There are 15 comments.

  1. Arahant Member

    Interesting, as always. I would say that given the number of restrictions put on the IG, I understand what he is saying within the limits of those restrictions, even if we know such things as the lack of political bias is not true outside those restrictions.

    • #1
    • December 14, 2019, at 1:07 PM PST
    • Like
  2. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Its a good point, that those who defend Clinton on the grounds that it was just about sex, miss the point that she was an employee of the white house, and could have been subjected to sexual harassment and other unpleasantness.

    • #2
    • December 14, 2019, at 7:05 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  3. Henry Castaigne Member

    I really wish he would debate Jonah Goldberg. I love the works of both men and I really want to know why they can’t see eye to eye. 

    • #3
    • December 14, 2019, at 7:39 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  4. Taras Coolidge

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I really wish he would debate Jonah Goldberg. I love the works of both men and I really want to know why they can’t see eye to eye.

    I think, in the last analysis, Jonah still hungers for the approval of the liberal media. He’s ready to abandon the nerd table at the cafeteria as soon as any of the cool kids crooks a finger.

    • #4
    • December 15, 2019, at 9:13 AM PST
    • 1 like
  5. Taras Coolidge

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Its a good point, that those who defend Clinton on the grounds that it was just about sex, miss the point that she was an employee of the white house, and could have been subjected to sexual harassment and other unpleasantness.

    It was “just about“ fixing a sexual harassment case, through perjury and obstruction of justice.

    Back then, of course, sexual harassment was a trivial and unimportant matter, at least if the harasser was a Democrat.

    • #5
    • December 15, 2019, at 9:15 AM PST
    • 1 like
  6. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Taras (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Its a good point, that those who defend Clinton on the grounds that it was just about sex, miss the point that she was an employee of the white house, and could have been subjected to sexual harassment and other unpleasantness.

    It was “just about“ fixing a sexual harassment case, through perjury and obstruction of justice.

    Back then, of course, sexual harassment was a trivial and unimportant matter, at least if the harasser was a Democrat.

    I think as a democrat, sexual harassment was an expectation of holding office.

    I never understood why Monica went through with it – I mean having sex with someone 30 years older, (and not in good shape – lets face it) I would think that she had ulterior motives from the beginning.

    • #6
    • December 15, 2019, at 10:59 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  7. Taras Coolidge

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Its a good point, that those who defend Clinton on the grounds that it was just about sex, miss the point that she was an employee of the white house, and could have been subjected to sexual harassment and other unpleasantness.

    It was “just about“ fixing a sexual harassment case, through perjury and obstruction of justice.

    Back then, of course, sexual harassment was a trivial and unimportant matter, at least if the harasser was a Democrat.

    I think as a democrat, sexual harassment was an expectation of holding office.

    I never understood why Monica went through with it – I mean having sex with someone 30 years older, (and not in good shape – lets face it) I would think that she had ulterior motives from the beginning.

    Bragging rights. She told at least 11 people about it.

    • #7
    • December 15, 2019, at 11:50 AM PST
    • 1 like
  8. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Taras (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    Its a good point, that those who defend Clinton on the grounds that it was just about sex, miss the point that she was an employee of the white house, and could have been subjected to sexual harassment and other unpleasantness.

    It was “just about“ fixing a sexual harassment case, through perjury and obstruction of justice.

    Back then, of course, sexual harassment was a trivial and unimportant matter, at least if the harasser was a Democrat.

    I think as a democrat, sexual harassment was an expectation of holding office.

    I never understood why Monica went through with it – I mean having sex with someone 30 years older, (and not in good shape – lets face it) I would think that she had ulterior motives from the beginning.

    Bragging rights. She told at least 11 people about it.

    Do girls brag about who they do? Guys do, but girls – I think, but Iam old enough to think a B***job is a sex act – wouldnt they be afraid of being branded a slut?

    I know girl friends will tell each other everything (or almost) about sex and relationship stuff…

    • #8
    • December 15, 2019, at 11:55 AM PST
    • Like
  9. RufusRJones Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I really wish he would debate Jonah Goldberg. I love the works of both men and I really want to know why they can’t see eye to eye.

    I think, in the last analysis, Jonah still hungers for the approval of the liberal media. He’s ready to abandon the nerd table at the cafeteria as soon as any of the cool kids crooks a finger.

    I cannot understand why he hired David French for his new venture. French just gets pummeled on Twitter for getting his facts wrong. People are always looking to tear him apart, and it seems like it’s for good reason. .

    • #9
    • December 15, 2019, at 12:16 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  10. GeezerBob Coolidge

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I really wish he would debate Jonah Goldberg. I love the works of both men and I really want to know why they can’t see eye to eye.

    I think, in the last analysis, Jonah still hungers for the approval of the liberal media. He’s ready to abandon the nerd table at the cafeteria as soon as any of the cool kids crooks a finger.

    I cannot understand why he hired David French for his new venture. French just gets pummeled on Twitter for getting his facts wrong. People are always looking to tear him apart, and it seems like it’s for good reason. .

    He probably hired French, because they are both in the “never-Trump-but won’t admit it” camp. What French won’t admit is that if we want a goodie-two-shoes president, we get Jimmy Carter.

    • #10
    • December 15, 2019, at 2:08 PM PST
    • 1 like
  11. RufusRJones Member

    GeezerBob (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I really wish he would debate Jonah Goldberg. I love the works of both men and I really want to know why they can’t see eye to eye.

    I think, in the last analysis, Jonah still hungers for the approval of the liberal media. He’s ready to abandon the nerd table at the cafeteria as soon as any of the cool kids crooks a finger.

    I cannot understand why he hired David French for his new venture. French just gets pummeled on Twitter for getting his facts wrong. People are always looking to tear him apart, and it seems like it’s for good reason. .

    He probably hired French, because they are both in the “never-Trump-but won’t admit it” camp. What French won’t admit is that if we want a goodie-two-shoes president, we get Jimmy Carter.

    French just gets pummeled on multiple topics on Twitter and in articles. This has been happening for years. He can’t remember stuff he said in the past. People bust him on theology all the time. He gets facts wrong. He fell for all of the Russia stuff hook line and sinker. I guess he’s a good lawyer in some areas, but he is reckless as hell as a public intellectual. I would think he would be a big headache at such a small shop. 

    • #11
    • December 15, 2019, at 2:17 PM PST
    • 1 like
  12. RufusRJones Member

    I have no opinion about this, it just popped up on twitter. National Review is non-profit. 

     

     

     

    • #12
    • December 15, 2019, at 2:42 PM PST
    • 1 like
  13. Gary Robbins Reagan

    I loved the National Review’s “Ordered Liberty” podcasts with David French. I think, having listened to his first two “Advisory Opinions” by The Dispatch, David French has not lost a step.

    • #13
    • December 15, 2019, at 9:02 PM PST
    • 1 like
  14. Marley's Ghost Member

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    I really wish he would debate Jonah Goldberg. I love the works of both men and I really want to know why they can’t see eye to eye.

    I would LOVE to see a debate between these two. It would be very instructive and entertaining. I wonder how we could get it done.

    • #14
    • December 16, 2019, at 7:41 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. RufusRJones Member

    This is quite a discussion. 

     

     

    • #15
    • December 18, 2019, at 4:15 AM PST
    • Like