1. I'm finding little to argue about on this piece, so hopefully your time today will not be wasted on Internet randos like me. (No, Chris hasn't been kidnapped and is being ransomed for Bitcoin.)
2. All your Resurgent pieces are accessible to the public via the Wayback Machine. Example:
I didn't come around to reading your piece on Tucker Carlson until today. Like you, I don't watch Tucker Carlson regularly, and the only time I ever get around to listening to what he says, is if someone posts a clip of his on social media. I do agree that I find his style to be grating. I still remember back in the day when he was the sparring partner with the late Bob Novak, facing off against Paul Begala and James Carville at CNN for the show Crossfire. He seemed to be reasonable, and was very different than he is now. I remember him being against the Iraq War, but never seemed to have much in the way of grievance based populism in him. But other than that, I haven't really paid much attention otherwise. Therefore, I don't know much about this whole NSA controversy associated with him. My only take on this, is that I think it is reasonable that Tucker get a fair shake for him to prove his claims. I do think that the pushback you received in that piece you wrote prior, is kind of an instinctual reaction based on Tucker's more recent past of being at times very economical with the truth. That past explains why many aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he otherwise would get. I do consider surveillance based wrongdoing by the NSA to be a serious matter, and a potential 4th amendment violation. So I'm for Tucker being able to press his case. If it turns out these assertions are baloney, or if Tucker is doing this for clickbait, then he deserves major blowback and scorn.
Just to poke a bit of a hole: the Dems don't have a problem with voter ID as long as those IDs are provided to all voters at no-cost, and are relatively easy to get (within reasonable travel capabilities for someone without a driver license).
I appreciate the scare quotes around whistleblower in this piece: it'd be great if you went into some of the lack of evidence and credibility of the story.
You voted for Donald Trump(even when you knew his unfitness and character flaws) after his lies and selfishness greatly helped COVID spread and kill half a million Americans. You voted for him even after he repeatedly telegraphed what he would do should he lose the election. You did this not because of what he is but because of what you perceive democrats to be. You never bother to write about or even consider in your writing the other point of view or possibilities besides the ones that fit within your worldview.
You may say we don't live in a Sith vs. Jedi world, but you sure act and write like we do.
As for you article yesterday, it was a conspiracy theory based only on your own view of the intelligence community and the words of Tucker Carlson. You should have gotten more pushback then you did because these no truth blogs have directly contributed to why we live in such a post truth world.
I also remember after 9/11 that as a country we couldn't throw our freedoms away fast enough in hopes that the government would protect us. So forgive me if all i can muster is an exaggerated eye roll to someone who complains about intelligence community overreach.
Two bits of good news for you on this Friday:
1. I'm finding little to argue about on this piece, so hopefully your time today will not be wasted on Internet randos like me. (No, Chris hasn't been kidnapped and is being ransomed for Bitcoin.)
2. All your Resurgent pieces are accessible to the public via the Wayback Machine. Example:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200101141345/https://theresurgent.com/2019/12/31/2020-the-feel-when-the-new-normal-is-pretty-abnormal/
If you want to burnish your Trump-skeptical credentials through past writings, you can cite your old pieces there.
I hope everyone has a great Friday and weekend.
I didn't come around to reading your piece on Tucker Carlson until today. Like you, I don't watch Tucker Carlson regularly, and the only time I ever get around to listening to what he says, is if someone posts a clip of his on social media. I do agree that I find his style to be grating. I still remember back in the day when he was the sparring partner with the late Bob Novak, facing off against Paul Begala and James Carville at CNN for the show Crossfire. He seemed to be reasonable, and was very different than he is now. I remember him being against the Iraq War, but never seemed to have much in the way of grievance based populism in him. But other than that, I haven't really paid much attention otherwise. Therefore, I don't know much about this whole NSA controversy associated with him. My only take on this, is that I think it is reasonable that Tucker get a fair shake for him to prove his claims. I do think that the pushback you received in that piece you wrote prior, is kind of an instinctual reaction based on Tucker's more recent past of being at times very economical with the truth. That past explains why many aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he otherwise would get. I do consider surveillance based wrongdoing by the NSA to be a serious matter, and a potential 4th amendment violation. So I'm for Tucker being able to press his case. If it turns out these assertions are baloney, or if Tucker is doing this for clickbait, then he deserves major blowback and scorn.
Just to poke a bit of a hole: the Dems don't have a problem with voter ID as long as those IDs are provided to all voters at no-cost, and are relatively easy to get (within reasonable travel capabilities for someone without a driver license).
I appreciate the scare quotes around whistleblower in this piece: it'd be great if you went into some of the lack of evidence and credibility of the story.
You voted for Donald Trump(even when you knew his unfitness and character flaws) after his lies and selfishness greatly helped COVID spread and kill half a million Americans. You voted for him even after he repeatedly telegraphed what he would do should he lose the election. You did this not because of what he is but because of what you perceive democrats to be. You never bother to write about or even consider in your writing the other point of view or possibilities besides the ones that fit within your worldview.
You may say we don't live in a Sith vs. Jedi world, but you sure act and write like we do.
As for you article yesterday, it was a conspiracy theory based only on your own view of the intelligence community and the words of Tucker Carlson. You should have gotten more pushback then you did because these no truth blogs have directly contributed to why we live in such a post truth world.
I also remember after 9/11 that as a country we couldn't throw our freedoms away fast enough in hopes that the government would protect us. So forgive me if all i can muster is an exaggerated eye roll to someone who complains about intelligence community overreach.