Juror#8

Huh? What does his have to do with Nixon winning the office? The talks you were mentioning starting crappy, was resolved after a few weeks, and was resolved when some foreign power (can’t remember) suggested a round table. But you’re ahead of yourself ... what about the ****ty tone of the proposed peace process had anything to do with Nixon’s responsibility not to meddle in foreign affairs while he was still not an empowered elected official? There is a word for that. But I’ll let you put some color to it. Anyway, it may have been a Logan Act issue, maybe not. Not going going to relitigate it. What I do know is that Nixon endeavored to stop the South Koreans from negotiating until he was in office for his own political gain. In the meantime, soldiers were being slaughtered. Please dont countenance that noxiousness with ****ty platitudes. Dude I only drink Henny when I’m watching “Good Morning Black America.” Its the new show on b.e.t. that starts at noon. Blantons pretty much exclusively. If im drinking rye, I like Sagamore (Maryland rye) or Bullitt Rye or Knob Creek.

Cp time, baby!!! But that would mean I’d start my 5:00 happy hour drinking at 11:00 pm. But it’s 7:30 on a Friday and I have a new “man cave.” So it’s bourbon and “Game of Thrones” binging.

Hahahaha!!!! That’s even funnier because I’m drunk.

You quoted “me.” Well, you quoted a sentence I don’t recall typing. Where did that quote come from? I’ve had three glasses of Blantons but that’s enough to make me forget typing **** I don’t think.

Thank you for your candor. And thank you for your service. Im not sure that there was any “winning” Vietnam. But reasonable minds can differ and I respect our difference of opinion. The only “coherent” strategy in Vietnam was to fight to the cross-over point. You can credit Westmoreland for that little diddy. Anyway, “cross-over point” is a euphemism for “fight to the point of enemy exhaustion.” That’s incredible when you think about it. I’m also not sure if we could have nuked the north without some collateral damage to the south. Anyway, your candor is refreshing and thanks again for your service.

Read about how Nixon sabotaged one of the peace accords that could have brought Nam to an end in 68ish just so he could win political office. Brilliant man. An interesting political actor. Irredeemably corrupt like I said on page two in my rebuke of “The Dude’s” post. Not sure there’s ever been self-serving treachery like that, from a political actor, before or since.

Much of this is not true. Well there are some waywardly true points that shouldn’t be combined together but you did anyway and it makes for a flawed thesis. Anyway, if you want to get into that, I’ll bite. Just let me know. As far as liberals and cowards, are you able to tell me which of the national politicians and which of the conservative policy hawks that thought engagement was a good idea in 1960 still thought the same thing in 1970? Have you listened to the Nixon-Kissinger tapes? I have. A lot of the conversations at least. Have you read McNamara’s report (Pentagon Papers)? I’ve read a couple hundred pages. Much of it is oppresively boring and statistically mind-numbing. But if you’ve read anything about McNamara, you’ll know why. Have you listened to any White House conversations between Eisenhower and Johnson with respect to the war, or maybe Johnson and Nixon? If not, you should. It’s intoxicating as a window into the minds of executives during one of the most singularly complex Sisyphian-level mountain climbing expeditions in our nation’s history. And listening to Nixon’s brilliance and cunning is beautiful. His mind was a work of art. He was a brilliant politician. Irredeemably corrupt. But brilliant just the same. Maybe you’ve done all the above. If so, I’d be interested to know ... What was “winning” Vietnam in your estimation? And if you’d listened to Johnson’s tapes mentioning invading North Vietnam, what are your thoughts on the concern that the nva would just hide in Cambodia and Laos where they were, for a time, receiving sanctuary and shelter and sympathy from anyway? Should we we just have just invaded there too following them around the jungles? And what of the legitimate concern that an invasion of the north, as opposed to simply trying to ensure and protect the idea of an automanous and self-sufficient Democratic south Vietnam, would invite retaliation from both China and Russia who were already supplying arms to the north. And what of the real problem in Vietnam which truly was rampant corruption and a lack of consistent leadership in saigon? And also the fact that any strategic plan that starts with finding the “cross over point” and ends with trying to take mountain top real estate in a triple canopy jungle along the Cambodian-Laotian border is about as pointless as breasts on a boar? What about the South Vietnamese countryside which the nva and the Vietcong were using as recruiting areas by stealthily sabotaging villages to turn the citizens against the Us. It sucks when you can’t identify your enemy. What about Britain and France bailing on us like bitches? What about the 15 million coup de etats in the south? What about the Buddhists being kept out of the government, and having no representation, and then setting themselves on fire followed by the young generation there protesting our soldiers and the constantly-changing government? What about the south Vietnamese political establishment being unwilling to listen to us about anything because they knew were were mired in Vietnam and were so afraid of the scourge of Communism, we wouldn’t bail irrespective of their obstinance ... even if it became a shitstorm? What about substance abuse amongst 30%-40% of our soldiers? How accurate do you think napalm is when dropped from 30,000 feet? Why were our soldiers using weapons with a high jam and failure rate and they were using battle tested Aks, supplied by the iron curtain, that never failed? Do you really know how !@#$ing bloody complex Vietnam was? I know a lot about that war academically and I can’t grasp it all. I know this, you can’t sum that **** up in a John Wayne cowboy quote like you endeavored to do. You said a lot of cool **** in your post that to most would sound convincing. Most of it is intellectually and factually compromised unfortunately. It wasnt liberals abd cowards who wanted out of Vietnam. It was conservatives and patriotic soldiers too. Lots of them. If you knew much about the taperstry which was the Vietnam War conundrum, you might well agree. Or maybe not. What the !@#$ do I know? I’m just a humble mother!@#$er with a big ass dick. Let me know if you want to chat.

Rock on. I agree that that would probably be good for your yoga. Incidentally, nice use of the apostrophe + s. Yes it it took me a second.

And see I can dig that. It sucks to think through every message when, for the sake of expediency, one can abbreviate, or use terms or whatever that may not be technically correct but they convey the same message. And it sucks to care about typos and all that. Eh, whatever. I get it. But adding an apostrophe where one shouldn’t be isn’t a shortcut. It doesn’t accomplish anything from the standpoint of expediency. People are just weird for some reason about using an “s” without a preceding apostrophe. But as I read it, it’s the difference between: “Josh Allen had a great time in the company of the girl’s _________.” (parents, friends, classmates ... what finishes this sentence?) Or Josh Allen had a great time in the company of the girls. One is a complete sentence. The other doesn’t make sense and is incomplete just because of the use of the apostrophe. Just don’t understand why people use an apostrophe in a ‘no ownership’ context when it’s easier to not type the apostrophe and make the sentence make sense. But back to Josh Allen and how I've seen better protection from a sieve.

Allen looked like he had one professional live action game under his belt. Allen is a gunslinger and a playmaker in the making. He will be fine. As an aside, why do people insist on adding an apostrophe + s to most words that ends in an “s” though that word possesses/owns nothing in the sentence? “Allen should start with the 1’s.” The one’s what? Finish the sentence. You used an apostrophe + s so there has to be something else there. Does that one own a car or a house or some Vaseline intensive care? What does that mean? What the !@#$ does the “1” own in this instance? I get it ... “grammar shmammar,” right? But what is so hard about dropping the misplaced apostrophe and making the sentence actually make sense? Why not, simply: “Allen should start with the 1s.” Boom. Easy. Shows a mastery of really basic English and one less keystroke to boot. To me that’s too easy not to do. Sorry, along with improper usage of “than” and “then” it’s just a pet peeve.

This.

I’ve always attributed Blacks’ traditionally democratic affiliation as a rejection of Goldwater who was one of the few mainstream national politicians opposed to the Civil Rights Act. He took a shitton of southern democrats along with him. Democrats who, through an electoral and philosophical shift, are now all Republicans. A lot of that shift and history accounts for the oft repeated, but patently untrue, notion that Republicans are racist. So over time things like Republicans not courting minority votes, and some of the **** Reagan did or didn’t do (opposition to Civil Rights and Voting Rights act and support of apartheid South Africa), and of course Hw and the Willie Horton infamy, and little **** like that, blacks have just grown incrementally and generationally distrustful of Republicans. It also helps that Jimmy Carter was considered a champion to black folks especially. And he was a political caretaker between Nixon, Ford, and then Reagan. I interviewed jc watt more than a decade ago for something I was writing for a program that I didn’t finish. He talked openly with me about how his party was way too exclusionary and that blacks had to somehow be able to fight through that political “cold shoulder” to somehow be able to see the natural policy alignment between conservativism and the black community. He said “we both know that ain’t happenin.” True story.

I watched the video on ESPN. I’ve seen that same type of confrontation a few times growing up. That look. That’s “so what’s really good then,” shoulder and hand and arm gesturing. The head positioned slightly downward but eyes locked in. If that that same type of confrontation happened anywhere else, in any other environment, was not on camera, and didn’t involve multi-millionaires, there’d be a “misunderstanding” and some furniture moving. That was rich people being momentarily hood. Trust me.

Thats fair man and you already have me interested. So I will look into that some more. Because I’ve always been a fan of career public servants. Especially those with military stripes. But I’ll also call a spade a spade so if I find that he is an inimical dickbag then that might call for an agonizing reappraisal of the whole scene ... military service notwithstanding,

Yea, I just don’t agree on John McCain. He is a good dude and a good American for the reasons that I mentioned. I reserve to right to change my opinion if I heard information that shuffled that balance. But to date I haven’t heard that. With that said, that was a very small part of my post, indeed the last sentence. So I’m not sure that disagreement on that point, no matter reasonably held that disagreement is, should continue to deter the discussion. Also, I kept my opinion on the “prisoner of war” angle light. I referenced his public and military service very purposefully. And I didn’t say he was a good politician, or a champion of ethics. But I’m also not saying that he’s not. The context of this discussion was around vitriol as between public figures and how that’s destroyed civil political discourse. McCain was brought up in the context of Trumps comments about his military service It’s cool and all in small doses, but overall the straw man stuff is played out.

Yea, I just don’t agree on John McCain. He is a good dude and a good American for the reasons that I mentioned. I reserve to right to change my opinion if I heard information that shuffled that balance. But to date I haven’t heard that. With that said, that was a very small part of my post, indeed the last sentence. So I’m not sure that disagreement on that point, no matter reasonably held that disagreement is, should continue to deter the discussion.

Nope. I haven’t been. While many were deferring military service and calling in favors from their rich parents to avoid compulsory military service, McCain served the country admirably. The accounts of his capture and imprisonment notwithstanding, he was a prisoner of war and refused repatriation when it was offered to him. He has spent five decades as a public servant. And since I don’t expect perfection from anyone, including myself, I’ll give the benefit of doubt to a man who risked life and limb over and over again, to ensure that we could operate with the freedoms we now enjoy. For you or anyone to sit behind a computer and both characterize and Monday morning quarterback decisions and a history of service, the extent to which you might only understand in an infinitesimally small vacuum, shows that this nation’s guarantee of even contextless, agenda-driven, and wildly sophomoric speech is equally sacrosanct, and it should make us glad that men like McCain left his family and traveled to foreign lands in order to protect it. So, I’ll renew my comment again, with confidence: John McCain is a good dude and a better American.

Good post and some good thoughts. But I’m wrestling somewhat with this ... And not because I necessarily disagree. But rather because I think there is some layering and some context that’s being left out of the discussion. To some what is Trump’s candor is another man’s antagonism. We’ve just never had a president who has used the pulpit like he has to antagonize and to demean. Its brilliant really, the ol’ shikari. But we’ve never seen what’s he’s doing. Ever. Never ever. To some that’s refreshing candor. To other’s that’s divisive needling and antagonism. I’d show you examples but I’m sure you don’t need to see them. Anyway, I think in your analysis you didn’t consider the role that Trump has played in ratcheting up the rhetoric and the level of incivility in public discourse. Again, I can show you examples. But I’m sure I don’t need to see them. While the unassailably intransigent might query: ”does Trump calling someone a ________ on Twitter countenance Maxine Waters saying _________.” To that I would say: “you’re asking the wrong questions.” Trump changed both the landscape, the lexicon and the mechanisms for acceptable public discourse. Remember, “little Marco,” “Lyin Ted,” “Low Energy Jeb,” (I think “Jeb the stiff” was in a debate too if I recall correctly”), and “Crooked Hillary”? Trump happily escalated the vitriol and the disrespect that was acceptable amongst public figures in their interactions with one another. And now there seems to be no boundaries and no bottom to that descent. Not saying that Trump is responsible for the direction or the escalation (maybe devolution is the right word). But his was the opening salvo. And now there seems to be a culture of who can be the most demeaning, and uncivil, and nasty since “!@#$ it, why not; the gloves are off anyway.” There is a mad race to the bottom and the libs don’t appear to want to be last in that endeavor. I went to a Trump campaign rally in Hagerstown. I posted in this forum if anyone wanted to attend with me and I’d buy them a beer. Look it up. I saw the monkey show first hand. I saw billboards with faces as targets and billboards inciting actual violence against the “un-Americans.” The billboard had cartoonish faces of Obama, Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer. I’m not naive enough to think that that behavior is unique to Trump campaign events. I went to a John Kerry rally in 2004 and Roseanne Barr and Bruce Springsteen were there (yep, Roseanne was campaigning for Kerry). I saw things there that were questionable directed at W. I saw things there that were cringeworthy. I just think this board has a short memory. And there is an effort to pin incivility at the feet of the left and I don’t believe that’s true. I believe that there is a concerted and very purposeful effort to be hateful amongst politicians that vox populi has interpreted literally as “!@#$ the other side.” And what they could once only understand ok but not speak, that voice of the people now fluently speaks that language of hate. Civility and brotherhood is unrequited by both sides. One of the last high profile vestiges of well-mannered politics was John McCain. A good dude and a better American. He had his face **** and pissed on. By Trump. But who the !@#$ am I anyway? I’m just a humble mother!@#$er with a big dick.

So I’m in a weird space right ... where I’m not going to disagree with you but I still want to make sure that I understand the urgency of this political/sociological moment from your vantage’s point. Everything that you referenced - in some form or another, related to some policy or another, in some status or another - has happened unqualifiedly over the last, let’s say twenty, years. In total and as contemporaneous events. Whether it be jokes and other insensitivities related to Gabbie Giffords, or all the conspiratorial vitriol from the left around the Iraq War, or Sarah Palin’s acidic/misleading cat-whistle comments along the 08 trail, the comparisons by the left of Guantanamo to some irredeemable place without any sanctity of laws, white nationalists affiliating with members of the extreme right and being comforted with a seat in office, black nationalist groups affiliating with the left and being comforted with a voice in office, idiots hanging W in effigy, idiots hanging O in effigy, legitimate politicians trying to undermine the legitimacy of government by questioning O’s technical qualifications to be president, politicians intimating that W planned attacks on the country for political gain, Trump using social media to harass people, people using social media to harass Trump and his supporters. And that’s what I can think of right now sitting outside of court on a break eating a Panera Bread muffin. None of this **** is new. Bman’s mind can’t wrap itself around this fact, but hate, repugnance, ugliness, and rancor was directed at Obama and Clinton unjustifiably. Because they were doing their jobs (outside of busting a nut on Monica’s grill). The left can’t wrap its mind around the fact that hate, and intolerance, and filth, and low brow **** was directed at W and it is now at Trump. Its nothing new. This is all a mother!@#$ing rerun to me. So what about the cyclical nature of ugly, retributive politics now brings us to the brink of violence against our own country-men? Why is it worse for Trump than it was for his last few predecessors? Thats what I don’t understand? Truly and sincerely as I can express it, I truly don’t understand.

15 questions. What the !@#$ did I miss? I stepped away for a day and **** intensified considerably. The conversation went from 0-60 - denial of food service to !@#$ing modern day pogroms - in like a page. So what’s the score here? Where we at? Who’s ahead? Is this thread an effort to assemble a crew of confederates for something dastardly down the road? Where are the bird calls? Is everyone talking in code here? A few people here are talking like there’s some impending battlefront on the doorsteps of suburbia. Is that where we’re at? Is this all some inchoate ****? And are you ultimately talking civil, political, or racial? Is this thread subterfuge for a recruiting effort in preparation for the ostensibly unavoidable war at home? If so, and as your attorney, I’d be remiss if I didn’t let you know that you’re all memorializing through viral notes the happening of a criminal !@#$ing conspiracy. You may want to take that **** offline. Not to be a formal downer or anything, but has everyone considered how well their anus might hold up - its overall integrity and elasticity - during a 2-4 year stretch in Ray Brook or Sheridan? And the scourge of jaw fatigue? Just some queries. Where did the train come off the rails? And how did we get to the point of talking about civil war?

? ?

Good point but to be fair I wasn’t analogizing those circumstances to justify the happening of one or the other. I’m trying to make my point that I don’t think a private business in nearly any case should be compelled to do anything they don’t want to do, sell to someone whom they don’t want to sell to, or service someone whom they don’t want to service so long as that business is not accepting public dollars/grants, etc. in the normal operation of their business. If they don’t want to serve someone for being black or French-Canadian or because they don’t like the cut of their jib, then so be it. If the business owner doesn’t like that person’s “cool disco dan” tattoo or doesn’t agree with their sexual orientation and therefore doesn’t want transact business, then ok. That business owner is in a profit-generating business. If he/she doesn’t want a brother’s bread in exchange for their wares then whatever, so be it. I didn’t agree with ‘Heart of Atlanta’ for the same reason. I get what the end game was but philosophically I don’t agree with it. The circumstances in that case were distinguishable as well because, ostensibly, they implicated the Commerce Clause. The fact is just don’t principally agree with the idea that a private business should be forced to cater to a patron. Left. Right. Or indifferent.

You’re in the wrong sub-forum if that’s gonna be your attitude, friend. But I see you’re not about this life so I’ll jump off the train at the next stop. I’d be remiss, though, if I didn’t say that our side fun wasn’t unsolicited (maybe, “unprovoked” is the better word). I’m not sure I even knew who the !@#$ you were before you quoted me.

1. Mine wasn’t loose stool drivel. It was a good, ol’ fashioned, robust, hurculean log of toilet-filling **** bombs. Big difference. 2. You telling anyone to try not to be anything based on their criticisms of whatever is comedy. Not the good type of Shakespearean stuff that I can boogie down with. And not even Friday night at the bijou watching a Seth Rohan movie drunk, “funny.” It’s youtube watching homeless people punching passengers in bus stations for a Subway gift card, funny. 3. Stop !@#$ing crying about what I say about a public figure. Its smells of stank vag and belies all your claims and suggestions about “liberals” crying for the same thing. 4. Either offend me in some way that I really respect or that at least makes me laugh, challenge me, or get out the !@#$ing bathroom. There’s only one toilet in this piece and BringbackOrton has the runs. 5. Sarah can eat a dick.

What’s silly is both your two sentence loose stool situation and your screenname. Both demonstrate that your purpose in this forum, and perhaps in life, is a reification of mediocrity and purposelessness. Anyway, back to where you went wrong ... it’s [still] not a “left” or “right” thing. It’s ideological because she doesn’t like the current administration’s policies on gays (apparently two of the servers at her establishment are gay), and what’s going on with border detentions. I’m sure that many log cabin republicans and at least one of the two existing Mexican-American Republicans in the United States don’t like those policies either. It doesn’t make them less “right” or conservative. It just means that they have some layers of ideological disagreement that may cause them to profoundly disagree or even dislike a person that they might otherwise politically align with. The owner doesn’t like the Huckabee chick because she feels that she’s shady and a mouthpiece for some specific ideological disagreements that she has. The owner could be politically independent for all you know. Shitballs, she could be truly and completely apolitical. Her policy or ideological disagreements doesn’t make her a leftist or even a a Democrat for that matter (though if I were to place a bet, I’d say she voted for Hillary). People are way too quick to ascribe political affiliations to others to drive their weird agendas. It’s like when people put cucumbers on pancakes and call it ‘melonflakes’ or rub chicken nuggets on vaginas to make it taste more like chicken. Don’t try to wax poetic about your preternatural food obsessions. I like that less than you trying to characterize everyone who likes gays as a “Democrat.” Sadly for them, you, and your !@#$ed up screenname, that whole effort is just intellectually lazy. I dunno. Maybe try again with a little more pizazz this time? Dwigt.