Some amusing comments about the recent revelations that a GOP house leader, Steve Scalise, attended an event hosted by rightwing moonbat David Duke.
Spoiler alert: Eric Erickson, not a favorite of mine nor of others in Rantburg.com, wants you to know that it was because of Duke, he left Louisiana all them years ago. Fair's fair.
If the Tea Party were smart, and I'm not saying they are, they'd primary Scalise. It is a ripe event begging to be initiated.
Now on to the comedy part of this presentation:
In 2002, a year after not long before Trent Lott was driven from office in December of 2002, for his statements about support Strom Thurmond, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)76%, now the number three Republican in the House of Representatives, went to a David Duke organized event.
How do you not know? How do you not investigate?
David Duke is the reasons I am no longer a resident of Louisiana. After supporting Edwin Edwards in the gubernatorial race against David Duke in 1991, I knew I had to get the hell out of a state where those were the two most popular choices.
I moved to Georgia to go to school and could only now consider moving back thanks to the hard work of Governor Bobby Jindal.
By 2002, everybody knew Duke was still the man he had claimed not to be. EVERYBODY.
How the hell does somebody show up at a David Duke organized event in 2002 and claim ignorance?
Trent Lott was driven from the field in 2001 for something less than this.
And the very GOP establishment now lining up behind Steve Scalise threw Chris McDaniel under the bus for speaking to a Sons of the Confederate Veterans event.
#1
I don't recall the Dems ever repudiating, much less removing or censuring, Robert Byrd over his Klan leadership, so I'm not getting terribly worked up over this one.
#8
How? By trusting an idiot staffer. Anyone who thinks a rep chooses where he shows up himself is delusional.
Yes, it does say he has bad judgement for hiring. So we never elect him to a higher office.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
12/30/2014 8:04 Comments ||
Top||
#9
David Duke? Wow, there is a name pulled off the dust bin of insignificant historical trivia. Erickson is a strange dude; more of a CNN guy than conservative: Erickson
#13
Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson and Jim Wright too.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/30/2014 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Oooops. I mean Jeremiah Wright. How could I forget that?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/30/2014 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#15
ION Duke News see also DEFENCE/PK/FORUM > PRESS TV: OBAMA A "CONTROLLED JEWISH PRESIDENT": EX-US REPRESENTATIVE [David Duke].
US + Western World has sold or given its soul to corrupt Israel + Zionism.
Last week on the Net the Bammer was labeled as the "First Latino President" of the USA - iff Bill Clinton presaged the Bammer as the US' first de facto "Black President", by extension, POTUS Obama come Jan 2017 presages ?????????? as America's first "Latino/Jewish President"???
EFFECT ON HILLARY, SECSTATE "JAAWHN/LURCH", + VEEP BIDEN, ETAL. IN NOVEMBER 2016 ELEX - BOBBIE JINDAL AS "DARK HORSE"???
Steven Pinker and Andrew Mack at Slate put forth a hypothesis, complete with graphs and data, that the world is less violent now than over the past sixty years. They have an interesting take on violence, war, death, rape and mass killings to suggest that the world, most of it, is safer today than since the end of World War Two. A person is more likely to die of old age today than ever before.
Since we at the Burg focus on what the WoT, particularly that of the Islamic sort, is doing to the world, Pinker and Mack put forth something worthy of debate. Are we just focused (or obsessed) with something that is just a small part of the entire picture, or do Pinker and Mack, with their focus on data, miss the bigger part of what human nature and intent do over time? One could argue that the 'peacefulness' of the world today is the result of cumulative investment by humanity over a half-century to make it happen -- what happens when world leaders are no longer making those "pay it forward" investments?
One point Pinker and Mack don't explore at all in this article, or in Pinker's latest book, is the apparent fragility of our increasingly complex world. Social change, social advance, technology advances, and economic progress suggest that it might -- might -- take less to overturn our world than that of a half-century ago. That gets to how 'resilient' our world is today. If a single EMP can take out a country's advanced technology, what then happens to all the indicators of mortality, war, crime and so on?
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/30/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Reporting, or mis-reporting is often a fault.
24/7 news cycle makes things look than they are, and sometimes better.
The rate of losing Souls has slowed, the ability to remove more has increased.
The Soul of the world is Civil society, lawful society. That feature is eroding to political despotism.
It means the devil is unleashed again in slow anguish.
It will depend on the Heart to protect a Civil Law separate from passing fads of political formations and religious dogma.
It requires knowledge of why things are they are, and less of a pursuit to make society "perfect".
#2
Every day ordinary homicides claim one and a half times as many Americans as the number who died in the Sandy Hook massacre.
The Left hyped the ever living shit out of Sandy Hook and other atrocities, and will continue to do so ad infinitum, because it's politically convenient for them to do just that. Until the majority of left-wing / MSM news organizations embrace this article (which you and I know will never, ever fucking happen), this is a fig leaf / ass covering over their tiny dicks, and nothing more.
#3
This drivel by Pinker is the 2015 equivalent of Fukuyama's equally worthless "end of history" screed that was so trumpeted in its time.
There are always people like Fukuyama and Pinker who come out with this nonsense. What it really is, in essence, is a giant self-pat on the back. "Look at me and my "progressive" fellow travelers, we really REALLY did make heaven on earth, after all!"
Pfffft. We shall see. Room sized egos rarely make good judgments or analyses.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/30/2014 6:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's all about distance. The closer you live to 'frontier' the more threat and violence you experience. That line is just not linear but hierarchical and one of perception. When you're ensconced in the urban bubble (compounded by ivory tower distance), you can look upon the world as something 'others' have to deal with (until a Katrina shows up to remove all those intricate systems that allow such bubbles to exist. Then watch how quickly life and contacts become medieval.)
#5
Actually the article's own graphs contradict the theory of things getting better.
While violence and warfare declined 2000-2010, there has been an uptick in violence every year since 2010. This is especially true in the 3rd world (Mid-East anyone?)
Al
Posted by: frozen al ||
12/30/2014 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
In this country it is continuing to polarize along cultural divides. This usually does precede apartness.
#7
Sad thing is the progressives and others who place great faith in such academic drivel will be utterly destroyed when the society split and violence happens.
#8
It all depends upon what statistics and indicators you select and what countries you choose for comparison. Although it would be extremely difficult--maybe nearly impossible, you might be able to make Obama look like the greatest president ever if you wanted to. I dunno, I just might have over-reached on that last statement.
#1
..and as long as they sat on them, the problem wasn't as bad as it is today. Then someone started to bitch and moan about colonialism and oppression. They're still oppressed (met the new boss, same as the old boss), dying in far greater numbers, hating and fighting, and the critics haven't offered anything near as stable as what passed before.
#3
They've had plenty of time to get their act together since the British and the French left and they have failed to do so. Same thing with a lot of African countries. Enough time has long since passed so they can no longer blame the British, French, Belgians, Dutch or whomever. I remember when they just had to get rid of those nasty English colonists in Rhodesia. Even London abandoned the colonists. Now they have Zimbabwe. Hope they're satisfied.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/30/2014 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Every place the whiney assed libs and "world opinion" hounded a colonial power out of town, a festering mess has remained to this day.
Need I remind anyone of what a complete and utter catastrophe The Congo (Belgium), Angola (Portugal), and Zimbabwe/Rhodesia are???
Same goes for most of the middle east, we should have stayed a while longer.
Of course St. Art the Buchwald once said the big problem with the middle east is we sent all the princes to B-School in the Ivy League instead of tennis classes at Pepperdine.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
12/30/2014 23:55 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
