*crickets*


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The things I remember most about him is being dead wrong about Iraq and his criticism of Sarah Palin.
Even though I disagreed with him on almost everything, he was at least consistent in his opinions and principles. Good writer too.

Cancer is a terrible thing

Fuck Him.


https://twitter.com/bfraser747/status/884763072044220416

loser motherfucker said Trump wasn't white nationalist at the same time he said the white nationalist line "America First"



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

(not named Shep Smith) could be

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://media.giphy.com/media/r8WtY1wSWSZTa/giphy.gif

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charles-krauthammer-conservative-voice-pulitzer-prize-winner-dies-68-n885581

and tell them what he contributed to the national conversation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-zimmerman-case--a-touch-of-sanity/2013/07/18/35f30c00-efdd-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html?utm_term=.a597832073ae

I hope the afterlife is real and they're in it pissing into his mouth unless he's into that in which case I hope they're just pissing around his mouth without quite reaching it.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>and tell them what he contributed to the national
>conversation.
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-zimmerman-case--a-touch-of-sanity/2013/07/18/35f30c00-efdd-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html?utm_term=.a597832073ae
>
>I hope the afterlife is real and they're in it pissing into
>his mouth unless he's into that in which case I hope they're
>just pissing around his mouth without quite reaching it.
>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Fuck him. Cancer is awful and nobody should suffer like that, but he was genuinely repugnant and our world is a worse place because of him.

You don't need to be sad when shitty people die.

I wouldn't call him repugnant. Especially if we are using a relative scale. Because there isn't much further down to go from there

with "where's the racism?" questions that went unanswered, but could be answered if he actually asked someone other than himself.

has been a huge boon to racism in this country

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I'm with RJCC, fuck this guy.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

But I want legit competition in the party system. It makes our country stronger. At this point, anyone bold enough to use their conservative platform to offer any criticism at all will be looked at one day like those poor souls who finally questioned Jim Jones. Have some pity.

show me what he actually did to oppose trump.

an action that benefited anyone targeted by this administration.

pretending it's not exactly what he wanted to happen is the lie you're falling for.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Listening to or least considering what they have to say....this dude wasnt one of them. He's a POS not worth looking for good shit to say about him.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

That's it, that's the list.

Ross Douthat?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Ross Douthat?

is pretending there's a "both sides" and that they're on one side of it.


all you need to do is ask who decided where the line is and whether or not he's consistently where he claims to be around it.


I have no problem with conservatism, low taxes and limited government has its appeal.

but it's weird, because krauthammer abandoned that thinking all the time (there's nothing conservative about launching into war in iraq). so even if I want to listen to "both sides" as defined, dude just doesn't fit.

so all you have left is the "well this isn't racism because" questions that he never really answers.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

But I clearly explained my agenda and therefore biased. I am looking for something that may not exist, but should. I won't beat myself up over that.

that I follow

I don't necessarily agree with everything they say

@popehat
@greg_doucette

a couple others.

I just don't think there is a conservative/liberal split.

there are people who will do even the smallest thing for human rights of people who aren't straight white dudes and people who won't

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

He just needed the right mentors and people in his corner to help him adjust to the fame and scrutiny.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Conservatives hate y'alls dumb asses.

criticized for being "unfair" to him.

Like, would he even think that's unfair?

That is... the logic for Iraq fits the theory of the reagan doctrine...not sure what the issue is...other than being wrong

I wasn't making an absolute equivalency

But to correct you...the carter doctrine's intent was the use of military force in the Mideast...and you'll also remember we were in a conflict with Iran during that administration

The Reagan doctrine was about toppling communist governments and allies

Regime change became the modern tactic = Reagan, IRT Iraq 2.0

This fucking place

IRT the logic and theory of the reagan doctrine

...which is instrumental in Kraut's political career...

Do you agree that that doctrine would lead us to the Iraq war when applied?

Which all of them argued at the time and years later, why is support for it considered insulting?

Cats like Kraut legitimized the lies by endorsing the idea in a capacity as an intellectual, etc...

It's one thing to make the mistake

It's another to try and try and try to rationalize the lie

That's what he did...and they want to distance themselves from the biggest error in US history

He would probably defend his stance today if given the chance, so I don't think he would mind folks bring up his Iraq history even in death.

In his farewell letter to the Washington Post, he said he has no regrets

that's not how this works

I see the connection.

It's so clear now.

Thanks

don't you know that you heathen?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

think is the worst person? The writer who wrote terrible thinly veiled racist shit, or the young black kid who abused women?

I'm not that sure the answer.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

CK affected more people? Help me understand.

I think this is an interesting turn because now we are getting to the point of what people care about.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Hawks and warmongers are the worst. But every human being is a full and multidimensional human being. What we see of other ppl is just a weak hologram of the full person.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

what do we purchase by not saying the same exact things about a person when they're dead that we said when they were alive?

show me the spoils.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

because I know for a fact you're lying.

you would, but you don't think there's anyone who would do anything to you justifying this response.

say that.

don't lie about what you wouldn't do on someone's grave.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

His face looked so plastic, maybe he’s just temporarily offline.

It makes no sense. I don't know where civility went to.

And the xxxtentacion thing was a larger general reaction to #metoo, which itself took off largely in reaction to Trump (even though it was created before him). If either one of them had died 5 or 6 years ago it wouldnt have been this way.

i think most Black folk will have less than desirable things to say about a white politician or tv personality who made decisions that cost loss of life or makes millions of folks life harder.

vs a rapper or athlete who has a history of domestic violence

wait until OJ or Ray Rice passes away. It’s going to be like carnival up in here. RKellys death is going to crash Black twitter and OKP. Gonna be some good parties that weekend.

Once he's gone, alot of the #metoo fervor will dissipate and things will go back to how they were before. The first version of metoo that jumped off after the Clarence Thomas hearings in the early 90s cooled off, too. If any of those people you mention die a long time after Trump goes away there wont be much of a real circus.

wait, they didn't?

this doesn't link the way you claim it does?

weird.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

That was in the fall of 2017, which is a whole year *before* Grab 'em by the pussy, in the Fall of 2016. Or something...

*rolls eyes*

There've always been isolated, high profile prosecutions of sexual assault/rape, dumbass. But #metoo has shifted the public conversation about this in general, and that's been in response to Donald Trump. And part of that shift is vocal, widespread condemnation of people like xxxtentacion. Shit, they tried to ban R. Kelly already back in the day, but that melted away. It's not melting now because #metoo has shifted things.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

if y'all weren't so lazy

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

we've toasted many deaths.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

i remember being among a contingent that was screaming ‘fuck ronald reagan’ in his rip post.

it's a little different than dancing on the grave of a rapper or actor

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I didn't like RR but even I was surprised at the time by how far folks were going in. I was also a lot younger.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

partially because there are some people the world is better off without, and partially because, fuck them.

I don't put Krauthammer in that category. He's someone i disagreed with and who's opinions i found abhorrent about a lot of shit. but i can say the same about people I actually know, none of whose graves i would dance on .

there were no bad people.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

it is in relation to the other replies here.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Lol

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Not you specifically, because well, you know, but I hate seeing this concept in general society. It's really disheartening.

real question, I've missed that part.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I don't think things have ever been this outwardly uncivil. I know I'm just getting old, but I don't recall having enemies over political ideologies. And I don't think I'd ever wish death or physical harm to them.

Not for someone just giving me their perspective. It's become toxic. I enjoy looking at other points of view, because I would never claim to know the answers to anything. However, nowadays you can't even disagree without ill intents.

>I don't think things have ever been this outwardly uncivil.
>I know I'm just getting old, but I don't recall having enemies
>over political ideologies. And I don't think I'd ever wish
>death or physical harm to them.

bruh -- I have no idea what world you thought you lived in. no one has enemies over political ideologies. I don't know who told you that lie or why you decided to believe it.

no one is getting upset over tax rates or whether weed legalization should be decided at the state or federal level. if you want to tell some lie about "political ideologies" please do me the courtesy of being civil and actually describing the discussion without using a meaningless buzzword.

it was pretty outwardly uncivil when people like you and me couldn't choose to live and work where we wanted to.

it's been pretty uncivil when cops have been mistreating and killing black people and getting away with it forever.

so what was civil?

you were driving into the sticks to have a peaceful conversation about black liberation politics with some friendly republicans in which bygone decade exactly?


>
>Not for someone just giving me their perspective. It's become
>toxic. I enjoy looking at other points of view, because I
>would never claim to know the answers to anything. However,
>nowadays you can't even disagree without ill intents.

you're not disagreeing, you're lying. people disagree without ill intents all the time. The people who claim you can't disagree, are the people who are upset that their preferred ideology is no longer the only acceptable one.

But maybe I'm wrong. maybe you can find one of these people who has ever done anything to push for viewpoints that weren't their own.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>>I don't think things have ever been this outwardly uncivil.
>
>>I know I'm just getting old, but I don't recall having
>enemies
>>over political ideologies. And I don't think I'd ever wish
>>death or physical harm to them.
>
>bruh -- I have no idea what world you thought you lived in. no
>one has enemies over political ideologies. I don't know who
>told you that lie or why you decided to believe it.
>
>no one is getting upset over tax rates or whether weed
>legalization should be decided at the state or federal level.
>if you want to tell some lie about "political ideologies"
>please do me the courtesy of being civil and actually
>describing the discussion without using a meaningless
>buzzword.
>
>it was pretty outwardly uncivil when people like you and me
>couldn't choose to live and work where we wanted to.
>
>it's been pretty uncivil when cops have been mistreating and
>killing black people and getting away with it forever.
>
>so what was civil?
>
>you were driving into the sticks to have a peaceful
>conversation about black liberation politics with some
>friendly republicans in which bygone decade exactly?
>

We are talking about 2 totally different things here. I'm not disagreeing with you at all about these things. I don't think Mr. Krauthammer personifies any of the issues. I'm certain he never killed a black person himself and claimed it to be self defense. I don't think he ever stopped a person of color from moving in to his neighborhood.


>
>>
>>Not for someone just giving me their perspective. It's
>become
>>toxic. I enjoy looking at other points of view, because I
>>would never claim to know the answers to anything. However,
>>nowadays you can't even disagree without ill intents.
>
>you're not disagreeing, you're lying. people disagree without
>ill intents all the time. The people who claim you can't
>disagree, are the people who are upset that their preferred
>ideology is no longer the only acceptable one.
>
>But maybe I'm wrong. maybe you can find one of these people
>who has ever done anything to push for viewpoints that weren't
>their own.
>
Man, come on. I'm not saying people push for other viewpoints. That's not even my point. I am not mad at any person voting in their best interest. There are plenty of people who have gained quite a bit from this presidential administration.

My whole point was that he never seemed to be a major firebrand selling lies and mistruths like others in the current climate do. He's not out here inciting people to act crazy. He just was a columnist. I didn't consider him to be disrespectful at all. Maybe I need to see what he said that made you hate him so much.


>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

because imo, if you invoke the name of medgar evers to explain why another black man being shot isn't actually racist then you're being very disrespectful.

Whether or not he ever stopped anyone from moving into his neighborhood is a moot point, he provided all the justifications for people who did.

The idea that only people who are loud, rude and violent are the bad ones is the lie people like krauthammer hide behind.

he's calm, he's rational-sounding and he didn't do anything to help people who weren't like him.



I've changed a lot over the years on certain things, but I've never changed the way I address people specifically because if I say something and someone is upset bc of how I said it instead of whether or not it's true, I know they weren't serious about the conversation or taking action.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The people who supported the Iraq War told a lie that's got, what, like a million bodies now? None of them, of any political stripe, deserve to be taken seriously as thinkers ever again. Unlike Iraqi children, they'll get to die peacefully at a totally normal time. But the only appropriate response to any of them, any time they try to tell us something about the world, is "please shut the fuck up forever."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer100702.asp

Jewish World Review Oct. 7, 2002/ 1 Mar-Cheshvan 5763
Charles Krauthammer

What Good Is Delay?

There are two logically coherent positions one can take on war with Iraq.

Hawks favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists. The threat of mass death on a scale never before seen residing in the hands of an unstable madman is intolerable -- and must be preempted.

Doves oppose war on the grounds that the risks exceed the gains. War with Iraq could be very costly, possibly degenerating into urban warfare. It likely would increase the chances of weapons of mass destruction being loosed by a Saddam Hussein facing extinction and with nothing to lose. Moreover, Saddam Hussein has as yet never used these weapons against America and its allies because he is deterred by our overwhelming power. Why disturb the status quo? Deterrence served us well against such monsters as Stalin and Mao. It will serve us just as well in containing a much weaker Saddam Hussein.

Preemption is the position of the Bush administration hawks. Deterrence is advanced by a small number of congressional Democratic doves. But, ah, there is a third way. It is the position of Democratic Party elders Al Gore, Ted Kennedy (both of whom delivered impassioned speeches attacking the president's policy) and, as far as can be determined, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. This third way accepts all the premises of the antiwar camp. It gives us all the reasons why war could be catastrophic: chemical or bio-weapon attacks, door-to-door fighting in Baghdad, alienating allies, destroying the worldwide coalition of the war on terror, encouraging the recruitment of new terrorists, etc.

Moreover, they argue, deterrence works. "I have seen no persuasive evidence," said Kennedy, "that Saddam would not be deterred from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming military superiority." So far, so good. But then these senior Democratic critics, having eviscerated the president's premises, proceed to enthusiastically endorse his conclusion -- that Saddam Hussein's weapons facilities must be subjected to the most intrusive and far-reaching inspection, and that if he cheats and refuses to cooperate, we must go to war against him.

This is utterly incoherent. In principle, a search for genocidal weapons that can be hidden in a basement or even a closet cannot possibly succeed without the full cooperation of the host government. Not a serious person on the planet believes that Saddam Hussein will give it.

More important, why are these critics insisting on inspection and disarmament anyway? They have elucidated all the various costs of attempting to disarm Iraq forcibly, and told us that deterrence has worked just fine to keep Saddam Hussein from doing us any harm. If deterrence works, by what logic does Kennedy insist that Saddam Hussein "must be disarmed"?

The enthusiasm of these senior Democrats for inspections is really nothing more than an argument for delay. Yet what advantage is there to delay? The war will be just as costly tomorrow as today. Even assuming that delay gets us a few extra allies, how does that prevent Saddam Hussein from launching his awful weapons or resorting to urban warfare?

The virtue of delay is that it gives Democrats political cover. Ever since George McGovern, Democrats have been trying to escape their reputation for being soft, indeed unserious, on foreign policy. The last time Saddam Hussein threatened the peace (by invading Kuwait), seven out of 10 Democrats in Congress voted against authorizing the use of force and in favor of the useless pseudo-solution of sanctions. So this time, the Democrats' leaders make the antiwar argument but have the political savvy to conclude by running up the flag and sounding the bugle.

I happen to believe that the preemption school is correct, that the risks of allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire his weapons will only grow with time. Nonetheless, I can both understand and respect those few Democrats who make the principled argument against war with Iraq on the grounds of deterrence, believing that safety lies in reliance on a proven (if perilous) balance of terror rather than the risky innovation of forcible disarmament by preemption.

What is hard both to understand and to respect, however, is the delay school. They tell us that this war will be both terrible and unnecessary -- and then come out foursquare in support of starting it later, after Saddam Hussein has refused to play nice with inspectors. They manage to criticize the war, and still come out in favor of it. A neat trick -- and, given the gravity of the issue, an unseemly one.

so what's a million bodies give or take as long as you say it the right way?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

He is just giving his opinion.

Krauthammer was famously wrong and stubborn about what he thought the outcome of an Iraq war would be like.
He said it would be in and out. Mission accomplished in 2 weeks max. That was not a lie. That is what he thought would happen.
And his opinion of the world suggested that it needed to happen. Again, probably wrong. But not a lie

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/08/the-trouble-with-charles-krauthammer



"When Barack Obama began positioning himself as a presidential aspirant, toward the end of 2006, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer offered some encouraging words. Obama, he wrote at the time, has “an affecting personal history.” More importantly, he had something in common with another once-popular presidential aspirant, Colin Powell; both, it turned out, were black. “Race is only one element in their popularity,” Krauthammer noted, “but an important one. A historic one. Like many Americans, I long to see an African-American ascend to the presidency. It would be an event of profound significance, a great milestone in the unfolding story of African-Americans achieving their rightful, long-delayed place in American life.” Though the column made a strong case for Obama’s candidacy in terms of his identity, it included not a word concerning what the first-term Senator might bring to the table in terms of policy.

Less than two years later, Krauthammer was expressing disgust with those who would make the case for Obama’s candidacy in terms of his identity, rather than his policies. “The pillars of American liberalism—the Democratic Party, the universities and the mass media—are obsessed with biological markers, most particularly race and gender,” he helpfully explained, adding that the 2008 Democratic primary represented “the full flowering of identity politics.



"When NATO sought to derail another potential Balkan genocide by way of its 1999 air bombing campaign against Serbia, Krauthammer denounced the move as mere wide-eyed liberal amateurism on the part of Clinton, arguing that air strikes would be insufficient to force Milosevic out of Kosovo. Bizarrely enough, he tried to convince his readers that General Wesley Clark agreed, quoting the then-NATO commander as telling Jim Lehrer, “we never thought that through air power we could stop these killings on the ground.” But the columnist leaves out the rest of Clark’s answer, in which it is explained that “the person who has to stop this is President Milosevic” and that the purpose of the air campaign was to force him to do just that. For good measure, Krauthammer also criticizes Clinton for playing golf in the midst of conflict (“The stresses of war, no doubt”); he seems to have changed his mind on the propriety of such stress-relief measures around 2002 or so."


"He concluded the 2003 column with the suggestion that, if “in a year or two we are able to leave behind a stable, friendly government, we will have succeeded. If not, we will have failed. And all the geniuses will be vindicated.” Two years later, Krauthammer followed up by admitting to his failures and acknowledging the predictive superiority of his opponents.

Just kidding.

Instead, he took to denouncing retired military figures like John Batiste as the “I-know-better generals” for second-guessing Rumsfeld, whom he continued to support after even William Kristol had begun calling for the defense secretary’s resignation. Later, when the surge was proposed, Krauthammer came out against the idea, explaining in a 2007 column that it “will fail” due to the perfidy and incompetence of the Maliki government; today, he deems the strategy to have been a success. Thus it is that this most respected of conservative commentators may be the only pundit in the country to have been wrong about every major U.S. foreign policy question of the last decade."

your argument is just that he's too stupid to be listened to, which is, I guess, a take.

it opens doors for other questions

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

"Preemption is the position of the Bush administration hawks. Deterrence is advanced by a small number of congressional Democratic doves."

That assumption is the lie - that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The hawks want to pre-emptively strike so that these fictional weapons are never used. And the doves want to deter Iraq from using weapons they didn't possess.

And the reason the topic of war with Iraq was even on the table is an additional bit of question-begging: the article doesn't get written without assuming that Iraq had some role in the September 11th attack.

I guess, if you really wanted to bat for this guy, you could just say he's not a liar but a regular old columnist who stands at this weird intersection of both incredible gullibility AND incredible influence. And further, that this credulous taste-maker is also so extraordinary reckless that he was willing to wager peoples' lives in the six or seven digits.

I think he was a liar. But the alternative, that he was a horrifying combination of stupid and evil, isn't really a virtue.

Sorry but I think he knew our intentions weren’t a 2 week war.

Ionno, just sounds like a wish more than an opinion.

first of all, his surname: KRAUTHAMMER sounds like someone making fun of Germans.

but whenever he was on TV it was as if he had taken sips of NyQuil before going on camera

he reminded me of those puppets from the Phil Collins Land of Confusion video

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

Not someone I found myself agreeing with but he was vaguely professional, not like the Hannity and O'Reilly type douchebags

Fuck Charles Krautnauer and everyone who thinks positively of him with a pigs dick.

Let the piece of shit be forgotten.