Will Rogers once observed that “Everything is funny, as long as it’s happening to somebody else.” No one ever personified Rogers’ rule as much as University of California, Irvine instructor Matt Goldman, who cracked everyone up this week by joking about celebrating the anniversary of the assassination of Charlie Kirk by alluding to the possible assassination of independent journalist Nick Shirley.
Today is the anniversary of the murder of Kirk. In anticipation, Goldman posted a picture of Shirley with the line “Someone can do the funniest thing just before the Kirkiversary.” It was a response to an Instagram post by the Harvard Republican Club promoting a speech by Shirley.
Goldman reportedly has long found the deaths of disfavored people to be a real knee-slapper, allegedly mocking the deaths of Henry Kissinger and others. Indeed, Goldman takes Gallows humor to a particularly dark place in American politics.
After the murder of a UnitedHealthcare CEO in 2024, Goldman allegedly posted a photo of the “Super Mario” character Luigi putting a gun to someone’s head with the statement “Let’s not pretend as if America isn’t the greatest country on earth.”
In another Instagram post, Goldman allegedly wrote, “Lmao abolish ICE. only good ICE agent is a dead one.”
Goldman also teaches at Chapman University and specializes in “social justice rhetoric and community-centered composition.”
It has become common in higher education and on campuses to laugh and even celebrate the murder of Kirk. Recently, socialist Hasan Piker led a sing-a-long with hundreds mocking his death.
Hate-spewing influencers like Jennifer Welch have even justified his assassination. Protesters regularly reenact his murder, and this week at Georgetown and the University of South Carolina students are celebrating “Kirkiversary” with “Kirk Look-a-Like” competitions.
Chapman University has expressed concern over Goldman’s hateful postings, but he is hardly unique. Faculty departments have largely purged their ranks of any conservative, libertarian, or Republican faculty members. According to various surveys, many departments have no Republicans. Forty percent of faculty say they would vote against any Trump supporter, regardless of academic accomplishments or publications. Recently, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) abandoned its long-standing political neutrality and endorsed radical Michigan senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
At the same time, radical faculty members on the left are common across the country and many espouse the same hate-filled and violent rhetoric.
Professors have regularly advocated “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters, and making other outrageous statements. A San Diego University professor celebrated the death of an Israeli soldier who was eaten by a shark.
At the University of Rhode Island, Professor Erik Loomis responded to the murder of a conservative protester by saying that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was given a promotion by the University of Rhode Island after his remarks).
Social media postings present difficult challenges for universities. These are statements often made on private sites and are not part of academic duties. Yet, universities have regularly taken action against faculty members who espouse what they view as prejudicial views based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. These faculty members rationalize or support violence targeting conservatives.
The problem is not that faculty can voice extreme political values in private postings. Those views should be protected. Likewise, the problem is not that faculty pursue far-left views in their academic work. Those views are protected by academic freedom.
The real problem is the virtual absence of any countervailing views today, after faculty have turned our universities into ideological echo chambers. There is a crushing orthodoxy on our campuses that fosters this type of extremist, violent rhetoric. For conservative students, it is common to be taught entirely by faculty who denounce their views and values.
While faculty members continually virtue signal about maintaining inclusive environments, they rarely seem concerned about the hostile environment for anyone who holds right-of-center views on campuses. A faculty member who mocks “land acknowledgments” is intolerable for many faculty, but those mocking the murder of conservatives are merely engaging in “spirited” debate.
The espousal of violent ideations or hateful views against conservatives can cross the line. Even if students are not concerned about their physical safety, they are likely concerned about their academic standing in classes taught by such hateful faculty. If a faculty member finds killing conservatives funny or justified, it is unlikely that they would welcome conservative viewpoints being expressed in classes.
The lack of consistency in dealing with what I have called “rage rhetoric” is an indictment of higher education. Imagine if a faculty member mocked the killing of minority students or Democratic activists. The response would be immediate and final.
However, the humor in killing conservatives is precisely because it is “happening to somebody else.” The most unnerving aspect of this latest controversy is not that Goldman is making jokes about assassinating conservatives, but that many in academia find it uproariously funny.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This is beyond ‘speech’ and politics; this is a depraved heart influencing/indoctrinating young people.
Evil people will say and do evil things, that is today’s liberal/Democrat. You can’t deny it.
This story must be particularly embarrassing to liberals. Look how they’ve sought to deflect and distract all day long. Still not a single liberal on this comment board has said they are in any way uncomfortable, or not on boardm with a university professor speaking approvingly about murdering people whose politics they disagree with.
#WeAreEstovir
Estovir, you’re Old Man. You’ve openly admitted it. Just fight with one name for a change.
But we don’t you’re capable. Without the puppets, you’re just a gutless, redneck phony.
I’m proud to be associated with Estovir. He’s 100 times smarter and better educated than the liberal trolls who populate this blog.
#WeAreEstovir
No he’s not. Surprised that he fooled you. He clearly as a job reading. Then he extracts from them to create his “learned” discussions. He tries to tell you how much everyone loves him. That is very definitely a sign of average intelligence.
“He clearly as a job reading” ENGLISH PLEASE MORON ANON!!
I’m not a ‘liberal’ .. . but am certainly not on board, and frown upon, anyone celebrating the cowardly assassination of Kirk.
Charlie was sincere .. . I think I could have saved him!
*fyi. a Jewish friend’s daughter/friends (30ish?) were celebrating Charlie assassination not long ago .. . I had to put the fear of God in ’em.
I’m glad to hear it, thanks.
#WeAreEstovir
dgsnowden, to save Charlie Kirk would have required you to exceed the $80M cash flow he got from radical right wing millionaires who were funding Kirk’s efforts to groom college students, to find the disaffected ones, and turn them to be minions for the oligarchs.
I’m not on board with a university professor speaking approvingly about murdering anyone, even those whose politics they disagree with.
However, the biggest reason you have not seen them, is they don’t think you are worth responding to.
I tend to agree with them, but would like to spoil your “not a single liberal” record. On the other hand, Trump has promised to wipe out entire civilizations and has murdered hundreds of people in little boats and who knows how many in Iran. The guy is a literal killing machine, a berserker in science fiction parlance, and not a word from Turley about that.
Trump’s Deportations:
Clearing Out Non-Whites
The Trump administration arrested and deported a record number of immigrants in July, according to newly released government data – apprehending an average of 1,500 people and removing 1,100 people daily.
Despite the administration’s insistence that it is targeting criminals, a record number of people caught in the surge of arrests in July had no prior criminal history. July was the first month during the second Trump administration that the majority of people – 51% of arrestees – had no criminal convictions or charges, according to the Guardian’s analysis.
Removals were also at a record high in July. Nearly 34,000 people were removed from the US last month, the most since the start of the second Trump administration.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/26/record-arrests-deportations-immigrants
………………………………………..
This is all about Making America White Again. Most deportations involve hard-working people with real families to support. They’re contributing to the economy and providing a labor force.
But Republicans are saying, ‘We don’t care if these people are having a beneficial effect. They’re not White so they must go’.
It’s because Fox News has spooked millions of small town Whites. So-called ‘Christians’ have swallowed that nonsense about the ‘replacement theory’. So they don’t care if millions of non-White families are torn apart.
Therefore it insults our intelligence when Turley writes a column claiming liberals suffer from an epidemic of insensitivity. Anyone who can stomach these deportations is morally dead.
^ Fever dream of far-leftist Trump hater. Nothing in the above comment is true. It’s all false, made-up, and slanderous. Don’t believe a single word.
Estovir, explain why any SANE American wouldn’t hate Donald Trump.
Here’s a president stuffing his pockets as fast as possible with inside dealing. He’s a shameless stooge for Putin. And he’s breaking up millions of families for nakedly racist reasons. And we’re supposed to ‘love’ Trump..?? Don’t make us vomit!!!
If those are your reasons for hating him, then you are seriously deluded and living in a fantasy world. Your hate is based on things that don’t exist. As for him deporting illegal aliens, he doesn’t GAF about their color, nor do I. Only leftist dweebs fixate on that irrelevancy. He’s deporting the people here illegally, particularly the violent criminals. Your preference is that they would stay here, murder thousands more Laken Rileys, engage in child sex trafficking, rape, murder, fraud, and mayhem. Your preference is that the border would remain open so that this nation would have widespread violent crime, and the wages of blue collar workers would go down.
As for why not to hate him? Because he’s protecting the good people of this nation from people like you. He may be boorish and have a personality that rubs many the wrong way, but he’s the right man for the job – he’s our bodyguard protecting this nation from the death that the left-wing insanity of Biden was brining about.
Estovir,
This whole trade war with Canada is meant to embolden Putin. It’s a signal that says, “Go ahead, Vladimir, level Kiev. We won’t be backing NATO”.
Anyone who thinks these deportations are serving some constructive purpose knows nothing about economics or demographics.
And if you think it’s okay for presidents to include their entire families in deals through Oval Office influence, you have no sense of ethics. Your puppets are a testament to that.
No, I’m am okay with it, I was against Joe Biden doing that.
Xi jing ping. Trump is no stooge for Putin or you. In fact, Russian FM Lavrov recently described Trump as ‘agreement incapable’. Which is a terrible thing for a POTUS .. . maybe the worst of things!
*He is shameless .. . no matter who he is working for.
Estovir you’re also dogsnowden. Stop the charade and fight with one name.
Anonymous, it appears that you, too, are Estovir.
#WeAreEstovir
love the way you can use any subject to introduce a random “injustice.”
Illegal immigrants and many of them have criminal records prior to invading America, or have committed serious crimes since their invasion like rape, murder.
Just ask Laken Riley’s parents.
Estovir, you’re Upstate Farmer and Stephen B Benish Esq.
Why can’t you fight like a man with one identity??? This deception has gone on way, way too long.
The puppets are used to fool random readers into thinking that many ‘wise commenters’ are stepping forth to condemn the liberal. What a sick charade!
It’s only ‘you’, Estovir. You’re puppet mob is just that: a hollow parade of fake names.
You’re right. Everyone is Estovir, dontcha know!
(I wonder if they wonder why we think they’re nuts.)
#WeAreEstovir
I suspect they are operating from a Moscow suburb.
I do not condemn the liberal. I might criticize the ones who vote Blue, no matter who!
It is the far illiberal leftists and their anti-American, anti-Constitutional ways.
#WeAreEstovir
UpstateFarmer,
Laken Riley? Feel free to list all the people killed by American citizens since her death.
Oh, right, American citizens can kill with impunity as far as your world view is concerned. And murders elsewhere also don’t matter.
It’s only when it supports a racist point of view that a murder becomes important, and only one murder, apparently.
Your lips to God’s ears!!!
America the Beautiful!!!
The way the American Founders created it.
The American Founders established a Nation, its Law, and its Population.
The United States of America, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and Free White Persons.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
WordPress Censorship Here:
Your lips to God’s ears!!!
America the Beautiful!!!
The way the American Founders created it.
The American Founders established a Nation, its Law, and its Population.
The United States of America, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and Free White Persons.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
Has anyone noticed? The person assassinated (or to be assassinated) always happens to be someone who the revolutionaries don’t like.
Just revolutionaries? But can’t say anyone noticed. But feel free to spread a conspiracy theory.
Stephen B. Benisch, Esq..
Kirk’s crime was pointing out things that used to be common sense, like biological males should not be in women’s sports, locker rooms, bathrooms. In doing so they had to silence him.
As others have noted, this kind of not just thoughts, but speech and even action is becoming not only celebrated but normalized.
The Nazis did the same thing to the Jews in the 1930s.
Women’s rights -> becomes, girls have to accept men in their showers, locker rooms, and competitive sports.
Racial equality -> becomes, the races are divided into oppressor and oppressed, and should have separate spaces.
Gay rights -> becomes, embrace Islamic fundamentalism where gays are thrown off buildings.
The elite on the Left don’t believe a single position they hold. They change those positions in order to stir up dissention and conflict. The acolytes memorize the current positions and are rewarded with jobs in academia. The blue state masses vote for them if and only if they promise financial benefits from the public trough.
#WeAreEstovir
A week before he was shot, Kirk was talking quite openly about how the brutality of Israel in their dealings in Gaza was repulsive to him. At least one of his patrons was considering pulling support, about $8M a year from Kirk.
He was also in the middle of a racist statement and had previously stated that getting killed with a gun was an acceptable side effect of the Constitutional right to unlimited access to guns.
Ironic doesn’t begin to describe the last part.
Estovir, describe how Tyler Robinson fits the profile of a ‘revolutionary’.
“Estovir, describe how Tyler Robinson fits the profile of a ‘revolutionary’.”
Kirk’s crime was pointing out things that used to be common sense, like biological males should not be in women’s sports, locker rooms, bathrooms. In doing so they had to silence him.
As others have noted, this kind of not just thoughts, but speech and even action is becoming not only celebrated but normalized.
The Nazis did the same thing to the Jews in the 1930s.
Robinson is not an elite revolutionary. He’s a foot-soldier, used by the elite to accomplish their purposes. Elite commies versus street commies. Using lies to inspire Robinson to kill Kirk, they accomplished much for the demonic cause. And I use the word “demonic” literally.
#WeAreEstovir
They either assassinate with bullets while decrying the NRA or assassinate with lies and spin like most of the anonymous people on the blog. When they have some truth in what they say, the facts provided are wrong.
The REAL problem is that those on the left can not cope with scrutiny of their own sacred cows.
Shirley is a journalist – that is all. While he Chooses primarily to investigate the shibboleths of the left, that does not alter the results he finds.
Left leaning journalists are free to investigate the right – and the majority of the MSM does exactly that all the time.
Regardless Attacking Shirely or any investigative journalist merely because of the targets they choose is idiocy.
What matters is the truth oif what they uncover.
Whether you support the programs that Shirley has investigated or not – you should still want them to be free from fraud.
What is disturbing is that those on the left do not care about the fraud. They do not care that billions of tax payer dollars are being stolen. That those funds are NOT being used for the allegedly beneficial purpose they were targeted for and that the public was sold as their purpose.
Left/Right that is FRAUD pure and simple – it is egregiously criminal. It is public corruption. It is destructive of our social fabric.
While there are structural reasons why Fraud and corruption will be more common on the left – It is the left that pushes for ever more government power and government programs and as Lord Acton noted 200 years ago – Power Corrupts.
Assuming – which I do not, that these programs are legitimate in the first place, there is an absolute moral obligation to police them rigorously. I(individuals have rights – Government spending and programs do NOT.
The real problem is all of us.
Us? Anyone who calls himself 8 ball is the problem.
You in particular
It is destructive of our social fabric.
Yup, and that’s the goal – destroy society so they can rebuild it in their communist or Islamist image.
Either that, or destroy the social fabric so as to provoke a right-wing counterrevolution, thereby making progress and promoting human emancipation via a kind of Hegelian dialectic – per the Frankfurt School, where “progress” is the god to be worshipped.
Either way, they must start with destroying the social fabric.
destroy society so they can rebuild it … and you have proof? Or is female voice in your empty head controlling you? Any links appreciated.
Estovir, or destroy the government like Trump did with the DOGE scam. Or like Kennedy is doing with public health.
Typical backwards world: finding and rooting out hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud constitutes “destroying the government.” Do you even hear yourself? You are not even trying to sound rational.
There is no evidence that DOGE decreased spending. They claimed billions in savings, but mainly did so much damage that extra costs were incurred to make up for it.
OldManFromKS,
It is not just the social fabric.
It is the nuclear family.
The trust in institutions.
I would go as far as to say the “othering” of people, i.e. anyone who does not think like you, e.g. establish Democrats vs the far illiberal leftists.
You claim Shirley is an investigative journalist exposing billions in government fraud. He isn’t. Nick Shirley is an internet influencer and videographer who primarily goes around interviewing college students, illegal immigrants at the border, or activists on the street to get inflammatory, heavily edited soundbites for social media clicks. Conflating street-interview content creation with actual forensic investigative journalism into government budgets is a farce.
You invoke Lord Acton’s ‘power corrupts’ quote to claim fraud is naturally more common on the left because they want government programs. Fraud and corruption do not care about ideology; whenever billions of dollars are funneled into private defense contractors or corporate bailouts, fraud follows. Currently the Trump administration is the most corrupt since the Biden administration. From insider trading to openly taking Bribes. It makes Hunter Biden’s dealings seem puny by comparison.
Shirley blew the lid on the millions in fraud in Minnesota. You don’t even mention that. You are not credible. GFY
Shirley lagged behind the Minnesota state government in investigating a Federal program.
Unlike the state agencies, Shirley is not confined to keeping the investigation confidential while it is proceeding as he is not limited by regulations. He can toss out allegations and claim the “someone told me” as cover against libel and slander suits.
There was no state investigation of the fake day care centers until Shirley exposed them. If he hadn’t they’d still be operating and taking in all that money.
IFIFY
“Investigative journalism should be judged by the truth of its findings, not by which political side it scrutinizes. Fraud and corruption should be condemned regardless of ideology. Government programs and spending have no inherent rights to protection from scrutiny; taxpayers and individuals do.”
Shirley is just a kid. That’s NOT a serious journalist.
Leftists like you are just so peeved that Shirley found massive fraud and exposed it. GFY
where in the comment did anon claim to be a leftist?
All of Trump’s frauds are exposed and the MAGA don’t care about them; the hypocrisy is palpable.
scrutiny of their own sacred cows. What sacred cows?
Trump’s completely pointless war in the Middle East is exploding out of control and will force him to admit defeat and withdraw, thus humiliating himself and the United States.
The Houthi rebels in Yemen have just taken the strategic city of Mocha on the west coast. They are now pushing south and will soon take the city and island of Mayyun 40 miles to south. This will allow them to control the entire western coast of Yemen on the Red Sea. Mayyun is a chokepoint for the Strait of Bab al-Mandab which is only 12 miles wide. This will allow them to block traffic in and out of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, while Iran continues to block the Strait of Hormuz. Between them they will have total control of all shipping between the Middle East, Europe, Asia and the Western Hemisphere.
Meanwhile the Iranians are attacking and destroying American aircraft at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. They are also keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed.
Trump is losing this war, and has destroyed the reputation of the United States for a generation, for no good reason whatsoever, other than to appease the whims of the maniac Netanyahu, who is a wanted war criminal and fugitive from justice.
For a more rational analysis, less infected by Chinese-Communist-Party propaganda, see here:
VDH is pretty good. I would take issue with a few points.
First, the Two purportedly immutable protocols are NOT immutable, just improbable.
I do not think Trump will put boots on the ground in Iran. But that could change.
Further we are already targeting SOME things that are causing harm to the Iranian people – just mostly indirectly.
Next VDH is correct that Democrats are going to do everything humanly possible to F#$K over Trump should they take the house and/or senate.
But unlike VDH I do not expect them to be successful. Most of What Trump is doing now and will be doing for his last 2 years is already funded and is already lawful.
Democrats can not undo the law and funding AND overcome a presidential veto.
Most of the efforts of Democrats will be on the politics of personal destruction – and that is what got Trump elected the 2nd time.
It is NOT going to work very well – outside their base = and alienating the center will not get them re-elected in 2028.
Further even where Democrats MIGHT be able top influence policy – such as regarding this conflict, I would be surprised if they would do so.
They are NOT going to get Fetterman’s vote in the Senate.
Further it is easy to be for or oppose things when you can not accomplish them.
Once you actually have power you become responsible for it.
Should Democrats take the house and the senate in 2026 – Actual attempts at policy changes – come with the responsibility for those changes.
How many house and senate Democrats will defect over the near certainty that thwarting Trump now would result in Iran getting and likely using a Nuke and/or actually closing the straits of Hormuz ?
With respect to things like ICE, Democrats could impose constraints such as requiring JUDICAL warrants or body cameras But attempts to convert Biden era policies into law WILL result in defections in the Democratic party.
We do not see many votes in the house or senate fail – and there is a reason for that. Neither party schedules votes when they do not KNOW they will pass.
Jeffries and Schumer or whoever has their jobs is NOT going to bring measures to a vote that would result in democrat defections and losses.
Opening lots of house and senate investigations does not come with significant risk, and does not require a majority vote in the whole chamber.
But going beyond investigations into actually doing something – passing legislation requires votes, votes that congressmen will be answerable for politically,
and votes on measures Trump will veto regardless.
Put simply I do not think that the ability of democrats to sabotage the last two years of Trump is all that significant.
Democrat gains in November come at the expense of NEW legislation by Republicans. Not continuing what is currently in place.
Finally, I am not so sure of this alleged Blue wave in November.
While that is the NORM for midterms – and Failing to take both the house and senate would be a major LOSS for democrats,
The polling is INCREDIBLY close on this. Changing from a Blue wave to a red tsunami would only require votes to swing within the margin of error for polls.
Further the NORM is republicans GAIN in polling from August through November.
And we have seen enormous polling errors this cycle – particularly in Democrat primaries.
I have fingers crossed for multiple salt domes to collapse on the SPR.
If that could happen just before the mid-terms it would be perfect.
Anonymous– You and those of your ilk who anxiously and hopefully await a possible defeat are saying loudly and clearly that you are ok with Iran having nuclear weapons. So what if it starts a Mideast nuclear war? So what if it results in the annihilation of Israel? You simply don’t care. The same lack of any moral compass guides those who are celebrating Kirk’s assassination and those on the jury who just could not find a woman guilty of murdering her three babies. I hope you and these others are outliers and not becoming the American norm.
It seems to me they are okay with nuclear war as long as it makes Trump look bad. In fact, they want America to be defeated for that very reason. It is a mental illness.
OldManFromKS,
Well, when someone tells you who they are or what they want, believe them.
Spoken like a true idiot.
If not mistaken (actually not) you have been telling people here you’re a billionaire pig farmer. A veteran with a silver star. You’re an EMT although you’re going to school days to qualify as a EMT. So, we’re supposed to believe you although its all obvious lies.
Besides you can’t spell or write properly – “maga carter”. LOL!
And you don’t have a HS diploma. About right?
You nailed him. LOL!
I never said any of that.
Just more lies you make up to feel better about yourself, failure to launch.
Not smart enough to recognize a typo when you see it, e.g. “collage,” “Carter.”
The idiot can’t remember facts, so we can’t expect him to remember who said what. Those guys are envious of people who are alive and can be happy.
oldman
Nothing like a good old false dilemma argument, eh!
Apparently, you think that anyone who points out the factually verifiable observation that Trump is not winning the war must be in favor of Iran having nuclear weapons.
Nobody, including me, wants to see Iran have nuclear weapons. The problem is that Trump is completely failing to do anything to stop that happening. The war is lost. Iran and the Houthis have the upper hand. Iran is dictating the terms of negotiations to end the war. That is the position of a winner, not a loser.
This is just another in a long stream of American defeats from Vietnam, to Korea, to Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is nothing to celebrate. It is just a pitiful reminder of how the Republicans are hell bent on destroying the standing of the United States in the rest of the world.
factually verifiable observation that Trump is not winning the war
That’s not fact but your own spin. Iran is drastically weakened. They no longer can fund a whole bevy of proxy terrorist organizations all over the Middle East. Their currency is collapsing. Their economy is in ruins. Their leadership has been decimated, and the closest thing to a modern-day fascist Hitler (Ali Khamenei) has been taken out. The criminal gang that runs the country is running scared. America is completely dominating. The rest of the world is finding ways to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, such as with new pipelines. Russia and China have been deprived of a powerful ally – multiple allies if you look at Venezuela and Cuba. Hezbollah is a burned-out shell of its former self. NATO is much closer to paying its fair share. And the border is closed to illegal aliens, cartels, child-sex traffickers, and the injection of terrorist sleeper cells into our society.
But in the diseased minds of people whose entire existence is defined by hating Trump, Trump is failing in every possible way. Sorry, but you TDS-afflicted Trump haters have zero credibility anymore.
#WeAreEstovier
Iran is drastically weakened. And you know that how? Pete Hegseth?
^ Stupid. Their glorious leader is dead. Their currency is collapsing. Much of their weaponry is gone. Their air force is obliterated. Their navy is no more.
Is that you, Ali Khamenei, commenting from the grave? Hahahahahahah!
You sound like a moron. Their strength comes from what they gain from blackmail and from the fanatics who are gradually dying off. Tell us how they are otherwise strong.
If they can cause the harm you see, think of how much harm they could have caused if Trump hadn’t stopped them from getting the bomb and building their military even greater.
oldmanfromkansas,
New oil pipelines are massive targets. Imagine how much easier it is to hit a target that is a hundred miles long over a single ship. When one sinks a ship the other ships are still afloat. When one hits a pipeline the entire pipeline is out of action.
Child-sex traffickers are meeting a demand of the American market for having sex with children. If they aren’t imported then those who sexually abuse children will instead abuse the children of American citizens. Probably have to kill them so they can’t talk. And, because they are American and will “shop local” they will have a shorter trail to discover and be more likely to go undetected.
Great reasoning ability you have there.
I always thought a better strategy in Vietnam would have been to drop dollars instead of 1,000 lb. bombs from B-52s.
Looks like Trump is vacuuming up tomans in Tehran.
Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki overreactions to Pearl Harbor when all the Japanese did was drop a few innocent little fireworks on some U.S. boats?
They weren’t reactions to Pearl Harbor at all. They were dropped to convince Japan to surrender, so as to end the war.
and Hirohito could care less about thousands dying. Only when Stalin started shifting surplus military to Far East ready to invade Japan, Hirohito felt the heat, and decided not to visit Red Square to be hanged. He opted to deal with Americans, and likely sweetened the deal with all the gold he stole form conquered banks. Not an ounce was ever accounted for. Officially.
Thank you for telling us how ignorant you are.
Nuclear weapons? Really? Trump has been making that claim without evidence. Trump has not met any of the goals he set when he started this war. He’s failed to secure regime change, secure any nuclear material, and open the strait of Hormuz. He’s made a mess of things and he’s been desperately trying to get out of it and the Iranians know he can’t. Not without a painful admission or economic harm.
Israel has completely butchered any semblance of victimhood by continuing genocide in Gaza and now allowing Israeli terrorists to attack Palestinians in the West Bank.
Iran has confessed it had enough enriched uranium for 11 Hiroshima bombs. You are a nuclear-Iran denier.
Genocide in Gaza? Hahahahahah! That’s so ridiculous. Israel is a pretty lousy genocide perpetrator, since Gaza’s population has grown and Israel announces when it will bomb a building so the civilians can get out.
You’re pathetic.
Iran has confessed to no such thing.
Israel is merely toying with Palestinians in Gaza – the main goal of Netanyahu and Gvir are to torture as many Palestinians for as long as they can. They revel in the suffering of Palestinian children. When the planning is done the remaining Gaza population will be pushed into the ocean with bulldozers, dead or alive.
What is your evidence? None. I thought so, Troll.
It’s worse than you think.
Trump tore up the JCPOA, which allowed AIEA inspectors on the ground in Iran. Trump’s DNI (before she resigned) testified Iran had no nuclear weapons and Trump assassinated the Ayatollah (like the Pope for Shia Islam) who had forbidden Iran from developing nuclear weapons.. . in other words, Iran had no nuclear weapons.
*Which begs the question: Why did Trump attack Iran?
Oh —- yeah.
Obongo “The Ineligible” was tooling around the countryside doin’ all de newclear inspektin he wanted, anytime, and where.
Fo sho, dat’s why the murderous rogue terrorist state of Iran had 970 lbs. of nuclear “dust” awaiting “fundamental transformation” into 11 nuclear bombs.
“Trump tore up the JCPOA, which allowed AIEA inspectors on the ground in Iran. “
Dgsnowden, in your case, ignorance has gone a long way. Of what value is it if the inspectors have to inform the Iranians in advance of inspections? In the army, when they inspected your room or rifle, did they have to warn you? What good is it if the inspectors can’t search certain sites?
They may or may not care but they should. A nuclear war starting between Israel and Iran won’t stay between those two. Israel will retaliate in kind and it will expand from there.
Has mankind ever NOT used weapons he created?
It’s inevitable.
As long as one Jew remains alive Israel cannot be destroyed. It will always be the land the Jews promised to themselves and told everyone else that God gave it to them.
This present attack on Iran is more than sufficient justification to them to get a large number of nukes. Coming up on 50 years, Iran has had a single position – get the influence of Western money out of the Middle East and out of the hands of brutal dictators. Surprising no one, the petroleum oligarchs don’t want to leave.
Annonymous
Only a freaking idiot such as yourself would not understand the Iranian war is 100% justifiable. Appeasement of terrorism is to invite terror into your house. Regardless of whether you support Israel or not, Iran wreaks havoc on its neighbors and tries to extort world economies. The Democrats are totalitarian provocateurs, they would gladly burn our country to the nub if they arose out of the ashes with power. Trump is not losing this war, Iran is losing and his strategic use of weapons has limited the death toll while eviscerating their military abilities.
Everyone sick of your daily dose of pathetic TDS raise your hand.
Everyone is indeed sick of their daily dose of delusional and pathetic TDS. However, TDS defines their very existence so they will never stop laying smelly turds here and interfering with rational conversations by rational commenters.
Traitors gotta treason.
Says the idiot who can’t spell it.
The conflict is not at all pointless – are you so stupid as to have no clue ?
You are free to disagree over the importance of the factors driving the conflict.
But pretending they do not exist means you are either a liar or a fool disconnected from reality.
For those actually connected to reality the question is not “Why is the US fighting ?” , but why isn’t Europe participating ?
Iran was on the verge -within weeks or a few months at most of producing 11 Hiroshima type Nuclear Bombs with significantly more coming.
They already have the missile capacity to nuke anyone nation in the Mideast. Within a year or two they would have the capacity to nuke anyone nation in Europe.
A year or so after that they would have the capability of nuking any nation in the world.
The JCPOA clearly did NOT work – not under Biden. Not under Obama.
The mere fact that Iran’s leaders would rather be destroyed than enter an agreement with Trump that would demonstrably prevent them from posing a nuclear threat to the world
makes it clear why the JCPOA did not work and Why Iran is so great a threat.
Putin is not going to nuke anyone unless someone nukes Russia first. Putin does not have a death wish.
Xi is not going to nuke anyone unless China is nuked first.
Even Kim Un is not going to nuke anyone unless North Korea is nuked first.
None of these leaders or nations are actively seeking to go out in a blaze of glory.
Iranian leaders are refusing to agree to pretty much any constrtaints – and they are willing to Die rather than come to any agreement.
This is no different from Hitler and the Nazi’s Hitler lead Germany to utter destruction rather than surrender – despite the fact that the war was inevitably lost atleast a year earlier.
Myriads of Japanese leaders felt exactly the same. Japan did NOT face the same invasion of its homeland solely because Hirohito chose to surrender rather than see his own people needlessly annihilated.
We ALL wish the iranian leaders were rational people who at the very least were not actively seeking their own death.
The use of Military force is NOT popular EVER – but sometimes it is necessary.
Contra your nonsense this conflict is not pointless it is necessary.
As to its success, The ONLY “failure” of US strategy is the failure to anticipate the depth of the willingness of IRGC leaders down to the middle ranks to Die rather that admit defeat.
What we are watching is Hitler and his henchmen in the Furher Bunker in Berlin as everything arround them is being destroyed.
The US has already won this conflict – Iran’s ability to trerrorize its neighbors and the world is significantly diminished for years.
US forces could leave tomorow – and return at anytime should Iran return to terrorizing the world.
The World, the US, and Trump want an agreement – not because Iran – again like Hitler is particularly keen on abiding by agreements,
But because failure to abide by any agreement explains and justifies the return of US FORCE.
But that can be accomplished without any agreement.
The US can leave whenever it wants – returning when conditions warrant.
Or we can as we are now – remain, Punishing misconduct by the Iranians until the regime collapses or publicly capitulates or merely stops misbehaving.
According to Netanyahu, Iran has been 2 weeks away from a nuclear weapon since 1987.
It is idiotic to deny Iran was close to getting nukes, or that they are willing to use nukes when they get them. Iran has been close for a long time, and Israel’s covert actions have prevented them from crossing the line into actually having a nuclear weapon. It is ridiculous to deny that Iran has been close for a long time. If Israel had not acted, Iran would have moved much closer and even gotten nukes. Israel acts because for Israel this is existential. Iran is dedicated to annihilating Israel, and has been for decades. Also, unlike the rest of the world, Iran’s current regime has no compunction about using nukes. They’ll use a nuke the day they get one.
OldManFromKS,
Iran is a rogue nation.
They have been at odds with the Saudis and other neighbors for decades.
They have been at war with America since the early 80s.
Trump is the only president to go to real kinetic war against Iran.
Didn’t Trump obliterate the Iranian nuclear program just a few months before Netanyahu goaded Trump into doing Israel’s bidding? How did Iran recover from obliteration so fast?
John Say – well said. Iran’s government is controlled by a genocidal death cult. It is a matter of religious dogma for them, that the only way the Mahdi (Twelfth Imam) will emerge to establish paradise is for there to be another world war. They believe they will go to heaven if they die in such a conflict, so deterrence is impossible.
#WeAreEstovir
Worse – it wasn’t to appease Netanyahu, it was because Trump didn’t want Netanyahu to take the lead against Iran; this is because Trump did not want to play second banana to Netanyahu, just as Netanyahu played Trump to do.
“They are also keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed.”
Which, of course, is a lie. In August alone, hundreds of tankers went through the Strait.
Nowhere in your comment do you acknowledge the fact that the Iranian pirates are terrorizing *civilian* targets. In fact, you seem to be happy at the hint of any success by those pirates.
Public universities and community colleges are still funded by tax money, right?
Lawyers among us: Is there a case to be made that it is unconstitutional for the hiring bodies within such taxpayer funded institutions to engage in viewpoint discrimination? I guess I don’t really think there is. Or someone would have made it.
Remember that rationale of “disproportionate impact” that progressives love? Well, viewpoint discrimination seems to have had a disproportionate impact on conservative Ph.Ds applying for jobs in public institutions.
What else can be inferred from the fact that none of them gets these jobs?
And if through some break in protocol a conservative professor has achieved tenure, ideology tests can be introduced to drive them out. Compelled speech, for example.
Regarding the monoculture at most public universities, it seems more likely that the needed correction won’t be via the courts. Rather, via the bursar’s office.
The public will just desist from enrolling in these institutions. They will vote with their feet, just as blue state citizens vote with their feet by moving to red states.
Unfortunately, even if the citizens of a state withhold tuition dollars from their public university, they are still compelled to bankroll their state’s indoctrination factory via tax dollars.
People say the liberal arts are in trouble.
One factor may be that a professor teaching, say, medical imaging is less likely to be a self-indulgent gasbag blathering on about his/her politics than is a tenured professor of English.
Imagine the sinking feeling of the young consumer of a public university class who has taken out a ruinous loan, paid down the money for his/her credits for a mandatory class, and then hears his/her professor launch into an attempted cram down of the professor’s political views in the first lecture.
The kid’s PAYING for this. Thanks to the loan, FOREVER.
Shame on all of us.
Lazy Column Day
Here’s What To Look For
This piece reads like Lazy Column Day. Like, “I’ll just go broad today and claim liberals routinely cheer death.”
Turley can write columns like this knowing Estovir’s puppets will back him up; echoing the message that liberals are really, really sick. Like the insensitivity of liberals is a cancer eating the nation’s soul!
And because liberals keep cheering death, Estovir’s puppets can howl with outrage. Howling with outrage is, in fact, a rich conservative tradition. It’s what conservatives naturally do.
They shake their fists, thrash in spasms, and HOWL like dogs demanding to be unchained. So they can rip apart that person upsetting their master!
And throughout the course of this day, Estovir’s puppets will be howling in unison while choking on their leashes. Only Turley can hold them back! This spectacle will continue until 7 pm Eastern Time when Estovir is finally off the clock.
Look for first-person testimonies from puppets vividly recalling the insensitivity of liberals at fictitious events. Like, “My liberal cousins kept joking about Charlie Kirk’s murder during Thanksgiving dinner. My wife was so disgusted, she went out to sit in the car.”
But as the day goes on, even Estovir will get bored. At that point he’ll resort to increasingly sophmoric posts. Invariably Estovir will put up something so crass it will totally undermine the sanctimonious tenor of Turley’s column. We know because we’ve seen this show before!
Replace Charlie Kirk, Nick Shirley, Brian Thompson or Donald Trump with Barack Obama, Hasan Piker or George Floyd and see how tolerant the leftwing Fascists in academia would be to humor and mocking. I imagine not very.
I beg to differ. Advocating or celebrating violence is not something that should be enabled by college administrators. Those folks should not be teaching impressionable children. What in the world is a college doing with an instructor in “social justice rhetoric and community-centered composition”; that’s just advocacy. Besides that, he is just an instructor, not a full-time faculty member with tenure.
The outlaw Sundown said, killing old Texas Ranger Bill Thaxton would be fun.
The old ranger sent back his answer “Tell him that I’m on my way
I’ve never ran and I’ll meet this young man at any time of the day”.
Bill got there just about sunset. the sun still hung like fire in the sky.
In just a few moments out there in the street Old Bill or the outlaw would die.
I wonder what to think about this one. I am no fan of laughing at the tragedy of Charlie Kirk. What those do not understand about this one is that it can happen to them for the very same reasons. Someone does not like what they stand for on any given issue. it does not matter what anyone thinks, there will always be someone upset about it. Yet, I do not think there is much academic institutions may be able to do about it if they are private posts. They are losing in court time and time against this very type of posting. There is a silver lining though. Even if every academic is far left leaning, they are not gaining much traction and the political needle has not moved left at all. That tells me their message is failing to resonate. I can only hope nobody else has to die over posts they think are funny.
In our first amendment, the accountability component for free speech is the free press. The press is us. Say what you want – then the press can publish who you are and what you said and did for the world to see… often for the rest of your life and beyond… as it should be. The rest can then make their choice if and how they relate to you, buy what you’re selling – or not.
Interesting perspective. I think you’re on to something.
Tyler Robinson has pleaded innocent.
While it is clearly unseemly to celebrate the cowardly assassination of Kirk, I would, at least, like to know who pulled the trigger. And why. .. ?
Would have enjoyed debating Charlie.
*He was open to debate .. . some people are clearly not.
The evidence that has come to light overwhelmingly points to Robinson, and no evidence has come to light suggesting anyone else did it – unless you know of some, in which case please do tell. But everyone is, under the law, entitled to the presumption of innocence.
It is a different matter to say “I would like to know who pulled the trigger.” Everyone would like that to be established legally, but pretending it is a mystery strikes me as dishonest.
P.S. Since his plea was rendered in a courtroom, the legal context applies. He did not plead innocent. He pleaded not guilty. That may sound like hair-splitting, but in the law it is a meaningful difference. Innocent means factually innocent. Not guilty means: prove it.
#WeAreEstovir
Dear Estovir,
The evidence that has come to light (by hook or crook) is a steaming pile of cow dung. For example, any competent ballistic testimony will prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, an unaltered (?) 30.06 high velocity round @ 150 yards could not have made the wound that killed Charlie. .. assuming Robinson had a 30.06 rifle stuffed down his pants leg on the roof.
Your point is irrelevant: technically Robinson is innocent until proven guilty.
My question remains: why would anyone want to assassinate Charlie?
*I am Spartacus
I do look forward to the ballistic evidence being discussed at trial. However, in the communications he sent to his furry lover after the fact admitted he did it multiple times, and even gave the reason why. He also admitted he was trying to evade the police. Plus, it was his grandfather’s rifle. So . . . given all of that, are you aware of any evidence at all pointing to another possible perpetrator?
As for my point: it is a small one, but not irrelevant. Yes, he’s presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that’s different than being innocent until proven guilty. It’s also different than pleading innocent – a plea that does not exist. The precision in language matters. You said he “pleaded innocent,” and then boostrapped that inaccurate wording into a claim to be looking forward to finding out who in the heck actually pulled the trigger. I find that dishonest. It’s clear who pulled the trigger, but he can’t be punished until it’s proven in court. That’s the system we live under, which is pretty awesome when you think about it.
#WeAreEstovir
How do you figure a .30 caliber round could not of killed Kirk?
Didn’t say a .30 caliber round. I said a 30.06 round from the rifle presented as evidence.
A round from that 30.06 rifle would have gone through Charlies neck, including his vertebrae, out of his back .. . and maybe injured few more people behind him.
30.06 rifles are typically used for big game hunting.
*a round from that 30.06 rifle would go through a 1/4″ steel plate @ 150 yards.
The 30-06 is a 7.62mmx63 is a .30 caliber cartridge.
I can load a 30-06 with a light charge, light round nose bullet for varmints, or if I wanted to keep the pelt, up to moose or bear with a heavy charge, and heavy expanding bullet.
From what I have read, and the videos, the bullet struck Kirk from his right side at a downward angle, anterior of the vertebrae, hitting major ascending arteries and his esophagus and then exiting to Kirk’s left side of his neck.
There may be some way of altering a 30.06 round to make it less destructive. A standard 30.06 round (presumably ‘they’ have the etched 30.06 cartridges in evidence.) would have blown Charlies head off.
From what I’ve read, FBI lab analysis found ‘fragments’ of the bullet (variously described as ’30 caliber’ – which covers a wide assortment of firearms.) inside Charlie’s neck. It did not exit the left side of Kirks neck.
What is “standard” in this case? Ball? Hollow point? Soft point? Flat nose? Round nose? Ballistic tip (that would be green for a .30 caliber bullet)? I have probably two dozen different .30 caliber bullets I can make them do a variety of things and at differing speeds depending on powder type and charge.
He etched the brass. Not the bullet.
Then where did the bullet go?
If the bullet went through Kirk’s neck, then how would of it blown Kirk’s head off?
We call that “shot placement.” It is very important.
For example, if I had to put one of my livestock down, and I have, I take a humane shot, from very close range, with a .22LR, in the forehead, about 2 to 4 inches of the midsagittal line. This drops them on the spot, their eyes dilate, they are unconscious, and then I slit the throat to bleed them out.
From what I have read, the bullet exited, hit the ground and there may be some question of matching the bullet to the barrel of the rifle. Something the defense may be counting on.
Spot on
The bullet hit the top edge of Kirk’s concealed body armor and was deflected up into his neck. Without that body armor it would have shattered his collarbone and made him hurt considerably, but he would have lived. Had it been conventional body armor it would have absorbed the impact, but it was tapered to conceal that he was wearing any and instead made it appear as if Kirk had larger chest muscles.
A 30-06 round IS a 30 cal round.
So is a Smith&Wesson SC pistol/hand gun. .. a 30.06 rifle round is much larger and far more destructive.
What does a Smith&Wesson SC pistol/hand gun have to do with anything?
There are manufactures who make single shot, bolt action pistols in rifle cartridges. Same cartridge, just shorter barrel, some loss of FPS and FTLBS.
IF I really wanted to, I could pay a gunsmith to build me a single shot, bolt action pistol in 30-06. I would be more inclined for one in .308WIN (also a .30 caliber cartridge) as there are already single shot, bolt action pistols on the market, mass produced.
Someone may have already manufactured a single shot, bolt action pistol in 30-06.
A .357 magnum is a.30 caliber and loaded with a black talon hollow point round will blow a softball sized hole in you. Loaded with a wad cutter, that hole would be the size of a pencil.
Ammunition, shot placement and ballistics.
Thjere are lots of variables.
As I understand the distance was 200yds not 150.
There is an allegation that the bullet ricocheted off Kirk bulletproof vest.
We do not know the load of the bullet.
dgsnowden. I would greatly apporeciate some basis for your balistics claim.
Are you claiming that Kirk was not shot ?
Or are you claiming he was shot by someone closer ?
Next Robinson is not innocent until proven guilty – he is innocent IN THE EYES OF THE LAW until proven guilty.
Many have concluded based on the evidence they are aware of that Robinson is quilty.
Barring some evidence that is not currently public I expect the jury will eventually conclude the same.
But we do have a process to go through – that process is NOT a prohibition against the rest of us excercising our judgement.
It IS a bar against punishing Robinson for the crime.
Anyone is free to conclude based on the evidence they are aware of that Robinson is quilty.
But he can not be deprived of life, liberty or property absent the due process of a trial that starts with the presumption of innocence.
“why would anyone want to assassinate Charlie?”
There are many possible reasons.
Left wing nuts resort to vilence when they can not win debates.
Regardless while Why is interesting, the FACT is that Charlie WAS assassinated.
The assassin had a reason – not likely a good one, but still a reason.
“why would anyone want to assassinate Charlie?”
He had recently come out against the IDF killing people in Gaza. He had to be silenced.
Three months for swift justice.
Lincoln was assassinated on April 14.
Four conspirators were hanged on July 7.
Always remember one is innocent until proven guilty. Until Robinson either is found guilty or admits guilt, there is no facts proved yet. While I am not suggesting he will not be found guilty, there are no facts found up to now. Juries are the final arbiters of facts and outcomes. Evidence is not facts until a jury determines.
And yes, I want to know who shot Charlie Kirk too.
Quiet man – this is a topic that comes up with some frequency. Under the law Robinson is presumed innocent (rather than actually being innocent), and he cannot be criminally punished until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard applies in a court of law, but it is not the standard that applies to internet discussions. People can be aware of the evidence that has come to light and express confidence about Robinson’s guilt. There is nothing in the law that prevents that. We can reach reasonable conclusions about his guilt – and not to pretend to be completely in the dark (dgsnowden’s tactic) – while simultaneously agreeing that Robinson cannot be punished until his guilt is factually proven in a court of law.
#WeAreEstovir
What I worry about is one can have the mind Robinson did it without being convicted. Presumed innocent is a term of art for the law. One cannot presume innocence if one assumes the evidence points one way or the other. It is a mind frame. One does not know what is reported is true or not. It has to be proven true. Until then all accused are innocent. While I can agree about reasonable conclusions, it does not mean the conclusions are based on good evidence or even true evidence.
Quiet man – under the law, Robinson is presumed innocent. As you know, that means he can’t be punished unless the government rebuts that presumption by proving to an impartial jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
I do not live in Utah and I will not be on the jury. I have seen reporting that makes me believe Robinson did it. In fact, from what I’ve seen, the evidence is overwhelming.
By contrast, I have seen no reporting from any source indicating anyone else on earth is a possible suspect.
Finally, I don’t think it’s inappropriate for me to discuss these developments on an internet blog. Nor do I believe other commenters on this blog are somehow obligated to deny what seems obvious, just because a jury somewhere else must presume Robinson innocent until all evidence has been presented.
Estovir. I have not pretended to be ‘in the dark’ .. . on the contrary, it’s you who is pretending to be in the dark.
Someone(s) assassinated Kirk and I seriously doubt it was Tyler Robinson.
*e.g. you know perfectly well Charlie was adamantly opposed to the war in Iran and Gaza . .. and had recently rejected $100s million additional TPUSA donations from Israel/Bibi shortly before he was assassinated.
on the contrary, it’s you who is pretending to be in the dark.
Where did I pretend to be in the dark? I never said anything remotely like that.
I seriously doubt it was Tyler Robinson
That is your prerogative. If you seriously doubt it, then I think you’re nuts, possibly because you’ve been listening to whack-job conspiracy theorists – like Candace Owens or someone like her. If you don’t seriously doubt it (which would be a far more rational position), then I think you’re being dishonest in this discussion.
The Israel garbage is, unfortunately, just par for the antisemitic course from you, Herr Hitler.
Criticism of Israel is not the same thing as ‘antisemitic’, Herr Goebbels
Who said anything about criticism of Israel. If it’s balanced and reasonable, that’s fine.* But that’s not what I was responding to. It’s your conspiracy theorizing where Israel secretly controls the things you dislike in the world.
*Some criticism of Israel is indeed reflective of antisemitism. If there are double standards, delegitimization, or demonization, that crosses the line into Jew hatred.
Criticism of Israel’s existence, or of its use of force to defend that existence, IS the same thing as antisemitism. Portrayal of zionism as a Western colonial project rather than as the indigenous people returning home, is antisemitism. False accusations that Israel deliberately targets innocents is literally the historical blood libel.
Feel free to criticize specific Israeli policies such as tax policy, economic policy, environmental policy, the structure of government, or any other matter on which you routinely criticize many other countries, including your own. But you have no right to believe that Israel should not exist, that it should surrender to its enemies and allow them to continue the great project that they and their German allies started about 90 years ago.
Good response, Milhouse.
It is clear from what dgsnowden says that he has many antisemitic tendencies if he isn’t an outright bigoted antisemite. He is not very bright either, showing it at every opportunity.
Innocent means factually innocent? Not in an American court. One can be factually innocent and still be found guilty and put on death row, even if prosecutors and police concoct lies to get there.
Kirk was not open to debate. In a debate one might be assigned either side and be expected to defend it. Kirk was given a mission by his millionaire benefactors to find weak-minded college students and groom them to be minions to the oligarchs, a job he was paid very well to do.
In the many cases of his activities he was more conman than debater; he had plants in the audience to gain information from students who were lined up to oppose him, had predefined paths that invariably lead to bible verses, did not bring a bible so that there could be no fact checking to see if what Kirk claimed was in the bible or the context for it. He wasn’t there to investigate ideas, but to steam-roller over them. When he would lose ground, Kirk would call the goons to have the person removed; peer pressure from other students would prevent much struggle.
Robinson has pleaded “not guilty”, but he admitted that he did it. He tried to take capital punishment off the table by arguing that he was careful not to harm any bystanders. That argument required that he admit to killing Kirk. You can’t have it both ways.
“Not guilty” doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, it means he did it but the jury should acquit him for reasons.
Clayton Goldstein, Exactly. This is one of the few comments here that actually understands how the First Amendment works.Freedom of speech means the government can’t throw you in a gulag for making a tasteless joke, but it absolutely does not mean freedom from societal consequences.
You have every constitutional right to hop online and post an edgy, toxic meme. But under that exact same Constitution, the press and the public have the right to screenshot it, publish your name, and make you famous for all the wrong reasons.
The First Amendment protects you from the cops, not from the court of public opinion.
You mean the mob. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from the mob? why? what’s the mob gonna do? Is this so-called ‘public opinion’ a threat now? What if I don’t care what other people think? Should I hide my opinions? Is that your advice here? What’s your IP address?
such a clown, that X. The ISSUE is NOT “Freedom of Speech” or the First Amendment. It is the censorship, crushing, discrediting, burying, or filtered non-publication of opposing speech. We have a politically-bent MEDIA in the U.S. that is perfecting those tactics.
Apparently you didn’t read what I wrote. Try again. Slower this time.
you dumb clown.
Show me where Turley or Darren has published your reaL name so that people can avoid you. If you were not so frightened of consequence, you would not use the dumb “X” sign
Where to we get the most damaging anti-Trump, anti-administration “anonymous” sources.
clown too stupid to realize his denseness.
You’re not making any sense. Are you sure your’e reading things right?
Says “Anonymous”?????
were you talking about “X?”
What you wrote is basically correct and it means that Chapman university can fire or otherwise sanction Goldman for his remarks.
“Clayton Goldstein, Exactly. This is one of the few comments here that actually understands how the First Amendment works.Freedom of speech means the government can’t throw you in a gulag for making a tasteless joke, but it absolutely does not mean freedom from societal consequences.”
Correct – you can be fired for bad jokes.
So, it’s true?
Freedom of speech evidently includes defamation, which may be resolved in the press, making defamation laws unnecessary and unconstitutional?
IDIOTS abound in the new world of politics
Some 60 years ago, one of my professors, in response to a comment that a student made, proudly confessed that she did not have television in her home. “Oh, WE don’t have television!“, was the utterance. That I I still can recall it, clearly,in retrospect, that comment was a harbinger of things to come. “Teach your children well,” sang CSN&Y, back in the day. Now we are obliged to add“ Choose their teachers well.”, “ and know they love you.”
When humanity sees nothing wrong with this, this is the end of our way of life. We place excuses over our morality. JT is bringing this to light. However, when I speak to people who actually work for a living, they are too busy to stay informed. It is easier to be uninformed than deal with the realities that demand our challenges. So here we are — at the brink of ‘extinction’. As to the young, they aren’t consumed with fighting this battle because they have conditioned to ‘be happy’. Ignorance is certainly bliss!
The Youth Aren’t Brainwashed, They Just Have Priorities: Blaming the younger generation for being ‘conditioned to be happy’ is a bizarre complaint. Young people aren’t ignoring these online battles out of ignorance; they are ignoring them because they have actual, real-world problems to deal with—like the housing market, inflation, and finding a job. Refusing to participate in a toxic, online culture-war circus isn’t a sign of ‘ignorance,’ it’s a sign of basic emotional intelligence.
Turley isn’t ‘bringing a civilizational crisis to light’—he’s just farming for clicks from people who want to feel outraged. Step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and realize the world is not ending just because the internet remains a toxic place.
Anonymous – I don’t want to feel outraged. Nor do I feel outraged. But I do appreciate the balance Professor Turley provides. The MSM never touches most events the professor covers. So he provides a valuable and unique window into what’s actually happening in certain corners of the nation and world. And there is no advertising on his site, so there is no basis to conclude he gets paid through the clicks you accuse him of farming for. Best wishes.
#WeAreEstovir
@Old Man from Kansas
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
It’s actually the other way around. Professor Turley frequently plucks niche stories from the absolute fringes of the news cycle and frames them as if they are mainstream crises.
For a real mainstream issue, look at the massive legal battle surrounding the Missouri redistricting mess. It is clearly a Republican scheme to rig the congressional map against the explicit will of the state’s voters, who used the petition process to force the legislature to comply with their wishes. The Missouri Supreme Court even agreed unanimously. Yet, right after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block that ruling, a federal, Trump-appointed district judge stepped in and issued an order completely overriding the state Supreme Court’s authority.
I am a fan of Professor Turley’s coverage, but let’s be honest: he hyper-focuses on very narrow issues specifically tailored to criticize the left, while ignoring blatant institutional overreach when it happens on the right.
Anonymous – I don’t agree with your characterization. I believe many of the events the Professor covers are reflective of larger movements taking place that the MSM doesn’t touch. In this way the Professor provides balance. The MSM has been slanted left for at least 50 years, maybe 60. In survey after survey, its content creators are over 90% liberal Democrats, and that affects their selection of stories to cover, and the way they cover them. There are a small number of conservative media outlets such as Fox and the NY Post. Turley is another one. Many anonymous commenters come on here and complain bitterly about PT’s coverage, and they also insult Fox and the NY Post while they’re at it (albeit rarely do they engage with the substance, evidently believing calling Fox and NY Post names is sufficient rebuttal). With the Internet, there is now a whole new “ecosystem” – to use a trendy word – of content creators out there who do not follow the standard liberal selection and treatment of news stories. In short, the Left’s virtual media monopoly is broken. That drives some people crazy, since they’re used to maintaining virtual monopoly control over the dissemination of information to the public. Best wishes.
#WeAreEstovir
Oldmanfromkansas, Studies historically show that more journalists lean left or register as Democrats than Republicans that is true but, the ‘over 90% liberal’ figure is an unverified internet myth.
Major networks and national newspapers are owned by massive, billionaire-led conglomerates—hardly ‘socialist collectives’ eager to dismantle the status quo. Their primary driver is clicks and advertising revenue, not Marxist ideological purity. Conservative talk radio has absolutely dominated the American airwaves since the late 1980s. Fox News has been the most-watched cable news network on television for over two decades. Suggesting that the right is some sort of scrappy underground resistance fighting a monolithic monopoly is a carefully manufactured marketing strategy, not reality.
Claims that people ‘complain bitterly’ about Turley because they hate conservative views are a clear straw man.
Main stream Media focuses on the national level big stories. Professor Turley focuses on the fringes, looking for those stories that emphasize his bash-the-left narrative. I don’t blame him for making that choice. It’s clearly meant to cater to his audience. I don’t hold him in contempt for it. I’m just making an observation that is plainly obvious.
. . . the ‘over 90% liberal’ figure is an unverified internet myth.
False. I’ve been following polling on this topic for over 35 years, and 91% is the steady number since the early 90s.
Major networks and national newspapers are owned by massive, billionaire-led conglomerates—hardly ‘socialist collectives’ eager to dismantle the status quo.
This is what people always tell me when I mention the polling about content creators. It is irrelevant who owns the corporations. The owners by and large have decided not to interfere with the content creators (although there are a few rare exceptions). It is the political leanings of the content creators – the editors and reporters – that counts. The proof is in how slanted the stories are on all MSM outlets other than Fox and the few others that lean right.
Conservative talk radio has absolutely dominated the American airwaves since the late 1980s. Fox News has been the most-watched cable news network on television for over two decades.
That also proves my point. The MSM is so consistently left-leaning, that half the country wants an alternative. That creates a market for talk radio and Fox. But the point is, regardless of the existence of those alternatives, Americans are inundated 24/7 with the narrative from the MSM. There is no escaping it even for someone who consciously chooses to seek out alternatives.
Claims that people ‘complain bitterly’ about Turley because they hate conservative views are a clear straw man.
Not at all. I see it frequently on this blog.
Main stream Media focuses on the national level big stories. Professor Turley focuses on the fringes, looking for those stories that emphasize his bash-the-left narrative.
This is an example of what I mean. The liberals who frequent this blog have never, in my experience, admitted that there is anything at all wrong with the extreme behaviors that Professor Turley brings to light. They are defensive and choose to criticize the professor for mentioning these events, characterizing them as one-offs in every single case (which are legion), rather than discuss what might be going wrong that lead to the events. You are an example of an anonymous commenter doing just that.
#WeAreEstovir
Oldmanfromkansas, your 35 years of ‘polling’ memory doesn’t line up with actual data.
If you’ve been following polling since the ’90s, you are misremembering the data. The definitive, gold-standard longitudinal study on this is the American Journalist Survey, conducted over five decades by researchers at Indiana University and Syracuse University. Their data shows that 35.4% of journalists identify as Democrats, 52% identify as Independents, and 3.4% identify as Republicans. Even if you look purely at ideological self-description rather than party registration, only 53.4% describe themselves as liberal. Claiming a steady ‘91%’ number for over three decades is statistically invented.
https://newhouse.syracuse.edu/news/survey-of-journalists-provides-insights-into-the-state-of-journalism-today/
The idea that billionaire corporate owners ‘just don’t interfere’ with newsrooms is crazy naive. Corporate executives don’t need to manually rewrite a reporter’s script; they control the budget, dictate what stories generate clicks, and can lay off entire investigative teams if they threaten corporate advertisers or the parent company’s bottom line. The media isn’t ‘slanting left’ out of ideological devotion; it’s chasing sensationalism and controversy because that is what keeps viewers hooked and advertisers paying.
Claiming people are inundated 24/7 with a left narrative because an alternative market exists makes no sense. Conservative talk radio and Fox News aren’t niche, hidden alternatives; they are the biggest platforms in the country. Fox News regularly beats all other cable networks combined, and right-wing algorithms completely dominate engagement metrics on platforms like Facebook and X.
You say liberals on this blog ‘never admit anything is wrong’ with the fringe behaviors Turley highlights. That is a straw man. People aren’t defending the bad behavior of an obscure academic; they are pointing out that Turley is wasting his credentials as a legal scholar to act as a glorified content aggregator.
The polling numbers I have seen back me up on my 91% claim. I don’t have them at my fingertips, but my memory of reading them is clear as day. Even more important, the proof is in the slanted nature of the reporting and editing, which is well documented, as well as in the huge market for non-leftist reporting – that you admit exists. That market only exists because of unmet demand for non-ideologically-leftist reporting.
As for corporations, the corporate leadership has traditionally elected not to interfere with editors except in a few rare cases, as they care most about the bottom line. Furthermore, corporations pretty hard-core woke these days. (An early example was Ted Turner, who was ultra-liberal and shattered the idea that corporate ownership was universally conservative.) So just waving around the “corporation” label only supports my position. And by your own admission, only 3.4% of editors and reporters are Republican, whereas ten times as many are Democrats.
You say liberals on this blog ‘never admit anything is wrong’ with the fringe behaviors Turley highlights. That is a straw man.
Not at all. You have not given me a single example of a liberal on this blog admitting any of the behavior Professor Turley brings to light is in any way problematic, so it’s not a straw man but a fact. You double down on criticizing Turley and characterizing the literally thousands of examples he highlights as fringe behavior. I would have more respect for a liberal commenter who says, “Yeah, that behavior is not a great thing, but here’s the bigger issue, and let’s discuss that.” But I have never once seen a comment like that. The knee-jerk reaction of every single liberal commenter I have ever seen on this blog (you included) is to avoid confessing that any problem exists on the Left, and to instead cast aspersions on the good professor for bringing these examples to light. Even now, you can’t bring yourself to admit that the violent rhetoric highlighted in the above article is a problem.
In 1972, the Democrat candidate for President, George McGovern, got only 37.5% of the vote. In their 1986 book, The Media Elite, political scientists S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda S. Lichter reported the results of their survey of 240 journalists at the nation’s top media outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. When asked about their voting patterns, over 80 percent of them admitted to voting for McGovern.
After similar polls and surveys showed members of the media were overwhelmingly Democrat, many of them were embarrassed by the apparent bias and changed their voter registration to “independent or non-affiliated”. But changing their party preference does not mean the stories they choose to report and how they frame those stories is neutral.
https://mrc.org/liberal-mediaevery-poll-shows-journalists-are-more-liberal-american-public-and-public-knows-it
Relying on your 35-year-old memory of an unnamed poll—while dismissing the definitive American Journalist Survey from Indiana and Syracuse universities—is not an argument. The *actual* data shows that over 50% of journalists register as Independents. Yes, Democrats outnumber Republicans 35% to 3.4%, but grouping the massive, politically moderate, center-left, and independent majority into a monolithic ‘91% radical leftist collective’ is just factually lazy.
When major media companies push superficial social messaging, it’s not out of ideological devotion—it’s standard corporate PR designed to protect the bottom line. If a newsroom runs a piece that threatens their billionaire owner’s tax subsidies or corporate advertisers, they are shut down instantly. Additionally, you cited Ted Turner from the 1980s, completely ignoring that Fox Corp, News Corp, Sinclair Broadcasting, and Nexstar own the most dominant, highly viewed media operations in America.
You want liberals to constantly prostrate themselves, apologize for every fringe leftist idiot on the internet, and say, ‘Yeah, that behavior is not a great thing, but let’s discuss the bigger issue.’ Yet, you completely refuse to do the exact same thing for our own side. That’s why I’m calling it out as a straw man argument. You would get more ‘bite’ out of your argument if you provided some examples showing those on the right admitting wrongs like you demand of the left.
Not 91% radical left, 91% liberal, and as I mentioned, the proof is in the product they produce. And it’s not one poll from 35 years ago. I never said that. It’s year after year, starting 35 years ago (can you see the difference). Also, I’ve noticed that the 91% stat lines up with the ratio of university professors, as is often reported.
As for your second claim, whenever I hear of a right-wing nutjob saying or doing extreme, unreasonable stuff, I don’t hesitate to call it out. And on the right, there is a concerted effort – as there has always been – to exclude the more radical unreasonable views. To the extent some politicians such as J.D. Vance refrain from doing that, I’m critical of them. The Dem party, by stark contrast, refuses to denounce or dissociate from the violent extremists rising in its midst, falling back on a weak and transparent “big tent” argument for letting terrorist sympathizers gain power.
Similarly, I have never once seen a critical reaction toward left-wing extremism on this blog. The 100% reaction from liberals (yourself included) is to deflect and attack the source of the reporting, getting into side discussions about the host of this blog, and characterizing thousands of incidents as all being one-offs. You continue in that trend, so thanks for proving my point.
#WeAreEstovir
Oldmanfromkansas,
Shifting the goalposts from “radical left” to “liberal” doesn’t rescue a fabricated number. You still haven’t produced a single real study to back up this “91%” figure because it simply does not exist. Real, multi-decade longitudinal data from the American Journalist Survey shows that only 35% of journalists register as Democrats and 53% describe themselves as liberal, with the rest being Independents. Grouping every single moderate, centrist, and independent into a monolithic “91% leftist cabal” is just lazy math.
As for the admission you seek I personally don’t know who on this blog has admitted being wrong. I rarely post here. If you are asking I think what professor Goldman said was bad, I do think so. But it’s not as serious as professor Turley makes it out to be. You have not provided an example of anyone on the right admitting being wrong. It’s only fair to ask if you can provide an example.
oldman: you have correctly summarized one of the themes of MAGA media, which is that mainstream media is “slanted” or “leftist” and certainly “biased. MAGA media was set up by oligarchs to push back against truthful reporting about Trump, his incompetence and corruption and the failure of Republicans to carry out their Constitutional duties. Oligarchs love those tax breaks for the wealthiest, elimination of consumer and environmental protections and rendering impotent oversight agencies that enforce regulations, all so they can make more money, gouge consumers and evade taxes. But mainstream media would report on these things, so they set up their own alternative media to cast doubt on the motivation of mainstream media, to insult and portray Democrats in a negative light, to defend Trump, and dismiss proof of how he has damaged our economy, the damage he has done to our international relations and his abuses of power. Watergate seems like child play compared to the overt corruption of Donald Trump, his endless lies, the war he started that is killing our economy, his late night rants and childish posts that expose his emotional immaturity, his insecurity and just how fragile his ego is.
The plan for such media grew out of Nixon’s resignation following the disclosures by Woodward and Bernstein of Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate break in and subsequent cover up. After Nixon left office and licked his wounds for awhile, he convinced himself that he could have saved his presidency if only there had been some media that would have attacked the Washington Post and Woodward and Bernstein–to accuse them of unfairness or even worse, all to cast doubt on his guilt and involvement in the break in and cover up. Of course, the story they broke was a bombshell, and it was all true. Nixon really was a crook. Trump makes Nixon look like a petty shoplifter by comparison.
Fox and NY Post are not “conservative”–they are MAGA–and that’s another theme—trying to equate the cult of personality known as MAGA with conservatism. The Lincoln Project and The Bulwark, which ARE “conservative” vehemently disagree–they draw a large distinction between conservatism and the blind devotion to that sick narcissistic sociopath who can’t stop lying, who exists to feed his massive ego, and who has damaged our economy and the respect of other countries we had enjoyed and built up over decades. Query: why the first-ever “midterm convention”, after most of the primaries are overwith, other than Trump’s record-setting disapproval ratings in poll after poll, the need for an audience and a platform to feed his lies and repeat the same old grievances? He is addicted to attention and applause and can’t handle push-back or accountability. What about his trying to purchase votes by promising $5,000 if people vote Republican? Trump has no authority to help himself to our treasury, but Republicans have shown that they won’t stand up to him. They need to be voted out, so our country can air out the stench of Donald J. Trump and begin to repair the damage he has done.
It’s not name-calling to point out the truth about the bias of MAGA media and their spin on facts. Of course, such media could not survive but for the gullibility of a certain number of Americans–the ones who now know, but didn’t then, that Trump was lying about immediately bringing down the cost of groceries, energy, cars, airfare and the other baseless promises. Trump and MAGA Republicans are counting on the continued guillibility of enough Americans who need the $5,000 to put food on the table and fill their gas tanks now that his tariffs and stupid war have driven up the cost of everything, even though it will add over a Trillion Dollars to our growing national debt.
“….plucks niche stories from the absolute fringes of the news cycle and frames them as if they are mainstream crises.”
The mainstream crises are the news that Left-wing MSM failed to inform Americans about because it could hurt Democrats and Leftists. THAT is why they were on the “fringe.”
OldManFromKS,
Well said.
The good professor is pointing out some of the stupid and crazy that is infesting some of our institutions and even the Democrat party. There has always been those on the fringe on both sides of the political spectrum.
However, based off what we are seeing on college campuses, in academia, in elections, in the news, on social media, things MSM is not reporting on, it is no longer just fringe.
As I have mentioned, I am going to college. It is a community college, so, thus far I have not seen any real radicalism. While there are some very bright students, others, well, it sounds exactly like when I was in high school.
As for if the good professor gets paid for clicks, he does not. Once upon a time, I did sys admin for a Word Press site. No advertising, no pay per clicks.
Upstate – yes, it’s a wider problem than just universities, and both-sidesism doesn’t work anymore because it doesn’t ring true. While there are a few crazies on the right, the center of gravity here is still rational. Thanks for pointing that out.
Agreed. He’s someone in the trenches of this destructive environment but he gives his honest & well experienced opinions and with supporting law or history. How he has remained in the university cartel organization is a tribute to his honor and resolve. Am sure my opinion will prompt many insults from vulgar trolls but have a Blessed Day!
It matters not why the professor writes about these things. The fact is they are evil and destructive to our republic and way of life. We are headed for a violent response from those who have so far remained muted. It only requires the correct event to set it off. When it comes both extremes and those in the middle will tremble.
Thank you for shining the light on how demented these people really are. Eventually KARMA just might catch up to them and then let’s see who is laughing.
“The most terrifying force of death comes from the hands of Men who wanted to be left alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know, that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over.”
“The moment the Men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these Men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the Men who just wanted to be left alone.”
–Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
Great quote. And chillingly true. Thank you.
The only part I disagree with is this: “They fight with raw hate . . .”
The proper motivation is to fight with passionate love — for that time in the future to once again be left alone.
You’re welcome. I also feel as you on that four letter word. However, the first sentence in the second paragraph always reminds me to never go there.
“. . . the first sentence . . .”
Good point. If the primary motivation is hatred, then it is suicide — like Edmond Dantès in _The Count of Monte Cristo_.
Absolutely
Some People can’t live without Their Wars.
That’s the problem.
—
Ego is the worst confidence trickster we could ever figure we could ever imagine because you don’t see it and the single biggest con that is I am You. The problem is that the ego hides in the last place if you’d have a look, within itself it disguises its thoughts as your thoughts its feelings as your feelings you think it’s you.
People’s need to protect their own egos knows no bounds they will; lie, cheat, steal, kill do whatever it takes to maintain what we call ego boundaries.
People have no clue that they’re in prison, they don’t know that there is an ego they don’t know. The distinction at first it’s difficult for the mind to accept that there’s some something Beyond itself that there’s something of greater value and greater capacity for Discerning truth than itself.
In religion the ego manifests as the devil and of course no one realizes how smart the ego is because it created the devil so you could blame someone else in creating this imaginary external.
I mean usually, usually made a real enemy for ourselves and that becomes a real danger to the ego.
But that’s also the ego’s creation there is no such thing as an external Enemy.
No Matter What that voice in your head is telling you all perception of an enemy is a projection of the ego as the enemy.
In that sense you could say that 100 of our external enemies are of our own creation.
Your greatest enemy is your own inner perceptions of your own ignorance.
Deutsch:
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=svrwo3zuZFE
Español:
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=KBKJA5PngK4
English:
Professors like Goldman have to rely on expressing violent ideation because they’re not intelligent or accomplished enough to get attention and applause any other way. These faculty members are midwits who got their positions by demonstrating unquestioning devotion to the leftist religion. They are a reflection of the American left as a whole: a depressing combination of mean and dumb.
#WeAreEstovir
The idea that Goldman is posting dark humor because he isn’t ‘accomplished enough’ to get attention assumes he was desperately seeking national spotlight in the first place. He posted a single, edgy comment on an Instagram thread. He didn’t issue a national press release. The only reason he got a massive wave of ‘attention and applause’ is because right-wing media outlets threw an absolute hyperventilating tantrum over it and handed it to him on a silver platter.
Claiming people only get hired in higher education through ‘unquestioning devotion’ to a political ideology completely misunderstands the brutal reality of modern academia. Universities don’t care about your soul; they care about cheap labor. Adjuncts and lecturers get hired to grade mountains of freshman essays for pennies on the dollar because institutions want to exploit their labor, not because they passed a secret Marxist purity test.
At the end of the day, it’s just pure selective outrage. When the right laughs at brutal hammer attacks on elderly Democrats, it’s ‘spirited political satire.’ When an academic makes a joke about a conservative, suddenly it’s a civilizational crisis caused by the midwit apocalypse. Come on man. I swear you’re smarter than that. But you keep probing me wrong.
How often have you heard ” jokes” this disgusting made byprofessors on the right.
If your theory about cheap labor is true, what does that say about the value of a university education?
” The mentality of a person who lives inside a closed system of thought, Communist or other, can be summed up in a single formula:
He can prove everything he believes, and believes everything he can prove… It produces a scholastic, hair-splitting brand of cleverness which affords no
protection against committing the crudest imbecilities.
People with this mentality are found particularly among the intelligentsia”
– Arthur Koestler 1952
Yeah this guy is a real humble virtuous person X.
No probes pls
“I swear you’re smarter than that.”
This is X’s learned tactic.
He is not smart enough to realize that it doesn’t work on smart people, including OMFK
Now that the greedy people have gained control of colleges they’re now calling for higher standards in admissions.
You’re out!
I do not know why Goldman “published” offensive garbage – I do not claim to be good at mind reading – like you do.
I do know that what he published is protected by the first amendment – as you correctly assert.
And NOT from non-government consequences.
Further I do not need to guess at Goldman’s rationale for his post.
It is offensive it is a veiled call to violence. It is not subject to govenrment sanctions and not protected from non-governmental sanctions.
With respect to the rest of your nonsense.
Again I have no idea what goldman’s intent was – but no the post was not “dark humor” nor “edgy”.
The claim that it is the work of a failed intellect has a great deal of merit to it.
When a college professor hints on a significant public forumn that other people should be assassinated – that is national news.
Right or left it is national news.
Those of you on the left ranted for YEARS over Trumps speech at the elipse – which was FAR tamer than this and made NO allusions to violence.
This is not a right wing issue. Or atleast it should not be.,
You CORRECTLY note that speech like this is protected from Government.
You ALSO CORRECTLY note that it is NOT protected from non-government sanctions.
So Why are you unable to to condemn Goldman’s call to assassination ?
No one is sending Goldman to jail over this.
What he did was legal and immoral.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that ?
YOUR OWN correct explanation of free speech says EXACTLY that.
You are essentially paraphrasing Justice Brandies in Whitney vs. California.
The correct response to bad speech is MORE SPEECH.
NO ONE is demanding that you agree to ship Goldman off to jail.
NO ONE is denying you the right to defend Goldman;s right to say offensive things.
All that anyone is asking is that you quit pretending that his remarks were not immoral.
Is that so hard for you ?
Calling for the assassination of others over political disagreement is IMMORAL.
Is it so hard for you to admit that ?
It is IMMORAL no matter who does it.
YOU claim that Goldman got attention and applause as a result of the right wing media
Do you understand how sick that makes those who applaud him ?
Are you Applauding calling for the assassination of those who you disagree with politically ?
Decades ago The Nazi’s tried to march through Skokie the ACLU defended the Nazi’s and ultimately the Nazis were allowed to march.
Many including those in the ACLU wished the Nazi’s would not march, and condemned the Nazi’s for marching.
I am not aware of any including the ACLU would defended what the Nazi’s were saying or doing.
Only their RIGHT to do so.
Goldman had the RIGHT to say what he said.
But that does not make what he said good or moral or merely edgy or dark humor.
What he said was IMMORAL – with ZERO doubt.
What he said was WRONG.
It just was NOT A CRIME.
No one is asking you to send Goldman to jaiol for his remarks.
I am not asking you to demand his firing.
All That I ask of you is to admit the OBVIOUS – that calling for the assassination of others because of politics is IMMORAL.
AND that Applauding, cheering on those who do so is ALSO immoral.
The ACLU fought for the Nazi’s RIGHT to march through Skokie.
They did NOT applaud the Nazi’s for doing so or cheer them on.
The Civilizational crisis is NOT Goldman’s remark, just like the Nazi’s Marching throuch Skokie was not a civilizational crisis.
But large numbers of people applauding the Nazi’s marching through Skokie would be a damning comment on those people – potentially a civilization crisis.
That did not happen. The vast majority of people condemned the Nazi’s.
But large numbers of people applauding Goldmans call for political assassination is a damning comment on those people – potentially a civilization crisis.
That did happen. Too many on the left are applaiding Goldman.
Goldman is NOT the issue – YOU are.
Civilization is in serious decline when calling for political assassination is applauded by large numbers of people.
There is no difference between those on the right calling for political assassinations of those on the left and those on the left calling for the political assassination of those on the right.
What is different is the frequency. We have not seen a presidential assassination attempt since Reagan.
We have seen very few attempted political assassinations in the US since thew 60’s.
We have seen very little political violence in the US since the 60’s
The vast majority of it THEN and NOW was by the left.
r
We have seen what half a dozen ? More ? attempted assassinations of Trump ? Plus attempts on Supreme court justices. ICE Officers, Charlie Kirk, Brian Thompson.
Even the Nut job in Minesota who killed Democrats State Reps – turned out to be a Walz Apointee.
And yet you are unwilling to say THIS IS WRONG.
Not this is illegal, just “this is wrong”.
You had no problems saying that Kirks speech – which was both legal and moral was wrong – certainly Kirk was not advocating assassination – yet you had no problem condemning him.
Yes there is the making of a civilizational crisis when one side of the political spectrum is DEFENDING calls for political violence – society is threatened.
The final tactic of the left is always violence as they cannot cope with losing, it short circuits their reason replacing it with emotional rage like a toddler. TDS is a sort of a emotional tampon coping mechanism for them so I encourage it, not just for the entertainment value. The age of rage is designed to replace reason with what used to be called ‘behavioral problems’.
“Faculty departments have largely purged their ranks of any conservative, libertarian, or Republican faculty members.”
Maybe that should read:
“Faculty departments have largely purged their ranks of any human beings.”