Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Hey, I warned everyone it was really long.
In all seriousness though "scoreboard", I'm sorry you interpreted my long-winded, point by point (but accurate in it's counter-points) response to "Chuck's" post from that day as demonstrating a "hate" for the president. Obviously, I made no attempt to hide the fact I disagree with almost everything about his response -- or lack thereof -- to this crisis. As well as the way the right chooses to interpret what else has transpired in the last 4.5 years since the beginning of his campaign. However, I like to think there isn't anyone I truly hate. Still, for many of us this is no surprise as we predicted his presidency would probably be a disaster. Sadly, those of us who predicted that could never have imagined he'd be so incompetent he would literally end up being directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds and maybe thousands of our citizens. I notice though that, instead of trying to refute my counter-points to Chuck, you took the easy way out and just went with the quick generalization.
Given the crazy long, late-to-the-game nature of your response, it's rich of you to accuse anyone of taking the "easy way out", net. scoreboard was just providing the rest of us with a helpful PSA.
See, there's this really basic difference between you and a poster like 'Watcher. The most obvious one is, he's able to organize his thoughts in a cogent way, and put forth an informed position. I'm pretty sure he also hasn't been brainwashed into his opinions by a posse of dyed-in-the-wool lefties that have apparently radicalized you over on the Café, and has come to his opinions through his life experiences - like myself, and like most folks I know and respect. He also doesn't jump into outdated parts of a discussion he wasn't a part of "in the moment" - much less days (week?) after it's been aired out between the participants - totally devoid of in-the-present context. Plus, coming in over the top as "third man in" gets you a game misconduct in The Show, as you know.
I can barely keep track of the numerous times you lost me in your epic screed, but you'll probably be elated to know I somehow made it all the way through. It was like those situations when you're on the other side of the interstate from a bad accident, and you instinctively slow down to view the aftermath and the wreckage. Anyway, there are quite literally dozens of times where you contradict yourself, or put out easily rebuttable leftist "conventional wisdom" and talking points, and I don't have the time or the patience to basically re-litigate things 'Watcher and I discussed a while back, just for your personal entertainment. But just a few examples … at one point you profess to "refuse to get into name calling or ad hom attacks in these forums" … yet at the very end of the
preceding paragraph, you rip on Republicans for purportedly embracing "blatant xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and racism/white nationalism, just to name a few". That seems to be a profound lack of self-awareness, no? There was another part later (much later) where you criticized President Trump's involvement of his children ("beyond the pale compared to what has occurred in any other previous administrations. Period.") overlooks the fact that a President in my lifetime - likely not yours though - appointed his own brother as his US Attorney General. Oops, inconvenient, sorry. Finally, I do have my doubts about your professed 1984 vote for President Reagan. As someone whose bio claims an age in the "early 50's" - not mid-50's or late 50's - it's almost been 36 years since 1984, and you have to be 18 years old to vote. Do the math. Also, Reagan's opponent was Walter Mondale, who would have been a fellow Minnesotan for a young kid like you to vote for. Hmm. Maybe I'm taking you too literally, and maybe you did vote for Reagan in '84? To me, it feels like someone trying too hard to establish their bona fides. Just sayin'. A few shorter bullet points to consider:
* Mueller? Twenty (20) Democrat lawyers/donors had three (3) years and unlimited resources, and came up with zilch, zero, zip, nada … and Mueller himself pooped his pants when forced - against his will, by the <s>Resistance</s> Dems - to testify to serve their political agenda. And if your excuse for no charges was even close to valid … why waste the time/money chasing nothing?
* China vs. Russia? Russia is only THE primary US enemy/rival if you're Marty McFly, or a card-carrying Clintonista (obligatory Darius call-out), since China's GDP is at least 4 times bigger than Russia's (plus some people from China just did something to us). The Cold War ended over 30 years ago, not sure if you noticed, and that Reagan guy you claim to have voted for ended it;
* You don't care for Hannity or Coulter? That's your prerogative. Coulter is hardly the President's biggest fan these days. But I wouldn't expect you to know that. Being so "immersed" and "exposed" to Chairman Fill-in-the-Blank on Café, it's verboten;
* Trump/Fauci faux friction … yeah, that's been a "thing" on MSM (and on USCHO), until Dr. Fauci himself dispelled it. Just because it's inconvenient and embarrassing for your side's narrative, doesn't mean it didn't happen, or the other guys missed it. Nice try.
I could go on (and on and on and on) but … well, you get the picture.
Net, you strike me as an earnest (albeit malleable) person, with a nice family, from a nice part of the country … and with lots (and I do mean LOTS) of free time on your hands. I'm sincerely sorry to hear that your small business was shuttered during the prior administration, which unfortunately chose to put more emphasis on silly "identity politics" than things like businesses and jobs and the economy. I don't know you, and I've never read your postings until yesterday's tsunami rolled in. But I'll confess, this feels to me like you've been assigned to do some community project to earn another badge towards becoming a lefty Eagle Scout, with all of your Café comrades egging you on in the background. You seem to be pliable enough to serve their needs, and as such, you're being their "useful idiot" (it's a term BTW - not a personal attack) for this. You are probably being used, but regardless, and I've given you more of a response than I planned … but I'm not willing to enable you/them by playing along any further, sorry.
