some see what I've always known about O'Rourke as a candidate:

Beto O’Rourke’s immigration plan: No wall, few specifics

Beto 2020 Has No Reason to Exist

There's more gems from this empty suit, who is also asking the public to give including his idiotic comments about the Constitution.

Then, there's:

"We’ve never been more divided or polarized, more driven by partisanship,"

He's either the most open liar or the candidate most ignorant of history (to highly offensive levels) ever. Sooo, in his well-educated estimation, America is more divided than the years leading up to and during the Civil War? More divided and partisan than the decades of Civil Rights battles, where many advocates (and random individuals) were routinely murdered, with everyone from state senators, governors, local law enforcement, the FBI and CIA (just ask MLK about that) were spying on / disrupting civil rights groups and targeting members?

Mm-hmm.

That single, Left-boogeyman-BS quote is all any opponent would need to flatten him--while reminding those who either suffered In truly divided times, or are related to people who did--how the too many of the modern day left will lie about anything to push fantasy rooted in fear.

Trump would love to run against this one.

Have to disagree with you, and agree with Met on this one. Beto has no chance in hell to get the dem nod. He may be selected as the VP ticket, but I would be surprised if even that happens. IMHO, the dems will select either a female or minority male candidate. They want someone as anti-Trump as possible.

That and he's not about anything. Just repeating the same kind of left-of-insane ideas that no one ever running for president turned into victory. He's got a number of choice statements that will be used against him by those who support the anointed Democratic candidates.

Harris has a growing problem of not being nor representing real black Americans, or as the critics call themselves, A.D.O.S. (American Descendants of Slaves). This group of black voters see her as another Obama--someone not fully connected to the experience/lineage of slaves and all they and descendants suffered and built to make this nation--but go out of their way for every other group--a common criticism of Obama.

From professors to the most grass roots of individuals, their presence is growing (just look up Kamala Harris / ADOS on YouTube), so much so that the world's most honest news outlet--MSNBC--attempted to delegitimize her critics as Bots (here we go again). This movement is also the main supporters of reparations for A.D.O.S., and despite Harris claiming she's in favor of that, her support is seen as an attempt to con black voters into backing her, since she has no chance without this voting block.

Interesting times.

Even Kamala Harris' own father has issues with her recent, proud trip down pot-smoking lane and her implications:

Kamala Harris’s dad on her pot-smoking comment: Our family wants to ‘dissociate ourselves from this travesty

I will not be surprised if her campaign (i.e. various ends of the news media) will work overtime attempting to silence or dig up dirt on dear 'ol dad. After all, how dare he criticize The One--and her linking pot smoking to being part Jamaican with her idiotic "Half my family’s from Jamaica. / Are you kidding me?”" slur? Who needs Limbaugh and Company when you have all-over-the-place Harris doing the job of racial/ethnic stereotypes for them?

The traits of what constitutes feminism are pretty amorphous and differ from person to person, no? 3rd wave, raunch feminism etc...

Exactly, but the post-New Left of today will have you think their definition is the hardline cover-all for all feminists, when that's far from the truth. For example, there are pro-life feminists, but the post-New Left yells "impossible", even when they meet people who describe themselves as that.

Kamala Harris is far from a feminist. She dated a married man(30 years older than her) to advance her career. Isn't that disqualifying?

If you're referring to Willie Brown, someone needs to ask her about that man's well-known relationship with Jim Jones, and his saying he had "no regrets" about that deep association. The point being if she's A-Okay with having an involved relationship with a man who was a beneficiary and enabler of Jim Jones and his fake church, then that says much about her character.

Smollett is garbage and a maniuplator of the worst kind. From the start this entire non-attack appeared to be a hoax, with this "attack" designed to build hatred and possible physical action against Trump and/or his supporters (his social media comments shines a light on how much he hates both).

What's worse is that he did not care if this inspired more hatred or possible violence on the streets of America. He did not care because the scheme can only be concocted by one who expects violence to spring from it, all in the name of his true agenda, which he laid out in that ever-so-accommodating Good Morning America interview--

"..if I had said it was a Muslim, or a Mexican, or someone black, I feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot much more. A lot more. Ad that says a lot about the place that we are in out country right now, the fact that we have these fear mongers--these people that are trying to separate us.."

Mm-hmm. So, the first takeaway from that key statement is that he's utterly ignorant of history--even recent history, as I recall, the kind "doubters" he's referring to (white people) did not wait to see if the color or religious belief was "preferable" when judging Dylan Roof for committing a true hate crime at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. As I recall, no one doubted or hesitated in supporting victims in the Tree of Life Congregation synagogue attack. In both cases, the public instantly believed & supported victims of those real hate crimes--people who are the opposite of Smollett--a man with a social media history of trying to make a U.S. president & assumed supporters the boogeyman for all things, now claiming its all come to center on him--with two attackers who just so happened to wear "MAGA" hats.

In his weak-minded way, Smollett seems to think he was going to shame America for casting legitimate doubt on his pre-packaged "Get Trump/Trump supporters" scheme. The gravity of his hoax was of a kind that could have led to assault and/or deaths of the innocent--acts of revenge carried out in his name, but he did not give a damn about that. Or maybe he did, only to the point of fueling a flood of hatred and violence all to reach some ill-conceived goal.

Still, he served as a timely reminder of how immoral some of the Left are in their neverending hate campaigns against a significant part of the country--a part of the country that he has no interest knowing, understanding or even tolerating. To the Smolletts of the world, anything goes when plotting against a part of the nation he cannot stand.

So it is time to wrap baseball bats in barbed wire?

Nuff said.

 

Go.

This is nothing new, as Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama all used National Emergency Acts (a number of times for each), with many from the Clinton era-forward still in effect. Further, several recent history presidents have added to border fencing during their time in office, yet it was not enough for all of the Leftie histrionics and offensive, misapplied references to Nazis.

The only issue here is that a gang of Democratic / liberal ideologues resent the idea that Trump is acting on a serious concern--one that has been a rarely addressed problem since the 1980s (especially for anyone who lived in California--my home state). Its beyond a joke for the Left to pretend that they don't see the wall and associated acts as a threat to their hope for a Left-leaning voter base as the generations pass.

Trump is proud to roll around in the dirt. It's just disingenuous to call the high ground and act as bad sometimes.

Exactly.

Uh-huh.

 

And what was it called when he openly mocked a person with cerebral palsy? Pretty sure that's worse than a smarmy clap. Don't act like your team is any more regal than the other.

One, I don't have a team. Two, this is about the SotU antics. If you want to go back to dig up past indiscretions having nothing to do with this subject, you must realize how easy it would be to do that with just about anyone.

 

I won't lie, the Pelosi Clap was inspired comedy gold.

RITE? He doesn't even get he's being mocked.

 

He expected insincerity from her, and in typical fashion, dropped the bait for Pelosi and the rest of the Usual Suspects to bite. Its called exposing the worst in your enemies.