Are You Justified Yet?

justifieds5postertop-700x400


When we first met Raylan Givens he was giving a Miami gun-thug two minutes to get out of town. Then he shot him dead. Since then he’s taken on the Crowders, the Bennetts, the Detroit mob (twice) and he tracked down Drew Thompson. This is besides the various and sundry bad guys (and girls) that he’s busted or killed along the way.

Starting tonight Raylan takes on the murderous Crowe family. (We already met Dewey, now we meet his kin.) Join us on FX at 10 p.m. for a trip to Harlan County and Season 5 of Justified!

This is an open thread.


He pulled first.” – Raylan Givens



Advertisements

About Myiq2xu™

Peaceful coexistence or mutually assured destruction. Your choice.
This entry was posted in Television and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Are You Justified Yet?

    • The Klown says:

      There are people living in Eastern Kentucky who can trace their bloodlines back to the time of Daniel Boone. They were living there before coal mining came along, and they’ll still be there when the coal is all gone.

  1. The Klown says:

    THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT:

    • DandyTIger says:

      I so love the new Dem meme of “if you care about fairness,opportunity & democracy…”. Cracks me up. Of course they don’t give a crap about fairness, etc. Just look at the results of the war on poverty or the Obama economy. They had a supermajority and could do anything they wanted, and look what they chose to do. QED.

    • Lizzy says:

      They racked up a huge victory in an an election with candidates so lacking that nobody voted. A campaign DiBlasio filled with race baiting and class warfare. A pox on their huge victory with all its stupidity and devisiveness.

  2. helenk3 says:

    one of the few shows worth watching on today’s TV

  3. angienc says:

    My favorite show — and the best part is that international film star & Peabody awarding winning actor Nick Searcy is in it (and he’s awesome, of course).

    • underwhelmed says:

      He’s awesome and a fearless conservative in Hollywood. An inspiration anyway you want to cut the cake.

      Wheee! Justified!

      I had the great fortune to spend some time with Dewey Crowe (Damon Herriman) last year. He’s a blast. So thrilled he’s back. Dewey is one of my favourite characters ever.

  4. westcoaster says:

    I found a link to a free internet channel live-streaming crime shows (like Montalbano and Arne Dahl) from italy, Germany and Sweden at 6 and 9PM (one or 2 shows each evening). It has kept me sane until the new season starts here:
    http://www.mhznetworks.org/mhz-worldview/live

    There are also links to the latest full episodes:
    http://www.mhznetworks.org/programs/full-episodes

  5. The Klown says:

    Bobby Gates:

    “All too early in the [Obama] administration,” he writes, “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.”

    Gates offers a catalogue of various meetings, based in part on notes that he and his aides made at the time, including an exchange between Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he calls “remarkable.”

    He writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

    Earlier in the book, he describes Hillary Clinton in the sort of glowing terms that might be used in a political endorsement. “I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world,” he wrote.

    • The Klown says:

      More Bobby G:

      It is difficult to imagine two more different men than George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Clearly, I had fewer issues with Bush. Partly that is because I worked for him in the last two years of his presidency, when, with the exception of the Iraq surge, nearly all the big national security decisions had been made. He had made his historical bed and would have to lie in it. I don’t recall Bush ever discussing domestic politics—apart from congressional opposition—as a consideration in decisions he made during my time with him (although, in fairness, his sharp-elbowed political gurus were nearly all gone by the time I arrived). By early 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney was the hawkish outlier on the team, with Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and me in broad agreement.

      With Obama, however, I joined a new, inexperienced president determined to change course—and equally determined from day one to win re-election. Domestic political considerations would therefore be a factor, though I believe never a decisive one, in virtually every major national security problem we tackled. The White House staff—including Chiefs of Staff Rahm Emanuel and then Bill Daley as well as such core political advisers as Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs —would have a role in national security decision making that I had not previously experienced (but which, I’m sure, had precedents).

      I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and others) saw as his determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations. His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost.

      I had no problem with the White House driving policy; the bureaucracies at the State and Defense Departments rarely come up with big new ideas, so almost any meaningful change must be driven by the president and his National Security Staff (NSS), led during my tenure under Obama by Gen. James Jones, Thomas Donilon and Denis McDonough. But I believe the major reason the protracted, frustrating Afghanistan policy review held in the fall of 2009 created so much ill will was due to the fact it was forced on an otherwise controlling White House by the theater commander’s unexpected request for a large escalation of American involvement. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request surprised the White House (and me) and provoked a debate that the White House didn’t want, especially when it became public. I think Obama and his advisers were incensed that the Department of Defense—specifically the uniformed military—had taken control of the policy process from them and threatened to run away with it.

      Most of my conflicts with the Obama administration during the first two years weren’t over policy initiatives from the White House but rather the NSS’s micromanagement and operational meddling, which I routinely resisted. For an NSS staff member to call a four-star combatant commander or field commander would have been unthinkable when I worked at the White House—and probably cause for dismissal. It became routine under Obama. I directed commanders to refer such calls to my office. The controlling nature of the Obama White House, and its determination to take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work, offended Secretary Clinton as much as it did me.

  6. leslie says:

    Thanks for the reminder. I just began watching Justified this weekend. I’m not very far into it, but it is as good as you all said.

  7. gumsnapper says:

    Second Season of House of Cards begins on Netflix on Valentine’s Day.

  8. underwhelmed says:

    http://theothermccain.com/2014/01/06/will-de-blasio-get-away-with-this/

    Being downunder there’s not a lot I can do. But this is so wrong on so many levels — can the blogosphere start kicking up some loud noise on it? Can this info go to people like Rush and Megyn Kelly et al, to get a spotlight on it? This should not be allowed to stand.

  9. angienc says:

    OT — OMFG I just saw the most idiotic commercial on TV. Guy sitting in a chair with a lamp on either side of him. He turns to his right and says:
    “See this incandescent bulb. It uses $7 bucks a year in electricity.” He turns to his left and says:
    “See this Cree LED bulb? It uses $1 a year in electricity.”
    “When you argue with math, you lose. Don’t argue with math.”

    Um, dude — an incandescent bulb costs about 69 cents. The LOWEST priced Cree LED bulb (40 watt equivalent) on HomeDepot.come sells for $9.99 (although they have others for $17; $24; $75 and UP). So, what were you saying about arguing with math? Because math tells me that the incandescent bulb costs $7.69 for one year; the Cree LED one costs $10.99.

    Take your own advice: don’t argue with math.

  10. The Klown says:
  11. 49erDweet says:

    Voter ID is racist, homophobic, hateful and economically depressing, you…you…you…you REPUBLICAN you!

  12. The Klown says:

    My eldest writes:

    “In mathematics, Wedderburn’s little theorem states that every finite domain is a field. In other words, for finite rings, there is no distinction between domains, skew-fields and fields.”

    This made my night easier.

    My reply:

    #nerdgasm

  13. The Klown says:

Comments are closed.