I watched the TMZ video yesterday before I commented, and then today – just now, and both times I heard “well, (their/they’re) right” and wondered why Clint Eastwood didn’t phrase it “well, [it's] their right” if that is indeed what he meant. The response “well, their right” makes very little sense. In short, it was likely just a hasty and sloppy answer… and it left him and his words wide open to interpretation.
Now, in response to the alleged leftism of the Blaze and Glenn Beck… what in the world are you talking about? Please, cite examples.
For the sake of argument, I’ll take your perspective, just for a moment, that many stories on the Blaze may seem to take a more moderate or “leftist” perspective and then ask this simple question: what is likely to get you more views (unique visitors), page refreshes, and responses (like what we’re doing here now)?
It is very possible that a middle of the road, or even “leftist” seeming slant, to news or opinion posts such as this is much more likely to get the widest number of views/reads, reposts and forwards, and comments. Does that necessarily mean the Blaze and/or Glenn Beck is leftist?
I say “No” and would add that I’ve often done this very thing on my own Facebook page to avoid an outright argument with one of my siblings who is very left-leaning and quite reactionary. In my experience, it’s actually the best way to get the most interesting and lively conversations out of family and friends.
 February 11, 2015 at 8:55am
That’s why it is nice to have the writer of the original article reading and commenting on the thread and updating with things like this:
“Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that it was not entirely clear if Eastwood said ‘they’re’ or ‘their’ in his response.”
The original article was entirely about misunderstandings and possible misrepresentation. Was the initial draft poorly worded and were assumptions made? Yes, but it’s not really worth calling anyone an “oaf” or questioning who’s “side” they are on.
As the great Karl Popper once said: “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”
February 10, 2015 at 7:57pm
SpeakSoftlyAndCarry wrote: “And how much of an oaf does someone have to be to not realize this…Darcy?”
Look at the title of the YouTube video that is embedded “‘American Sniper’ Bashers Have a Point” Really? What point would that be? Oh, TMZ heard or understood “they’re right” as well.
 February 2, 2015 at 12:11pm
DLV: “…if the courts are going to be consistent…”
The courts will deem it “hate speech” and treat the two cases differently because that is what progressivism does.
Proverbs17-12NLT wrote: “I really feel sorry for people who bought gold when it was $1,330 an ounce last year and silver was $33.00 an ounce.”
Well, I feel sorry for those who do not have a food and water store – regardless of the price of those consumable items at the time they were bought. Buying physical gold or silver is much the same. I feel sorry for those who do not have weapons and ammunition and no training on how to use them. Glenn has also talked about buying cigarettes and liqour, again – as potential bartering items, and farm land to weather any possible economic storms. Why do you think he has cows, an old truck, and home without heavy dependence upon electricity and other modern conveniences? He believes what he says and puts his money where his mouth is, that’s why.
In truth, I feel sorry for anybody and everybody who do not understand that the estimated *price* of a commodity valued in the currency that is likely crashing as those estimates become true does not mean very much. $2,000 of gold, in a failing currency’s value, may not buy you AlexS1′s chickens, but it may be enough leverage (as a hedge) to keep you in the black as many businesses, job opportunities, and investments around you start to crumble and disappear. If and when a total collapse happens, I likely won’t be depending on gold or silver either and I don’t have to. Good luck keeping your chickens AlexS1. I hope you’re armed and trained as well.
January 13, 2015 at 7:27pm
Exreblisheep wrote: “Ask white supremacists who they like more, dems or repubs.”
You’re off narrative – they supposedly like libertarians. Do you not remember some of the criticisms of Ron Paul in 2008 and Rand Paul just a few years back? The rights of private businesses vs. civil rights? It’s partly why Goldwater lost the 1964 presidential run against LBJ (in addition to the infamous Daisy Ad).
The topic often quickly shifts to state’s rights vs civil rights – they love comparing state’s rights debates of the pre-civil war, slavery era to the individual rights vs. civil rights 100 years later as though they are the same thing and part of the original discussion.
It’s all moot – apples and oranges and non-sequiturs – but the real racists will keep peddling that nonsense because it’s divisive and it works. I don’t care who you are, everybody should be for maximum freedom.
December 2, 2014 at 10:58am
What was that about driving tanks? Wouldn’t that be a 19K? An HMMWV Driver MOS? Um, okay… is that what an 88M does now? This guy was all over the map. I’ve met several untabbed ranger batt soldiers, but understand it probably wouldn’t stay that way for long. I suspect it’s a bit like being stationed at Bragg or Benning w/o jump wings, you will eventually be harassed and forced to go – even if you remain little more than a five jump chump. To be honest, I’m surprised more people don’t pretend to be 42 series and bore people with administrative details about writing memos or making coffee for their commanders. Therein lies the rub, I guess… that’s not impressive and what attracts the posers.
November 24, 2014 at 3:59pm
“Higher education holds itself out as a kind of universal church, outside of which there is no salvation. Critics are cast as heretics or schismatics endangering the flock. But our greatest danger comes from the herd instinct that drives us to competition and crowds out difference.
“A Reformation is coming, and its message will be the same as it was 500 years ago: Don’t outsource your future to a big institution. You need to figure it out for yourself.”
-Peter Thiel, billionaire venture capitalist and philanthropist, in the Washington Post on 21 Nov 2014
November 17, 2014 at 12:36pm
“Shouldn’t a marriage proposal be an intimate moment between two people?”
It has always been my position that men shouldn’t pop the question if they don’t already have a near solid idea of what the answer will be, and this guy obviously did his homework and likely knew the answer. Good on him – they’ll likely do well and treasure this moment for years to come.
Depending on the couple, of course, there’s nothing wrong with involving family and friends in a marriage proposal. Moreover, family involvement in many marriages has made the difference in the overall success of those marriages. I would add that the exceptions aren’t usually a matter of familial involvement, but rather a lack of good judgement that leads to unwisely and generally involving others in more intimate and personal matters, across the board, that are not the business of family and friends; this is not usually the case with the proposals themselves.
“…will likely help contribute to the growing divorce rate numbers…”
Divorce rates are actually in decline and have been for a good, long while. The idea that one in every two marriages fail is a statistical lie (see my earlier response to Thor.Perun, under repeal1968gca’s comment).
November 17, 2014 at 11:56am
Thor.Perun wrote: ” But 50% marriages end up in divorce,”
Please forgive me for this, it is not a personal attack, but I am so tired of this false statistic being parroted again and again, as though its mere repetition makes it true; it’s not true – never has been and never will be. Do some research, the peak of divorce probably never surpassed 40%, in the early 80s, and was likely closer to 30% and has been steadily in decline. The introduction of No-Fault divorce in the late 60s and early 70s predictably led to an initial glut of divorces.
Also, how do you balance the equation when a significant number of divorces are repeat offenders? The chances of a second, third, fourth (and beyond) marriage being successful falls as the number increases. Why is that? A lack of commitment? Ease of repetition? Deeply seated personal issues? It’s a bit anecdotal, but how would you count Elizabeth Taylor’s eight marriages to seven different men? An honest and thorough analysis of the statistics will reveal that 70-90% of all marriages actually succeed. That’s a far cry from the misleading and overly simplistic notion that 1 in 2 of all marriages fail.
 September 11, 2014 at 2:01pm
CC32 wrote “Everyone in this audience was dismissed and shut down under the accusation of blind racism, bigotry, and ‘hate’, while not being allowed to express themselves, so what makes our response any different from liberal/progs?”
Since when is an audience supposed to lecture the speaker or be allowed time to “express themselves” during a talk?
Most of the instances I have witnessed this happen, especially in an effort to shut somebody up, we’re mostly leftist/progressive audience members during a conservative’s talk. So, what were you saying about the similarities and differences?
Reminds me of the truism “Liberals want conservatives to shut up. Conservatives want liberals to keep talking.”
September 11, 2014 at 1:48pm
KS, “XD” is an emoticon. Smiling, laughing, mouth open, eyes closed. Look at it sideways, as you would most smileys/emoticons.
March 22, 2014 at 10:21pm
Bacon’s top five? Everybody knows there are six degrees of Kevin Bacon!
Many here cannot seem to grasp or comprehend this idea – that a signature *does not* inherently mean *agreement* with the content of certain documents. IndyGuy seemed to think my mention of a Notary Public’s signature was a poor example, but that’s exactly how some signatures are used. They may simply confirm that a document has been viewed, figures validated, or identities confirmed. Why is this so hard for so many people to understand?
February 11, 2014 at 12:28pm
You are still skipping over the fact that sometimes a signature is not agreement, but rather a verification of a source or validation of a document’s authenticity. In this case, what rules and regulations apply to what is signed, when, how, and why?
Did Matt Bevin, as President of Veracity Funds, have to sign the chief investment officer’s and vice president of the fund’s, Daniel Bandi’s, memo whether or not it fit Matt Bevin’s personal views of TARP or actions of the Fed?
February 11, 2014 at 11:32am
Edit: “I [shouldn't] be so harsh,”
February 11, 2014 at 11:28am
IG, You are oversimplifying. What did Matt Bevin actually sign and why? I’ve written reports and signed documents that were not *my* opinions or conclusions but were also formatted, unfortunately, in such a way that they made me look like the originator or supporter of the entire document’s contents. In those instances, my signature was usually a validation of the process or handling and not of the content itself. I be so harsh, but I find the knee jerk comments to be highly annoying.
IndyGuy, Have you ever used a Notary Public? Are they responsible for the content and meaning of a document they sign? Or, are they simply verifying something else by adding their stamp and signature? Hmmm… Don’t think too hard. You might hurt your brain.