Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Fun thread

---

Indeed

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

Agreed. Nothing screams UNITY like using the FBI to execute a political stunt against a potential political opponent.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

---

We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

---

We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.

---

Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

---

We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.

---

Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.

---

Curious minds want to know.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

An America in which Sam Lowrey is kicked out of the conservative country club by the likes of Old Bear to resounding applause because (horrors!) he reads the occasional article in The Atlantic does not have a viable future as a democracy.

If Sam's out because he reads articles from sources you consider suspect, what's the plan for those of us who not only read The Atlantic but hold liberal social views, want everyone--including politicians--to be accountable to the rule of law and want democratic elections that aren't subject to being overturned by gerrymandered state legislatures? Political prison? Gag orders? House arrest?

What's the end game here?

J.B.Katz said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

An America in which Sam Lowrey is kicked out of the conservative country club by the likes of Old Bear to resounding applause because (horrors!) he reads the occasional article in The Atlantic does not have a viable future as a democracy.

If Sam's out because he reads articles from sources you consider suspect, what's the plan for those of us who not only read The Atlantic but hold liberal social views, want everyone--including politicians--to be accountable to the rule of law and want democratic elections that aren't subject to being overturned by gerrymandered state legislatures? Political prison? Gag orders? House arrest?

What's the end game here?

---

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the the Communist party?"

Have you ever read and enjoyed an article in the Atlantic? "We know who you are!"

J.B.Katz said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

An America in which Sam Lowrey is kicked out of the conservative country club by the likes of Old Bear to resounding applause because (horrors!) he reads the occasional article in The Atlantic doe
... Gag orders? House arrest?

What's the end game here?

---

to slice arbys "roast" so thin, one can read the bhagavad gita thru it.

- KKM

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

Agreed. Nothing screams UNITY like using the FBI to execute a political stunt against a potential political opponent.

---

What if it's not a stunt?

What if it is?

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

Trump case: trying to keep the search affidavit sealed isn’t going well for the government.

Judge says: “I find that on the present record the Government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.”

👀 pic.twitter.com/W4hDAtpLkE

— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) August 18, 2022

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

---

And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.

Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff

If Trump really thought the search warrant was illegal, Trump could easily contest the FBI in court now. Seems odd that hasn't happened given Trump's public outbursts this week,

If Trump wanted to release the video of a "raid", he has the security footage. Why not expose such unscrupulous behavior that he has on tape? Seems odd, no?

And why do people on this thread keep calling the search warrant a raid? The FBI even called ahead of time to let secret service staff know they were coming. Seems like the opposite of a raid, and more like executing a search warrant.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

Agreed. Nothing screams UNITY like using the FBI to execute a political stunt against a potential political opponent.

---

I realize that TDS requires calling this a political stunt but this was a by the book search. Any unusual facts derive from the unusual conduct: a presiden walking off with stuff he may be shouldn't have. We'll see.

I do like the way "conservatives" have completely abandoned heir normal stance for searches of Black citizens. "Just follow instructions. Do what the police tell you to do " Unless you're a white elite from the east coast, of course.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

---

And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.

Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff

---

If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.

The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

---

We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.

---

Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.

---

No, it's a Trump-created emergency.

Trump was asked to return the documents months ago.

Politely.

Several times.

He said he would do it.

Several times.

He never returned the documents.

It became clear to Garland he did not plan to return them.

Garland realized if the government wanted those documents out of Trump's custody, the government was going to have to go get them.

The FBI retrieved them.

And, predictably, the right-wing media and their angry host of viewers concluded this was an impulsive act rather than something that would have happened months ago had the perp been anyone other than Trump b/c the DOJ knew there'd be a backlash.

Garland believed that recovering classified documents from Trump was worth the cost in terms of right-wing backlash, shrieking, screams for him to be fired or shot or stoned, that would inevitably result after Trump started squealing like a stuck pig because he wasn't allowed to steal documents with state secrets and keep them at his house. Where Trump is currently trying to hire 90+ immigrants (perhaps including some from Russia or North Korea or Saudi Arabia?)

Garland isn't a cowboy. So I believe there was a good reason the documents were reclaimed. And that, given Garland's cautious, by-the-book approach, he may have waited too long.

But "the damage is already" done is not a good justification for leaving classified documents in the custody of the dude who did the damage. For him to use as leverage if, indeed, he is ultimately accused of seditious conspiracy.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

---

We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.

---

Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.

---

Curious minds want to know.

---

I'm curious to know the full financial dealings of the Biden family. I'm curious to know the financial dealings of the clinton foundation. When do I get to see them?

FBI Unit Leading Mar-a-Lago Probe Earlier Ran Discredited Trump-Russia Investigation https://t.co/24EKGjpk96

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) August 18, 2022

BearFan33 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

---

We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.

---

Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.

---

Curious minds want to know.

---

I'm curious to know the full financial dealings of the Biden family. I'm curious to know the financial dealings of the clinton foundation. When do I get to see them?

---

Biden released his tax returns.

Trump never did.

How about requiring a full disclosure from Trump in addition to requiring a full disclosure from Biden?

Trump's children/Biden's children aren't holding/didn't hold elected office. Not sure how their finances could be subject to scrutiny. But if there's a way to force BOTH the Biden AND Trump families to disclose all their financial dealings, that would include Javanka, Don Jr & Eric. I suspect they'd all be eager to forgo your strong desire to peak at Hunter's laptop if that means they avoid having THEIR dealings subject to public scrutiny.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

---

And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.

Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff

---

If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.

The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.

---

It is called weaponizing the system. It is going to start a dangerous path.

The House committee is not responsible for filing, that is the mere technical side. They need to refer charges and be held legally accountable if DOJ does not have enough to file. They are destroying many lives with no accountability. Don't say the voters will decide, that is horse*****

J.B.Katz said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

---

We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.

---

Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.

---

Curious minds want to know.

---

I'm curious to know the full financial dealings of the Biden family. I'm curious to know the financial dealings of the clinton foundation. When do I get to see them?

---

Biden released his tax returns.

Trump never did.

How about requiring a full disclosure from Trump in addition to requiring a full disclosure from Biden?

Trump's children/Biden's children aren't holding/didn't hold elected office. Not sure how their finances could be subject to scrutiny. But if there's a way to force BOTH the Biden AND Trump families to disclose all their financial dealings, that would include Javanka, Don Jr & Eric. I suspect they'd all be eager to forgo your strong desire to peak at Hunter's laptop if that means they avoid having THEIR dealings subject to public scrutiny.

---

Silly Jinxy, Do you think Joe and family, Co are going to report illegally gotten monies on a tax return? I would like the fbi to raid their properties, gather evidence, and selectively leak things to the press. This is how it works, right?

where is the line item for chinese bribe lol?

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

---

And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.

Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff

---

If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.

The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.

---

Don't say the voters will decide, that is horse*****

---

Isn't that what you've been saying about Trump and his alleged crimes this whole time -- let the voters decide?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

---

And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.

Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff

---

If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.

The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.

---

Don't say the voters will decide, that is horse*****

---

Isn't that what you've been saying about Trump and his alleged crimes this whole time -- let the voters decide?

---

No. Never. I say that if Trump wasn't running or backing candidates none of this would be happening. It is an election year hit, otherwise it would have happened in 2021.

riflebear said:

---

FBI Unit Leading Mar-a-Lago Probe Earlier Ran Discredited Trump-Russia Investigation https://t.co/24EKGjpk96

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) August 18, 2022

---

I don't think the Trump/Russia investigation was "discredited."

It turned up plenty of information that was "disadvantageous" to Trump.

https://www.businessinsider.com/maggie-haberman-trump-could-have-taken-mueller-probe-documents-2022-8

Which might be included in some of the documents he took.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

---

And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.

Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff

---

If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.

The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.

---

Don't say the voters will decide, that is horse*****

---

Isn't that what you've been saying about Trump and his alleged crimes this whole time -- let the voters decide?

---

No. Never. I say that if Trump wasn't running or backing candidates none of this would be happening. It is an election year hit, otherwise it would have happened in 2021.

---

It did happen in 2021. This is how long it took to form the committee and build a case with Trump and his people working against them.

BearFan33 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

---

We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.

---

Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.

---

Curious minds want to know.

---

I'm curious to know the full financial dealings of the Biden family. I'm curious to know the financial dealings of the clinton foundation. When do I get to see them?

---

Biden released his tax returns.

Trump never did.

How about requiring a full disclosure from Trump in addition to requiring a full disclosure from Biden?

Trump's children/Biden's children aren't holding/didn't hold elected office. Not sure how their finances could be subject to scrutiny. But if there's a way to force BOTH the Biden AND Trump families to disclose all their financial dealings, that would include Javanka, Don Jr & Eric. I suspect they'd all be eager to forgo your strong desire to peak at Hunter's laptop if that means they avoid having THEIR dealings subject to public scrutiny.

---

Silly Jinxy, Do you think Joe and family, Co are going to report illegally gotten monies on a tax return? I would like the fbi to raid their properties, gather evidence, and selectively leak things to the press. This is how it works, right?

where is the line item for chinese bribe lol?

---

One showed up on Trumps tax returns that the NYTimes got ahold of, might be why he never wanted to release them. Blows my mind that Trump getting paid $17mil from a Chinese bank account he lied about having, while he was POTUS, never even made it into his supporters' consciousness.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/us/trump-taxes-china.html

Manafort did a podcast interview literally last week where he admitted to meeting with a Russian spy and giving him the campaign's polling info (which we knew already from Mueller and the Republican Senate Intel comitte report), and he had Rick Gates sending daily briefings to the guy.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

---

And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.

Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff

---

If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.

The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.

---

Don't say the voters will decide, that is horse*****

---

Isn't that what you've been saying about Trump and his alleged crimes this whole time -- let the voters decide?

---

No. Never. I say that if Trump wasn't running or backing candidates none of this would be happening. It is an election year hit, otherwise it would have happened in 2021.

---

It did happen in 2021. This is how long it took to form the committee and build a case with Trump and his people working against them.

---

Ok this moved as fast as it could. They sure moved quicker on the impeachments and all the other stuff when they wants. You really believe this is all above board and not election related. That Trump is going to sell documents and is a threat to the future of Democracy in the US.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

---

And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.

Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff

---

If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.

The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.

---

Don't say the voters will decide, that is horse*****

---

Isn't that what you've been saying about Trump and his alleged crimes this whole time -- let the voters decide?

---

No. Never. I say that if Trump wasn't running or backing candidates none of this would be happening. It is an election year hit, otherwise it would have happened in 2021.

---

It did happen in 2021. This is how long it took to form the committee and build a case with Trump and his people working against them.

---

Ok this moved as fast as it could. They sure moved quicker on the impeachments and all the other stuff when they wants. You really believe this is all above board and not election related. That Trump is going to sell documents and is a threat to the future of Democracy in the US.

---

Nothing is ever completely unrelated to elections. But you can't expect everything to come to a halt every other year. It's an impossible standard.

BearFan33 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

---

I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

Quote:

---

We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.

---

---

my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.

---

Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.

---

The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.

Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.

Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.

---

I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.

---

Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you Sam

---

Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

---

The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).

---

I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.

Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.

---

We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.

---

Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.

---

Curious minds want to know.

---

I'm curious to know the full financial dealings of the Biden family. I'm curious to know the financial dealings of the clinton foundation. When do I get to see them?

---

I'm with you on this. Let's see them

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/nyregion/weisselberg-trump-guilty-plea.html

One of Donald J. Trump's most trusted executives pleaded guilty on Thursday to conspiring with Mr. Trump's company to carry out a long-running tax scheme, an admission that painted a damning picture of the former president's family business but did not advance a broader investigation into the former president himself.

As part of the plea deal with the Manhattan district attorney's office, the executive, Allen H. Weisselberg, is required to testify at the company's trial if prosecutors choose to call on him, and to admit his role in conspiring with Mr. Trump's company to carry out the tax scheme. That testimony could tilt the scales against the company, the Trump Organization, as it prepares for an October trial related to the same accusations.

"Yes, your honor," Mr. Weisselberg said again and again in response to detailed questions from the judge, ... who asked whether he and the Trump Organization committed the criminal conduct underlying each of the 15 counts.

riflebear said:

---

FBI Unit Leading Mar-a-Lago Probe Earlier Ran Discredited Trump-Russia Investigation https://t.co/24EKGjpk96

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) August 18, 2022

---

you are going to believe THAT source? totally biased and probably fake.