At least the shootout at OK Corral ended. Guns were drawn, shots were fired, and some of the tough hombres went down and didn't get up. Blasted cowboys got theirs at the quick hands of the Earps, who had enlisted Doc Holiday as a ringer. Ended the feud just like that.
The good guys walked away. The shootout at OK Corral, Tombstone, AZ, way back in 1881 may well remain the most important showdown in western American history; and it wasn't going to be repeated because Billy Clanton and the McLaury brothers never got up off the dirt again.
Not so next week. The only matter beyond speculation is that both hombres will live to duel again--twice, in fact. There'll be two more debates after next week's, no matter how much blood is left on the stage or whose it is in a pool. The whole darn world expects Hillary the wonk to try to bring the Donald to his knees with facts and figures and specifics. If she wins, it'll be because she's a vastly better engineer. She'll kill him with competency.
Donald takes no prisoners and only punches below the belt. Hillary will be getting into the ring with a animal armed with chain saw. Unless his incredible manager has his ears and tongue pinned, all you can expect is the unexpected. He's amoral, knows no boundaries. It'll be the engineer versus the cave man, and nobody--nobody!--knows who'll step out of that ring the winner.
Besides, it's completely unlikely that anyone anywhere close to that ring will come away with a changed mind. The whole blasted shootout is being staged for the hearts and minds of but a sliver of uncommitted voters. The insane hate for both combatants is so high that each of the candidates will hold on to the vast majority of their supporters but convert no one. Trump was right when he announced just down the road (at the college where I was employed for most of my life) that he could kill a man on Broadway and still be loved by loyalists. Millions of America would rather elect Satan.
But then, for millions, Hillary is Satan. That's where we are.
Whoever gains the victory next Monday night, or come November, will face four more years of bloody warfare. The truth is, there are so many checks and balances written into American democratic system that it's virtually impossible for any one man or woman to lead all the rest of us into some kind of spiritual or physical Armageddon. Even Trump can't trump Congress and the Supreme Court all. the. time. Hillary, singlehandedly, can't flip America suddenly third world.
No matter who gets up slowly a week from now on Tuesday morning, no matter who Fox News or CNN or anybody else declares winner, the madness will go on.
And on. And on. And on. Neither of them, all by their lonesomes, will lead America to ruin. Only the rest of us can do that.
The only casualty will be the body politic, and we've been staggering around with a gut shot for a long, long time.
You can't help but wish Wyatt Earp were in the race. That whole shootout only lasted thirty seconds.
22 comments:
Gotta love the Sir Jim slant on the election. I'm sure when he s referring to Hillary competency he is meaning Bengazi. Her competency with erasing hiding and deception with emails. Maybe what she is most competent at is padding the Clinton foundation and rewarding her elite friends.
I completely agree with Larry but he forgot to mention Hillary/Obama's finger prints and foot prints all over the Middle East. Abject failures of which Libya is a poster child for her lack of competency.
Too bad she has no record to run on......
To those who still cling to an illusion that politicians, bishops, military authorities, judges and educators, or some combination of any two, three, four or all five of them, have the fate of nations and the world in their hands, it should be unnecessary to submit evidence to the contrary—for that evidence is everywhere—and because the ultimate authority must, in the very nature of the case, be with Finance. “Seeing that all things are produced through the agency of money, and that all money now comes into existence as a debt to the banking systems of the world, this simply means, as Major Douglas has said, that our now internationally organized moneylenders ‘are the actual or potential owners of everything produced in the world."
The above quote is from Which Way Western Man.
thanks,
Jerry
"He's amoral"
Dude, get a grip.
You often quote the Bible here--next time, look up "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "He that is without sin...first cast a stone".
By telling us to "get a grip" and accusing Trump of being "amoral" aren't you judging us and "casting the first stone"?
Stifle Edith!
Dear Dingbat,
The author said Trump was amoral, not I--hence the quotes.
"Get a grip" means to check yourself before you wreck yourself; it shows no judgment or condemnation. Like if you were losing control of your car off the side of a gravel road--"Get a grip of the wheel, Meathead!"
While I do not agree completely with the Authors political stances, I think this argument of "amoral" is taken out of context. I am Republican and agree with his assessment of Trump. I think he should have been harder on Hillary and her propensity to lie and cover up when backed into a corner. One of Trumps few redeeming qualities is that he is honest with what he is thinking. Even when he is wrong and amoral in his comments. Also..to the guy that wrote Dingbat to someone he disagrees with. Your argument and position failed from the second you started name calling. You might as well not have commented at all.
Here is what I found online about the world Amoral. It is enlightening and I think a fair description of Donald Trump:
If you are amoral, you're not a jerk, you just don't know that what you're doing is wrong. In the 1800s, Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (among other treasures), coined the word amoral to differentiate from immoral. Amoral is generally more descriptive, rather than judgmental
Dear 3:12 Anonymous,
10:43 Anonymous wrote to me, "Stifle Edith!", which is implying I'm an Archie-Bunker type. So, I used more colloquialisms from the show: "Dingbat" and "Meathead". It went over your head--you missed it.
I was using them as irony as I was obviously pointing out how cr@ppy it was that the author called Trump "amoral" and 10:43 Anonymous referred to me as Archie Bunkeresque. I was "giving him some of his own medicine" you might say.
I wasn't actually calling him/her those names--my first post was pointing out name-calling----I would have used some names myself in my first post if I wanted to offend!
You caught up now?
I forgot one thing: The author meant what he said. I don't know what "urban-dictionary" you got your definition from, but it simply means: "lacking moral sense". A-moral means WITHOUT morals--"A" means "without". Sorry, but I know many languages and that's an easy one to decipher! If you use Google dictionary, the first example is "an amoral attitude to sex"---BINGO!--exactly what the author meant. SORRY--DONALD TRUMP IS NOT THE MARCO-RUBIO, TED-CRUZ HOLIER-THAN-THOU, SKELETONS-IN-THE-CLOSET, PHONY POLITICIAN PANDERING TO THE "RELIGIOUS RIGHT"! YOU LOST, TRUMP WON. YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR WAY. FACE REALITY!
Babies are amoral or without morals. Trump can be moral or immoral but not amoral or without morals. He has made many philanthropic contributions in his life and raised some decent kids. Does not look amoral to me.
Yes, given what he says and says he believes, he definitely is not amoral. He's way beyond that.
You're an angry one aren't you?
Fortunately, anger can be short lived; unfortunately, rabble rousing boorishness is endless.
Anger is a secondary emotion. I suspect our thin-skinned responder is experiencing fear. Fear that Hillary is likely to lose.
Is your "anger" comment directed towards me, the Trump supporter?
No, I'm not angry--I'm speaking loudly AND CLEARLY in order to get it through your head. "Boorish"? No, I'm just someone who can handle the truth (and call it out as such; I guess that makes me "thin-skinned"?) ~ i.e. how the world works - not some idealistic naivete trying to push my "morals" on others.
And finally, as a Trump supporter, why would I fear Hillary's loss?
[Perhaps you were referring to the author or another writer here and need to address that writer more clearly...........?]
Delusions of persecution, maybe?
Dear 6:10,
I see you attended Psych101---however, you have missed the mark in High School Debate. Who the he11 are you talking to? Who is being persecuted, or being perceived as persecuted? Can you form a full sentence? Can you make some sense? Come on, you can do this!
Maybe I was wrong, it appears you have delusions of grandeur. Sigmund
I said you attended, not passed the class--your 9:00 comment is proof.
Delusions of grandeur because the guy I'm voting for beat out 15 other candidates (your guy included, to be sure)??? Sorry, your comments toward me indicate you're delusional, can't follow a conversation, and can't form an argument. Get a refund on your sub-par education, pal.
God Bless You! I wish you the best. ...
Faux religiosity--too cute (and predictable)!
God'll get 'ya for that, Walter.
best replica bags online j64 t8j21m9s85 best replica bags g83 y5d20o3o32 7a replica bags wholesale i35 k1w62t5x46
Post a Comment