Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-23-2017, 04:07 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Says the guy who claims without evidence (because that's how he remembers it - his memory is his cite) that Cheney forced Republicans to go along with the Iraq war.

That's practically a negative contribution.
Okay, before you try contributing, first try reading.

Damn, I thought you were better than this. Guess not.
  #102  
Old 10-23-2017, 04:20 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Okay, before you try contributing, first try reading.
OK, let's try this again:
Quote:
Remember how Cheney forced any Republican with a reputation for integrity to support his Iraq invasion plans?
No, I don't. Cite?
Quote:
Damn, I thought you were better than this.
[Mal Reynolds]Well, I'm all right. [/Mal]
  #103  
Old 10-31-2017, 09:18 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
And a bump for Kelly's latest:
Quote:
Robert E. Lee was an honorable man who gave up his country to fight for his state," Kelly said. "One hundred and fifty years ago, that was more important than country — it was always loyalty to state back in those days. Now it's different. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."
I may be a math geek, but I do know a little bit of history. And ISTM that the entire history of the United States from 1787 to 1860 was a series of compromises to keep the slave states in the Union, beginning with the Constitution itself, with electoral votes by state that counted each slave as an extra 3/5 vote for their owners, and running through the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, that I can remember off the top of my head.

Then along comes Lincoln, running on a somewhat different compromise platform - slavery continues in the 15 existing slave states, but no further expansion - and most of the slave states leave before Lincoln is even sworn in.

But saying "the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War" is classic early 21st century Bothsidesism applied to the mid-19th century. Only one side was refusing to compromise, the slave power.

And:
Quote:
"There are certain things in history that were not so good, and other things that were very, very good," Kelly said. "I think we make a mistake as a society, and certainly as individuals, when we take what is accepted as right and wrong, and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, 'What Christopher Columbus did was wrong.'"

"Five hundred years later, it's inconceivable to me that you would take what we think now and apply it back then. I just think it's very very dangerous. It shows you how much of a lack of appreciation of history and what history is," said Kelly
OK then, Mr. Kelly, let's get a viewpoint from that time, so we're not applying the standards of one time to another.

1) Exit the White House.
2) Walk south a couple blocks to the Mall.
3) Walk west to the Lincoln Memorial. Up the steps. Stop in front of the statue of Lincoln.
4) Turn right. Walk until you're between a couple of those big pillars. Look up.
5) In front of you, you will see the words of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865. He has some thoughts about the origins of the war that differ from yours. Read them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 10-31-2017 at 09:22 AM.
  #104  
Old 10-31-2017, 09:42 AM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 11,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Bill and 'luc, I'm not disagreeing with either of you. But Elvis' point that I'm questioning here is whether Cheney forced Republicans to support the Iraq war, not whether they were lied into supporting it.
Some may have been lied to, but others were fully in on it.


"Project For The New American Century. The "neocons". The draft dodging warmongers. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Abrams, Bolton, Bork, brother Jeb Bush, Libby, etc etc etc etc. They had been waiting for an excuse, ANY excuse.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
They wanted to grab control and oil. W's White House was loaded with this type, and he played along with them.

11 September was their "Pearl Harbor" - even though Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks.
"We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any great power.... Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home" - PNAC member Reuel Marc Gerecht

Last edited by SteveG1; 10-31-2017 at 09:43 AM.
  #105  
Old 10-31-2017, 10:12 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
Quote:
Some may have been lied to, but others were fully in on it.
Agreed. Again, I was just challenging this apparent bullshit that any Republicans had to be strong-armed into supporting the Iraq war.

Plenty of Republicans were chomping at the bit, and the rest were either easily persuaded or persuaded by lies. But I'm still awaiting the first scintilla of evidence from Elvis that any GOPers' support had to be squeezed out of them by force, threat, strong-arming, or anything along those lines.
  #106  
Old 10-31-2017, 10:15 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
Ta-Nehisi Coates unsurprisingly does a far more thorough takedown of Kelly's remarks about the Civil War than anything I could have pulled together.

It's one of those things where summaries and excerpts really don't do it justice. Read the whole thing.
  #107  
Old 10-31-2017, 10:37 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
But I'm still awaiting the first scintilla of evidence from Elvis that any GOPers' support had to be squeezed out of them by force, threat, strong-arming, or anything along those lines.
Here's a pat on the head for a good lad.
  #108  
Old 10-31-2017, 10:38 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 80,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Agreed. Again, I was just challenging this apparent bullshit that any Republicans had to be strong-armed into supporting the Iraq war.
Yeah, that makes no seen at all. Firstly, if those Republicans actually had an integrity, they wouldn't have been receptive to being strong armed into supporting a war they didn't actually believe in. And since no names are offered, the most favorable reading is that he said something he didn't think through fully but, Trump-like, refuses to admit his error.

The only person I can think of who might remotely fit that bill would be Colin Powell, but I'm unaware of him having to be strong-armed by anyone, Cheney or otherwise. Here he is in 2008 still saying he made the right decision at the time:

Quote:
Reporter: Mr. Secretary, there were a number of chinks in your own armor, actually, because of the lead-up to the Iraq war and the events. How much did that play into your decision about this? And will it be taken perhaps by some, because of your previous high-profile position, won't it be taken by some as a repudiation of the Iraq war?

Powell: I don't know why. The Iraq war is the Iraq war. We now see that things are a lot better in Iraq. Maybe if we had put a surge in at the beginning, it would have been a lot better years ago, but it's a lot better now, and we can see ahead to where U.S. forces will start to come out. And so, my concern was not my past or what happened in Iraq, but where we're going in the future. My sole concern was where are we going after January 20 of 2009, not what happened in 2003.

I'm well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn't get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I've never blinked from that. I've never said I didn't support a decision to go to war.

And the war looked great until the 9th of April, when the statue fell, everybody thought it was terrific. And it was terrific. The troops had done a great job. But then we failed to understand that the war really was not over, that a new phase of the war was beginning. And we weren't ready for it and we didn't respond to it well enough, and things went very, very -- very, very south, very bad.

And now it's starting to turn around through the work of Gen. Petraeus and the troops, through the work of the Iraqi government, through our diplomatic efforts, and I hope now that this war will be brought to an end, at least as far as American involvement is concerned, and the Iraqis are going to have to be responsible for their own security and for their own political future. ...
As for Kelly, with the latest bit about the Civil War he seems to have forgotten the first rule of holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging!

Last edited by John Mace; 10-31-2017 at 10:40 AM.
  #109  
Old 10-31-2017, 10:52 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
1) Exit the White House.
Seems you can stop right about there.
  #110  
Old 10-31-2017, 10:58 AM
Gorsnak Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 8,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post

As for Kelly, with the latest bit about the Civil War he seems to have forgotten the first rule of holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging!
To be fair, in the army a deeper hole can actually be better than a shallow one.
  #111  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:00 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Here's a pat on the head for a good lad.
I have a pretty small and exclusive Ignore list. Just two make that three of our board's most worthless and idiotic posters.
  #112  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:02 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Seems you can stop right about there.
That would be for the best, wouldn't it?
  #113  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:04 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
Looks like somebody is going to get a rock in his Halloween bag.
  #114  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:26 AM
What Exit? What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 27,381
Latest Kelly horrible stupidity.
Quote:
White House chief of staff John Kelly spoke to the "good" and "not so good" parts of US history on Monday, speaking highly of Confederate general Robert E. Lee and attributing the origin of the American Civil War to a "lack of an ability to compromise."
full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politi...ews/index.html

This asshole needs to go away. Lee was a traitor to his country and what compromise was suppose to have happened on slavery? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this asshole?
  #115  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:27 AM
Max Torque Max Torque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 10,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Agreed. Again, I was just challenging this apparent bullshit that any Republicans had to be strong-armed into supporting the Iraq war.

Plenty of Republicans were chomping at the bit, and the rest were either easily persuaded or persuaded by lies. But I'm still awaiting the first scintilla of evidence from Elvis that any GOPers' support had to be squeezed out of them by force, threat, strong-arming, or anything along those lines.
Closest I've found, after about a minute of Googling: Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq. March 2002: "Cheney tells Republican senators that the question is no longer if the US will invade Iraq but when." Which to me does sound like a "get in line, jagoffs, it's gonna happen", but I don't see any record of what specifically was said or to whom. Still, at least we do have a month and year.
  #116  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:33 AM
Pippers Pippers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
Latest Kelly horrible stupidity. full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politi...ews/index.html

This asshole needs to go away. Lee was a traitor to his country and what compromise was suppose to have happened on slavery? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this asshole?
I liked this guy when he didn't talk. Now I see why he gets along with dumpy-trumpy
  #117  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:45 AM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,632
What an embarrassment to our country.

I wonder how the military academies teach the civil war in 2017. Are they reading McPherson?
  #118  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:45 AM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
Latest Kelly horrible stupidity. full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politi...ews/index.html

This asshole needs to go away. Lee was a traitor to his country and what compromise was suppose to have happened on slavery? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this asshole?
Just to be fair, Kelly claimed that loyalty to one's state over loyalty to the country was normal at the time.
ETA: I have no idea if that's true or revisionism.

Last edited by running coach; 10-31-2017 at 11:46 AM.
  #119  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:47 AM
What Exit? What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 27,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Just to be fair, Kelly claimed that loyalty to one's state over loyalty to the country was normal at the time.
Except he was a serving officer in the US Army, not just a private citizen. He betrayed his oath to the country. So Kelly's logic was pretty much insane troll logic.
  #120  
Old 10-31-2017, 11:56 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,270
No apology coming for lying about a Congresswoman.

Quote:
Despite spewing a blatant lie about Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson earlier this month, Donald Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly took a page from his boss and said he will “never” apologize.

In an interview scheduled to air Monday on the premiere episode of Laura Ingraham’s new pro-Trump propaganda hour, ‘The Ingraham Angle’, Ingraham asked Kelly if he felt he should apologize for accusing Rep. Wilson of something she never did.

The former general’s shameful response: “Oh, no. No. Never.”

“I’ll apologize if I need to, but for something like that, absolutely not,” Kelly added. “I stand by my comments.”

What a dick. Of course, if those patriotic Confederates had prevailed, Wilson wouldn't have been allowed in Congress except to clean the snuff box.
  #121  
Old 10-31-2017, 12:00 PM
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Torque View Post
Closest I've found, after about a minute of Googling: Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq. March 2002: "Cheney tells Republican senators that the question is no longer if the US will invade Iraq but when." Which to me does sound like a "get in line, jagoffs, it's gonna happen", but I don't see any record of what specifically was said or to whom. Still, at least we do have a month and year.
Am I the only one who remembers this line? "You're either with us or against us."

This was the very loud refrain endlessly pushed by the Bush Administration (as shaped by Cheney) after 9/11. As one who questioned whether we had an adequate basis to invade Iraq, I remember very well people stopping just short of accusing me of being a traitor for not supporting the impending invasion. Members of Congress were definitely cowed by such tactics.

One thing I've really hated to see throughout the Trump administration is this sanitizing and normalization of the Bush administration. Suddenly people who tarnished and shamed themselves with their actions during those years -- people like Condi Rice, Andrew Card, John Yoo, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, Michael Hayden, Elaine Chao and so many others -- are today accepted as legitimate, normal spokespersons.

Trump is the symptom of disease in our society. The Bush administration caused much of that disease. It's disheartening to me that people have forgotten that.
  #122  
Old 10-31-2017, 12:11 PM
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Just to be fair, Kelly claimed that loyalty to one's state over loyalty to the country was normal at the time.
ETA: I have no idea if that's true or revisionism.
Revisionist bullshit. The Civil War was fought over slavery. One's loyalty to one's state began and ended with whether that state joined the Confederacy or stuck with the Union. And many that lived in southern states were reluctantly conscripted into service for the Confederacy.

I've never read or studied anything about the Civil War that made a case to demonstrate soldiers joined up because of their loyalty to, say, South Carolina.
  #123  
Old 10-31-2017, 12:26 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,189
The whole point of Kelly's remarks were to remind the bigots - in congress and in Trump's base - that Trump is their man, so stand by him even if he is a Russian agent.
  #124  
Old 10-31-2017, 12:30 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I've never read or studied anything about the Civil War that made a case to demonstrate soldiers joined up because of their loyalty to, say, South Carolina.
Not so much the state, but their friends and family. If all the young men in your town are going off to war, it's going to be hard to stay home, and not just due to being shunned as a coward. If you want to live there after the war, you'll always have to put up with the people talking behind your back about the brave boys who got killed or maimed, and all the veterans with their empty sleeves and pant legs will be around to look at you. Besides, you want to show you're a man and have all those adventures, too, don't you? So you're going to join up with the rest of them.

Loyalty to the state or the region? Yeah, maybe some of that rhetoric works on a teenage boy, but it's secondary.
  #125  
Old 10-31-2017, 01:20 PM
Chingon Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Revisionist bullshit. The Civil War was fought over slavery. One's loyalty to one's state began and ended with whether that state joined the Confederacy or stuck with the Union. And many that lived in southern states were reluctantly conscripted into service for the Confederacy.

I've never read or studied anything about the Civil War that made a case to demonstrate soldiers joined up because of their loyalty to, say, South Carolina.
E


Freee
e e
R
rregret
Free and rtheremthere and u canz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
The whole point of Kelly's remarks were to remind the bigots - in congress and in Trump's base - that Trump is their man, so stand by him even if he is a Russian agent.
Emrr
__________________
Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.
  #126  
Old 10-31-2017, 01:21 PM
Chingon Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 225
E
Pennsylvanie
mne
DftGrrr
Grrr I megabytesgrrr
. .d

I am sorry

Edeg
'm eefrag ee an6
N edge
mm
..f2fddand
Mr. no idmmy yWild y2k and u


.ukr mn feet Mrin
nMrr
Mm
__________________
Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.
  #127  
Old 10-31-2017, 01:25 PM
Ike Witt Ike Witt is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 13,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
E
Pennsylvanie
mne
DftGrrr
Grrr I megabytesgrrr
. .d

I am sorry

Edeg
'm eefrag ee an6
N edge
mm
..f2fddand
Mr. no idmmy yWild y2k and u


.ukr mn feet Mrin
nMrr
Mm
I don't get it.
  #128  
Old 10-31-2017, 01:25 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
Despite all the negative press covfefe
  #129  
Old 10-31-2017, 01:27 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,270
Now the Nazi wanna-be wants a special counsel to go after Democrats.

Quote:
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said on Monday a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Democrats over a uranium deal during the Obama administration and a dossier compiled on Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

“I think probably as a layman looking at this kind of thing we need to find someone who is very, very objective who can get to the bottom of these accusations,” Kelly said in an interview on Fox News.
He's gone from square-jawed defender of order to full Reich-wing whackadoodle dandy.
  #130  
Old 10-31-2017, 01:33 PM
silenus silenus is offline
The Turtle Moves!
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 48,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
E
Pennsylvanie
mne
DftGrrr
Grrr I megabytesgrrr
. .d

I am sorry

Edeg
'm eefrag ee an6
N edge
mm
..f2fddand
Mr. no idmmy yWild y2k and u


.ukr mn feet Mrin
nMrr
Mm
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  #131  
Old 10-31-2017, 01:48 PM
Chingon Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 225
Well shit. I never pocket posted before.
__________________
Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.
  #132  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:01 PM
krondys krondys is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Gillette, Wyoming
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
Well shit. I never pocket posted before.
At least you apologized in the pocket-post itself!
  #133  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:11 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,832
I doubt he really wants a special counsel. He's just doing like Trump; talk about crimes that were committed and the need for investigations - but then don't actually start any investigations.

Why? Because anyone can claim that crimes were committed. But an investigation would require actual evidence - which they know they can't produce. They want to avoid an investigation which would just end up exonerating their opponents. Instead they just keep talking and spreading rumors without having to back it up.
  #134  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:13 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by krondys View Post
At least you apologized in the pocket-post itself!
Sure, megabytes of apologies to Pennsylvanie. But what about the rest of the country?
  #135  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:18 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Now the Nazi wanna-be wants a special counsel to go after Democrats.

He's gone from square-jawed defender of order to full Reich-wing whackadoodle dandy.
The really idiotic thing about this is that the regular U.S. Attorney with the appropriate geographic jurisdiction could look into this. Similarly with the other alleged Hillary crimes. What do they need a special counsel for?

The Russian collusion investigation needs an independent counsel because the persons who need to be investigated are in the current Administration, and it's hard to impartially investigate your boss. No such impediments apply to investigating Hillary.
  #136  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:24 PM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The really idiotic thing about this is that the regular U.S. Attorney with the appropriate geographic jurisdiction could look into this. Similarly with the other alleged Hillary crimes. What do they need a special counsel for?

The Russian collusion investigation needs an independent counsel because the persons who need to be investigated are in the current Administration, and it's hard to impartially investigate your boss. No such impediments apply to investigating Hillary.
THEY know that. The base does not. And that is who the message is for: The ignorant, uninformed base, who need a distraction from the shit-show happening in the Trump administration.

It is a cynical, dishonest bunch of complete bullshit, and Kelly is the one manufacturing it and shoveling it out to the rubes.

He knows it's bullshit. He knows he is fucking up the country. He doesn't care.
  #137  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:34 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 38,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Ta-Nehisi Coates unsurprisingly does a far more thorough takedown of Kelly's remarks about the Civil War than anything I could have pulled together.

It's one of those things where summaries and excerpts really don't do it justice. Read the whole thing.
I'm not sure if one really needs to. What Kelly said was so transparently stupid and horrible that it can be rebutted in fewer than a hundred words, and, really, doesn't need rebuttal in the eyes of a decent person with a reasonably understanding of American history.

It's as if Coates spent his talent and insight explaining why triangles have fewer sides than squares.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 10-31-2017 at 02:35 PM.
  #138  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:37 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The really idiotic thing about this is that the regular U.S. Attorney with the appropriate geographic jurisdiction could look into this.
If Trump hadn't fired them all, that is.
  #139  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:39 PM
Greathouse Greathouse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 1,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
E
Pennsylvanie
mne
DftGrrr
Grrr I megabytesgrrr
. .d

I am sorry

Edeg
'm eefrag ee an6
N edge
mm
..f2fddand
Mr. no idmmy yWild y2k and u


.ukr mn feet Mrin
nMrr
Mm
Are you having a stroke?
  #140  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:42 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Am I the only one who remembers this line? "You're either with us or against us."

This was the very loud refrain endlessly pushed by the Bush Administration (as shaped by Cheney) after 9/11. As one who questioned whether we had an adequate basis to invade Iraq, I remember very well people stopping just short of accusing me of being a traitor for not supporting the impending invasion. Members of Congress were definitely cowed by such tactics.
I remember people running right on past that. I was accused of treason and being a terrorist sympathizer and wanting to see americans die because I questioned the judgement of going into iraq at that time.

It wasn't just the administration though.
  #141  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:43 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 33,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I doubt he really wants a special counsel. He's just doing like Trump; talk about crimes that were committed and the need for investigations - but then don't actually start any investigations.

Why? Because anyone can claim that crimes were committed. But an investigation would require actual evidence - which they know they can't produce. They want to avoid an investigation which would just end up exonerating their opponents. Instead they just keep talking and spreading rumors without having to back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
THEY know that. The base does not. And that is who the message is for: The ignorant, uninformed base, who need a distraction from the shit-show happening in the Trump administration.

It is a cynical, dishonest bunch of complete bullshit, and Kelly is the one manufacturing it and shoveling it out to the rubes.

He knows it's bullshit. He knows he is fucking up the country. He doesn't care.
He's more evil than Trump, really. Trump is the Loud Guy In The Bar who doesn't know diddly-squat, but thinks he has the answer to everything - only with money and now the Presidency. He's evil, but is too stupid half the time to know why what he's saying is total bullshit.

Kelly isn't stupid, and has to know why this line is bullshit. But he's going with it anyway. He's basically what Trump would be if Trump had smarts and had his shit together as a villain.
  #142  
Old 10-31-2017, 02:47 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 27,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I remember people running right on past that. I was accused of treason and being a terrorist sympathizer and wanting to see americans die because I questioned the judgement of going into iraq at that time.

It wasn't just the administration though.
I don't know, I recall people questioning invading Iraq. Just sadly not congress. I thought if anything Iran was far more likely to be involved in supporting terrorism vs the US.

I thought we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and used that to send the message we needed to send.
  #143  
Old 10-31-2017, 03:21 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It wasn't any different under Dubya. Remember how Cheney forced any Republican with a reputation for integrity to support his Iraq invasion plans?
I'm with RTFirefly on this one. I can't think of any Republican who I think of as being "forced" to support the invasion of Iraq. Are you referring to Powell? Are you implying that there were many Republicans who were against the war but had their arms twisted into supporting it? And who were those Republicans, you think?
  #144  
Old 10-31-2017, 03:27 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
He's more evil than Trump, really. Trump is the Loud Guy In The Bar who doesn't know diddly-squat, but thinks he has the answer to everything - only with money and now the Presidency. He's evil, but is too stupid half the time to know why what he's saying is total bullshit.

Kelly isn't stupid, and has to know why this line is bullshit. But he's going with it anyway. He's basically what Trump would be if Trump had smarts and had his shit together as a villain.
This isn't how I see Kelly. I knew guys like him (I think, anyway) when I was in the Navy -- IMO, he's essentially a fundamentalist American nationalist -- a true believer in the GIs/apple pie/baseball type of American mythology. That Mayberry was a real and true representation of good old fashioned American traditional values, rather than a revisionist myth that whitewashed so much of the injustice of the time represented. Such beliefs are so fundamental to his core identity that, IMO, he's no more likely to change than a 65 year old jihadist.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-31-2017 at 03:31 PM.
  #145  
Old 10-31-2017, 03:31 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Now the Nazi wanna-be wants a special counsel to go after Democrats.



He's gone from square-jawed defender of order to full Reich-wing whackadoodle dandy.
This is not good, but not unexpected. Voters voted for an authoritarian and I'd say there's a 50/50 chance this country's going to end up with one.

I've been saying it:

1. There will be a war with North Korea.

2. This will give the WH the ability to impose a security state.

3. The investigations will be shut down.

4. There will be emergency legislation against sedition.
  #146  
Old 10-31-2017, 03:35 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'm with RTFirefly on this one. I can't think of any Republican who I think of as being "forced" to support the invasion of Iraq.
Would you be happier with "coerced" or "boxed into politically with the situation Cheney had created" or "lied into", then? Does it really make a fucking difference to you?

I used a short word instead of a long phrase. It's pretty common in this language.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 10-31-2017 at 03:38 PM.
  #147  
Old 10-31-2017, 03:39 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Would you be happier with "coerced" or "lied into", then? Does it really make a fucking difference to you?
I wouldn't object to "lied to." So who was coerced?

And why is it that you're shitting your pants about being called out on a stupid statement that you made?

ETA: And now I see you're continuing to edit your statement. Moving the goalposts? Trying to save face? I leave it to the reader to figure out.

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-31-2017 at 03:40 PM.
  #148  
Old 10-31-2017, 03:41 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
You're going beyond ridiculous now. Get back to the discussion, if you can.

As for "shitting pants", please look at who is offended by others' use of short but descriptive words. Now maybe you and RTF can go help change each other's diapers. Sheesh.
  #149  
Old 10-31-2017, 03:49 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You're going beyond ridiculous now. Get back to the discussion, if you can.

As for "shitting pants", please look at who is offended by others' use of short but descriptive words. Now maybe you and RTF can go help change each other's diapers. Sheesh.
Christ, you're the lefty who talks like Trump. You make up some bullshit, get called on it, and then you go on the attack, telling people what they should be talking about. Throw a few more rolleyes in there, or take to your Twitter feed -- then you will really have shown us who the boss is.
  #150  
Old 10-31-2017, 03:51 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
I "got called" on nothing; I took the time to explain it to you since you were having comprehension difficulties, and obviously you still are to the point where any further attempts would be futile.

Now quit threadshitting as well as pantshitting, please.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017