Kellyanne Conway says it’s ‘highly offensive’ to refer to coronavirus as ‘kung flu’

Well, that was in March.

It’s OK now.

52 thoughts on “Kellyanne Conway says it’s ‘highly offensive’ to refer to coronavirus as ‘kung flu’

  1. If George Carlin or Eddie Murphy called the virus Kung Flu in the 80s, people would have laughed, including Asian Americans. If people are so commented about Asians and if affirmative action is truly about diversity of thought, there why aren’t there quotas for Asian Americans? Why don’t Asian lives matter? Why isn’t anyone protesting for them? On the west coast, many Asian Americans are descendants of slaves. Where’s the outcry?

    1. Steverino,

      A) I bow to your superior knowledge of what Asian Americans found funny in the 1980’s. (Where did you acquire it, BTW?) Now, my turn: What if Hitler had called the virus Kung Flu in the 1940’s? What if Phil Silvers had called it that in the 1950’s? How about Robert Frost in the 1960’s?

      B) Do you think maybe, just maybe, there were not affirmative action quotas for Asian Americans because by the 1960’s they were not subject to systematic racial discrimination?

      C) You question, “Why don’t Asian lives matter?” implies that you do not think Asian lives matter. Why is that? Or are you implying that OTHER people think that? If so, who are they, because I have not heard anyone say that?

      D) “Why isn’t anyone protesting for them?” Huh? Why should anyone be? What is happening to them? Are you on your meds?

      E) “On the west coast, many Asian Americans are the descendants of slaves.” You are off your meds.

      Thanks for your post, Steverino. I think someone said “The gaining of wisdom is the asking of many questions.” (It may have been Charlie Chan. Is that OK?) I personally think it would be better if they weren’t BS accusations disguised as questions so you don’t have back them up with facts, but you do you. When you’re off your meds, you probably can’t do anything else.

      1. It’s a waste of time trying to argue with this weird obsession conservatives have with going out of their way to try to get a rise out of someone, then they go complain about their reaction to it. As if this accomplishes anything productive whatsoever, or if they even walked a day in their life in the shoes of someone they’re telling ‘its just a joke i wouldn’t be offended.’

        Would like to go face to face with some of these people and call their mom or daughter a fucking whore in the same room as them and see how ‘triggered’ they get, since apparently the end all, be all of anything now is how good you can troll someone else and how they respond is all that matters.

      2. A. I don’t care if Asians found it funny. I find it hilarious and if it hurts your feelings, that’s your problem, not mine.

        B. There aren’t quotas for Asian Americans because they don’t need quotas. Instead an entire race ( Asian) is being limited by elite universities at the expense of another (black). Now THATS racism.

        C. Asians haven’t had any issues succeeding in this country. Therefore they don’t need people marching for them. They overcame adversity, persecution, and succeeded.

        D. Nothing is happening to them. My point exactly. They are doing great.

        E. Many many Asians in this country are the descendants of slaves. Whether their ancestors were building the railroads or working in sweatshops in hidden warehouses in nyc, locked in rooms using chains and padlocks.

        1. Steverino said: “There aren’t quotas for Asian Americans because they don’t need quotas. Instead an entire race ( Asian) is being limited by elite universities at the expense of another (black). Now THATS racism.”

          Yes, that sure is, Steverino. Not the way you think it is, but still racist.

          Steverino also said: “Many many Asians in this country are the descendants of slaves. Whether their ancestors were building the railroads or working in sweatshops in hidden warehouses in nyc, locked in rooms using chains and padlocks.”

          Steverino, this sounds like good old fashioned Soviet propaganda. I will let others debate the merits of your claim, and whether you get to make up a definition of slavery to suit yourself. What interests me is that you claim to be NYC born and bred, but here you are spouting Communist Party “facts”, circa 1952.

          As I said before, it’s a good thing it is utterly inconceivable that you are some kind of troll attempting to poison American political discussions. Isn’t it?

          (BTW, Chinese in New York CIty sweatshops? Never heard of it. I’m not saying that means it couldn’t be true, just that I’d appreciate a cite. Thanks in advance!)

  2. It always concerned me that liberals feel the need to be inspired by or to look up to their politicians. They are public servants, not role models. It takes a very manipulative, devious, and disingenuous individual to win elections. They are no different than more Machiavellian celebs. No wonder why liberals look up to celebs as well. Be inspired by your parents. Be inspired by people who have made the world a better place. Be inspired by people who do more and talk less and make actual sacrifices. The politicians certainly haven’t done anything except line their own pockets and those of their donors.

    1. Seriously? That’s a liberal thing?

      Conservatives are the ones most triggered, obviously being evidenced right now. Look at the shitfest over taking down CONFEDERATE statues. Look at Trump cult right now – talk politician worship, I can scarcely find a Trump supporter that DOESN’T have a MAGA hat or Trump flag flying on their truck or in their yard.

      This wasn’t a thing with Obama. You may have had a standard bumper sticker and yard sign, but no one was cult worshipping him like the Trump supporters. This isn’t even getting into the cult-like ritual worship of the American flag or ceremonial anthem and other nationalistic ceremonies where you have conservatives flat out ready to kill someone over idiotic superficialities.

      The irony in your posts is everything you say could be put in a mirror with a 20x magnification lense and applied right back to conservatives. While I don’t disagree with the sentiment of avoiding hero worship, to say it’s a liberal idea is pretty damn outlandish considering the Trump cult, evangelicals, and nationalist authoritarians who are about the most triggered people on the planet when you threaten their superficial symbol of the day.

      1. Trump supporters are not triggered. They view Trump as the greatest liberal “troll” in history. Their “cult” is based on his ability to drive liberals crazy and they all think it’s hilarious every time liberals blow up at what he says. The point is that liberals care about what politicians say. They are always angry about something. They are always ready to die on the sword. Conservatives watch all of this and either laugh, or clean their guns in preparation of a civil war. A trump supporter I was speaking with the other day made the comment that liberals seem to believe that children belong to society and the schools as opposed to the parents. I think that’s an interesting perspective because it would explain a lot why liberals want society leaders (politicians) and educators to be role models. Nobody looks to trump as a role model. They either look at him as the lesser of two evils or just funny as hell.

        1. Trump and his supporters aren’t triggered when you see a hundred videos of either Trump or his cult having an brain meltdown every day based on someone doing something with the flag, being asked to wear a mask, or posting angry messages 24/7 about protesters?

          No one looks at Trump as a role model but this guy has been the biggest seller of political merchandise in US history? And I’ve never seen as big a bunch of people as Trump and his supporters with a stick up their asses in my life.

          You have a false worldview not based on reality. And it’s funny the best ‘defense’ you have is that someone actively supports a guy who’s ‘just trolling’ instead of you know, addressing the 100 million things in the world that could be addressed for the most powerful position in the world. Psychological studies show the fragile ones that run to their little shells are always the conservatives, triggered by heavy emotional responses when those more progressive are not. That’s a scientific fact, not Steverino shooting the shit with some dumbfuck Trump supporter on an anecdotal opinion that means jack shit to anyone.

          And for the gun nuts that think they have some sort of monopoly on a civil war just because they want to go pick up a firearm, I suppose they haven’t heard of anarchists much? I’m guessing that might be a problem when big Bubba from Trump Country finds out if they really got what they wanted, it won’t be like his showing off his open carry at his tenth buffet of the week. I’ll enjoy another story this week to laugh at when another blows their dick off from the Trump persuasion because they don’t have a brain cell in their head to operate one.

          1. A civil war would not end well for liberals. One side has most of the guns and those trained to use them.

          2. The Father of Liberalism won World War II, and I don’t think liberals have a problem with guns. The problem is with the lack of control of any psycho using them to shoot up a bunch of kindergartners if that person chooses too, and conservatives defending that person’s right to do so.

            I certainly don’t have a problem with guns if I need to do it, but if I were to use one, I wouldn’t be sitting in a pickup truck thinking I’m a badass to stop some fake ‘antifa’ caravan. I would be researching my ass off, and reading books on strategic war and using every scientific method at my disposal if I had to. What are the actual percentages of the conservative base who have actually done any research on methods and strategies of any type of war or tactics? I’m guessing you’re not going to have many to be the General Patton of the bunch.

            Give me a dozen smart guys who’ve never shot a gun but with an arsenal and research handy, over Billy Bob who’s been shooting cans off his pa’s yard since he was 3 and goes down to the gun range and has a few brews each weekend. If these people were smart enough to pick up a book to learn tactics, they wouldn’t even be the one to do that in the first place.

            That’s what you don’t get. There’s nothing special about a gun owner trying to live out their male fantasy. It’s a tool that can be learned, along with other tools, and tactics with enough research and intelligence. Civil war or societal collapse, I wouldn’t rely on this lowest common denominator to uphold the ‘well formed militia’ section of the second amendment to protect me, anymore than I would the open carry guy at Walmart being able to give me a break down of quantum mechanics.

        2. Steverino said: “A civil war would not end well for liberals. One side has most of the guns and those trained to use them.”

          A) Wow, Steverino, you say that you live in NYC. Do you own firearms? Have you ever fired a gun? Or is this just more of what you think you know about other people?

          B) That is EXACTLY what the Confederates said in 1861. They really believed it, too. How’d that work out for them, in your opinion?

          1. The cons would get crushed in a civil war.

            You’re average 2nd Amendment nut owns a lot of guns because he’s terrified of black people. A coward doesn’t make for a good soldier.

          2. A. Yes I have owned guns all my life. I spent a lot of my youth in upstate ny.

            B. I’m talking about the military and law enforcement. A vast majority are conservatives.

          3. That may be true of the police. I don’t know.

            In the active-duty military, however, Trump has almost the exact same approval rating he has in the nation at large. He ran about 42 positive, 50 negative in December. And that was before he decided they could be called to action against American civilians on American soil – in other words, against their own families.
            Also Trump and his lackeys keep assailing popular military leaders like Captain Crozier and General Mattis. That won’t help him either.

          4. The majority of the Union’s generals weren’t particularly abolitionist either but they did their jobs (the abolitionists were people like Fremont, Banks, Sigel, Spoons Butler – incompetents all). If Steve thinks the military would back Trump in any coup, he’s more full of it than even usual. That little cluster of statements from Mattis and the others might have been a warning shot to the Orange Buffoon to not count on military backing for any crap he may feel like pulling in November. Was glad to see my cuz’s name among the signees.

          5. Scoop, there have been many attempts to tie to me to Trump. I am not and have never been a trump supporter. I don’t expect the military or law enforcement to stand behind trump. I don’t stand behind trump. Too many people need to tie everything In modern day politics to trump. It’s not about him.

    2. To the extent this even IS a thing, it may be that liberal politicians actually *do* things, where conservatives mainly run up debt, whine about the existence of government at all, and do their best to prove government is the problem by making it the problem: appointing Jared-like inepts, stalling any bill that might help anyone (looking at you, Turtle), and leaking away money on “defense”.

    3. So, liberals think that politicians SHOULD be people we could look up to, and that is…a BAD thing? (BTW, where do you acquire your knowledge of liberals? This is not something I would have thought of to describe them.)

      BTW, what do conservatives think politicians should be? Is transparently awful human garbage like Trump THEIR ideal? Because if so, congrats!

      1. As mentioned numerous times, I’m a born and raised New Yorkers so I’m pretty sure I know liberals. In fact most of my family and friends are liberals and we all get along fine. Looking up to a politicians is a “bad thing” because politicians are horrible people. They want power and influence and they will say falsehoods to get re-elected. Falsehoods in the sense that they aren’t true but also falsehoods in that they don’t believe what they are saying. Politicians are public servants who work for us. I want a strong economy. I want peace. And I want to be left alone.

        1. Steverino, if you really believe that all politicians are horrible people, there is no point in discussing politics with you. All you’ve got to offer is complete negativity and cynicism masquerading as shrewdness. It is, of course utterly impossible that you are some kind of operative trying to reduce voter turnout with the line “they are all awful, so what’s the point of voting?”, and you are lucky that is the case. Otherwise, i might be suspicious.

          Oh, and about politicians being public servants who work for us? That is true. But sometimes they are more, and sometime, if they are not more, they are failures. James Buchanan was not more. Abraham Lincoln was. See the difference?

          1. I see the difference they taught you in school but I don’t see the difference. The guy behind the guy is the one who matters.

  3. And to throw on the studies that proves who the scared little triggered ones are, all you have to do is look at these facts:

    [“A 2003 review of research conducted in five countries looked at 22 separate tests of the hypothesis that fear fuels conservative viewpoints and found it was universally true.”]

    [“Brain scans show that people who self-identify as conservative have larger and more active right amygdalas, an area of the brain that’s associated with expressing and processing fear. This aligns with the idea that feeling afraid makes people lean more to the right. ]

    [One 2013 study showed conservative brains tend to have more activity in their right amygdalas when they’re taking risks than liberals do.”

    “Groundbreaking research that Yale psychologists published in 2017 revealed that helping people imagine they’re completely safe from harm can make them (temporarily) hold more liberal views on social issues.”]

    [“A 2003 review of decades of research on conservative people suggested that their social views can help satisfy “psychological needs” to make sense of the world and manage uncertainty and fear.

    “People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals,” the researchers said. “]

    And on, and on, and on. So it’s pretty simple, conservatives are the scientifically proven triggered ones, because they can’t handle their scared little minds if any disruption to the status quo and social order is made.

    1. I’ve seen these studies. I’d argue it’s a lack of empathy rather than fear. I don’t want people who have any thought of committing a crime, anywhere near me. I couldn’t care less about their root cause. It’s risk tolerance. I’m not willing to put my family’s safety at risk, even if that risk is minuscule, by “declawing” the police department.

      1. Except you’re misrepresenting the facts. It’s not about declawing the police department, it’s applying appropriate response to the incident at hand. You don’t need a police officer pulling someone over for a ticket escalating the situation into a shootout for absolutely no reason. You can reform the police without any risk to anyone, and actually make it better. The fact that you’ve made the assumption it can’t be made better and is already a risk in of itself is the flaw here.

        You don’t consider it a risk to have a police department shoot at will in the middle of a house executing a no knock search warrant with the suspect already in custody? You could be next door and a bullet flies through your house, even if that’s not you. Or you could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and an aggressive force try to rope you into a confession. Or plant evidence. Or they don’t like your face. Or whatever reason an authoritarian who isn’t qualified to hold that power decides.

        There’s two things for sure in human history and the root cause of societal ills. You can separate it into the iron fist of the state and the inequity of social/class order. Every single time. So why are there always people generation after generation and century after century who ALWAYS prove to be wrong backing that horse?

        200 years ago we had half this country supporting enslaving other human beings, killing them, raping them, owning them was a ‘necessary evil.’ 200 years from now, whether you like it or not, your thoughts on the matter will prove wrong and this era will be in the history book the same way slavery and imperialist thirst for territory is now.

        1. You realize that this is all part of the fall of a civilization. To your point this type of change is inevitable. As is the corruption that follows, followed by more class separation decided by the government rather than the markets. Then widespread poverty follows. “Backing the wrong horse” is a matter of dates and the propaganda put out by the winner at that time in history. While I’m here on this earth, I am not willing to take any action that even remotely puts the safety and economic certainty of my friends and my family at risk. Not even if it’s 1 in a million. You call it fear because the outcomes are unlikely. I call it looking out for the people that matter to me. Putting money in your hands in the form of higher taxes puts the safety of my loved ones and my friends at risk. Opening up the borders put the physical and economic safety of my friends and loved ones at risk. Letting hardened criminals out of prison, showing weakness to adversaries, reducing deterrents for criminals, removing guns from legal gun owners etc etc. Unacceptable risks. Let me put it this way. You are saying “it’s not worth taking someone’s life just because they broke into your house”. I’m saying, “is it really worth breaking into my house if that means forfeiting your life”.

          1. You have a warped view. Higher taxes to who? It’s much more likely the relaxation of taxes is actually destroying society with the collapse of a living wage, which causes recidivism and poverty which leads to crime.

            When someone comes out with a tax plan that states they’re going to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 20% like Trump has, then now 3+ years later he’s all but admitted its gone to stock buybacks to funnel all of those breaks to executives who have stock incentives, how has that helped society?

            There’s a much more nuanced view of taxation of the ultra wealthy that just saying ‘I’m against taxes.’ Why is that? Because you can’t look at the tax plan of a candidate and see that the plan says the ultra rich will get taxed more and see it doesn’t effect you or your family at all? And this is not even a NEW thing in this country! The tax rates were much higher before and in situations like the New Deal that actually created much more new jobs.

            You operate on fear and anecdotal emotions rather than facts. I see the world as a system – like a computer, where if you plan this hand, this will inevitably happen – based on history, research, and study. All the situations that you mention are actually contrary for what you support and work against your own supposed values.

            Instead of looking at another country, a research study, or world history and saying – ‘you know, gee this is a better way to achieve mine and others values, its been proven’ you simply fall back on the tried and true simplistic anecdotal conservative mindset, easily swayed by emotions of video or a rare instance that you’ve then generalized to be the truth. Or the simplistic viewpoint that you cannot think beyond the A to B checkers world, when this is a game of chess to understand the system to see what a move accomplishes several steps down the line.

            I could write a dissertation every subject matter you mentioned and how you’re actually actively supporting the very thing you say you want to prevent.

          2. Wow. You have the answer to everything, Steverino, and your worldview is completely self-consistent and utterly self-serving. A society cannot exist if everyone in it is as selfish and self-centered as you, don’t you see that? And yet we live in a society, one that has endured for centuries. Doesn’t that tell you that it is you that are wrong and bad for society, and that others are right for more or less despising you?

            I hope we can travel again soon. I missed getting to New York the last time I was out east. I’d like to visit Grant’s Tomb. He wasn’t really your kind of guy, except that maybe he was too inclined to trust people, a trait you probably like in others.

          3. Indy, it’s not emotion. It’s cold hard logic. All i want from the government is a strong economy, national security, and safety for all. Everything else I can get for myself.

          4. There are many other things you need government for. For example (but not limited to):

            • a working power grid and sewage control
            • clean air and water
            • working bridges, dams and roads
            • regulations for resource conservation

            All of those are absolutely necessary for the continuance of normal life. None of those are within the reach of individuals. The area of debate is beyond that. For example: Should the government also protect us from unscrupulous marketers who will sell us tainted food? Should the government protect us from the Martin Shkrelis of the world who would bankrupt anybody who needs a life-saving drug? Should the government provide parks, museums and monuments? Should the government also assure than nobody can discriminate against us because of our race or creed or sexual preferences? Should the government assure that basic health care is available to all? And so forth. Liberals answer yes to all (or almost all) of those. You perhaps would not.

          5. Well it takes logic and research to understand criminals aren’t being stopped by a wall, and that the cartels use ports of entry to send in drugs – but the money is used on one of the wall logic you’re promoting. Not to mention the cartel has inside connections to pay off the Mexican police and assuredly the DEA to allow them to conduct business. But conservatives don’t support oversight and drain the funding as a necessary expense to catch these situations.

            Also, the marijuana prohibition conservatives support, the same dealers that support cartels sell the addictive hard stuff that wouldn’t even be considered if marijuana was legalized. Then these people are thrown into prison and come out worse than they came in, as hardened individuals who has more access to drugs in than out, with no opportunities other than crime.

            You say you support the police, but even the most basic level of requirements to own a gun are ignored. As an IT Engineer I have more requirements to access a server that a gun, but even the very smallest basic level requirements you would of many professions like myself aren’t even required. The ‘strong national defense’ you support, going back to the Vietnam produced PTSD psychotics, which led to a veteran killing Kyle Dinkheller, who should have never owned a gun. His death has been used as draining for trigger happy police to escalate situations, combined with the prevalence of unqualified individuals owning guns, lit the wick for whats happening now.

            And on back on the ‘nationalism’ front for American jobs and unlawful citizens not getting jobs, Paul Ryan and Trump were promoting the construction of the Foxconn plant in Wisconsin. The subsidies in the billions had the plant ever taken off to hire 13,000 workers work have been as high as around half a million per job creation – which the worker would certainly only be paid a small fraction of. Wisconsin’s governor spent $90 million in road funds for a still empty plant that would cost the state half a million per employee – rather than just creating the damn jobs themselves.

            There’s you’re cold hard logic for you. All based on emotion. Studies show the wall won’t slow down any organized crime, it’s just an emotional false blanket for you.

            You want to slow down the drug trade, but conservatives support prohibition of inert drugs that helped the hard drug use fall off in other countries and reduce organized crime. A hard line authoritarian stance puts people in jail who sell or use marijuana and they go in with more access to drugs and come out worse than before and go into recidivism and crime, instead of proper reform system instead of privately controlled cash for crime outfits conservatives support.

            Conservatives support no safeguards on psychos who have killed officers before on getting guns. Less safeguards than someone would get even applying for a trucker license. Then claim to support the police, by making their job harder, and conservative policies directly led to the death of Officer Dinkheller.

            And conservatives support a supposed ‘strong economy’ but were fine with a photo op and spending several billions in subsidies and almost a hundred million in road work to an empty plant – just to pay a Chinese factory half a million a job here for a handful of low-medium wage jobs rather than spending the same amount to create many, many more for Wisconsin residents.

            This is your cold hard logic in actual real world effect. There’s no subjectivity about it – this is the process you support – no matter what you say in your mind or your thoughts about what you *think* it is. This is the actuality, and what actually happens. This is why you’re playing checkers with superficial fake emotional evidence rather than cold hard studies and research of whats going on.

            You want to actually prove you care about those things you say you support? Then stop supporting the exact opposite. Its that simple.

          6. Indy, I’m not a trump supporter and I’m not a republican. Im a libertarian. You have me pegged completely wrong. Shoot up heroine in the streets for all I care. Just don’t do it on my property.

            Scoop, I agree. There are many shades of grey and many “government programs” we can argue over. That’s what makes politics so interesting.

          7. Also Scoopy, I don’t think it necessarily has to be government for any of those. I don’t think liberals say ‘make it government’ like everyone thinks – I would be more than happy for non-profits to pick up the bill and fill it – with the right people running them with reasonable salaries.

            There is nothing functionally special about an organization providing goods and services – the work and quality it provides is inherent to the people made up of the organizations. So this idea that private industries (especially healthcare) gets gigantic subsidies of taxpayer money to pay for Medicare and the executives make off with $10 mil plus is the way to go because it ‘incentives’ people is a joke. The micro-transistors in your computer and the TCP/IP protocol we are communicating over were not created by some government subsided conglomerate with a CEO having a 9 figure net worth.

            It’s pretty simple to me – basic necessities to live and thrive should not be a function of profit centers for wealthy to control. No one should have to fork over the deed to their house so they can afford chemotherapy to stay alive, while every person along the chain to provide that lives an extremely privileged life far beyond their means.

            That could be non-profits, public domain, public trust, other types of setup like anarcho-syndacallism – it doesn’t necessarily mean government control. I just know definitely it doesn’t mean corporate control with price fixing and the ones controlling it all living like false gods.

        2. I’m reluctant to comment on the fear black people feel of the police because I think I understand it, and I assume they would say I do not.

          Back around 1971, when I was still working as an actor while teaching, I grew my hair long for a part. That was a time when long hair meant anti-establishment. While my hair was long, I was continually harassed by the police – even though I was usually wearing a sport coat and tie in public! Every time I saw a policeman or a police car, I froze inside a bit, wondering how I was going to be harassed this time. Luckily I was never beaten, so I guess I still got better treatment than the average black person. But I understand the psychological trauma of living in fear of the people who are supposed to protect you.

          Of course, I always had the ability to cut my hair and resume my normal teutonic look, and when I did, I again fit into white Republican America. People of color do not have a similar option. Even when they become millionaires in fancy suits, they still get harassed when the opportunity arises.

          After all these decades there are still times when I, a short-haired, blond, elderly man of no interest to the police, freeze up at the sight of a policeman or a police car, although I am doing nothing wrong or suspicious. I suppose that is a mild form of PTSD.

          I tend to think that the problem is not so much that so many police officers are assholes to black people, as that they are simply assholes … period, and their jobs cause them to have frequent friction with black people. There is a certain highly undesirable autocratic type that ends up on the force, people who simply can’t handle having power over other people, and neither our policymakers not the police recruiters seem to be able to weed them out.

          And yeah, I know some great guys that are cops, and there are liberal, progressive ex-cops I hang out with in my various sports leagues. When I lived in Austin, my significant other had some serious psychological issues, and the police always treated her gently, even when she went ballistic on them. (She was white, if you are wondering, which may have altered the equation.) So I’m completely aware that many cops are just regular guys trying to do a difficult job in impossible circumstances.

          But those bad ones – man, they are really bad – and they have the power to do so much harm.

  4. Jeez it’s hard to top Steve’s crap about liberals being more prone to being personality cultists when the Republican party has devolved into a cult fixated on an ignorant stupid slimeball, but that it’s “scientifically proven” that we conservatives all have scared little minds, wow. You’re definitely winning the crock of shit competition.

    1. Then go do your research studies then. Its pretty clear and obvious that conservatives are motivated by fear and change to the social order. If you have a counter to that scientific fact, then go put in the time and do your own fucking studies – its that simple. Just because you think it’s a crock of shit doesn’t make the facts any different pal.

      1. Well, I see Steverino’s work here is progressing nicely.

        Can’t we all just get along and admit that Trump is human garbage?

        Personally, I have known good and bad people, and liberal and conservative people, and I can’t honestly say that those categories have much to do with each other. Yes, it’s hard to think well of people when you disagree with them, but I feel I have to make the effort if I am going to live in a world full of people who don’t agree with me.

        I am pretty much out of time for Steverino, though.

        1. Trump is human garbage. But I don’t care so long as he pursues a policy that matters to me. I actually like you Roger. Unlike others here, you are a true liberal. You don’t inherently believe that one side is right and one side is wrong. You seem to believe that there are good people and wackos on both side but that one side (conservatives) views the world in a different way with different priorities for different reasons. You may even call those reasons evil but at least you recognize there are in fact reasons. You can certainly call me a selfish ahole, because I am one. But I’m certainly not a blind ideologue like some of the others here. I know what I think and why I think it. I understand liberalism. I don’t think less of it. I simply disagree with it and I disagree with the moral high ground that liberalism always attempts to seize.

  5. I have better things to do than take advice from a addled fanatic, whether it’s a leftish whacko or a Trump nut in regard to anything.

    1. Or better things to do than have an informed opinion rather than one that proves your viewpoint wrong. Why study or research when you can just fall back on the tried and true biases and ego to form it? That takes work, and time away from a Netflix subscription.

    1. Off the top of my head, I don’t know who Castlereagh is. Wait – Lord Castlereagh? Some famous suicide, apparently British? I am glad Google is my friend. BRB!

      Whoa, Bill, you might want to re-think that, because perhaps the best remembered thing about him is Lord Byron’s proposed headstone for him:

      “Posterity will ne’er survey
      A nobler grave than this:
      Here lie the bones of Castlereagh:
      Stop, traveller, and piss”

      Bill, your erudition is impressive, but expecting just about anyone in 2020 USA to know who Castlereagh was without Googling is a bit over the top. Still, thanks for causing me to look him up.

  6. Roger, I’m amazed Wiki didn’t have the specifics – he cut his throat while watching the sunset. I’ve read elsewhere that nobody was actually planning to out him. Generally regarded pretty well by most Brit. historians.
    He was a pretty important figure in Britain for twenty+ years both for being the glue guy in the anti-Napoleonic coalition after Pitt the Younger died and for having Wellington’s back in London when Nosey was off in Portugal and Spain, thus making the Sharpe novels possible.

    1. Oh, sure Wikipedia had a lot on Castlereagh, but I only glanced at it to confirm he was a suicide, and Byron’s limerick caught my eye. I gathered that while Castlereagh was a very competent Prime Minister, he became violently unpopular for an event called “Peterloo”, which I believe is connected with British bathrooms being called “the loo” for 150 years or more.

      Frankly, he would not be my go-to guy for a reference to suicide, but then, I don’t know who would be. There has to be somebody, but I’m drawing a blank.

      1. Depending on the context, I would use Socrates, Judas Iscariot, Virginia Woolf, Kurt Cobain, Sylvia Plath, Robin Williams or Papa Hemingway, but my favorite for most situations that we encounter on a page like this is Peg Entwhistle.

        But I see why Bill used Castlereagh in that context, and I think it was a great (if obscure) choice.

        1. A) My brain must be running on fumes. The only one of those people who occurred to me was Sylvia Plath, and that seemed too sad to be fitting.

          B) Am I the ONLY one here who did not know who Lord Castlereagh was? My lack of Castlereagh knowledge is shameful. I am so much more like Trump that I thought! Well, time to follow the example of Lupe Velez.

  7. Roger, not really suicidal, but if I were anything that works except Cato the Younger’s way.
    “According to Plutarch, Cato attempted to kill himself by stabbing himself with his own sword, but failed to do so due to an injured hand. Plutarch wrote:
    Cato did not immediately die of the wound; but struggling, fell off the bed, and throwing down a little mathematical table that stood by, made such a noise that the servants, hearing it, cried out. And immediately his son and all his friends came into the chamber, where, seeing him lie weltering in his own blood, great part of his bowels out of his body, but himself still alive and able to look at them, they all stood in horror. The physician went to him, and would have put in his bowels, which were not pierced, and sewed up the wound; but Cato, recovering himself, and understanding the intention, thrust away the physician, plucked out his own bowels, and tearing open the wound, immediately expired.”
    Both the Catos are on my short list for “Greatest A-Holes in History”. My American representative is Gen. George McClellan.

    1. Really, McClellan? He had great flaws, he was supremely ungrateful to Lincoln, he was too afraid of failure to risk winning, but he was a better commander than, say, Halleck or Pope or Burnside. Wouldn’t Woodrow Wilson be higher on that list, or J. Edgar Hoover, or a lot of other people I can’t think of right now? Senator Bilbo from Mississippi? Strom Thurmond? Man, there must be a lot about McClellan I don’t know.

      1. If McClellan had been competent, it might have been a very short war (as Bill notes elsewhere).

    2. McClellan was an asshole no doubt. (The Lincoln bio “Team of Rivals” does a good job on him.)

      But you still have to go a ways further to top Roy Cohn.

  8. Had 2 chances to obliterate Johnston/Lee (Peninsula and Antietam) and one in the winter of 62 to bend/staple/and mutilate Johnston in No. Va. At Antietam, officers were literally climbing trees and screaming “General they have no reserves” (they were right). The Confederate center had been broken and there were 5 unused divisions. Had wasted the better part of two days after getting the orders wrapped around the cigar.
    If Little Mac is remotely competent in Sept. 1862, Lee’s remaining army would have consisted of one fucking division (Hill). Maybe half the people dead in the Civil War make it out alive. And after 2nd Bull Run, he and his pal Fitzjohn Porter were discussing marching on Wash to sort out his probs with “the Gorilla”. Nah he stays (reading Lincoln’s Lieutenants by Sears at the moment – my memory’s not that good),
    Wilson is a top contender. Resegregated the govt. and was too fixated on his League to join with Lloyd George to prevent Versailles from becoming a diktat. Patrick Hurley who was the first of our many Far East fuckups is another.
    Those other guys are just bad people.

Comments are closed.