Jump to content


The American Conservative Is Increasingly Insane (Was I Got Banned by...)


66 replies to this topic

#61 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39567 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 11 February 2021 - 04:45 PM

 LFC, on 10 February 2021 - 01:37 PM, said:

Not one story covering the impeachment at TAC between yesterday and today. Not ... one.

Dreher actually put up one that is a mix of sanity and silliness but at least it's something. Nobody else at TAC has been willing to touch it. So much for being "conservative."
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#62 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39567 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 12 February 2021 - 02:15 PM

FINALLY on the day Trump's defense team is responding TAC puts up a piece about the impeachment. Oh, wait. It's pablum about how, I suppose, the Democrats never should have impeached Trump because it was "dead on arrival" from the get-go. Wow. There's a strong conservative argument. And as this part shows it's the Republicans who are the victims because they're ALWAYS the victims. If they stub their big toe after digging their boot into somebody for the 100th time they are the victim. It's intrinsic to their brand.

Quote

On Friday, Politico‘s morning “Playbook” focused on the unlikely externality that McConnell would still do so. The plugged-in conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt told NBC this week he expects none of the 45 to defect; I am told the same. This means Democrats are likely 13 votes shy. If so, the questions get academic: Will Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah vote to convict Trump (again)? Likely. Will Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana join him? Perhaps, but the political ramifications are constrained to his right flank and a potential primary challenge in the Bayou in 2026; he was just re-elected.

This matters for those, such as Rep. Liz Cheney, who took the gamble to convict and make a power play within the party. If Trump had actually gone down, the daughter of a notorious vice president could have made a conceivable play for Minority Leader—or the speakership, if the Republicans take back power in the House next year. In a world where Trump was truly persona non grata, and no threat to run himself, Cheney could have even have weighed a run for the presidency that eluded her father. Instead, she’s trying to ward off a primary challenge, and failing to elude party censure, in her at-large Wyoming House district. Trumpist stalwarts, such as Rep. Gaetz, have been on the ground trying to pick up an intra-party scalp.

To the critics, reports that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was received with (literal) Republican applause behind closed doors last week, after being kicked off her committees for conspiracy mongering, show a party in a death spiral, in the throes of rank know-nothingism. But I think that misreads the nature of how and why Republicans are dug-in.

Many in the GOP feel the constellation of enemies arrayed against them is unprecedented in American life—corporate America, the military establishment, the academy, social media platforms—and, on that, they’re right. They see the last Oval Office occupant as unfairly undermined with a Russia investigation that produced little in the way of a smoking gun, but ate up the majority of his presidency. They feel they are justified. And they feel they can easily win.

Not a hint of recognition that those lining up against them aren't doing so to be popular or because they "want free stuff" or hate God™. No, they're lining up against their power lust, anti-democratic actions, never-ending lies and "alternative facts", the inability to govern, and general destruction of a country so many of us love. Act like a traitor then be prepared to be treated like a traitor.


I just have to throw this one tidbit of stupidity in. When you're this out of touch with reality is it any wonder why you can't understand why so many people despise you?

Quote

Whether or not you think that gripe is legitimate on a warming planet...

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#63 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39567 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 22 February 2021 - 01:40 PM

Now TAC has some crank who is trying to make the case that mask wearing, social distancing, and bans on large gatherings can be counter-balanced by healthy living and taking minerals ... or something like that. And he's trying to tie this to neighbors helping each other in Texas. It's ... bizarre.It sounds like some of the crankiest of crank junk that is attempting to wrap itself in a blanket of respectability i.e. he writes without spittle forming on his lips while he slides from topic to topic without worrying about continuity. This is what you get when you have a conservative philosophy student trying to make sense out of science since science is now an anathema to "conservative" "thought." The very first comment and a response to it sum the article up nicely.

Quote

Codswallop. Primo codswallop.

Quote

Yes. It's medical advice from someone who hasn't a clue about medicine or Covid. There's a difference between sound science and something that "sounds scientific". The latter can be found in abundance on social media. The former requires reading original sources and a bit of education in the field. And let's face it, TAC is not known for its depth in scientifically knowledgeable writers.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#64 golden_valley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7951 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 22 February 2021 - 02:07 PM

View PostLFC, on 22 February 2021 - 01:40 PM, said:

Now TAC has some crank who is trying to make the case that mask wearing, social distancing, and bans on large gatherings can be counter-balanced by healthy living and taking minerals ... or something like that.

The same sort of arguments support the anti-vaxx folks. Clean living and being right with the Lord is all you need to protect against all harm. (and some people leave out the religious part)

#65 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16011 posts

Posted 22 February 2021 - 06:38 PM

Quote

Yes. It's medical advice from someone who hasn't a clue about medicine or Covid. There's a difference between sound science and something that "sounds scientific". The latter can be found in abundance on social media. The former requires reading original sources and a bit of education in the field.
Posted Image
“Trump’s a stupid man’s idea of a smart person, a poor man’s idea of a rich person & a weak man’s idea of a strong man.”

— Fran Lebowitz


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

— Carl Sagan


Pray for Trump: Psalm 109:8

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Second inaugural address January, 1937

#66 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39567 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 02 March 2021 - 05:54 PM

This one is a twofer! The author (formerly an editor at The Daily Called) refers to the Jan 6 Republican Insurrection as "insurrection." Then he whines that a committee being created to investigate it must provide subpoena power to the Republicans without remotely acknowledging that they already set the rules on this. (Simply put for the minority it's "No subpoena power for you!") Actually it's more than a twofer. We have mentions of libruls at the insurrection, concern trolling about not asking the right questions, the need to investigate antifa before they kill us, both sides have extremists,...

Quote

Does all this talk about “insurrection” and domestic terrorism, or calls to apply counterinsurgency tactics to the American people in peacetime, strike you as a little irresponsible?

What are you, a terrorist sympathizer?

With this kind of reasoning afoot, it’s no time to mince words. Republican lawmakers who don’t push back forcefully on this talk are setting up a monumental betrayal of their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and—in a violation of more fundamental laws of politics—possibly exposing their base to political persecution.

It looks like we’re going to have a 9/11 Commission-style inquiry into the Capitol riot. Right now there remains some wrangling over its composition and scope. Senate Minority Leader McConnell and House Minority Leader McCarthy are right to insist on an equal balance on the commission, reportedly a bone of contention in negotiations.

But ultimately the balance is less important than who the Republican commissioners are and whether they have subpoena power. Any commission in which Republican members aren’t given subpoena power should be a non-starter. Given that the only confirmed violent deaths were on the rioters’ side, and the likelihood of informants among the rioters, the reason for this is obvious. Anything less means the commission is a partisan exercise. I suspect this is the arrangement we’re likely to get, and I’m even less sanguine about congressional Republicans being brave enough to ask the right questions.

According to CNN, McConnell wants the January 6 commission to choose either a narrow focus on that day, or a broader focus on domestic extremism nationwide. A preference for the former demonstrates an understandable interest in moving on, but it also is likely to produce results unduly deferential to federal law enforcement. A better response is to concede Democrats’ broad scope, and then for Republican commissioners to investigate by their own lights. For instance, I’d like to know what all those libs, or children of liberal judges, were doing there that day.

We also deserve answers about various informants at the Capitol that day, possibly among the Proud Boys, who have been under scrutiny by federal law enforcement for some time now and whose leader was a “prolific” snitch before the group even existed. We have also recently found out that an Oathkeepers leader used to be an FBI section chief. Perhaps he’s completely cut ties with his former employers, perhaps not. I’d like to know either way. Indeed, Speaker Pelosi, let’s figure out whether there was an “intelligence failure” on January 6. If there was, it probably wasn’t for lack of intelligence inputs.

Without the ability to ask questions like these, we are probably going to have a “28-pages”-sized hole in the official narrative of the Capitol riot. Democrats will not want to ask about human intelligence sources, either within thuggish groups like the Proud Boys or among more harmless kinds of cranks, such the QAnon moms. One does not need to sympathize with these groups to see this kind of thing as a potential political threat to conservatives.

It’s also important in establishing a risk profile of the event. Can any dissident activity that is immediately location-tracked by attendees’ phones, subjected to immediate uncompelled financial surveillance by Bank of America, and heavily infiltrated by law enforcement, possibly pose a credible threat to the U.S. government, let alone be described as an “insurrection”? I think not.


And this bit of false equivalence. We know that one side is responsible for the lion's share of the violence for years but some like this author still clings desperately to the "both sides have bad actors" talisman.

Quote

Taking the longer view, the odds are good Minority Leader McCarthy will be Speaker of the House in two years, and here is one conservative who thinks McCarthy should respond to the threat of domestic terrorism with deadly seriousness. Not because the problem is much worse than it’s been in the past, but because the current panic is an obvious bluff, and the GOP needs to call it by asking questions about how much federal law enforcement knew, and when. Trust me, the Democrats do not want to actually take domestic extremism seriously—such inquiries would lead back to too many progressive foundations if done in an even-handed way.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#67 golden_valley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7951 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 02 March 2021 - 07:51 PM

Quote

Taking the longer view, the odds are good Minority Leader McCarthy will be Speaker of the House in two years, and here is one conservative who thinks McCarthy should respond to the threat of domestic terrorism with deadly seriousness. Not because the problem is much worse than it’s been in the past, but because the current panic is an obvious bluff, and the GOP needs to call it by asking questions about how much federal law enforcement knew, and when. Trust me, the Democrats do not want to actually take domestic extremism seriously—such inquiries would lead back to too many progressive foundations if done in an even-handed way.

Remind me of who stalked into the Michigan State House with long guns showing and who stormed the US Capitol waving hockey sticks, crutches, the bike rake barriers, metal pipes and bear spray asking where are they voting and where is Nancy...





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users