And so has Michael Savage. He supported Trump as the peace candidate who wouldn’t get us into wars. John Bolton is the one member of the cabinet Dr. Savage really detests. Savage speaks of the Iraq war as a mistake, and it’s funny because I listened to him quite a bit from 2002-2006 and don’t really remember that kind of talk from him at all. There are credibility and moral foundation hurdles with some people I don’t think you would understand.
Just a heads up for those who might speak ill of Dr. Savage in the future, prepare to be called out on your warped priorities.
Wow, that’s some extreme ignorance about the US military. If you’re truly interested, you can look into it yourself… I don’t feel like educating you on the topic.
I’ll let you google this one, too. He knows what I’m talking about… it doesn’t really matter to me if you don’t.
Yes, I’m going to assume that you, once again, made some grand claim that you’d like to be true, that you believe is true, and therefore must be true, but cannot support.
As far as your second sentence, I don’t know what you mean by “it”.
I have rarely read more than a sentence of your rambling walls of text, but since you are attempting to smear me I will respond with a simple challenge: Name one conspiracy theory I have pushed.
Yes it is very brave to take an antiwar stance. Antiwar Americans have been slandered throughout US history and there is no paycheck in it.
It is much easier and lucrative to aid and abet world militarism by day and slander opponents of your livelihood as racists by night.
Speaking of which…
Imagine my surprise when you elevate skin color as being so important to success. You completely deny agency to Black Americans and other minorities and claim that their well-being is a function of what the white man does.
Yes I’m a bit hostile towards baby bayonettors and Trump minions. I pray that your writing career takes off so you will not have to aid and abet world militarism and live with such cognitive dissonance and inner turmoil.
Imagine my surprise when your continued fantasies about my beliefs have pretty much nothing to do with my actual beliefs. I’m sorry you continue to think you’re able to read minds, and that you continue to utterly fail in comprehending my posts. Nothing in the above paragraphs have anything to do with my actual person or beliefs, aside from the observation that I’d like to make a living writing.
More gibberish from a hostile fantasist. I have no illusions that my actual posts have anything to do with your hallucinations about me (which seem almost disturbingly detailed), so I’m not going to go to much effort aside from pointing out that, once again, your posts about me have pretty much zero to do with my actual posts or beliefs.
Your post is my cite that you are using hateful and dismissive language, my friend.
I don’t really know you from adam, and you only really showed up on my radar recently when you deliberately mischaracterized my position on abortion in order to call me grotesque.
In this thread, where I specifically said that I do not condone septimus’s statement, but I can understand why one would make such a statement when they are being dehumanized, you use hateful and dismissive language in order to call me delusional, septimus vile, and not only referring to my post that does not condone septimus’s statement a crock of shit, but also to refer to most of the rest of the board in the same way.
It’s The Pit, so your hatefulness is perfectly acceptable, but it is still you undercutting any moral high ground you may think to stand on when it comes to the tone of posts.
If you really don’t realize how hateful that you come across, you should take a step back and consider your posts.
If you do realize how hateful your posts come across, troll on, my friend, troll on.
Just don’t think that even for a second that anyone at all is fooled.
On the contrary, it’s easy to take an antiwar stance when there is no actual war under discussion. Also easy to take an antiwar stance when you’re not discussing military spending. Opposing an actual war is a heavier lift, though much of the populace in other OECD countries seems to do so without breaking a sweat.
No, Tucker you aren’t a lone voice saying something like that: there are plenty of conservative madmen around.
Full disclosure, in July 2018, Carlson said on his show that, “An Iran War would destroy Trump’s Presidency.” While true, that’s not quite the full throated denouncement I would like to hear, given that for a start Iran has three times the landmass and twice the population of Iraq.
Also for my more general readership, for a non-clownish assessment of the prospects of a US-Iran war, James Fallows provides a good start.
But that was not your original claim, was it? No, it wasn’t. See the reminder below.
Did I call you grotesque? Or a particular position you put forth? There is a big difference. One would support your claim here, one would undermine it. Let’s check. Here is what I actually said:
Well, look at that. I did not call you grotesque. I characterized a position that you may hold as grotesque. And do so rather politely. So, I’d thank you to not lie about what I’ve said from here on out.
Please. Spare me your verbal dancing. Here’s what this is about:
(emphasis mine)
These were you main two claims. And they are complete bullshit. As I said in my response here below. Read it again. And as it suggests, read the thread again.
And then, to double down on your combo of dishonesty and/or ignorance of how to support a claim you made about what I supposedly said, you cited OTHER people saying the things you claimed I said. As I have said. Unbelievable.
Andy: I documented Tucker Carlson’s popularity with white supremicists upthread, as well as one of his shows reflecting stone cold bigotry. The Root isn’t the greatest source though, at least for cross aisle conversation. They post diatribe along with a video link. Contrast to Media Matters for America which posts a) claim about the media commentator, b) substantiation, c) video, and a transcript showing the false or bigoted remarks in context. Much better.
The WAPO link was an op-ed piece by neo-conservative Max Boot. That’s more promising. It ably addressed a quote/challenge by Tucker Carlson which was, “How, precisely, is diversity our strength?” demanded the product of La Jolla, Calif.; St. George’s School; and Trinity College. “Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific as you explain it. Can you think, for example, of other institutions such as, I don’t know, marriage or military units in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are? Do you get along better with your neighbors, your co-workers if you can’t understand each other or share no common values? Please be honest as you answer this question.”
(My answer: Conservative insularity is a recipe for civilization collapse: think about China banning foreign travel and being swamped by the Europeans 100 years later, or consider Albania during the days of the Soviet Empire).
In the 1400s, China owned the greatest seagoing fleet in the world, up to 3,500 ships at its peak. (The U.S. Navy today has only 430). Some of them were five times the size of the ships being built in Europe at the time.
But by 1525, all of China’s “Treasure Fleet” ships had been destroyed – burned in their docks or left to rot by the government. China had been poised to circumnavigate the globe decades before the Europeans did, but instead the Ming Dynasty retracted into itself and entered a 200-year-long slump. They thought that their was no need to interact with foreigners, because of their innate superiority. Conservative insularity destroyed the Chinese civilization. They could have conquered California and East Africa. Only via free trade and openness have they prospered.
Anyway iiandyiiii, I’d respectfully suggest reflection upon who your intended audience is when you shape your arguments.
