Morning Ethics Warm-Up: 8/20/17

Good Morning, everyone!

Good Morning, General!

Good morning, Traveler!

1. Sensing that there is now a new approach to undermining Donald Trump’s presidency with propaganda, today’s New York Times Sunday Review sports a front page almost completely occupied with a giant graphic of the President’s head without a face. In place of a face is a photo of the Charlottesville torchlight demonstration. suggesting that he approved of the demonstration and its primary participants’ white supremacy views. This is a complete lie, of course, and meets the definition of Anti-Trump porn. The rest of the supplement follows the front page’s tone.

2. An impeachment and conviction of President Trump absent the kind of offenses the Constitution specifies would be nothing less than a coup, and an illegal over-turning of an election for partisan gain. Please observe the individuals, professionals, pundits and elected officials advocating this: they are the ones treading close to treason, defined as “the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to…overthrow the government.”

3. Of course, the cowardly, chaotic and anarchistic juveniles calling themselves “Anonymous”—you can’t get more chicken that that—are all-in with the phony impeachment drive, and have published what it says are the private cell phone numbers of 22 GOP Congressmen to bully them into supporting the movement. I would give you a link, but the one sent to me has crashed my browser twice: apparently a story about Anonymous even makes my computer throw-up.

4. Then there is this Incompetent Elected Official, Democratic Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen, who announced this week that he will introduce articles of impeachment against President Trump “based on his defense of the white supremacists who participated in a deadly rally in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend.” While we’re at it, let’s call out The Hill for that slanted and misleading description.

First Cohen, who said,

“Instead of unequivocally condemning hateful actions by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Klansmen following a national tragedy, the President said ‘there were very fine people on both sides.’ There are no good Nazis. There are no good Klansmen.”

Cohen is a simple-minded ignoramus with the historical perspective of a lump of granite, and you can quote me. Sure there were good Nazis. Is he really claiming that every German citizen who didn’t have the courage to risk liquidation by defying Hitler was evil? That every child indoctrinated in Hitler youth groups were beyond redemption? Here’s a good Nazi: Henri Salmide. Here’s another: Albert Goering.

And wait, didn’t Stephen Spielberg direct a movie about another good Nazi, one who is honored in the Holocaust Museum here in D.C.? I’m sure I recall something about that. Huh. I’m sure the name will come to me.

There have been good Klansmen too. Legendary Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was once a member of the Klan. So was Hugo Black, one of the greatest judicial minds ever to enhance the Supreme Court.  Yes, and even Harry Truman, a much-admired Democratic President, found it politically expedient at one point in his career to join the Klan.

Is Cohen ignorant and stupid, or does he just want to make sure Democratic voters who believe their elected representatives are ignorant and stupid? Those attempting to benefit politically by dividing the nation and sowing discord want to represent every issue as black and white, good and evil, with no acknowledgement that there are important nuances to consider. Cohen is an especially nauseating example, arguing that if a President doesn’t accept misleading progressive half-truths and jump through the hoops they set set up, he is a criminal. Nor can Cohen defend his double standard, embraced wholeheartedly by the anti-Trump’s gotcha! brigade, that if you march with the white nationalists against the purging of American history (which should be marched against, as it is ethically despicable) you are innately  bad, but if you march with hooded, violent thugs of the antifa movement in favor of Soviet-style historical editing and in an attempt to silence protected speech, you can still be the salt of the earth.

Nor can anyone.

5. Ah, yes, the Hill. It described the President’s remarks as a “defense of the white supremacists.” In fact, Trump never defended white supremacy. He defended the cause they claimed to be marching for, which was allowing Robert E. Lee’s statue to stand.  I also defend that cause, as well as the right of anyone to march in protest against the current orgy of statute-toppling, that virtuous activity that sometimes must be undertaken in the dead of night. Moreover, the Hill says that one side”participated in a deadly rally in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend,” as if there was not another side that also participated, one that included hooded individuals intending violence…or perhaps the hood were to hide bad cases of acne. This was exactly why it was appropriate for the President to level blame on both the demonstrators and the counter-demonstrators.

As always of late, the news media, like Cohen, wants to keep the public misled and divided.

_______________________

Pointer: Neil Dorr

104 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, History, Incompetent Elected Officials, Journalism & Media

104 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up: 8/20/17

  1. JP

    “His name will come to me.”

    This made my morning. Sarcasm at its finest.

  2. Wayne

    You could add John Rabe to the list of good Nazi’s: He was instrumental in setting up the Nanking Safety Zone during the Rape of Nanking along with some other Westerners thus saving the lives of an estimated 200, 000 Chinese civilians. He also extensively documented the massacres and rapes and attempted to arrange an appointment with Hitler after he left the city to present his evidence. For his trouble, he was interrogated by the Gestapo and denied a meeting with Hitler. After the war due to his extreme poverty as an ex Nazi, the citizens of Nanking sent him money in gratitude for his heroic efforts.

  3. I usually don’t link to sites like Patriotretort.com, but this one makes an interesting observation.

    “Maintaining this level of hysteria is starting to backfire”

    http://patriotretort.com/maintaining-level-hysteria-starting-backfire/

    Sanity may only hope.

  4. Joshua

    I typically always remind people that there is no true black and white in life. The only truth is that each situation needs to be viewed individually and assessed. I choose to live in the gray and make up my mind based on what facts and truths I find and follow through with what my personal history allows.

  5. charlesgreen

    “An impeachment and conviction of President Trump absent the kind of offenses the Constitution specifies would be nothing less than a coup, and an illegal over-turning of an election for partisan gain. Please observe the individuals, professionals, pundits and elected officials advocating this: they are the ones treading close to treason, defined as “the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to…overthrow the government.”

    A coup? Treason?

    No. Way.

    The blank in the photo of Trump’s face doesn’t represent approval of white supremacy (though one could argue the point); what it represents is the complete failure of any moral perspective at all.

    This site is posting way too much material on the ethical side-show of who pushed who first in the demonstration. Which is precisely what Trump did.

    The real issue is we just saw a major demonstration of disgusting thoughts; Nazi banners, anti-Jewish slogans being chanted by torch-bearing “Aryans.” In the town that Jefferson built.

    And our President failed to take note of this fact AT ALL.

    Of course the Nazi-supremacists have the right to speak, and carry swastikas next to Confederate flags, and insult jews and non-whites. And the ACLU is totally right to defend their right to say so.

    AND all that is a side show. What’s really going on is that we’ve got a completely amoral, petty, selfish narcissist in the White House who rather than bringing us together is blind to basic ethical issues, and seriously contributing to the problem.

    As someone said, the biggest gimme in politics is denouncing Nazis. If you can’t do that, you flunk politics 101.

    Treason? Coup? Stop it. We’ve got a serious problem in this country, being made worse by an unqualified current resident of the White House. You could help considerably by highlighting the Lede in this story – Nazis are being emboldened to spew their hatred for the first time on a scale not seen since Skokie. Call it out! Don’t get caught in the ethical underbrush of who threw the first food-fight punch at a demonstration.

    I have only three good words to say about VP Pence, but they’re important: Better Than Trump. Way better. Bon voyage. That’s not treason. That’s not a coup. That would be system working. Big difference.

    • I’m only going by the words in the definition, Charles. Illegal–attempt—overthrow—government. The calaims that what the President SAYS is a “crime” is especially counter to law.

      Presidents should not be condemning legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives. That chills speech, and puts a target on the backs of citizens for exercising their rights. The Left wants to dictate who can speak, and what they can say.

      • charlesgreen

        I think there has to be a legal, ethical way to condemn Nazis.

        • Mark Putnam

          Reading you and Jack go back and forth is like a heavy swinging tennis match. But in tennis you just got a ball. Here I am trying to follow your reasoning. Trump should be condemned because he did not use “some legal and ethical way to condemn Nazis” which you don’t know of yet, but because he’s the president he should have thought of it, so this proves his qualification for impeachment?

          • charlesgreen

            ““some legal and ethical way to condemn Nazis” which you don’t know of yet,..”

            Of course I know of a way. It’s the same way used by the mayor, the governor, the heads of all branches of the military, most representatives and senators in congress. You simply denounce hate, Nazism, anti-semitism and racism in angry, flourishing terms.

            It’s not hard. I thought I was being sarcastic in tone, suggesting that ‘come on Jack this is a layup.’

            When you get a significant group of people storming around with torches and howling about Jews and carrying Nazi flags, that’s about as symbolic as it gets. Human decency demands it be denounced.

            Trump didn’t do that. Everyone else did. What’s so hard.

            Remember Dukakis’s bumbling answer when asked about how he’d feel if his wife was raped? A moment of moral failure. Same thing here, except much larger stakes.

            • Hating Nazis is OK then.

              The official hate denouncing stuff is a back door to speech suppression and chilling of expression. I think it’s pretty obvious. Black Lives Matters is all about hating whites and cops. Nobody demanded that Obama “denounce” it. “Pigs in a blanket”?

              Of course it’s not so hard for those who are certain that that they have the keys to knowledge, and nobody else should vary from the script.

              Presidents, if they can, should be exemplars in how the act and speak and the values they embrace. They should not be picking and choosing among the opinions and views of citizens. They are too inherently political and biased, not to mention constrained by law, to do it fairly or well.

              • charlesgreen

                “Hating Nazis is OK then.

                The official hate denouncing stuff is a back door to speech suppression and chilling of expression. I think it’s pretty obvious. Black Lives Matters is all about hating whites and cops. Nobody demanded that Obama “denounce” it. “Pigs in a blanket”?

                Of course hating Nazis is OK; I would hope you’d hate them, and i fact assume you do.

                But when you say it’s a back door to speech suppression, you’re giving up on the first amendment, and the ACLU. Surely you remember the phrase “I hate what you’re saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it.’ [I’m paraphrasing, maybe you can remember who said it].

                This is critical to the rule of law. If we can’t distinguish between hating hate speech and outlawing hate speech, then we fall down the very trap door of political correctness and speech suppression you decry. The answer is not to stop hating the hateful in the name of free speech; the answer is to hate the hateful and STILL allow hate speech.

                And I reject your attempted Black Lives Matter analogy. The Black Lives Matter movement originated as “Black Lives [should] Matter [as much as any other lives]. Only by its enemies has it been interpeted as saying “Black Lives Matter [and White Lives Don’t].

                The difference with Nazis? Anti-Nazis say that Nazis are anti-Semitic – and Nazis agree. Anti-Black Lives Matter people say BLM folks are anti-white – and the BLM people do not agree. That’s a pretty big difference.

            • Mark Putnam

              I apologise for missing your sarcasm. Given his usual lack of restraint in his stream of consciousness word clouds there really is no reason that I can see for him to restrain himself from a lengthy vulgar discourse repudiating naziesque ideals other than to avoid alienating a voting block…. At what point would consistency in unethicalness ethically bind Trump to unethically denounce the neon-azis?

              • Chris

                This, Mark. Why are people pretending as if Trump didn’t denounce the Nazis because he’s suddenly learned the value of restraint?

                • Chris wrote, “Why are people pretending as if Trump didn’t denounce the Nazis because he’s suddenly learned the value of restraint?”

                  Go ahead and ignore the fact that Trump did denounced the violence, ALL of the violence; Trump’s initial response to the violence in Charlottesville was very Presidential, but as usual in the twisted minds of the political left, he just didn’t measure up to the hateful left’s level of condemnations while justifying their own violence.

                  Be honest Chris; nothing that Trump has ever said or likely ever will say will be good enough to measure up to the hypocritical standards of the political left and their propaganda media machine.

        • charlesgreen wrote, “I think there has to be a legal, ethical way to condemn Nazis.”

          There is, but that condemnation MUST be 100% separated from Constitutionally protected rights so we are not appearing to suppress the rights of those we disagree with. Here’s your biggest problem with this Charles; at the core of your arguments over the last few days on this topic, you want to condemn constitutionally protected protests/demonstrations because you don’t like the topic or the ones demonstrating and you want the President to do the same.

          You said you were a philosophy major in college so be truly honest with yourself Mr. Philosopher; you don’t want racists to have the right to protest in favor of their racist ideas because those ideas might spread, correct? Also; you think that anything a racists protests about is morally reprehensible and should be rejected by the rest of society because they are racists, right? Yes those are loaded rhetorical questions that are constructed in such a way as to make you look inward; acknowledging your innate bias is the first step.

          The President of the United States of America swears an oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and the right of free speech is at the very core of the Constitution he is sworn to protect. The President is there to protect free speech for you and I and those who we oppose, like racists. President Trump was 100% correct to openly condemn the violence from both sides in the Charlottesville riot; it was 100% appropriate and it was Presidential. The opposition to his initial equal condemnation to the violence was nothing but another in a long line of bull shit attacks towards the President. This is wrong!

          I think President Trump understands that he is there to protect the Constitution for all (Obama did not truly understand this); but unfortunately, the President is also terribly inarticulate. In addition; President Trump has to face down a hostile anti-Trump resistance press that literally attacks everything he says and intentionally tries to gin up hate against him, most of which is just bull shit twisted propaganda. It doesn’t matter what Trump says or how he says it, he will be twisted and attacked by the hostile anti-Trump resistance press and loyal anti-Trump’ers will blindly eat it up, not because what he says is so terrible, but because they are blinded by their hate.

          Charles, you are blinded by your hate; don’t deny it.

          • Rats, incomplete italics tag in the very first sentence. ARRGH!

          • charlesgreen

            “…at the core of your arguments over the last few days on this topic, you want to condemn constitutionally protected protests/demonstrations because you don’t like the topic or the ones demonstrating and you want the President to do the same.”

            Here is, verbatim, what I wrote earlier in this thread, in case you missed it the first time.

            “Of course the Nazi-supremacists have the right to speak, and carry swastikas next to Confederate flags, and insult jews and non-whites. And the ACLU is totally right to defend their right to say so.”

            Why is it so hard for you to get that one can, at the same time, believe that:
            a. certain speech is constitutionally protected, and
            b. repugnant.

            The point of the constitution is not to say we should never say bad things about people; it is that they HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY BAD THINGS. And all of the rest of us have the right to say THOSE THINGS ARE BAD.

            I do not understand why you seem to have a problem understanding this? The ACLU gets it. The governor of Virginia and the mayor of Charlottesville get it, not to mention the police chief.

            Almost every national politician gets it – with one notable exception.

            Yet you seem unable to disconnect condemnation of a substantive viewpoint from the constitutionally protected right to express that viewpoint.

            • Nice twisted smears of me Charles; that’s quite a talent you have there.

              Charles wrote, “Why is it so hard for you to get that one can, at the same time, believe that: a. certain speech is constitutionally protected, and
              b. repugnant.”

              Gee Charles, why would you fabricate such a false smear of me like that? I actually believe that right down to my bones; in fact above I wrote “The President is there to protect free speech for you and I and those who we oppose, like racists.” The issue is that, based on the totality of your recent comments and token statements aside, I don’t believe that you believe that. You hate Trump and you’ll write just about anything to smear him, I get that and you’re not alone around here.

              Charles wrote, “The real issue is we just saw a major demonstration of disgusting thoughts; Nazi banners, anti-Jewish slogans being chanted by torch-bearing “Aryans.” In the town that Jefferson built. And our President failed to take note of this fact AT ALL.”

              No Charles, you’re wrong about Trump; just as I stated above, your hate has blinded you. Trump DID take note of it! Trump’s first publicized words (twitter) “We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!”

              Again; you and the political left wanted Trump to single out the permitted protesters that you oppose thus condemning only them, their protest, and the reason they were protesting and ignore the instigators that you condone and virtually justify their hate and violence. Trump was Presidential and did what a President should do, condemn ALL the violence and people like you are condemning him for doing that; what you’re doing is wrong. What the lunatic behind the wheel of the car did, did not justify the actions of the instigators after the fact and he was not a representative of the protesting group as a whole; what he did was criminal and likens what some terrorist have done!

              Charles wrote, “The point of the constitution is not to say we should never say bad things about people; it is that they HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY BAD THINGS. And all of the rest of us have the right to say THOSE THINGS ARE BAD.”

              Thank you Mr. Obvious.

              Charles wrote, “I do not understand why you seem to have a problem understanding this?”, “Yet you seem unable to disconnect condemnation of a substantive viewpoint from the constitutionally protected right to express that viewpoint.”

              Completely false and unjustifiable smears!

              You’re whole issue is that Trump didn’t say what you wanted him to say thus condemning the permitted protesters and basically invalidating the reason they protested and you are trying to twist this into a smear that I don’t understand the Constitution – well screw you and your false smear Charles. It’s way too easy to get under your skin which in effect causes you to open your mouth to shove in your foot as you type ignorant smears.

              Points of fact Charles:
              1. I oppose racism and I’ve stated that many times around here. I believe you also oppose racism.

              2. I support the rights of those that choose to protest regardless of the topic of their protest. Based on the totality of your comments over the last few days, I do not believe that you believe the same thing.

              3. I will not condemn those that do not vocally oppose the message or messengers of a protest in the same manner that I choose. You cannot say that.

              4. We’ve all got the right to voice our opinions/oppositions in a manner in which we choose. General statement: Condemning someone for not voicing their opinion/opposition in the same manner in which “you” might choose makes “you” an pompous arrogant asshole and it’s just plain wrong.

              Oh by the way Charles, you haven’t “proven” that this statement of mine is false; “at the core of your arguments over the last few days on this topic, you want to condemn constitutionally protected protests/demonstrations because you don’t like the topic or the ones demonstrating and you want the President to do the same.”

              Every action has a reaction; this is true in physics and psychology.

              • charlesgreen

                “2. I support the rights of those that choose to protest regardless of the topic of their protest. Based on the totality of your comments over the last few days, I do not believe that you believe the same thing.”

                What can I say? I too support the rights of those that choose to protest regardless of the topic of their protest. But you say you don’t believe me when I say that.

                That doesn’t leave much to say, does it? If you flat out choose to disbelieve something I say, there’s not much point in my saying it again.

                • Charles wrote, “What can I say? I too support the rights of those that choose to protest regardless of the topic of their protest. But you say you don’t believe me when I say that.”, “That doesn’t leave much to say, does it? If you flat out choose to disbelieve something I say, there’s not much point in my saying it again.”

                  I’ve been wrong before and I really hope my perception is wrong this time too.

        • Continue to uphold basic American Values delineated in the Declaration. Emphasize that the specific premises that lead to Nazism which are antithetical to American Values are antithetical to American Values.

          Presidents have historically been able to “stay above the fray” while defending America.

        • Go ahead and start that concept, charles. Just like the Democrats in Congress, be sure you are outraged when it turns and bites you in a moment when you are out of power.

      • Chris

        Presidents should not be condemning legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives.

        And yet…Trump does. All the time.

        But he didn’t do so here.

        You’re not curious as to why not?

        Sidenote: the claim that Harry Truman was in the KKK was never corroborated, was it?

        • “And yet…Trump does. All the time.”

          Such as?

          “But he didn’t do so here.”

          He did. You, like Charles, just don’t like the way he did, which admittedly was awkward and clumsy.

          • Chris

            Trump condemns people who protest against him constantly. Here is one example of many:

            He did.

            He condemned violence. The statement I was responding to was Jack’s statement that Presidents should not be condemning legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives. Trump did not do that in the case of the Nazis, which was Jack’s entire point. My point was that Trump is perfectly willing to condemn legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives when the people protesting are liberals. This would indicate that Trump’s choice not to do so in this instance has nothing to do with any principled stance, and that there must therefore be other reasons for his choice .

            • Hold on just a minute here; exactly how is this statement from President Trump “The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!” a statement of condemnation of protesters?

              I think we deserve a clear explanation from Chris on this one.

            • Additionally Chris, you said “Trump does. All the time.”. That’s an actual claim that Trump has condemned legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives many times. Based on your claim, you MUST show multiple instances where Trump has done what you claimed.

              Question: Is this just another one of your unsupportable hyperbole claims?

            • Chris wrote, “My point was that Trump is perfectly willing to condemn legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives when the people protesting are liberals.”

              There’s that unsupported claim again.

              Chris, I’m really sick and tired of all these unsupportable claims you make around here, I’m not going to let this one go until you either prove your claim beyond reasonable doubt or openly state that you’ve made another false claim that you cannot support.

              Prove it; but don’t try to prove it with a Trump tweet that needs an essay to explain how he’s “condemning legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives when the people protesting are liberals”, give us a couple of clear examples of these condemnations, if he’s doing this “all the time” you should have a long, long list.

              Ignoring this won’t make it go away.

              • Chris

                I think we deserve a clear explanation from Chris on this one.

                You’re being an idiot. If you don’t know how that’s a condemnation, I can’t explain it to you. You refuse to see what’s right there because of your anti-anti-Trump bias.

                Based on your claim, you MUST show multiple instances where Trump has done what you claimed.

                Let me be clear on this: I don’t have to do shit. Tex asked for one example. I gave it to him. I assume he’s accepted it, even though you refuse to. Other examples are freely Googlable for you, if you really want to know. I assume since you won’t Google it yourself, you don’t really care enough to, so I feel no need to continue this conversation with you.

                • Typical Chris. Just like clockwork; confront Chris with his hyperbole claims and when he can’t properly support his hyperbole claims, as usual, he attacks the messenger.

                  Chris wrote, “Tex asked for one example.”

                  You’re a liar and a very bad one. Try retracing your steps, “idiot”.

                  Chris wrote, “Other examples are freely Googlable for you, if you really want to know. I assume since you won’t Google it yourself, you don’t really care enough to, so I feel no need to continue this conversation with you.”

                  Since my Google search phrase “Trump condemns protesters” was obviously idiotic and didn’t reveal anything to support your claim other than Trump condemning violence by protesters, why don’t you share your genius search phrase to get me to all these examples you claim exist where Trump has “condemned legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives when the people protesting are liberals”?

                  Come one Chris; this is yet another opprotinuity for you to make me look like a complete idiot. I’m up for a good challenge this morning, are you?

                  Let’s dance, you and I.

                  • Chris

                    Ok, I’m really going to try here.

                    Let’s look at this statement again:

                    The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!

                    To me, this is clearly a condemnation of the liberal activists who planned the protests in question. It isn’t a very coherent one–is Trump saying the crowd isn’t actually angry? But it is still a condemnation. Trump is saying that the liberal activists who planned these protests should not have done so. Ending with “Sad!” pretty much confirms that.

                    That’s my interpretation of that tweet. What is yours, Zoltar?

                    I too at first searched “Trump condemns protesters,” but found that everything was about Charlottesville. This was unsurprising, given how much both liberal and conservative media have condemned Trump’s statements. So then I decided to search “Trump tweet liberal protesters,” since I remembered seeing multiple condemnations from him on Twitter.

                    But you haven’t yet conceded that the first tweet I showed you is a clear condemnation of liberal protesters–in fact, you seem to think that describing it that way is ridiculous. So I don’t see the point in giving you more examples of Trump condemning liberal protesters if we can’t even agree that this is an example of that–you could just say that none of the other ones I show you are condemnations, either.

                    So until we either agree or I see a convincing explanation from you as to how that tweet is not a condemnation of liberal protesters, we are at an impasse.

                    You’re a liar and a very bad one.

                    I thought it was fair to interpret tex’s question “Such as?” as asking for an example, not necessarily many. You disagree. For that you call me a “liar.” You reach for this word way too quickly when it suits you. It makes you seem hostile and unpleasant, and you should cut it out.

                    • Chris,
                      I’m not going to comment on the core of this reply (BTW; thanks for actually trying this time) until I understand the scope of what you mean when you use the words demonstrations or protests. More importantly; is a small group of people trying to intentionally disrupt or literally shout down a member of Congress in a town hall meeting, until they are either removed from the meeting or the meeting has to shut down because of them, considered a “protest” to you? It’s important to know this.

                      On a separate note..

                      Chris wrote, “I thought it was fair to interpret tex’s question “Such as?” as asking for an example, not necessarily many. You disagree. For that you call me a “liar.” You reach for this word way too quickly when it suits you.”

                      You said, “Tex asked for one,/b> example” (my bold), that was factually inaccurate and verifiably so; it was clearly a false misrepresentation of what Tex asked. Your claim was NOT about a singular instance and the statement “such as?” directly asks you to provide instances (plural) to support the claim. This claim of your is microscopically thin. I only use the word liar when I truly believe it is accurate. Disagree if you like, it will not change my opinion on that point.

                    • Junkmailfolder

                      Huh?

                      It’s Trump denying the legitimacy of the protests. He’s saying “these aren’t angry Republicans protesting Republican congressmen, it’s angry liberals pretending to be Republicans. Sad! “

                    • Junkmailfolder wrote, “Huh? It’s Trump denying the legitimacy of the protests. He’s saying “these aren’t angry Republicans protesting Republican congressmen, it’s angry liberals pretending to be Republicans. Sad! “”

                      This discussion didn’t need that kind of nonsense deflection inserted into it.

                      Go away!

                    • Chris

                      Zoltar, Junkmailfolder’s comment was not a “nonsense deflection.” It was a direct answer to your question of how the tweet could be considered a condemnation.

                      Why did you ask this question if you won’t accept any answer to it?

                    • Give me a break Chris; even you have better comprehension skills than this! Junkmailfolder wrote “it’s angry liberals pretending to be Republicans”, this is absolute nonsense and a clear deflections!

                    • Chris

                      No, it’s a fair interpretation of Trump’s tweet, and fits perfectly with the conservative narrative about the town halls at the time. Junkmailfolder captured exactly what conservatives were saying.

                      Your injunction for him to “go away” for explaining something to you that you didn’t know is toothless, petty and cowardly. Why do you behave this way?

                    • Interrupting “The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!” as saying “it’s angry liberals pretending to be Republicans” is a boatload of complete partisan crap Chris!

                      I don’t care where you put the punctuation in that comment, you all are reading things between the lines that simply do not exist. For God’s sake, you’re a English teacher, use your brain!

                    • Got to admit, I’m confused by the responses, but since you both seemed to have misunderstood my point, it must be my fault rather than yours.

                      I was essentially agreeing with Tex just below me–Trump wasn’t condemning legal protests, he was denying that the protest was what it seemed to be. Zoltar, thanks for that helpful comment though!

                    • Jumkmailfolder (via Kristen’s account) wrote, “Zoltar, thanks for that helpful comment though!”

                      You’re welcome, glad you liked it. 😉

                    • Junkmailfolder

                      Just to confuse things even more–that comment just above was from me–I was using the wrong account. Jack, is there any way to delete comments, to reduce any potential confusion here?

                    • Junkmailfolder,

                      Wrong account?

                      I don’t understand your comment.

                    • Junkmailfolder

                      Thanks, Jack. I accidentally posted from my wife’s account earlier. I said that you both misunderstood my original comment.

                      What i meant to say was pretty much exactly what Tex is arguing below–Trump wasn’t condemning protests, he was simply arguing that they were not what they appeared to be.

                    • Chris

                      Well now I’m really lost. “Denying the legitimacy of a protest” isn’t condemning that protest? Of course it is.

                      And if it’s not, how is denying the legitimacy of a protest less of a threat to free speech than condemning one?

                      Widening the scope further: this is a blog where the conservatives have frequently defended Trump’s attacks on the media, including his statement that they are the “enemy of the people.” And now the same people tell us that the president condemning racist protesters would be an unethical government action and chill speech?

                      How does that make sense?

                    • Chris wrote, “Widening the scope further: this is a blog where the conservatives have frequently defended Trump’s attacks on the media, including his statement that they are the “enemy of the people.” And now the same people tell us that the president condemning racist protesters would be an unethical government action and chill speech?”

                      By his own admission (“widening the scope further”) this is another deflection from Chris but it’s an interesting conflation of the arguments that Chris has been presenting trying to support his argument that President Trump has been condemning legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives “all the time”. Underlying Chris’ argument is a definite maybe or really fuzzy grey line.

                      This raises an interesting question;

                      Canany criticism of any words spoken or written by any person or any group be interrupted as condemning constitutionally protected speech, thus chilling free speech?

                      Based on this conversation, I think Chris’s reactionary answer would be yes; however, if Chris chooses to stick to that answer, then he must also understand that every person in the United States that ever has or ever will oppose/criticize the opinion of another person or group is trying to chill free speech. Chris clearly thinks that Trump’s tweet (that he shared above) was Trump condemning legal, constitutionally protected free speech, thus chilling free speech. If we applying that grey line that Chris has presented with Trump’s tweet, does Chris think what the ‘antifa’ did in Charlottesville NC was condemning legal, constitutionally protected free speech, thus chilling free speech?

                      To properly answer the question I posed one must define what is legally protected by the constitution as free speech and what is not and then that standard must be equally applied to everyone and every group without exception and without opinionated double standards. Then one must choose where to draw the dividing line between what is considered condemning constitutionally protected free speech and what is not; and if that line is a grey line, who wins when the criticism lies within that grey line the one criticizing or the one being criticized.

                      Maybe the question I posed above could be a reasonable topic for an entire ethics blog and followup discussion.

                    • Junkmailfolder

                      Chris, Your responses to Tex show you simply disagree, but I’ll try anyway.

                      If you told me a friend said something critical of me, in an effort to make me take the criticism seriously, but then I found out that the “friend” was someone who hates my guts, I would be annoyed at you for misrepresenting the criticism. Not the same as condemning any and all criticism in general.

                      As for the broader context, I’m only offering my interpretation of this particular tweet, which I can’t take as a condemnation of protests against him in general.

                    • Chris

                      Asking how seemingly contradictory arguments comport with each other isn’t a “deflection,” Zoltar.

                      Chris clearly thinks that Trump’s tweet (that he shared above) was Trump condemning legal, constitutionally protected free speech, thus chilling free speech.

                      No, that’s not my argument.

                      Jack has been arguing that Trump should not have condemned the assorted Nazis and white supremacists by name in Charlottesville for their legal and constitutionally protected protest because doing so would chill free speech.

                      I don’t agree that such a condemnation would do anything to chill free speech.

                      I don’t think Trump’s condemnations of liberal protests at town halls do anything to chill free speech either, though they were still condemnations, and in this case they were inappropriate and petty.

                      It is possible for condemnation to chill free speech, but most condemnations don’t do that. Going as far as declaring a group protected by the first amendment the “enemy of the people” could have a chilling effect (what does the government DO with enemies of the people?), though it doesn’t seem to have had that effect on the media; they’re a courageous bunch. I can’t remember the exact story right now, but didn’t Jack write about some liberal mayor who threatened not to allow Chick-fil-A in his city? I would definitely count that as chilling free speech.

                      What antifa does *absolutely* chills free speech, not because they condemn certain views, but because they are frequently violent. If I wanted to attend a protest and found out antifa were on the other side (or even on my side), I would not attend, because I don’t want to be pelted with rocks, pepper sprayed, spat on or punched. (It’s still funny when real Nazis get punched, but funny = / = right, and I can’t endorse a behavior that will end up hurting innocent people even if it means I get to laugh at the guilty.) My speech would be chilled by antifa in that I would not attend a protest due to fear of their violence.

                      But Trump’s condemnation of liberal protesters doesn’t chill speech in my opinion, as it doesn’t come with any explicit or implicit threat. Nor would a condemnation of Nazis along the lines of what McAllife said. The only thing Trump has said that could chill speech, as far as I can remember, is calling the press “the enemy of the people,” as that does place a target on their backs; but even in that case it hasn’t seemed to have shut anyone in the media up. Though they do get their fair share of threats, which have increased under Trump. So this one’s a maybe.

                      Tl; dr: I find the phrase “chilling speech” to be overused, and often applied when someone can’t point to a real, tangible threat to speech. A condemnation in and of itself doesn’t chill speech.

                    • I said, “Chris clearly thinks that Trump’s tweet (that he shared above) was Trump condemning legal, constitutionally protected free speech, thus chilling free speech.”

                      Chris replied, “No, that’s not my argument.”

                      LIAR!

                      I was wrong in my assessment below that Chris is not stupid and instead is just a true blue political hack. Only a blatant LIAR would write that utter bull shit lie with all the evidence in this thread directly contradicting this new claim that “No, that’s not my argument.”.

                      It doesn’t take a genius to follow the progression of comments posted above; here’s my proof that Chris just openly lied..

                      Jack wrote, “Presidents should not be condemning legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives.”

                      Chris replied quoting Jacks’ comment, “And yet…Trump does. All the time.”

                      texagg04 replied quoting Chris’ comment, “Such as?”

                      Chris replied, “Trump condemns people who protest against him constantly. Here is one example of many:

                      Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
                      The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!
                      “,

                      …”My point was that Trump is perfectly willing to condemn legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives when the people protesting are liberals.”

                      Chris also stated later that “Tex asked for one example. I gave it to him.”

                      From that moment on Chris has been arguing that the Trump tweet was condemnation legal, constitutionally protected free speech, and if Chris doesn’t think that that kind of condemnation (as Jack said) “chills speech, and puts a target on the backs of citizens for exercising their rights” then Chris is a special kind of stupid.

                      Done.

                    • Chris

                      LIAR!

                      You cannot fucking read. I already explained that I do not believe condemnations of speech from politicians necessarily chill speech. Nowhere in this thread have I said anything to contradict that stance.

                    • Key word: “necessarily.” If there is a substantial chance that it might chill speech, then it’s unethical. And it depends on which official does the condemning.

                    • Chris

                      By the way, here’s another condemnation of protest:

                      And another:

                    • Chris

                      Jack, do you think there is a substantial chance that the president condemning protests by liberals could chill their speech? What about asking for protesters to be investigated?

                      What about calling the press the “enemy of the people?”

            • Not a condemnation of legal, constitutional demonstrations. Sounds more like a critique of the motives and claims and made or the content of the protest.

              Any others?

              • Chris

                Not a condemnation of legal, constitutional demonstrations.

                Are you saying that the demonstrations he was referring to were not legal or constitutional?

                Sounds more like a critique of the motives and claims and made or the content of the protest.

                Wait, what? A critique of the motives and content of a protest is a critique of the protest. It sounds like you’re shifting the goalpost to “Trump didn’t criticize the *existence* of a protest, he just criticized what the protest was for and the people who were there.” Which…is exactly what a lot of people on the left and right said he should have done re: Charlottesville Nazis, and exactly what Jack said a president should never do.

                Any others?

                Yes, but let’s keep focusing on this example until we figure out where our actual source of disagreement is. I am completely lost as to what your argument is.

                • There are a few ways someone can go about addressing the free speech of distasteful ideas where those few ways can be called “condemning the demonstration”.

                  1) Claiming they have no right to say distasteful things or adhere to unethical ideas.

                  2) Specifically stating that the people who espouse those unethical or distasteful ideas have no place in American society.

                  3) Stating the ideas themselves, called out in the very specifics that they were spoken at the demonstration, are unethical and unwelcome.

                  4) Stating that the root premises and base attitudes that lead to those unethical ideas that were the messages at the demonstrations are antithetical to American values.

                  Now, to many rational and objective observers, it would seem MANY on the Left actually believe #1, but I don’t think that’s at issue in this subthread. I think the other 3 are at concern in this discussion. I think Jack is wary of anything remotely similar to #2, and rightly so, and I think, to him, it sounds like Charles (and possibly you) expect that kind of condemnation from the President. I don’t think it’s the President’s business to tread into that territory based purely on speech.

                  #3 may be an appropriate response, I’m not sold on it. #4 IS an appropriate response, and very clumsily, Trump pulled off that one.

                  I think Trump’s tweet sounds more like disgarding the sincerity of the protests based on whatever content they contain. If it’s the protests I’m thinking of (based on the date of the tweet), they were probably the “Not My President” protests. Which were politically aimed DIRECTLY at his legitimacy as President, an offshoot of the “Bring the Presidency Down at All Costs” Movement, which to me lands exactly in the realm of requiring presidential commentary. I think there’s an additional substantive difference between that context and the context of the ‘alt-right’ protest against tearing down statues.

                  • Chris

                    Tex, you seem to have drawn your lines of appropriate and inappropriate reactions to protest in an entirely post-hoc manner, ensuring that whatever Trump has already said about protesters can be designated ethical while statements made by your political opponents, like Gov. McAuliffe, can be designated unethical. #2 was the big tip-off on that.

                    But the arguments should be addressed on their merits.

                    1) Yes, I agree this would be completely out of line.

                    2) and 3) and 4) I have expressed my disagreement with you on these points in other threads. Saying that racism has “no place in American society” or that it is “unwelcome,” even from a governor or president, is a statement of social shunning. The Bushes have all made statements such as this in recent weeks. Unless they put legal weight behind such statements, they are not inappropriate or unethical. Racist demonstrations are unethical, and our elected leaders should make that clear. There is absolutely no reason they should not call racist demonstrations unethical, and refusing to do so under the thin basis of “It might chill speech” strikes me as cowardly. The white nationalists who marched with guns in Charlottesville are not going to be “silenced” by a governor telling them their speech is vile and unwelcome in America, and the idea that they’ll just be too afraid to speak their horrendous ideas if the president says the same thing is utterly ridiculous.

                    I think Trump’s tweet sounds more like disgarding the sincerity of the protests based on whatever content they contain.

                    …Which is a condemnation of the protest. Obviously. And it’s no more or less ethical a condemnation than the other types you’ve already described.

                    And really, if you believe that Trump chose to condemn these protests but not the alt-right ones in Charlottesville because he drew the kind of nuanced lines between different types of condemnations that you’re doing here, I have a bridge to sell you. He condemned the liberal protests more immediately, specifically and harshly because they were protests against him. His restraint in condemning the white nationalists in Charlottesville was because they support him. There really isn’t any nuance here. Trump likes to be liked, and will bend over backwards to avoid critiquing people who support him. If the Russia investigation turns up nothing, then my conclusion about why Trump praises Putin so much will default to “Because Putin has said nice things about him and probably helped him beat the mean e-mail lady.” Because that’s how Trump thinks. This isn’t bigotry, this is an incredibly well-supported observation.

                    If it’s the protests I’m thinking of (based on the date of the tweet), they were probably the “Not My President” protests.

                    They were protests against repealing Obamacare.

                    • Chris

                      Tl; dr: Either condemning protests chills speech or it doesn’t. Trump has condemned protests before…when they are protests against him. If this was not unethical, then neither would condemning white nationalist protests.

                    • ““You are not wanted in this great commonwealth. Shame on you….There is no place for you here. There is no place for you in America.””

                      That would be *GOVERNOR* McAuliffe specifically targeting individuals…not ideas. As GOVERNOR. That adds an air of legal authority behind it. Don’t pretend it doesn’t. Coming from a crowd that thinks a valedictorian mentioning God during graduation is the same as theocratic tyranny imposed with the weight of law, this is especially amusing from you.

                      And Trump’s tweet simply isn’t a condemnation of the Obamacare Repeal Protests in any shade of meaning similar to what you think McAuliffe did and hoped Trump would do to the ‘alt-right’ protest no matter how much you repeat it.

                    • “Because that’s how Trump thinks. This isn’t bigotry, this is an incredibly well-supported observation.”

                      None of which is germane to evaluating the ethicality of government officials taking stances regarding particular protests.

                      Trump’s love of being loved may have affected his commentary, but that’s moral luck. Evaluate the comment for its own merits devoid of projecting your own Trump hatred onto it.

                    • Chris

                      ““You are not wanted in this great commonwealth. Shame on you….There is no place for you here. There is no place for you in America.”

                      That would be *GOVERNOR* McAuliffe specifically targeting individuals…not ideas. As GOVERNOR. That adds an air of legal authority behind it. Don’t pretend it doesn’t. Coming from a crowd that thinks a valedictorian mentioning God during graduation is the same as theocratic tyranny imposed with the weight of law, this is especially amusing from you.

                      Please don’t count me as a part of that crowd. Valedictorians should absolutely be allowed to thank God in their speeches. The stance you are describing is ridiculous, and I do not hold it.

                      And *what* legal authority? What does the governer’s condemnation actually *do?* I already rejected the argument that it “chills speech” by making white supremacists afraid to express their views. If you can give examples of how it does this, I’m listening.

                      Politicians should not use their power to restrict speech, but leaders can and should help society form and maintain ethical standards. “Racism is bad” is not a controversial stance in our country, at least not now, and part of what keeps it that way is our leaders speaking out against racism and condemning it when it happens. You still haven’t named any specific negative consequences of politicians doing that.

                      Trump’s tweet simply isn’t a condemnation of the Obamacare Repeal Protests in any shade of meaning similar to what you think McAuliffe did and hoped Trump would do to the ‘alt-right’ protest no matter how much you repeat it.

                      I keep repeating it because it’s self-evidently true, and you have yet to provide a convincing counter-argument. You’ve drawn very fine distinctions, but the are distinctions without a difference. At most you can argue that McAullife’s condemnation of white nationalists was stronger than Trump’s condemnation of liberal protesters at town halls, in which case, a) good and b) that doesn’t make the latter not a condemnation. It is still a condemnation. Obviously.

                    • Chris

                      None of which is germane to evaluating the ethicality of government officials taking stances regarding particular protests.

                      Trump’s love of being loved may have affected his commentary, but that’s moral luck. Evaluate the comment for its own merits devoid of projecting your own Trump hatred onto it.

                      As you know, I take motives into account when assessing the ethics of a situation. Our disagreement on this issue has been noted before, and there’s no reason to expound upon it further.

            • Chris,
              You have been obsessively trying to prove to others that Trumps words “The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!” was Trump condemning legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives to; this is a fallacy based on two illogical anti-Trump assumptions; 1st, that anything Trump says about opposition is condemnation;2nd, that anything that the opposition say or does is legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives. When you start with that as the basis for your arguments, you’re going to fail to prove your arguments.

              You’ve been beating this single dead horse example trying to prove your point when you originally stated that Trump does this “all the time”. A logically think adult could have easily done their homework to support their own claim and presented a pattern of to support the claim that Trump does this “all the time” and that pattern would have absolutely squashed any opposition to your claim. You simply cannot do that because as far as I can tell the pattern simply does not exist; therefore, the initial claim is completely false!

              There is a phrase that goes something like this; “stupidity is the process by which a person repeats the same thing over and over again and expects different results”; well Chris I don’t think your stupid, I think you’re a political hack. In true political hack fashion; you made a claim (which was plural), you have not supported your plural claim you’ve beat one illogical example into the ground and when someone suggests that you provide more examples to support your claim you attack them implying that they are an idiot and and tell them that it’s their job to prove your claim. You make unsupported and unsupportable claims all the time around here and the inherent deflection built within the unsupportable claims drags discussions into endless shifting of the goal posts. You may not want think it’s true, and it may not be intentional on your part, but what you’re doing makes you appear to be either a true blue political hack or just stupid. Personally I choose to believe that you’re a political hack, which in some ways is actually better than being stupid.

              There has been plenty of time for you to find additional information to support your original claim, so I’m calling BULL SHIT on your entire claim.

              Pick any point I’ve made in this comment and prove me wrong.

              • Chris

                Chris,
                You have been obsessively trying to prove to others that Trumps words “The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!” was Trump condemning legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives to; this is a fallacy based on two illogical anti-Trump assumptions; 1st, that anything Trump says about opposition is condemnation;

                It is ridiculous to say my conclusion is based on the assumption that anything Trump says about the opposition is condemnation. It’s based on the obvious fact that what he wrote in this instance is a condemnation. “Sad!” is a condemnation. Obviously.

                2nd, that anything that the opposition say or does is legal, constitutional demonstrations for legal objectives.

                Why would I not assume this? I would assume a conservative protest was also a legal and constitutional demonstration for a legal objective as well, unless given reason to believe otherwise. It’s a fair assumption.

                I asked tex earlier if he was arguing that the townhall protests were not legal or constitutional, and he didn’t answer that part of my question. How about you? Are you arguing the townhall protests were not legal or constitutional, and did not have a legal objective? If so, what is your evidence for that?

                You’ve been beating this single dead horse example trying to prove your point when you originally stated that Trump does this “all the time”. A logically think adult could have easily done their homework to support their own claim and presented a pattern of to support the claim that Trump does this “all the time” and that pattern would have absolutely squashed any opposition to your claim. You simply cannot do that because as far as I can tell the pattern simply does not exist; therefore, the initial claim is completely false!

                As I said, it seemed pointless to present more examples when we could not even agree that my first example was a condemnation of a legal protest, when it clearly was.

                you have not supported your plural claim you’ve beat one illogical example into the ground and when someone suggests that you provide more examples to support your claim you attack them implying that they are an idiot and and tell them that it’s their job to prove your claim.

                This is not even close to what happened. I said you were being an idiot for asking how the Trump tweet I showed you was an example of a condemnation of a legal protest; I stand by that. I then explained why I wanted to focus on coming to some sort of understanding of that tweet before providing more examples. Since that tweet was such a clear example of condemning a protest, I found it pointless to present more examples which you would likely be equally obtuse about.

                But here, have another anyway:

                This one is actually worse than the one I showed you before, as it isn’t just a condemnation; it’s a threat. Trump is saying that people who protested against him should be investigated; plenty of his supporters could read this as a request to dox protesters.

                I would say it is fair to describe this comment as chilling speech; would you agree?

                Would you agree that calling the press “the enemy of the people” could have the effect of chilling speech?

                Since you’re being so honest about what you think of me, allow me to respond in kind:

                You (and not just you) are being willfully obtuse when it comes to this issue. The original argument from Jack was that presidents should not go after private citizens or condemn constitutionally protected speech. But he does that all the time. And even if you don’t accept the examples of him condemning protesters that I provided you, you cannot deny his constant attacks on the press. Trump has never once been shy about attacking those who use free speech to criticize him. So why are so many of you acting like his choice to not condemn those who use free speech to condemn Nazis is somehow admirable?

                The answer is because you bend over backwards to find things about Trump to praise, then bend further to pat yourselves on the back for being so much more “fair” and “objective” than us pathetic leftists. This is just as much of a bias as any partisan bias, and causes you to miss just as much and bend the facts to suit your narrative just as much. It is incoherent to call McAullife’s “Nazis are not welcome here” statement unethical while calling Trump’s “enemy of the people” line ethical, yet that is the exact stance the conservatives here have taken, even though the latter is clearly much worse than the former.

                • Chris

                  So why are so many of you acting like his choice to not condemn those who use free speech to condemn Nazis is somehow admirable?

                  This should say “So why are so many of you acting like his choice to not condemn those who use free speech to spread Nazi propaganda is somehow admirable?”

                • Chris wrote, ““Sad!” is a condemnation.”

                  OH MY GOD!

                  I said above that “illogical anti-Trump assumptions; 1st, that anything Trump says about opposition is condemnation..” I guess it’s not too surprising that you’d turn around an literally prove my statement true in your very next reply.

                  I rest my case.

                  You’ve gone completely off the rails; you can’t possibly be an English teacher.

    • “I have only three good words to say about VP Pence, but they’re important: Better Than Trump. Way better. Bon voyage. That’s not treason. That’s not a coup. That would be system working. Big difference.”

      This puts you head and shoulders better than the vast majority of progressives who don’t realize that if Trump is impeached, Pence takes the position. Just looking at all the procedural ignorance floating around, there seems to be a large contingent of people that think that Pence gets impeached with Trump, and that we go to a new election, or something… Where the reality is that Pence gets in, and then if Pence is impeached, his replacement is decided by congress…. Which is still majority Republican. There isn’t a universe where a progressive bobblehead takes the office for at least another year, after the mid-terms.

      • charlesgreen

        Oh, I do get that, believe me…hardly a pleasing proposition to a liberal, but the situation is exactly as you say it is. And I’d still take Pence.

      • Chris

        This puts you head and shoulders better than the vast majority of progressives who don’t realize that if Trump is impeached, Pence takes the position.

        Where’s the evidence that “the vast majority of progressives” don’t realize this?

        • Don’t you… teach… English?

          • Chris

            Yes. Perhaps I misread your sentence; looking at it again I can see two possible meanings, but I think it more directly suggests my first interpretation, even if that’s not how you meant it.

            • The context of further sentences should have clinched it “There seems to be large contingents” is a far cry from “the vast majority of all progressives”.

              • Chris

                Except that you literally said “the vast majority of progressives.”

                • Except that period wasn’t there, and there were more words. Sure.

                  • Chris

                    So then…why did you write it? Did you just change your mind halfway through and forget to go back and delete the part where you baselessly said “the vast majority of progressives” don’t know Pence will become president if Trump is impeached? I really don’t get it.

                    • Would it cause you physical pain to quote me correctly?

                      “progressives who don’t realize that if Trump is impeached, Pence takes the position”

                    • Humble’s phraseology contains a component of progressives who think Pence goes when Trump goes who may be “better” than Charles.

                      It’s called hyperbole.

                    • Chris

                      I give up. Either it was hyperbole or I’m misreading the sentence; I think it’s actually awkwardly phrased, but this argument isn’t worth pursuing. I understand what you meant to say now, HT, and thank you for your attempts at clarification.

    • “And our President failed to take note of this fact AT ALL.”

      He did. You just didn’t like how he said it.

      Like a lot of the demanded quotes you make of him. He meets them, you just shift the goalposts after that.

      Yes, he’s an imbecile, and yes he could’ve worded his denunciation of hate and violence better.

      But let’s be clear, you won’t be happy with anything he says, ever.

      So, save us time, and just couch all your Trump denunciation of his communications under Charles Package #1.

      So when Trump says something, ever, you can just post “#1”. And we can all say “oh look, Charles still hates Trump”.

  6. Other Bill

    Still chuckling over the “good NAZI” crew and George Soros’s membership therein. When’s George going to come to President Trump’s defense?

    By the way, when did the term “neo-NAZI” fall out of flavor? These goofballs are significantly different from real, German NAZIs from the ’30s and ’40s. They’re tiny in numbers and have no power at all. If being way out on a fringe is a crime,

  7. Other Bill

    I think this tempest in a teapot over re-fighting the Civil War is another symptom of the substitution of the federal government for churches. The left want’s to criminalize and prohibit being mean. That’s something for churches to do, not governments. But again, since the left has obliterated churches and mocks their role in society, they think it’s up to government to perform churches’ functions. So ironic that a foundational liberal value of the separation of church and state has metastasized into making the state the church.

  8. Paul Compton

    I love your comment OB, especially: “So ironic that a foundational liberal value of the separation of church and state has metastasized into making the state the church.” So true.

    However, like most everyone on earth you completely mistake, or at least misrepresent, what the Church’s job is; most likely because of our failings in doing our job! The Church, which is actually the body of all believers, is to ‘build one another up in our most holy faith’, and to tell the world the good news (Gospel) that faith in Jesus makes it possible to come back into relationship with God after our treason/rebellion.

    Telling people that ‘being mean’ is bad certainly comes under the heading of ‘training in righteousness’, to word the concept in the positive rather than the negative, but it is nothing like the core business of the Church.

    If I seem somewhat snarky on this point I apologize, but I get triggered as a result of one of our popular/hated conservative shock jocks telling his audience that the church had completely failed to get across it’s core message, namely that “we should be nice to each other”. A highly desirable side effect to be sure, but not ‘Gospel’!

    • Other Bill

      Well Paul, I suppose the new Church of the Code of Federal Regulations can be described as a Godless church. Having left the Catholic Church at age sixteen (when I got my driver’s license and could disappear for hours upon “leaving for church”), I guess the ethics and morals of my upbringing in the church are all that remain. Which is not a bad thing. I just don’t believe in a supreme being or an after life. But to each their own. I have a great deal of admiration for believers. I’m just not among them.

  9. wyogranny

    I’m going to take a break from commenting. I hope a permanent break. I deeply appreciate many of the commenters here. I’ve learned a lot. I have a lot to learn. I’ll be following this blog and reading everything here because it helps me clarify my thinking, but I have nothing of substance to contribute.
    Thank you to everyone.

    • dragin_dragon

      Wyo, I hope you reconsider. I have found most of your comments to be learning experiences. Like you, I have found many kindred spirits here, and a few ethics dunces. My solution has been to NOT read their comments, and certainly never try to engage them, as they are permanent trolls. My guess is that they are intent on destroying the blog, as Jack has more ethics and alarms regarding those ethics in his little finger than they are able to produce in their entire bodies, let alone in their brains. Please reconsider…I enjoy your comments.

    • Chris

      Despite our many and varied disagreements, I would not agree that you have “nothing of substance to contribute,” wyogranny.

    • I’ve enjoyed your posts. It’s a stressful activity, especially now.

    • I also hope this won’t be a permanent break, and I hope it is just the eclipse speaking… And I certainly hope that you’ll continue to share your thoughts, because they have been substantial. But there is no obligation to comment, and I know full well commenting can consume a great deal of time and energy.

    • I’m like the others, I hope you will reconsider; unlike the others I’m really curious as to why you’ve made this decision but I fully understand that I have absolutely no right to know why.

      If it’s blog/comment based reasons for the change; might I suggest that you try being more selective as to what you choose to comment on and write comments in a word processor well prior to actually posting them thus giving you more time to absorb your own words.

      If it is non blog/comment based reasons for the change; I wish you well and hope for your return at a later date.

    • I always enjoy and benefit from your comments.

      Stay!

      • Other Bill

        Take some time off, wg. It’s beneficial. I’ve decided to take a break from everything other than Jack’s blog, real clear politics (they identify the slant of the articles so I can avoid the usual suspects), the Manhattan Contrarian and Ann Althouse. All the rest is hooey. Jack is an island of sanity in a sea of absurdity. But yes, stepping back from time to time is good.

        You know, it was funny. I flew back to the northeast in June of this year. It was all “TRUMP!” back there for an entire week. I flew back to Arizona on a beautiful, clear day. As I flew over fly over country, I was relieved to see the highways and farm fields and rail lines and factories and warehouses where people were simply working and otherwise going about their business on a wonderful early summer’s day. Doing their jobs, paying their taxes, raising their kids. Delightful.

  10. Sue Dunim

    An essay on the subject, worth reading.
    Americans in general aren’t very good at this history thing.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2017/08/20/barton-likens-confederate-statues-holocaust-ovens/

    While the magnanimity shown to the former CSA was wholly admirable, it hasn’t worked in the long term.

    Regarding Southron Racism… A quote in a similar context.

    ” It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong.”

    Here we are, 150 years later. Time to stop relying on providence, and give it a helping hand.

    • Do you think southern racism is somehow distinct from other racism? Indeed, do you think that white racism is distinct from black, or any other shade of racist? Do you think that racism is a unique form of bigotry? If you do distinguish among all of these, then how do you rank them in importance. Which is a Category 5 hurricane, and which is a small shower?

      • Sue Dunim

        Yes, I do think Southron racism is exceptional. As exceptional as America itself.

        As evidence, from the link I posted; continuing on from the quote:

        …. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

        Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.

        Just as “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Was unique for its time, the very first declaration of its kind in the world, though followed later in many variants, it is exceptional. Distinct in essence from Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, all of which were inspired or heavily influenced by these words, and the constutution they gave birth to. The Australian constitution for example is not a cut’n’paste job, but is very, very similar. More similar to the US than UK model. But the US one is distinct, it came first.

        The CSA was the “first in the history of the world” to be founded on the “scientific” ideal that Blacks were inferior. It inspired the Third Reich Herrenvolk notion, and of course the late unlamented Apartheid regime in Zuid Afrika,, but the Herrenvolk ideas weren’t specifically anti Black. If you weren’t Aryan, you weren’t sh.. , it didn’t matter much what you were. Some groups fit for extermination, others only as Slavs – Slaves.

        Southron Racism was unique in its first explicit justification on “Scientific” grounds, just as the Third Reich was unique in its first use of industrialised slaughter.

        Over to you.

        • You said: “Here we are, 150 years later. Time to stop relying on providence, and give it a helping hand.” That seems to be saying that you think things are unchanged since Stephens wrote what you quoted.

  11. Art

    Jack, that Stephen Spielberg movie was about Oskar Schindler.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s