Sign in to follow this  
fastyacht

I don't cotton to Cotton neither.

Recommended Posts

What the hell is it with Harvard Univ, these days ?? 

They really seem to be turning out an inordinate number of Reich-Wing loonies . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

What the hell is it with Harvard Univ, these days ?? 

They really seem to be turning out an inordinate number of Reich-Wing loonies . . 

Harvard was always a bastion for the rich to continue dominating the battlespace of the class war.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Harvard was always a bastion for the rich to continue dominating the battlespace of the class war.

- DSK

except for the mid 60's to mid 70's when those damn hippies invaded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hermetic said:

except for the mid 60's to mid 70's when those damn hippies invaded

And just think: tattoos hadn't even been invented yet... and they had pretty decent music!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Kos - 

On Thursday, The New York Times issued an apology for publishing a controversial op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) demanding the government “send in the troops” against people protesting the killing of George Floyd.

“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication,” said a spokeswoman. “This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact checking operation and reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish.”

NYT says Tom Cotton op-ed derided as fascist ‘did not meet our standards’ for publication: report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

I actually don't mind that they publish the rantings of the Reich. We need everyone to see how fucking crazy the Reich and the Vichy Elk really are.

However.

The Editor didn't read the damn thing before he published it? Fire his ass for not doing his job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are all for censoring someones opinion because you disagree with it.  You sir are a bigot plain and simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Not censorship. Just declining to publish.

If some member of the KKK had an Op-Ed saying that we needed a return to slavery and he wanted the NYT to publish and they declined, is it censorship?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

So you are all for censoring someones opinion because you disagree with it.  You sir are a bigot plain and simple. 

:lol: This is a joke, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol: This is a joke, right?

Yes, GD is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Yes, GD is a joke.

Oh yeah, we all know by now that freedom of expression is only for the Reich. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gone Drinking said:

So you are all for censoring someones opinion because you disagree with it.  You sir are a bigot plain and simple. 

Who’re you responding to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, fastyacht said:

image.png.ed92432b1985625e94c83b36e2c09843.png

Cotton made his career by writing spectacularly stupid letters to the New York Times. The Times didn't publish that one though. It was (eventually) published on Power Line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton#Letter_to_The_New_York_Times_(2006)

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/a-fateful-letter-to-the-editor-of-the-times.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gone Drinking said:

So you are all for censoring someones opinion because you disagree with it.  You sir are a bigot plain and simple. 

Yes. Aren't you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gone Drinking said:

So you are all for censoring someones opinion because you disagree with it.  You sir are a bigot plain and simple. 

Use correct language if you intend to communicate rational thoughts.

Governments censor.  Newspapers publish.  

Does this right wing poo thrower need respect?  Did the President of the United States need respect when a member of the Congress called out liar during his State of the Union address?

Whatever you're drinking isn't working because you can still find a keyboard to puke on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gone Drinking said:

So you are all for censoring someones opinion because you disagree with it.  You sir are a bigot plain and simple. 

That word "censor" doesn't mean you think it means. I'll send you a dictionary if you promise to use it and learn from it.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascists just love to take cynical advantage of liberals' respect for free speech. 

But when it gets to be time for the Reich to reciprocate, they never, ever do. 

That is why we need Antifa

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DustyDreamer said:

Is there something going around? A word virus? Why does this keep happening? Is it just the sutpid?

It may well be the sutpid. On the other hand, it may be Ebola. Or liver flukes. Or just too many Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters last night.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the stupid, stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Editorial editor at NY Times just resigned this weekend over the Cotton editorial he approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Editorial editor at NY Times just resigned this weekend over the Cotton editorial he approved.

Good riddance, they guy didn't even read it. What the hell else is an editor supposed to do?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/07/us-army-demonstrations-washington-305913

I must assume that Cotton don't cotton to reading history much.  It's like deja vu all over again.  Well worth reading, posted sections of a much longer article. If anyone ever wondered about the differences between MacArthur and Eisenhower you will find it in here.  Bottom line? Using federal troops to disperse protesters just doesn't sit well with the American people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Washington, D.C., authorities told him “they can no longer preserve law and order,” the president’s statement declared. “In order to put an end to this rioting and defiance of civil authority, I have asked the Army to assist the District authorities to restore order.”

The author of the above presidential ukase was not the current, 45th occupant of the White House, Donald Trump, but his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, the 31st U.S. president. The year was 1932. And the authors of the aforementioned “rioting” were a scraggly, disgruntled group of World War I veterans who hoped to force the government to pay out their service bonuses. When Hoover sent in the troops to clear the protesters that July the newsreels showed Army troops wielding bayonets and tear gas as they brazened their way through the camps the demonstrators had built and set them ablaze. Time magazine called it the Battle of Washington.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Hoover’s statement justifying sending in federal troops, which was carried on the front page of the New York Times and other major American newspapers, he asserted: “An examination of a large number of names discloses the fact that a considerable part of those remaining are not veterans; many are Communists and persons with criminal records.”

“Damned lie,” Waters raged. “Every man is a veteran. We examined the papers of everyone.” No matter: The then-largely conservative American press trumpeted Hoover’s hollow, martial words. Waters’ protest was ignored.

To say that MacArthur was eager to do battle with the Bonus Army is to understate the case. For weeks his men at nearby Fort Myers had undergone anti-riot training for just such a confrontation.

Still, there was neither need nor call for MacArthur himself to actually be on the scene that afternoon, as his aide, Major Dwight Eisenhower, reportedly told him. “I told that son of a bitch that he shouldn’t go there,” Eisenhower later recounted. MacArthur’s subordinate, General Perry Miles, was technically in charge.

But there MacArthur was, in his shiny jodhpurs, as the bayonet-wielding men of the 12th Infantry Regiment, and the mounted troops of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six M197 light tanks, marched up Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch.

The New York Times reported what happened next: “Amidst scenes reminiscent of the mopping up of a town in the World War, Federal troops drove the army of bonus marchers from the shanty town near Pennsylvania Avenue in which the veterans had been entrenched for months. Ordered to the scene by President Hoover detachments of infantry, cavalry, machine gun and tank crews laid down an effective tear-gas barrage which disorganized the bonus-seekers, and then set fire to the shacks and tents left behind.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Good riddance, they guy didn't even read it. What the hell else is an editor supposed to do?

Actually, Bennet invited Cotton to write it. I'd like to know the full backstory on that. Bennet strikes me as a bothsiderist (aka centrist) who can't make a moral choice. Publishing Cotton's screed reminds me of Rolling Stone publishing the Boston Marathon bomber's selfie on its cover. I never understood that either.

I will say this in Bennet's favor. Now we know what batshit insane fascists mainstream Republicans truly are. Cotton will be running for President in 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Actually, Bennet invited Cotton to write it. I'd like to know the full backstory on that. Bennet strikes me as bothsiderist (aka centrist) who can't make a moral choice.

That could be, but it seems more the media’s current dilemma of dealing with Republican bad faith. If they don’t solicit & publish Republican views, Republicans whine and fundraiser off of it. When they do publish Republicans views readers object because the “views” poorly thought out facist garbage & Republicans make money. When the paper responds to readers (customers) Republicans object & raise money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2020 at 6:11 PM, Gone Drinking said:

So you are all for censoring someones opinion because you disagree with it.  You sir are a bigot plain and simple. 

The 'ol prof's nomination for stupid post of the month  . . 

Respectable newspapers (which arguably might include the Gray Lady) owe the Reich diddley squat. 

The Reich keeps on insisting that they have a god-given right to lie, and that media have a duty to publish the drivel. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't know what censoring is and doesn't know what bigot means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2020 at 1:49 PM, Olsonist said:

Actually, Bennet invited Cotton to write it. I'd like to know the full backstory on that. Bennet strikes me as a bothsiderist (aka centrist) who can't make a moral choice.

I'm not sure that's what it means in Arkansas.

Tom Cotton's Only Challenger Is a Black Libertarian Prison Chaplain
 

Quote

 

Sen. Tom Cotton's Democratic challenger, Josh Mahony, dropped out of the U.S. Senate race just hours after the filing deadline closed. Between this and Cotton's comments over the past few weeks, which range from calling slavery a "necessary evil" to calling for military force in American streets, many Arkansas voters worry that the Republican incumbent is running unopposed.

Actually, there's Ricky Dale Harrington, Jr.

"There is an alternative to Tom Cotton," reads a Tuesday headline from the Arkansas Times, reminding voters that Cotton's race is not as uncontested as some people believe.

...

 

Glad to see Mr. Harrington giving it a shot. I found his view of the death penalty weird.

Quote

He mentions the fight to posthumously test DNA evidence in the case of Ledell Lee, a death row inmate executed in 2017. The Innocence Project and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed a Freedom of Information Act suit to use DNA testing to see if Lee was innocent. If the DNA tests show that Arkansas killed an innocent man three years ago, Harrington says he will "vehemently oppose" the practice. As a chaplain for both the families of victims and the families of death row inmates, Harrington has seen how both sides are affected by capital punishment. "But," he adds, "it's hard to justify a system that executes an innocent person."

If? DNA tests have already shown that 18 innocent people landed on death row. So either no such mistakes and/or official misconduct occurred prior to the availability of DNA testing or what he fears has already happened. I'd guess the latter is more likely. Besides, it's hard to justify unnecessary killing of guilty people in my view.

But at least he's right about the stupid drug war and mass incarceration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this