Open Post to Helpful Medal

| September 12, 2019 | 152 Comments

Helpful Medal, Congrats! You have been selected for special moderation, a self-inflicted condition that means I’ll nuke your comments. The best way out of this condition is an apology, and ceasing to make disparaging comments, insulting our fellow TAH’ers. I realize an apology isn’t coming, but the second part stands one way or the other.
Have a TAH day.

In response to several comments, I do not have the privileges to evoke the Ban Hammer- that belongs to Dave. To his credit, I’ve not seen him use it. I’d like to think handling problem children at the Admin level has worked pretty well, and we all would rather keep commenters than banish them. That being said, there are lots of things I can and will do if HM doesn’t straighten up. The choice is entirely up to him.

Category: Open thread

Comments (152)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Cameron Kingsley says:

    Ruh Roh!

  2. The Stranger says:

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    *Cough Cough*
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    *Cough Cough Gasp*
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  3. OldManchu says:

    HM…

    Na-nah, na-nah boo boo, stick your head in doo-doo!

  4. 5th/77th FA says:

    Way to go Dippy! Congratulations indeed. Can’t say you weren’t warned. AW1Ed may not be the NCA for a weapons free call, but he does have tactical release authority for targets of opportunity.. Myself I tried to us a little self restraint and not waste keyboard ribbon ink on your aggravating, self centered, egotistical dip sh^tted a$$. Make sure you give the commisar a kiss when you see him. He’ll enjoy it.

    Thanks ‘Ed

  5. 3/10/MED/b says:

    You came to the party, got drunk and stoopid, and got kicked out.

    I’m thinking this is a life-long pattern for you…

  6. Wilted Willy says:

    Thanks Ed, the gift that keeps on giving!
    Just like the clap!!`

  7. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    NYAAAAAAHHHH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA…

    You did this to yourself, TROLL!

  8. Jay says:

    Apparently I missed….or did NOT miss something. Either way, I is confused.

    Sadly, that is not a new feeling for me….

  9. Mick says:

    KA-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

    Shack!

    BDA = 100/100

  10. OWB says:

    It continues to baffle some of us that folks who take a dump in the middle of someone else’s living room seriously expect to be welcomed back to that home.

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      Indeed this is right….as someone who has had some serious differences of opinion with members here I have yet to be placed in moderation.

      It is actually possible to disagree with the general sentiments on this site and still remain a participating member, it simply requires a bit of common behavioral decency.

      • SFC D says:

        VOV, the big difference is that you use reasonable, well-thought out arguments to state your viewpoint. I’ve often disagreed with some of your stuff, and learned from it at the same time. Even came to agreement after initial disagreement a couple of times. Helpful Medal and that other guy just don’t have those skills, and rely on tantrums and impotent rage.

  11. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Still harder to get kicked out of here than Democratic Underground…

    I saw a little of this on the Bolton post, guess I should go and read the level of asshattery involved to get a full blown moderation banhammer.

    Ahh well you play your game how you like and place your bets and then you take your chances on the outcome.

    This reminds me of a musical…
    So long, farewell, Auf Wedersehen, adieu…

    Or as Ice Cube so eloquently put it….Bye Felicia..

  12. Andy11M says:

    Wow, someone must have pushed it to maximum overtroll to rate a post like this. Swing that B& hammer AW1Ed

  13. Graybeard says:

    Wow.

    Just…. wow.

    Someone must have challenged that dipstick to see how stupid he could be, and he said “Here, hold my crack pipe.”

  14. 26Limabeans says:

    I just knew it would be taken care of.
    Guy like that would not last five minutes
    outside the wire.

    By the way AW1Ed…I noticed an NOAA P-3 on
    Flightaware during the hurricane. Flew right
    thru it with alt and heading dead steady.

  15. ChipNASA says:

    I went back and read the Bolton thread.
    LOL,
    You can’t have Hemorrhoid without H & M.

    This fuckbucket sounds like old Dennis “Cheese Slayer” Chevalier.

    It is kinda cool. We haven’t had a good chew toy in a while.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      “They already know I’m here, just like Jonn knew when I was posting from Kuwait, and from Afghanistan. I’ve been here longer than you”

      You may be on to something ChipNASA. The IP knows.
      VPN’s are nice at hotels but that’s about it.

    • FuzeVT says:

      Inspired, I just read it as well. Pretty entertaining. That’s the sort of defensiveness you get with someone who has been caught in a lie. Deployed to Iraq? I never met anyone deployed to a combat zone that had to much such a big deal of it.

      To HM: Send us pictures with today’s/this week’s Stars and Stripes in Iraq. Make sure it looks like an actual deployed location. A bathroom selfie you try to pass off as a head in your FOB won’t do. Wouldn’t that just rub our noses in it??

  16. GDContractor says:

    My theory: Helpful Medal = Hussar

    That boy’s been 8TFU for years.

  17. Martinjmpr says:

    Unfortunately, HM seems like the kind of person who would display his banning like a badge of honor (or – dare I say it – a Helpful Medal? 🙂 )

    As in “yeah, then I got kicked off of TAH because I was TOO REAL!”

  18. MI Ranger says:

    AW1Ed,
    Out of curiosity, did you remove one of my comments to HELPFUL MEDAL yesterday? I think I said something about helping at the DFAC.
    Just asking so I know how to stay within the proper etiquette!

  19. Commissar says:

    I guess I missed the latest drama. Just very quickly skimmed the Bolton thread and nothing stood out except his comment about Jon and the fact that he used some anachronistic homophobic language. Though I honestly have seen a few others post using that language here before.

    Though, like I said I skimmed it and did not read all the posts, just got a sense of the tone. There may have been a more outrageous post I missed.

    I agreed with the guy on his primary underlying point; there is a lot of hypocrisy with regard to the outrage machine here. You all do ignore all the bat shit stuff Trump does that would cause a universe tearing singularity of focused outrage if Obama had done it.

    It is also true that weak and barely relevant “whataboutisms” pass for “substantive” responses here. In fact, when it comes to The current administration almost the only thing I have ever see is whataboutisms and deflections. That and the fact that you hardly ever discuss the administration at all is a strong indication that many, if not most of you, know the administration is a clusterfuck.

    Also, while Helpful Medal has some clownishly conservative views I find ridiculous (unless he is just trolling and pretending to hold them); he does have a point that a lot of people don’t seem to stand for anything anymore. Despite the rhetoric I have read on here over the last 5 years there does not appear to be any validation of previously claimed ideals, no ideological coherence, nothing. It seems that the only political value is acquiescence to whatever demonstrates loyalty to the in group. Virtue signaling political identity and loyalty has replaced ideology, ideas, or values in the Republican Party.

    Values I have seen professed thousand of time for years here have been relegated to irrelevance if they conflict with the will of the current administration and its cult of adherents.

    I know it seems I am trolling but I am truly concerned about how sheepishly conservatives have joined, submitted, acquiesced, or stood by silently.

    I knew Trump would backfire on conservatives and severely harm the Republican Party. And he would simultaneously mobilize and elevate progressives, and progressive ideas.

    I was worried about the damage he could do in his short stint as president but I did not expect and am very concerned that he has stripped American conservatism of anything remotely associated with traditional American conservative values.

    • Commie-Tsar says:

      I posted this while holding my talisman (the FLACCID MICROPENIS OF TRUTH) in my left hand.

    • Commissar says:

      I know it is long, rambling, and most won’t like what I have to say….

      Pro tip: You don’t have to read it.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Real Pro Tip, ASSWIPE: YOU DON’T HAVE TO POST IT.

        Geez, you are so consistent, you’re as robotic as any real good-boy Communist, Taylor. And you’re an admirer of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose backup is an empty brain, a dimwitted approach to everything, and a $20 trillion climate change bill?

        Keep swallowing the Koolaid, Taylor. The purple Koolaid is the same as the Red Koolaid.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      I got as far as “anachronistic”, took another
      bite of my sammich, a pull on the Sam Adams and
      then burped.

    • Lars Taylor's Narcissism says:

      Lars is right; sauce for the goose and all that. Keep it reasonably civil or I’ll shut it down. This comment added nothing to the discussion, so its gone.
      AW1Ed

      • Commissar says:

        Posters like this are a prime example of how full of shit “moderation” is on this site.

        This guy only ever trolls and never posts anything of substance.

        But since he is an in group member he gets the implicit approval of mods.

        He also proves that this community is too immature, petty, and too full of mouth breathing basement dwellers to ever be trusted with someone’s personal information. Even a fellow veterans.

    • Just Lurkin says:

      Concern troll is concerned. It’s not that the Republicans aren’t inept, or that Trump does a lot that I find objectionable Lars, it’s the fact that I know that you idiot progs can only lead us to ruin and I will take any help I can get in opposing you. A little light reading- https://reason.com/2019/09/12/the-progressive-feeding-frenzy/

      • Deckie says:

        “It’s the fact that I know that you idiot progs can only lead us to ruin.”

        This.

        Lars, your side of the fence has some monumentally stupid ideas for where to take this country, and all of them are simply aimed at attracting potential voters or young Americans who don’t know any better. Loss of American values is not a thread your party should be pulling on…

        And four years as President of the United States is not a “short stint,” it’s a term of office. Stop being a dolt.

        • Commissar says:

          Four years is a short stint for a president. Most get re-elected. He wont. And he has not completed his term yet.

          I don’t think he will. His nutty and pre-existing personality disorder behavior will be used as an excuse for the GOP to try to salvage the party before he brings them down in 2020.

          Republicans will be better off with literally anyone on the ticket. The biggest danger to republicans is high turnout. Voter hate spite will cost the GOP down ticket seats they could hold onto if literally anyone else was the GOP nominee.

          He will fight their efforts. And he might win.

          But he is out of allies and will soon run out of time as information he has been fighting to hide starts being released.

          • Hondo says:

            Four years is a short stint for a president. Most get re-elected.

            Commissar, you’re full of it again. Throughout US history, not much more than 1/3 of US presidents have been elected twice to serve as POTUS.

            There have been a total of 44 persons to serve as POTUS (Trump is POTUS #45; however, Cleveland was elected to two nonconsecutive terms as POTUS, serving as the 22nd and 24th POTUS). Of those 43 individuals other than Trump, a total of 16 were elected POTUS twice. These individuals were Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clintoon, Bush (43), and the previous Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave. Each of these 15 individuals were elected to serve two or more consecutive terms as POTUS. In addition, as noted above Cleveland was elected twice to nonconsecutive terms.

            The other 27 individuals to serve as POTUS prior to Trump were only elected to serve as POTUS a maximum of once. Four who served as POTUS – Tyler, Taylor, A. Johnson, and Ford – completed a term to which they were not elected due to the death of an incumbent POTUS, but were never elected POTUS in their own right. Four others – T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and LBJ – completed a term to which they were not elected and were later elected POTUS once in their own right. None of these latter four were elected POTUS a second time, however; all were constitutionally eligible to be reelected, but all four either ran unsuccessfully a second time or chose not to run a second time.

            That means 16 persons (being generous and counting Cleveland) have been elected twice as POTUS – or have been “reelected”. Even counting the four individuals who were elected once after completing a term they “inherited” due to the death of an elected POTUS (which is not “reelection” per se), the count only rises to 20.

            That leaves either 23 or 27 individuals who served as POTUS who were never reelected POTUS. There were 43 individuals prior to Trump who have served as POTUS. Last time I checked, both 16 and 20 are less than half of 43. That means that most US Presidents wever never reelected – and also means that you’re full of it yet again.

            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

            Did you really think no one would fact check you after all the BS claims you’ve made in past comments?

            • Commissar says:

              Ok. Stand corrected. Guess incumbents having a strong advantage is a modern era thing…

              Must be the calcification of party loyalty.

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                FACT: You’re an idiot that always feels it necessary to be the center of attention.

              • Hondo says:

                Depends on what you consider the “modern era”. But yeah, it’s marginally more common lately – due solely to the fact that the last 3 US Presidents were all 2-termers.

                If you consider the “modern era” to be post-WW2, the count is even (6 reelected, 6 elected once or not at all).

                If you consider “modern era” to be 20th Century or later, it’s a 40/60 split (8 were reelected, 12 were elected once or not at all). That’s roughly the same as the full historical average (16/43, or a bit over 37.2%).

                The fact that the last 3 US Presidents (Clintoon, Bush, Obama) were each reelected and served two full terms is a historical rarity; that may be skewing your perception. Only once before in US history has that ever happened: Jefferson, Madison, and Monore. On no other occasion have we even had two consecutive Presidents who each won reelection to a second consecutive term. (Lincoln’s assassination and the intervening Johnson administration prevented Lincoln and Grant from being back-to-back two-term Presidents.)

                In fact, between Jackson to Wilson we had precisely two Presidents who won reelection to a second consective term: Lincoln and Grant. All others either (1) died in office during their first term; (2) left office after being elected to and serving one term; or (3) left office after serving out an “inherited” term without ever being elected in their own right.

                FWIW: during that period, Cleveland did eventually get “reelected” – but not to a consecutive second term. He failed in his first reelection attempt for a consecutive second term. His third campaign, 4 years later, was successful.

                • Martinjmpr says:

                  I’m actually going to disagree with you, Hondo.

                  Seems to me, the “incumbent advantage” is measured when a SITTING president – REGARDLESS of how he became a sitting president – runs for reelection.

                  If you look at it that way, then you see that the odds of a sitting president reelected since WWII are pretty good. Every sitting president that SOUGHT reelection has been elected with two exceptions: Carter in 1980 and Bush Senior in 1992 (IMO Ford doesn’t count both because he was never elected VP AND because he was so tainted by his association with Nixon that his reelection was doomed from the start.
                  Charles Manson could have been on the Democratic ticket in 1976 and won.)

                  IMO quibbling about whether a sitting president was actually elected in his own right misses the point – because the point is that the mere fact of being a sitting president gives that president an enormous advantage over his challenger, no matter the circumstances.

                  • Martinjmpr says:

                    Continuing my thought above – even if you put Ford back into the mix and say 3 sitting presidents who sought reelection were defeated, in every case there were extraordinary circumstances that doomed them:

                    In 1976, it was, of course, Watergate and also our humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam that were the double whammy that did Ford in.

                    In 1980 it was the “perfect political storm” of: A weak, struggling economy; sky high fuel prices and interest rates that left the middle class reeling; and internation al humiliation in Iran. Add the the fact that Carter never was (and still isn’t) a very charismatic figure, and it’s plain why Reagan won in 1980.

                    Finally in 1992, Bush senior was handicapped from the beginning, since he spent 8 years in Reagans’s shadow and never developed much of a following of his own. Add the stagnant economy in the early 90’s and the fact that with the end of the Cold War, a Republican candidate could no longer rattle sabers (“There’s a Bear in the woods”!) to scare people into voting for him and you have the victory of the much more charismatic Clinton in 1992.

                    But it’s the counter-examples that are more stark: Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama all had large, well organized and very vociferous opposition united against them, and they STILL won reelection without much difficulty. That, to me, illustrates the power of incumbency in the presidency.

                    • Hondo says:

                      You do remember that Carter very nearly lost in 1976, right? Trends at the end were in Ford’s favor as more and more voters realized that Carter was both naive and incompetent; some pundits believe another week in the campaign and Ford would have prevailed.

                      Moreover, Truman and LBJ didn’t seek reelection because they knew they had essentially zero chance of being reelected. So excluding them from consideration because they “didn’t run for reelection” is IMO bogus – they didn’t run because they knew they couldn’t win.

                      However you “slice” it, the last 3 Presidents all being multi-term Presidents is a historical rarity. As I noted above, consecutive multi-term Presidents has only happened twice in all of US history. The historical norm (nearly 57% of the time) throughout US history has been a POTUS is elected at most once. For whatever reason (declined to run for reelection, death, election loss), a POTUS being elected to a second term only happens a bit more than 1/3 of the time.

                    • Hondo says:

                      In each of the cases you cite in your second comment above, IMO a different and decisve factor was in play: the guy running for reelection during an economic downturn or stagnation lost.

                      Ford? Yep. The economy was in the toilet in 1975-1976. Carter? Ditto. Economy was even worse in 1979-1980, generally due to his Administration’s misguided policies.

                      Bush(41)? Yep. Economy was stagnant at the end of his 1st term. Remember Clinton’s internal campaign mantra? You know: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

                      Here are examples going the other way. Reagan? Reelection occurred during an economic upturn. (“Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?”) Bush(43)? Arguably, and I’d say yes. By 2004, the US economy had recovered nicely from 9/11 and was doing fairly well. That – plus an ongoing war that appeared at the time to be going well – greatly assisted his reelection. And don’t forget that the prior Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, ran for reelection in 2012 after some modest amount of economic recovery from the depths of the 2008-2009 “Great Recession” – despite his Administration’s boneheaded economic policies that did their best to prevent said modest recovery.

                      In fact, going back to the early 20th Century the pattern generally holds. If I recall correctly, the US economy was doing fairly well in 1904 (incumbent T. Roosevelt reelection); was hurting in 1912 (incumbent Taft reelection loss); was doing fairly well in 1916 (Wilson reelection); was doing well in 1926 (incumbent Coolidge reelected); was in the toilet in 1932 (Hoover not reelected); had recovered somewhat by 1936 and more by 1940, and was running full tilt in 1944 (FDR’s reelection campaigns); and was doing well in 1956, 1964, and 1972 (Eisenhower’s, LBJ’s, and Nixon’s reelection campaigns). The only one that might not qualify would be Truman’s 1948 reelection – and even there, if I recall correctly by 1948 the economy was beginning to recover somewhat from post-WW2 demobilization.

                      Bottom line: if you want to pick one factor most likely to predict a sitting President’s chances of reelection, IMO look at the US economy the year they run for reelection (or consciously decide not to try, like Truman and LBJ did in 1952 and 1968 respectively). If the economy’s humming along, absent some major scandal or other huge non-economic factor (like an unpopular war) a sitting POTUS IMO has a great hance of being reelected. However, if the economy is flat or declining they’re very likely toast.

          • thebesig says:

            Lars Taylor: Four years is a short stint for a president.

            Deckie is right, four years is a term of office for the Presidency. A “short stint” would be a term less than that specified in the Constitution.

            Lars Taylor: Most get re-elected.

            Again, I’ve been following the news since 1982. I am seeing plenty of parallels between what occurred in 1983 in 1984 and with what is occurring now. The excitement, in both cases, is strong among the conservative base in support of the Republican incumbent. The same can be said with the support.

            With all other things being equal, there is a good chance that President Trump will win reelection. He has the economy going for him, and he is sticking up for the United States against its adversaries. Ronald Reagan did the same thing. Where Ronald Reagan upset the apple cart with regards to the Soviet Union, President Trump is doing the same thing with regards to China and other large economies that are taking advantage of us.

            Lars Taylor: He wont.

            First, leftist talking heads, were saying that President Trump would not win the election. I mean, remember the last president arrogantly saying, “At least I was president”, or something like that? This was in response to President Trump criticizing him. Well, that did not age well. Because now, President Trump could say the same thing.

            Second, I remember certain people saying that he will not last his entire term. That doesn’t look like it’s aging well either.

            Lars Taylor: And he has not completed his term yet.

            He has accomplished a lot more, in one, two, and three years during his term than what many presidents have done in theirs. Additionally, he did this despite pushback from the media, from politicians, from activist judges, from “tech giants” trying to stack the cards against him, etc.

            He has enough of a track record to where he has a good shot of winning reelection.

            Lars Taylor: I don’t think he will.

            Well then, pick a number and wait in line. Many others are hoping that he won’t make it through his first term. Hmmm, where have we seen this? He wasn’t expected to make it through the primaries. He wasn’t expected to win against the chosen one. He was expected to be nailed for impeachable offenses… Nothing happened of that sort. Now you’re predicting that he “won’t make it to the end of his term.”

            If he doesn’t, it would more likely be through an act of God or nature, and not for whatever it is you’re confusing yourself with.

            Lars Taylor: His nutty and pre-existing personality disorder behavior

            His own medical team says that he is healthy and fit to serve. Who are we supposed to believe, those who know his medical condition, or you? You are only basing this conclusion on your dislike for the president. You disagree with him, we got it. However, by suggesting that he has a “personality disorder”, you are essentially dishing out an insult to him simply because you disagree with what he stands for and with what he is doing.

            But no, he does not have a personality disorder. The only thing he is being “guilty” of doing is refusing to be an elitist politician. He is actually for people.

            Lars Taylor: will be used as an excuse for the GOP to try to salvage the party before he brings them down in 2020.

            Again false. He is doing exactly what the conservative base wants him to do. The reality is that any Republican politician, that does not stand with President Trump, who is up for reelection, risks a primary challenge.

            Those among the conservative electorate get annoyed when a RINO acts against President Trump. These Republicans face “getting backhanded” by the Republican electorate. Any Republican that wants to be reelected, who is up for election, is wise to get behind President Trump and to get his endorsement. His endorsement is golden.

            Lars Taylor: Republicans will be better off with literally anyone on the ticket.

            False. We, the conservative base, do not want anybody else other than President Trump on the ticket for president. Yes, there are those who want to challenge him. Guess what? We are going to come out in the primaries and vote for President Trump’s nomination.

            We are not going to replace a winner with a dud. We want President Trump on that ticket.

            Lars Taylor: The biggest danger to republicans is high turnout.

            Don’t let the results of the 2018 election fool you. President Trump is not on the ticket, even though the media made it about him. However, when President Trump is on the ticket, and he is out campaigning by himself or jointly with other Republicans, expect Republican turnout to be strong.

            Just look at these rallies. It speaks volumes when the media talks about Elizabeth Warren’s “turnout”, yet tried to angle the cameras to make it look like there were a lot of people. However, at President Trump’s rallies, we have to seek alternative information sources to see just how big those rallies are.

            These rallies are an indicator of how turnout is going to be. If you are talking about the leftist turnout, they do not seem to be enthusiastic turning out for Democratic candidates. This speaks volumes.

            Lars Taylor: Voter hate spite will cost the GOP down ticket seats they could hold onto if literally anyone else was the GOP nominee.

            Again false. You do not understand the Republican base. The message is clear going into the 2020 elections. Not only vote for President Trump, but for Republicans in to take back the House and to keep the Senate. Don’t be surprised if the Democrats end up losing the house. Republicans in down ticket seats are going to be riding President Trump’s coattails into victory, provided that they are proven to be behind President Trump’s causes… Or they have his endorsement.

            Lars Taylor: He will fight their efforts.

            He doesn’t have to do much to fight their efforts against him. All he has to do is to issue out a tweet, knowing that the conservative base is reading that tweet. Any Republican that attempts to work against President Trump, who is up for reelection, is going to face the tough primary challenge. They could very well lose in the primaries.

            Lars Taylor: And he might win.

            He will win. The conservative base wants President Trump, not the alternatives that are going to run against him during the primaries. If the Republicans “successfully” get President Trump out of the picture and out of the 2020 running, we are looking at a Democratic presidency.

            However, President Trump is going to be running in 2020. And, with all other things being equal, is going to defeat his democrat rival.

            Lars Taylor: But he is out of allies and will soon run out of time

            Again, key here is where the conservative base is at. As I mentioned here, the conservative base is behind President Trump. Republicans who turn against President Trump are going to find themselves being against the conservative base, against the conservative electorate.

            The reality is that the ramifications coming from the actions of the electorate is going to cause most Republican politicians to stand with President Trump. There is already an effort, from the conservative grass roots, to go against Republicans that go against President Trump.

            Lars Taylor: as information he has been fighting to hide starts being released.

            You mean, like how the Mueller Report, and the investigation that he was conducting, was “curtains” for the president? I’ve lost count of how many leftists, on Facebook, argued with the same confidence that you’re arguing here, that his goose was going to be cooked when the Mueller Report came out. Then, after it came out, that his goose was going to be cooked when Mueller testified. Mueller testified. The Goose isn’t cooked.

            • Mason says:

              𝗯𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲:”parallels between what occurred in 1983 in 1984 and with what is occurring now.”

              You also have another parallel in which the Democrats are going to be running a shitty opponent. Mondale won a single state. I don’t think even Biden or Pocahontas will do quite that bad, but none of the Democrats’ top contenders has a shot.

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                Mondale won his home State of Minnesota and the District of Colombia, I remember reading through Time Magazine afterward with an op ed piece about how Mondale didn’t deserve such a humiliation, blahblahblah… even back then the mainstream mess media was tainted! I’m sure that whoever gets the D-rat nomination will take CA and other deep blue States because the voting is so heavily rigged for the D-rats in those places.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              “If you are talking about the leftist turnout, they do not seem to be enthusiastic turning out for Democratic candidates. This speaks volumes.”

              There was a bit of the “debate” thingy on the local news last night, during which Buttigieg was asked if he’d confiscate guns from people. He said ‘yes, will take your AR=15, AK-47s,etc.’ and a few people in the audience squealed in joy. There was some clapping, but the volume of sound was very, very thin. The camera at the back of theater showed only a part of the audience, the rows near the stage. Not once did I see a pan view of the audience, just that static view.
              It appears that the lack of enthusiasm for this early line of debates is providing a better general clue to the democrats’ popularity than anything else.

              • Ex-PH2 says:

                Sorry, that was Beto O’Rourke, not Butthead Buttigieg.

                Really, I can’t tell one of them from another any more.

                In the brief news clips I saw, Biden seemed to be animated, Bernie harped on “medicare for all” and Warren addressed health care coverage, also.

          • Mason says:

            I often wonder if you ever get tired of being wrong. Guess not.

            It’s like that Seinfeld episode where Costanza realizes that nothing works for him when he follows his instinct and decides to do the exact opposite. I think you need to do that.

    • JarHead Pat says:

      Goddamn comrade, what soy latte boy blew his hot sticky boy butter in your face this morning I see your full of hate ( and yourself as always), why is it that all you do is go on and on and on, you must luv the sound of your own voice. I`ll bet you real fun at party’s, hey look at me I hate everyone and everything and I`m the only one who knows anything about everything. So I guess your just another tard who is for endless war, for the sake of war, Mattis had to go and so did your boy bolton, that fucking cunt wanted to go to war with Iran, but thats ok with you, because its not like your fat bloated ass will cowboy up and put yourself on the line. So in conclusion,you profess to have some sort of `classic Republican values` but Im guessing your just a big fat whiny asshat who enjoys talking shit.

      • 26Limabeans says:

        “enjoys talking shit”

        Typing skills (speed) has a lot to do with
        over bloviating. Consider the person in
        the tv room that just cannot shut up and
        has to comment about every scene, actor and
        dialogue spoken. The more you talk,
        the righter you are. The faster you type,
        the quicker you are right.

      • reddevil says:

        Jarhead-

        What is your point? Seriously, your posts would be so much more interesting for the rest of us if they had a point.

        Not liking what the other guy said is not a point. Posting a bunch of childish insults is not a point either- it just makes you look foolish.

        If you followed the discussion at all, you would realize that many that think the news about Bolton is does not reflect well on Trump think that way because everybody- everybody- knows that Bolton was a chickenhawk and a bad choice for NSA, and therefore thought it was a bad decision when Trump hired him.

        The issue isn’t whether or not Bolton was a good NSA (he wasn’t), or if Trump had the authority to fire him (he did), or even if firing him was a good idea (it was). The point is that Trump screwed up in hiring him in the first place, then screwed up his firing.

        By the way, I have a son with special needs, and I am very involved in that community. In my somewhat informed experience, people who constantly use the term ‘tard, retarded, or similar things are so uniformed and uncaring that I have learned that it is best to disregard everything they have to say on just about any topic, and that most of what they say is intended to insult, provoke, or offend. My advice is to take that word out of your vocabulary.

        No, I am not insulted, and you did not hurt my feelings- you do not have that power over me. I just want you to know that when you use that language it tells me that you like to take advantage of those you perceive to be weak, especially if they are not present.

        It’s not a good look.

        • JarHead Pat says:

          Dude WTF I was called a tard by my SDI in boot camp in 72 among a shitload of other terms, grow the fuck up you hump, its only words, words dont hurt, well unless your a giant faggy cunt, lololol.

    • AW1Ed says:

      I’ve got a bone to pick with you too, Lars. See how long you stay up after taking one of my posts high and left, like you did to Ex’s yesterday. There’s off topic that I will tolerate, and then there’s you.

      • Commissar says:

        While I do think you are one of the more reasonable people her, AW1Ed…

        Talking about POTUS using 9/11 for his personal benefit, including financial benefit, by lying, aggrandizing, stealing valor, and conning is NOT off topic on 9/11.

        The fact that you think it is shows how far you willing to look the other way to justify political identity and “team based” politics.

        Ban me if you like. Pretty much every dissenting voice that has ever visited this site has been banned, suspended, or chew toyed to dust.

        There is really no substantive discussion happening here anymore.

        Just cheerleading, back slapping, and virtue signaling.

        You all were able to pout on a good show of “critical thinking” when there was a Democrat in the White House. But now that “your side” hold the white noise all critical thought is suspended. Just silence and the occasional cheerleading on the rare occasions the administration does not fuck something up.

        The lack of critical thinking is made most evident by the notion that the president lying about 9/11 and ON 9/11 to aggrandize himself is “off topic” on 9/11.

        He lied about his helping at ground zero AGAIN yesterday.

        You see critisizing Trump’s Lies about 9/11 as a borderline bannable offense. . Not surprised, after all isn’t one of the cardinal rules of cults is to shun non-believers and those that resist conversion?

        This includes political cults.

        • AW1Ed says:

          Your not that obtuse, Lars. You hijacked her post for your own political use, and she wasn’t around to put a stop to it. That was fair warning. Keep it reasonably on topic and you’ll have no issues with me.

        • thebesig says:

          Lars Taylor: Talking about POTUS using 9/11 for his personal benefit, including financial benefit, by lying, aggrandizing, stealing valor, and conning is NOT off-topic on 9/11.

          Actually, it was off topic for that thread. What you said related to President Trump and 9/11 was your opinion. I saw your performance on that thread and the responses that you received. You were totally destroyed in that debate… One that shouldn’t have happened.

          You could’ve saved that for the Friday Weekend Open Thread coming up. Or even on this thread. You should’ve joined in and reflect on that day on that thread dedicated for that day. You didn’t.

          You, having control and anger issues, jumped on that thread and advanced your argument as if you were on a mission to change people’s minds. Well, you didn’t, and you did the equivalent thing to pee in the middle of the discussion room when everybody was still trying to have a discussion.

          Lars Taylor: The fact that you think it is shows how far you willing to look the other way to justify political identity and “team based” politics.

          It was off-topic. The thread that you trashed was intended as a reflection and memorial. It was intended for a serious look and interaction. It wasn’t intended for the debate that you turned it into.

          You’re assuming that your argument otherwise is “self-evident” and that those, that disagree with you, are doing so for personal reasons or because of “cult of personality”. No, he’s not “looking the other way” to justify anything.

          The fact that you’d see this as “being on the topic” when it clearly wasn’t on-topic, indicates your excessive amount of pride, excessive desire for control, and anger issues.

          Lars Taylor: Ban me if you like.

          Nah, we enjoyed showing you that you do not have an argument despite the fact that you think you do.

          Lars Taylor: Pretty much every dissenting voice that has ever visited this site has been banned, suspended,

          Many of those dissenting voices happen to be those that were exposed for valor theft. They did not know how to conduct themselves here and were rightfully banned. Also, Jonn demonstrated patience, open-mindedness, and other “inclusive” traits towards people before subjecting them to a banning or suspension. Dave is the same way.

          Lars Taylor: or chew toyed to dust.

          You should know that if you’re going to enter a forum, where you hold the minority opinion, that you would face opposition. It is that opposition that you are describing as “chew toy to dust”. If you’re going to jump on here and do the things that you’re going to be doing, you need to be man enough to “take what’s coming”.

          A look at your performance on that memorial thread shows that you’re being turned into a chew toy was justified.

          Lars Taylor: There is really no substantive discussion happening here anymore.

          If you read the replies on these threads over the past few days, without being emotionally driven, you would understand that there still is substantive discussion going on.

          Lars Taylor: Just cheerleading, back slapping, and virtue signaling.

          I went through that thread. I saw what Ex wanted to do, and most understood her intention. It was a given. It was the anniversary of the terrorist attacks that had an impact on most people here.

          What do you do? You jump on there and treated the thread as if it were a debate thread. What did you expect the others to do? Be happy and agree with you? Nope.

          It’s like you crashing Easter/Christmas services at a church by arguing that those in the church are actually worshiping ancient astronauts, then proceeding to make that argument in front of the church community when they tell you that they want to continue with services… And if you’d be quiet and hold that thought for another time… Just to have you keep talking about ancient astronauts.

          Lars Taylor: You all were able to pout on a good show of “critical thinking” when there was a Democrat in the White House. But now that “your side” hold the white noise all critical thought is suspended.

          And were’ still able to do that here. Just look at what happened on the 9/11 and Bolton threads. I saw some critical thinking at work when people rebutted your arguments. I’m engaging in critical thought with my rebutting your statements.

        • thebesig says:

          Lars Taylor: Just silence and the occasional cheerleading on the rare occasions the administration does not fuck something up.

          No, what is going on here is that this current administration is not being a dunce like the last administration. The last administration, with their poor judgment, provided plenty of opportunity and justification to address such poor judgment/poor philosophy.

          This current administration is mostly doing what it is supposed to be doing, what many of us here see needs to be done.

          It is like being in a work environment. Chances are that an employer is not going to say much to an employee that is doing what he/she is supposed to be doing. However, if an employee is not doing what he/she is supposed to be doing, chances are that the employer is going to say something to that employee.

          This concept is at work.

          Lars Taylor: The lack of critical thinking is made most evident by the notion that the president lying about 9/11 and ON 9/11 to aggrandize himself is “off topic” on 9/11.

          This has nothing to do with “critical thinking”, and everything to do with interpersonal interaction. You jumped onto a memorial thread and turned it into something else. This is what you are having a problem grasping. You choose to have a problem grasping this because your excessive pride insists that you are “right” about this.

          You could just step back, and join in with everybody else with regards to making comments consistent with the intent of the original post.

          Lars Taylor: He lied about his helping at ground zero AGAIN yesterday.

          The links that you brought up didn’t do an effective job proving him wrong. “Not remembering seeing him” does not mean that he wasn’t there.

          He stated that he went to ground zero, with people that worked with him, to see if he could help. He also stated that there were other people trying to do the same. That’s a reasonable statement explaining a reasonable reaction that people would have to something like this.

          The people associated with working those sites, soon after the terrorist attacks happened, would’ve had a laser-like focus on what they were doing. Add to that the confusion of having to react to something like this.

          Expecting them to remember every single person in the area would be unrealistic. I don’t remember everybody that I’ve come across whenever I go places.

          The reality is that outside either side’s claims, we can’t make a definite conclusion as to whether he’s lying or telling the truth.

          Lars Taylor: You see critisizing Trump’s Lies about 9/11 as a borderline bannable offense.

          No, the issue isn’t your argument. The issue is your trashing a thread that wasn’t meant to be for debate. What you should’ve done was to reflect on 9/11, how it impacted you or others around you. What you were doing that day would’ve helped. Talking about the victims of that or other terrorist attacks and reflecting on the dangers that we have to deal with.

          You didn’t have the grace, courtesy, or people skills to do that. You lobbed an attack on the President instead.

          The joking mention of a ban hammer had everything to do with this and not your politics.

          Lars Taylor: Not surprised, after all isn’t one of the cardinal rules of cults is to shun non-believers and those that resist conversion? This includes political cults.

          This has everything to do with your lack of interpersonal skills and little to nothing to do with the fact that most here disagree with you. It’s your attitude, not your beliefs, that’s the issue. It’s what brought up the ban hammer talk. Not your trash talking.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Someone needs to remind Air-For-Brains Commissar that being a control freak like he is does him no credit, and DOES make him look like the self-centered control freak that he is.

      Must be a Capricorn. They’re all like that.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      You whizzed away your credibility, thoroughly. You persuade no one. Then you snivel that folks are backing a winner you don’t approve.

      Oops. That’s the problem. Your opposition decided to win. Can’t have that, eh.

      Too late Zampolit Seagull. You so bankrupted your credibility, you couldn’t persuade a buzzed pothead to eat Doritos.

      All that effort wasted. Nothing but hate to keep you warm.

      Repent.

    • SFC D says:

      Commissar, go tell your mother she wants you. You’ve never been concerned about anything but being the center of attention. Please feel free to go back to your AOC fantasies and dreams of a communist utopia.

      • Commissar says:

        My submitting a post is no more attention seeking than anyone else submitting a post.

        You could ignore it as easily as I ignore most of yours.

        You respond to my posts more than most here…

        And you are one of the people I have a subconscious positive bias towards since my AIT Drill Sergeant was Drill Sergeant “D” and he was a SFC.

        He was a good dude. Your screen name reminds me of him.

        So I generally have a subconscious positive sentiment toward you in spite of yourself.

        Yet, more often than not I dismiss or ignore your posts and efforts to “seek my attention”.

        Of course you don’t see it ass attention seeking when you post in response to something you read.

        Funny how that works.

        • thebesig says:

          Lars Taylor: My submitting a post is no more attention seeking than anyone else submitting a post.

          Not exactly. People are going to submit posts here for different reasons. Let’s take Ex-PH2’s 9/11 post for example. She posted it as an intention for serious consideration to the lives lost and to the dangers arrayed against us. She broadened this to include a little history, current events, and where to go from here.

          You jump in and attack President Trump. You should’ve seen this thread for what Ex intended, as the rest of us saw it that way. However, driven by your desire for control, you advanced an argument against President Trump.

          Result? What should’ve been something that brought all of us together, regardless of politics, ended up as a conflict.

          Lars Taylor: You could ignore it as easily as I ignore most of yours.

          But he didn’t ignore it. Instead, he read the exchange and saw what you were doing. He agreed with the others, and not because of “political cults” but because he independently saw that you were making this about yourself.

          Lars Taylor: Yet, more often than not I dismiss or ignore your posts and efforts to “seek my attention”.

          I’ve read his posts and no, those that I remember seeing was him contributing to the discussion or debate. What you did, on the other thread, was to make it about a topic that fell outside the intent of the blog article. You demonstrated control issues, he didn’t with this current response or the other responses.

          Lars Taylor: Of course you don’t see it ass attention seeking when you post in response to something you read.

          I don’t see it as attention seeking. I see it as him pointing something out to you that you’re obviously not getting.

          Lars Taylor: Funny how that works.

          The only thing that should be funny is how you’re misinterpreting what others are doing here.

    • Mason says:

      Go away, please. You’re not converting anyone to your religion here. If anything, you’re making people more conservative. Now don’t you have a 9/11 topic to go take a steaming, disrespectful dump on?

      • Commissar says:

        I generally have. I post a handful of times per month.

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          And you’re usually a booger-munching bedwetting pain in the ASS when you do, nearly every time you post you’re pissing into a high wind screeching to be the center of everyone’s attention. I honestly see you a a VERY miserable and lonely little man with some serious personal issues. Here’s some advice, look outside your little self-spun cocoon once in awhile and until then, please DO stay in California and do not reproduce, ditto with your political ilk.

    • OldManchu says:

      You just mad because HM got a special post and you didn’t. Here’s a hug for you little baby.

    • thebesig says:

      Lars Taylor: I guess I missed the latest drama.

      You tend to create them wherever you show up.

      Lars Taylor: Just very quickly skimmed the Bolton thread and nothing stood out except his comment about Jon and the fact that he used some anachronistic homophobic language. Though I honestly have seen a few others post using that language here before.

      Not that much difference between how Helpfull Medal rubs off on people, and on how you rub off on people. I’ve addressed both of your posts, you guys have similarities. Additionally, you guys have similar impacts on the rest of the commenters here. As for the use of “anachronistic homophobic” language. You’re not exactly a shining example when it comes to using non hostile language when it comes to posting.

      Lars Taylor: Though, like I said I skimmed it and did not read all the posts, just got a sense of the tone.

      This wasn’t enough to get the full picture of what happened on that thread. Helpfull Medal did to the Bolton post what you did to the 9/11 post. The other commenters reacted to him on the Bolton thread similar to the way they’ve reacted to you on this thread and on other threads.

      Lars Taylor: There may have been a more outrageous post I missed.

      Not much out of the ordinary given what happens when people debate on these threads. They get heated to the point that people end up flaming each other.

      Lars Taylor: I agreed with the guy on his primary underlying point;

      And herein lies one of the reasons to why you didn’t find that any of his statements “stood out” with the exception of his statements about Jonn.

      Lars Taylor: there is a lot of hypocrisy with regard to the outrage machine here. You all do ignore all the bat shit stuff Trump does that would cause a universe tearing singularity of focused outrage if Obama had done it.

      False. There’s no comparison between what President Trump is doing and what the last president did. President Trump’s team do their research before President Trump executes his policies. Not so much with the previous president. The last president did things that gave people the impression that he was exercising poor judgment.

      President Trump is doing the things that need to be done. He has experience in a free market, and knows how things should be set up for businesses and people to prosper. Additionally, he understands that he needs to stay within his boundaries. Contrary to what the opposition may want to believe, he didn’t step out of his left and right limits like the last president did.

      You’re comparing apples and oranges in this instance. We rightfully called out President Obama when he pushed the envelope or stepped outside of it. We’re not seeing that with this current president. Don’t get me wrong, he’s not perfect, and some here have called him out where they’ve seen him go wrong.

      Your outrage, against President Trump, has everything to do with your opposition to him and his policies.

      Lars Taylor: It is also true that weak and barely relevant “whataboutisms” pass for “substantive” responses here.

      I looked at the other thread where you threw that around. What you described as that didn’t fit the “whataboutisms” that you describe them as.

      I advance a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. I’m not the only one here that does it too. Others also advance the same, especially when arguing against you, Helpfull Medal, and others. From there, we project certain scenarios and possibilities.

      However, what you are accusing some or all here of doing, with that statement, I see you doing.

      Lars Taylor: In fact, when it comes to The current administration almost the only thing I have ever see is whataboutisms and deflections.

      That doesn’t exist on our side of the argument. That exists on your side of the argument. You have this false notion of what is going on with regards to the current administration. You base your argument on that false notion. Then, you get mad when the rest of us do not share that false narrative.

      Deflections? I see you doing that constantly. In fact, what I saw with HM’s claims on the Bolton thread is mainly deflection. Much more was going on there with regards to who they were talking about here. However, he tends to be more in agreement with you than he is with us. So, your “conclusion” based on your “skimming” did not exactly provide a good assessment of what happened there.

      Lars Taylor: That and the fact that you hardly ever discuss the administration at all is a strong indication that many, if not most of you, know the administration is a clusterfuck.

      False.

      First, I’ve brought up what President Trump is doing and why. This is based on his falling within a pattern that keeps repeating itself. He is mainly doing the right things. No, this current administration is not a clusterfuck. That was the last administration. This leads to my second point.

      Second, the last president exercised poor judgment. He supported and carried out policies that were harmful to geostrategically, Geo economically, and geopolitically. He also exercised poor judgment in other areas. These would be considered poor judgment by those who understand history, current events, and what needs to be done to keep this country on the right track.

      Third, you erroneously assume that the majority here believe in the same thing that you believe. You erroneously believe that you hold the correct viewpoint on what is going on. That, if we do not see the same viewpoint, we are “secretly hiding in shame”.

      Lars Taylor: Also, while Helpful Medal has some clownishly conservative views I find ridiculous (unless he is just trolling and pretending to hold them);

      You might be onto something with regards to this just trolling and pretending to hold those views. I don’t see him as being conservative. He is something, but not conservative.

      Lars Taylor: he does have a point that a lot of people don’t seem to stand for anything anymore.

      False. I’ve been posting here for years, and know that many of the individual posters here stand for something. You can see this with the intensity of the participation on some topics that are posted here. Both of you guys should know, based on my hammering your arguments, that I stand for something. And, I have stood for something consistently. What is true with me is true with others here.

      Lars Taylor: Despite the rhetoric I have read on here over the last 5 years there does not appear to be any validation of previously claimed ideals, no ideological coherence, nothing. It seems that the only political value is acquiescence to whatever demonstrates loyalty to the in group. [SELF PROJECTION]

      All you’ve done, with this paragraph, is to describe, to the “T”, your side of the argument. As I mentioned earlier, individuals here have been consistent with the positions. No, unlike the left, we are not going to be in lockstep with each other blindly following what the opinion taskmasters say to follow.

      We follow to our own drumbeat, based on the information that we gather, and the conclusions that we come from our research. We do get into arguments with each other from time to time. But, despite that disagreement, we have been consistent with our ideals, ideology, fact-based assessments, etc.

      What is true on this site, it is also true throughout the conservative community.

    • thebesig says:

      Lars Taylor: Virtue signaling political identity and loyalty has replaced ideology, ideas, or values in the Republican Party.

      False. What had been happening prior to President Trump was that the Republican Party was drifting away from its conservative roots. The Democratic Party was not the only party that is shifting left. The Republican Party was also shifting left, but not as quick as the Democratic Party was. The Republican Party was packed with RINOs. Still have too many of those.

      President Trump is forcing the Republican Party back to its conservative roots. President Trump’s policies are conservative. Additionally, he has the support of the majority of the Republican base.

      We do not bow to the “elitist opinion taskmasters” gods like those of you in the left do.

      Lars Taylor: Values I have seen professed thousand of time for years here have been relegated to irrelevance if they conflict with the will of the current administration and its cult of adherents.

      Understand that the conservative base, the rank and file that live from coast-to-coast, are firmly behind President Trump. As I mentioned earlier, the Republican Party has shifted away from its conservative roots… Paying lip service to those conservative roots. Then, many of them ended up as RINOs. Then, President Trump comes in and does what we, the base, have been looking forward to a Republican doing.

      If you don’t see that President Trump represents what we, in the base, considers conservative, then you do not understand what conservativism is.

      Lars Taylor: I know it seems I am trolling but I am truly concerned about how sheepishly conservatives have joined, submitted, acquiesced, or stood by silently.

      I’ve been debating those, on the left, for almost 16 years. What you describe here perfectly describes the opposition. Here’s an example. Your side of the argument stood silently by, submitted, acquiesced, when the last administration carried out an illegal alien policy that involved having “kids in cages”. You guys said nothing, your side was out in force protesting the treatment of illegal aliens. You guys were not “on the rooftop” screaming racism, xenophobia, or any other crap, when President Obama said some of the same things that President Trump said later.

      No, there is nothing “sheepishly” about our actions. Unlike the last administration, this administration is not pulling a “Caligula”. Many of the posters here may have their criticisms about President Trump, but they generally like much of what he is doing, and what he has done.

      Lars Taylor: I knew Trump would backfire on conservatives and severely harm the Republican Party.

      Wrong. He didn’t backfire, he proved to be a pleasant surprise. Remember, not many of us were happy about the options offered on either side of the political aisle. Many of us came out in support of President Trump as we didn’t like the ramifications of a Hillary presidency.

      Then, President Trump immediately got to work once he was sworn in. Since then, he has delivered on his promises. His approval rating among the conservatives is very high. I’ve been tracking current events, the news, since 1982.

      The last time I saw conservative excitement like this over a president, Ronald Reagan was in the White House. The massive crowds that you see gathering at the Trump rallies? What you’re seeing is an energized conservative electorate. I saw this with Ronald Reagan when he did his rallies in 1984.

      Lars Taylor: And he would simultaneously mobilize and elevate progressives, and progressive ideas.

      Yet they are so “mobilized” and “elevated” that people have to stand outside and watch large screens in their lines as there is not enough room inside… No wait, what’s that? Democratic presidential candidates not even able to fill a room?

      No, if you think that the Republicans are “demoralized”, standby to be disappointed in November 2020. Enthusiasm for “leftist ideas” is not as strong in the older generations as they are with the younger generations. Generation X is increasingly becoming conservative… And is caucusing more with the Baby Boomer generation with each election that comes around. Both these generations are more engaged in the process then the Millennial’s and Gen Z are.

      Bottom line is that the Trump economy is helping people out in a way that they are noticing. People are going to go to the polling stations, in November 2020, with this knowledge in mind. They are going to understand that a Democrat is going to reverse that.

      Unless something changes seriously, I don’t anticipate that the mobilization of the leftists is going to put a dent in President Trump’s bid for reelection.

      Lars Taylor: I was worried about the damage he could do in his short stint as president but I did not expect and am very concerned that he has stripped American conservatism of anything remotely associated with traditional American conservative values.

      This statement proves that you have absolutely no clue about what American conservative values are. Because if you did, you would understand why President Trump has a large, strong, support from among Republicans.

      The “damage” that he is “doing” only applies to the America that the left wants to create. That is an America that we, on the conservative side, do not want to see. So, we cheer whatever initiatives he has that destroys our “progress” toward the America that the left wants.

      His “short stint” is jampacked with accomplishments. He managed to get things set up to facilitate economic success. He knows exactly what he is doing, and the United States is going to continue to benefit big from his policies.

    • Poetrooper says:

      “…I am truly concerned about how sheepishly conservatives have joined, submitted, acquiesced, or stood by silently.”

      Says the guy whose chosen party is in full lemming mode, streaming headlong for the cliff of socialist destruction.

  20. USMCMSgt (Ret) says:

    Instinct tells me he’ll be back but will use a different moniker.

    After all, The Berkeley Fuckwad was booted some time ago and he found his way back under a different name, only to be caught.

    Obviously, he’s posting again with his self-centered and drive by tactics, and TAH is still dealing with his annoying ass.

  21. Reddevil says:

    Ok, I will add to my string of unpopular opinions here. While clearly most of you disagree with me on many topics, I hope I have at least developed a reputation of clear, honest dialogue and a low level of BS tolerance.

    Disclaimer: I do not understand, nor do I want to understand, the long history of ‘Commissar’allegedly posting under sock puppets, changing his profile, or any of the other crimes of which the tribe has found him guilty.

    Here you go:

    In this particular instance, Commissar is right.

    Having read most of his posts, while I disagree with many he typically has a sound logical flow, albeit one that stems from an ideological difference.

    There are a number of folks on this board that have some difficulty hearing a contradictory idea, comparing and contrasting it to their own idea, and making a cogent, logical, respectful reply. Some of those folks tend to resort to name calling, setting up straw men, evoking tribal lore, etc.

    Now, if your goal is to have fun at Commissar’s expense, by all means, go for it. I tend to ignore those posts because they are boring. I heard much better back and forth back at Crockett Elementary, and more emotional self regulation between some of the girls I went to Jr High with (it was named after a famous Indian fighter and former president of Texas).

    Before everyone starts calling me a NeverTrumper, please reflect on this for a moment: If you disagree with Commissar, put an argument together and challenge his ideas. One of you might learn something and become just a bit smarter because of it, and thereby make the world a brighter place.

    If, on the other hand, you decide to call him names, or question his sexual preference, gender, and/or orientation (which, from what I understand about Commissar, won’t bother him one bit but will make you look like an idiot because most of you tend to use insults that are at least a decade out of date), then you have made everyone just a little bit dumber and the world just a bit darker.

    By the way, if it is such a transgression in the Sands of Cool for Commissar to have allegedly made up a bunch of fake accounts in order to keep posting basically the same ideas, why is it OK for so many to have made up fake accounts with the sole purpose of mocking him?

    Look, I thought Medal was deliberately trying to provoke the members of this forum. That’s what Trolls do- he just wants to see exactly how far he can push the other posters. You guys all fell for it.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      “I heard much better back and forth back at Crockett Elementary, and more emotional self regulation between some of the girls I went to Jr High with (it was named after a famous Indian fighter and former president of Texas)”

      Daniel Boone?

    • Roh-Dog says:

      I don’t necessarily agree with all of your points or the strength of your convictions but, in spirit, I believe you are correct about our dessenting friends.
      Sometimes the back-and-forth is amusing.
      Hell, as long as no one gets hurt…

    • Perry Gaskill says:

      Lars is apparently in a funk due to lack of a TAH Manifesto that would clearly define an ideology. This sounds like a fine idea, and I hereby nominate Dave Hardin to write it…

      • Lars Taylor's Narcissism says:

        That is how things went this morning for me when someone knocked on the door to my niece’s basement. I live there. Someone brought the stuff, which was clues. He asked if my brain was in. I told him that my brain was not here. I sounded like the guy in the video too.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      And you REALLY missed the point,. reddevil. My article yesterday was about the anniversary of 9/11/01, and how things have changed, the history of jihaid-driven attacks that preceded it, and what may or may not come down the road.

      It was NOT about Trump nor did it have anything to do with Trump or with politics. If you had bothered to read what I posted in my article and the comments that referred to what others went through on that day, you’d know that.

      Instead, you take exception to the group in general objecting to what Lars Taylor/Commissar tried to do.

      And you can tell all of us what justification there is for some self-centered ideologue trying to change the subject, as Lars Taylor/Commisar tried to do. He was 180 off topic and his comment had nothing to do with the subject matter at all. His only aim was to hijack the column itself and focus attention on HIMSELF. He’s also tried to do it here. He does that consistently, and if you had paid attention, you’d know that.

      I did NOT create an open thread. I posted and article on a specific subject. Subverting what I did into Taylor’s turning the spotlight on himself to get attention, just as he has done up above in this column, is the ONLY thing he knows how to do. And if he catches hell for it, he deserves it.

      Got that?

      • reddevil says:

        PH-

        No, I don’t get it.

        My point in responding to your thread re Bolton is that you have some key facts wrong re the Taliban.

        If you didn’t like my post or Commissars for that matter, simply ignore it.

        This is an entirely different post, and everyone gang tackled Commissar when he made an innocuous point.

        He isn’t trying to hijack the thread. Yesterday he was trying to express his views on the president and why this Bolton thing is kind of a mess.

        His point on this thread was to highlight the hypocrisy and intolerance to different views displayed by many on TAH- and he was right.

        Commissar catches hell here every time he posts, no matter what he posts. Given that he keeps posting, I am going to assume that he is willing to accept the ire of the brain trust here.

        If you don’t want people to comment on your post, keep the comments closed. What keeps this site alive is people posting with varying views on a variety of topics. It is really uninteresting to read a bunch of people agreeing with each other in varying degrees. No one pays to see a guy juggle one ball.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        It’s unfortunate that you don’t get it, reddevil. Taylor wants to be the center of attention, period. He inserts himself into something like a post about 9/11, and instead of sticking to the subject, he tries to change it to something completely irrelevant to what I posted, just as he did HERE.

        It is ALWAYS about him and NEVER about the real subject. He avoids the open threads because he won’t get the attention he seeks for disrupting what other people are doing or addressing.

        I don’t know why that would be so hard to understand, but he got slammed for what he did because it was IRRELEVANT to my article, PERIOD. I don’t give a crap about his angst over Trump and neither does anyone else.

        My column was NOT an open thread. I’d have said so if it was. I was as clear as a still pond on my subject matter. Everyone except Taylor stuck to that subject. I don’t know why you find that so hard to understand, nor do I care. And yes, I do have a right to monitor the responses to something I post and if they are out of line, I say so as is my right, whether you like it or not.

    • Ret_25X says:

      The syntax is correct, but the sentences convey no actual thoughts.

      Never mistake snark for actual debate. Or in this case, learn to read the crowd.

      TAH regulars are smarter than you think they are and will quickly give you exactly what you appear to desire…

    • GDContractor says:

      Here’s how I come at it: Trump is a moron but he’s OUR Moron.

      I mean, he went bankruptcy while owning and operating a casino for God’s sake. Until his Dad Fred had the good grace to kick the bucket, Trump had given up most of his equity in Trump Entertainment & Resorts to Carl Icahn, who eventually bought it all. Once Fred died, Trump got his father’s business, properties, and wealth. What a fucking genius (sarcasm alert).

      I do not think that Trump, with his YUGE combover, can bloviate stupidity and be explained away as a 4D chess player; while simultaneously assaulting Joe Biden for being a drooling idiot with hair plugs. I’m more comfortable calling them both morons. But that’s just me.

      Hussar (aka Helpful Medal) and Lars (aka Commissar) are sometimes right, often wrong, and almost always insufferable.

      Whether they’re spewing from Iraq, Afghanistan, or Timbuktu… I don’t give a shit. Their location has no relevance to the argument they make. All in all, I think HM and Commissar have made valid points about hypocrisy during the last 24 hours or so.

      Tom Kratman used to post here occasionally. From what I recall, he received the same treatment that Helpful Medal received yesterday.

      Yef used to get mocked and smoked here… skepticism about his deployments, MOS, experience, etc. He was possibly the most decorated serviceman that has ever commented here.

      2/17 AirCav was a brilliant resource. Gone.

      Personally, I wish the ad hominem vitriol and animosity here was reserved for politicians and those whose bullshit does not match their official records (commonly known as Valor thieves).

      • just lurkin says:

        Yef was a recipient of the Silver Star, he made a reference to it once (including the date of the action) and someone looked it up. His screen name was similar to part of his real name and it wasn’t hard to put two and two together. I think he used to post some strange comments, but I also think that was just to get a rise out of people.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          Who thought Yef’s antics wasn’t a put up job? Seriously?

          • just lurkin says:

            I posted a link to his citation once and several of the people who responded seemed genuinely surprised. Plenty of people used to tell him to “go get the floor buffer” on threads in reaction to some silliness he had posted. I can’t see into anyone’s head and know what they actually thought of him,, but it seemed like he was treated with something bordering on contempt on some threads. Many probably weren’t paying attention on the one thread where his actual heroism was revealed and didn’t know the true story, and I can’t blame them, given how he would troll certain threads, but my impression was that many took him at face value without knowing that he was the real deal.

            • 5th/77th FA says:

              I remember that post. It was only up for a very short time til admin removed it. IIRC admin was concerned that linking someone’s real name that comments here could possibly embroil that person in a legal problem. His badassery bling was earned, not picked up a the metals (/s/) r us store. I had thought for awhile that many of his comments were put ons and he would be poking at himself too. “I’ll go back to buffing now.”

              • just lurkin says:

                In my defense, and as I stated above, there was a previous thread where his identity had already been revealed (by someone else, but where Yef himself had provided enough information where it was easy to figure out). And he was a real badass and shouldn’t have been treated with the contempt that was shown to him sometimes, but that said, he would also post some bullshit occasionally (and he was not above questioning awards to other soldiers). How do you let people know that someone on a thread is the real deal without revealing who they actually are? That’s a legitimate issue that administrators on sites like this have to deal with.

                • OWB says:

                  You don’t. Unless it is at the direction of and/or with the permission of the one being anonymous.

                  There are a bunch of valid reasons people take silly posting monikers. It is up to each of us to make the decision how anonymous we wish to be. Generally, that is respected by the rest of us. When that anonymity is violated, some folks disappear, for whatever reason.

                  • Just Lurkin says:

                    Yef posted on a thread something like “I was awarded the silver star for actions on (and he gave the date).” A third party put two and two together and the cat was out of the bag. The only way I, or anyone else, knew who he was was his own actions. If you want to have anonymity you have to safeguard it.

                    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                      Yef is a big boy. He wanted to play-act the cut-up E-3. He knew what would come his way in terms of “smoke”.

                      He could dish it out too. That was a tell. He could zing senior NCOs like a peer.

                      I can respect a well-executed hasty ambush. Even more so a well planned deliberate one.

                      Kudos.

                      I think I bit on at least one of his set-ups.

          • GDContractor says:

            “Who thought Yef’s antics wasn’t a put up job? Seriously?”

            Who thought Tom Kratman hadn’t earned a CIB? Seriously.

            • Ret_25X says:

              who is tom kratman?

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              I may be missing the reference. I certainly never said such a thing.

              • GDContractor says:

                Yeah man, I know it wasn’t you. But there were folks here who smoked Tom Kratman… question the nature of his service, question whether he had her in the CIB, Etc. All because he said something that made them uncomfortable and different from their worldview.

                In regards to Yef, I recall the first comment I ever saw him make here at this blog oh, and I thought to myself, “That dude’s goofy.” Then, I read one of his subsequent comments in which he said that English is not his native language. Made a lot of sense… more than the outright derision and floor buffer jokes. I’m sure Yef had the last laugh. Kratman probably did too.
                #Trump2020
                YEE HAW.

  22. Anonymous says:

    To Helpful Medal: Douché!

  23. Sarge says:

    The stupid is strong in this one.

    (hides in his SCIF)

  24. MCB, TSgt USAF Retired says:

    Who is the HM yall speak of? I’m not on here much, just check in every so often to see if another poser got busted by yall.

  25. WOW, this was some open thread today.

  26. Roh-Dog says:

    I’ve tried to go through it all but damn that’s a lot of hate…just when I’m trying to declutter my brain.
    I’m sure we could all find something to disagree on, some of us are more rude than others, some of us tell awful puns (you KNOW who you are!), I’m not going to lecture or say we can hold hands and sing kumbyah, nope, not by a long shot.
    We’re all adults with the vast majority having served Our great country.
    I know there is more that unites us than divides us, it’s in our nature being free men and women in this constitutional republic.
    I wouldn’t want or ask anyone here to stifle their language they believe is required, I just ask that we all not take it off this platform. Here it’s just words.
    I know when I get heated I can carry that funk around, sometimes for a few days, so I also ask that you don’t take out your sh*t on your loved ones!
    Respect y’all, thank you for letting me rant/vent and discuss!

    • 26Limabeans says:

      Outside of TAH I am really nice to people.
      I’ll bet the majority of dickweeds are too.

      You can learn a lot about yourself here and I
      welcome the brutal honesty with appropriate
      puntuation as needed. The long winded “hate”
      stuff is amusing but I’m old and time spent
      reading it takes away from nap time.

      The morose humor would make Gary Larson smile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *