I finally took the trouble to look up Ann Coulter's remarks, supposedly so superior to those of Trump. All I found was the same old, same old fixation on her pet problems, to the exclusion of everything else.
"What Republicans should be doing: talking about the issues Democrats are trying to avoid. What Republicans are doing: talking about Ukraine. Whenever you see any media talking about Ukraine, your Pavlovian response should be, Oh, I see. They don’t want me to think about immigration or crime."
When Trump was President she couldn't understand why, with his pen and his phone, he couldn't ignore all the formalities and solve these problems. Get real. A president has to deal with whatever is going on in the world as it affects America, and given the opposition he faced what President Trump did accomplish was miraculous. I stick by my remarks in my previous comment. "I never cease to be astonished at how little President Trump is appreciated. His every remark is denigrated by people who do not take the trouble to understand what he is saying."
Here are her "pet problems to the exclusion of everything else":
"Our own border has become a transmission belt for the third world, bringing in rapists, murderers, future welfare recipients, and left-wing activists. The Democratic Party’s brilliant policy of defunding the police and emptying the prisons has, oddly enough, led to a breathtaking surge in violent crime. Our schools have been taken over by lunatics who teach white kids that they are evil — and probably transsexual.
"Inflation has hit a 40-year high."
Yes, I think those are the things Republicans should be talking about. Instead of saying stupid things about Russia. And, yes, I think it's foolish for Trump to being saying things like, It never would have happened on my watch. Instead of saying something constructive about how to deal with Russia. I get that that might make him another Russia Hoax lightening rod, but he could be--for example--decrying the lack of diplomacy.
I would say together with, not "Instead of saying stupid things about Russia." I personally found Trump's remarks cogent and to the point, and in fact better than anything else I've read on the Ukraine. In a previous discussion on this site we were discussing NATOs responsibility, and your remarks on two posts were on the money.
I never cease to be astonished at how little President Trump is appreciated. His every remark is denigrated by people who do not take the trouble to understand what he is saying. Of course one would expect this from Rich Lowry in the NY Post, with his "Self-obsessed Trump’s Putin praise is morally bankrupt", but everybody seems to be joining on the bandwagon this time. Instead of saying "Putin is a brutal killer...Trump couldn’t muster one remotely appropriate sentiment." Correct, Mr. Lowry, but he did come up with the correct analysis, from the point of view of Russia, that 'This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine....Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful... And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper.No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy.”
President Trump also said: “By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable,”
Lowry further states: "Trump’s comments were clearly driven, in large part, by his disdain for Joe Biden and his abiding belief that the election was stolen from him." And again Lowry is shocked by the statement "We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen." There are those of us who hold both statements to be true, and assume that if Trump were recognized as President today our lives would be so much better off. Rather than expressing mushy moral sentiments it would be better if what happened in the Ukraine, or for that matter Afghanistan, had never happened, and we wouldn't have to be concerned about Taiwan...or our southern border, crime, inflation, our supply chain, etc,etc,etc.
Extremely depressing to see the reactions of "Conservative" pundits and even more so to see Trump and officials from his admin saying the same things. I already knew most of our politicians are indeed Uniparty warmongers and are not satisfied to just destroy our country - no, they are aiming for the whole of Western Civilization (at the least). Would you believe a number of them won't even foreclose on the possibility of war with Russia? Yeah, shocking I know:
Depressing as heck. We've just come through 6 years of scam after lie after sham after con after ploy after charade. You would think that the free media and opinion leaders would show just an ounce of caution, but no! They all jump right into the new scam, the new Russia Russia Russia! It really seems hopeless at times like this.
If you knew something about the actual Galileo case you'd know that Galileo didn't get in trouble over his scientific ideas but over his foolish extrapolation into the religious area.
You're simply wrong. Heliocentrism has never been Church dogma. Dogma means a defined truth of the faith. Never. Here's what you left out:
"There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt."
Galileo got in trouble because he went beyond what he could prove rather than advancing it as a theory. In effect, he was acting in an unscientific way by confusing hypothesis with fact.
"It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
"Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved."
You keep saying "My wife and I were sponsor couples and spoke at the Pre-Cana conferences." Let me be very clear: I don't care and I'm utterly unimpressed.
I finally took the trouble to look up Ann Coulter's remarks, supposedly so superior to those of Trump. All I found was the same old, same old fixation on her pet problems, to the exclusion of everything else.
"What Republicans should be doing: talking about the issues Democrats are trying to avoid. What Republicans are doing: talking about Ukraine. Whenever you see any media talking about Ukraine, your Pavlovian response should be, Oh, I see. They don’t want me to think about immigration or crime."
When Trump was President she couldn't understand why, with his pen and his phone, he couldn't ignore all the formalities and solve these problems. Get real. A president has to deal with whatever is going on in the world as it affects America, and given the opposition he faced what President Trump did accomplish was miraculous. I stick by my remarks in my previous comment. "I never cease to be astonished at how little President Trump is appreciated. His every remark is denigrated by people who do not take the trouble to understand what he is saying."
Here are her "pet problems to the exclusion of everything else":
"Our own border has become a transmission belt for the third world, bringing in rapists, murderers, future welfare recipients, and left-wing activists. The Democratic Party’s brilliant policy of defunding the police and emptying the prisons has, oddly enough, led to a breathtaking surge in violent crime. Our schools have been taken over by lunatics who teach white kids that they are evil — and probably transsexual.
"Inflation has hit a 40-year high."
Yes, I think those are the things Republicans should be talking about. Instead of saying stupid things about Russia. And, yes, I think it's foolish for Trump to being saying things like, It never would have happened on my watch. Instead of saying something constructive about how to deal with Russia. I get that that might make him another Russia Hoax lightening rod, but he could be--for example--decrying the lack of diplomacy.
I would say together with, not "Instead of saying stupid things about Russia." I personally found Trump's remarks cogent and to the point, and in fact better than anything else I've read on the Ukraine. In a previous discussion on this site we were discussing NATOs responsibility, and your remarks on two posts were on the money.
I never cease to be astonished at how little President Trump is appreciated. His every remark is denigrated by people who do not take the trouble to understand what he is saying. Of course one would expect this from Rich Lowry in the NY Post, with his "Self-obsessed Trump’s Putin praise is morally bankrupt", but everybody seems to be joining on the bandwagon this time. Instead of saying "Putin is a brutal killer...Trump couldn’t muster one remotely appropriate sentiment." Correct, Mr. Lowry, but he did come up with the correct analysis, from the point of view of Russia, that 'This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine....Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful... And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper.No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy.”
President Trump also said: “By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable,”
Lowry further states: "Trump’s comments were clearly driven, in large part, by his disdain for Joe Biden and his abiding belief that the election was stolen from him." And again Lowry is shocked by the statement "We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen." There are those of us who hold both statements to be true, and assume that if Trump were recognized as President today our lives would be so much better off. Rather than expressing mushy moral sentiments it would be better if what happened in the Ukraine, or for that matter Afghanistan, had never happened, and we wouldn't have to be concerned about Taiwan...or our southern border, crime, inflation, our supply chain, etc,etc,etc.
Extremely depressing to see the reactions of "Conservative" pundits and even more so to see Trump and officials from his admin saying the same things. I already knew most of our politicians are indeed Uniparty warmongers and are not satisfied to just destroy our country - no, they are aiming for the whole of Western Civilization (at the least). Would you believe a number of them won't even foreclose on the possibility of war with Russia? Yeah, shocking I know:
https://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-threatens-block-ukraine-190740275.html
Depressing as heck. We've just come through 6 years of scam after lie after sham after con after ploy after charade. You would think that the free media and opinion leaders would show just an ounce of caution, but no! They all jump right into the new scam, the new Russia Russia Russia! It really seems hopeless at times like this.
I too will link to anyone who makes sense. This Farage video has aged well! https://youtu.be/9uNsXEu8ljM
Speaking of barbarism… did you catch Putin’s devastating indictment of western decadence and hypocrisy?
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/67843
We’ve thrown away the moral high ground. What is the West good at anymore?
Hedonism & Sinfulness.
Please don't anyone remind me that I'm linking to a libertarian. I'll link to anyone who makes sense:
https://original.antiwar.com/daniel-mcadams/2022/02/24/the-new-russiagaters-right-wingers-channel-hillary-in-attacks-on-biden/
JD Vance had an interesting take:
https://cnsnews.com/article/national/michael-w-chapman/conservative-jd-vance-we-spent-6-billion-failed-ukrainian-army
https://original.antiwar.com/rick_sterling/2022/02/24/how-the-us-instigated-the-ukraine-crisis/
A bit of TDS:
https://nypost.com/2022/02/24/self-obsessed-trumps-putin-praise-is-morally-bankrupt/
If you knew something about the actual Galileo case you'd know that Galileo didn't get in trouble over his scientific ideas but over his foolish extrapolation into the religious area.
It was not:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy
You're simply wrong. Heliocentrism has never been Church dogma. Dogma means a defined truth of the faith. Never. Here's what you left out:
"There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt."
Galileo got in trouble because he went beyond what he could prove rather than advancing it as a theory. In effect, he was acting in an unscientific way by confusing hypothesis with fact.
"It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
"Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved."
You keep saying "My wife and I were sponsor couples and spoke at the Pre-Cana conferences." Let me be very clear: I don't care and I'm utterly unimpressed.
That would have been a very foolish thing to say to Putin, given Russia's development of very serious strategic weapons.