I grew up watching cowboy shows back in the '50s. It wasn't until later that I learned just how fictional they actually were.
There were no gunfights such as those depicted in the High Noon-type stories. The guns were far too inaccurate, heavy, expensive and smoky to be much use past one shot, which would invariably miss its target, if it didn't misfire altogether. Cowboys didn't wear holsters. (Wild Bill Hickok. famed "gunfighter," made his first bones with a rifle when he and some confederates murdered a landlord. (He parlayed this into a tale of ferocious bravery, when in fact he and some confederates ambushed the landlord and his crew.)
In one memorable account, two men opened fire on each other in a tavern. The smoke was so impenetrable that, despite eleven shots being fired, only two hit their target. One of the combatants was a skilled marksman. He was the one who lost.
But these shows cemented the myth that the West was won at the point of a gun, that "real" men didn't take no guff, and they always walked around armed. Now, similar lies are told about the American Revolution and the use of arms in those days.
Between that kind of propaganda, and Antonin Scalia, we didn't have a chance.
Sure, because they aren't plain to anyone else. So draw away! Because there are so many things that are "well-known", and thus don't need evidence to support them. Makes it all rather easy, doesn't it? No need to get one's hands dirty by actually doing the research.
Yeah, golly, can't have any argument that doesn't implicate Clinton and instead takes a nuanced view of history. Though how she had fuck-all to do with Bush's favoring of the Shiites, or the destruction of the Iraqi army, is beyond me.
But you go, girl! You've picked your narrative and God forbid facts get in the way!
Wow. A nifty bit of lefty rhetoric, unsullied by facts. "War monger"? Well, I guess that says it all. No need for reason or analysis.
ISIS is the natural result of the Bush war and its conduct. Which, I need hardly add, Hillary had nothing to do with. (Unless, as you might, you blame Kerry and a host of others for the same things.) Otherwise, your argument consists of the same superficial cant that so many who make such arguments rely on.
But then, when you spout nonsense like "US warmongers" instead of careful analysis, you have pretty much given the game away.
Unlike you, apparently, the rest of us have to live in the real world, where very tough situations demand imperfect solutions. Where puerile cries of "Revolution!" can be safely, and legitimately, ignored because there is actual work to be done. Which progressives never lower themselves to do. Also, where the consequences of a Republican administration are not abstract, and not shielded by privilege.
"Lead, follow, or get out of the way" may be a hackneyed phrase. But it also applies. Some of us have actual work to do. So sod off.
A "chicken hawk"? That is a term of art that applies to pro-war politicians who avoided service when their number came up. Or didn't volunteer for service when they could have. To apply it to Clinton doesn't even make sense, and is deeply insulting.
Otherwise, your attempt to handwave the writer's points in order to reach your predetermined conclusion is pathetic. It's right up there with, "If my uncle was a woman he'd be my aunt, and I think he was rather effeminate anyway, so he's my aunt after all."
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
I grew up watching cowboy shows back in the '50s. It wasn't until later that I learned just how fictional they actually were.
There were no gunfights such as those depicted in the High Noon-type stories. The guns were far too inaccurate, heavy, expensive and smoky to be much use past one shot, which would invariably miss its target, if it didn't misfire altogether. Cowboys didn't wear holsters. (Wild Bill Hickok. famed "gunfighter," made his first bones with a rifle when he and some confederates murdered a landlord. (He parlayed this into a tale of ferocious bravery, when in fact he and some confederates ambushed the landlord and his crew.)
In one memorable account, two men opened fire on each other in a tavern. The smoke was so impenetrable that, despite eleven shots being fired, only two hit their target. One of the combatants was a skilled marksman. He was the one who lost.
But these shows cemented the myth that the West was won at the point of a gun, that "real" men didn't take no guff, and they always walked around armed. Now, similar lies are told about the American Revolution and the use of arms in those days.
Between that kind of propaganda, and Antonin Scalia, we didn't have a chance.
Sure, because they aren't plain to anyone else. So draw away! Because there are so many things that are "well-known", and thus don't need evidence to support them. Makes it all rather easy, doesn't it? No need to get one's hands dirty by actually doing the research.
Yeah, golly, can't have any argument that doesn't implicate Clinton and instead takes a nuanced view of history. Though how she had fuck-all to do with Bush's favoring of the Shiites, or the destruction of the Iraqi army, is beyond me.
But you go, girl! You've picked your narrative and God forbid facts get in the way!
Wow. A nifty bit of lefty rhetoric, unsullied by facts. "War monger"? Well, I guess that says it all. No need for reason or analysis.
ISIS is the natural result of the Bush war and its conduct. Which, I need hardly add, Hillary had nothing to do with. (Unless, as you might, you blame Kerry and a host of others for the same things.) Otherwise, your argument consists of the same superficial cant that so many who make such arguments rely on.
But then, when you spout nonsense like "US warmongers" instead of careful analysis, you have pretty much given the game away.
Unlike you, apparently, the rest of us have to live in the real world, where very tough situations demand imperfect solutions. Where puerile cries of "Revolution!" can be safely, and legitimately, ignored because there is actual work to be done. Which progressives never lower themselves to do. Also, where the consequences of a Republican administration are not abstract, and not shielded by privilege.
"Lead, follow, or get out of the way" may be a hackneyed phrase. But it also applies. Some of us have actual work to do. So sod off.
A "chicken hawk"? That is a term of art that applies to pro-war politicians who avoided service when their number came up. Or didn't volunteer for service when they could have. To apply it to Clinton doesn't even make sense, and is deeply insulting.
Otherwise, your attempt to handwave the writer's points in order to reach your predetermined conclusion is pathetic. It's right up there with, "If my uncle was a woman he'd be my aunt, and I think he was rather effeminate anyway, so he's my aunt after all."
Very sad.