Posted on 08/21/2017 5:33:15 AM PDT by simpson96
We have long since passed the point where it makes sense to try to compare Donald Trump's outrages. "A new low." "Most depressing." "Even more dangerous." "Unprecedented in its depravity."
The inventory of negative superlatives has been depleted. Everything, it seems, is the worst.
I will not, therefore, try to claim that there was one Trump statement in the last week that shocked me more than any other. I will, instead, take one of his moments of awfulness as a starting point to make a larger argument.
As most observers know, Trump claimed in his indescribable press conference on Tuesday, August 15, that there were "some very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville protests.(snip)
Even giving a complete (and undeserved) pass to people who would defend statues and other public honoraria that exist "to celebrate white supremacy," the best response I have seen to Trump's whitewashing (unfunny pun intended, of course) of bigotry was offered by the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel:
If you’re with a group of people and they’re chanting things like 'Jews will not replace us' and you don’t immediately leave that group, you are not a very fine person.
Failing to notice the company that people choose to keep is an act of willful moral blindness. Any person who could say, "Well, these people shouting hateful slurs and carrying the symbols of America's defeated enemies don't make me want to leave their presence," is a person who himself is morally bankrupt.
(snip)
Now that Trump has sided with white supremacists even more blatantly than he already had, however, if "you don’t immediately leave that group, you are not a very fine person."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Ewwww.
Rootin’ tootin’ frooty frootcake.
Anyone who appears like this should never throw stones
Newsweek-I don’t see that magazine on the newsstand anymore.
Where did it go-just on line I suppose like U.S. News and World Report.
NewsWEAK
‘Now that Trump has sided with white supremacists even more blatantly than he already had, however, if “you don’t immediately leave that group, you are not a very fine person.”’
is this, uh, writer running for the position of Barfmaster General...?
Left wing media machine.....
Wait, I thought it was Russia? Now we are back to insulting and staining the voters. Hillary was right? Sure, and that insult cost her and the democrats the election. May she continue to be “right.”
Jerk.
Making liberal heads explode every week is just a bonus to the Trump policies.
The Rooskie flap blew out weeks ago...
Thanks ‘kneel’ for the vote of confidence.
Even giving a complete (and undeserved) pass to people who would defend statues and other public honoraria that exist “to celebrate white supremacy,” the best response I have seen to Trump’s whitewashing (unfunny pun intended, of course) of bigotry was offered by the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel:
Isn’t this an example of a STRAW MAN argument. You put words and meanings into someone’s statement and then you attack those very words but not the actual statement.
Fortunately Newsweek is read (if at all) by those who have already drank the kool aid. His words will not sway one Trump supporter but may send some southern Democrats towards Trump.
“Failing to notice the company that people choose to keep is an act of willful moral blindness.”
This proggie dweeb means, like, Democrat voters keeping company with sodomites, baby murderers, communists, black racists, dopers, trespassers and anti-Americans.
Total projection. He knows in his heart that he sides with many immoral people, groups, positions.
Did you ever notice how you can tell a dumbass liberal just by looking at them?
I did a test once- I was 85% correct.
“Now that Trump has sided with white supremacists even more blatantly than he already had”
Profiles in Academic $elf Intere$t and Patent Dishonesty: Neil H. Buchanan, “professor of law” at George Washington University
monday, february 13, 2012
http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2012/02/profiles-in-academic-elf-interet-and.html
Intellectual Deception in Action:
On February 9, 2012, some Ass-Clown called Neil H. Buchanan wrote a blog piece entitled “The Long-Term Damage From the Assault on Law Schools.” Here is a sampling of his drivel:
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2012/02/long-term-damage-from-assault-on-law.html
“My overall reaction to the public discussion is that far too many people are launching broad, baseless, ill-informed attacks on an institution that is both fundamentally well designed and essential to the maintenance of a civilized society.
This raucous atmosphere might have the effect of reducing the number of people who are potentially interested in attending law school. We have, in fact, seen a pronounced drop in law school applications this year, which could certainly be a response to the idea that law school is nothing but a “scam” or a waste of students’ borrowed money. Of course, there are multiple explanatory factors at work, most obviously the continued recession-level employment prospects for far too many law graduates. Potential students need not believe any of the nonsensical attacks on the case method, nor pay any heed to the false claim that law professors are writing useless articles, to conclude that their individual best choice today is to delay applying to law school (or even to choose never to attend).”
Consider the following, ball-less shill: when people have constantly been told, since infancy, that “higher education” is the key to their future - and they then end up unemployed or marginally employed after they spent SEVEN YEARS in post-secondary institutions, and incurred a mountain of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt - you should expect that MANY of them will be hostile, bitch. Rat-face concluded his asinine, intellectually dishonest article with the following:
“In short, [t]he New York Times and other news sources are doing serious damage to the long-term prospects of the legal academy, and ultimately to society as a whole. That damage, however goes far beyond the possibility that our future client pool is being drained on the basis of over-hyped claims. The future of intellectual inquiry is at stake, and there is good reason to fear that the damage being done now will have serious consequences well into the future.”
If you believe that ABA-accredited law schools/diploma mills are essential to the maintenance of a civilized society, then you must be blind, deaf, stupid, or a pathological liar.
The Facts Refute Paid Mouthpiece and Deceiver Buchanan:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/wake-up-fellow-law-professors-to.html
On June 13, 2010, Brian Tamanaha wrote a blog entry at Balkinization, entitled “Wake Up, Fellow Law Professors, to the Casualties of Our Enterprise.” He came out swinging:
“This dismal situation was not created by the current recession—which merely spread the pain up the chain into the lower reaches of elite schools. This has been going on for years.” [Emphasis mine]
Buchanan’s insistence on blaming the lawyer job market entirely on the current “recession” is comical and delusional. When you annually continue to over-produce JDs and attorneys, for decades, then once an economic downturn - or fundamental restructuring - takes place, this will lead to disaster, mental midget.
According to the ABA chart “Enrollment and Degrees Awarded 1963-2010,” between academic years 1980-1981 to 2009-2010 - a span of thirty years - ABA-accredited law schools awarded 1,161,863 law degrees. Yes, that is correct: these diploma mills collectively produced one million, one hundred sixty-one thousand, eight hundred and sixty three law graduates - in 30 years!! Do you still want to defend this sick $y$tem, you filthy swine?!?!
http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NationalSummaryChartforSchools2010.pdf
Based on the NALP Class of 2010 National Summary Report - which was compiled from information submitted by ABA diploma mills - 44,258 law graduates competed for 28,167 jobs “requiring bar passage.” Do you see a problem with that, moron?!?!
Regarding legal “scholarship,” John G. Roberts, current leader of the Supremes, has now TWICE publicly ripped into the uselessness of law review articles. Hell, he was the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review - and he still bitch-slapped this supposed bedrock of “legal education.”
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2012/02/do-legal-scholars-do-anything-important.html
On February 10, 2012, Neil H. Buchanan felt the need to change his tampon, regarding Roberts’s views on legal “scholarship.” It must be tough knowing that your “work” is considered garbage, by the very people that you are desperately trying to impress. Anyone who has been to law school knows that these academic pinheads often view article III “judges” - and especially the Supremes - as rock stars.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/legaltimes/PubArticleFriendlyLT.jsp?id=1202490888822
On April 20, 2011, Karen Sloan authored a piece for the National Law Journal, under the headline “Legal scholarship carries a high price tag.” Here is a sampling:
“What is the total cost of a law review article written by a tenured professor at a top-flight law school?
It’s in the neighborhood of $100,000, according to Hofstra University School of Law professor Richard Neumann. His estimate factors in the salary and benefits for a tenured professor at a high-paying school who spends between 30% and 50% of his or her time on scholarship and publishes one article per year.” [Emphasis mine]
After seeing a list of his “scholarly” articles, on his curriculum vitae, I can see why Buchanan wants to keep this system running.
Conclusion: Apparently, this pig is not concerned with how the GLUT of attorneys is affecting current law students, recent graduates and the public. He only sees this issue” from the institution’s viewpoint. Neil H. Buchanan is simply trying to sell others on the alleged “benefits” of a law degree. Before buying into this sewer rat’s “argument,” keep in mind that his school charges $45,750 in tuition - for the 2011-2012 academic year. Why should you believe such a used car salesman?!
just posted these two links on a later thread, but they probably belong here.
NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign on how to frame Trump early 2016 and the FakeNewsMSM have never deviated from that blueprint, even though it is a completely false narrative. read both pieces in full:
29 Feb 2016: Wikileaks Podesta Emails: Clinton/Trump story in tomorrow’s NYT
(FROM PATRICK HEALY, NEW YORK TIMES. TO: ANGEL URENA angel@presidentclinton.com AND TINA FLOURNOY Tina@presidentclinton.com)
Subject:* *Hi Angel and Tina - running stuff by you re Clinton/Trump story in tomorrow’s NYT
Hi Angel, hi Tina, Hope you’re both well. Amy Chozick and I are doing a story about how the Clinton campaign and its supporters view Trump as a general election opponent and plan to run against him. The story will run in tomorrow’s paper.
One part of the story deals with how Secretary Clinton, President Clinton, President Obama, and other Dems regard Trump as a potential general election opponent....
President Clinton, like others, thinks that Trump has his finger on the pulse of the electorate’s mood and that only a well-financed, concerted campaign portrayed him as dangerous and bigoted will win what both Clintons believe will be a close November election.
We’re told that President Clinton (like Mrs. Clinton and many other Dems) thinks the single greatest weapon against Trump is Trump’s own instinct to make outrageous, divisive, even hateful comments that can come across as unpresidential. He, Mrs. Clinton, and the campaign all agree that they will need to seize on opportunities to paint Trump as extremist and recklessly impulsive....
Happy to talk this over by email or phone before 6pm today. Thanks, Patrick.
Patrick Healy, National political correspondent, New York Times
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/59194
29 Feb 2016: NYT: Inside the Clinton Team’s Plan to Defeat Donald Trump
by Amy Chozick and Patrick Healy
(A version of this article appears in print on March 1, 2016, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Democrats Prepare a Trump Battle Plan.)
Several Democrats argued that Mrs. Clinton, should she be her party’s nominee, would easily beat Mr. Trump. They were confident that his incendiary remarks about immigrants, women and Muslims would make him unacceptable to many Americans.
They had faith that the growing electoral power of black, Hispanic and female voters would deliver a Clinton landslide if he were the Republican nominee...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-general-election.html?mcubz=0
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.