Trump: “Thank You President T”

President Donald Trump often seems to double down after criticism and this morning may be such an example.  Trump has been widely excoriated for his response to what he was thankful for on Thanksgiving.  Trump was thankful for his own leadership and success.  Now Trump has tweeted “Thank You President T” after noting falling gas prices.On Thanksgiving, Trump responded to the standard “what are you thankful for” question with “For having a great family and for having made a tremendous difference in this country. I’ve made a tremendous difference in the country. This country is so much stronger now than it was when I took office that you wouldn’t believe it.”

That led to a chorus of criticism, including those who felt that Trump also made Thanksgiving calls to the troops political this year.

Trump often seems to double down and this seems to be such a case with a tweet this morning reading: “So great that oil prices are falling (thank you President T).”

It reminds me a bit of Bob Dole who often referenced himself in third person. Here Trump references himself in third person and then compliments himself.  It is an entirely self-contained celebration of self — an impressive accomplishment even in Washington.

134 thoughts on “Trump: “Thank You President T””

  1. What is the difference between The Donald and a pumpkin?

    The pumpkin doesn’t start out hollow.

    1. Tremendous! Right there in Beltway City. And that starts with T and the rhymes with P and that stands for POTUS.

  2. Regarding the loyal (to his “country” the state of Virginia) and honorable General Robert E. Lee, who chose to lead the South in its fight to protect the institution of slavery –

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” (Samuel Johnson, 1775)

    Robert E. Lee on two occasions took an oath to defend the USA. Once when he entered West Point and a second time when he took a commission as an officer in the US Army. Lee violated his solemn oaths when he abandoned the USA and fought against it for the Confederacy.

    1. My remarks about General Robert E. Lee were in response to the statement by General Stan McChrystal about finally giving up his adoration of the “marble man” General Lee. McChrystal’s statement was provided in a comment by Mark M.

    2. RDAY::
      He swore an oath to his state, too. And as for Johnson’s quip, it’s a statement about scoundrels not patriotism. Lee was no scoundrel. Your simplistic assessment of Lee’s decision comes from a person never facing a choice betwen duty to family and friends and duty to country. It’s only easy when you’ve got no skin in the game.

      1. Your faith in Lee’s nobility is belied by his traitorous nature. He should have been hung for treason.

          1. Mespo, a whole bunch of people on this blog are ignorant of history. Therefore, they are unable to judge a man’s character based on date and place. In general people of that nature have little character themselves and that is why they can easily render an opinion on another’s character who they know nothing about.

              1. I think what is happening among others in this conversation is the comingling of Honor with the disagreement over the environment of the times, that is stating that Honor = slavery. In my view the former if strictly adhered to is generally worthy of praise and transcends changes in society.

                An anecdote as an example.

                Many years ago when I was working the road I heard dispatch send out an “echo” level emergency call over the fire channel of a motor vehicle accident where the car went into a large irrigation canal and the driver was still inside. The scene was six miles outside of my jurisdiction and I was the only person working that day. We had a general department policy that required that if only one person is on duty, we do not respond to outside aid calls.

                I decided to respond anyway due to the immediate high risk of death to the driver from drowning. There were no calls pending and I could get there in three to four minutes. I arrived just as a firefighter who happened to be closer did. We pulled the driver from the canal and he was shaken up but otherwise ok. When other personnel arrived a bit later I returned back.

                A day or two later I was called over and told that I would face discipline because I left my jurisdiction without prior authorization in responding to the crash at the canal. I stated that it was necessary and in fact the dispatch center’s operating procedures listed “echo” response as being the highest priority and in-fact gave in its example as a car in an irrigation canal in the training manuals.

                We went back and forth. Essentially it was his position that the department policy was there to ensure that there was always someone working there and should be strictly observed for the general protection of the public. My position was that such policies are generally merited but become merely a guideline when faced with extreme situations. We cannot allow a person to face death or serious injury because some arbitrary policy prohibits help from being sent. All the victim wants is to be helped and couldn’t care less what kind of shoulder patch that help wears. I also stated that the case law generally would be in my favor if the department chose to further sanction me.

                Now here is where the topic of Honor comes into play.

                The administration official who brought this matter up had himself a tragedy relating to accidents in irrigation canals. Many years prior he lost his teen-aged daughter to a motor vehicle accident. A car she was riding in went off the highway and crashed into an irrigation canal. She drowned afterward.

                Now, years later this administrator is faced with a subordinate who violated a department policy to address a situation that mirrored that which caused the death of his own daughter. One could expect that of all people, he would be the one to simply look the other way at what I did. Yet despite this horrific loss he suffered he believed in his mind that the department policy must be adhered to and we don’t leave the jurisdiction unstaffed despite whatever may tempt us away.

                For me I cannot agree with his position but we can genuinely respect and admire his sense of Honor in that he held firm to his principles despite it being greatly at odds with what he faced in the past. Such a conflict must have been great in his mind. Overcoming this and going against his feelings must have been immense.

                I think what happened in the end was that both sides made some compelling arguments for their position and we were at an impasse, yet both wanted the discipline matter to go away. It stopped at a verbal warning. The concession was that I promise not to do it again. I told him that I better understood his position, but I could not promise to go should the exact situation happen in the future.

                Despite this being an unpleasant experience I gained a bit more admiration for him. He wasn’t just another administrator who demanded blind adherence to rules without thinking. His demand of adherence to the rule was truly genuine despite what happened.

                So for the future I still believe the department policy needed to change for this one-off type of extreme case and I believe it should have been contested if the department pursued it further. My position is that human life supersedes policy. But if that future came where I had another situation where there was another type of call, I went, and he moved to enforce discipline. He applies his process and I take the punishment. He performed on his sense of duty and Honor, and I performed on mine.

                And afterwards, we go have coffee and talk about the weather. We both did what we had to and its time to move on.

                The same story is applicable to what is being discussed about these Confederate generals and other officials, or any other type of discussion of an Honor Culture. The admiration comes in the strength and will to abide by one’s values, principles and duty. We can criticize the application or the situation, but we should admire the strength to maintain Honor.

                1. There was honor on the supervisors part in enforcing policy despite his tragedy but more on your part for ignoring it and valuing life over regulations. Though having known you only a short time, I still would have bet you would choose the honorable way.

                    1. Darren:
                      I like rules. Even made a few myself, but I remember what WW1 British flying ace, Harry Day said about them: “Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.” Churchill said it was his favorite quote and not so coincidentally mine, too.

              2. I’ve just a couple of seconds now, but I find it interesting Sam Houston getting run out of Texas for opposing the War of Northern Aggression.

                AKA Another Bankers War!

                1. ALERT! I would have everyone note the time, date, and place where okie contributed a comment that was relevant, timely, and cogent to the topic at hand. As a matter of fact, General Sam Houston’s last official act was one of honor.

                  After the secession of many other Southern states in 1861, the focus of popular opinion in Texas was to join with the nascent Confederacy. Governor Houston refused, and the Texas legislature declared the governorship vacant. Houston relented, and gave the following address at his leaving:

                  Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.

                  General Sam soon retired to Huntsville, where he died after a brief illness in 1863. Upon his tomb the following is inscribed:

                  A Brave Soldier. A Fearless Statesman.
                  A Great Orator—A Pure Patriot.
                  A Faithful Friend, A Loyal Citizen.
                  A Devoted Husband and Father.
                  A Consistent Christian—An Honest Man.

                  The hero of Texas independence and the victor over Santa Anna at San Jacinto died as he lived; with honor.

          2. mespo:

            All confederates who laid down their arms were given amnesty. It was time to heal up the wounds. This had nothing to do with Lee being “honorable.”

            Regarding Lee’s being a racist and harsh slave master, it is documented that he ordered recaptured runaway slaves to be punished with 50 lashes. While they were being lashed, Lee ordered the county constable tending to this task to “lay it on well.” “Reading the Man” by Elizabeth Brown Pryor, pp., 260-61. (Full cite in my prior comment.)

            1. Lawful institution at the time addressing lawful actions within the lawful boundaries of the law.

              let’s observe reality here which is the only rights that “exist” socially– are not just the paper tigers but the real ones that bite. that is the ones that can be enforced in court by well paid lawyers and convinced judges; or other lawful representatives or at the highest level of conflict by victorious armies.

              That’s the “right” that the North won at Appomattox. The right of victorious conquest, not some legal argument or other moralistic nonsense. A price paid for in blood and life of hundreds of thousands of men

              The disgusting moralizing of Leftist iconoclasts! Maybe we will settle our conflicts and political questions eventually the way Lincoln did. I fully look up to Lincoln– for winning.

            2. “All confederates who laid down their arms were given amnesty. It was time to heal up the wounds. This had nothing to do with Lee being “honorable.”

              If Lee were dishonorable things might have been different.

              1. Allan:
                Exactly, he could have called for a bloody unending guerilla war which would have resulted in countless deaths. Too honorable for that but RDKAY wouldn’t understand. Here’s CSA Col. Porter Alexander’s memoirs of the decision. It is my favorite even over Longstreet’s:

                “Thereupon Alexander proposed, as an alternative to surrender, that the men take to the woods with their arms, under orders to report to governors of their respective states.

                “What would you hope to accomplish by that?” Lee queried.

                It might prevent the surrender of the other armies, Alexander argued, because if the Army of Northern Virginia laid down its arms, all the others would follow suit, whereas, if the men reported to the governors, each state would have a chance of making an honorable peace. Besides, Alexander went on, the men had a right to ask that they be spared the humiliation of asking terms of Grant, only to be told that U. S. “Unconditional Surrender” Grant would live up to the name he had earned at Fort Donelson and at Vicksburg.

                Lee saw such manifest danger in this proposal to become guerillas that he began to question Alexander: “If I should take your advice, how many men do you suppose would get away?”

                “Two-thirds of us. We would be like rabbits and partridges in the bushes and they could not scatter to follow us.”

                “I have not over 15,000 muskets left,” Lee explained. “Two-thirds of them divided among the states, even if all could be collected, would be too small a force to accomplish anything. All could not be collected. Their homes have been overrun, and many would go to look after their families.

                “Then, General,” he reasoned further, “you and I as Christian men have no right to consider only how this would affect us. We must consider its effect on the country as a whole. Already it is demoralized by the four years of war. If I took your advice, the men would be without rations and under no control of officers. They would be compelled to rob and steal in order to live. They would become mere bands of marauders, and the enemy’s cavalry would pursue them and overrun many sections they may never have occasion to visit. We would bring on a state of affairs it would take the country years to recover from. And, as for myself, you young fellows might go bushwhacking, but the only dignified course for me would be to go to General Grant and surrender myself and take the consequences of my acts.”

                Lee paused, and then he added, outwardly hopeful, on the strength of Grant’s letter of the previous night, whatever his inward misgivings, “But I can tell you one thing for your comfort. Grant will not demand an unconditional surrender. He will give us as good terms as this army has the right to demand, and I am going to meet him in the rear at 10 A.M. and surrender the army on the condition of not fighting again until exchanged.”

                Alexander went away a humbler man. “I had not a single word to say in reply,” he wrote years afterwards. “He had answered my suggestion from a plane so far above it, that I was ashamed of having made it.”

                Indeed, he had!

                1. he had the command. he saw not just enemies here but opportunities and enemies far ahead in the future. he was a real American patriot and did as much to preserve the might of a reunited USA as the Yankees did. that’s why he’s been honored by Northernors with a sense of history too, for so long, up until weaklings like McKrhystal open their toothless maws and whine.

                  these leftist running yapping jackals of today don’t care about the viability and prosperity of today’s USA; they only care for the success of their own petty causes. They want a bigger tribute to their partisan extortion even if their parasitism kills the host. Mychrisstlal is just licking a different pair of boots he thinks may step on him soon. he’s a coward

                  that’s why he and they are not honorable and deserve harsh criticism and more

                  1. Awesome display of your craven weakness and resultant need for the image the day glo bozo presents. General McChrystal has done more for America, Americans, and the American military than any jabbering buffoon on this corner of bedlam could even dream. I will attribute your ignorance to your failure to inform and educate yourself beyond the claptrap and hully-gully spewed by your hero and ball-baggee hannity.

                    this is to “ya know, once you get them all the way in your mouth, it all seems worthwhile” kurtzie

              2. Lee didn’t terrorize a civilian population like Yankee General Sherman with what today would be clear war crimes


                same kind of apologizing for Sherman is used for Allied bombing which intentionally incinerated hundreds of thousands of German and Jap civilians in WW2

                but the apologies never stop; it’s always slavery / Lee holocaust / Hitler a series of equations that exonerates atrocities committed by the victors

                it’s so much petty, dirty moralizing about how awful the defeated are, by modern day partisans who take aim at the present by rekilling the losers of the past.

                A clean adversary would just say they lost and be done with it.

            3. RDKAY:

              “Regarding Lee’s being a racist and harsh slave master, it is documented that he ordered recaptured runaway slaves to be punished with 50 lashes. ”
              You’re like the kid who rushes to the home of the lake owner to exclaim, “Hey mister, there’s fish in there!” Being a native Virginian for six decades tomorrow and educated in Virginia schools and colleges, I’m fully aware of that story and even the one of Thomas Jefferson’s similar treatment of his slave, James Hubbard. (I suppose Jefferson was worthless and a traitor, too.) What both men did were legal and moral under the mores of the times. We abhor it today but we didn’t live then and are in no position to judge actions or morals we neither created nor fully understand. You might recall the most passionate defense of slavery was theological and purely in terms of the texts, it was spot on. You have the discernment of the infant eschewing any nuance or frailty in great persons. You want your heroes ideologically pure and your villains evil to the core. It’s a child-like world view but you’re welcome to it. If you really want to show us your moral superiority, go work in a soup kitchen.

            4. While I understand where you’re coming from, I can’t help but wonder how you would deal with the foundational greats of Western Culture. How do Socrates, Plato, Aristotle or Saint Augustine–all of whom supported the peculiar institution of slavery–fare in your after-the-fact excoriation of a facet of human existence which more learned moderns have recently learned should be eradicated? The undeniable fact is that different historical eras will necessarily embark distinct ideals of morality. The original point of my post was to illustrate the angst that many of those who admire General Lee for his martial prowess and moral strength when contrasted with the goals of the rebellion for which he fought. General Lee is dead. Your paltry and hysterical exhortations regarding what you believe his code of conduct should have been 170 years ago isn’t likely to sway many of his adherents; all of whom are already well-aware of the modern-day tension interpreting the relationship between honor and slavery in those troubling times. In speaking for myself, I could see the statues being moved into museums or some such. Ones such as yourself could also console yourself with removing his name from schools, as is sporadically occurring now. However, to paraphrase a famous orator of the time, I–and many, many others–will never forget what he, his men, and his opponents did on those hallowed grounds.

              to rkday

      2. Mespo::

        Lee did not believe that the Constitution permitted secession – yet he personally seceded and fought for the CSA. On the other hand, about 40 percent of US Army officers from Virginia remained loyal to the US Army and actually fought against the Confederacy. Many “(o)thers opted not to fight on any side.” “Reading the Man/A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters” by Elizabeth Brown Pryor (2007, Penguin Books 2008, pp. 286, 292).

        Further, Lee clearly was a racist. (I know, so were most Southerners at that time – so chalk it up to the “times and the customs”.) So Lee’s defection from the US Army to the CSA was likely because of his desire to protect the institution of slavery as much as it was due to loyalty to Virginia.

        1. RDKAY:
          Actually the word “racist” didn’t enter the lexicon until about 1903 and perhaps as late as the 1930s. So no one was a racist in the 19th Century. Also your swami act needs some work, too.

          1. Mespo: But YOU know what “racism” means, and – even if the word did not exist in the 1860’s, that does not rationally prevent us from applying it to mind-sets and actions that fit the term.

            Your response was purely pedantic, and did not in any way address the reality of Lee’s thinking and actions.

            1. RDKAY:

              I define “racism” as deciding things irrelevant to race based on race. It used to go by its more accurate cousin-word “stupidity.” “Racism” is just a word to throw at people you don’t like. It’s used so often and inappropriately it’s meaningless.

              As for Lee, I’ not in the habit of judging people who didn’t have access to our standards and experiences. You might as well judge those Sentinilese tribesman who killed the American missionary by Russian civil law for all the good it would do you. Similarly, I wouldn’t want you to be judged by Lee’s standards for you surely would have been on the losing end of a fight or worse.

              You wanna virtue signal your supposed moral superiority over Lee, have at it. History just chuckles.

              1. Well, mespo, based on your statement that the past cannot be judged, I expect – and hope – that we will never hear from you again on anything that already has occurred. That leaves you to address only those things that have not yet occurred. Good riddance.

            2. by certain contemporary standards they were all racists lincoln included so what does it matter. You’re just another online activist attempting to demoralize white americans with false guilt trips. Just scoring rhetorical nonsense points today to intimidate white people into throwing overboard their cherished american heroes in favor of those of your own picking

              offer to self denigrate declined. Go pitch a cultural revolution style self criticism event somewhere else

        2. RDKAY, I wish I knew what your definition of the term ‘racist’ might have been in the pre and immediate post Civil War time. You have applied the word to people who lived at a time where the word didn’t exist.

          Many don’t realize it but free black men also owned slaves. Were they racist as well?

          Another thing not readily recognized is that the firsts slaves in the Colonies weren’t black, they were white and I believe their life span was a lot shorter. Was white slavery racism as well?

          Do you recall ancient history, Sparta and Athens? Do you know who the Helots were? They were slaves to the Spartan State. They (Messenians) were conquered by the Spartans. Conquest was the nature of slavery for millenia and that was not directed at the color of one’s skin.

    3. Lee lived at the time when it was widely believed that states had the prerogative to withdraw from the Union. So in his case he believed his state’s cause was just and lawful and the federal regime’s action tyrannical.

      So you’re judging him unfairly by the standards of your own time.

      Many folks will continue to regard him with high honors whether people like it or not. You can take down his statutes but the memory lives on

      1. Mr. Kurtz: Just as I said before: chalk it up to the “times and the customs.” With that precept, we would never be permitted to make a judgment about the propriety of any historical thinking or action. In short, we would have to live by the common, meaningless, and stupid statement: “It is what it is.”

        1. wrong. it’s only evaluating things in proper context and not being unfair to people who are dead. but this is really a tactic for politics of today, that is, iconoclasm, just as when the Persian tyrants sacked Athens they tore down the “pagan idols” etc. or the Taliban bombing the Bamiyan buddhas.

          You have your values and they are not ours. The matter is one of political conflict. I refuse your moral judgments. You are not my boss nor my priest or my kin. I totally reject your false authority to pontificate.

          1. Who really cares what you reject!? The fact is that you are making the judgment that one should never judge. You don’t see any inconsistency in that? Don’t bother replying again. You are a waste of my time.

            1. RDKAY, you seemed to have missed the points made by mespo and kurtz because instead of learning how to think historically you seem to prefer virtue signalling.

              Don’t bother with your usual reply. I’ll do it for you.


  3. Hospital admissions trends have been declining since 2013. Difficult to blame The Donald for that.

    1. The President depends on people like you to spread the good news of how good the President is doing. Keep up the good work.

  4. Here the price of gasoline has been going up all fall. Currently all the stations are charging $3.399.

    1. Ouch!! wow it’s a lot cheaper here in flyover land. Try 2.15

      But you can enjoy the other positives you may have out there which surely are better than saving money, such as all the interesting social discord! I mean social diversity, that is.

  5. “Republicans don’t want white hate groups and militia’s investigated because it goes against the narrative.”
    Sheer hate-based lunacy on display with this statement. James Alex Fields Jr. goes on trial for murder tomorrow in Charlottesville. He will be tried by jurors representing every party and affiliation. He was investigated and charged. Now we’ll see if he’s guilty. That’s the narrative we all live by.

    1. How many rethuglicans are in favor of his prosecution; very few of tRump’s supporters or Lee’s for that matter.

    2. When and if they put on evidence that supports his likely defense that he felt that he was in fear of his life from violent antifa protestors cutting off demonstrators, beating them up, maybe beating him up earlier in the day, and then hitting his car with bats, and that he reacted in self defense, excessively or not, perhaps he will be exonerated of the worst charges and they will be looking for some kind of felony murder charge instead. if they set it up that way as a possibility. if it’s all or nothing, maybe he just gets off the hook

      and then watch the riots begin

      but if fields gets locked away for life, well, don’t expect whitey to raise a fuss. just aint programmed that way

  6. Hows it feel to have to face your friends and explain where got a deal on BS?


    Remember “Springtime For Hitler”? That was the deliberately bad stage play being mounted by Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder in Hollywood’s “The Producers”. It then became a play within a play with the Broadway hit of same title.

    Every day of Trump’s presidency feels like “Springtime For Hitler”; with an over-the-top buffoon playing main character. Consequently Americans now engage in endless, stupid arguments because of false statements uttered by Trump. Or clear and present realities Trump keeps denying.

    One need look no further then this Comments section to see live, stupid arguments regarding Trump’s buffoonery. Which makes ‘me’ a buffoon, or sorts, for engaging in these arguments! Every commenter here, including myself, has been compromised intellectually.

    These arguments are stupid because truth no longer matters. The truth is now ‘political’ and loyal Trump supporters promptly change the subject. ‘It’s not about the truth”, they write, “It’s about Hillary’s emails. We can’t discuss the truth until Hillary has been indicted”.

    This is where it gets so stupid ‘I’ feel stupid responding! The Trumpers insist: “Truth is left wing bias! Fact-checkers are notorious for liberal politics”.

    “We can’t discuss Climate Change until we’ve addressed Uranium One”. “We can’t examine healthcare until Obama accounts for his citizenship”. The truth must always wait until every grievance of rightwing media viewers has been settled on their terms.

    They’re mad about a lot of things so truth will have to wait at least a generation. Until then mischief makers like Trump are a ‘necessary evil to shake up the establishment’.

    1. PH–You say you “feel stupid responding”. If so, why did you respond? As an opposing, echoing respondent, I say, “Thank you President T” for a job well done! A job well done in spite of naysayers like PH!

    2. PH said, “Every commenter here, including myself, has been compromised intellectually.”

      I get your point. Whack-A-Mole is a thankless task. But don’t be so hard on yourself. If nobody wields the Nerf mallet, then the Whack-A-Mole moles will pop up everywhere.

      Keep on slapping them silly, Mr. H.

      1. He’s not my moral arbiter and neither are you.
        I learned one lesson from the “Left” and that is all values are relative to our place and time. That btw they derived from Martin Heidegger.

        But my place time and values are not those of the 1960s liberal yippies who now wear depends undergarments and want to smoke joints and curry favor with the lumpen masses from their academic perches pretending it’s the 1968 Dem convention and time to tear ordered society up yet again. Here’s what I think about that: maybe it would have been better if Mayor Daley had told the cops to shoot rioters on sight instead of just clubbing them!

        1. Let me spell that out clearly

          a) i learned in school all values are relative
          b) i learned in school i am an individual who is “free”
          c) since all values are relative and i am free… then my choice to choose to be a knuckle dragging Trump supporter is just as morally valid as the bedwetters who pine for Hillary
          d) ergo i could care less if the left and bedwetters want to cast judgment on my values because as I learned from them, they have no such right to judge me

          Now you can understand why Marlon brando said “you have a right to kill me but not to judge me”

          and why

          “it is judgement that defeats us”

          the days of beating up on whitey who takes it lying down are over.
          the days of us self-limiting to appease our oppressors draws to an end.

    3. “The truth is now ‘political’ and loyal Trump supporters promptly change the subject.”

      Perhaps the truth, as Marxists asserted, drawing on Hegel, is dialectical.

      And in this dialectic, we won’t just give up and die. So sorry!

      (Imagine the gall of conservatives to adopt something that Leftists elevated long ago! how dare we)

  8. A reflection of what true leaders look like is appropriate in this topic. I grew up in the South, the son of a Civil War buff whose passion I copied. Thus, I knew the names of our mythological heroes from an early age; that Pantheon was of course capped by Robert E. Lee. As I matured, I continued to marvel at the exploits of the outstanding tactical leadership on the battlefield shown by our butternut and gray Generals, while at the same time recognizing the horror of what the world would be like had the South won–and what the South ultimately was fighting for.
    General McChrystal has written a piece published in the Post, which accurately accesses the tension many–including myself–feel regarding the place our Confederate heroes hold in the 21st Century. McChrystal starts at the top, with Marse Robert himself. I consider McChrystal’s thoughtful piece to be apolitical–and one that I recommend to all Johnny Rebs, so I have brought it here outside of the paywall.

    By Stan McChrystal
    NOVEMBER 21, 2018

    From my earliest days, Robert E. Lee felt close at hand. I attended Washington and Lee High School in Arlington, Va., and began my soldier’s life at Lee’s alma mater, the U.S. Military Academy. Today, if Lee still lived in his childhood home in Alexandria, Va., we would be neighbors. So it felt appropriate, when I was a young Army lieutenant, that my wife bought me an inexpensive painting of the famed Southern warrior. And from the wall of the many quarters we occupied over 34 years, Lee’s portrait was literally watching over me. Through the lens of military history and our seemingly parallel lives, he was my hero — brilliant, valiant and loyal.

    As early as his days at West Point, Lee stood out. His classmates nicknamed the studious, near-perfect cadet the “Marble Man.” But over time, even marble’s flaws become more visible.

    In the summer of 2017, my wife, Annie, urged me to take down the picture. Disgusted by the images of hate and white supremacy that had descended on Charlottesville in the form of angry, torch-bearing men, she felt that Lee’s picture risked offending guests to our home by sending an unintended message of agreement with the protesters who had sought to preserve a statue of the Marble Man. Initially, I argued that Lee was an example of apolitical loyalty and stoic adherence to duty. But as days passed, I reflected on the way that Lee’s legacy looked to people who hadn’t grown up with my perspective or my privilege. So, on an otherwise unremarkable Sunday morning, I took the painting off the wall and sent it on its way to a local landfill for its final burial. Hardly a hero’s end.

    Why did it take me so long to reconsider my thinking on the Marble Man? While I’ve spent my life studying leaders and leadership, abandoning long-held beliefs, some based on comfortable myths, requires a journey that I suspect never ends. Our heroes, in addition to their strengths, almost always harbor profound imperfections. I still admire much about Lee, his integrity included. But to see him as I long had, through a single lens, was to fundamentally misunderstand the kaleidoscopic nature of leaders — and, more broadly, the nature of our past. No matter how much we study or how long we’ve lived, the hardest work we can do is to rotate the kaleidoscope, to see the world in a new light and to evolve our beliefs accordingly.

    Such evolution takes time. And for all the years it takes individuals to grapple with their own perspectives, it takes even longer for organizations to follow suit. Institutions are conservative and slow to change, and the military is no exception. Steeped as they are in tradition and admired for consistency, it is difficult for the U.S. armed forces to develop new outlooks on warfare, social issues and, notably, their own view of history.

    The way I learned about Lee exemplifies the challenge that service members can face in confronting their biases. For most of my life, I focused on the genius and triumphs of the Marble Man. This was not surprising. No matter where I was living, there seemed to be a statue celebrating Lee’s accomplishments. My elementary school textbooks heralded Lee’s successes on the battlefield. At West Point, he is commonly referred to as the ideal cadet — not just for his lack of demerits, but for his closely held values and his academic achievements. But although the history was well-known, I cannot recall ever debating Lee’s decision to command the Confederate Army against his nation, nor any serious discussion about his attitude toward slavery.

    The military prides itself on being apolitical and focused on the moral good. Yet these tenets have also served as an excuse to avoid conversations about contentious or uncomfortable topics, such as race, politicsand sexuality. Yes, those are inherently political issues, but military leaders cannot afford to pretend they don’t exist, as the American military is necessarily, and appropriately, a reflection of American society.

    The U.S. military plays a major role in shaping our collective memory. In the years after the Civil War and the subsequent Reconstruction, for instance, there was a tacit agreement in the Army (as in much of society) that we wouldn’t treat the South as if it had lost — which is one reason so many Army bases (including Forts Bragg, Benning, Polk, Hood and Lee) are named after Confederate generals. It would be foolish to think that the Army made these decisions unintentionally. Many officers knew full well the signal that these names would send. Whether you revere or revile Confederate soldiers, it’s impossible not to see that their legacy is still with us.

    Many Americans face the same problem: We want to be proud of our past, so it’s tempting to look at only the best aspects of it. It’s more comforting to think of Lee as a tragic hero than to try to understand his complex relationship with African Americans today — so we focus on the simpler narrative. Similarly, we perceive the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, as a time of unity in the wake of tragedy, ignoring the virulent anti-Muslim fervor that still affects parts of our country. In an effort to remember only the finest of our past, we often present our history as tidier than its reality.

    War is often subjected to this tendency to clean up, or at least oversimplify. It is hard to discuss the periodic incompetence, cowardice and criminality that are associated with every military campaign in history without seeming to detract from the very real courage and sacrifice of the vast majority of soldiers. And nothing is more difficult than portraying war in its gritty, brutal reality, or the darker side of soldiers, without the risk of confusing Americans about whether our cause is just or our nation a force for good in the world. As Pericles and others have taught us, we must honor the kinds of service that we seek to have repeated in the future. We must salute and remember the veterans who stepped forward to serve while admitting the complexity of the environment in which they had to operate.

    This is the week when we sit down with our families to celebrate our nation’s romanticized notion of Thanksgiving — a version, we know today, that does not reflect the reality of the first celebration of this holiday, in which the bonhomie was a small consolation to indigenous Americans enduring a colonial English conquest.

    When we choose how we view history, we risk mythologizing events and people, reducing them to two-dimensional stories. It takes nothing away from Abraham Lincoln’s heroic stewardship of our nation through the Civil War, for instance, to admit that he was still a creature of his era. For most of his career, he saw slaves as rival laborers for white wage-workers and thought they should go back to Africa. Frustratingly, our instinct to sanitize history ensures that we are always looking backward for our better angels, struggling to meet a standard that remains forever out of reach.

    There is, in the end, little point in studying a version of history that contains cartoons and monuments rather than real people with nuanced actions and decisions — people whose complexities can teach us about our own. As we come to learn more about our world and ourselves, it is crucial to reexamine our role models and our enemies. There is tremendous value in wrestling with the errors over which history commonly glosses. Coming to terms with the humanity of a leader makes it much more likely that you can be a leader yourself. We are facing a crisis in leadership today — and organizations and individuals both have a role to play in correcting course.

    Organizations are often at their finest when they are used as instruments for social change, especially when that change is necessary for the greater good. President Harry S. Truman’s executive order desegregating the military is a magnificent example of how leaders can help speed up institutional change. We are a long way from solving racism in our country, but Truman’s decision was an important step in changing the hearts and minds of our soldiers, their families and society writ large. The same logic can be extended to the inclusion of women in combat and the open service of LGBTQ troops. It’s for these reasons that the military must recast its view of history: The actions of our military leaders have a profound effect on the American psyche — but they cannot make this change alone.

    As President John F. Kennedy put it, “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” We must combat our desire to mythologize our history and our leaders, while retaining our belief in the qualities and ideals those myths often reflect.

    1. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s war was unconstitutional and caused by “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s unconstitutional denial of constitutional secession. Unpalatable slavery must have been eliminated through constitutional means and employment of the tools of free enterprise including, but not limited to, advocacy through the freedom of speech and press, an international boycott of slave products and divestiture from the industry. The context of 246 years of legal British slavery must be weighted in the calculus.

    2. ‘I continued to marvel at the exploits of the outstanding tactical leadership on the battlefield shown by our butternut and gray Generals, while at the same time recognizing the horror of what the world would be like had the South won–and what the South ultimately was fighting for.’

      This is it in a nutshell. Perhaps more illustrative would be to marvel at the efficiency and battlefield tactics shown by the Nazis while recognizing the horror of what they stood for. It’s the old end-means/means-end argument.

      1. Agreed. Rommel, Von Manstein, Kesselring, Guderian, Von Rundstedt etc., are rightfully considered masters of mobile warfare–and coincidentally most thought Hitler a buffoon. But a victory for these tactical and strategic masters would have been the literal end of the world as we know it. Such a thought raises a new level of “horror.”

        to issaac

          1. Dunce. You really think the eventual resultant battle lines: U.S. (+ maybe Canada) vs. The World would have been an even-Steven match? To paraphrase Santayana: “Those who never learned the past yet blabber whimsy about it are imbeciles.”

            this is to “I usually just spread flim-flam on reddit” anon

            1. no i think “if they had won” which rather presumes a different outcome at stalingrad, but if you postulate such, then an eventual taking of leningrad and moscow and once stalin was cast back to the urals he would have made a peace just as lenin did in the previous war

              and in a one flank war against Germany with sufficient gasoline and factories resupplying from beyond range of strategic bombers and tons of new troops from the Ukraine, the Axis would have been a far more formidable the allies would have quit. the russians deserve most of the credit for the win overall not the vaunted americans

              tell me what parts of Germany were occupied by the powerful Allied forces on November 11 1918 when the Kaiser abdicated? Any of them? You sound well informed, perhaps you can tell us all

              i’m not an expert but i looked at this map and the purple line shows that the allies were stalemated, in France and Belgium, entirely. hmmm


              –“I usually just spread flim-flam on reddit” anon

    3. Mark M:

      “But to see him as I long had, through a single lens, was to fundamentally misunderstand the kaleidoscopic nature of leaders — and, more broadly, the nature of our past. No matter how much we study or how long we’ve lived, the hardest work we can do is to rotate the kaleidoscope, to see the world in a new light and to evolve our beliefs accordingly.”
      Thank you for the article.

      Here’s my critique. Gen. Stan McChrystal fundamentally misunderstands Lee and the unflinching principles Lee stood for — honor, duty, loyalty, integrity and strength. Lee’s agonizing decision to decline Lincoln’s offer of command of the US forces isn’t hard to understand. In Lee’s words, “I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation….”

      For men like McChrystal honor is just a word or maybe a virtue taught, but for Lee and the leading men of his generation, it was a way of life. Lee could no more take up arms against his family, friends and fellow Virginians than Lincoln could watch the Union crumble and do nothing. Both men understood the sacred duty they had pledged themselves to do. For Lee, it was simply a matter of paramount duty to hearth and home: “I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty.”

      McChrystal is a modern man. His allegiance is to his country to be sure but he expresses it in service to his own self-actualization and standing in his community. That is why he dithers to and fro about Lee, first honoring him with a portrait in his home then sending it packing to the dump. His is the easy allegiance of convenience and self-doubt. For Lee and other great men of his age, principle was not so easily disposed of and, if it were to be disposed of, only in service to a very clear paramount principle. McChrystal thinks he acts in service to higher principle with his recriminations of Lee. But for Lee there was no doubt, no worry about the perception of his peers or even the need to bear his soul about his reason for doing as he was duty-bound to do. For him, there was only duty and sacred honor. That was enough.

      1. Mesh

        Lee and the unflinching principles Lee stood for — honor, duty, loyalty, integrity and strength. Lee’s agonizing decision to decline Lincoln’s offer of command of the US forces isn’t hard to understand. In Lee’s words, “I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation….”

        In the end honor is an applied value. It is applied to specific goals, ends, institutions, countries, etc. It has been applied for the most nefarious ends mankind has ever devised: slavery, genocide, racism, bigotry, etc. The US has, in its past, achieved all these ends, almost always honorably, in the minds of some. Honor in one context is disgusting in another. The Germans that slaughtered those that rose up out of the Warsaw Ghetto to defend themselves from their impending doom, a doom that was seen as necessary by many ‘honorable’ men, were honorable in their own minds as they killed them as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. The allied pilots that bombed women and children were honorable in their struggles.

        Those that throw these words around: honor, decency, duty, patriotism, etc. and link them to atrocities, have only the honor of the moment. It does not always endure.

            1. “No, slavery, bigotry, racism, etc are ways of life.”
              True that the Democrats enslaved blacks in the South, and true that LBJ perpetuated the Dems streak of racism and bigotry, as you noted. But as Peter Shill often screams, “that was thousands of years ago!!!!”

              What mix of compensation metrics do you offer your immigrant housekeepers, nannies and gardeners, Ivan?

              Bob & Jim

      2. While I understand that the allegiances 170 years ago had a different temper than they do now vis-a-vis the States versus the Union, as I referenced above, I have great difficulty finding fault with General Lee due to the culture I grew up in. Perhaps another generation of old white guys who grew up studying what these men–on both sides–did at the Sunken Road, Little Round Top and Cemetery Hill have to just pass on to the next plane before the country can definitively deal with the long shadows of the Civil War, which tend to romanticize and obscure the abominable underpinnings of the Southern stance in many eyes.

        to mespo

    4. Simplistic article by upwardly grasping retiree. Rather, was Caesar patriot or tyrant? What about his regicidist and immediate successor Brutus, and his Octavian? It’s possible they all alike were both

      I would only agree that the notion of Lee as political is false.

      Of course he was political. He was a man of the polis, of the city, of the state, and of the nation; a citizen with political ideas of the common good and constitutional order and the issues of his time. Ideas which differed.

      His political values were different than those of the North, and those values he pursued with martial integrity. the political question was resolved in the ultimate manner all such questions have in history, by force.

      That we should respect and if MycCrhistal does not then he’s gelded .

    5. My mythic hero isn’t Lee, he was too kind for me.

      Rather I like Hercules, who conquered the Messinians and reduced them into serfs and founded the Heralcid leadership of the Lakedaemonian state. That’s Sparta btw. How’s that for a hero? He must have been really racist against those poor Messinians! boo hoo

  9. “I am the greatest. I said that even before I knew I was. I figured that if I said it enough, I would convince the world that I really was the greatest.”

    “I’m young; I’m handsome; I’m fast. I can’t possibly be beat.”

    “It’s hard to be humble when you’re as great as I am.”

    “I’m the most recognized and loved man that ever lived”

    – Muhammad Ali

    “I’m the best. I just haven’t played yet.”

    – Muhammad Ali on golf.

  10. Well… This Woman…

    Is certainly very (very) enthusiastic that the American Men have (finally) got themselves a role model in President Trump to turn their brass balls into Solid Gold!

  11. The press doesn’t mention his accomplishments so Trump is dependent on people like Professor Turley and other spokespeople to repeat what he says so that the news gets out. Wow, gas prices went down. Thank you Mr. President. The President also ended US refuelling Saudi aircraft in their war in Yemen as another punishment. That, however, is something not understood by those not closely following the news. Then again lowering gas prices seems to be what people like, after all they are rioting in France against Macron because gas prices went up.

    1. Gas prices go up and down for global reasons as well as profiteering. The sun rises and sets. Trump takes credit for both. Idiots believe him.

      Trump took away the ability for Saudi jets to refuel in the air. Big deal they are spitting distance from the action anyway. Trump hasn’t taken away the endless supply of bombs being used to slaughter the innocents into submission. Trump hasn’t taken away the US intelligence services that assist the Saudis to drop their bombs on women and children. The Saudi prince learned well from Trump; just lie and stick to the lie. The greater the criticism, the greater the lie. But you must persist as the more often a lie is told the more it becomes the truth to the dupes.

      What is understood by any moderately intelligent person following both the left and right wing newspapers is that Trump is a liar, takes credit for everything positive, blames anything negative on others, and is simply America’s disgrace. The spooky part is that 40% of Americans actually believe this buffoon to be worth a second term.

      When it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, rants like an idiot; perhaps it is Trump.

      1. Issac when the GDP did lousy and unemployment was falling because the U6 was rising the press said what a great job Obama was doing. When the President bowed to the Saudi King and others the press said what a man. When Obama said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor the press roared with approval. There is an imbalance in the press that no nothings don’t recognize. Trump ameliorates that imbalance to some degree by forcing the media to take notice which they frequently do.

        “When it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, rants like an idiot; perhaps it is” Issac.

          1. False. There is a profession cadre of dedicated journalist who report on the news and publish “facts.” Many of these “facts” are unpopular to the dwindling 38% who happily tea-bag the day glo bozo for “reasons”, most of which are unsavory in a free, equal and just society. Then, there are a few organizations which claim to be journalists, but which have sold out for ratings, eyeballs, advertising revenue or what have you, and who are more akin to a paid organ of the State; not so much reporting, rather than cheering.

            this is to “I like happy-news, not real news” paulie – georgie

            1. The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the there are real journalists script but fails to name a single journalist.

            2. “profession cadre of dedicated journalist who report on the news and publish “facts.”

              they’re cadres of the corporate leviathans the own them that is all
              and those financial interests have global concerns which are well suited by the globalist agenda, and are limited by nationalist ones so they staunchly oppose Trump the champion of the American people

              face it your are the lackey of the 1% you claim to despise– or perhaps to be fair more so the 1/10 of the top 1% the billionaire caste like Jeff Bezos, Geo Soros, who all tend to despise Trump as a class traitor just as they despised FDR

      2. The programmers of the left are now ready for the Collective to have a long list of successes ready to credit to Mr Zro. Judging from the fascist left they will be starting in red ink and maybe we should just let them have that color. It’s meaningful to them and well deserved 107 years of failure and it only took zero budget and six months. But not to worry they can reverse the claims when the string of failures to pass a bill gets lonDon’t try to teach just preach it.

      3. “When it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, rants like an idiot; perhaps it is Trump.”
        Or maybe someone closer to home, issac.

      4. Now we know that any schizophrenic lunatic on any psych ward anywhere in the US could be put into the role of US President, and he would have millions of supporters.

        1. Samantha, are you one of those psych ward lunatics? Your rantings that are absent any basis certainly sound that way.

          1. I’ve been figuring ‘sam’ and ‘chris p bacon’ are aliases for David Hogg.

  12. When you find something that makes your opposition go nuts, may as well double down and enjoy the popcorn.

  13. He has to credit himself because no one else does. Not even the Republicans that much. If the media and the politicians started to give him just a smidgeon of the praise that Obama was showered daily, Trump’s tweets would stop as well as his compliments to himself. I know how he feels on a much smaller scale just around my Democratic family members. I do all the work to keep the family together and get no credit. It’s an awful feeling. I think I’ll start thanking myself. Good idea.

  14. And the reason he’s doing this period is because of the media. I can’t get over the fact CNN Don Lemon has came out and said that white men are the most dangerous people in the USA and that we are racist bigots deplorable evil even if you voted for Trump. It’s disgusting dividing the country does anybody see that Trump cares about our country the immediate get their marching orders from the Dems they are the swamp of Washington

    1. Don Lemon was right in that the face of someone committing a terrorist act in America is most likely a white male as opposed to a Muslim or illegal immigrant. Republicans don’t want white hate groups and militia’s investigated because it goes against the narrative.

      Please provide the quote saying anyone voting for Trump is racist? I suspect your interpretation is wildly out of context.

      1. enigma – the membership of Antifa is white and male, so Lemon might be right. Actually, he might be getting this from pillow talk.

        1. Paul – I don’t know offhand, how many murders is Antifa guilty of? Besides various factions of the Klan, can you name one right-wing hate group? Never hear about those on Fox News.

          1. enigma – when is the last time the Klan murdered anyone? Besides, Antifa has a larger membership than the Klan and that includes the members from the FBI. 😉

            1. Paul – To my knowledge, Antifa has never murdered anyone? Perhaps you know of an incident I missed? I can’t prove actual membership but Dylan Roof who sat in a black church in South Carolina in 2016, and then killed several members had a Klan hood among his possessions.
              In my mind, Antifa doesn’t compare to the right-wing groups who actually are murdering people but has become an excuse for people who don’t want to acknowledge the right-wing groups (or make them heroes when they face off against the government).

              1. enigma – I do not remember anyone saying I am a member of Antifa. This is far different from the Freedom Riders who freely admitted that they were Freedom Riders, did not wear masks, were not armed, etc.

                1. Paul – You keep answering questions not being asked (and avoiding those that are). I’d provide you statistics on hate crimes committed by right-wing groups but the government doesn’t keep them? They commission studies on Black identity groups but ignore those of a different persuasion. Let’s ignore and fail to address right-wing terrorists because… Antifa.


                    1. enigma – they have been named a terrorist group, however they have always disavowed terrorism.

                    2. Paul – I listened to Styx and his claims about the poor, innocent Proud Boys who only get into violent brawls in self-defense. The leader quits because he says the group has become too racist. Here are a few more quotes from the former leader which suggest violence is part of the groups character.

                      “McInnes frequently champions violence, particularly against the left.

                      “I want violence, I want punching in the face. I’m disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough,” McInnes said on his webshow.

                      On another occasion, he called for an attack on a woman.

                      “This woman—yes, I’m advocating violence against women—this woman should be punched in the face. Shouldn’t be by a man, maybe by another woman, her twin sister, should just punch her in the face. Or maybe mace her. Yeah. I’m pro-free speech, I don’t want her ever to be censored, but this woman needs to experience a little bit of violence.”

                      McInnes also uses his show to spout racial slurs, especially the n-word, and call for attacks on transgender people. “Choke a tranny. Get your fingers around the windpipe,” McInnes said on his show, according to Newsweek. A self-described misogynist, McInnes has argued against women in the workforce and claimed sexual harassment does not exist.”

                    3. Paul, Enigma’s biases are legendary. Antifa protests are frequently violent. At universities antifa rioters have started fires, threatened lives all in an attempt to stop reputable people from speaking. I don’t like either group but in comparison antifa looks like the violent KKK. They cover their faces, carry weapons and perform violent acts. That is exactly what the KKK did.

                      I don’t know that much about the proud boys since they haven’t been involved in the same amount of violence. When it has happened it is noted that frequently they were acting to protect the rights of other and antifa came to the venue. I am sure we will find criminal violent actions by both groups but antifa’s violent behavior is much more widespread.

                      Take note how many people on the right have been suddenly surrounded by groups of leftists when eating at restaurants.

                    4. Proud boys? wow really scary dudes. Not.

                      I’ll tell you, the ones that you should be watching those are those which in the future are not yet on the radar but eventually will get “infiltrated” ie investigated, setup and provoked by government assets, into doing whatever atrocities are necessary to support show trial convictions to convince americans the problem is solved.

                      kind of like government assets investigate, participate, and themselves continuously engage in illegal drug operations with their informants and undercovers

                      kind of like the German army sending hitler into the NSDAP to “surveil” them….. and then taking it from there

                      I wonder if we’ll ever know the full story of MacVeigh. Read his former lawyer’s book and you will see what i mean

                    5. gavin mcginness is a goofball. really. who cares. attention seeking behavior. kind of like a daniel carver for this generation. sad

                  1. i question those methodologies which blame every act of violence by a white man on “white nationalist groups” — seems that they are as flawed as those which attribute all acts of terror by Arabs to “Islamism” as such, or all those which attribute every violent act of a leftist personally to Karl Marx as if he was still holding meetings of the Internationale today.

                    They are guilt by association lists and as such they are aimed not at unlawful activity and deterring it but rather at the underlying ideological and social premises

                    1. I hardly think every act of violence by bwhite men is blamed on white nationalists. Then again, if more of them were arrested and went to trial, we might learn differently?

                    2. did you get the point or not? smears enigma smears

                      the groups you should fear are those you don’t see that dont want attention because they don’t want you to see what’s coming.

                      not the loudmouths. this is a general principle of life applicable to us all

              2. what the kid mailed away to someone and sent $20 for a pillowcase?

                that’s a basis for you to smear what, mail order pillow case operations? that’s all these “klan” groups are, totally pathetic, sad, just some poor crackers trying to make rent.

                1. Yes Mr Kurtz, everyone who owns a Klan hood I’m smearing. Swastika’s, Klan regalia, all that get’s you labeled. Walk the street in any of those and see what happens? If you wear a MAGA hat you’ll at least get a side-eye!

                  1. i don’t have any of that crap, and I’m not pasting any targets on my forehead to make it easy for people to smear me

                    for every one white idiot person there are thousands of smart ones

                    painting us all with the same too-broad brush is inviting trouble

                    if you want to make america even more like a prison, well, you know how that works

                    1. Mr Kurtz – I don’t see anyone painting all white people with the same brush. Still I don’t think the ratio is one idiot to thousands in any race. These are not inconsistent statements.

      2. Dangerous can be a good thing at the right time! So I take Don Lemon’s comment that white men are “dangerous” as a back handed compliment. Not in the sense that we are unlawful or will commit terror acts, not at all; but yes, as a group we are dangerous as hell and history shows it.

        and if you want to test the proposition, and douse the flames of hell then you better bring a really big hose or don’t even try at it.

        Personally I am strictly law abiding. and will continue to be.

        I am peaceful and dangerous all at once, like the quiet still waters of the ocean which can transform quickly into storm

Comments are closed.