News Corpse reports as the current White House occupant heaps furious heaps of fury on Fox News for allowing some personalities to openly criticize him.
Pretty much every US adult with even the dimmest awareness knows our President betrayed a vulnerable ally made up of fierce fighters who risked everything to help the US destroy a common enemy. Infidel753 reviews what happened with more knowledge and insight than ordinary mortals, and predicts with startling clarity the long term impact on our nation.
Jack Jodell at The Saturday Afternoon Post has never liked my president. But he is especially angry as Mr. Trump leaps from election fraud and caging children all the way to abetting genocide.
Michael John Scott of MadMikesAmerica goes around the world and through the ideological spectrum for reactions to President Trump’s nonsensical defense of his abandonment of our Kurdish allies to the tender mercies of Turkey: that Kurds were not part of the Normandy invasion.
tengrain at Mock Paper Scissors relates the latest adventures of Senator Graham, angry as all hell about Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds to Turkey’s aggression … until we find out about his true feelings as expressed to someone he thought was an official in Turkey during a prank phone call. Interesting that the call was arranged by Russians with ties to Putin’s spy network.
Tommy Christopher of Mediaite interviews Dan Abrams of … well … Mediaite to recount how two associates of Rudy Giuliani have been arrested after lunching with him. The Mediaite associates speculate on how he must be feeling right now.
Green Eagle considers how Rudy’s buddies were apprehended at the airport, trying to leave the country before they could be arrested, and asks the most obvious question that would immediately occur to a skeptical mind.
Frances Langum has a cool story to tell. The Federal Election Commission chair can’t do much of anything because Trump won’t appoint new members so a quorum is a mathmatical impossibility. She sometimes goes semi-public, refusing to comment on specific cases but quoting applicable law. This ticks off a Congressman who sends a threatening letter. What she does next is perfect.
Wisconsin conservative James Wigderson once explained his everlasting hostility toward President Trump. Now he never seems to miss an opportunity to prove himself wrong, even portraying a Republican Senator’s awkward refusal to answer a simple question about my President as heroically challenging the narrative. But sometimes integrity parallels contemporary conservativism: as when James blasts the NBA for surrendering free speech to Communist China.
I sometimes hear from my brothers and sisters in Christ, in one form or another, some version of Pascal’s Wager. It has always struck me as fundamentally dishonest to attempt to gin up something that might pass for belief, not because you genuinely think it is true, but out of fear just in case. In a particularly vicious form of this rhetoric, Bruce Gerencser finds himself threatened by an angry evangelical who warns him that since he says bad things about God, God will get him. Don’t tug on Superman’s cape, so to speak, by saying you don’t believe in the planet Krypton.
One thought on “Press Pressed, Trump Foxed, Kurds Betrayed, Graham Punked”
The effectiveness of Pascal’s Wager requires either total unawareness or the suspension of awareness of every other religion that features eternal reward and punishment, since it doesn’t actually make the case for Christianity specifically. The very proposal, as you point out, is dishonest, but also probably impossible, since we don’t choose our beliefs in this way. It is no surprise, then, that most of the people who present the argument are believers attempting to make a practical argument to convince non-believers in the absence of evidence.
The effectiveness of Pascal’s Wager requires either total unawareness or the suspension of awareness of every other religion that features eternal reward and punishment, since it doesn’t actually make the case for Christianity specifically. The very proposal, as you point out, is dishonest, but also probably impossible, since we don’t choose our beliefs in this way. It is no surprise, then, that most of the people who present the argument are believers attempting to make a practical argument to convince non-believers in the absence of evidence.